ADVERTISEMENT

Is the Summit the biggest news this offseason?

All fake news networks. Now we know how liberal you really are. No one but a true liberal would read or watch all those fake news networks.

Your position is that right-leaning news outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Brietbart, and the Hill, and neutral and incredibly respected outlets like Reuters and the BBC, are "fake news networks?" I mean, you're not wrong about Brietbart, I was just surprised to see you attack it while using jargon like "fake news outlets" and "true liberal."

RollLaughImagine being so triggered that you parrot Trump with "fake news" against Brietbart! RollLaugh
 
I understood the sarcasm. I didn't understand who it was directed at or why. The benefit of the summit with Un is being questioned because of what it did or didn't accomplish, not because Trump did it rather than Obama. Not all, or most, criticism aimed at Trump is because he's Trump, it's because all presidential actions warrant criticism.

Obama could have met with the leader of North Korea. Yes, that is fact. It was true for him and the presidents before him; they all could have met with the leader of North Korea. The question was whether or not it was a good idea to meet with the leader of North Korea. And that remains to be seen.
Are you sure Obama could have met with the leader of North Korea? I don't believe that for a New York minute.

Trump to my knowledge was the second non Korean leader that Kim had ever met before the summit. Please tell me who he had met or gone someplace for a meeting prior to Singapore? He met with China, South Korea, Singapore and US. I am really awaiting all the others.

Obama I am sure could have met with Kim because Obama is simply great and Kim Jong Un would have jumped up and down with joy.Eyeroll
 
Your position is that right-leaning news outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Brietbart, and the Hill, and neutral and incredibly respected outlets like Reuters and the BBC, are "fake news networks?" I mean, you're not wrong about Brietbart, I was just surprised to see you attack it while using jargon like "fake news outlets" and "true liberal."

RollLaughImagine being so triggered that you parrot Trump with "fake news" against Brietbart! RollLaugh

Everytime I hear some ignorant bastard say something is "fake news" my soul dies a little bit. I don't think the individuals who say it realize exactly how stupid it sounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dattier
Everytime I hear some ignorant bastard say something is "fake news" my soul dies a little bit. I don't think the individuals who say it realize exactly how stupid it sounds.
Then you have never seen an event and then watched MSNBC or CNN coverage of that event to see how they can totally misrepresent the facts.

Plus who are the ignorant bastards? The CNN/MSNBC misrepresentators or the Conservatives? RollLaugh
 
Are you sure Obama could have met with the leader of North Korea? I don't believe that for a New York minute.

Trump to my knowledge was the second non Korean leader that Kim had ever met before the summit. Please tell me who he had met or gone someplace for a meeting prior to Singapore? He met with China, South Korea, Singapore and US. I am really awaiting all the others.

Obama I am sure could have met with Kim because Obama is simply great and Kim Jong Un would have jumped up and down with joy.Eyeroll

Think about your argument for a second, Bert. You think that this meeting with Trump happened because Un thinks Trump is such an awesome dude and worthy of his presence? You think the lack of leaders who were willing to meet with Un to give him the global stage he wants is evidence that Trump pulled off something great that Obama or W. Bush or Clinton couldn't have pulled off? Come on, man.

Un has only met with a handful of leaders because nobody wanted to meet with him, not because they weren't worthy of his audience. North Korea was being intentionally isolated by the rest of the world. Meeting with North Korea's leader was never a question of could, it was a question of should. As in, global powers knew they could meet with North Korea but didn't believe they should. We will find out in the next few years if we, indeed, should have met with Un. It's too early to tell, right now.
 
Easily.


At the end of World War II, the U.S. owned 80% of the WORLDS production. To prop up the rest of the world the U.S. started a massive effort to start production in Japan and Western Europe that had been devastated by the war. It was called the “Marshall Plan”. I hope that you are aware of it.

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

Now 73 years later those countries continue to want the United States to support their economies. They do it by demanding a price to do business with them.

