A CNN reported asked Trump about the rumoured tensions in the G7 meetings. Trump attacked the reporter and called him fake news. Trump then got on AF1 and started tweeting attacks at Trudeau. A few hours after that the president's economics advisor Larry Kudlow claimed Trudeau 'stabbed us in the back', while his trade advisor Peter Navarro said there 'was a special place in hell' for people like Trudeau.
I think that reporter maybe wasn't fake news. He might have been on to something. I'm beginning to suspect that just maybe Trump might sometimes claim some things are fake news when they're actually real news. Maybe.
Also, I just learned today that there is a guy who's job it is to keep taping Trump's papers back together. Any document presented to the president has to be kept per the records act, but Trump doesn't about that kind of stuff and routinely tears papers up once he's done with them. So there's a guy on stuff who has the job of sitting there with sticky tape putting all this stuff back together again. It really captures how every day there are so many tiny humiliations visited on people who work for or try to support Trump, and then by extension on everyone who has to deal with such a deeply ridiculous man.
Kilkrazy wrote: Russia's economy is about the size of Spain and isn't in the top 10. There is also a GATT 27 meeting which does include Russia so I would guess that takes care of them and this is just Trump being Trump. Maybe he wants a close ally so he doesn't feel so isolated against the other six.
Yep. G7 isn't just about economic power. If it was China and India would be in before China, as both have much bigger economies than Russia. And both are nuclear powers as well, so it isn't about Russia being part of the nuclear club.
Trump wants Putin there because Trump is unique among US presidents in the post-war era as having no functioning working relationship with any of the leaders of the major developed countries. Trump does not have those relationships because those relationships are built on shared values and mutual gain, and Trump does not understand relationships built on those ideas because Trump is horribly broken man. The only relationships Trump understands are built on sycophancy, or bullies/crooks banding together to victimise a third party.
Lacking anyone in the G7 willing to give Trump a relationship he can understand, he felt isolated and insecure. I don't know if he then turned to Putin because he really felt the need for Putin there as an ally, or because Trump was just throwing a hand grenade because he felt more comfortable if things were more chaotic. I don't know, but the point is this is not how functional adults work. It is certainly not how functional heads of state work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The average EU tariff on imports from the USA is about 3%. The reason why there's a trade imbalance is that the EU produces more stuff that Americans want to buy than the USA produces stuff that Europeans want to buy.
Frazzled wrote: He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So after making big claims that Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich... when pushed on the matter all you can produce is some policies of his you don't like.
I don't want to say I called this but... okay yeah I do want to say I called this.
"Of course, frazzled failed to demonstrate any evidence of said corruption, but I didn't even bother to address that because it's just the same old Republican mudslinging lies."
I thought Trump was against NAFTA, TTIP and the EU.
The Canadian dairy tariffs that Trump is now fixated on would have been removed through the TPP that Trump walked away from.
What does it all mean?
Nothing. None of it means anything. Trump knows basically nothing about how the world works, and has no interest in remaining consistent in his beliefs or opinions from one moment to the next. So he just makes up whatever nonsense suits him in the moment. He is supported in this make it up as you go approach by a large network of shamelessly partisan media who will happily flip to the president's new opinion, scurrying to find some set of reasons to justify it, even when it directly contradicts previous statements.
Maybe you didn't follow the conversation. Frazzled said Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich and was asked for something to substantiate that. Frazzled replied with nothing. The only thing approximating substantiation came from me, I pointed out Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Frazzled was asked a bunch more times, and eventually responded, not with any kind of criminal activity, all Frazzled did was list a bunch of Newsom policies he didn't like.
Sure, we could point out Frazzled descriptions of Newsom's policies are false (Newsom isn't actually planning on grabbing anyone's guns, Newsom's actual position is actually a fairly typical do nothing Democrat position, 'smart' guns etc). Or we could have a laugh that Frazzled thinks it is interesting or any way relevant that a Texas Republican doesn't like a California Democrat's policies.
But all that is besides the point. Frazzled claimed Newsom was a criminal. When asked for anything to substantiate this, Frazzled produced nothing. It was yet another instance of Republican mud slinging and rumour mongering based on nothing but lies and bs.
It's fething terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: I think the key quote in that link was "No tariffs, no barriers. That's the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, 'no tariffs'," (emphasis mine); Boeing et al have always hated the way strategic industries are supported in Europe and Canada (no matter that they get equivalent support through tax breaks, etc.). So I guess this will turn into the USA offering to remove tariffs if the rest of the G7 stop subsidising key industries.
The US also subsidises its industries. One of the major reasons Canada maintains its tariffs on US dairy is the US dairy industry is subsidised to a stupid level, leading to a chronic oversupply that the US wants to dump somewhere else. Canada's dairy market doesn't have those production subsidies, instead it is propped up by production controls and import quotas in a model more like the sort of thing we used to see in the 1930s.
I mean hey, if someone was able to wave a magic wand and get rid of all the special interests that keep the remaining tariffs & subsidies in place and take us to a truly free market, then great. But of course, that is was what was happening, slowly and surely, right up to and including TPP, which would have removed some of the last remaining truly protected industries (like Japanese farming). Which Trump walked away from. After which Trump decided to play protectionist on steel. And it was only as that started to backfire that Trump has now tried to claim all he wants is an end to tariffs.
That is not the actions of a man able to take on special interests in the US, and work with like minded leaders in other major nations so they do the same, to move towards an end to market interference.
Those are the actions of a man-child who by this time next week will be knee deep in a different self-inflicted disaster.
Maybe you didn't follow the conversation. Frazzled said Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich and was asked for something to substantiate that. Frazzled replied with nothing. The only thing approximating substantiation came from me, I pointed out Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Frazzled was asked a bunch more times, and eventually responded, not with any kind of criminal activity, all Frazzled did was list a bunch of Newsom policies he didn't like.
Sure, we could point out Frazzled descriptions of Newsom's policies are false (Newsom isn't actually planning on grabbing anyone's guns, Newsom's actual position is actually a fairly typical do nothing Democrat position, 'smart' guns etc). Or we could have a laugh that Frazzled thinks it is interesting or any way relevant that a Texas Republican doesn't like a California Democrat's policies.
But all that is besides the point. Frazzled claimed Newsom was a criminal. When asked for anything to substantiate this, Frazzled produced nothing. It was yet another instance of Republican mud slinging and rumour mongering based on nothing but lies and bs.
It's fething terrible.
Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Is it hyperbolic? Yeah... welcome to US politics.
But you saying that this is "yet another instance of Republican mud slinging..." is downright insulting. Your abject hatred of anything Republican is blinding you to much of these conversations... as its one of the reasons why I've stepped back a bit.
Me and Frazz has stated numerous times that we had issues with the Republican party and in Trump in particular.... but, you don't even find some common grounds here and just insist of getting your fair share of "lets bash anyone that looks like a Republican... because, hey... they deserve it.".
It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won". I can hear you rolling your eyes... but, if Democrats keeps electing the far left, like Newsom and the level of personal discourse keeps on trucking, nothing worthwhile is going to change.
The sooner ya'll realize that... the sooner a real and effective opposition towards Trump/GOP can be achieved.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you do have to think about the so-called "delusionals".
To ignore their concerns and win by mobilising the opposition will only entrench the divisive attitudes that seem to have gripped the USA in recent decades.
I'm not saying you should give in to them, but I think you do have to engage with them and try to persuade them that their ideas are not working.
You have to reach out and persuade people who think climate change is a swizz, or that the Laffer Curve works, or that trickle-down economics make the poor better off.
It shouldn't be too hard to get these points over because reality increasingly obviously is on your side. But it's a potentially humiliating climb-down for a lot of people who need to un-nail their colours from those various masts. You can help get them through that by not trying to humiliate them.
I mean these people are often accused of being stupid, but they aren't stupid. They've got something else pushing their views, and part of it probably is resentment at the way the the other side talks about them.
I sympathise with what you're saying, and I agree they're not stupid. And I think the point you make about focusing on the harm of measles is a good one, but I just don't think it can apply in this case. Things are that far gone.
The culture Trump/Republican supporters have built for themselves is fundamentally dishonest culture, where lies that suit the group go unchallenged, but any claim that threatens the group, whether it is true or not, is rejected and anyone who supported the claim is attacked and likely expelled from the group. What the group believes is decided entirely by what is good for the tribe, not by what is actually true.
Consider this recent silliness with tariffs. Trump ran a campaign opposed to free trade. He attacked TPP and when in office refused to sign the US on to it. He then put in place tariffs on steel to boost US steel. Then just a couple after putting those tariffs in place Trump turns on his head and starts saying he wants no tariffs within the G7. I have seen many Trump supporters switch to this new position, I have not seen a single Trump supporter question Trump's sudden position reversal.
Or to look here on dakka, Frazzled claimed one of the nominees for CA governor, democrat Gavin Newsom, was corrupt on a level equal to Rod Blagojevich. He was asked to provide evidence and spent a couple of posts talking around the subject while giving no evidence. Gray Templar waded in, trying to back up Frazzled by claiming Newsom was absent from his work, using an example that was then proven to also be dishonest. Frazzled returned after a bit, he gave no evidence supporting his allegations, instead he just listed some Newsom policies he doesn't like. People noted Frazzled still wasn't giving evidence for his claim of corruption, at which point whembly waded in, ignoring the point that Frazzled's earlier claim was a lie, and instead trying to claim there was nothing wrong with Frazzled's list of Newsom policies he doesn't like. And then back came Gray Templar, who wanted to also ignore the point around Frazzled's false claim, and expand the debate on those policies that Gray Templar also doesn't like.
So that's three people from the right, one told a lie, and then all three tried everything they could to move the conversation on without ever addressing that Frazzled made a false allegation with nothing to back it up.
That's the broken state of right wing politics. Even on a level as meaningless as an on-line forum, these guys won't hold each other to account for making up false allegations. Tell a lie, if called on it move on, and in a couple of hours tell a new lie, or even just repeat that same lie because hey why not there is literally no accountability for spamming constant lies.
This is why, for instance, Republicans have been able to mudsling on the Mueller investigation with a string of plainly false allegations. It's produced a dynamic where the liars are free to basically troll the media, teasing a big new revelation that will destroy the Mueller investigation, and keep that teaser going for weeks, letting mud stick to Mueller. Then when they finally release the details of the allegation, it is immediately shown to be a plain lie, and the liars walk away to go plan a new lie. There was wire tapping, then unmasking, then getting Page warrant based on the Steel dossier only, then FBI spying, each of them was a plain lie that was proven as a lie as soon as the substance of the allegation was made clear. But in each case the liars suffered no penalty, and were instead just left to make up a new lie.
It's an utterly broken state of affairs, and it is allowed to continue because Republicans simply will not hold their own to account for telling these lies. Do you know which Republicans have actually been attacked because of the allegations against the FBI? Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan finally told the truth about part of the investigation, and said the FBI acted as we would expect them to. That was true, but it went against Team Trump/Republicans, and so they got attacked.
