Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > PRK: discount nukes and missiles - inquire within

PRK: discount nukes and missiles - inquire within (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sure I did. I'll make it explicit.

Flattening a country in an hour is unprecedented, hence it is "power the likes of which this world has never seen". That's how it relates to the quote. By demonstrating the phrase can mean something other than nukes, it also directly addresses the rhetorical argument the quote can only mean nukes.
...and all that you have to do for that line of rationale to matter is believe that this nuanced and well thought out analysis went through Trumps head.

My retort: Occams Razor
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...and all that you have to do for that line of rationale to matter is believe that this nuanced and well thought out analysis went through Trumps head.

My retort: Occams Razor
By that logic, and Occam's razor, Trump was making a hyperbolic threat without a specific thought in his head.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
By that logic, and Occam's razor, Trump was making a hyperbolic threat without a specific thought in his head.
Turns out words matter when you're the man with nuclear codes
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Turns out words matter when you're the man with nuclear codes
Absolutely. Not to mention, as a matter of diplomacy it probably would have been a good idea to mention the idea to surrounding countries in the region that you are going to threaten PRK this way? Not that we need permission necessarily (that's a whole other subject), but so that this doesn't come as a complete surprise?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Turns out words matter when you're the man with nuclear codes
Do they?

I think Trump is president because precisely the opposite. Words are wind Jon Snow.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do they?

I think Trump is president because precisely the opposite. Words are wind Jon Snow.
Do you really believe this?

Trump is president because he doesn't speak in flowery politician-like language, but when you are making public statements about other countries diplomacy is still a thing that exists.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do they?
Unless you believe most people subscribe to your verbal nihilism, yes.

I think Trump is president because precisely the opposite. Words are wind Jon Snow.
Trump is president because actions don't matter. He got elected on those windy words of yours.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 02:57 PM
 
Trump now: "North Korea better get their act together or they are going to be in trouble like few nations have ever been in trouble"
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you really believe this?

Trump is president because he doesn't speak in flowery politician-like language, but when you are making public statements about other countries diplomacy is still a thing that exists.
Diplomacy cannot be defined strictly as your preferred method of such.

I don't see the sky falling. Only a couple outraged liberals and a media seizing on the revenue that outrage generates. Kinda like what the Trump admin has been since day 1.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This exactly.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unless you believe most people subscribe to your verbal nihilism, yes.

Trump is president because actions don't matter. He got elected on those windy words of yours.
Trump got elected in spite of the words he so gracefully used throughout. And Hillary's words that at most every turn, turned out to be not exactly true.

Otherwise, grab her by the pussy would have sunk him.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Diplomacy cannot be defined strictly as your preferred method of such.

I don't see the sky falling. Only a couple outraged liberals and a media seizing on the revenue that outrage generates. Kinda like what the Trump admin has been since day 1.
There is a lot wrong with these statements:

1) I didn't say that the sky is falling, I said that his language is concerning as a diplomatic/strategic tactic because it is.

2) Why does this have to be a partisan thing? You seem to value non-partisan thought processes, and there are plenty of right wingers who also find this language/tactic concerning, so why even bring this up and make this wild generalization?

3) Your inferences are that we should downplay the severity of this, as if a severity has been assigned. Why does this have to be severe to be a valid concern? Do you think we are better off for Trump having said this?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 04:01 PM
 
My 401k would certainly like Trump to talk less.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Trump got elected in spite of the words he so gracefully used throughout. And Hillary's words that at most every turn, turned out to be not exactly true.

Otherwise, grab her by the pussy would have sunk him.
His crazy talk is what got him elected. Certainly through the primary.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...and all that you have to do for that line of rationale to matter is believe that this nuanced and well thought out analysis went through Trumps head.

