Negotiations with N. Korea a now complete failure

First topic message reminder :

Trump, the self-declared grand negotiator, is failing before he gets started.  After everything appeared all nicey-nice--Rocketman gave the captured Americans back, pussy-grabber generously kissed his ass, meetings were set up for 12 June in Singapore.  

Unfortunately, North Korea has cancelled Wednesday's high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over its joint military exercises with the US.  North Korea also has threatened its talks in Singapore with the US.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44133308

During the campaign Trump bragged about watta great negotiator he is.  He promised to apply his skills internationally, pledging greater results than his predecessor.  Now his façade has sort of fallen like a flat pancake.  He has broken a year old nuclear accord with Iran, with no replacement anticipated, and he has done everything to kill a deal with North Korea.

It appears that Trump's idea of negotiation is like his idea of marriage--find 'em, feel 'em, fuck 'em and forget 'em.  And high-tail it outta there if her father and brothers show up.  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So now Quill explains why he knows next to nothing about chemical weapons and now claims many civillians would die based on such an attack?

Really?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19804988/how-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons/

Entertaining article, but all theoretical.  Clearly, it states the problem plain enough:

The only thing that has been hypothetical is your complete gibberish surrounding the targets and the attack

Your repurtation just went down a thousand points affter that doozy

We know it has been used and it has worked

Stop wasting my time with your claptrap

Didge wrote:Your repurtation just went down a thousand points affter that doozy

The only one worried about "my reputation" is you.  The rest of us are talking about an incident in Syria, in April.  Get your head outta your ass.

In fact, we should be talking about North Korea, another area in which your speculation has been proven wrong.

Original Quill wrote:The only one worried about "my reputation" is you.  The rest of us are talking about an incident in Syria, in April.  Get your head outta your ass.

In fact, we should be talking about North Korea, another area in which your speculation has been proven wrong.

You dont have a reputation.. ha ha

That is the point

How anyone can claim the US, France and Britain fired at non-military targets and claims his evidence. Is that Trump told him. Shows how deluded your argument was.

I may not be wrong on North Korea, only time will tell

They did blow up today their nuke facility, its claimed

Didge wrote:How anyone can claim the US, France and Britain fired at non-military targets and claims his evidence. Is that Trump told him. Shows how deluded your argument was.

The evidence is that nothing happened.  No chemical burns, no children dying, no people crying in the streets, nothing.

Maybe it was a busy news day and they didn't have time or space for dead children.  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:How anyone can claim the US, France and Britain fired at non-military targets and claims his evidence. Is that Trump told him. Shows how deluded your argument was.

The evidence is that nothing happened.  No chemical burns, not children dying, nothing.

Maybe it was a busy news day and they didn't have space for dead children.  

So basically Quill is claiming not only the US military and intelligence are lying, but also the British and French

And his evidence?

He claims to have heard this from Trump?

Maybe you should congratulate them for ensuring there was no fatalities

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The evidence is that nothing happened.  No chemical burns, not children dying, nothing.

Maybe it was a busy news day and they didn't have space for dead children.  

So basically Quill is claiming not only the US military and intelligence are lying, but also the British and French

Not that they are lying. It's just 'alternate facts' put out by the Trump administration. They just didn't have time for the visual pyrotechnics, sound effects...and extras wrapped in bandages and such. They got some good pics of empty concrete, blown to smithereens.

Face it Didge, it was a show...not even a good production. We've already forgotten, haven't we? Fake news really lasts.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

So basically Quill is claiming not only the US military and intelligence are lying, but also the British and French

Not that they are lying.  It's just 'alternate facts' put out by the Trump administration.  They just didn't have time for the visual pyrotechnics, sound effects...and extras wrapped in bandages and such.  They got some good pics of empty concrete, blown to smithereens.

Face it Didge, it was a show...not even a good production.  We've already forgotten, haven't we?  Fake news really lasts.

