In surprise summit concession, Trump says he will halt Korea war games

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

What do you mean by "exploit"?

*Invest* ? *Trade*

Once sanctions are lifted , China will resume *investing/trading/exploiting* NK

If NK and SK stick to their agreements and further their relationship , SK may open up trade deals , investment in NK

   (Just so Morch doesnt have to post it , the above isnt actually a fact yet, just a future possibility)

What's to stop China from investing/trading/exploiting NK now? Because they promised? Because they won't be vengeful due to Trump's imposition of tariffs? 

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The tariffs on China are not linked to the NK situation

The tariffs on China are linked to the trade deficit with China

You can be sure that China steered Kim towards this meeting.

 

But if you say so, sure, China sees all that is happening as independent topics, and would never dream of influencing one topic with the next.

 

Do agree with you that it shouldn't be discussed on this TVF thread though.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What's to stop China from investing/trading/exploiting NK now? Because they promised? Because they won't be vengeful due to Trump's imposition of tariffs? 

China have imposed sanctions on NK .

Due to the tariffs imposed on China , China may well look for new markets and NK could be that market , so the implementation of U.S tariffs on China may well encourage China to trade with NK  

  The USA imposed trade tariffs on numerous Countries due to trade deficits . nothing to do with the NK situation

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

China have imposed sanctions on NK .

Due to the tariffs imposed on China , China may well look for new markets and NK could be that market , so the implementation of U.S tariffs on China may well encourage China to trade with NK  

  The USA imposed trade tariffs on numerous Countries due to trade deficits . nothing to do with the NK situation

North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world. How much could it buy that would in any way be significant to the Chinese economy?

I'm sure Trump would like for his tariffs to have nothing to do with the NK situation. But China and others could have very different ideas about that.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

You can be sure that China steered Kim towards this meeting.

But if you say so, sure, China sees all that is happening as independent topics, and would never dream of influencing one topic with the next.

 

That doesn't really make sense .

China have had tariffs imposed on them by the USA , you seem to be suggesting that China opened up a trade deficit with the USA in order to get tariffs imposed on themselves ..................because of North Korea

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That doesn't really make sense .

China have had tariffs imposed on them by the USA , you seem to be suggesting that China opened up a trade deficit with the USA in order to get tariffs imposed on themselves ..................because of North Korea

Huh? Not making sense at all. I think it is tim,e for you to open up your mind a bit.

 

What I am saying is that for China all topics (tariffs, sanctions to NK, trade deficit, shipping lanes, land recovery in SEA, human rights, etc) are intertwined. Your statement 'The tariffs on China are not linked to the NK situation " is simply nonsense; to China they are linked, it is all interconnected.

Edited June 15, 2018 by stevenl

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world. How much could it buy that would in any way be significant to the Chinese economy?

I'm sure Trump would like for his tariffs to have nothing to do with the NK situation. But China and others could have very different ideas about that.

Why would Trump have any animosity towards China for the NK situation?

China moved from being a staunch NK allie to standing with the US against NK

Tariffs have been imposed on Canada , Mexico and E.U : Is that because of NK as well ?

   You are trying to mix two issues up .

Why not say : The World cup 2026 wasnt given to China because of North Korea ?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Why would Trump have any animosity towards China for the NK situation?

China moved from being a staunch NK allie to standing with the US against NK

Tariffs have been imposed on Canada , Mexico and E.U : Is that because of NK as well ?

   You are trying to mix two issues up .

Why not say : The World cup 2026 wasnt given to China because of North Korea ?

Why would China care what the source of Trump's animosity is?

What they do care about is an attack on their economy.

And why wouldn't they use leverage.

Your invocation of the world cup is just bizarre

No one is saying that there is a causal relationship between North Korea and Trump's imposition of tariffs.

Just that it gives China an opportunity for leverage.

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Huh? Not making sense at all. I think it is tim,e for you to open up your mind a bit.

 

What I am saying is that for China all topics (tariffs, sanctions to NK, trade deficit, shipping lanes, land recovery in SEA, human rights, etc) are intertwined. Your statement 'The tariffs on China are not linked to the NK situation " is simply nonsense; to China they are linked, it is all interconnected.

