Donald Trump

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Trump is giving a platform to the world’s remaining Stalinist leader, and is calling a guy who has over a million in gulags a good bloke.

I think it is estimated to be 120,000. That doesn't change your point, but is a materially different number. The US has hardly got an unquestionable human rights record, so perhaps it is glass houses and all that.

Excuse me?

I'm not sure what your question is. Are you arguing that the US has a decent record on human rights?

kingstongraham

It was the "glass houses" bit that implied some moral equivalence. That's a Russian style tactic.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

It was the "glass houses" bit that implied some moral equivalence. That's a Russian style tactic.

Glass houses is probably the wrong term for Trump himself. Trump was elected on a platform of more torture and more Guantanamo Bay. He has stated that his predecessors were weak on the subject. It's hard to ask why Kim Jong-un is torturing his enemies and locking them up without trial when he thinks it is an excellent idea, and one he persuaded the electorate he would do more of.

In terms of the US as a whole, it has an utterly awful record on human rights if you include such actions as bombing civilians.

In terms of individuals, how about Khaled El-Masri.

Khaled El-Masri is a German and Lebanese citizen who was mistakenly abducted by the Macedonian police in 2003, and handed over to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While in CIA custody, he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held at a black site and routinely interrogated, beaten, strip-searched, sodomized, and subjected to other cruel forms of inhumane and degrading treatment and torture. After El-Masri held hunger strikes, and was detained for four months in the "Salt Pit," the CIA finally admitted his arrest and torture were a mistake and released him.

The CIA flew El-Masri out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania, without an apology or funds to return home

dinyull

Claiming credit for winning the World Cup 2026 bid in 3....2.....1.....

bianchimoon

Dinyull wrote:

Claiming credit for winning the World Cup 2026 bid in 3....2.....1.....

That's the NAFTA of world cups!! Canada US and Mexico... good job he won't be around by then

bompington

OK, so after a more careful reading BB isn't really trying to claim any sort of moral equivalence between NK and the US.

For example, it's apparently OK for NK to commit political murder but not the US.

Thus revealing that, despite all the sophistry, he expects a higher standard of behaviour from the US.

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

OK, so after a more careful reading BB isn't really trying to claim any sort of moral equivalence between NK and the US.

For example, it's apparently OK for NK to commit political murder but not the US.

Thus revealing that, despite all the sophistry, he expects a higher standard of behaviour from the US.

That is fairly weak.

kingstongraham

So you are saying there is a moral equivalence between the USA and NK on human rights.

orraloon

"The 'United' World Cup will generate $14bn (£10.3bn) in revenue and make an $11bn (£8.1bn) profit for Fifa, says Cordeiro" (President of US Soccer)

It's all about the sporting ethos, innit.

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

OK, so after a more careful reading BB isn't really trying to claim any sort of moral equivalence between NK and the US.

For example, it's apparently OK for NK to commit political murder but not the US.

Thus revealing that, despite all the sophistry, he expects a higher standard of behaviour from the US.

That is fairly weak.

Then refute it.

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Claiming credit for winning the World Cup 2026 bid in 3....2.....1.....

That's the NAFTA of world cups!! Canada US and Mexico... good job he won't be around by then

America. Not great enough to hold a World cup on it's own like Russia.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

It was the "glass houses" bit that implied some moral equivalence. That's a Russian style tactic.

Glass houses is probably the wrong term for Trump himself. Trump was elected on a platform of more torture and more Guantanamo Bay. He has stated that his predecessors were weak on the subject. It's hard to ask why Kim Jong-un is torturing his enemies and locking them up without trial when he thinks it is an excellent idea, and one he persuaded the electorate he would do more of.

In terms of the US as a whole, it has an utterly awful record on human rights if you include such actions as bombing civilians.

In terms of individuals, how about Khaled El-Masri.

Khaled El-Masri is a German and Lebanese citizen who was mistakenly abducted by the Macedonian police in 2003, and handed over to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While in CIA custody, he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held at a black site and routinely interrogated, beaten, strip-searched, sodomized, and subjected to other cruel forms of inhumane and degrading treatment and torture. After El-Masri held hunger strikes, and was detained for four months in the "Salt Pit," the CIA finally admitted his arrest and torture were a mistake and released him.

The CIA flew El-Masri out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania, without an apology or funds to return home

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

OK, so after a more careful reading BB isn't really trying to claim any sort of moral equivalence between NK and the US.

For example, it's apparently OK for NK to commit political murder but not the US.

