The two year anniversary of Otto Warmbier’s “release” was 12 June 2017; he died on 19 June 2017.
On 30 June 2019, Trump invited the man who leads the country that killed Mr. Warmbier to visit the US.
Republicans are cheering this move as if it was honorable and decent and the right thing to do.
I knew you’d jump in here eventually screaming nonsense about Nazism. You want to talk about invalidating arguments? Yours were completely nullified when you compared anything to Nazism. And you were speaking of the worth of someone’s opinions, how droll. 
‘Scientific Racists’ Wow, what a stretch! More of this liberal newspeak, I gotta remember this one. More “everyone gets a participation trophy” trash is all this is, likely supported by some pseudo-evidence gathered by students writing their dissertations, trying to appease their indoctrinating lefty professors while seeking government grant money; no results, no grant. Spare me. If you have 100 studies proving the same I’d believe you, and only if they were established in many countries from universities with differing political inclinations and were not bated with funding. In this case, I would definitely support cites, especially if have proof of all of those prerequisites presented in said citations.
You don’t need a citation to hear someone speak or feel which way the wind blows, alright. I don’t have the time or patience to get into a pissing contest with citations because it leads right back to what we have at hand. It never progresses beyond picking out why another persons citation is better or worse and nothing comes of it, waste of fucking time.
Pay attention and theorize, that’s it. You can figure out anything.
No, I’m not a sock, and I’ve never been banned. Is it that hard for you to comprehend that more than some repeat/sock guests have differing opinions outside of your echo chamber?
Being predictable isn’t just a far-left paradigm; it’s what keeps us out of wars that occur as a result of miscalculation. How did the US get involved in WWII? Because the Japanese assumed the US didn’t have the stomach to wage a 4-year war agains them. Why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? Because H.W. Bush didn’t send any clear indication to Hussein that he would necessarily respond with force. Why did the US and USSR, countries with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, avoid nuclear catastrophe? Because both countries made it clear that there were boundaries and grave consequences for crossing them.
Your second mistaken assumption is that Trump the individual has the power to “get closer” to his enemies. Trump can’t get closer to our enemies without his enemies getting much, much closer to him first. For one thing, their political systems are more closed and guarded than ours. As Russia showed, however, there are ways to infiltrate our system, many of which require nothing more than purchasing American real estate and using dark money to fund political campaigns.
Maybe not Republicans in general, but most Trump supporters I know probably don’t know who Ayn Rand is, much less have read her books. Or, read much at all. One Trump supporter once actually told me “To go read a book” as if it was a dismissive zinger.
Sort of illustrates the anti-intellectualism that Trump exemplifies. Reportedly, Trump can barely read his daily intelligence briefings unless they’re single page lists of bullets points.
What would be the responsible thing to do?
1.) Sanction them in perpetuity so nothing ever happens and lose on trade 2.)Destroy them outright and cause tension in the region where everyone loses, or 3.) get along with them, ease tensions with trade so everyone can potentially reap benefits of no war.
I’m not being snarky, genuinely asking for your opinion on what you think should be done and why (no cites necessary, don’t waste your time).
I wonder if NK hacked his cel phone while he was in the DMZ; I bet they can do that easily (I know 15 year olds who can do it).
1.) There’s no trade with North Korea. They don’t have any money to buy anything. We aren’t losing out on anything.
So yes, sanction them in perpetuity or until they change. Let them come crawling to the world for help or come proclaiming the shackles (and weapons) destroyed, or leave them to their own devices, to succeed or fail as they will. But we don’t fucking help murderous regimes.
Why are you against freedom? And what other American lives mean so little to you?
That’s a fair point. I can definitely visualize some Trump supporters being uneducated in that respect, but I know of none personally. They are all educated, very friendly and respectable people. It’s akin to me saying that all Hillary or Bernie Sanders supporters are total burnout, basket weaving majors. Many are, but its not fair for me to say, nor is it logical to assume most of them are. Perhaps location is the variable in determining the intelligence level of the supporters for a candidate.
I do have a visual of my own of Southern Trump supporters that is not exactly favorable, but its based on stereotype and while I admit stereotypes do ring true many times, I try not to base too many assumptions off of them.