Well , I disagree .

The tariffs imposed by the USA on various Countries (China , Canada , Mexico , E.U.) were because of those Countries trade deficits with the USA .

   The sole reason for the USA implementing tariffs on China is because of the annual US$ 400 Billion trade deficit with China

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Well , I disagree .

The tariffs imposed by the USA on various Countries (China , Canada , Mexico , E.U.) were because of those Countries trade deficits with the USA .

   The sole reason for the USA implementing tariffs on China is because of the annual US$ 400 Billion trade deficit with China

And that's entirely irrelevant. For the sake of argument let's say that tariffs were imposed just for the reasons you stated. So China is supposed to recognize that it's guilty and not use whatever means it has at its disposal to change the situation? 

[stevenl]

Just now, sanemax said:

Well , I disagree .

The tariffs imposed by the USA on various Countries (China , Canada , Mexico , E.U.) were because of those Countries trade deficits with the USA .

   The sole reason for the USA implementing tariffs on China is because of the annual US$ 400 Billion trade deficit with China

I said: 'to China they're intertwined', you answer with 'disagree, to the USA they're not'. Please read again, since you answer to something different, your use of 'disagree' is not correct.

 

But maybe you're right and they're not intertwined to some of the USA leadership, I very much think to USA state department officials they are intertwined, but to Trump and his selection of fine men and women they may not be, which is why the USA is losing.

[sanemax]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And that's entirely irrelevant. For the sake of argument let's say that tariffs were imposed just for the reasons you stated. So China is supposed to recognize that it's guilty and not use whatever means it has at its disposal to change the situation? 

China may impose their own tariffs on the USA .

I am not sure what you mean by "guilty" .

If "guilty" means understanding that China profits from trade with the USA by $400 Billion a year and USA wants trade to be more even , China will have to accept the U.S stance .

   China has not changed its stance on NK since the sanctions were announced .

Did China announce : You have put tariffs  on us , so we are going to break the sanctions on NK ?

  No they didnt .

Two different issues

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

China may impose their own tariffs on the USA .

I am not sure what you mean by "guilty" .

If "guilty" means understanding that China profits from trade with the USA by $400 Billion a year and USA wants trade to be more even , China will have to accept the U.S stance .

   China has not changed its stance on NK since the sanctions were announced .

Did China announce : You have put tariffs  on us , so we are going to break the sanctions on NK ?

  No they didnt .

Two different issues

The point is to the Chinese it's irrelevant why Trump did what he did. But they definitely don't like it.

HOw do you know China hasn't or won't change its stance on NK. Because the only way sanctions are broken is with a public announcement?

[sanemax]

17 hours ago, Opl said:

 

 

Why are people making such a big issue over that ?

Trump went to shake a Generals hand , the General saluted Trump , Trump saluted the General back and then they shook hands .

Why are people making a big fuss about that ?

 

[wabothai]

On 6/13/2018 at 10:21 AM, Thaidream said:

Trump does want to pull US Troops out of Korea -however, that will not happen for a long time- the US has moved further South of Seoul to a newly built base- funded by the Koreans- several billions of dollars and the US-South Korea Command is integrated.

 

However, the ultimate goal will be the removal of US Troops and most likely relocation to either Japan; Singapore or Vietnam. Denuclearization not only means Kim gives up his nuclear weapons but that the South is also free from America's nuclear weapons. However, all of this is years down the road. I doubt that the full plan can be implement by 2020.  An interim plan will most likely take place

 

A peace treaty ending the Korean war- signed by the US; N and  S Korea as well as China. A huge ceremony in Panmunjon at the dividing line attended by all the participants in the Korean War to include Thailand.  A visit by Trump to N Korea and then Kim to America.

 

At some point N Korea will make a gesture to Japan releasing info on the kidnapped Japanese citizens.

 

Then comes a signing ceremony at some point in which the protocols for full denuclearization on the peninsula as well as the inspections

 

At some point N and S Korea agree to restart family reunions and reopen the S Korean factories in the North.  A possible opening of the Demilitarized  border takes place- removing all military.

