• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump RE: Kim Jong Un: 'We fell in love' over 'beautiful letters'

ecco

Veteran Member

President Donald Trump on Kim Jong Un: 'We fell in love' over 'beautiful letters'
Trump, speaking at a rally in West Virginia on Saturday night, said both leaders took tough positions at their June summit.

"I was really tough and so was he, and we went back and forth," Trump told an adoring crowd of thousands at Wesbanco Arena in Wheeling. "And then we fell in love, OK? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”​


Do you see the "No, really" part? That's when even his Sheeples sat in stunned silence.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
This is when I like to play one of my favourite games. “Imagine Obama had said this”. imagine how many conservative heads would be exploding.


And as a bonus round, not to be played by the faint hearted, imagine a President Hilary Clinton saying this.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
We should not, and cannot, seek the admiration of a tyrant who continues to commit atrocities against their own people. To do so legitimizes their actions and creates an open casting call for others to do the same.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just imagine the reaction of the Republicans if Obama had expressed his love of Kim and Putin.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
The signs that Trump was a bisexual progressive were seen early on as we can see in the video below. By today's standards it would be called a sexual sexual assault on a transgender person but the advances do not seem uninvited. I am actually surprised that progressives don't support him more but he is white and male.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The signs that Trump was a bisexual progressive were seen early on as we can see in the video below. By today's standards it would be called a the sexual sexual assault on a transgender person but the advances do not seem uninvited. I am actually surprised that progressives don't support him more but he is white and male.
Color me boggled. Not at the video but who posted it. I had forgotten about that incident.

All I can write is that he has poor judgement in this area as well as in all others
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
We should not, and cannot, seek the admiration of a tyrant who continues to commit atrocities against their own people. To do so legitimizes their actions and creates an open casting call for others to do the same.

It wouldn't be the first time (or last time) we've gotten in bed with the devil.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
We should not, and cannot, seek the admiration of a tyrant who continues to commit atrocities against their own people. To do so legitimizes their actions and creates an open casting call for others to do the same.

Theoretically, you're right, but sometimes moral compromises have to be made for the greater good of the world. If the Trump-Kim bromance prevents a nuclear war, I'm all for it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We should not, and cannot, seek the admiration of a tyrant who continues to commit atrocities against their own people. To do so legitimizes their actions and creates an open casting call for others to do the same.
Perhaps it's not seeking "admiration", but rather manipulation (ceasing
hostile words & feelings) with an eye towards peaceful reconciliation.
If not being done for political purpose, what other explanation would
there be....bromance with Rocket Man? Nah.
I don't think Trump is encouraging other countries to behave so badly.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Theoretically, you're right, but sometimes moral compromises have to be made for the greater good of the world. If the Trump-Kim bromance prevents a nuclear war, I'm all for it.

The only thing Trump's adoration of Kim has done is make Kim even more loved and respected in NK, and, to a lesser degree, with some parts of the international community. Kim, no more than his father and grandfather, wants, can afford, or would start a war with the West.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Then I imagine liberals would appreciate it. See it's very liberal to say you fell in love with Kim jong un or whoever.

I myself think it's kinda naive or even bizarre. :p However, if it's true then I think Trump is doing a good job lowering tensions with North Korea at least? So kooky or not; it might be useful for those of us who want to avoid war.
I dunno. If Trump said he had fallen in love with me I think I would feel very tense.

 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Perhaps it's not seeking "admiration", but rather manipulation (ceasing
hostile words & feelings) with an eye towards peaceful reconciliation.
If not being done for political purpose, what other explanation would
there be....bromance with Rocket Man? Nah.
I don't think Trump is encouraging other countries to behave so badly.
This may be the case and I hope you are correct. However, I would like to see the humanitarian issue addressed often. I also agree that I do not think Trump is encouraging other countries. If that is how I came across, I did a poor job. The hypothetical outcome/encouragement would simply be a by-product of the negotiations at base line. If the US is willing to make sacrifices for/with NK, regardless of their current humanitarian issues, what is to stop other tyrannies from picking up that same standard? Again, a hypothetical question with no answer, but worth thinking about.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Theoretically, you're right, but sometimes moral compromises have to be made for the greater good of the world. If the Trump-Kim bromance prevents a nuclear war, I'm all for it.
I agree, but I would like to see the humanitarian piece enter the negotiations as soon as possible.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This may be the case and I hope you are correct. However, I would like to see the humanitarian issue addressed often. I also agree that I do not think Trump is encouraging other countries. If that is how I came across, I did a poor job. The hypothetical outcome/encouragement would simply be a by-product of the negotiations at base line. If the US is willing to make sacrifices for/with NK, regardless of their current humanitarian issues, what is to stop other tyrannies from picking up that same standard? Again, a hypothetical question with no answer, but worth thinking about.
A great many countries are less than humanitarian.
If creating more peaceful relationships means tolerating
their internal woes, then that's worth it. Our being
hostile doesn't do any good.

Americastan has tried fixing bad countries.
This hasn't worked out well enuf to justify it.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
If creating more peaceful relationships means tolerating
their internal woes, then that's worth it.
That is easy for us to say because we are not under the rule of such a thing. I am a bleeding heart in this regard, so it is difficult for me to approach this topic without bias.

Americastan has tried fixing bad countries.
This hasn't worked out well enuf to justify it.
Oh come on! Somalia looks grea-... no... Well Iraq-... erm... OH OH what about Vietna-... Korea? No... fine.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That is easy for us to say because we are not under the rule of such a thing. I am a bleeding heart in this regard, so it is difficult for me to approach this topic without bias.
Sure it's easy.
I'm taking the purely selfish perspective.
We have it good here, & I'd like to keep it that way.

We've tried sanctions against NK.
If trying peaceful negotiation is wrong, then what should we do?
1) Invade & impose a new government & culture?
2) Continue sanctions....which haven't yet worked?

People in NK are clearly suffering.
But I argue that options #1 & #2 would only increase the
overall suffering, particularly to US soldiers & taxpayers.

We've tried belligerence for decades with Iran.
How has that worked?
I think friendliness would be better....& less attacking them.
Oh come on! Somalia looks grea-... no... Well Iraq-... erm... OH OH what about Vietna-... Korea? No... fine.
I'd rather accept that other countries will do things we find heinous.
And that should seek their peaceful coexistence most of all.
It's better than war.
And of course, we may always advocate for their improving things within.
 
Top