So again. No evidence for your claims, but again saying that they are all lying

They targeted chemical weapons facilities, ensuring nobody can then use them. No matter whether Assad or any rebels

You claim it was for show

Wow

Didge wrote:So again. No evidence for your claims, but again saying that they are all lying

They targeted chemical weaponjs facilities, ensuring nobody can then use them. No matter whether Assad or any rebels

So, how come we looked, and saw nothing?  Perhaps because nothing happened? The chemical weapons have been removed.

Lots of empty buildings got blown up.  No gas was found.  No casualties were seen.  It was all a show, and you alone fell for it, didge.

When the Bush administration found no WMD'sin Iraq,  at least they told the truth.  Here?  Their version of truth is 'alternate facts'.  The claim was chemical weapons...and nothing.  A big nothing burger.

Fake news.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So again. No evidence for your claims, but again saying that they are all lying

They targeted chemical weaponjs facilities, ensuring nobody can then use them. No matter whether Assad or any rebels

So, how come we looked, and saw nothing?  Perhaps because nothing happened?  The chemical weapons have been removed.


Fake news.

So again basically claiming the British, US and french intelligence and miltary have lied and again the evidence for this from Quill?































Yep nothing

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-air-strikes-damascus-missiles-bashar-alassad-pictures-images-a8304866.html

Now if this had been Obama, would he be making the same claim?

The answer is emphatically no

Didge wrote:Now if this had been Obama, would he be making the same claim?

Obama never had to fake an orgasm.  Trump got himself into this situation because he had to bomb an ally of the Russians. Putin is Trump's copo de copo.

The raid was show for the American public. Trump couldn't actually do any harm to his boss man. Putin set the stage by emptying the buildings before Trump bombed them.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Now if this had been Obama, would he be making the same claim?

Obama never had to fake an orgasm with Putin.  Trump got himself into this situation because he had to bomb an ally of the Russians.

Putin is Trump's copo de copo.

No, Obama just simple sucked him off with appeasement.

Its why we have the mess in Syria, because Obama tried to appease dictators and Islamic extremists

Hence the mess the Middle East is now in

If Obama had balls, then Russia, through Putin, would not have gained control within the Middle East or Crinmea, as it now has.

I could not give a shit about Trump. He is an idiot, just like Obama was on foriegn policy

What I care about is saving lives and neither know how to do that

Obama missed the mark by not stepping in and stopping Assad and confronting Putin.

This allowed Putin to then think he could take the piss and guess what he did.

He influenced Trump getting elected and that is all down to the appeasement of Obama

A strong President would have stood up to him and made sure he would not have taken such crap

Obama is emphatically to blame for that

Didge wrote:Now if this had been Obama, would he be making the same claim?

True, Obama is not a war monger. But he had no choice, anyway. The Republican Congress refused to pass a war bill. Personally, not being a war monger myself, I think Obama played it rather cooley.

Trump's problem is that he is Putin's lackey. He needs to appear to be aggressive, yet not cause any harm to his capo de capo.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Now if this had been Obama, would he be making the same claim?

True, Obama is not a war monger.  But he had no choice, anyway.  The Republican Congress refused to pass a war bill.  Personally, not being a war monger myself, I think Obama played it rather cooley.

Trump's problem is that he is Putin's lackey.  He needs to appear to be aggressive, yet not cause any harm to his capo de capo.

Oh, we are back to that doozy, when he does have the power to act, just like he did when he assassinated Bin Laden

Personally, I think, you embaresss the memmory of Obama and how again you ignored every single point I made

The reason you did, speaks volunes as to why, they were 100% correct

The taking of bin Laden is every Republicans wet dream.  But what have I said consistently in the past?  Republicans do messes; Democrats do clean ups.

Republicans lied to start a war that cost $17-trillion, and lasted the longest of any US war in history, reinvented torture, rape, rendition and concentration camps...but they are distinguished in that they could never get bin Laden.

A single Democrat comes into office...and BINGO!, bin Laden is history.  It's the same story over and over...Republicans fook things up; Democrats clean up after them.  Look at the Great Depression in 1929; look again at the almost Great Depression in October 2008.  Republicans fook it up; Democrats clean it up.

You fancy yourself an historian... ...yet you haven't learned this "truth" of American history.  Republicans fook it up; Democrats clean it up!