 

Then the US starts slowly removing it's military forces and N and S Korea begin talks about  reunification or confederations.

 

All of this is hugely complex but a lot better than huge nuclear armies fighting it out.

 

Trump has taken a real chance on this opening and meeting with Kim- I'm not saying he deserves a Nobel Prize yet  but let's give him kudos for what he is trying to do.

Nobody, nobody knows what he is trying to do. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by wabothai

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Why would Trump have any animosity towards China for the NK situation?

China moved from being a staunch NK allie to standing with the US against NK

Tariffs have been imposed on Canada , Mexico and E.U : Is that because of NK as well ?

   You are trying to mix two issues up .

Why not say : The World cup 2026 wasnt given to China because of North Korea ?

 

Max,

 

North Korea has one friend in the world and that is China. China is only their friend because of how they can exploit NK as a friendless state they can export goods to, use as a geographical buffer against western powers and sometimes use as their "crazy neighbor" that only they can contain.

 

China's agreement to sanctions against NK was only a ploy to allow China to interject itself into any agreement that might contain NK. Meaning, use NK to China's best advantage.

 

China would wish to be an intermediary because that gives then leverage in other matters on the international front, ie: Taiwan, SCS Islands, tariffs, human rights abuses, etc.. In the world of real politick everything is connected to everything else. In the US, Nixon was the last president to understand this. Every other president has been pretty much coasting ever since, except maybe Reagan.

[lannarebirth]

On 6/13/2018 at 1:21 AM, Thaidream said:

Trump does want to pull US Troops out of Korea -however, that will not happen for a long time- the US has moved further South of Seoul to a newly built base- funded by the Koreans- several billions of dollars and the US-South Korea Command is integrated.

 

However, the ultimate goal will be the removal of US Troops and most likely relocation to either Japan; Singapore or Vietnam. Denuclearization not only means Kim gives up his nuclear weapons but that the South is also free from America's nuclear weapons. However, all of this is years down the road. I doubt that the full plan can be implement by 2020.  An interim plan will most likely take place

 

A peace treaty ending the Korean war- signed by the US; N and  S Korea as well as China. A huge ceremony in Panmunjon at the dividing line attended by all the participants in the Korean War to include Thailand.  A visit by Trump to N Korea and then Kim to America.

 

At some point N Korea will make a gesture to Japan releasing info on the kidnapped Japanese citizens.

 

Then comes a signing ceremony at some point in which the protocols for full denuclearization on the peninsula as well as the inspections

 

At some point N and S Korea agree to restart family reunions and reopen the S Korean factories in the North.  A possible opening of the Demilitarized  border takes place- removing all military.

 

Then the US starts slowly removing it's military forces and N and S Korea begin talks about  reunification or confederations.

 

All of this is hugely complex but a lot better than huge nuclear armies fighting it out.

 

Trump has taken a real chance on this opening and meeting with Kim- I'm not saying he deserves a Nobel Prize yet  but let's give him kudos for what he is trying to do.

 

I agree with each and every one of your sentiments and do believe all that is possible. Whether it is likely or not, I'm not so sure.

[sanemax]

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Max,

 

North Korea has one friend in the world and that is China. China is only their friend because of how they can exploit NK as a friendless state they can export goods to, use as a geographical buffer against western powers and sometimes use as their "crazy neighbor" that only they can contain.

 

China's agreement to sanctions against NK was only a ploy to allow China to interject itself into any agreement that might contain NK. Meaning, use NK to China's best advantage.

 

China would wish to be an intermediary because that gives then leverage in other matters on the international front, ie: Taiwan, SCS Islands, tariffs, human rights abuses, etc.. In the world of real politick everything is connected to everything else. In the US, Nixon was the last president to understand this. Every other president has been pretty much coasting ever since, except maybe Reagan.

Do keep up to date , China has practically disowned North Korea

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Do keep up to date , China has practically disowned North Korea

 

C'mon Max, wise up:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/china-suggests-sanctions-relief-for-north-korea-after-trump-kim-summit.html

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

C'mon Max, wise up:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/china-suggests-sanctions-relief-for-north-korea-after-trump-kim-summit.html

I was talking about China cutting of financial aid to North Korea, which they did last year and also participating in the sanctions due to NK getting nukes .

