Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

Greatest America

[scriver]

Trump wins best endorsement.

"dull hilarry" almost make it sounds like the great Kim just wanna have some interesting times.

In an hypothetical Sout-North korean war, would you support a U.S armed intervention?

I don't think anyone wouldn't.

[Baffler]

If anyone cares, here's the actual thing.

Korean.
"English."

I guess it isn't too surprising. He's talking about bringing North Korea to the table, specifically from the top level, something previous administrations have refused to do. It's also something a number of experts have said really does need to happen.

But Evans Revere, a long-time North Korea watcher and former State Department official, dismissed Trump’s suggestion as an attempt to “be seen as diplomatic and reasonable,” saying any discussions would unlikely bear fruit at this time.

“I don’t know there’s a real discussion to be had between an American president and the North Koreans, absent an indication from the North Koreans that there’s a real conversation to be had about denuclearization,” he told NK News on Wednesday.

However, Delury said the overall idea of a meeting between a U.S. president and Kim Jong Un was needed, because “the current policy is just not working.”

“It pains me to say that Trump has got the right idea,” Delury said, even if “he is not the right person to do it.”

“Kim Jong Un has proven his leadership and predictions he wouldn’t last long turned out to be incorrect,” Delury added. “It’s a very top down system and we know where the top is, just like China in the 1970s: You have got to go to the top.”

Comparisons to Iran are probably not entirely inappropriate.

[Morrigi]

Again, do you have any proof that the media was dishonest?

Articles like this are a clear example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

As was the massive flurry of articles claiming that Trump would never release where the millions of dollars he raised for veterans' organizations would go, then went out of their way to bash it anyway when he did. The media is dishonest as all hell about both Trump and Sanders, and nearly everyone who's been paying attention has worked that out. I could spend half an hour posting links to ridiculous hit pieces on both of them, but I'm going to bed.

Oh, there was also this pathetic CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/donald-trump-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo/
It is abundantly clear that they are grasping at straws.

[itisnotlogical]

Coming this fall...

Donald Trump: Gorilla Assassin

[Andux]

An assassin of gorillas, or an assassin who is a gorilla?

Spoiler: Hmm... (click to show/hide)

[Arx]

What did you say to me, you little... <copypasta>... I am trained in Gorilla Assassination... <copypasta>.

[Frumple]

As was the massive flurry of articles claiming that Trump would never release where the millions of dollars he raised for veterans' organizations would go, then went out of their way to bash it anyway when he did. The media is dishonest as all hell about both Trump and Sanders, and nearly everyone who's been paying attention has worked that out. I could spend half an hour posting links to ridiculous hit pieces on both of them, but I'm going to bed.

You must really hate how the media's been treating clinton for the last couple of decades, then. Trump and Sanders have barely even scratched the surface of the media's vacuous hate-news machine compared to what's been done about her over the years, and that stuff ain't exactly slowed down this election cycle.

... though I'd be pretty wary about anything involving trump and money, honestly -- the initial media scrutiny regarding those donations didn't strike me as particularly out of line. Dude did make a good chunk of money basically being the legal equivalent of a scam artist, and there's not really any way to reframe that to be more positive. Plus he's literally said part of the reason he's running is because people like him need to be kept a better eye on, vis a vis regulation and whatnot, and that he's basically a big enough scumbag to know where all the loopholes are. You keep someone with his history well in sight and rode hard when it comes to fiscal anything. Keep any politician such, really, but ones o'trump's mien in particular.

[Shadowlord]

Again, do you have any proof that the media was dishonest?

Articles like this are a clear example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

Is the media supposed to not report news like that? How is reporting that "dishonest?"

As was the massive flurry of articles claiming that Trump would never release where the millions of dollars he raised for veterans' organizations would go, then went out of their way to bash it anyway when he did. The media is dishonest as all hell about both Trump and Sanders, and nearly everyone who's been paying attention has worked that out. I could spend half an hour posting links to ridiculous hit pieces on both of them, but I'm going to bed.

But he hadn't released the money, even after his organization said that he had. It took a reporter calling around to all the different veterans' organizations to find that out, and pressure Trump over it. Trump complains because the media looks into what he's doing and fact-checks his statements, but why would you want them to stop? Wouldn't you rather the media makes sure he keeps his word, rather than having everyone just take his statements on faith, so he could have continued to hold onto the money indefinitely?

Oh, there was also this pathetic CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/donald-trump-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo/
It is abundantly clear that they are grasping at straws.

Trump has opinion on everything. Media quotes him because he loves to be quoted. How is this hit piece? Hillary doesn't have articles like this because she's generally paranoid with the media due to her past experiences with them.

[nenjin]

I like how Trump is getting all the endorsements from world leaders his own base is told to fear and hate. Now we just need some hardline Saudis and the Ayatollah to endorse him.

[Playergamer]

Soo...we're meant to trust an article saying Kim Jong-Un is supporting Donald Trump, without any kind of nod from Pyongyang? What's the source on this?

[Sheb]

If anyone cares, here's the actual thing.

Korean.
"English."

[Playergamer]

dear christ what is that abomination.

[wobbly]

Korea's answer to William Burroughs?

[sluissa]

Again, do you have any proof that the media was dishonest?

Articles like this are a clear example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

Is the media supposed to not report news like that? How is reporting that "dishonest?"

As was the massive flurry of articles claiming that Trump would never release where the millions of dollars he raised for veterans' organizations would go, then went out of their way to bash it anyway when he did. The media is dishonest as all hell about both Trump and Sanders, and nearly everyone who's been paying attention has worked that out. I could spend half an hour posting links to ridiculous hit pieces on both of them, but I'm going to bed.

But he hadn't released the money, even after his organization said that he had. It took a reporter calling around to all the different veterans' organizations to find that out, and pressure Trump over it. Trump complains because the media looks into what he's doing and fact-checks his statements, but why would you want them to stop? Wouldn't you rather the media makes sure he keeps his word, rather than having everyone just take his statements on faith, so he could have continued to hold onto the money indefinitely?

Oh, there was also this pathetic CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/donald-trump-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo/
It is abundantly clear that they are grasping at straws.

Trump has opinion on everything. Media quotes him because he loves to be quoted. How is this hit piece? Hillary doesn't have articles like this because she's generally paranoid with the media due to her past experiences with them.

I think this is more of a case where Trump doesn't have anything to lose. He's already more than exceeded his expectations in this race. Clinton on the other hand is nearing her goal and while the media can't take away Trump's non-political life, Clinton's life is almost exclusively political and can be snatched away with the right words printed at the right place and right time.

Perhaps even just six.