PDA

View Full Version : Donald Trump on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un: 'If he came here, I'd accept him'



Lebron23
06-15-2016, 09:21 PM
Donald Trump on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un: 'If he came here, I'd accept him'

http://ericsammons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Kim-Trump.jpg


Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would welcome North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to the US for negotiations if he were elected president.

Speaking to supporters at a rally in Atlanta, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that while he would not meet with the dictator in North Korea, Trump would host Kim for talks in the US, albeit without the fanfare of a traditional meeting.

"If he came here, I would accept him," Trump said.

"But I wouldn't give him a state dinner like China or all these other nations who are ripping us off."

Trump first floated the meeting in an interview with Reuters in May, saying that he would "absolutely" meet with the leader of North Korea.

The real-estate mogul doubled down on the claim on Wednesday, suggesting that it could help end the "little fits" the North Korea dictator was subject to over perceived military aggression from adversaries.

"Who the hell cares? I'll speak to anybody," Trump said on Wednesday. "There's a 10% or 20% chance I could talk him out of having his damn nukes, because who the hell wants him to have nukes?"

The former reality-TV star has repeatedly claimed that the US should renegotiate defense treaties with Japan and South Korea, which allow the US to maintain bases in their territories in exchange for protection in the event that either country is attacked. Trump has also advocated for China to assert pressure on North Korea to back off its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"It's something I've been talking about for a long time. You have this madman over there who probably would use [nuclear weapons]," Trump said of the North Korean dictator during an interview in January.

"And nobody talks to him, other than, of course, Dennis Rodman. That's about it."

North Korea was not so keen on Trump's proposed meeting.

A North Korean senior state official told Reuters that it was "nonsense."

"It's for utilization of the presidential election, that's all. A kind of a propaganda or advertisement," said So Se Pyong, North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations. "This is useless, just a gesture for the presidential election."

For her part, Hillary Clinton criticized Trump's suggestions as naive.

In a broad national security speech last week, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said that Trump's insistence that other nations pay the US more for protections ignored America's national security interests.

"It's no small thing when he suggests that America should withdraw our military support for Japan, encourage them to get nuclear weapons, and he said this about a war between Japan and North Korea - and I quote - 'If they do, they do. Good luck, enjoy yourself, folks,'" Clinton said.

"I wonder if he even realizes he's talking about nuclear war."

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-north-korean-dictator-kim-jong-2016-6

Bosnian Sajo
06-15-2016, 09:22 PM
Better than whatever kind of relations we have with them at the moment, tbh.

9erempiree
06-15-2016, 09:34 PM
Hillary fear mongering. Oh no they got nukes. They're going to nuke us.

andgar923
06-15-2016, 09:42 PM
Does anyone seriously want him to deal with foreign heads?

Only an idiot would want him dabbling in foreign affairs, idiot would start WW3

Facepalm
06-16-2016, 01:19 AM
Better than whatever kind of relations we have with them at the moment, tbh.If this was Obama saying that you would be calling for his head

highwhey
06-16-2016, 01:48 AM
This is donald's entire foreign policy plan in a nutshell :lol

"ye, he can come thru, i ain't gonna play 2k with him but he can come thru"

Rolando
06-16-2016, 04:50 AM
Interesting VP choice for Trump: Dennis Rodman.

would be awesome. :applause: :rockon:

~primetime~
06-16-2016, 04:54 AM
Interesting VP choice for Trump: Dennis Rodman.

would be awesome. :applause: :rockon:

Yep, then they could create a reality TV show in the White House... Camera men following them around, Trump knows that would get killer ratings.

Every episode he storms into The Worm's office yelling "we gotta find out what the HELL is going on Dennis!"

Ncrazyballa
06-16-2016, 07:23 AM
what an idiot. the fact he would say this stuff publicly and also say " i might be able to talk him out of his nukes" just shows how stupid he is.

Derka
06-16-2016, 08:29 AM
If President Obama said this exact same sentence, this forum would have no less than three threads proclaiming what a coward he is :lol

n00bie
06-16-2016, 08:31 AM
America is pretty f*cked if the only 2 choices are Clinton & Trump.

:facepalm

UK2K
06-16-2016, 08:34 AM
Better than whatever kind of relations we have with them at the moment, tbh.

Right?


Trump would host Kim for talks in the US

So I guess the author or the article would NOT allow Kim to come to the US to negotiate?

We gonna meet on a battleship out in the middle of the Pacific like in the good old days?

rezznor
06-16-2016, 08:57 AM
they could trade hair styling tips

TheMan
06-16-2016, 09:20 AM
:facepalm

ItsMillerTime
06-16-2016, 10:27 AM
America is pretty f*cked if the only 2 choices are Clinton & Trump.

:facepalm

Oh we're fkn doomed. It was a good run, ladies and gents.

1776 - 2016
RIP America

IcanzIIravor
06-16-2016, 10:50 AM
Yep, then they could create a reality TV show in the White House... Camera men following them around, Trump knows that would get killer ratings.

Every episode he storms into The Worm's office yelling "we gotta find out what the HELL is going on Dennis!"