Times have changed. There is no need to allow Germany to charge 100% tariff on U.S. cars, when the U.S. charges 4% on German cars imported into the U.S. If you know why please tell me. Please tell me why a stripped-down Ford Mustang in Germany cost the price of a full sized Mercedes in the U.S.?

To your other question:

What would happen in a world without tariffs? The folks who could produce the best product for the least amount of money would dominate the market. Germany would have a problem when a Ford costs half that of a BMW. Canada would have problems with $2 a pound cheddar cheese from the U.S. being sold in Montreal. Japanese might enjoy driving a Chevy.

That's called controlling what should be a free market. I see nothing good about tariffs, neither did our fore fathers. Remember the tea party?
 
Then you have never seen an event and then watched MSNBC or CNN coverage of that event to see how they can totally misrepresent the facts.

Plus who are the ignorant bastards? The CNN/MSNBC misrepresentators or the Conservatives? RollLaugh

I don't watch MSNBC or much cable/network news, for that matter. If you're getting your news primarily from tv, you've already lost half the battle. Regardless, MSNBC does have a liberal bias, just like Fox has a conservative bias. CNN is closer to the middle and typically does the best job of the primary cable news networks. I'm curious, though; do you watch Fox News? You're aware Fox News viewers are consistently the least informed viewers of cable or network news, right? That's a statement of verifiable fact, not opinion. If you watch Fox, how do you reconcile reality with your perception (I assume) that Fox News is giving you the real, unbiased story?

If you don't watch Fox, I apologize for making that assumption.
 
That's called controlling what should be a free market. I see nothing good about tariffs, neither did our fore fathers. Remember the tea party?

Tariffs made up the bulk of federal government revenue from 1789 until 1914. The first major bill passed by the first Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789 for the explicit purpose of raising revenue and "the encouragement and protection of manufactures."
 
That's called controlling what should be a free market. I see nothing good about tariffs, neither did our fore fathers. Remember the tea party?

So you see zero value in a country making itself as self-sufficient as possible and curbing foreign influence on its affairs? You don't think countries should try to protect their corporations and keep their citizens employed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoya1987
Your position is that right-leaning news outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Brietbart, and the Hill, and neutral and incredibly respected outlets like Reuters and the BBC, are "fake news networks?" I mean, you're not wrong about Brietbart, I was just surprised to see you attack it while using jargon like "fake news outlets" and "true liberal."

RollLaughImagine being so triggered that you parrot Trump with "fake news" against Brietbart! RollLaugh
Thanks for your input. We need people with your insight.
 
Same was true with Obama in office. I assume politics has been like this for a long long time.
Yep.
And no, I don't think so. It was bad w/ 43, but we were also fighting two bad wars. It got exponentially worse with 44. It has gotten exponentially worse with 45, and I think he has been the main cause of that.
 
Think about your argument for a second, Bert. You think that this meeting with Trump happened because Un thinks Trump is such an awesome dude and worthy of his presence? You think the lack of leaders who were willing to meet with Un to give him the global stage he wants is evidence that Trump pulled off something great that Obama or W. Bush or Clinton couldn't have pulled off? Come on, man.

Un has only met with a handful of leaders because nobody wanted to meet with him, not because they weren't worthy of his audience. North Korea was being intentionally isolated by the rest of the world. Meeting with North Korea's leader was never a question of could, it was a question of should. As in, global powers knew they could meet with North Korea but didn't believe they should. We will find out in the next few years if we, indeed, should have met with Un. It's too early to tell, right now.
You apparently don't read much.

Kim Jong Un was not the leader under Clinton or Bush and only part of Obamas administration. So, please expain it to me That Un would have met with those Presidents.

You want Trump to fail, but I find it hard to believe that progress in making the world safer is such a disappointment to some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treyforuk
Good. Not sure who "we" are, but I'll just take it as you. I didn't take Obama or W seriously either. They're politicians.

What we're seeing with President Trump is the same as the others. One day some are attacking, other terms they're defending. Same ol same ol.
Funniest in all these discussions are far left and far right. I am 100% sure Trump could bring down ISIS by himself and cure cancer and the far left would find fault.