Thus revealing that, despite all the sophistry, he expects a higher standard of behaviour from the US.

That is fairly weak.

Then refute it.

For what it is worth, I am not suggesting that the murder of Kim Jong-un's uncle is something to support, I am explaining why he did it, and that the characterisation of his uncle as a sweet innocent relative is misrepresentative. As I stated in my first post he should have been put on trial, but that wasn't really an option. Suggesting that I am pro political murder is absurd, and why I am not sure it is worth responding to such a post.

In a similar way, the murder of Osama bin Laden was not something to support. I do understand why they did it though, and he also wasn't a sweet innocent man. He should also have been put on trial.

Both probably murdered thousands.

Are the two actions morally equivalent? No idea, and to me it doesn't really matter. Both are wrong.

For the record, North Korea has a very bad record on human rights. I'm not sure that bringing it up at yesterday's meeting was of much merit.

As to your other point, I probably do hold western democracies to a higher standard in the same way that I don't judge Kings of the past by the morals and laws of today.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

If Trump visited Iceland, would the main chat be about the US's abysmal human rights record?

kingstongraham

HRW wrote:

The North Korean government restricts all basic civil and political liberties for its citizens, including freedom of expression, religion and conscience, assembly and association. It prohibits any organized political opposition, independent media and civil society, and free trade unions. Lack of an independent judiciary, arbitrary arrest and punishment of crimes, torture in custody, forced labor, and executions maintain fear and control.

Let's not pretend.

briantrumpet

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

OK, so after a more careful reading BB isn't really trying to claim any sort of moral equivalence between NK and the US.

For example, it's apparently OK for NK to commit political murder but not the US.

Thus revealing that, despite all the sophistry, he expects a higher standard of behaviour from the US.

That is fairly weak.

Then refute it.

Hurrah... someone who knows what 'refute' really means.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

If Trump visited Iceland, would the main chat be about the US's abysmal human rights record?

If it's Trump then all bets are off. Probably not from the UK as our record isn't much better than theirs in some regards, but again the point isn't that the US is a paragon of virtue.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

If Trump visited Iceland, would the main chat be about the US's abysmal human rights record?

If it's Trump then all bets are off. Probably not from the UK as our record isn't much better than theirs in some regards, but again the point isn't that the US is a paragon of virtue.

Yes, the UK's record is not great especially if you consider centuries. It is better than the US's though. The judiciary in the UK has proven itself to be better (far from perfect) at holding the UK government to account.

North Korea has a terrible reputation on human rights, but that isn't the point either on a thread about Trump. Trump meeting Kim Jong-un was a good thing to do if it can help improve the situation in Korea. That's surely the point.

rick_chasey

All it does is cement KJU's position, with no credible promises from NK.

At best, it's Trump cleaning up his own mess that he kicked off with his twitter spat.

robert88

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

If Trump visited Iceland, would the main chat be about the US's abysmal human rights record?

If it's Trump then all bets are off. Probably not from the UK as our record isn't much better than theirs in some regards, but again the point isn't that the US is a paragon of virtue.

Yes, the UK's record is not great especially if you consider centuries. It is better than the US's though. The judiciary in the UK has proven itself to be better (far from perfect) at holding the UK government to account.

North Korea has a terrible reputation on human rights, but that isn't the point either on a thread about Trump. Trump meeting Kim Jong-un was a good thing to do if it can help improve the situation in Korea. That's surely the point.

Trump simply does not care about human rights. His admiration for Putin and other dictators shows that.

His objective is to get the North Korean elite on his side so that they can 'do business' together in a country where the majority of the population are kept in servitude. He would be very happy to be allowed to do the same in Russia.

His other objective is win enough votes in the USA to cement his position and enable him to continue to trash the constitution.

tangled_metal

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

If Trump visited Iceland, would the main chat be about the US's abysmal human rights record?

Or the attitudes to down syndrome perhaps. Iceland has a bit of a question to answer over attitudes to that condition (documentary last year I think about it).

No country is pure as the driven snow. No equivalence possible. Counting kill rates is best left to fans of a particular genre of movie IMHO.

I very much doubt we'll know the atrocities done by dictators and democratic leaders alike in the name of their country or people. We can't do that accounting accurately enough to be definitive. For that most ppl are quite content. What a species!!

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

I very much doubt we'll know the atrocities done by dictators and democratic leaders alike in the name of their country or people. We can't do that accounting accurately enough to be definitive. For that most ppl are quite content. What a species!!