By trying to debate against that, thinking if you just keep looking for new ways to engage with people who are plainly quite happy to repeat any Trump/Republican lie, you aren't going to one day stumble on the perfect angle. Instead all that will happen is what happens now, what's happened for years now. People try to engage in good faith and they just end up arguing with jelly - any attempt to make them stick to a single point will just watch them squirm, and then claim some other, wildly new position.
What needs to be done now is not to debate these people, but to define them, and make them accountable not for their ever changing arguments, but for their actions. What they have done to healthcare, to taxes, to international standing. Define them as the radical no-nothings they are, and then trust this is enough to get the large number of non-voters motivated and turning up at the polls to vote against them.
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
whembly wrote: It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won".
The real problem with this forum is that as long as you remain superficially polite, you can keep doing this over and over again. Peregrine is totally right.
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.
I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.
whembly wrote: It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won".
The real problem with this forum is that as long as you remain superficially polite, you can keep doing this over and over again. Peregrine is totally right.
Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.
That's what you and Peregrine often misses.
'Tis like the old argument we'd have about Senate not giving up/down votes, Voter IDs or Popular Vote vs Electoral College or even BENGHAZI. We simply come across with different opinions in debating the merits/demerits of such topics. But, oft times it devolves into strawman/goalpost shifting pissing contest (which I'm surly guilty of too).
There's a difference between tolerating opposing views vs rejecting a view point because of a belief that said poster doesn't have any credibility. Far too many of the latter than the former lately.
What I would do here going forward is that anyone making a assertion should work to back it up and at the same time the board gives that poster a chance to back it up.
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?". It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.
I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.
It isn't nuance. None of you have supplied any evidence that Newsom is corrupt at all, let alone to the level he would be on the same level as someone serving years in prison for corruption.
If I were to say that someone was a sleazebag on the level of Bill Cosby, what would you interpret that to mean?
it's not an opinion that Blagovich is a convicted criminal. It's not an opinion that comparing someone to him is saying they have committed criminal acts.
The arguments you are making are desperate justification for a weak, lazy lie that was quickly abandoned because there was no possibility of defending it.
So, keep responding to you (and this inserting a new quarter into the bs spin machine over and over again), or just stop responding (and let the lazy, weak lies stand unchallenged)? The game of the OT
whembly wrote: Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.
That's what you and Peregrine often misses.
It's not that you have opinions, it's that you post factually incorrect statements and assorted other dishonest arguments, evade and weasel out of acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that is presented to counter your claims, and then come back again later to re-post the same original claim as if none of the previous discussion ever happened. It's like how, back in election season, you kept posting the argument that the electoral college favors smaller states no matter how much indisputable mathematical evidence we provided to prove that it does not. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with and you'd be banned from many other forums (including forums with a significant right-wing presence, so don't try to make this about your choice of party) but because you don't use any bad words dakka considers it acceptable behavior.
Ouze wrote: it's not an opinion that Blagovich is a convicted criminal. It's not an opinion that comparing someone to him is saying they have committed criminal acts.
The arguments you are making are desperate justification for a weak, lazy lie that was quickly abandoned because there was no possibility of defending it.
So, keep responding to you (and this inserting a new quarter into the bs spin machine over and over again), or just stop responding (and let the lazy, weak lies stand unchallenged)? The game of the OT
I'm not disputing Blogvich is a convict. Not sure why you think I am...
whembly wrote: Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.
That's what you and Peregrine often misses.
It's not that you have opinions, it's that you post factually incorrect statements and assorted other dishonest arguments, evade and weasel out of acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that is presented to counter your claims, and then come back again later to re-post the same original claim as if none of the previous discussion ever happened. It's like how, back in election season, you kept posting the argument that the electoral college favors smaller states no matter how much indisputable mathematical evidence we provided to prove that it does not. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with and you'd be banned from many other forums (including forums with a significant right-wing presence, so don't try to make this about your choice of party) but because you don't use any bad words dakka considers it acceptable behavior.
And this is exactly what I mean.
You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.
There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.
You are literally posting gibberish.
Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.
I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.
It isn't nuance. None of you have supplied any evidence that Newsom is corrupt at all, let alone to the level he would be on the same level as someone serving years in prison for corruption.
If I were to say that someone was a sleazebag on the level of Bill Cosby, what would you interpret that to mean?
That's he's a sleazbag providing that you support it with some credible evidence/source.
Take Gavin for instance:
“It’s been 5 years since 20 first graders were shot dead at Sandy Hook.
Since then:
14 killed in San Bernardino
49 killed in Orlando
58 killed in Vegas
26 killed in a Texas church
Enough.
We have a message for the @NRA: If you hurt people, we are coming for your guns.”
Am I not to infer that he want's to confiscate guns or is that too nuanced?
You guys tell me. Should we not infer so much? Maybe we all need to do a better job of expounding our arguments without leaving a barn door open for detractors to derail the conversation?
whembly wrote: You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).
I reject your counterpoints because your counterpoints are factually incorrect. The math for EC votes is that small states do not benefit, period. Your simplistic analysis of population per EV does not accurately evaluate the situation. Wyoming may have a very low ratio of population per EV, probably the lowest in the US, but it has very little electoral power. Wyoming is going to give its three EV to the republican candidate every year, no matter what. Therefore neither party spends any meaningful amount of time or effort campaigning there, and there is minimal incentive to consider Wyoming in any policy decisions. All of the attention and policy consideration goes to a small number of swing states. It is those states, not small states, that have disproportionately high electoral power. Abolish the EC, on the other hand, and every Wyoming citizen's vote is worth as much as a citizen of a swing state's vote.
But of course we've told you this, over and over again. We've provided the hard evidence of campaign time and effort spent on each state, evidence which clearly shows that both parties ignore the small states you claim the EC benefits. And yet you refuse to accept it because Your Team considers the EC a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Am I not to infer that he want's to confiscate guns or is that too nuanced?
There you go again, moving the goalposts. The original comparison was with a convicted felon who is in prison for being a corrupt politician. Now, instead of providing evidence of corruption by the new guy (which would establish that the comparison was a reasonable one) you're arguing that he wants strict gun control, as if proving any flaw in his policies is somehow proof of every other flaw. And apparently we're supposed to get drawn into yet another gun control argument and forget the fact that the original claim was about corruption.
Dreadwinter wrote: We should use facts to justify statements and stop use hyperbolic statements to derail threads.
How 'bout it? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he is even close to the level Blagojevich is at.
So if we're trying to dial down hyperbole... why bring up Blogojevich? Why not "Why is Gavin such a problem for you whem?"
I don't care what your problems are with him. Stop attempting to misdirect. I care that people are held accountable for sleazy, hyperbolic comments and for defending those sleazy, hyperbolic comments.
whembly wrote: You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).
I reject your counterpoints because your counterpoints are factually incorrect. The math for EC votes is that small states do not benefit, period. Your simplistic analysis of population per EV does not accurately evaluate the situation. Wyoming may have a very low ratio of population per EV, probably the lowest in the US, but it has very little electoral power. Wyoming is going to give its three EV to the republican candidate every year, no matter what. Therefore neither party spends any meaningful amount of time or effort campaigning there, and there is minimal incentive to consider Wyoming in any policy decisions. All of the attention and policy consideration goes to a small number of swing states. It is those states, not small states, that have disproportionately high electoral power. Abolish the EC, on the other hand, and every Wyoming citizen's vote is worth as much as a citizen of a swing state's vote.
But of course we've told you this, over and over again. We've provided the hard evidence of campaign time and effort spent on each state, evidence which clearly shows that both parties ignore the small states you claim the EC benefits. And yet you refuse to accept it because Your Team considers the EC a good thing.
*sigh* Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
Dreadwinter wrote: We should use facts to justify statements and stop use hyperbolic statements to derail threads.
How 'bout it? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he is even close to the level Blagojevich is at.
So if we're trying to dial down hyperbole... why bring up Blogojevich? Why not "Why is Gavin such a problem for you whem?"
I don't care what your problems are with him. Stop attempting to misdirect. I care that people are held accountable for sleazy, hyperbolic comments and for defending those sleazy, hyperbolic comments.
My view of Newsom is the same as I view Nancy Pelosi. Keep 'em there in CA where they can't spread their crap nationally.
*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.
Dreadwinter wrote: Again, I do not care. How is he as sleazy as Blagojevich?
That he's a politician.
The @NRA is completely complicit in yesterday's shooting, as are all our leaders who have done nothing to stop this violence. If you cannot protect the kids of this country, you should not maintain any position of influence or power.
^Newsom tweated that.
Sleaze ball.
Spoiler:
Have you seen San Fran lately?
Sleaze ball.
Does he amount to the level of Blagovich's corruption? <me not being hyperbolic> No, of course not.
*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.
Huh?
Wisconsin was part of the blue wall that's solidedly in those collections of "small states". HRC chose not to compaign there believing WI is safe.
WI was a pivotal state for Trump to win the EC vote. So... small states *do* matter. Maybe not individually on it's own ala, Texas, NY, CA... but, they do add up.
*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.
In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.
This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.
Huh?
Wisconsin was part of the blue wall that's solidedly in those collections of "small states". HRC chose not to compaign there believing WI is safe.
WI was a pivotal state for Trump to win the EC vote. So... small states *do* matter. Maybe not individually on it's own ala, Texas, NY, CA... but, they do add up.
But your example of California flipping is a bad example. It shows if you expect a shift you're still better off going for the larger shifting state.
Even WI didn't change the outcome. Those 10 EC didn't decide the election. Just helped Trump's margin, but that is still 3 times the EC difference from Wyoming, with 3 votes that is never going to change the outcome. You would have to spend a major amount if time convincing 3 deeply red small states to turn blue when you can just go to Wisconsin, so why bother? If you want to win its better to spend limited time in larger deep red states if you are certainly able to flip. The end of the line is, if a state like Wyoming is becoming an option to flip, why not just invest all that effort in Texas if the political shift is so significant?
There have only been 2 election in which the EC difference was less than 10. And again, if the margin is that close, why not campaign some more in the swing states that are known with multiple times the EC votes? Like Gore vs. Bush. sure Gore could have flipped Wyoming, but why not just focus on Florida that had a guaranteed history of swinging instead of going for the hail mary and campaign in WY and lose both? It makes zero sense as a strategy.
If you have time to campaign in a 3 EC state with the intensity to flip it, you're victory is as good as certain. No intelligent person is going to spend time and effort in a small entrenched state when its a closer race and their opponent is going to dump their efforts in less entrenched bigger states. You would be setting yourself up to lose.
Lacking anyone in the G7 willing to give Trump a relationship he can understand, he felt isolated and insecure. I don't know if he then turned to Putin because he really felt the need for Putin there as an ally, or because Trump was just throwing a hand grenade because he felt more comfortable if things were more chaotic. I don't know, but the point is this is not how functional adults work. It is certainly not how functional heads of state work.
