TO EVERYONE ARGUING TRUMP SHOULDN'T TALK TO NORTH KOREA: If getting Kim to the table isn't the point of sanctions, and war's a bad idea, what's the strategy? No one capitulates. Ever. But sometimes in talks they give something to get something. If there's no good deal, walk away.
Then what is it? Either POTUS conducts foreign policy or he doesn't If you think no POTUS should ever talk to North Korea, that's one thing (I disagree). But if you think other presidents should talk but this one shouldn't, then you're arguing foreign policy should be put on hold
-
-
Which part of TRUMP should not speak to him are you missing? You are aware that presidents have people who work for them who do diplomacy for a living, yes?
-
Meaning send an envoy? I can see the merit in that argument. But that's different than the main talk/don't talk discussion. If you think it's a good idea to conduct high level talks, but not with the president personally involved, say so.
-
I feel exactly that
-
When you said "shouldn't be the one to handle" I thought you meant entirely uninvolved. There's no way to do that. POTUS runs foreign policy (for better or worse). But yes, having experienced aides, translators, a chief negotiator (Victor Cha?) would be beneficial.
-
I even capitalized Trump. TRUMP should not be speaking to Kim Jong Un. Trump is an insane moron who will get us all killed. Send Tillerson. Send Cha, if he is willing to go. Send freaking Melania. DO NOT SEND TRUMP.
-
And if you think sending Trump with experienced people including a chief negotiator will work, you're crazy. Trump will never let anyone else speak for any length of time or take charge of anything while he is there.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.