My retort: Occams Razor
Occam's Razor says all three Generals have told him nukes are unnecessary, and told him how if we do go into NK, it'll be like in Civilization, where we take 8 turns to stack 600 units outside the opponent's city.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Trump got elected in spite of the words he so gracefully used throughout.
What got him elected then? What is a political campaign but a big, long, gust of words?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Occam's Razor says all three Generals have told him nukes are unnecessary, and told him how if we do go into NK, it'll be like in Civilization, where we take 8 turns to stack 600 units outside the opponent's city.
I haven't played Civ, but this sounds right. Before we did anything, we'd have to move a lot of resources into place. And spend that time plotting as many artillery locations as possible. And not tip off NK into attacking before we're done. Trump would need to stay uncharacteristically quiet about it while everything moves into place.

Uh oh, I detect a problem with the plan. Not the only one, but I don't see how we can get around this one.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:04 PM
 
Honestly, I think the plan is to make a lot of noise about it, so Trump's loose lips may actually be a benefit in that regard.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I haven't played Civ, but this sounds right. Before we did anything, we'd have to move a lot of resources into place. And spend that time plotting as many artillery locations as possible. And not tip off NK into attacking before we're done. Trump would need to stay uncharacteristically quiet about it while everything moves into place.

Uh oh, I detect a problem with the plan. Not the only one, but I don't see how we can get around this one.
We already have enough firepower in the area to accomplish this. Not to mention, we keep doing invasion drills all the time with SK/Japan. We could simply use that guise in order to mobilize additional forces to the area.

Keeping Trump quiet does seem problematic, but he's so hyperbolic all the time anyways I doubt anyone would notice when he actually means what he says. Security through obscurity.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We already have enough firepower in the area to accomplish this. Not to mention, we keep doing invasion drills all the time with SK/Japan. We could simply use that guise in order to mobilize additional forces to the area.

Keeping Trump quiet does seem problematic, but he's so hyperbolic all the time anyways I doubt anyone would notice when he actually means what he says. Security through obscurity.
We have enough there to win, but we want to do more than win, we want to win quickly.

That means extra guys.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There is a lot wrong with these statements:

1) I didn't say that the sky is falling, I said that his language is concerning as a diplomatic/strategic tactic because it is.
Potato, Pah-tat-o

2) Why does this have to be a partisan thing? You seem to value non-partisan thought processes, and there are plenty of right wingers who also find this language/tactic concerning, so why even bring this up and make this wild generalization?
Honestly? I don't think you are capable of evaluating anything in a non-partisan way, try as you occasionally do.

3) Your inferences are that we should downplay the severity of this, as if a severity has been assigned. Why does this have to be severe to be a valid concern? Do you think we are better off for Trump having said this?
So the sky is not falling, and no severity level has been assigned. It's so trivial as to not have a severity level, but it's concerning, which is not a severity level obviously because none is assigned. Tell you what, when you're done trying to twist your partisan argument into a non-partisan pretzel - let me know, and we'll see if you can pass the sniff test with an argument.

If it's not severe, quite frankly besson, we have much bigger fish to fry. So if you want to say it's not a big deal, don't make it a big deal, and it won't be a big deal. The fact that you're sitting here trying to squirm your way into a non-partisan position using semantics, concernings and severity levels tell me you're trying to end-around the fact that what I said up there is spot on true, and you've not really got a rebuke for it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We have enough there to win, but we want to do more than win, we want to win quickly.

That means extra guys.
Sexist. Guys AND Gals.

We have enough nearby that this could be accomplished in a matter of hours (provided the planning at our bases nearby could be kept clandestine).

It wouldn't just be us either - very likely Japan would pitch in quite a bit and SK's ENTIRE military would be at the joint-command's disposal.

Winning quickly does not entail boots in the ground - winning quickly is done via planes in the sky and missiles coming from boats and potentially special forces/fast moving mechanized. The in earnest boots on the ground are for clean up and ongoing control of territory (something that we might not even need to do).


If I were a general, and if we needed to - take out Kim quickly and cleanly then hand the keys over to China and say "This is your mess now - don't call us at home". China has been the enabler in this after all, and would likely not sit idly by for a full-scale invasion. We can force their hand if we can take out the regime - they would not allow a power-vacuum to destabilize the north.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We should not be encouraging genocide. It's not the citizens of the PRK's fault that they have a horrible, ruthless, unhinged leader they didn't even vote for. Hopefully if Trump does strike it will be in a strategic area with few non-governmental casualties.
What "genocide"? There are twice as many more Koreans in S Korea.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:15 PM
 
Because it's most likely what he'd use, since he used them before with great success (...and maybe because the Pentagon might have recently ordered a whole lot of these types of bombs when Mattis joined the cabinet, because he's really keen on how effective they are).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Potato, Pah-tat-o


Honestly? I don't think you are capable of evaluating anything in a non-partisan way, try as you occasionally do.


So the sky is not falling, and no severity level has been assigned. It's so trivial as to not have a severity level, but it's concerning, which is not a severity level obviously because none is assigned. Tell you what, when you're done trying to twist your partisan argument into a non-partisan pretzel - let me know, and we'll see if you can pass the sniff test with an argument.

If it's not severe, quite frankly besson, we have much bigger fish to fry. So if you want to say it's not a big deal, don't make it a big deal, and it won't be a big deal. The fact that you're sitting here trying to squirm your way into a non-partisan position using semantics, concernings and severity levels tell me you're trying to end-around the fact that what I said up there is spot on true, and you've not really got a rebuke for it.


You make things really complicated.

The progression of this conversation is simple. I questioned Trump's tactics in improvising cowboy talk. You came up with the assumption that I'm therefore saying the sky is falling. You made this partisan, I questioned why it had to be for a host of reasons. I made the point that no matter what severity level is assigned, this rhetoric and rhetorical/tactical approach is significant particularly because both Trump and North Korea guy seem narcissistic, prideful and uninterested in looking bad, and therefore their posturing is a thing.

And now I'm the partisan guy incapable of anything else, am twisting things into partisan pretzels, and am getting bogged down in semantics? I may be partisan, but this is not a particularly good post to use as your example.

I think you need some focus here.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Winning quickly does not entail boots in the ground
I should have been clearer. I'm using guys and dolls as a blanket term.

My proposition is the more artillery, bombers, and cruise missiles (oh my) we have in position, the shorter the conflict. The shorter the conflict, the less damage inflicted on SK.

All else being equal, if we mobilize for six months, we'd end it quicker than if it happened tomorrow.

Of course, all else won't remain equal. if we get to mobilize for 6 months, so does Kim, however we have the resources to spare. He doesn't. I'll also note there's no way to keep large scale mobilizations quiet, so the usual strategy is to go loud and own it.

My hope is we're trying to Cold War him.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unless you believe most people subscribe to your verbal nihilism, yes.

Trump is president because actions don't matter. He got elected on those windy words of yours.
Trump got elected by Hillary's actions.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You make things really complicated.
What are you my girlfriend now?

The progression of this conversation is simple. I questioned Trump's tactics in improvising cowboy talk. You came up with the assumption that I'm therefore saying the sky is falling.
So we agree this is not a big deal at all?

Or it's somewhere in the middle?

It's a concern. Oh wait, it doesn't have a severity.


I'm confused - could you just goddamn assign a severity to it so that you can actually say something meaningful?

You made this partisan, I questioned why it had to be for a host of reasons.
Sure dude, I made this partisan.

I made the point that no matter what severity level is assigned,
lol

this rhetoric and rhetorical/tactical approach is significant particularly because both Trump and North Korea guy seem narcissistic, prideful and uninterested in looking bad, and therefore their posturing is a thing.
I made this partisan, you just compared Trump directly to Kim Jung Un. Do you really take yourself seriously when you say you are non-partisan? I mean, it seems to me like you might actually believe that.
And now I'm the partisan guy incapable of anything else, am twisting things into partisan pretzels, and am getting bogged down in semantics? I may be partisan, but this is not a particularly good post to use as your example.
But like, does it really matter? I mean this whole topic isn't serious enough to even assign a severity level. You know it's not relevant if it doesn't even have a severity level.

I think you need some focus here.
I think my focus sailed directly over your head.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I should have been clearer. I'm using guys and dolls as a blanket term.

My proposition is the more artillery, bombers, and cruise missiles (oh my) we have in position, the shorter the conflict. The shorter the conflict, the less damage inflicted on SK.

