Trump: North Korea “Will be Met With Fire and Fury”
“North Korea best not make any more threats to the U.S.”
In the past few days, North Korea has thrown more threats towards the U.S., including a promise to only use nuclear weapons against America.
Then a report revealed today that the hermit kingdom “has produced a compact nuclear warhead that can be placed inside one of its advanced missiles.” These threats prompted a lashing out from President Donald Trump.
From The Wall Street Journal:
“North Korea best not make any more threats to the U.S.,” the president said. “They will be met with the fire and the fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state,” he continued, referring apparently to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) completed the report last month, which also states that North Korea may have 60 nuclear weapons. From The Washington Post:
“The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. The assessment’s broad conclusions were verified by two U.S. officials familiar with the document. It is not yet known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially last year claimed to have done so.
A Japanese defense paper released on Tuesday came to the same conclusions:
“North Korea’s development of ballistic missiles and its nuclear programme are becoming increasingly real and imminent problems for the Asia-Pacific region including Japan, as well as the rest of the world,” said the report, which ran to more than 500 pages.
Japan’s defence ministry said that security threats had reached a new stage after the North conducted two nuclear tests and more than 20 ballistic missile launches last year.
The report went on to speculate that North Korea had improved its technological expertise to the point where it could theoretically marry a nuclear warhead with a missile.
“It is conceivable that North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme has already considerably advanced and it is possible that North Korea has already achieved the miniaturisation of nuclear weapons into warheads and has acquired nuclear warheads,” the ministry said.
Sanctions
Last Saturday, the United Nations Security Council passed new sanctions against North Korea. China and Russia, pretty much North Korea’s only allies, even voted for the sanctions, which remove $1 billion off of the country’s “annual revenue.”
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who has always had harsh words for the Security Council, praised the votes. She pointed out China, who worked with the U.S. on the resolution:
“This resolution is the single largest economic sanctions package ever leveled against the North Korean regime,” said Ms. Haley, adding the council had put the country and its leadership “on notice” and “what happens next is up to North Korea.”
Southeast Asia
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has spoken to other countries in Southeast Asia about shutting “down North Korean front companies.” Tillerson spoke to these leaders in the Philippines at an Asian security summit and encouraged them to enforce the sanctions.
Tillerson then went to to Thailand and Malaysia in an effort to strengthen our relationship with the countries. The Wall Street Journal explained that in order for the sanctions to work, these countries in Southeast Asia must cooperate since many of them “maintain diplomatic and economic relationships with North Korea.”
Some countries have shown signs of resistance towards North Korea:
One Southeast Asian diplomat said his country wasn’t approving some staff at the North Korean embassy and had denied meetings at a senior level. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations called on North Korea on Saturday to comply with sanctions and said they supported “irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
In Bangkok on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai said Thailand had cut trade with North Korea by more than 90% in the first six months of this year compared with the same period a year earlier. He said Thailand would also implement U.N. sanctions but that “we are not going to completely cut ties.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I believe the Attorney’s General of Hawaii and California will go to Federal District Court obtain a restraining order. Fire needs an EPA permit.
I believe their District Court Highnesses might ban Fury as a micro-aggression. The President is making Kim Jong-un uncomfortable.
I wonder if China and Russia have taken notice of the Presidents words and tone? This may be an international leader intelligent test we are watching. Trump is not kidding and the NORKs calling the bluff will end very poorly for that side of the world.
Wow. So interesting, the closed, arms-across chest body language of the POUTUS. Very closed.
So odd for him. Not a comment, but an observation.
Um, maybe we just haven’t seen him this angry before? Physicality denotes anger.
It can denote lots of things. I merely noted it.
Nothing mystical or magical about nuclear weapons. People forget that with the fire bombing of Tokyo in 1945 between 100K and 120K were burned to death and many lingered on and many were maimed. It is not the weapon as who has the weapon. In the debate years past between the Prime Minister of New Zealand and Jerry Falwell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZFPfe0LvA
Go to 51:50 of the debate…. we do not fear the Empire and its nukes….
Letting NK or Iran have nukes invites terror and at the least blackmail. The can being kicked down the road is not a huge dumpster filled with disaster.
As Pericles noted… good men must at times go to battle to make the future safer. Those days of easier accomplishment have been frittered away. NK is not the mouse that roared but the rat carrying bubonic plaque.