  Lifting sanctions ( which is a reasonable suggestion ) which they are participating in, can hardly be seen as being best of Friends 

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I was talking about China cutting of financial aid to North Korea, which they did last year and also participating in the sanctions due to NK getting nukes .

  Lifting sanctions ( which is a reasonable suggestion ) which they are participating in, can hardly be seen as being best of Friends 

 

Lifting sanctions is not a reasonable suggestion before major, tangible steps towards denuclearization have taken place. You cannot take NK, or China for that matter, at their word. A lot of history proves that.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I was talking about China cutting of financial aid to North Korea, which they did last year and also participating in the sanctions due to NK getting nukes .

  Lifting sanctions ( which is a reasonable suggestion ) which they are participating in, can hardly be seen as being best of Friends 

And how do you call still delivering materials banned under the sanctions?

 

China and Russia have never fully adhered to the sanctions on NK, just posturing.

[sanemax]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

Lifting sanctions is not a reasonable suggestion before major, tangible steps towards denuclearization have taken place. You cannot take NK, or China for that matter, at their word. A lot of history proves that.

Consider the hardship that North Koreans are facing  , some restrictions should be lifted on humanitarian grounds . Basic food, medicine  & fuel 

[lannarebirth]

19 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Consider the hardship that North Koreans are facing  , some restrictions should be lifted on humanitarian grounds . Basic food, medicine  & fuel 

 

I had a friend who was a fairly high official in the UN food program. He was stationed in NK for a couple of years, He said of the 1,000,000 tons of rice it was his job to distribute, over 50% was stolen and sold to China.Whatever remained, which was of the poorest grade, was repackaged to hide whatever country had donated it (US) and replaced by language that said it was a gift from Kim Jong Il. That's the reality of what we're dealing with here, as much as we'd like to think something great and transcendent is going on.

Edited June 15, 2018 by lannarebirth

[buick]

On 6/13/2018 at 11:28 AM, Morch said:

Apparently South Korea was surprised by this. And despite denials, seem this applies for the Pentagon as well. It would have been more appropriate to make it conditional on something tangible from North Korea's end, or to inform allies about intentions.

Morch, i always appreciate your commentary.  trump is the commander and chief and i doubt he needs to check with anyone with respect to halting the annual 'war games' (which they just recently completed this year).  we've got a whole year to go before they would even commence again.  how does anyone know that trump really meant it ?  (given his track record) could be just a 'fake' concession ?  it is giving something to the other side which is really not giving them anything at all.

 

i'm not here to protect or heap praise on trump.  the meeting didn't tell us much at all.  we know they met and that is about it.  so there isn't really much we can say positive or negative about the event.  yet, the OP is a result of a search for anything that might be able to be criticized and if i recall correctly was unable to identify a positive. 

 

schumer (quoted in the OP) saying that trump gave up 'substantial leverage' is one of the most absurd things i've read in a long time.   and i also like how they quote corker and ryan - two guys on their way out with a huge grudge against trump.  the OP is exactly what is wrong with the media these days.  they don't accurately report what happened.  they are written with huge bias (both sides are guilty) and it is rare that one can read an article/tv news segement that provides both sides of an issue in a non combative, reasonable discussion.  i miss those days !!!

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by buick

[Morch]

2 hours ago, buick said:

Morch, i always appreciate your commentary.  trump is the commander and chief and i doubt he needs to check with anyone with respect to halting the annual 'war games' (which they just recently completed this year).  we've got a whole year to go before they would even commence again.  how does anyone know that trump really meant it ?  (given his track record) could be just a 'fake' concession ?  it is giving something to the other side which is really not giving them anything at all.

 

i'm not here to protect or heap praise on trump.  the meeting didn't tell us much at all.  we know they met and that is about it.  so there isn't really much we can say positive or negative about the event.  yet, the OP is a result of a search for anything that might be able to be criticized and if i recall correctly was unable to identify a positive. 