Oh, you think other species are better?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

All it does is cement KJU's position, with no credible promises from NK.

At best, it's Trump cleaning up his own mess that he kicked off with his twitter spat.

Isolation is not the solution for anything. Engagement is a much better idea as demonstrated by the south's reasonably successful return to the sunshine policy.

I would say that it has very little to do with Trump, but he is the commander in chief of loads of troops stationed on the border, so should also be part of the engagement process.

darkhairedlord

It let's trump "make them pay" for their defence. Expect a deal with Iran so he can bring troops back from Middle East and one with put in to bring them home from Europe. He needs them to enforce marshall law at home...

tangled_metal

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I very much doubt we'll know the atrocities done by dictators and democratic leaders alike in the name of their country or people. We can't do that accounting accurately enough to be definitive. For that most ppl are quite content. What a species!!

Oh, you think other species are better?

I do not engage in moral equivalence only state that we're bad. Biggly bad. If you want to rate the ten best and worst species please knock yourself out. You'll be opening a can of worms on whichever forum you take that to! Equivalence is subjective without the methodology to determine it and if you have that methodology you won't have agreement on its validity. And so on.

That's one discussion I think BB has regretted opening. I am not taking part in that.

FishFish

Robert88 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Name any country you consider to have a good human rights record. I can't think of one. The point is not that the US is good but that NK is far worse.

If Trump visited Iceland, would the main chat be about the US's abysmal human rights record?

If it's Trump then all bets are off. Probably not from the UK as our record isn't much better than theirs in some regards, but again the point isn't that the US is a paragon of virtue.

Yes, the UK's record is not great especially if you consider centuries. It is better than the US's though. The judiciary in the UK has proven itself to be better (far from perfect) at holding the UK government to account.

North Korea has a terrible reputation on human rights, but that isn't the point either on a thread about Trump. Trump meeting Kim Jong-un was a good thing to do if it can help improve the situation in Korea. That's surely the point.

Trump simply does not care about human rights. His admiration for Putin and other dictators shows that.

His objective is to get the North Korean elite on his side so that they can 'do business' together in a country where the majority of the population are kept in servitude. He would be very happy to be allowed to do the same in Russia.

His other objective is win enough votes in the USA to cement his position and enable him to continue to trash the constitution.

The bold part is absolutely true but the rest is BLX.
It is amazing that a sitting head of state would seek to be re-elected.

FishFish

darkhairedlord wrote:

It let's trump "make them pay" for their defence. Expect a deal with Iran so he can bring troops back from Middle East and one with put in to bring them home from Europe. He needs them to enforce marshall law at home...

I think you mean 'martial law'.

General Marshall after WW2 ordered the construction of a road in the centre Tokyo which only just finished a couple of years ago. No idea what it is for.

I don't think he could impose martial law - I think he can call out the state national guard in an emergency but not substitute statute. As well as that he is popular - he would not need to.

It would be a good outcome for him to withdraw his troops from ME - the middle east is none of his business and as his immediate predecessor put it so wisely - it is Europe's back yard. Troops in Germany are there as part of post war conditions to prevent recurrence.

But then you see there is oil and then there is shia vs sunni which we don't really understand.

bianchimoon

Cohen has split with his lawyer, MSM (real news) speculating that it's a smoke signal to Trump that he's about to start cooperating with Mueller

FishFish

bianchimoon wrote:

Cohen has split with his lawyer, MSM (real news) speculating that it's a smoke signal to Trump that he's about to start cooperating with Mueller

Do you not have any opinions of your own?


Anyway who gives one?

mfin

FishFish wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

It let's trump "make them pay" for their defence. Expect a deal with Iran so he can bring troops back from Middle East and one with put in to bring them home from Europe. He needs them to enforce marshall law at home...

I think you mean 'martial law'.

General Marshall after WW2 ordered the construction of a road in the centre Tokyo which only just finished a couple of years ago. No idea what it is for.

I don't think he could impose martial law - I think he can call out the state national guard in an emergency but not substitute statute. As well as that he is popular - he would not need to.

It would be a good outcome for him to withdraw his troops from ME - the middle east is none of his business and as his immediate predecessor put it so wisely - it is Europe's back yard. Troops in Germany are there as part of post war conditions to prevent recurrence.

But then you see there is oil and then there is shia vs sunni which we don't really understand.

The martial law bit was a joke, but it sounds like it went completely over your head and into your spell check.

(oh, and the bit about withdrawing troops is so surface deep it's not worth commenting on )