“Now” instead of “Not”
The can being kicked down the road is NOW a huge dumpster filled with disaster.
You mean like OBozo did,,, girly man Dingle Barry did not have the spine/backbone to do anything but take down America from within, like a Trojan Horse.
Nuclear weapons are just great big bombardment weapons. If you’re killed by high explosives or a nuclear detonation, you’re just dead.
Is this your attempt at trying to be funny? This is not a drill,. Wise up
If you have an argument, make it.
What I said is simply true.
I do not often agree with Ragspierre but he makes a valid point. Dead is dead and the horror of how someone dies is felt by the living.
Nukes, horrific as they are, are not the be-all end-all of weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still here to this day.
At Hiroshima over 70000 people were killed. 35000 died in Nagasaki. They died within minutes of the bombs being dropped. An estimated 100000 died from the after effects.
Compare that to Nanking. Over a 6-week period the Japanese army killed at least that many people one at a time, many dying by the sword. It is unknown how many died due to disease, famine, and exposure to the winter elements.
The Holodomor; Holocaust; Armenian Genocide: much worse than being nuked but the victims are just as dead.
Please note that I do not support war, but “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.”
And in Rwanda, millions were killed by machete.
In Cambodia, plastic bags.
“Is this your attempt at trying to be funny? This is not a drill,. Wise up”
I find that funny.
Dead’s dead.
Ask the 100,000 or so General Lemay firebombed in Tokyo. Well, no, you cannot. They’re just as dead as those that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Some respect, please. “LeMay”
General Curtis Emerson LeMay
Typo. I know how it’s spelled. Disrespect is not a product of misspellings. Lecture someone else. There is little I do not know about the general.
Ragspierre: Nuclear weapons are just great big bombardment weapons. If you’re killed by high explosives or a nuclear detonation, you’re just dead.
A nuclear exchange would kill far more people, destroying entire cities much more effectively than conventional weapons. It could also have grave effects on the world’s ecosystems, and human sustainability. The thinking is that if a nation uses a nuclear weapon even if in a limited engagement, it would be far more likely for it to happen again, increasing the chances of an all-out nuclear war.
“A nuclear exchange would kill far more people, destroying entire cities much more effectively than conventional weapons.”
That’s simply ahistorical.
“It could also have grave effects on the world’s ecosystems, and human sustainability.”
Except that’s not true except in the possible sense of a vast number of nukes being exchanged.
How many times have nukes been detonated in the atmosphere.
We still thrive. Or am I mistaken.
I don’t advocate using nukes, but neither do a suggest sitting on our hands until they are used against us or kneeling to some psychopath who threatens their use.
Ragspierre: That’s simply ahistorical.
There have been terrible devastations in the past, but never on a global scale and never almost instantaneously. Probably the worst devastations were the Mongol invasions, but they reached their limits, geographical limits in the east, and population limits in the west.
Ragspierre: I don’t advocate using nukes, but neither do a suggest sitting on our hands until they are used against us or kneeling to some psychopath who threatens their use.
Of course not, but nuclear weapons are the worst choice, for the reasons given, and because they are blunt force when the U.S. can deliver much more precise damage.
Destroying the regime is the easy part. But chaos will follow.
Sometimes chaos is greatly to be preferred over stasis.
Look at it this way, if we make North Korea into a large glass parking lot, a possible side effect would be to offset global warming. That sounds like a win-win to me.
Ragspierre: Sometimes chaos is greatly to be preferred over stasis.
Sometimes, but rarely. Allowing chaos to envelop Iraq after the invassion didn’t really work out for America’s benefit, for instance, but provided a breeding ground for terrorism.
Zach is a communist idiot. He’s just fine with nukes, as long as they are used on us.
“Allowing chaos to envelop Iraq after the invassion didn’t really work out for America’s benefit, for instance, but provided a breeding ground for terrorism.”
There’s a better argument that a) nobody “allowed” chaos, and b) what it provided was a killing ground for terrorists world-wide.
Barry: He’s just fine with nukes, as long as they are used on us.
Uh, no.
Ragspierre: nobody “allowed” chaos
allow, to fail to restrain or prevent
Ragspierre: what it provided was a killing ground for terrorists world-wide.
Turns out that chaos is the perfect breeding ground for criminal behavior, including terrorism.