Bit like Britain,Labour fuck us up,Tories clean it up. [most times]

Original Quill wrote:The taking of bin Laden is every Republicans wet dream.  But what have I said consistently in the past?  Republicans do messes; Democrats do clean ups.

Republicans lied to start a war that cost $17-trillion, and lasted the longest of any US war in history, reinvented torture, rape, rendition and concentration camps...but they are distinguished in that they could never get bin Laden.

A single Democrat comes into office...and BINGO!, bin Laden is history.  It's the same story over and over...Republicans fook things up; Democrats clean up after them.  Look at the Great Depression in 1929; look again at the almost Great Depression in October 2008.  Republicans fook it up; Democrats clean it up.

You fancy yourself an historian... ...yet you haven't learned this "truth" of American history.  Republicans fook it up; Democrats clean it up!

So you back a President murdering someone?

Happy that we agree, its acceptable, when we can never take that situation to court

I think you will find Bin Laden was around under Clinton, but never mind, your knowledge of history is a tad poor.

The point is this. You cannot think to praise something good when it is done by someone of the political action you hate. Let me put this into context. I think Corbyn, is a disaster and would ruin this country. But and its a big but, if he sorted out the NHS for example. I would not hesitate in praising him for that. Whilst still being against many of his other views. The reality is he would fuck up the NHS, but my point is how you are more concerned with being anti-Trump than what is right.

What the US, France and the British did in Syria. Taking out these chemical weapon facilities. Was the right thing to do. It then diminishes the ability of any side to use chemical weapons.

You though, make a mockery of that. Not only with bullshit and babble, but invent nonsense. You should in this one instance praise what these countries did. You wont though, because of Trump. Its pathetic, as again you can still look at Trump as an idiot as i do. What he did, for once was right. He took out facilities reducing any side being able to use chemical weapons.

This to you, is only about acting like a snowflake and bitching about Trump

Let me make this very clear, the man is an idiot, but for once, he did something right by targeting their chemical weapons sites. To argue against that and claim they targeted empty buildings, shows you have lost all rational reason, and are ruled by your emotions

Didge wrote:So you back a President murdering someone?

I'd rather back a president who killed in the line of duty, than back a president who started and perpetuated systemic genocide based upon a knowing lie.

Bin Laden planned and financed 9/11...including both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon...during the term of GWB and Cheney, not Clinton.  By those acts he became an international criminal...he got what he deserved.

My gawd!  You sit there and applaud when white cops murder another innocent black man, then preach sanctimonious sermons about how the Black Lives matter movement is a criminal enterprise.   Now here you are attacking the US response to 9/11? Have you no shame.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you back a President murdering someone?

I'd rather back a president who killed in the line of duty, than back a president who started and perpetuated systemic genocide based upon a knowing lie.

Bin Laden planned and financed 9/11...including both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon...during the term of GWB and Cheney, not Clinton.  By those acts he became an international criminal...he got what he deserved.

My gawd!  You sit there and applaud when white cops murder another innocent black man, then preach sanctimonious sermons about how the Black Lives matter movement is a criminal enterprise.  Shame!

Here we go again, on your poor and quite frankly poor understanding of genocide

Do you really want me to pull you up again on how many Democratic presidents have got the US involved in armed conflicts and thus using your warped view on Genocide. Would class them as Genocidal Presidents?

You them invoke the Cathy Newman card and again make claims i have never made. Claiming that I now appluad black people being killed by white cops.

Wow

Can you show, when ever I have?

Talk about a deflection alert

What do you say when its a black cop that has shot someone?

Invoke the pronoun victim card?

Didge wrote:Here we go again, on your poor and quite frankly poor understanding of genocide

Do you really want me to pull you up again on how many Democratic presidents have got the US involved in armed conflicts and thus using your warped view on Genocide. Would class them as Genocidal Presidents?

I already answered that creative distortion back last month:

Original Quill wrote:I don't know that Democrats have started many wars in the past century.  For example:

Pacific War, December 7, 1941, started by Empire of Japan.
European War, December 11, 1941, started by Germany.
Second Indochina war, November 1, 1955, started by Republican Eisenhower.
Persian Gulf war, August 2, 1990, started by Republican Geo. H.W. Bush.
Second Iraq War, March 20, 2003, started by Republican Geo. W. Bush.

