General Question

flo's avatar

Did Trump mean to say missile man, when he said rocket man?

Asked by flo (13238points) September 20th, 2017

Why did he refer to Kim Jong-Un as rocket man since he’s not about space exploration? Was he ad libbing? Is it just a slip of the tongue

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

flutherother's avatar

I wouldn’t waste time trying to figure out anything that comes from Trump’s mouth. I’m just counting down the months, and God help us, the years…

flo's avatar

I suppose… it just sounds like he could be lightening up the mood, being “funny”. I’m moving on.

flo's avatar

By the way, I can’t post Pesident as a tag/topic. I tried it a few times

chyna's avatar

I’m sure he meant to say “rocket man” because it the title of a song by Elton John.

Soubresaut's avatar

It wasn’t meant to be an accurate or literal description. Trump (and/or his speech writer) was using the phrase as a dig. Whether or not it’s wise of him to use them, Trump likes giving nicknames to people for effect. And as far as nicknames go, “rocket man” probably has more rhetorical snub power than “missile man” would. A missile, at least to me, connotes a sense of military control/prowess that a rocket doesn’t necessarily have.

flo's avatar

@Soubresaut it could be. But anyway it’s interesting for a few minutes, I guess.

flo's avatar

By the way, how about is the word President in topic section?

Soubresaut's avatar

I searched for “president” in the search bar. These were the already existing topics. Of those, “US President” is probably what you’d want to use in the future, but you should be able to add any topic you want to a question, whether or not the topic already exists. I don’t know why it was being difficult for you this time.

josie's avatar

It doesn’t really matter.
Trump was just making fun of him.
You may think Donald Trump is a joke, and he gives that impression to be sure.
But Kim is a bigger joke. And it is surprising to me that so many people seem to be timid about calling him out.

Zaku's avatar

What are the odds Trump knows the difference between a rocket and a missile?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Zaku Zero ! ! !

Believe me

kritiper's avatar

He said it very clearly, very distinctly. I think he meant what he said. Besides, six of one, a half dozen of the other…

CWOTUS's avatar

Trump often misspeaks, self-aggrandizes, lies – the same as any politician – and he hyperbolizes, and is frequently wrong or selective and simplifying to the point of absurdity and untruth. There are a lot of things wrong with him, for sure.

But he did not misspeak in this instance.

He purely wanted to belittle and provoke the tinpot dictator. (You may call Trump a tinpot president, too, if you wish, but he is the President of the United States, not the dictatorial and murderous leader of a nation that starves its people routinely and, when it imprisons one of its citizens for political crimes also imprisons two additional generations of the family “for reasons.”)

Kim’s only trump card in his game is the threat he holds over South Korea, and specifically over the city of Seoul and its metro area of nearly 25,000,000 people. Every president who has dealt with him since Eisenhower has realized – more and more each year, and especially since around Carter’s and Reagan’s terms – that as Seoul grows it becomes a bigger and bigger hostage to the North.

There’s a lot of bluff in what Trump says. “Ruining” North Korea, even if we decided to actually make the strikes necessary to cause that, would cost many billions of dollars and, even if we did a lot of it remotely, thousands of US service people’s lives. But that’s nothing at all compared to what it would cost South Korea. And there’s a very real risk that in any “ambiguous” contest of “who shot first?” China would come down hard (albeit reluctantly) against any perceived aggression against North Korea.

China cannot appear – at least in its own view of itself and how it presents to the rest of Asia and the world – to permit a war to be fought on its border (which will cause massive and uncontrollable refugee emigration into China, too) – that it does not control. And in an ambiguous attack scenario, they will defend North Korea, even if they want to ruin or occupy it themselves.

So if there’s going to be any kind of US military intervention in North Korea, two things have to happen:
1. North Korea has to be unambiguously at fault and demonstrated as having “thrown the first punch”; that is, to make a first strike, and
2. China has to be enlisted against North Korea. No one wants to risk a war with China. It would also be helpful to have Russian assistance / cooperation, but that’s less vital at this point.

If Kim Jung Un can be provoked into making a first strike when he is unprepared for all-out war, or in a fit of pique when he makes an ineffective first strike, or if he is provoked into a “stupid” strike, such as dropping a missile on Japan in one of his test launches, for example, then that could be the “lowest-casualty path” to enlisting immediate and complete Chinese and Russian support to dismantle the threat to all nations, and not have to commit the USA to doing this thing alone.

Even better would be a coup in North Korea, even if it puts a cabal of generals in place to run the country. For those who seem to think that a coup in the USA to replace Donald Trump is a good thing, well, so much the better if that happens in North Korea.

Trump seems to be pretty good at provoking his opponents into stupid and ineffective responses. I’m sure part of his speech toward North Korea (and Iran) is aimed in this direction.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Childish insults are frowned upon even here, on Fluther. Regardless of what Trump’s strategy was, it was reckless, and stupid. Even if it does somehow benefit the US, in our relationship with NK, it has further damaged Trump’s and America’s reputation in the international community.

Provoking Iran, and China in the same foolish rambling won’t help anything either.

Speeches like that one, are what I was chiefly concerned about in regards to a Trump Whitehouse.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And there is certainly worse to come.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^You mean there’s a pattern?~

flo's avatar

“He purely wanted to belittle and provoke the tinpot dictator.”
But is that a good thing? I mean go a leader of a country should go the opposite way and kowtow but…(as @MrGrimm888 pointed out.

And Trump is not dictatorial….
not the dictatorial and murderous leader of a nation that starves its people routinely and, when it imprisons one of its citizens for political crimes also imprisons two additional generations of the family “for reasons.”)
But only because the system, (checks and balances) in general in doesn’t allow it.:
-“Lock her (Hilary) up” no problem with him.
-Firing Comey because of the Russia thing…
-“I could shoot someone on 5th avenue….”
-Killing the whole family of a terrorist.

kritiper's avatar

I’m beginning to think that Trump, calling Kim a rocket man, might have been a very good thing. It shows how little we Americans think of Kim and his “threats.”

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther