Re read the tweet. Trump talks about things going well, essentially implicitly bragging that he is making this happen, etc. Same ol'Trump that brags about everything.

You on the other hand are thinking about this in some extra dimensions that honestly make no sense. Don't be obtuse, use a little common sense.

Which "liberals" (not including foreigners) actually bitch as opposed to offer legitimate criticisms as informed people?

big difference between mostly what happens here and what the label trying to be applied represents

During this entire process I'm not sure I could name more than 2 or 3 Americans here I'd consider shitposters or "bitchers" that oppose/d Trump and now some/many of his policies and I can't think of any on the top of my head tbh

you're looking at a single post about a single tweet in isolation. if you read the thread and Ice's posts he's looking at all factors and figuring out what's problematic. Because Shapiro has a conservative fanbase and more time to expound he's doing the same thing but labeling everything as good, bad, or neutral. While you may feel the single statement about being a nuclear threat isn't worth analyzing, the reality is there is a general tone of downplaying North Korea's threat. As i said before if this leads to camps being shutdown, or nukes turned over with inspection, Trump's a genius. If it leads to a nothingburger than perhaps Trump should have stayed with his hardline approach even after the summit, or even just been cordial but not flattering of Kim. Optics matter, what you say and brag about matter. It's just a shroedinger's issue and the box is still closed up, speculating in the meantime isn't out of bounds. if we weren't speculating and instead just "waiting for policy" this topic would be dead for months.



jesus christ man. take a walk.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 13 2018 11:12am

Hey man all I can say is:

holy shit, i thought this was Fender for a second.

what you're saying here is a typical case of leftist "take him literally, but not seriously".

trump is saying stuff on twitter all the time, stuff that makes a lot of sense, stuff that makes no sense. sometimes he just uses his tweets to spin developments, sometimes he uses it to let off steam.

no one in their right mind has ever claimed that NK came to the table JUST because of trump's trolling on twitter. trump calling Kim little rocket man and talking about fire and fury didnt bring them to the table in itself. this rhetoric on twitter coupled with US security advisors publicly thinking about "bloody nose strikes" and with trump working with china and the UN to tighten sanctions did. these tangible actions are what showed the north koreans that they have to take trumps tweets on the issue serious this time around.

words alone dont mean anything. only when words and actions align, then things get serious and we should take him by his word. in this case, this means that trump bragging on twitter how north korea is no longer a threat thanks to him is just that, substance-less bragging, until he starts lifting sanctions, or providing development aid to NK, or withdraws most troops from the region, this bragging on twitter doesnt mean anything. (for the mentally challenged: no, suspending joint maneuvers does not necessarily imply a reduction of troop counts in SK and JP.)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 13 2018 12:04pm

you’ve been wrong about everything so far for years now, but now you’re all of a sudden right on this topic because you’re, as you describe it, ‘bewildered’. lmfao. someone who still shills for the person who lost to orange man drumpf talking about strategy

to be frank this entire topics has gotten entirely boring with like 5 cultists telling Icemage he shouldnt be allowed to talk about something while me and him were literally in the middle of talking about how much it matters in the grand scheme of things. you're all fairly repetitive bores who are attacking our free speech. we're free to speculate wildly in a topic devoid of facts, and you're all attacking our platform. we were literally separating the nonsense brags from things that may have real world consequences (or triumphs) and then got bombarded with a pile of people saying Twitter doesnt matter.

as i said before you're all posting on reflex now. icemage has you trained like puppies, you couldn't ignore him for a day if you tried.

we're literally at a point as a sub that icemage posting "trump.....twitter" triggers an automated response from 5+ users. go ahead and tell yourself you're being objective and not just a triggered fuckboi if it helps you sleep at night.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 13 2018 12:25pm

Let's get something straight: predicting Trump to lose the election was a logical prediction to make based on the available information at the time.

If I predicted the Cavs to beat the Warriors and the Cavs won, I'm probably not a genuis and the people who predicted the Warriors to win probably aren't idiots. I likely just got lucky - and am a LeBron stan.

Vegas odds, public polling (including Rasmussen), conventional wisdom, and political experts across both sides mostly arrived to a similar consensus of Clinton being the favorite. Polling methods and a lot of these criteria can certainly be analyzed and debated, and being a favorite does not guarantee a victory, but labeling Clinton as the favorite was a logical conclusion to make with the information at the time.

There are just so many fallacies to pick through with your above reasoning, and I see this exact line of thought being consistently used to justify ignoring others' points in unrelated topics.



This is hyperbolic. He does both.

i think it's somewhere between, "Comey dropped the bomb that the investigation was reopening in light of Wiener emails" (which even'd the odds a bit at a critical time, then those odds proved wrong but inside of the margin for error) and "there's a secret trump vote" (which conventional polling and data collection failed to account for)

so in reality someone could be an evil genius that understood what all models didn't, but that's likely a gut feeling at best and nothing that people could justify with data pre-election, just hindsight now. I had a SUPER liberal buddy that was convinced Trump would win, and easily, months before the Comey letter. his reasoning was essentially correct, angry blobs of white populations in key states with Trump taking all of the small electorate states plus Texas. he even predicted Michigan and Penn openly. I called him a fool.