The US has not entered the conflict in Syria, as the Republican Congress has refused to pass any authorization (S.J.Res 21).  A minimal air war has been justified as a sort-of 'hot pursuit' of Iraqi combatants under the Iraq War resolution (joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq).  Participation on behalf of Kurd combatant has been advisory only.  President Obama was, and is being criticized by Republicans for his recalcitrance on matters relating to war.

Pugilistic tendencies in the US are driven primarily by Republicans.

I've told you before, didge: You lack original thought.  And, so, you become at a loss for material and have to return to the same bullshit we've already refuted.  It's so tiresome.

See, if you don't process your thoughts...if your cerebral function is to just collect ideas--nay, mere bowel urges--you perpetuate the errors that you erred on before.

Didge wrote:Wow

Can you show, when ever I have?

Talk about a deflection alert

What do you say when its a black cop that has shot someone?

Invoke the pronoun victim card?

Didge, you're blubbering.  Wipe your chin!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Here we go again, on your poor and quite frankly poor understanding of genocide

Do you really want me to pull you up again on how many Democratic presidents have got the US involved in armed conflicts and thus using your warped view on Genocide. Would class them as Genocidal Presidents?

I already answered that creative distortion back last month:

Original Quill wrote:I don't know that Democrats have started many wars in the past century.  For example:



The US has not entered the conflict in Syria, as the Republican Congress has refused to pass any authorization (S.J.Res 21).  A minimal air war has been justified as a sort-of 'hot pursuit' of Iraqi combatants under the Iraq War resolution (joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq).  Participation on behalf of Kurd combatant has been advisory only.  President Obama was, and is being criticized by Republicans for his recalcitrance on matters relating to war.

Pugilistic tendencies in the US are driven primarily by Republicans.

I've told you before, didge: You lack original thought.  And, so, you become at a loss for material and have to return to the same bullshit we've already refuted.  It's so tiresome.

See, if you don't process your thoughts...if your cerebral function is to just collect ideas--nay, mere bowel urges--you perpetuate the errors that you erred on before.

Do you really want me to do this again on how many wars the Democrats have got involved in with the 20th century?

We have had this debate before and 80% of them werte Democrat

I mean shall we start with WW1?

Before that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_United_States_participation_in_wars

Want to match them to Presidents?

Happy to do so mate?

You still though misdirect

Hence I will ask you once simple question

Was it wrong for the British, French and US to take out Syrian chemical weapons facilities? Which then denies any side then using?

Take your time

Didge wrote:Do you really want me to do this again on how many wars the Democrats have got involved in with the 20th century?

You lost the first time...as I've just shown.

You've now lost any train of thought.

Why, oh why, must we the members of newsfix have to endure such a tedious, continuous loss of brain function in one of our number? It's a debate site. These are political debates.

Look at the title of this thread...you can't even keep your subjects straight. Give it up, didge.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Do you really want me to do this again on how many wars the Democrats have got involved in with the 20th century?

You lost the first time...as I've just shown.

You've now lost any train of thought.

Why, oh why, must we the members of newsfix have to endure such a tedious, continuous loss of brain function in one of our number?  It's a debate site.  These are political debates.

Look at the title of this thread...you can't even keep your subjects straight.  Give it up, didge.

Yet more misdirection. Badly so talking about me, that is desperate and failing to answer my question

Was it wrong for the British, French and US to take out Syrian chemical weapons facilities? Which then denies any side then using?

Take your time

Didge wrote:Was it wrong for the British, French and US to take out Syrian chemical weapons facilities? Which then denies any side then using?

North Korea, didge. The thread is about North Korea and the much-touted peace deal, that I said weeks ago would fall through.

Trump is not a negotiator. And whining and crying like a baby is not negotiating. Trump has one tactic, to walk away from negotiations. That doesn't work on a geopolitical level...anyone can walk away.

Trump just created two new nuclear powers in the world...one is North Korea. Welcome to the clubhouse, Kim...your chair is over there.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Was it wrong for the British, French and US to take out Syrian chemical weapons facilities? Which then denies any side then using?