Ragspierre: nobody “allowed” chaos
allow, to fail to restrain or prevent.
Which presupposes the power to do that. Sometimes, that power is non-existent.
But, again, chaos can certainly be good. Our own Revolution was pretty chaotic. Wasn’t it…???
Was Iraq a killing ground for terrorists world wide? Yes or no, please.
If, out of the chaos of ending the tyranny in N. Korea while defend the U.S., a people were freed would you consider that a bad thing?
Ragspierre: Which presupposes the power to do that. Sometimes, that power is non-existent.
Sure, but there are a valid reasons to believe the description is correct. The U.S. might not have invaded, which precipitated the ensuing chaos. Or the U.S. might have deployed sufficient troops for the occupation, instead of somehow convincing themselves that simply removing Saddam would allow democracy to flower. Or the U.S. might have not disbanded the Iraqi army, which would have reduced the numbers Iraqi soldiers joining the insurgency.
Ragspierre: Our own Revolution was pretty chaotic. Wasn’t it…???
That is incorrect. The colonies had working governments, including legislatures, before, during, and after the war. Compare to the French Revolution. The monarchy had drawn all power to itself, and any institution associated with the monarchy — which was virtually every institution — was tainted. Removing the monarchy meant there were no standing institutions left. They went so far as to rename the days of the week and the months of the year. There was nothing left.
Ragspierre: Was Iraq a killing ground for terrorists world wide?
Consider it as a cancer. You can cut some of it out, but once it metastasizes, it continues to grow and spread.
Ragspierre: If, out of the chaos of ending the tyranny in N. Korea while defend the U.S., a people were freed would you consider that a bad thing?
Sure, it could happen that way. And one day the North Koreans will certainly be free. But chaos is such that the end results are largely unpredictable.
“Uh, no.”
Typical commie liar. Of course you do. You support the USA getting rid of / reducing our nuclear weapons while allowing our enemies to create / increase their stockpile.
You support us getting nuked, plain and simple.
max 90 days till the shooting starts …
I hope I am wrong .. I truly do …
and China does not want the US to be launching
nukes … which way does the wind blow
SK definitely does not want it …
Trump needs to stop talking about NK. He is drawing a red line and that never goes well.
Minor correction. The Red Line has been drawn and Trump is not a limp wristed Obama type either. China, Russia, and SK know this.
I understand Trump is not Obama, thank God. But how do China, Russia and SK know this at the level of nuclear weapons intervention?
They will know when hundreds of simultaneous bright flashes go off all over North Korea. A brightness for a fraction of a second 10 quadrillion times greater than the sun.
And Seoul?
Just like when Israel took out the Iraqi reactor in 1981, many would criticize Trump no matter what. But if there is action against North Korea, perhaps China and Russia may stand down. They have as much to lose as anyone. Is South Korea ready to defend itself, not to mention Japan, to help establish a better balance of power?
This would not be anything like the easy destruction of 1981.
If this results in nuclear war, it will be over rather quickly. Spoiler: the Norks lose.
Bill Clinton has done this to us.
Then George Bush kicked it down the road when distracted.
Then Obama.
It could have been stopped early with little risk and loss of life. What North Korea was doing was so obvious, even a casual reader of newspapers knew.
Bill Clinton, the ultimate politician who couldn’t exercise statesmanship to prevent WWIII, who couldn’t move himself to save us.
What an execrable human being.
Wait a minute, this is beginning to sound vaguely familiar: “The intelligence community” is certain a dictator is in possession of VMD that are a threat to the US. The President buys the assessment and takes action. Turns out that actual evidence is different from that of the assessment. “The intelligence community” is very quiet, the POTUS is accused of falsifying the intelligence and is vilified and ridiculed for his actions. Is a trap being set?
The Kurds found out about WMD. How many hundred tons of yellow cake did we take out of Iraq? Nuke detonations and ICBM launches… hard to miss… and hard to fake.
This whole ongoing episode is a great advertisement for selling nuke weapons by North Korea. How many hundreds of millions of dollars for a portable nuke? Frankly… you only need 3 to freeze the USA … detonate one… have the second to prove more than one and by then the third is a strong negotiation tool. This is all leading to blackmail. It is bad and getting badder….
We miss out years ago with Carter and Iran, then Tora Bora with OBL… we mess up in Afghanistan and the pull out of Iraq too early. We blink so much pushing the envelope is how one approaches the USA these days.