 

schumer (quoted in the OP) saying that trump gave up 'substantial leverage' is one of the most absurd things i've read in a long time.   and i also like how they quote corker and ryan - two guys on their way out with a huge grudge against trump.  the OP is exactly what is wrong with the media these days.  they don't accurately report what happened.  they are written with huge bias (both sides are guilty) and it is rare that one can read an article/tv news segement that provides both sides of an issue in a non combative, reasonable discussion.  i miss those days !!!

 

 

I think that being a commander-in-chief, implies someone who commands respect, not mere obedience. Having the formal authority to do something, and utilizing this authority wisely are two different things. I doubt Trump qualifies for the former. Same goes for how one treats allies, vs. how one treats enemies (or if chartiable, former enemies). I get it Trump may have other notions on these matters, but still.

 

So it's not so much about whether he's got the authority or not. That's not the issue. Well, maybe yes, when it comes to informing allies (depending on agreements and treaties). But first and foremost, this is about proper leadership and good governance.

 

There are various military training activities involving South Korea and Japan. It's not something which happens once a year. The Pentagon comments suggest that they will need to review and check with the WH, which things are on (or acceptable) and which aren't. This doesn't convey much by way of previous discussions.

 

Frankly, I think everyone's tired of guessing what Trump meant by doing this or that. He might see this chaotic way of running the show as benefiting the US - others may disagree. As far as the rest of the world goes, I think the answer is obvious. And all them assumptions about this maybe being a "fake concession" or some other thing - doesn't matter one bit, because as Trump openly said (and previously demonstrated), he won't admit it, and outright lie.

 

If there's a lot of skepticism expressed, it's because there's ample reasons for it. Considering the background of both leaders, and previous attempts at diplomacy, there's nothing to recommend this occasion as being qualitatively different. If there's a whole lot of bias when it comes to Trump's actions and statements, then duh....it's been well earned. Expecting people to ignore the (not so far) past is not reasonable.

 

[bristolboy]

Let's' get the falsehood out of the way, first. 

 

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

I was talking about China cutting of financial aid to North Korea, which they did last year and also participating in the sanctions due to NK getting nukes .

  Lifting sanctions ( which is a reasonable suggestion ) which they are participating in, can hardly be seen as being best of Friends 

It can hardly be seen as China having "practically disowned" the north either. Which is what you claimed.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, buick said:

Morch, i always appreciate your commentary.  trump is the commander and chief and i doubt he needs to check with anyone with respect to halting the annual 'war games' (which they just recently completed this year).  we've got a whole year to go before they would even commence again.  how does anyone know that trump really meant it ?  (given his track record) could be just a 'fake' concession ?  it is giving something to the other side which is really not giving them anything at all.

 

i'm not here to protect or heap praise on trump.  the meeting didn't tell us much at all.  we know they met and that is about it.  so there isn't really much we can say positive or negative about the event.  yet, the OP is a result of a search for anything that might be able to be criticized and if i recall correctly was unable to identify a positive. 

 

schumer (quoted in the OP) saying that trump gave up 'substantial leverage' is one of the most absurd things i've read in a long time.   and i also like how they quote corker and ryan - two guys on their way out with a huge grudge against trump.  the OP is exactly what is wrong with the media these days.  they don't accurately report what happened.  they are written with huge bias (both sides are guilty) and it is rare that one can read an article/tv news segement that provides both sides of an issue in a non combative, reasonable discussion.  i miss those days !!!

 

Of course he's not leqally required to check with anyone about caneling the games.The question is whether it was wise to do so. And if it turns out to be a "fake concession" as you suggest, that would be par for the course. Which is of course the problem. Given Trump's track record, why should Kim trust him? 

 

Of course you can legitmately say negative things about the event. Kim made all kinds of threats and engaged in illegal actions such as firing missiles over Japan,. In return for this he now gets to meet with the President of the United States.Usually such a meeting would be a reward for something concrete. In this case, Kim just made pleasing noises after making threatening ones. And that's why Schumer was correct in saying Trump gave up substantial leverage. In fact, since Trump has committed himself so strongly to the success of the process, he is now subject to leverage from the North Koreans. Kim doesn't have to run for reelection. Trump does.