Fair enough. But what is it going to do, delay the inevitable war? Peaceably trying to disarm them is a nice strategy, what Trump is doing is a different approach, it is likely going to return to Sanctions and or inevitable war anyway so why not try an approach to minimize collateral damage?
I am not against freedom, why would you assume that?
They probably hacked it a long time ago.
From 2018, and if the Chinese have done it, I’m sure it’s a party line with Russia and NK, too. Who knows if Trump would trust the Deep State to protect his phone.
Chinese spies reportedly eavesdrop on Trump’s personal iPhone
The president keeps a phone unaltered by the NSA to chat with friends, The New York Times reports.
Sure it has kept wars at bay, and being predictable will help. But having a degree of unpredictability may also deter an enemy who thinks we have become complacent and unchanged.
Curious, Tell me how an assumption is mistaken if what is assumed has not been finished in it’s attempt by this person in this given scenario, yet. If it doesn’t work and returns to the “Sanction-Quo” as I like to call it, then is that not when it should be declared a mistaken assumption. Is assuming and assumption is a mistaken assumption, also an assumption? (Blame DasMoocher, he brought up philosophy) 
I appreciate the discourse.
Anyone besides the troll-du-jour, anamolous1, think I’m a liberal?
asahi: Being predictable (rational, normal, decent, read-up on current affairs, especially international affairs, etc.) not only keeps us out of wars, but it also keeps our allies out of wars.
As does Post #82.
My apologies for any pronoun trouble.
I was saying that we should be glad that Trump’s staff talked Trump out of following Putin and Xi’s first suggestion to kill all of Trump’s opponents.
I’m sure that made a *little *more sense in the original Russian.
You got assigned to this board to take over for the failed Helmut Doork, didn’t you, comrade? Unfortunately you’re all trained the same way.
Any way you cut it, Warmbier was murdered, as a lesson. Kim says to Trump that he doesn’t know what happened? Well, he might not know the specifics of what happened but he knows what he ordered. The fact that N. Korea sent a hospital bill to the parents tells you everything you need to know.
Of course you did, dear.
Aren’t you just so precious!
You’re just a cute snuggly little bunny that’s what you are!
And thanks so much for voting for President unpredictable. That’s what I want in the leader of the worlds largest military, unpredictable.
Well, the old way of doing things left us safe, prosperous, and the most powerful country on Earth. Time to shake things up a bit.
Funny how this Trump-loving anomaly pops up for the first time in nearly a year while the Trump-loving dork is taking a break.
Ah yes, theunpredictability is goodclaim. While in some very limited cases there is some advantage to the madman strategy (more on that later), for the most part, diplomacy, particularly with allies, is based on building trust and making it very clear what actions will have what consequences.
Trump’s so called “diplomacy” has been just the opposite. His negotiating style involves negotiating a deal then backing out at the last minute to try to get something better. This works for trying to stiff contractors who you will never have to deal with again, but its disastrous for diplomatic relationships. At this point the international community knows that the word of the United States is worth squat. The traditional deals of giving something the US wants in exchange for something you want is out the window. What does work however is to suck up to Trump, stroke his ego, send him gilded letters and birthday cards and show him a good time when he comes to visit, and he will give you whatever you want. This is easier to do in a dictatorship than in a Democracy where such obsequiousness may not sit well for patriotic voters.
Now as I said above, there is a place for unpredictability, when it comes to high stakes games like nuclear chicken. Where you want your opponent to believe that you would escalate in a way that would be bad for both sides (such as nuclear Armageddon) if they cross a particular line. This can work if your opponent really believes that you are that crazy, but there is a danger that if he calls your bluff, you have the choice of either losing all negotiating leverage or actually destroying the world. So it is vitally important that your opponent believes that you will carry out your threat. Unfortunately Trumps policy is the opposite of this. He engages in brinkmanship to create crises, and then backs down at the last minute to claim credit for solving the crises he created. Or as others have said he speaks loudly and carries a small stick. As a result his opponents are much more likely to cal his bluff, knowing from the past that in all likelihood he will back off. Of course Trump is actually irrational, so there is always a possibility that he might actually go through with any given threat and escalate out of control. So Trumps implementation of the madman strategy gives us the worst of both worlds.