So… a nuke goes off in USA and who made it? Can’t blow up everyone… so squelching development and production now is better than later.
alaskabob: How many hundred tons of yellow cake did we take out of Iraq?
The only yellow cake Uranium in Iraq was still under U.N. seal when the Americans arrived, as per international agreement.
The radioactive fate of the Koreans (North and South) depend on making Kim and his minions understand that there is a line which must not be crossed, and they are dancing upon that line now.
If they are fools and refuse to admit their foolishness, God help us all.
The threat is directed at China, not NK. Time to get your little proxy under control. We will no longer allow NK to use nuclear extortion to keep their dictatorship afloat.
Just to be clear, if there is a hot war…much less an exchange of nukes…are you predicting that we will strike China?
I presume he means China will suffer the consequences as millions of Norks cross their border as refugees. Any military adventure will severely affect China’s economy.
Where do you get the idea that I’m predicting a strike against China?
Ya know, people go to law school who never intend to practice law. They go for the mental training – sharpens analytical skills, deductive reasoning, critical thinking…
I was simply asking for a clarification of your vague comment.
You’re really awfully prickly. No need to be an ass.
Reading comprehension though, that’s a prerequisite.
Writing with clarity is also pretty important.
Those of us who are trial lawyers also know to ask clarifying questions in the face of ambiguity.
Somehow, “fire and fury” doesn’t seem like language directed at China regarding collateral issues in the event of war.
Jes’ sayin’…
Some noise from the White House is appropriate. The world has become accustomed to Obama’s America, in which the grossest foreign challenges were met by … nothing much. And that’s a bad situation for everybody.
Sometimes Dr. Frankenstein wins, sometimes the Monster slips his leash. I hope the Chinese rein-in their puppet dictator, but Kim Jong Un seems to be believing his own press releases.
I do not want war but if it comes it is better it comes sooner rather than after NK can gut the hearts out of cities around the world.
Interesting… the left and the never Trumpers have all taken Trump’s response as an unprovoked threat against North Korea. I have never seen so many people in this country so completely divorced from reality.
“the left and the never Trumpers”
Tissue thin difference.
No.
There is a difference, but it is something that until recently was not part of the American political scene. Look at it this way:
The Left are the Bolsheviks. The Never Trumpers are the Mensheviks. The end fates will be the same.
Curious as to who you refer in your “neverT-rumper” list. Partly because there is no such thing (T-rump won), and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NORKS were not being provocative.
Is it your assertion that, after Trump’s brilliantly conceived and executed victory, the #NT contingent disbanded and took up gardening? It seems to me that, having failed to prevent his election, they are working full throttle to prevent his presidency.
Well, that’s because you are irrational, and getting more so every day.
You are an ass, and getting more so every day.
Now that the foreplay is over:
Can you answer the clarifying question I asked in the face of your ambiguous statement?
If you aren’t happy that I asked the question, perhaps you should write more clearly.
Well, first you have to provide an exposition of how my question was “ambiguous”.
Then I’ll help you with your straw-man bullshit, nutter.
Because you asked so nicely.
You have frequently stated on LI:”I (rags) never lie!”. But your statement that #NT no longer exists appears to be at odds with the facts for the reasons I stated, thus creating a paradox (kind of a reversal of the Liars Paradox). As G. K. Chesterton’s writings show, paradoxes expose the ambigiuites in common concepts and beliefs, and resolving them leads to clarity. In this case, failure to show that #NT no longer exists would clarify the question of your veracity.
But, you poor T-rump sucking deranged cultist…
YOU never stated any “facts”. You made a really stupid assertion, which started with the premise that #neverT-rumpers were “banded”. People like the Prof. here were simply independent thinkers who had reached the same conclusions I did.
You began with a straw-man predicate; “Is it your assertion that, after Trump’s brilliantly conceived and executed victory, the #NT contingent disbanded and took up gardening?”
So, no. They were never “banded”, and we simply accepted we had to endure the T-rumpian reign AFTER barely defeating the weakest Deemocrat candidate in modern times. We remain critical thinkers dedicated to #realism in the face of delusional cultists like yourself. As I’ve said several times in the recent past, we hope some strong hand can control Der Donald in what seems his apparent drive to marginalize himself. When you claim that anyone like me seeks to “prevent” his presidency, that’s two lies. First, we don’t have that power, and second we have no such intent or interest. I don’t know anyone who does amid the cohort of rationalists I read and have any connection to.
