so your answer to my complex question is "i dont wanna think, here's an unrelated answer your question someone else wrote"...

again, hypothetically (that means imagination time), if the Chinese were unhappy with this deal, because it means US presence in NK, and they dont want any more US presence in the region, let alone what's already there, would they publicly protest?

Because having a conversation with him is like having a conversation with Alex Jones. He believes some utterly ridiculous shit and is unable to process information that contradicts those beliefs. Thus having any conversation is basically just him screaming about the satanic, reptilian illuminati controlling the weather and you trying to explain the basics of precipitation in a way he can understand.

Why do you persist in making an argument for what would happen IF China was UNhappy with the Summit, when that didn't happen?
They ARE happy because of the reason stated in the quote. This isn't important enough to lie about. IF they were unhappy they would have said so, or not said anything.

But they are happy because of that little thing they tacked onto the end of the quote.




They are mad about the sanctions. They have been mad about the sanctions the whole time. We all know this. We had to brow beat China to even get them to join in on the sanctions.

THAT's why they are saying they are happy about the summit. They are, by saying that. trying to manipulate others into removing the sanctions.


I felt the quote was enough to make that obvious. I guess it wasn't. ^^

More efficient to compare him to Cambo imo.

ya you have to hold up both ends of the conversation for sure. then if he contradicts himself (as he's done here today) he'll blame it on you not being smart enough.



because i unlike you am able to understand the nuanced relationship between China being simultaneously happy that NK may be opening as a trade partner if the UN sanctions get lifted and unhappy at increased presence by the US in the region. i'm also smart enough to take it a step further and realize they would only logically vocalize their happiness, and not their unhappiness, because of the optics of being against denuclearization in any way.

basically i'm able to understand reality and not just reuters articles at face value. (about countries that u said shouldnt be taken at face value)

i'm speculating about the relationship between the opposing forces, whereas you aren't smart enough to realize they exist so you simplify into "NK = china pawn" like always.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 12 2018 01:04pm

I mean I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.


/e For the 3rd time.




This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 12 2018 01:04pm

Your contributions to most threads include a couple overly emotional outbursts or personal attacks about trump or his supporters or jspers and when it doesn't work you finish out with a few generic posts trying to appear reasonable when everyone knows better.

Which is not any better when it comes to political conversation or debate especially as a foreigner that doesn't understand this place or its people or domestic policies.

What is there to debate? LOL

There was a summit, they agreed to 4 items. Where's the debate?

tbh i was going to inb4 his entire simplified worldview before bitch widow woke up from his nap. but never got around to it and swerved into a convo with Black.



conversely what's there for China to be happy with? lol

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 12 2018 01:09pm