If I had to guess, I'd say Putin is what Trump thinks he is / wants to be. A charismatic strongman who cultivated a reputation as the icon of his country, and a "magnificent bastard" who leaves other countries shaking their fist in impotent rage at his latest show of strength. The difference being that Putin is smart.
Amusingly, other countries aren't shaking their fists in impotent rage at Putin, because there are sanctions and so on. But we are shaking our fists with impotent rage at Trump, who is supposed to be a close ally and is behaving like an idiot hooligan. (It's easier to understand Putin's thinking.)
However, sanctions in the form of increased tariffs on various US goods are coming in July, and it will be interesting to see what happens then.
whembly wrote: Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.
Blagojevich's sleaze resulted in him being convicted on 41 counts, and being sentenced to 14 years in federal prison. You're trying to argue Frazzled compared Newsom to Blagojevich for his sleaze, but not his criminal sleaze. It's a plainly ridiculous argument.
It's also a completely pointless argument that means nothing. Because even if we pretended Frazzled was only comparing to Blagojevich's non-criminal sleaze, Frazzled has still failed to substantiate any slease from Newsom. Frazzled didn't even try. He just blathered some nonsense about people know, then wandered off and came back later to complain about Newsom's gun control. At which point you and one of the other usual suspects came rushing in, ignoring Frazzled false allegation and trying to pick up on his attempt to walk past his dishonest claims.
But you saying that this is "yet another instance of Republican mud slinging..." is downright insulting.
Frazzled made an allegation with nothing to support it. When called on it he didn't admit error, he first tried defend it with vague nothingness, then tried to walk past it. That's the textbook definition of mudslinging. And it is a pattern that right wingers repeat constantly, here and across the media.
If that insults you, stop associating with these people.
Your abject hatred of anything Republican is blinding you to much of these conversations... as its one of the reasons why I've stepped back a bit.
You step back, it just doesn't matter. You'll still turn up on election day and loyally vote for your team.
Me and Frazz has stated numerous times that we had issues with the Republican party and in Trump in particular....
And claiming you have a problem with Trump and only Trump is a big part of the problem. It's like walking out of The Wicker Man and saying Cage's acting was really hammy and somehow missing everything else wrong with that movie. There is so much else wrong with the Republicans than just Trump, he is a symptom of a gravely broken political party. Remember during the election when you guys were saying Trump wouldn't be that bad because Republicans would obstruct him as much as Democrats? That's because you guys somehow still thought your Republican party had values, but now when asked if they would impeach the president for pardoning himself, a grand total of 1 Republican House member said he would. Far from trying to constrain him on anything mundane, they won't even move against him if he declares personal immunity from the law.
It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won". I can hear you rolling your eyes...
No, it was more of tired, kind of bored sigh.
Trump won because 62 million Americans voted for him. Those 62m people and they alone are responsible. The party of personal responsibility won't even take responsibility for its own president.
Reviewing the events of the weekend, the US President has managed to make himself look like a petulant child to our closest allies and economic partners, has engaged in direct ad-hominem attacks on said allies, appeared to be cosying up to Putin in calling for Russia to be re-included, and ultimately was hoist by his own petard so to speak, with basically nothing positive coming out of the G7 talks for the US, and Merkel now increasingly shouldering the mantle of "Leader of the Free World" in terms of who the "free world" looks to for *actual* leadership.
Now, the US President has ducked out of that meeting early, to go meet with North Korea over denuclearization talks after he unilaterally scrapped them earlier, then decided to put them back on. The President has openly stated he has done 0 preparation for this meeting, and believes he'll know "within the first minute" if Kim will really give up his nuclear weapons. This is, of course, after an exhaustively negotiated multilateral deal with Iran on their nuclear power program was just unilaterally scrapped by the President because...reasons.
Thus is the current standing of the United States in international affairs less than 18 months into Donald Trump's presidency.
And 87% of his party approves of his job performance.
Trump's election is clearly all cultural, and it is derived from a certain form of "hopelessness" that then leads to Nihilism. Hence, the more "petualant" and "stick it to 'em" he is to other nations, the more his popularity will increase.
What are the Democrats going to bring to the table to help the voters find "hope" in the Mid-terms and want to vote for them? I haven't seen much Nationally, but maybe there is more at the local level.
Tl-dr, trump has all the cards. Interesting article. Thoughts?
Edit: I don't know how 'valid' the arguments are, though they fly against my own personal thoughts on the subject, but at least it's interesting to see a different viewpoint. I often worry that although I think I read a variety of sources, they might not be as varied as I think, and feel 'echo chambers' are dangerous. For that reason alone, I think it's interesting to see an alternative viewpoint. I was just curious if others could decipher it as having value or not.
Tl-dr, trump has all the cards. Interesting article. Thoughts?
Well the article fails to mention the nearly 4000 point drop the stock market took less than 6 months ago, and while it has been going up it has not been going at the same rate pre-Trump. The market readjustment will come and it will come in the next few years most likely exacerbated by Trumps and by extension the GOP's terrible economic plans.
Also the author is the Greek minister of Finance that screwed things up in 2015 so I will take whatever he has to say with a grain of salt
The pattern of the USA being the centre of commerce and political organisation for the western world is what we've had since the end of WW2. Basically it's been a good thing for the whole world, including the USA. (Let's ignore inequality within the USA, because that's a separate matter. We also have to Ignore lots of very unfortunate local lumpy bits which in the long run of history are gradually being smoothed out.)
The difference now is that Trump is smashing up that successful system without any apparent vision of what is to replace it (anyone remember the New American Century?) and there is a huge potential rival in the People's Republic of China, who have a very different and unpleasant vision of the future.
I mean, if the argument is that Trump might get a second term, I don't think that can be ruled out. It depends partly on when the next crash of the US economy happens and that isn't likely in the next 3 years. Would a second Trump term totally destroy the international world order? Trump's wacky fake anti-establishment reactionaryism isn't the only force at work in the world. The demographics are moving against the forces of reaction, and so is climate change.
Tl-dr, trump has all the cards. Interesting article. Thoughts?
Its a terrible argument. Varoufakis has increasingly started writing articles that seem more inspired by glee than reason.
1. The economic momentum at home is mostly the economy pushing through the Obama years into the Trump years. Its been on the upswing for years now, that isn't the Trump admin building momentum, the momentum was already building before he got in.
2. The idea that the US can't lose a trade war is mental. First, this assumes competent people are running the trade war show. Second, you most certainly can politically lose a trade war. Screwing over your closest allies is a good way to end your decades of global hegemony. Third, the others don't have to win, just punish the Trump voters enough that they might reconsider in 2020 and ending by getting in someone else.
3. The hubs and spokes system sounds funny, but in many ways that already exists because countries are willing to engage with a friendly US. What he describes though, the bilateral deals? Its exactly what China did, you know what the other countries did, found the TPP to counter such pressure by forming a bloc. If the US is going to be that belligerent what if that bloc starts moving in the direction of China? The US is seriously risking its hegemonic position if it starts to get too nationalistic.
4. His Iran example is very weak. Its a single nation with an underdeveloped economy and little investment compared to the US. But we're talking about a trade war with most of the top 10 GDP countries in the world, if those stand together that is a lot less insignificant than Iran. Remember,Iran only got sanctioned by the US which is why those German companies pulled out, in this scenario we're talking sanctions from both sides without a neutral third party (i.e. German companies).
It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
whembly wrote: It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
I'm curious, how does 5 guilty pleas and something like 19 indictments indicate it'll amount to nothing, especially when some of the charges are conspiracy against the US?
whembly wrote: It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
I'm curious, how does 5 guilty pleas and something like 19 indictments indicate it'll amount to nothing, especially when some of the charges are conspiracy against the US?
Because Fox news and the GOP delusion machine (is there a difference between the two? ) says it is
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
whembly wrote: It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
I'm curious, how does 5 guilty pleas and something like 19 indictments indicate it'll amount to nothing, especially when some of the charges are conspiracy against the US?
He's saying there is nothing tying Trump yet.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, (snip)..
I am curious. What do you base that on?
The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
Sure it’s possible that Mueller is keeping something close to vest... but so far.? I wouldn’t hold your breath.
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
And I’ve pointed out that the international community knows this from day one.
If you want something to withstand the test of time we have formal process to enter into international treaties. If not, such agreements can be rescinded by next administration via the pen.
whembly wrote: It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
I'm curious, how does 5 guilty pleas and something like 19 indictments indicate it'll amount to nothing, especially when some of the charges are conspiracy against the US?
He's saying there is nothing tying Trump yet.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
Oh crap I am posting here again.
Why would you assume that? Many people voted independent so they wouldn't have to vote for Trump. I mean if they didn't want Trump then, why would..... Ooooooh yeah I get you. Team red votes for team red whenever there is a chance of obstructing democrats and the government.
Can we do that bet again d-USA, I have a new date for when I think Whembly will flip!
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
And I’ve pointed out that the international community knows this from day one.
If you want something to withstand the test of time we have formal process to enter into international treaties. If not, such agreements can be rescinded by next administration via the pen.
Which means that for the purpose of international agreements, you have less than 2 productive years out of every 4 or 8 years. One hell of a way to lose a global order.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
Libertarians are just as bad tbh. Most of them are just Republican Lite.
A Libertarian is someone who thinks that small government is the best thing for America. A Republican is someone who says that small government is the best thing for America, but doesn't really mean it.
Kilkrazy wrote: there is a huge potential rival in the People's Republic of China, who have a very different and unpleasant vision of the future.
When the Chinese start invading other countries willy-nilly, that might perhaps be true. But right now, at this very moment, in the grand scheme of things, the Chinese are clearly the good guys.
Kilkrazy wrote: there is a huge potential rival in the People's Republic of China, who have a very different and unpleasant vision of the future.
When the Chinese start invading other countries willy-nilly, that might perhaps be true. But right now, at this very moment, in the grand scheme of things, the Chinese are clearly the good guys.
Well to be fair, what Russia does with 10k square mile Peninsulas, China really wants to do with about 1.3 million square miles of international waters so... yeah that's a thing. Short memories and all that. China would love to be able to say "we put in our best effort."
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
Libertarians are just as bad tbh. Most of them are just Republican Lite.
Libertarianism is Communism through the negative image filter. Fantastic concept until you actually think about if for more than five minutes.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, (snip)..
I am curious. What do you base that on?
The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
Sure it’s possible that Mueller is keeping something close to vest... but so far.? I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Is impeachment of the current President a requirement for the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election to have been justified and/or productive?
I get that the current White House is leaking like a sieve, but that isn't actually the norm.
Please, do not attempt to normalize such highly dysfunctional behaviour by expecting the same level of incompetence from the Mueller investigation.
whembly wrote: It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
I'm curious, how does 5 guilty pleas and something like 19 indictments indicate it'll amount to nothing, especially when some of the charges are conspiracy against the US?