We’d CERTAINLY like to prevent some of his Collectivist plans, such as his Keynesian infrastructure boondoggle and Ivanka’s new entitlement program, along with his loopy Bernie Sanders economic controls of the economy.
There is no “paradox”, and you’ve failed (as always) to make any kind of valid argument.
Now, you can TRY to answer my question; who are the T-rump critics to whom Sandog referred? I’m pretty well-read, and I don’t know of any who are accusing T-rump of being the provocateur here.
You’ve had roughly 12 hours to gin up a list. Where is it?
But, you poor Clinton supporter, faux conservative, #NT sucking deranged cultist and TDS sufferer…
(Isn’t foreplay great??)
You made the unproven assertion, not me. You said #NT ended with the election: “Partly because there is no such thing (T-rump won)…”, without offering proof. The facts don’t seem to support your statement, and I wanted to be clear on your position. In a prior reply to Fen in this thread you said:
“Writing with clarity is also pretty important.
Those of us who are trial lawyers also know to ask clarifying questions in the face of ambiguity.”
Seeking clarity, I decided to try the approach you recommended. From your reply, it is clear that you only like that approach when you get to do it.
It doesn’t matter, because now we have an answer. You say it was never ‘banded’. (Being pedantic is not the same as being intelligent, but it doesn’t matter since the form it existed in is not material to the discussion.) And you claim membership (use of ‘we’ in describing the goals of the group) So, before the election it existed in some form, united by its opposition to Trump’s election. After the election (you say) it remains in existence, united by its opposition to Trump’s policies and his general unsuitability for the office. (Note: the same goals and reasons as the progressive left.) So, it still exists and your statement to the contrary is a lie. That it lacks the power to directly bring him down is immaterial. By your own words #NT continues to exist, and that is sufficient to answer the question I asked.
But, since you are the gift that keeps on giving: They were never “banded”, and we simply accepted we had to endure the T-rumpian reign AFTER barely defeating the weakest Deemocrat candidate in modern times.
Let’s look at the 2nd part of that. Trump is such a poor candidate (you say) that he barley defeated Clinton (a horrible candidate). It’s a nice story that feeds your fantasy, But… He wipped Ted’s ass, didn’t he? And the asses of the other 16 dwarfs. Let’s say that again: He wipped Ted’s ass, didn’t he? Either Ted’s a worse candidate than Hillary, or Trump’s a better candidate than you give him credit for. It’s also pretty clear evidence of just how ineffective you and yours were at getting a conservative into office during the best climate for the right in decades, and how weak Ted was as a candidate. It’s a pretty sad, but accurate, commentary on your abilities and those of #NT in general. You guys are really so politically ass-toot! /sarc LMAO
Then you say: ‘We remain critical thinkers dedicated to #realism in the face of delusional cultists like yourself.’
Your devotion to realism didn’t and doesn’t include telling anyone who the better conservative alternative to Trump was on Nov 8. Because there wasn’t one – a reality you can’t accept. And in your TDS you chose Hillary, and you don’t want anyone to know.
It was nicer when your favorite candidate just called us a basket of deplorables. More succinct. Better sound bite. And it avoids the charge of hubris by focusing on us and not your claimed superiority. But you can’t help it, you’re so wrapped up in yourself and your fantasy that you don’t care how you appear. The fact that you have to announce how great you are is another reason why no one votes for your candidates.
The paradox is obvious – look it up.
Finally, Sanddog’s list is his. I can’t read his mind to get it. It’s not relevant to my question of the continued existence of #NT, which has been answered. Besides, only a total idiot would think that a list a 3rd party intuited has any value – oh, that explains it!
You’re wrong, a liar and a troll…and I LOVE the image of you drooling over a keyboard pecking out these “expositions” of great length!
You got nuthin’. And you know all the foregoing. You have to live in that shit. Sad.
Oh, and I just realizied (again) several other things about your…
1. you are a craven coward; why aren’t you over here https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/trump-and-conservatives-could-win-by-luther-strange-losing-alabama-special-election/comment-page-1/#comment-773426 calling the Prof. names and denouncing him for his heresy? We know the answer.