All else being equal, if we mobilize for six months, we'd end it quicker than if it happened tomorrow.
True.

Of course, all else won't remain equal. if we get to mobilize for 6 months, so does Kim, however we have the resources to spare. He doesn't. I'll also note there's no way to keep large scale mobilizations quiet, so the usual strategy is to go loud and own it.

My hope is we're trying to Cold War him.
Cold Warring him will only further drive him to develop his nuclear capabilities, sacrificing even more of his economy to that and not his people. . I hope thats exactly what we're not doing - getting into an arms race with a country we already outmatch 1000x over - just basically encouraging them to catch up.

What I hope we're doing is looking for a way to undermine Kim and his ambitions. One way we could do this? THAAD the shit out of his next missile test. Test our ability to knock that shit out of the sky. If we are able to do this, we can demonstrate his missile capability is futile.

At the very least, it embarrasses the hell out of Kim in front of the world. I almost feel like a third of the rhetoric is ego, the other two thirds designed to assert his grip on power. If we can make his games turn out badly for him, we can encourage him not to play at all - or even perhaps play a different (hopefully more diplomatic) game altogether.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm confused - could you just goddamn assign a severity to it so that you can actually say something meaningful?
Why? Is there a number (providing we agree upon this) whereby you will approve of us paying attention to that thing, and until that number is reached we need to bury that thing?

You are making this whole discussion between us more complicated than it has to be in not acknowledging this simple point. I wasn't particularly interested in dissecting his behavior at an overly analytical level or recommending a course of action (I guess that would be bringing an umbrella to work for a while? I just expressed his antics as a general concern, as well they should be even if you agree with his ultimate decisions. This is one of his first major tests. There is a lot at stake.

If you want to be non-partisan perhaps you should think about trying to validate the concerns of others, even if you don't think they are very high in your world? A lot of people are very concerned over global warming. Badkosh and Chongo are probably minimally concerned, if at all, because they don't really think it's a thing at all (AFAIK). The non-partisan approach would be to validate the concern as a legitimate perspective (you don't have to agree with it for it to be legitimate), and then finding common ground such as ways we can create new jobs by focusing on clean energy technologies.

I'm getting super off-topic here though, but I hope you get my point. You may not feel that Trump's behavior is a concern, but I (and many others) do. Surely there is something here we can agree upon... Again, do you think Trump's behavior has made us better off?
( Last edited by besson3c; Aug 11, 2017 at 08:43 AM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Occam's Razor says all three Generals have told him nukes are unnecessary, and told him how if we do go into NK, it'll be like in Civilization, where we take 8 turns to stack 600 units outside the opponent's city.
C'mon, you know Trump being told a thing doesn't mean he heard it. He only remembers the stuff he likes. Oceans razor says that talk had no effect on his thinking.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Trump got elected by Hillary's actions.
Would that it'were so simple. ( that's for another thread)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 09:42 AM
 
So is there a logical reason why Trump is still saber rattling or is this what it appears to be, which is a pissing match between two juveniles?

BTW this exactly the shit some of us were scared about and predicting he'd do last year.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Sexist. Guys AND Gals.
Transphobic. There are more than two genders.
wink
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oceans razor
Is that a new line of shaving products for mermaids?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:40 AM
 
It's Oceans 11 product placement
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:48 AM
 
That was the other direction I considered taking the joke. I figured shaving mermaids were funnier.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That was the other direction I considered taking the joke. I figured shaving mermaids were funnier.
But they don't have to shave their legs
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why? Is there a number (providing we agree upon this) whereby you will approve of us paying attention to that thing, and until that number is reached we need to bury that thing?
This isn't paying attention to it?

Again, severity levels was your idea. As was trying to label this a "concern". I made fun of you for both, and how idiotic you sounded trying to walk back the partisan-ness of your assertion comparing Trump to Un.
You are making this whole discussion between us more complicated than it has to be in not acknowledging this simple point. I wasn't particularly interested in dissecting his behavior at an overly analytical level or recommending a course of action (I guess that would be bringing an umbrella to work for a while? I just expressed his antics as a general concern, as well they should be even if you agree with his ultimate decisions. This is one of his first major tests. There is a lot at stake.
It's not complicated - you regurgitated a partisan talking point and I pointed that out. Further, you didn't "just express a general concern." You compared him directly to Kim Jung Un, right after saying how non-partisan you are.