 

Actually, Corker's quote seemed a lot milder than your surmise that Trump may be offering a fake concession.  “I don’t know if that’s an agreement or an ad hoc statement that was made. It wasn’t in the agreement and sometimes things are said and walked back after talking to people at the Pentagon and other places."

 

And what did Ryan say that was critical of Trump? He cautioned him to be careful but didn't criticize him for the meeting.

 

And about there being a whole year until exercises begin again..Really?

The next big drill on the U.S.-South Korean calendar -- Ulchi Freedom Guardian -- is scheduled for late August. The Pentagon describes it as "a computer-simulated defensive exercise." Last year, it involved about 17,500 U.S. service members, drawing in 3,000 from outside South Korea.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/trump-suspends-south-korea-war-games-in-bet-kim-can-be-trusted

[buick]

On 6/12/2018 at 3:30 PM, webfact said:

The U.S.-South Korean exercise calendar hits a high point every year with the Foal Eagle and Max Thunder drills, which both wrapped up last month.

 

19 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And about there being a whole year until exercises begin again..Really? 

sorry about my assumption on the war games, i was going off the comment noted at the top.  it is difficult to fact check at times and i don't mind being corrected on facts.  that said, i still say the real surprise would be if they held the games during the negotiation period.  why would you hold 'war games' while you attempt to negotiate peace ?

 

19 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Of course you can legitmately say negative things about the event. Kim made all kinds of threats and engaged in illegal actions such as firing missiles over Japan,. In return for this he now gets to meet with the President of the United States.Usually such a meeting would be a reward for something concrete. In this case, Kim just made pleasing noises after making threatening ones. And that's why Schumer was correct in saying Trump gave up substantial leverage. In fact, since Trump has committed himself so strongly to the success of the process, he is now subject to leverage from the North Koreans. Kim doesn't have to run for reelection. Trump does.

the above is pretty much complete nonsense.  the first sentence is flat out wrong (i call it neutral, no negative, no positive - it is a wait and see thing).  then the rest of it is somehow supporting schumer's absurd comment about leverage.  if you believe it, that is fine, but i'll never buy into that one.   

 

i can tell the democrats are worried as they have put out all the negative spin, instead of having trump implode on himself (i'm talking the meeting only on this).   usually trump makes it real easy for the negative spin doctors, and the spin is correct !!!  but i don't see it here, not yet.  i expect another implosion will occur soon, so the worry will ease at that point.  i'd give a probability of 25% that a deal is agreed upon and lasts at least a year.  i'm at 5% in terms of a long lasting, peace and love for everybody type deal.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by buick

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, buick said:

 

sorry about my assumption on the war games, i was going off the comment noted at the top.  it is difficult to fact check at times and i don't mind being corrected on facts.  that said, i still say the real surprise would be if they held the games during the negotiation period.  why would you hold 'war games' while you attempt to negotiate peace ?

 

the above is pretty much complete nonsense.  the first sentence is flat out wrong (i call it neutral, no negative, no positive - it is a wait and see thing).  then the rest of it is somehow supporting schumer's absurd comment about leverage.  if you believe it, that is fine, but i'll never buy into that one.   

 

i can tell the democrats are worried as they have put out all the negative spin, instead of having trump implode on himself (i'm talking the meeting only on this).   usually trump makes it real easy for the negative spin doctors, and the spin is correct !!!  but i don't see it here, not yet.  i expect another implosion will occur soon, so the worry will ease at that point.  i'd give a probability of 25% that a deal is agreed upon and lasts at least a year.  i'm at 5% in terms of a long lasting, peace and love for everybody type deal.

 

 

You wrote "so there isn't really much we can say positive or negative about the event."

To which I replied 

"Of course you can legitmately say negative things about the event. " And then I went into some detail why you can say negative things about the event.

 

I explained how Trump's actions have given others leverage. Your rebuttal is "

"if you believe it, that is fine, but i'll never buy into that one. "

I have no doubt you don't believe it but do you think stating that you disbelieve something is the same as an explanation?