North Korea, didge.  The thread is about North Korea and the much-touted peace deal, that I said weeks ago would fall through.

Trump is not a negotiator.  And whining and crying like a baby is not negotiating.  Trump has one tactic, to walk away from negotiations.  That doesn't work on a geopolitical level...anyone can walk away.

Trump just created two new nuclear powers in the world...one is North Korea.  Welcome to the clubhouse, Kim...your chair is over there.

Ooooooh, so you keeeeeeeep avoiding the question and now want to pull this back to North Korea

North Korea apparantly still wants peace and in fact that would make Trump the harbinger against peace, dont you think?

Let me correct on your ignorance

North Korea is a Nuclear power and has been since Bill Cinton fucked up

Its odd, because, I never saw you make the arguments when he sought out peace with North Korea and failed badly

Trump told reporters Friday morning that the White House is “talking to” North Korea, one day after he canceled the June 12 summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore. “We’ll see what happens, we’re talking to them now, it was a very nice statement they put out. We’ll see what happens,” Trump said before boarding Marine One. “It could even be the 12th, we’re talking to them now. They very much want to do it, we’d like to do it. We’re going to see what happens.” When asked if he thought North Korea was “playing games,” he replied, “Everybody plays games. You know that better than anybody,” according to the White House pool report. Trump canceled the Singapore summit in a letter Thursday, saying it was “inappropriate” due to the “anger and open hostility displayed” by the North Koreans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-north-korea-were-talking-to-them-now?ref=home

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Was it wrong for the British, French and US to take out Syrian chemical weapons facilities? Which then denies any side then using?

North Korea, didge.  The thread is about North Korea and the much-touted peace deal, that I said weeks ago would fall through.

Trump is not a negotiator.  And whining and crying like a baby is not negotiating.  Trump has one tactic, to walk away from negotiations.  That doesn't work on a geopolitical level...anyone can walk away.

Trump just created two new nuclear powers in the world...one is North Korea.  Welcome to the clubhouse, Kim...your chair is over there.

I am only pointing this point for one factor

I actually do not mind, I could be wrong here

Youi hate the fact you could end up being wrong

That is the difference between us mate

You fear your views are poor

Ummm...

Original Quill wrote:

Ummm...

That is better mate

I can actually reason woth a dog

You are lower than that

He was reacting to you and your irrational post, didge. You forget the subject again?

Original Quill wrote:He was reacting to you and your irrational post, didge.  You forget the subject again?

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Sunday that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un committed in the rivals' surprise meeting to sitting down with Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and to a "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

The Korean leaders' second summit in a month on Saturday saw bear hugs and broad smiles, but their quickly arranged meeting appears to highlight a sense of urgency on both sides of the world's most heavily armed border.

At the White House, Mr Trump said negotiations over a potential June 12 summit with Kim that he had earlier cancelled are "going along very well."

Mr Trump told reporters that they were still considering Singapore as the venue for their talks. He said there was a "lot of good will" and denuclearization of the Korean peninsula would be "a great thing."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/27/kim-jong-un-commits-trump-summit-anddenuclearisation-moon-says/

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:He was reacting to you and your irrational post, didge.  You forget the subject again?

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Sunday that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un committed in the rivals' surprise meeting to sitting down with Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and to a "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

The Korean leaders' second summit in a month on Saturday saw bear hugs and broad smiles, but their quickly arranged meeting appears to highlight a sense of urgency on both sides of the world's most heavily armed border.

At the White House, Mr Trump said negotiations over a potential June 12 summit with Kim that he had earlier cancelled are "going along very well."

Mr Trump told reporters that they were still considering Singapore as the venue for their talks. He said there was a "lot of good will" and denuclearization of the Korean peninsula would be "a great thing."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/27/kim-jong-un-commits-trump-summit-anddenuclearisation-moon-says/

There will probably be a half-dozen stops and restarts of this meeting as these two drama queens strut their negotiation chops.