And, yes, opposite is true if Obama did the same.
 
You apparently don't read much.

Kim Jong Un was not the leader under Clinton or Bush and only part of Obamas administration. So, please expain it to me That Un would have met with those Presidents.

You want Trump to fail, but I find it hard to believe that progress in making the world safer is such a disappointment to some.

Hey while I have you hear, did you find a source for the 90% VAT claim? Third request. Thanks!
 
Jesus, Bert is SO ****ing dumb. I'm SHOCKED he lived this long. Honestly, shocked.
 
Jesus, Bert is SO ****ing dumb. I'm SHOCKED he lived this long. Honestly, shocked.
You’re a piece of shit. Seriously. You ignore people who disagree with you when you can’t defend your idiotic stances on literally everything. At the same time, you try and tell people how “smart” you are all while making yourself look like a complete piece of shit. I really hope you honestly don’t have kids. I’d feel very sorry for them, and your husband.
 
I don't watch MSNBC or much cable/network news, for that matter. If you're getting your news primarily from tv, you've already lost half the battle. Regardless, MSNBC does have a liberal bias, just like Fox has a conservative bias. CNN is closer to the middle and typically does the best job of the primary cable news networks. I'm curious, though; do you watch Fox News? You're aware Fox News viewers are consistently the least informed viewers of cable or network news, right? That's a statement of verifiable fact, not opinion. If you watch Fox, how do you reconcile reality with your perception (I assume) that Fox News is giving you the real, unbiased story?

If you don't watch Fox, I apologize for making that assumption.
That explains a lot.

Apparently you don't watch TV news if you have watched CNN and say they are in the middle. CNN is not even close to the middle. The Wall Street Journal usually gets close to the truth. CBS and ABC are biased but they can't screw up too much in a 20 minute broadcast.
 
@Bert Higginbotha TheDude1 is fighting some demons. You are a good man and good poster. Glad to have you around.
His demons seem to be triggered by the fact that bert has him on ignore. Which is odd because he likes to announce who he has on ignore all of the time. Hell, he will act like he is confused about this post because he can't see who I am talking to until he clicks unignore to see it is you.
 
With Republicans going full Pollyanna somebody needs to get real. Nothing objective has come from the summit. North Korea still has nukes and there is no sign they will be giving those up any time soon. We can talk about feel good moments, but we really haven't accomplished anything.
 
As long as you don't have the misconception that Liberals are disproportionately voting based on "social issues," then I'm good with that. I don't ever vote for President because I live in NY - so the Dem will always win unless the Republican is exceptional - but if I did, I would have voted Hillary almost solely because she was more qualified for the position, much more qualified, imo. I liked the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate and removing tax loopholes but wasn't convinced Trump could do that while also making the necessary spending cuts to the right areas. More money in the pockets of Americans is sweet but the deficit and debt still matter. I want cheaper healthcare as much as the next guy but deregulation, in an industry rampant with abusive pricing, was not the way to go. We need pricing regulation on healthcare providers and hospitals to fix the country's healthcare mess, not deregulation of what basic services have to be covered by insurance. Lastly, national security wasn't and isn't high on my list of priorities right now. Illegal immigrants haven't impacted my life and foreign terrorism didn't/doesn't worry me because we were already doing a pretty good job of stopping foreign terrorism after 9/11.

It’s really, really hard to regulate hospital prices when a significant volume of patients abuse emergency care with no plans to pay for said care. A patient visiting the ER 17 times in 17 months is insane.... especially when most of those things are visits that could be handled at a fraction of the price bu a primary care physician. I can’t imagine someone going to the ER that much is footing their own bill.

In theory, Obamacare was great for this. The idea of everyone having insurance and thus utilizing primary care instead of abusing emergency care is awesome and what be awesome for cost of care. Sadly, it didn’t end up helping much at all. Non-emergent ER visit numbers didn’t drop.
 
ADVERTISEMENT