:lol

Dresta
06-16-2016, 11:10 AM
Yep, then they could create a reality TV show in the White House... Camera men following them around, Trump knows that would get killer ratings.

Every episode he storms into The Worm's office yelling "we gotta find out what the HELL is going on Dennis!"
And finally we would have the most transparent Presidency in history, you know, unlike the fake transparency we were promised but never got.

:applause:

imdaman99
06-16-2016, 12:53 PM
And finally we would have the most transparent Presidency in history, you know, unlike the fake transparency we were promised but never got.

:applause:
Except 'reality' TV is the furthest thing from reality and that just means his whole presidency would be scripted :lol

Trump should have been in The Interview. They hate us cuz they ain't us :pimp:

Real Men Wear Green
06-16-2016, 01:25 PM
Talking to hostile foreign leaders is necessary if you're going to avoid wars. Unfortunately Donald Trump is not the person you want to do the talking. The Trumpster Fire (TM) continues.

UK2K
06-16-2016, 01:34 PM
Talking to hostile foreign leaders is necessary if you're going to avoid wars. Unfortunately Donald Trump is not the person you want to do the talking. The Trumpster Fire (TM) continues.

So...

He said what Obama SHOULD have said but didn't, and you just don't want Trump being the one talking?

Is that accurate?

senelcoolidge
06-16-2016, 01:46 PM
A President talking to another leader is bad? Diplomacy isn't a bad thing.

Dresta
06-16-2016, 01:55 PM
Talking to hostile foreign leaders is necessary if you're going to avoid wars. Unfortunately Donald Trump is not the person you want to do the talking. The Trumpster Fire (TM) continues.
Man is talking about avoiding wars while supporting Hilary.

:yaohappy:

Real Men Wear Green
06-16-2016, 01:58 PM
So...

He said what Obama SHOULD have said but didn't, and you just don't want Trump being the one talking?

Is that accurate?
Not at all. Our countries have negotiations all the time. What really has people up in arms is the idea of us honoring Kim Jung Un with a direct meeting with the President. I personally just dread the idea of what would come out of a discussion between Trump and Un.

Probably nothing but a lawsuit from the caterers after Trump refuses to pay them.

Real Men Wear Green
06-16-2016, 02:00 PM
Man is talking about avoiding wars while supporting HilaryWhere do I support Clinton? I will admit I sure as hell am not voting Trump but I've never endorsed Clinton.

Nash
06-16-2016, 02:00 PM
wonder if trump will settle down a bit when he's finally president.
dude can't be trolling around as president.

Real Men Wear Green
06-16-2016, 02:02 PM
wonder if trump will settle down a bit when he's finally president.
dude can't be trolling around as president.
He gotta be he. Fortunately, President he will not be.

Dresta
06-16-2016, 02:09 PM
Where do I support Clinton? I will admit I sure as hell am not voting Trump but I've never endorsed Clinton.
Oh, i dunno, only about two posts later, here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12455928&postcount=26

That is implicit support. If you hadn't realised, when there are two candidates, and you say it's "fortunate" that one will be not elected, you are implying that the election of Hilary Clinton is a fortunate thing. That sounds like support to me.

Facepalm
06-16-2016, 02:14 PM
Man is talking about avoiding wars while supporting Hilary.

:yaohappy:
Says the guy who supports the candidate who wants to arm more countries with nukes and torture the relatives of America's enemies

:yaohappy:

Real Men Wear Green
06-16-2016, 02:16 PM
Oh, i dunno, only about two posts later, here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12455928&postcount=26

That is implicit support. If you hadn't realised, when there are two candidates, There are more than two candidates. Now, there is only one likely winner, but that doesn't mean the others don't exist.

and you say it's "fortunate" that one will be not elected, you are implying that the election of Hilary Clinton is a fortunate thing. That sounds like support to me.You are making an assumption. I wouldn't want Reagan to be elected, for example. But if he was running in an election with Hitler and he was the likely winner I would say, "fortunately Hitler will not be elected," even though I would feel even less enthusiasm for Reagan than I do for Clinton.

Dresta
06-16-2016, 02:31 PM
Says the guy who supports the candidate who wants to arm more countries with nukes and torture the relatives of America's enemies

:yaohappy:
Try to at least make sense. What do either of those things have to do with starting wars? Nukes have undeniably been the most effective deterrent of large scale wars yet devised. And i'm not sure what torture has to do with starting wars either. America starts more wars than most countries and supposedly doesn't torture people. Other regimes torture people and don't start wars. So seriously, what are you blubbering on about you complete fool?


There are more than two candidates. Now, there is only one likely winner, but that doesn't mean the others don't exist.
You are making an assumption. I wouldn't want Reagan to be elected, for example. But if he was running in an election with Hitler and he was the likely winner I would say, "fortunately Hitler will not be elected," even though I would feel even less enthusiasm for Reagan than I do for Clinton.
Oh, ok then. If you take that route then I will too. I don't support Trump, but fortunately Hitler/Clinton won't be elected and will be in prison instead (if there is any such thing as justice left in the United States). Thank God. Hallelujah!

I also don't support Trump, but just don't want a woman to be elected who has a track record of starting wars and destroying sovereign nations as long as Mandingo's ****.