He's saying there is nothing tying Trump yet.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
Oh crap I am posting here again.
Wait, so despite Russians connections to basically everyone in trump's campaign, including "secret" meetings with them at trump tower, and a letter dictated by trump, there's nothing tying trump to the russians. Not even the weird little fact he's never attacked russia over anything, even though he'll attack our closest allies or his own staff?
But despite all of that, there's nothing tying trump to the russians? I call bs, and just because we don't know what Mueller has doesn't mean there is nothing.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, (snip)..
I am curious. What do you base that on?
The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
Sure it’s possible that Mueller is keeping something close to vest... but so far.? I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Flynn and Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians to investigators. It's dishonest to say they were "just" lying to the FBI, when they were lying about Russian contacts. And Rick Gates was charged with conspiracy against the United States. On top of that, Kilimnik and Manafort have now been charged with witness tampering.
On the subject of Gate's charge, it states (bold mine) "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both", and the bold part basically means “impair or obstruct the lawful function of any part of the government." according to Lisa Kern Griffin. However, the reason they're being charged with that is partly because "...their failure to adequately disclose their lobbying under the Foreign Agents Registration Act"
The non bold part comes in because making lying about lobbying for foreign governments, not filing reports about foreign bank accounts, and lying to investigators is a crime.
Basically, all of this points to them working for the Russians more or less, which is a far cry from "nothing there!" that fox news spouts. I seriously recommended turning fox off and reading almost anything else. Even the onion.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
Yeah but my party punted hard with Johnson/Weld and we have not much coming up in the ranks. dont count on us to save anything anytime soon.
Da Boss wrote: Trumps behaviour at the G7 is fething unacceptable. I hope we treat the US with the same contempt it has shown us, in future.
No, treat TRUMP that way, please. The rest of us don't deserve it.
Elections have consequences. I've said it before, the US cannot survive without the rest of the world, but the rest of the world can survive without the US, and that's a lesson that some people need to learn.
Not if we decide it doesn't...
Yes, I'm sure that will be productive. "Give us what we want and we won't blow you up." The 'North Korea' school of diplomacy in action there...
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
If you started World War 3, I missed it, but I would not be surprised if you did.
And the Caribbean is a bad example as the US generally plays reasonably nice with it's neighbors as far as territorial claims go. They don't, for example, claim that Cuba is a break away province and that any war between them is an internal matter. Nor, surprisingly, do they arm those island with nuclear delivery systems. Frankly, if the Philippines did invade those territorial claims, they'd be more than justified due to China's placement of delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction on their doorstep.
Kilkrazy wrote: Amusingly, other countries aren't shaking their fists in impotent rage at Putin, because there are sanctions and so on. But we are shaking our fists with impotent rage at Trump, who is supposed to be a close ally and is behaving like an idiot hooligan. (It's easier to understand Putin's thinking.)
However, sanctions in the form of increased tariffs on various US goods are coming in July, and it will be interesting to see what happens then.
If you REALLY want to change American policy, enact policies that hit (or even just restrict) the average American corporate executive. You know, the ones with more money than they know what to do with. When they feel the pinch, you can bet they'll be on the phone to their contacts in Congress saying "Fix this or kiss your campaign funds goodbye!"
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.
To what point? The Republicans will just vote to tear it down when they get back in power, even if it's a really good deal, just because the Democrats did it.
As of right now, there is NO hope for anyone having long-term political agreements or treaties with America. NONE. That's what Trump and the current Congress has done for us.
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.
To what point? The Republicans will just vote to tear it down when they get back in power, even if it's a really good deal, just because the Democrats did it.
As of right now, there is NO hope for anyone having long-term political agreements or treaties with America. NONE. That's what Trump and the current Congress has done for us.
What international treaty that was ratified by a previous session of Congress has been rescinded by the current session of Congress? I’ve seen Trump withdraw executive branch support from treaties that Obama supported but Congress never ratified but I don’t see Congress voiding ratified treaties. You may not like what Trump is doing, I don’t like all the things Trump is doing but he’s playing by the same rules governing foreign treaties that previous presidents have followed. The laws haven’t changed and they’re unlikely to change anytime soon, the US will still have existing obligations to ratified treaties and we’ll ratify our commitments to more treaties in the future. The incessant hyperbolic freak out over anything that Trump does has grown tiresome.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think you would see the opposite effect. Consider China invaded Vietnam over the Khmer Rouge, the US had little to nothing to do with that. Neither Russia Nor China has any reason to legitimately fear the US. We are not going to invade either of them. Even when directly fighting the Chinese in Korea, we did not attack China.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
That would be naieve in the extreme. Even if they had no directly aggressive imperialist intentions of their own (which would be extremely suspect given basic human nature), there's lots of reason to want to project power (to assist allies, stabilize neighbors, etc), and there are other axis of power besides just the US/China/Russia (the EU would obviously have a gap to fill, India is increasingly a major player on the world stage, etc).
It's not like we don't see China and Russia doing the same things against other nations that they do with/against the US. India and China just recently narrowly avoided a shooting war over a stupid pedantic argument over a road in the literal middle of nowhere.
EDIT: not that I wouldn't mind US withdrawal in some instances, but lets not make it out like there wouldn't be vacuums that China and Russia would fail to exploit.
Ouze wrote: On further reflection, the worst part of this thread is that all the particpants are now being forced to try to spell "Blagojevich" over and over.
The worst part is me realising that despite typing that word out maybe two dozen times now, I still don't know how to spell it.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression.
By invading their neighbors and committing aggression themselves? By violating international waters? By extending their territorial claims right up onto the beaches of their neighbors? Please Try Again.
If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
Russia does that on a regular basis. In the Caribbean, hilariously, when conducting joint exercises with Cuba and certain other Latin American countries. Please Try Again.
Easy E wrote: Trump's election is clearly all cultural, and it is derived from a certain form of "hopelessness" that then leads to Nihilism. Hence, the more "petualant" and "stick it to 'em" he is to other nations, the more his popularity will increase.
What are the Democrats going to bring to the table to help the voters find "hope" in the Mid-terms and want to vote for them? I haven't seen much Nationally, but maybe there is more at the local level.
It varies in each of the races. The biggest issue with Newsom is that he’s very much a SSDD candidate. He doesn’t move the needle for the Democrats. He’s running for governor in CA one of our largest and most influential states and what should be a leading state for the impending “Blue Wave” coming for the midterms and only 20% of the voters turned out for the primaries in CA because choosing the right candidate just isn’t that important to 80% of the voters. Trump won’t be on the ballot in 2018 and if there’s not much enthusiasm among Democrats then the midterms aren’t going to go as well for them as they want. The most powerful ally for the GOP and Trump’s agenda, whatever that is, is low voter turnout and so far it doesn’t look like a majority of voters are invested in the midterm elections right now.
Ouze wrote: On further reflection, the worst part of this thread is that all the particpants are now being forced to try to spell "Blagojevich" over and over.
The worst part is me realising that despite typing that word out maybe two dozen times now, I still don't know how to spell it.
For some reason it was in my new phones spell check. I had to put feth in here but Blagojevich, LG got me!
whembly wrote: Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
whembly, I have explained to you maybe a half dozen times now that Wisconsin didn't matter and was never going to matter. There was 229 EV that Trump won by more than 3%, this was Trump's base of votes, the stuff he was sure to get in anything but a horrific blow out. From there Trump had to pick up enough swing states to reach 270, and this election the states in play were Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Florida (29).
Now do the maths. Try and figure out the combination in which Wisconsin tips the election. Because if Trump wins Florida, then all Trump needs is to pick up either Michigan or Pennsylvania to win. Wisconsin doesn't matter either way, if Trump gets neither Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin can't get him to 270, and if Trump wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania then he wins with or without Wisconsin.
The only way Wisconsin actually plays a role in deciding the election is if Trump lost Florida, but won Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which case then Wisconsin would decide the election. But that's a very, very silly scenario and Clinton and everyone else was quite right not to focus on it.
This isn't to defend Clinton's campaign, which was dreadful. But it was dreadful for lots of lots of reasons that had nothing to do with electoral vote strategizing, where the Clinton camp figured out the lay of the land perfectly well. Afterall, Clinton visited Michigan and Pennsylvania lots more that Wisconsin, and her vote decline there was much worse, which tells you a lot about the effect of Clinton's stump speeches.
The point is that I've explained this to you a lot of times now, whembly. And you still refuse to understand it, because you don't like how it challenges how you would prefer to understand the 2016 campaign and the electoral college system. This is the problem whembly. You are knee deep in a culture that simply doesn't process unwelcome information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crispy78 wrote: Fox News made a bit of a slip the other day, host referred to 'the two dictators' meeting in Singapore...
The most fun thing about that is the reporter who made the slip is Abby Huntsman, the daughter of Jon Huntsman, who is currently the US ambassador to Moscow
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think your misunderstanding. Having a region of the sea where you're the de facto dominant power isn't remotely comparable to claiming a huge swath of international waters as a personal fiefdom. You're comparing sour apples to donkey-caves. The US hasn't claimed the Carribean sea and demanded everyone else sailing through pay fees.
Interesting article on why people support abhorrent policies.
Holy crap that was good.
"See, the people who are sure that Surely There Will Be Exceptions are very comfortable with the idea of justice being decided on a case-by-case basis. They've always had teachers, bosses, bureaucrats, even traffic cops giving them some slack for reasons of compassion and logic."
It makes it clear that a lot of this really is a product of people not realising that society doesn't work for other people the way it works for them. Extreme laws for possessing pot don't bother people who smoked a bit as kids, because instinctively they understand that if they'd been caught the policeman and courts would give them leniancy in a way that many people in society will not get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elemental wrote: If I had to guess, I'd say Putin is what Trump thinks he is / wants to be. A charismatic strongman who cultivated a reputation as the icon of his country, and a "magnificent bastard" who leaves other countries shaking their fist in impotent rage at his latest show of strength. The difference being that Putin is smart.
Trump certainly has a thing for the strong man. There's a kind of interior decorating style, mockingly called dictator chic. It's that style of oversized rooms, gold and marble finishings, with everything produced in an old, ornate style, typically 18th century French, sometimes roman, but never with actual antiques. The purpose of every element is the projection of power and wealth. The idea of doing anything simply because it is beautiful or functional isn't even considered, it is all about projecting status. It's the style of Hussein, Milosevic, Ceausescu, Gaddafi, and Trump. Long before Trump ever thought of being a world leader, his buildings showed his affinity was with dictators who like him see everything as a means to project one's own power and status..