If you want to be non-partisan perhaps you should think about trying to validate the concerns of others, even if you don't think they are very high in your world?
It is not my job to make you feel good about your partisan arguments.


A lot of people are very concerned over global warming.
Oh here we go.

Badkosh and Chongo are probably minimally concerned, if at all, because they don't really think it's a thing at all (AFAIK). The non-partisan approach would be to validate the concern as a legitimate perspective (you don't have to agree with it for it to be legitimate), and then finding common ground such as ways we can create new jobs by focusing on clean energy technologies.
Relevance?

Are you saying you wish we could find some common ground here? How come I've been able to do it quite easily and naturally with just about everyone else in the discussion?
I'm getting super off-topic here though, but I hope you get my point. You may not feel that Trump's behavior is a concern, but I (and many others) do. Surely there is something here we can agree upon... Again, do you think Trump's behavior has made us better off?
I've made my assessments via my conversations with subego, dakar, et al. That you can't be a part of that conversation, and are simply making the same blindly partisan arguments as the far-left media, while telling us how non-partisan you are, means that you'll not gain credibility as anything but a partisan zealot. Until you can demonstrate otherwise.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It is not my job to make you feel good about your partisan arguments.
How is comparing Trump's narcism to Kim Jun Un's a partisan argument? There is a mountain of evidence that suggests that Trump comes across as pretty narcissistic, would you disagree? If your problem was that you interpreted me as saying that Trump is AS narcissistic as Un, I apologize, I wasn't trying to make that specific argument. I'm not sure any of us can even if we wanted to knowing so little about Un, and having to read into their public personas to make this claim.

I did not compare (or intend to compare) any other specific facet of Trump to Un other than their general ego-driven public personas. I would like to understand how you read that from what I wrote, if this is what happened?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How is comparing Trump's narcism to Kim Jun Un's a partisan argument?
That you need to ask this is exactly what I mean.

"PROVE THEY'RE NOT!!"
There is a mountain of evidence that suggests that Trump comes across as pretty narcissistic, would you disagree? If your problem was that you interpreted me as saying that Trump is AS narcissistic as Un, I apologize, I wasn't trying to make that specific argument. I'm not sure any of us can even if we wanted to knowing so little about Un, and having to read into their public personas to make this claim.
I interpreted your argument to be the same sky-is-falling, outrage inducing, revenue driven vitriol coming from the far left outrage/revenue generator that we've had since Trump took office. You can dress it up with your severity levels, labels, concerns, etc - but it doesn't change anything about your assertion and what drove that assertion - partisan bias.

Hence why I called you out in the first place. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck.... You're a duck.

After I call you out, you spend 6 paragraphs explaining how it's just a concern and doesn't even have a severity level, so surely this time, instead of you taking your normal partisan stance, you're being completely non-partisan this time - pinky swear! in regurgitating the partisan talking point.


I don't want your apology - I want to see you participate in the conversation to your potential - something that you continually struggle with when it comes to political discussion.
I did not compare (or intend to compare) any other specific facet of Trump to Un other than their general ego-driven public personas. I would like to understand how you read that from what I wrote, if this is what happened?
This is not what happened. Your comparison was more than enough.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I interpreted your argument to be the same sky-is-falling, outrage inducing, revenue driven vitriol coming from the far left outrage/revenue generator that we've had since Trump took office. You can dress it up with your severity levels, labels, concerns, etc - but it doesn't change anything about your assertion and what drove that assertion - partisan bias.
And you didn't think to double check with me if this is what I was intending before freaking out like you did? You've been here long enough to know that follow up questions are often needed for clarification, and during that time people often double down on their original point in an unambiguous way. You would have figured out pretty quickly if I was going for sky-is-falling, outrage inducing, revenue driven vitriol.