The real issue to keep your eye on is, will they accomplish a real accord?  Will Kim Jung Un agree to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula?  Will Trump agree to the removal of 30,000 American troops from South Korea? True accomplishment of peace requires these questions to be answered.

This isn't going to be settled with beads and trinkets, which can be turned off like water from a spigot. Kim isn't going to give up the safety and security of his nation in order to be able to purchase a Hoover vacuum cleaner. FCS, get real.  In order for this to be successful, there must be meaningful and permanent commitments on both sides.

Does Trump make meaningful and permanent commitments?  Ask his ex-wives.

Original Quill wrote:Trump, the self-declared grand negotiator, is failing before he gets started.  After everything appeared all nicey-nice--Rocketman gave the captured Americans back, pussy-grabber generously kissed his ass, meetings were set up for 12 June in Singapore.  

Unfortunately, North Korea has cancelled Wednesday's high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over its joint military exercises with the US.  North Korea also has threatened its talks in Singapore with the US.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44133308

During the campaign Trump bragged about watta great negotiator he is.  He promised to apply his skills internationally, pledging greater results than his predecessor.  Now his façade has sort of fallen like a flat pancake.  He has broken a year old nuclear accord with Iran, with no replacement anticipated, and he has done everything to kill a deal with North Korea.

It appears that Trump's idea of negotiation is like his idea of marriage--find 'em, feel 'em, fuck 'em and forget 'em.  And high-tail it outta there if her father and brothers show up.  

or is trump enacting the art of the deal .


I am highly amused by how the left was so annoyed by the chance of negotiations between trump and kim, and then overjoyed that they were cancelled by trump, I presume they are annoyed again now as it seems the summit may take place as intended.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Trump, the self-declared grand negotiator, is failing before he gets started.  After everything appeared all nicey-nice--Rocketman gave the captured Americans back, pussy-grabber generously kissed his ass, meetings were set up for 12 June in Singapore.  

Unfortunately, North Korea has cancelled Wednesday's high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over its joint military exercises with the US.  North Korea also has threatened its talks in Singapore with the US.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44133308

During the campaign Trump bragged about watta great negotiator he is.  He promised to apply his skills internationally, pledging greater results than his predecessor.  Now his façade has sort of fallen like a flat pancake.  He has broken a year old nuclear accord with Iran, with no replacement anticipated, and he has done everything to kill a deal with North Korea.

It appears that Trump's idea of negotiation is like his idea of marriage--find 'em, feel 'em, fuck 'em and forget 'em.  And high-tail it outta there if her father and brothers show up.  

or is trump enacting the art of the deal .


I am highly amused by how the left was so annoyed by the chance of negotiations between trump and kim, and then overjoyed that they were cancelled by trump, I presume they are annoyed again now as it seems the summit may take place as intended.

It always amazes me how the right filters things through their own emotions…and misses the point entirely.  Roseanne is fired off of TV for her racist tweet--her own co-actors condemn her racism--and so she pleads the standard Ambian excuse--but see, "Ambien-maker to Roseanne: Racism is not a side effect of our drug" lol--so she condemns them for 'throwing her under the bus'.  It's not about busses...it's about your racism, fool!

Here, you so personify your lefty character, you forget the whole message.  This is supposed to be about peace on the Korean peninsula, right?  But instead, for rightys it's become all about (hypothetically) this great Nobel Peace prize for the pussy-grabber.  Here again, you cite the emotions of the "chance of negotiations" as being the big point, when it's really about the endgame of success.

The big Trump 'score' will never come off.  As is clear, if you ever read The Art of the Deal, Trump has only one trick in his dog and pony show.  He flaunts his wealth and then walks away, exploiting the underling's status as a poor pauper before this mighty tycoon!  But if the other side doesn't give a crap, he's dead.  His whole tactic depends on his lordly status, not anything that he did.

So, all this hoopla for the movie, when all it's got is great props (his presumed status).  We're supposed to buy into this success story, when the fat asshole can't even read and has the attention span of a 4-year old.  No thanks.

The real story here is found in digging into the issues.  (Such details bore the pussy-grabber.)  When you look at it, it's got a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.  Trump is talking about complete denuclearization, and Kim Jung Un is talking about removing 30,000 American troops from the Korean peninsula...in other words, each wants the other to disrobe and go completely naked, while he remains fully armored.  It ain't gonna happen.