Trump was already primed to like Putin, and then Putin did what he did during the election, and ingratiated himself with Trump after Trump won. In comparison, the other leaders of G7 just keep talking to Trump about stuff like mutual growth and sustaining world order, and never once talk about helping him build hotels. Of course Trump would treat having to attend as a chore, turn up late for each sessions, sit with arms folded saying nothing, and leave wishing Putin was there with him.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think your misunderstanding. Having a region of the sea where you're the de facto dominant power isn't remotely comparable to claiming a huge swath of international waters as a personal fiefdom. You're comparing sour apples to donkey-caves. The US hasn't claimed the Carribean sea and demanded everyone else sailing through pay fees.
No, I'm not misunderstanding at all. China and Russia demand the same level of territorial integrity and defense in depth that the US enjoys, simple as that. And the US regularly invades other countries. The only reason the countries south of the US are "friendly" to the US is because we removed, by force, anybody who didn't do what we wanted. I see no reason why China and Russia shouldn't do in their backyards as America did in ours through the 1970s (officially).
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
That would be naieve in the extreme. Even if they had no directly aggressive imperialist intentions of their own (which would be extremely suspect given basic human nature), there's lots of reason to want to project power (to assist allies, stabilize neighbors, etc), and there are other axis of power besides just the US/China/Russia (the EU would obviously have a gap to fill, India is increasingly a major player on the world stage, etc).
It's not like we don't see China and Russia doing the same things against other nations that they do with/against the US. India and China just recently narrowly avoided a shooting war over a stupid pedantic argument over a road in the literal middle of nowhere.
EDIT: not that I wouldn't mind US withdrawal in some instances, but lets not make it out like there wouldn't be vacuums that China and Russia would fail to exploit.
And yet, is it not obvious that the continuous use of US power to protect our interests requires China and Russia to do the same?
Vaktathi wrote: Reviewing the events of the weekend, the US President has managed to make himself look like a petulant child to our closest allies and economic partners, has engaged in direct ad-hominem attacks on said allies, appeared to be cosying up to Putin in calling for Russia to be re-included, and ultimately was hoist by his own petard so to speak, with basically nothing positive coming out of the G7 talks for the US...
People are doing a lot of theorising about Trump doing all that nonsense at G7 because he was working for Putin etc... but those theories are loose and not needed. Trump acted as he did because he didn't want to go, he does't like the G7 leaders, and doesn't like doing all that thankless, hard work stuff like building collective policy frameworks.
...and Merkel now increasingly shouldering the mantle of "Leader of the Free World" in terms of who the "free world" looks to for *actual* leadership.
A few years ago people were upset at Germany taking too much control in directing the EU. Now we're saying maybe Germany should just take over doing everything.
And 87% of his party approves of his job performance.
Yep. And its a vicious circle, because as long as Trump is popular then Republicans and their loyalist media won't risk their place by speaking out about dear president, but unless some are willing to do that then the base will never hear about how bad Trump really was, which means he won't lose popularity, which means people will still be afraid to speak out.
Trump will one day be recognised as a terrible disaster. And when that happens, it will happen very suddenly, much like what happened to GW Bush, when he dropped from mid-40s to mid-10s over about a year. This wasn't because voters suddenly realised in 2006 that Iraq wasn't going well, and housing hadn't tanked yet. It was because Bush wasn't runing for office again so there was no partisan reason to defend him, and so when his support wavered conservatives felt more comfortable attacking him, which dropped support further, and so on.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think your misunderstanding. Having a region of the sea where you're the de facto dominant power isn't remotely comparable to claiming a huge swath of international waters as a personal fiefdom. You're comparing sour apples to donkey-caves. The US hasn't claimed the Carribean sea and demanded everyone else sailing through pay fees.
No, I'm not misunderstanding at all. China and Russia demand the same level of territorial integrity and defense in depth that the US enjoys, simple as that. And the US regularly invades other countries. The only reason the countries south of the US are "friendly" to the US is because we removed, by force, anybody who didn't do what we wanted. I see no reason why China and Russia shouldn't do in their backyards as America did in ours through the 1970s (officially).
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
That would be naieve in the extreme. Even if they had no directly aggressive imperialist intentions of their own (which would be extremely suspect given basic human nature), there's lots of reason to want to project power (to assist allies, stabilize neighbors, etc), and there are other axis of power besides just the US/China/Russia (the EU would obviously have a gap to fill, India is increasingly a major player on the world stage, etc).
It's not like we don't see China and Russia doing the same things against other nations that they do with/against the US. India and China just recently narrowly avoided a shooting war over a stupid pedantic argument over a road in the literal middle of nowhere.
EDIT: not that I wouldn't mind US withdrawal in some instances, but lets not make it out like there wouldn't be vacuums that China and Russia would fail to exploit.
And yet, is it not obvious that the continuous use of US power to protect our interests requires China and Russia to do the same?
"Sure it's bad for Mr China to barge into his neighbor's house with a gun and take control, but Mr USA parks his car in his neighbor's driveway like he owns the place and also got in trouble for barging into other people's houses in the past. So that makes it OK for Mr China."
Ouze wrote: On further reflection, the worst part of this thread is that all the particpants are now being forced to try to spell "Blagojevich" over and over.
The worst part is me realising that despite typing that word out maybe two dozen times now, I still don't know how to spell it.
TBH after the first time I just started copying and pasting it from a google tab. Gun to my head I can't spell it either.
Steelmage99 wrote: Is impeachment of the current President a requirement for the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election to have been justified and/or productive?
When Whembly said that the Mueller investigation won't amount to much, I think he's actually right. I'm not saying there isn't lots of stuff to find: for something decried as a "witch hunt", it sure has turned up a lot of witches.
No, but imo to have actually have been useful - not a word you used, but it's what I am going to use - it would have rooted out foreign influence in the 2016 election, and spurred measures to remediate them.
That is already clearly not going to happen, because the apparatus to make meaningful change denies the problem exists and admitting it exists means they have to admit that either they were deeply corrupt, or useful idiots. Not a good look either way. There will be no further laws passed to prevent foreign influence, nothing to control how foreign governments purchase advertising in the US, nothing meaningful in response to hacking. So, that won't be useful.
We all know, or should know, that impeachment isn't going to happen. The numbers aren't there and they won't be there no matter what Mueller finds because that is how our government works now and presumably for the foreseeable future. He is going to issue a report, and the right wing is going to deny everything in it regardless of what he finds or how accurate it is. He's too conservative of a investigator to try indicting POTUS directly - I think it would be constitutional but it's definitely an open question, I think, and he's not going to be the one to try.
He's going to build a careful foundation and a workmanlike case and a terrific prosecution only to find the jury box is empty and the judge is doodling dicks on a pad and hasn't heard a word he said.
And since partisanship is strong, 40+% of the US will agree that the whole thing was a bunch of nonsense, after all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Sure it's bad for Mr China to barge into his neighbor's house with a gun and take control, but Mr USA parks his car in his neighbor's driveway like he owns the place and also got in trouble for barging into other people's houses in the past. So that makes it OK for Mr China."
Let's be clear that Mr. USA fething murdered the inhabitants of his mansion, along with everyone who used to live in what is now his gated, fortified compound.
When Mr. China and Mr Russia move into the neighborhood, and see that's how things are done, it's hard to blame them for following suit.
JohnHwangDD wrote: China and Russia demand the same level of territorial integrity and defense in depth that the US enjoys
They already have territorial integrity. No one on Earth is insane enough to go to war with Russia or China because Russia didn't Annex Chrimea, or because China didn't seize an entire body of water. Hell if anything those two things overtly harm the territorial integrity of both countries because no one likes it when nation states make overtly hostile land grabs. That's nonsense, not to mention hypocritical. Japan, Vietnam, Ukraine, and Estonia etc etc aren't entited to the territorial integrity that comes from neighbors who don't try to act like global thungs?
And the US regularly invades other countries.
Yeah and it's a pretty dick thing to do. When countries have to fall back on "but the US did it" they've already lost anything approaching a high ground, which just makes the "stop being so unfair to my country" bit feel like watching a kindergartner scream "not fair" at the top of their little lungs.
The only reason the countries south of the US are "friendly" to the US is because we removed
Now you definitely don't understand. Most of South America save for Columbia, Mexico, and sometimes Chile (depending on their personality disorder of the decade) have governments that overtly and openly dislike the US. They cooperate mostly because of economics. There aren't exactly a large number of choice trading partners, and that itself really just goes back to the above point. US foreign policy, even before Trump started burning it to the ground, wasn't exactly something to aspire too.
1970s
You realize its 2018 right? The people who were calling the shots in the 70s mostly aren't even alive anymore.
And yet, is it not obvious that the continuous use of US power to protect our interests requires China and Russia to do the same?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848, and 2) we've never overtly demanded that the world give us control of international waters.
You're still comparing things that are not alike, and relying on really flimsy whataboutisms to dance around the issue that those things are still unjustifiable. EDIT: As an side, there's something of an irony in a world where Iran, a country that mostly plays by the same rules as everyone else and is villified for it, is called an axis of evil but two countries who are overtly trying to circumvent and break the rules everyone plays by are hapless victims of American neo-colonialism.
whembly wrote: Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
whembly, I have explained to you maybe a half dozen times now that Wisconsin didn't matter and was never going to matter. There was 229 EV that Trump won by more than 3%, this was Trump's base of votes, the stuff he was sure to get in anything but a horrific blow out. From there Trump had to pick up enough swing states to reach 270, and this election the states in play were Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Florida (29).
Now do the maths. Try and figure out the combination in which Wisconsin tips the election. Because if Trump wins Florida, then all Trump needs is to pick up either Michigan or Pennsylvania to win. Wisconsin doesn't matter either way, if Trump gets neither Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin can't get him to 270, and if Trump wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania then he wins with or without Wisconsin.
The only way Wisconsin actually plays a role in deciding the election is if Trump lost Florida, but won Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which case then Wisconsin would decide the election. But that's a very, very silly scenario and Clinton and everyone else was quite right not to focus on it.
The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state. WI is a small state that likely won't impact the collective EV tally. The point is that *it could* in the future elections, especially since it's trending purplish now (ala CO).
This isn't to defend Clinton's campaign, which was dreadful. But it was dreadful for lots of lots of reasons that had nothing to do with electoral vote strategizing, where the Clinton camp figured out the lay of the land perfectly well. Afterall, Clinton visited Michigan and Pennsylvania lots more that Wisconsin, and her vote decline there was much worse, which tells you a lot about the effect of Clinton's stump speeches.
True.. I think it was you that said Clinton was to technocratic, rather than repeating easily understood stump speeches.
The point is that I've explained this to you a lot of times now, whembly. And you still refuse to understand it, because you don't like how it challenges how you would prefer to understand the 2016 campaign and the electoral college system. This is the problem whembly. You are knee deep in a culture that simply doesn't process unwelcome information.
I understand what you are trying to convey. I understand the point Peregrine has advocated... and even muskiteer and Tanner's point.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable..
The founders had the EXACT SAME fears and arguments about highly populated regions v. the less populated regions. Those concerns are just as valid as they are now.... hence how the EC was devised.
Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?
JohnHwangDD wrote: LOL, you seem to think that might doesn't make right.
Because it doesn't.
That's the excuse of donkey-caves who want to do donkey-cave things.
Not to mention hilarious in this case, since both examples being used here don't even qualify as might makes right. It's more like weakness makes right cause both issues are embarrassingly well summarized as the result of inferiority complexes (EDIT: Although I suppose we could qualify most international bs that countries pull is easily summarized as inferiority complexes...).
Tl-dr, trump has all the cards. Interesting article. Thoughts?
The US is the most powerful country in the G7 by far and has always held all the cards. Remember isn't a meeting of the most powerful countries, but a meeting of the most powerful developed, wealthy, liberal democracies.
In the past that power mattered and the US definitely took the lead, but it didn't matter all that much because all of G7 had shared values and a shared understanding of what is best for G7 and the world as a whole. What has changed is Trump no longer shares those values.
It's like G7 agreed to play a game down in the local park. America owns the ball and has always owned the ball. But that never came up before because America wanted to play just as much as everyone else does. Now Trump is saying he'll take the ball and go home unless everyone lets him score all the goals.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
Singapore (CNN)US President Donald Trump put his extraordinary gamble with North Korea's Kim Jong Un to the test on Tuesday, sitting for unprecedented and surreal talks with the rogue kingdom's despotic leader in what he hopes will amount to a historic breakthrough.
Photographs of a document signed by Trump and Kim indicate the leaders agreed to "work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."
In exchange, Trump agreed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea.
The document also indicates the leaders will endeavor to establish "new US-DPRK relations."
"I think our whole relationship with North Korea and the Korean peninsula is going to be a very different situation than it has in the past," Trump said at the conclusion of the landmark summit, which culminated in formal signing ceremony.
"Today, we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind," Kim said through a translator. "The world will see a major change."
What precisely was agreed upon during the nearly five-hour summit was not initially clear as the two leaders sat next to each other and autographed documents in leather binders.
Trump said it was a "pretty comprehensive document," but offered no other details on what it contained. When asked about the prospects of denuclearizing North Korea -- the administration's longstanding objective -- Trump said the process would begin "very quickly."
He was more forthcoming about his negotiating partner, with whom he said he developed a "special bond."
"We learned a lot about each other and our countries," Trump said before bidding Kim farewell. "I learned he's a very talented man."
He said he would "absolutely" invite Kim to the White House.
The two men -- both intent on making history -- greeted each other earlier in the day with extended hands in front of a row of US and North Korean flags, a previously unthinkable sight that reflects a new chapter in the two countries' acrimonious relationship.
"We had a really fantastic meeting. A lot of progress," Trump told reporters three hours later after sitting for a series of talks and a working lunch. "Really very positive. I think better than anybody could have expected."
"Top of the line," Trump said. "Really good."
Trump's threats to politely walk out of the meeting if his expectations were unmet did not materialize. Instead he predicted he could "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" alongside his new partner.
"Working together, we'll get it taken care of," Trump said.
The remarks came amid an improbable series of events that few could have anticipated even three months ago. The unlikely images of US and North Korean counterparts engaging in friendly dialogue lent the day an air of unreality. In a detailed menu, the White House said the men were served Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream for dessert.
Other developments also fueled that impression. Minutes before the historic handshake, Trump tweeted that his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow had suffered a heart attack.
Immediately after the encounter, Dennis Rodman -- one of the only Americans to have met Kim -- was openly weeping while being interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo.
Even Kim seemed to acknowledge the surreality of the day.
"Many people in the world will think of this as a (inaudible) form of fantasy ... from a science fiction movie," his translator was overheard saying as the two leaders walked down a white-columned colonnade.
The day began with Trump patting Kim on the back and placing his hand on the North Korean's shoulder as they walked into their first meeting. Their body language was openly friendly, a striking warmth given Kim's iron grip on power and dismal record on human rights. Trump's move to meet him attracted fierce criticism for normalizing a regime routinely called out for its human rights abuses, that over years has built an image of fearsome renegade regime, throwing around threats of nuclear war.
It was not clear whether Trump raised those issues during the meetings. When asked if he confronted Kim over the death of Otto Warmbier -- the American who died days after his release from North Korean captivity -- Trump did not respond.
Speaking through an interpreter, Kim alluded to the longstanding enmity between his country and the United States.
"It has not been easy to come to this point," Kim said, according to a CNN translation of his remarks. "For us, the past has been holding us back and old practices and prejudices have been covering our eyes and ears, but we have been able to overcome everything to arrive here today."
Trump nodded in agreement.
The meeting comes only months after the two men traded nuclear taunts, ratcheting up tensions and leading to fears of war.
Whether nuclear disarmament is indeed the outcome of Tuesday's summit won't be known for years, if not decades. But the dramatic act of extending his hand to one of America's longtime adversaries will forever illustrate Trump's gut-driven, norm-shattering tenure.
After the men shook hands, they repaired inside for one-on-one talks. In that first meeting they were joined only by translators, a break from standard practice of having at least one aide present for high-stakes huddles.
Later in the day, advisers joined the talks for a larger bilateral session and a working lunch. Trump was joined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff John Kelly, national security adviser John Bolton and the US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim, who has lent his Korea expertise to the talks.
In the lead-up to the summit, US and North Korean officials were convening contentious final-hour negotiations in a Ritz Carlton hotel here in a bid to narrow gaps on key aspects of the meeting.
It's not clear what the US side has been able to extract from the North Koreans in terms of their willingness to get rid of their nuclear weapons or allow inspectors into the country to catalog the scale of their program.
Trump took keen interest in the pageantry of the day, insisting the pictures beamed around the world reflect a commanding leader making a decisive, world-altering move. At the same time, he'd admitted he doesn't believe he requires extensive preparation to take stock of Kim.
Instead, he told reporters last weekend he would rely on "my touch, my feel" to assess the young and mercurial leader.
On Monday, the White House announced that Trump would depart earlier than expected for Washington. But before he leaves, he'll sit for an interview with his friend, the Fox host Sean Hannity, and convene a media availability for other reporters.
A US official confirmed to CNN Trump's departure was moved up by more than 12 hours because Kim set his own departure for shortly after the summit.
Tuesday's meeting, convened at a luxury hotel on the island of Sentosa, comes just three months after Trump accepted North Korea's invitation for talks on the spot. It was an extraordinarily compressed timeline for the landmark summit, one that left aides scrambling to initiate communication with the hermit nation.
The sides first spoke through intelligence channels, with US analysts working to determine Kim's true willingness to abandon a nuclear program started by his grandfather and viewed by Pyongyang as a security blanket from outside aggressors.
Pompeo, who led the outreach as CIA director, traveled twice to North Korea for preliminary talks. His sessions with Kim amounted to the most robust contact ever between the United States and the North Korean leader, providing critical information about a man about whom little is known.
But a major advancement came in late April when South Korean President Moon Jae-in met with Kim at the Korean Demilitarized Zone, a diplomatic opening that laid the basis for the future engagement with Trump. Moon has pressed for a diplomatic path to east tensions on the peninsula, fearing a more violent alternative.
Talks proceeded at multiple levels, including logistical discussions to allay Kim's fears of being deposed while traveling further afield than he ever has before as the country's leader. The site of the historic talks was a matter of intense speculation before the US President announced on Twitter it would occur here in Singapore, the flashy Southeast Asian city-state that has eagerly accommodated the spectacle.
More than 2,500 journalists have convened here, with each leader's every movement tracked carefully. A day before the summit, Trump mostly remained inside his Shangri-la hotel, emerging only to meet with his Singaporean counterpart at the presidential palace. Later in the day, he met with senior advisers and phoned the leaders of Japan and South Korea.
Kim, meanwhile, was spotted taking a moonlit stroll around the high-end Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino, which is owned by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. Kim was cheered by onlookers who caught sight of the dictator, who until earlier this spring was not believed to have ever left North Korea as supreme leader.
CNN's Yuli Yang, Sophie Jeong, Yoonjung Seo and Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.
My god they're stroking each other's ego...
...and Dennis Rodman...whoa... but, hey, if Trump misses a shot, you'd have the best rebounder in history in Rodman.
Well there isn't much news on details because there aren't any. Photos of the document show its basically a promise to denuclearize in exchange for security guarantees. Nothing of value has been said or done except for Kim.
So anyone else laughing at Trump's advisor saying Trudeau deserves a special place in hell, but Trump calling Kim, who runs a country with large concentration camps and terrible HR record, a man who loves his country very much? The cognitive dissonance of this admin is breathtaking.
Quite a few North Korea experts seem surprised it was even more barebones than they expected it to be. Certainly nothing historical beyond a US president sitting down with a Kim.
Trump issued more than 20 straight denials of his campaign meeting with Russian government officials. We have since learned of more than 70 such meetings. And it isn't like these guys came clean and volunteered all the meetings, that's just a list of meetings we've learned about so far, with more constantly being discovered. Just this last week we learned of Ivanka meeting with a Russian contact to help organise a Putin meeting. The fact these meetings are still being hidden, and Trump and his staff told so many lies about their meetings isn't proof of Trump's guilt, but it sure isn't nothing.
One of these meetings involved Trump's own son, alongside his son-in-law and campaign manager meeting with Russians to arrange the receipt of Russian intelligence on Hillary Clinton. When this meeting was publicly revealed, after Jr released three lies mischaracterising the meeting, Jr eventually admitted the meeting was to get intel on Clinton but claimed nothing came of the meeting and just asked us to trust him and now he was telling the truth after being caught lying three times previously. We then learned that he was lying when he claimed he wrote the statement, it was actually dictated by Trump Sr, something that took three or four false statements before it was eventually admitted. Again, not absolute proof in itself, but calling it nothing is a lie.
Russia used wikileaks to launder its release of stolen data. We know Stone and Don Jr had multiple contacts with Julian Assange, and Stone knew of the Podesta email releases ahead of time, something Stone has since lied about. Again, not evidence of Trump's direct collusion with Russia, but it's far from nothing.
We have emails chains between Trump's Chief of Staff Manafort and Russian operatives. Manafort was famously working for Trump for free, but in his emails with his Russian contacts he makes it clear his work for Trump is meant to clear his substantial debt to a Russian oligarch. Exactly what Manafort was doing that would be so valuable to a Russian oligarch is one hell of a big question. There's no evidence what he was doing had Trump's knowledge, but that leads to the biggest point of all...
If all this stuff was happening without Trump's knowledge, wouldn't he want to know who in his staff was colluding with Russia? Wouldn't a US president want to know the extent to which a foreign country looked to interfere in a US election? But Trump fired Comey, in his own words to get rid of the 'Russia thing', and has tried multiple times to fire Mueller. AA man who was entirely naive of the contacts his staff made with Russia would support an investigation, not only to identify and clean out the staff who lied to him, but to clear his own name. Yet Trump instead works against the investigation and tells wild lies about it.