So chill the **** out.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Would that it'were so simple.
Wood that it twerr sew simple.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And you didn't think to double check with me if this is what I was intending before freaking out like you did?
check with the duck to ask him if he's really a duck. Ok.

You've been here long enough to know that follow up questions are often needed for clarification, and during that time people often double down on their original point in an unambiguous way. You would have figured out pretty quickly if I was going for sky-is-falling, outrage inducing, revenue driven vitriol.
Going the victim route now eh?

This response is like now attempt 5.

I already know what you're going for - you already went for it. If you want another shot at it - I'm not stopping you. Now you're asking me to coax it out of you? No, not anymore Bess. You're a big boy and don't need my help in that sense.
So chill the **** out.
I'm totally chill bess. Infact, none of this has been stressful in the least for me. You know why? Because I finally realized you aren't really interested in the non-partisan approach you claim to be trying to take, and I'm finally not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I could treat you like a child and spoon feed it out of you, but for what? I've tried that before, and it's the same now as it was then. You aren't interested in listening to anyone or considering another perspective. You're trying to bullshit your way into justifying your ideological zealousy.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
check with the duck to ask him if he's really a duck. Ok.


Going the victim route now eh?

This response is like now attempt 5.

I already know what you're going for - you already went for it. If you want another shot at it - I'm not stopping you. Now you're asking me to coax it out of you? No, not anymore Bess. You're a big boy and don't need my help in that sense.

I'm totally chill bess. Infact, none of this has been stressful in the least for me. You know why? Because I finally realized you aren't really interested in the non-partisan approach you claim to be trying to take, and I'm finally not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I could treat you like a child and spoon feed it out of you, but for what? I've tried that before, and it's the same now as it was then. You aren't interested in listening to anyone or considering another perspective. You're trying to bullshit your way into justifying your ideological zealousy.

Victim route? WTF?

You are clearly looking for a fight. What is up with all of this strong language?

Take a deep breath. Let's start over.

I said that Trump's tactics and rhetoric are a concern. I compared Trump's narcissistic persona to Un's which seemed to set off a lot of stuff. I don't really think that is a reach into straw-grasping partisan territory, a lot of Republicans would agree that he is narcissistic, because it seems kind of obvious. That is partially why I'm concerned.

That is it, really. We don't need to get into bickering about victimization, parsing the other stuff I said in trying to diffuse the situation, getting into either of us being partisan or ideological (at least stemming out of this particular thread), and all of this other stuff. You are making WAAAAYYYY too much out of this.

Just relax.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I compared Trump's narcissistic persona to Un's which seemed to set off a lot of stuff.
Hitler was a narcissist. So was Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, and Pol Pot. Why would anyone object to a comparison between them and Trump? Republicans admit these were all narcissists, right?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hitler was a narcissist. So was Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, and Pol Pot. Why would anyone object to a comparison between them and Trump? Republicans admit these were all narcissists, right?
Would you be offended if I compared Hitler to Einstein?

It is quite possible to equate certain facets of somebody to somebody else without that meaning that they share complete resemblance.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Would you be offended if I compared Hitler to Einstein?

It is quite possible to equate certain facets of somebody to somebody else without that meaning that they share complete resemblance.
Whether I was offended would depend on how deeply the signal had been buried underneath noise.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 08:11 PM
 
Okay, well I feel that this conversation is going to drag on for a bit, so to save you guys the trouble I will say that I am wrong and you are right. I don't really care enough to keep this going, to be honest, so let's just pack it in...
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You are making WAAAAYYYY too much out of this.
You can dish it but you can't take it?

You're in like 3 threads going absolutely ham on Chongo and Badkosh, implying they are stupid hicks and whatnot. You even brought it into this thread.

If you want to understand why your arguments are going no where in any of them, this thread is a great reference for you moving forward.

If you want to understand why you're not given a benefit of the doubt from your opposition - you haven't earned one.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Okay, well I feel that this conversation is going to drag on for a bit, so to save you guys the trouble I will say that I am wrong and you are right. I don't really care enough to keep this going, to be honest, so let's just pack it in...
Ain't no thang.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,