So, what were you saying about the "chance of negotiations"?

It reminds me of the old Vietnam taunt: What if they held a war and nobody came?  Only this time it's, What if they held a denuclearization summit and nobody came?

So, Trump played his little 'walk away' game on North Korea, and they ignored him.  What did I tell you about that tactic in negotiation?  It only works if the other side cares.  North Korea shrugged and walked off.

Hey, wait a minute!!  After all the hoopla, the non-happening left Trump redfaced and in an anticlimatic abyss of nothingness.  All he could say in his return letter of May 24th, was:  ...you can't fire me, I quit!

The abrupt reversal was necessary because Trump had overplayed his hand at home: he had bragged about how he, alone, was able to settle the Korean dispute when no one else could.  He hinted at a Nobel Peace prize.  His ego got in the way: applaud Trump, or denuclearize Korea?  You can't feign disinterest when you've got so much personal money on the table.  So you give up the serious goal in order to look good yourself.  Now, it's a 'get-acquainted' meeting.

In his attempt to recoup his position, Trump left all that money on the table.  Forget denuclearization, forget everything.  Let's just you and me cuddle, Kimmy.

So now, it's just a gettin to know you meeting, not a summit.  This is a serious 'saving face' maneuver.  Instead of expressing disinterest, Trump learned a very important lesson about negotiation: you have to really, really not care...and if you're leaving money on the table, it means you really, really care.

Basically, the North Koreans called his bluff.  Embarrassing...of course.  But Trump has the self-awareness of an amoeba, so he doesn't realize it.  Now, the summit is just a meeting, and there's nothing at stake.  WTF is that?

Frankly, there are better ways for the President of the United States to spend his time than than enhance the prestige and reputation of the pimp from Pyongyang by holding a coming out party for him.  He could--oh, I don't know--hit the golf course for 18-holes.

The Guardian wrote:North Korea accuses US of 'gangster-like' behaviour after Pompeo talks
Pompeo responds that if US is a gangster, so is the whole world, as it also wants North Korea to dismantle nuclear weapons

Julian Borger World affairs editor

Sun 8 Jul 2018 00.03

Disarmament talks between the US and North Korea ended in Pyongyang on Saturday with the North Korean regime accusing Washington of a “gangster-like mindset” and warning of “yet another tragedy” if negotiations collapse.

As I predicted (how I hate to say 'I told you so'), the accord that Trump said he achieved with North Korea, has completely collapsed.  Remember, Trump went to Singapore, gave away military maneuvers, got nothing in exchange, and declared it all a tremendous success.

Doubters included officials from every administration, going back to Nixon: they're playing the Lucy football  trick, again... or some (like me) offered the most obvious common sense: They'll never pull nukes off the table 'cause they've got nothing else!

Here's the trade-off: sanctions versus nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula.  Notice, the US is not playing with it's nuclear weapons...just lifting sanctions.  Trump promises Colgate toothpaste and Bisquick biscuits, as trade for complete defenselessness and vulnerability for North Korea.  Yeah sure...that'll work.

This is the problem with a complete amateur and borderline retard for president.  He knows one thing--real estate deals in a multiparty, urban setting--and thinks its all about getting signatures on bottom lines.  WTF...he's being told signatures are meaningless, and promises depend on meanings of words, yet the dufus thinks he's got a contract.  That's Chamberlain, in pink pajamas.

How many more of these trainwrecks do we have to encounter, before we can get rid of this narcissistic Tomb Tabard.

Whose fault is it that talks may collapse?Not Trumps as far as I can see .

nicko wrote:Whose fault is it that talks may collapse?Not Trumps as far as I can see .

Nicko...there is nothing for which fault might be laid. Nothing was accomplished in the first place.

It's was all PR show for Trump's narcissistic needs in the first place. I repeat, he is a Tomb Tabard. The greatest, wealthiest, most powerful nation ever on the face of the earth, needs an engineer at the throttle...not someone who asks, what's all them pretty dials mean???