2. you are a REAL hater…I mean of the frothing-at-the-mouth band, and you really, truly hate me. You are pathological.
3. you are a ThoughtPolicing Stalinist goon; your purpose with the fantastic (literally) bullshit you project on me is to demoralize me and discredit me here. It’s a filthy thing you do, but it’s all you are.
You grow more delusional every day. And you chose it.
And, as always, it won’t work.
To your first response:
As usual, the facts don’t support your case so you revert to name calling and ad hominum. Predictable and pathetic. There was no troll. The question I asked (politely) proved to be valid and exposed a lie. You responded with an insult and dodged the question.
To your second:
1- there is no equivalence between you and prof. Quit claiming one. The treatment you get should be unequal.
*- prof doesn’t make up demeaning names for those he disagrees with. You do.
*- Prof can disagree without being disagreeable. You can’t.
*- Prof treats people with respect, even when he disagrees with them. You don’t.
*- prof doesn’t use ad hominum. You do.
*- Prof is a gentleman. You are not.
That’s why you get different treatment.
2- I hate the fraud that you represent and way you treat those who disagree with you. To hate you personally I would have to make an emotional investment in you. Frankly, you aren’t worth the effort.
3- To ‘discredit’ you in this thread, all I had to do was politely ask a question and reply to each of the points in your response(s). Your problem is not my Stalinesque machinations, but the content of your own replies. An intelligent man would ponder what’s wrong with his answers, not try to shoot the messenger.
Their collective psychosis has been something, like nothing I have seen before. They are even funnier than holly rollers at a revival.
How many Nuclear Subs do you think President Trump has off the coast of NK ? If Pig Boy picks his nose a missile will be shoved up it !!
Seriously? People advocating a nuclear first strike on North Korea.
Zachriel:
N.K. has been threatening a strike repeatedly for a very long time. With their missile launches, it’s clear they’ll soon have the capability.
So, a first strike, yes ; nuclear, no. There are many ways to accomplish a goal.
CTF
There is merit to neutron bombs, which eradicate all living things while leaving most of the real estate intact. I say most because if the neutron flux is high enough their sixty or whatever nukes would likely go off. Those would be dirty detonations, while the neutron devices are comparatively clean. That would be a really funny form of poetic justice.
Look at it this way, if we make a really good example with North Korea, Iran will be cowered, and if they are not we can always make an example out of them.
NK’s fat boy may end up like extra crispy bacon. Yes, a first strike is on the table.
It won’t be nuclear but it will be lethal. They won’t have time to react. Fatboy and his generals won’t be running from tunnel to tunnel anymore if they threaten us again. I wouldn’t test this President if I were him.
Here is what Pres Trump said in 1999. Cue to 8:43. He is not bluffing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_joQ1kxxZs
Well, no. He’s bullshitting. He had noting to “bluff” with.
THAT was almost 20 years ago. In the interim, he’s supported Clinton, Obama, and Hellary.
He’s been a VERY vocal opponent of the war on terror as waged by W, and for years a VERY vocal admirer of Putin.
What’s he said in the last five years as the NORKS obtained nuclear weapons, tested missiles, and (apparently) combined the two?
Rag: “writing with clarity – ”
You are the only one here who failed to comprehend what I wrote.
And stop playing the victim. You tried to poke and got body slammed. Tired of your shit. Not giving you an inch. Go back to the Sally Struthers School of Law and ask for a refund – they ripped you off.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/trump-north-korea-will-be-met-with-fire-and-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-772871
He “assumes”. I didn’t. Stop being an ass.
You poor unmoored nutter. You’re still in a pout because you were cautioned.
I wrote “presume”
Right. And the difference?
News to me. Never saw it, don’t intend to read it. Don’t care.
Anyone else had asked me whether I meant China, I would have gently corrected them.
Because I would assume they were acting in good faith. But you? Your rep preceeds you.
But you specifically SAID “China”.
Your wheels are falling off…
Others agree with you.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/08/09/gordon-chang-president-trump-fire-and-fury-comments-intended-for-china-not-north-korea/
The two of you can debate your ” Semantics,” all that you want. This President Trump, Means what he says. We are not dealing with a ” Limp-Wristed,” or ” Globalist,” Politician now. We are led by someone who loves America and I and many others believe that he will protect the ” USA,” at all costs.