Sure, there is nothing publicly known that is a clear smoking gun that absolutely proves Trump knew about the work Russia was doing and coordinating it with his staff, but the claim both Frazzled and whembly have made here, that the investigation is fizzling out with no connection found is absolutely bonkers.
Oh crap I am posting here again.
Yes, here in this crazy place where people asked you to substantiate your allegations against politicians. Better stay away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
This is a direct copy paste of the currrent line being pushed by FOX News, that Paul Ryan parroted the other day, and here it is turning up as whembly's opinion. Anyhow, it's junk.
The 'process crimes' were crimes committed by people when they lied to the FBI. Why did lie to the FBI? Because they were trying to conceal their contacts with Russia.
The claim Manafort's crimes were unrelated to the campaign is ignoring that the crimes in question were about political corruption fueled by Russian dirty money. It's also trying to clear Trump's name by saying Manafort was already a criminal when Trump hired him. It's bonkers.
It's also ignoring the ludicrous string of charges being formed against Michael Cohen, which absolutely relates to the Russian scandal because a bunch of the secret payments to Cohen came from Russian oligarchs.
Now that Trump is busy kicking sand in the former allies faces, it is clear that he needs new friends. North Korea sounds like a nice candidate for that...
whembly wrote: The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state. WI is a small state that likely won't impact the collective EV tally. The point is that *it could* in the future elections, especially since it's trending purplish now (ala CO).
Now you're trying to change the subject and deflect away from your initial claim that the EC helps small states in favor of a completely unrelated argument that state party alignments can change over time. If WI becomes a purple state it gains electoral power, but it does so because it is now a swing state, not because it is a small state with more EV per person than a large state. If WI continued the shift and became a solid red state it would lose all of that power, despite continuing to have the same EV/population ratio.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable..
First of all, you're making a straw man argument here and appealing to an "unstated premise" instead of the argument that was actually made. The argument is that you are wrong in your claim that the EC helps smaller states, a fact which is backed up by overwhelming amounts of mathematical and empirical evidence. Whether or not removing the EC is a good idea it is simply a fact that it does not help smaller states as you claim. And yet you will continue to make the argument that it does.
Second, I am extremely skeptical of your argument here. You want to dispute the idea that the EC is undemocratic, but you're talking about a system where the president is elected by a small group of individuals who are free (however unlikely they are to do so) to vote for whoever they want regardless of the will of the people, and even in the best-case scenario for democracy the value of each voter is inherently unequal. Hell, even your defense of the EC concedes that it is an undemocratic system! You proudly claim that the EC operates in an undemocratic manner by giving disproportionate value to certain voters, you just disagree about which group of voters it is. And the alternative system is the very definition of democracy, where each citizen makes an equal vote and the winner is determined by a direct count of those votes.
As far as I can tell the "worst way imaginable" is defined entirely by the fact that Your Team currently benefits from the EC and therefore feels compelled to defend it, and a direct popular vote would favor The Other Team in the current (and foreseeable) environment.
The founders had the EXACT SAME fears and arguments about highly populated regions v. the less populated regions. Those concerns are just as valid as they are now.... hence how the EC was devised.
The founding fathers also didn't have modern math, statistical and game theory analysis of elections, etc. So I wouldn't be too eager to hold them up as the ultimate authority.
But you're also wrong about this. The founding fathers had very different arguments for the EC. It was originally about two things, as stated explicitly by the creators of the system:
1) A belief that the common people were too stupid to be trusted to pick the right person, and the system needed the ability to have qualified electors make the correct choice for them. IOW, "if we don't like the outcome of democracy ignore it".
2) Arguments over slavery, specifically the pro-slavery states being against allowing black people anti-slavery states to vote and give the anti-slavery states more total votes in a direct popular vote. The solution was to count the slaves towards the state's population (and therefore number of EV), but not to allow them to vote.
I think you can see why these are both terrible arguments, and examples of why we shouldn't treat the founding fathers as infallible experts on everything.
It is staggering to me to see people say the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt when they supported the Benghazi hearings. Wow.
Aren't you concerned about your democracy being under attack by a hostile foreign power? I thought the Republican party prided itself on patriotism, but I suppose that was another lie.
Steelmage99 wrote: I get that the current White House is leaking like a sieve, but that isn't actually the norm.
Please, do not attempt to normalize such highly dysfunctional behaviour by expecting the same level of incompetence from the Mueller investigation.
To be fair, the Mueller investigation is remarkably tight. Previous special counsels released far more, both publicly and privately.
The reason why is probably twofold. First Mueller never talked to the press much through his career, and this very noticeable when he ran the FBI. The other part is Mueller knows Trump can be provoked in to firing Mueller, if public statements or actions were made against Trump or his family, so Mueller is moving very strategically.
Note that doesn't mean I am assuming Mueller has a substantiated case against Trump or anything like that. I don't know, no-one does. And for Mueller while he is still investigating, that's exactly the point.
Chinese and Russian vessels are free to travel those waters as they please, because they are international waters. There is no such thing as de facto control of international waters. What China is looking to do in the South China sea is establish it as territorial waters, giving them the right to pick and choose which vessels are allowed to enter. China has made this claim in international courts and been rejected.
You're really way off the reservation here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: What international treaty that was ratified by a previous session of Congress has been rescinded by the current session of Congress?
You're missing the point that good and productive treaties are DOA in congress because of Republican partisan hostility. The Iran deal secured an end to the Iranian nuclear program and the IAEA able to put in place as many inspectors as they please, and for nothing more than the end of sanctions. The US got what it wanted, for no cost.
But there was no way it was ever going to result in a ratified treaty, because Republicans were never going to give Obama a win, even when the process was conceived of and begun by a Republican presidency.
So that's the situation now. Dealing with the US means nothing will be ratified, because of Republican dysfunction. Which means it will be always be free to cancelled when a Republican wins the presidency, if that new Republican president is an angry man-child who acts out malice and confusion.
I mean sure, you could argue that maybe Trump is some kind of huge outlier, and in future Republican presidents will be more like the sombre Republican statesman we saw before Trump, GW Bush. Or that Republican president will be like the crop of sombre statesmen that were in the Republican primary field, those men of honour, steeped in understanding of international diplomacy, men like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee.
Yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state.
You just repeated the same nonsense I explained to you was wrong. Wisconsin was not ignored because it was an assumed gimme. It was ignored because the maths of the 2016 EC made it almost impossible for Wisconsin to flip the election. If Clinton held either Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin didn't matter. If Clinton held neither Michigan or Pennsylvania, then Wisconsin didn't matter.
True.. I think it was you that said Clinton was to technocratic, rather than repeating easily understood stump speeches.
I've said it a bunch of times, but I never retail politics as bad as Clinton saying she had lots of policies and rather than explain them you should go to her website. Remarkably awful.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable.
I don't push that. I've explained my own view many times. And you not only don't understand my argument, you remain unaware it even exists.
To explain it very briefly, there is nothing wrong with weighting results towards minor states to ensure they stay relevant. Living in a small state in a federalist system with our own small state protections, I get it.
The point is the current system is broken, and while it gives a weighting to small states it doesn't actually give them a greater voice, unless they happen to be very close to 50-50 Dem/Rep split, and even then they might not matter.
What would make all states relevant, while keeping the weighting to small states, would be to end the winner take all in the electoral college. Shift to EC awarded by vote share. Hey presto problem solved.
Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?
There is no problem with you or anyone having a different opinion. The problem is when you claim things that aren't true, and when you completely fail to understand other people's arguments. Look at the WI thing above, I've explained that so many times, but you still keep claiming it was about Clinton assuming a state was in the bag when that wasn't the assessment at all.
Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?
There is no problem with you or anyone having a different opinion. The problem is when you claim things that aren't true, and when you completely fail to understand other people's arguments.
Okay. I'm done.
Look at the WI thing above, I've explained that so many times, but you still keep claiming it was about Clinton assuming a state was in the bag when that wasn't the assessment at all.
So Trump just said North Korea was "rough" regarding HR but that HR records are "rough in a lot of places". Certainly its only rough in those other places out of love for their own countries right? Besides those NK people in concentration camps are #winning according to Trump (I can't believe he actually said they were the winners )
Some gems about his uncle being an expert on this stuff and NK beaches being prime real estate for hotels.
So, Trump has said he is going to cancel US-SK military exercises and China is considering lowering sanctions, all this in return for: a vague promise from Kim. Just the best deals.
whembly wrote: The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state. WI is a small state that likely won't impact the collective EV tally. The point is that *it could* in the future elections, especially since it's trending purplish now (ala CO).
Now you're trying to change the subject and deflect away from your initial claim that the EC helps small states in favor of a completely unrelated argument that state party alignments can change over time. If WI becomes a purple state it gains electoral power, but it does so because it is now a swing state, not because it is a small state with more EV per person than a large state. If WI continued the shift and became a solid red state it would lose all of that power, despite continuing to have the same EV/population ratio.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable..
First of all, you're making a straw man argument here and appealing to an "unstated premise" instead of the argument that was actually made. The argument is that you are wrong in your claim that the EC helps smaller states, a fact which is backed up by overwhelming amounts of mathematical and empirical evidence. Whether or not removing the EC is a good idea it is simply a fact that it does not help smaller states as you claim. And yet you will continue to make the argument that it does.
Second, I am extremely skeptical of your argument here. You want to dispute the idea that the EC is undemocratic, but you're talking about a system where the president is elected by a small group of individuals who are free (however unlikely they are to do so) to vote for whoever they want regardless of the will of the people, and even in the best-case scenario for democracy the value of each voter is inherently unequal. Hell, even your defense of the EC concedes that it is an undemocratic system! You proudly claim that the EC operates in an undemocratic manner by giving disproportionate value to certain voters, you just disagree about which group of voters it is. And the alternative system is the very definition of democracy, where each citizen makes an equal vote and the winner is determined by a direct count of those votes.
As far as I can tell the "worst way imaginable" is defined entirely by the fact that Your Team currently benefits from the EC and therefore feels compelled to defend it, and a direct popular vote would favor The Other Team in the current (and foreseeable) environment.
The founders had the EXACT SAME fears and arguments about highly populated regions v. the less populated regions. Those concerns are just as valid as they are now.... hence how the EC was devised.
The founding fathers also didn't have modern math, statistical and game theory analysis of elections, etc. So I wouldn't be too eager to hold them up as the ultimate authority.
But you're also wrong about this. The founding fathers had very different arguments for the EC. It was originally about two things, as stated explicitly by the creators of the system:
1) A belief that the common people were too stupid to be trusted to pick the right person, and the system needed the ability to have qualified electors make the correct choice for them. IOW, "if we don't like the outcome of democracy ignore it".
2) Arguments over slavery, specifically the pro-slavery states being against allowing black people anti-slavery states to vote and give the anti-slavery states more total votes in a direct popular vote. The solution was to count the slaves towards the state's population (and therefore number of EV), but not to allow them to vote.
I think you can see why these are both terrible arguments, and examples of why we shouldn't treat the founding fathers as infallible experts on everything.
I'm not trying to change the subject... I'm still saying the EC still helps smaller states moreso that going to some sort of NPV system. Ya'll do make compelling arguments that in this last election the smaller states didn't have impact. That doesn't change my opinion that the EV could have some swap in future elections. These things wax 'N wane over generations.
It bears repeating:
Its the United States of America...
where we have an Electoral College system, wherein the potus and vp aren’t elected directly by the voters, but rather by electors who are chosen through the popular votes from each state. So instead of one national popular vote, it's literally 51 separate popular votes by state (& DC). So yeah, I very much dispute the idea that the EC is undemocratic.
Part of the rationale is that every part of the nation has some kind of say over the next potus. The federalist papers goes over some of the rationale because a system like this diffuses an otherwise 'direct democracy' that weakens the ability of politicians to scaremonger and use emotional appeals to take power. Succinctly stated, it blunts the vagaries of the electorate. Or it should... which didn't happen because HRC was a horrible campaign candidate (don't @ me!), while Trump is the WTFcandidate. My sincere hope is this is an aberration and not the norm going forward.
In any event, the EC system is supposed to encourage the potus' and their political parties to consider all Americans in 50 states in rhetoric and action. It also protects large swaths of the nation from being ignored or bullied. The system as a whole incentivizes DC... the potus and the Senate really...to craft policy that meets the needs of WI as well as NY.
The practical matter of the EC is that elections are tailored to winning states, not people. Maybe in this day and age, with the advent of technology, social media and travel a NPV system would work better. I know there are tons of conservatives in blue states, for instance, who do not vote today because they understand that the majority around them have a different political outlook. Just as liberals in red states don't really votes because redstater outnumbers. This is why HRC's NPV numbers are so meaningless because some just don't vote (plus CA had practically nothing for CA GOP'ers to vote for). SO a direct national election would mean focusing on blue-state Republicans and red-state liberals regions.
From a tactical perspective, I’m not sure that setup would work out exactly as one would imagine, because you can't use current conventional wisdom as its based on the current EC system. Maybe that's the conservative strain in me that loathe to see massive change of this nature. Even still... this is academic as pushing through a constitutional amendment isn't likely going to happen, so instead of banging on that drum that EC should change, maybe polticians should work within the system to build cross appeal.
IN the end, I'd argue that the EC system does more good than harm. I would say that even if HRC is now potus. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, and if the EC were replaced by a NPV system, it would not be the end of the world.
At the end of the day, this is debate of whether the EC is a system that meets our modern needs. I know where you stand, and you know where I do.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty. There is the debacle with a certain island Chain in SEA but tat thing was a mess of asshollery of its own nature and not comparable to the situation in Ukraine. If an argument is going to be made that Russia and Chinas actions are justifiable because the US did it to then we should actually look for cases where the US did it to which is impossible for China and rough for Russia.
Which is just my point. The US didn’t do it too and the entire line of reasons it is childish and pedantic.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty.
I don't think France considered Alsace and Lorraine less annexed back in 1871 because there was the treaty of Frankfurt (incidentally a great-great-grandparent of mine ended up here because she didn't wanted to take German nationality, but their family weren't really fond of the French either, so goes the family tale).
The winner gets to dictate conditions on the losing side of a war, especially when there are territorial changes involved.
After signing an agreement with Kim Jong-un scant on detail, President Trump held an extraordinary press conference where he held court as reporters fired questions.
In case you missed it, here are some of the memorable, and frankly, jaw-dropping, things he said.
On North Korean prisoners: "I think they are one of the great winners today."
On military exercises with South Korea: "We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money... Plus I think it is very provocative."
On the need to check notes from his meeting: "I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that."
On apologising if things don't go as planned: "I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong," he said, before adding: "I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that. But I’ll find some kind of an excuse."
On why he thinks experts are wrong about denuclearisation taking 15 years: "I think whoever wrote that is wrong... There will be a point at which when you are 20 percent through you can’t go back. I had an uncle who was a great professor for, I believe, 40 years at MIT. And I used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. He was a great expert. He was a great brilliant genius."
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty.
I don't think France considered Alsace and Lorraine less annexed back in 1871 because there was the treaty of Frankfurt (incidentally a great-great-grandparent of mine ended up here because she didn't wanted to take German nationality, but their family weren't really fond of the French either, so goes the family tale).
The winner gets to dictate conditions on the losing side of a war, especially when there are territorial changes involved.
It’s an important distinction to draw nonetheless. A treaty is like a divorce. One side might be miserable with the outcome but at least they had a say in the matter because unconditional peace agreements are remarkably rare no matter how strong the victor is. Annexation is like punching your spouse in the face and declaring that your taking over the kitchen and they have to keep our. It’s not a semantically game here. These things are meaningful distinctions.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty.
I don't think France considered Alsace and Lorraine less annexed back in 1871 because there was the treaty of Frankfurt (incidentally a great-great-grandparent of mine ended up here because she didn't wanted to take German nationality, but their family weren't really fond of the French either, so goes the family tale).
The winner gets to dictate conditions on the losing side of a war, especially when there are territorial changes involved.
It’s an important distinction to draw nonetheless. A treaty is like a divorce. One side might be miserable with the outcome but at least they had a say in the matter because unconditional peace agreements are remarkably rare no matter how strong the victor is. Annexation is like punching your spouse in the face and declaring that your taking over the kitchen and they have to keep our. It’s not a semantically game here. These things are meaningful distinctions.
A treaty after a military is lipstick on a pig. You don't get much of a choice when you sign something at gunpoint.
Ask the Germans in the 20s on how Versailles felt to them.
So Kim and Trump signed a pledge to "work toward denuclearizing" NK, but little else is apparent at this point.
Let's hope it means something, but as of right now, it basically just says "we'll talk about it". We've seen NK play games like this before, lets hope they're desperate enough to mean it this time.
Also, apparently this video Trump had shown to Kim during the summit, taken from the WH conference stream. It is...odd to say the least, coming off as a mix between a Scientology promo and reality TV ad. Very definitely seeks to engage the egos of Trump and Kim directly and personally.
After signing an agreement with Kim Jong-un scant on detail, President Trump held an extraordinary press conference where he held court as reporters fired questions.
In case you missed it, here are some of the memorable, and frankly, jaw-dropping, things he said.
On North Korean prisoners: "I think they are one of the great winners today."
On military exercises with South Korea: "We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money... Plus I think it is very provocative."
On the need to check notes from his meeting: "I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that."
On apologising if things don't go as planned: "I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong," he said, before adding: "I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that. But I’ll find some kind of an excuse."
On why he thinks experts are wrong about denuclearisation taking 15 years: "I think whoever wrote that is wrong... There will be a point at which when you are 20 percent through you can’t go back. I had an uncle who was a great professor for, I believe, 40 years at MIT. And I used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. He was a great expert. He was a great brilliant genius."
Jesus...
To add to that, he also went and tols Hannity and said he "felt foolish" using "harsh rhetoric" against Kim for a segment airing tonight.
This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
Well at least Kim can finally fire his propaganda staff. He has all the footage he needs for the rest of his reign: "Supreme Leader forces US to negotiate with its newfound nuclear strength and demands it stops its military exercises! US gives in to dear leader *insert two more sentences of Kim praise*, leader stronk!"
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?
Dreadwinter wrote: This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
The whole document means nothing, its just vague slogans of intent
Dreadwinter wrote: This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
Dreadwinter wrote: This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
After signing an agreement with Kim Jong-un scant on detail, President Trump held an extraordinary press conference where he held court as reporters fired questions.
In case you missed it, here are some of the memorable, and frankly, jaw-dropping, things he said.
On North Korean prisoners: "I think they are one of the great winners today."
On military exercises with South Korea: "We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money... Plus I think it is very provocative."
On the need to check notes from his meeting: "I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that."
On apologising if things don't go as planned: "I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong," he said, before adding: "I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that. But I’ll find some kind of an excuse."
On why he thinks experts are wrong about denuclearisation taking 15 years: "I think whoever wrote that is wrong... There will be a point at which when you are 20 percent through you can’t go back. I had an uncle who was a great professor for, I believe, 40 years at MIT. And I used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. He was a great expert. He was a great brilliant genius."
Our President Ladies and Gentleman.
This whole time period makes everyone in the US look dumb.
You once had a POTUS who's biggest regret was not being able to hang his Vice-POTUS. Trump is bad, but he's not in that league just yet.
Anyway, my main point is this: I think Trump and the USA have been played by Joe Commie.
Vague commitments and a show for the cameras = the square root of gak.
The North Koreans have won a propaganda coup in my book, shaken down the South Koreans and the USA for some bags of rice, and are laughing all the way to the bank.
Ask the Germans in the 20s on how Versailles felt to them.
Still fails to showcase how victory is a blank check since there were negotiations and Germany did veto a lot of proposed concessions. Peace accords are balancing acts like that. The end of WW1 was one of the most lopsided ever and still there were negotiations because no one else wanted to continue the war anymore than the Germans did. And this is of course far afield of anything I’ve actually argued in regards to the unjustifiability of Russian and Chinese territorial aggression. War is war. Russia and China won’t start one because winning is too uncertain or too costly. Arguing that they can do what they want because they’re strong is not only false it’s a complete sidestep around anything I’ve actually argued.
To the extent that any specific concessions were made, it was Trump who made them (e.g. no more US/SK military exercises) and he got nothing in return except a statement of intent.
It's all very well that he can rip it up when he gets home, but it does invalidate the idea of this being the history-making peace summit of the 21st century.
It wasn't, of course. It was just a chance for Trump to be all presidenty and statesmanny and get a lot of easy publicity and plaudits.
Obama said that he was open to meeting with the leader of NK without any prerequisites, and the GOP was quick to condemn that idea as stupid and as a potential victory for any bad regimes because a visit with the POTUS should be an honor and a reward for previous good actions.
Of course that’s just another area where we did a complete turnaround since then.
It's all about the brand. Great benevolent peacemaker Trump was able to do the impossible and talk the hermit kingdom down! Buy coins today! Comemorative coins are on sale now!
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
Ask the Germans in the 20s on how Versailles felt to them.
Still fails to showcase how victory is a blank check since there were negotiations and Germany did veto a lot of proposed concessions. Peace accords are balancing acts like that. The end of WW1 was one of the most lopsided ever and still there were negotiations because no one else wanted to continue the war anymore than the Germans did. And this is of course far afield of anything I’ve actually argued in regards to the unjustifiability of Russian and Chinese territorial aggression. War is war. Russia and China won’t start one because winning is too uncertain or too costly. Arguing that they can do what they want because they’re strong is not only false it’s a complete sidestep around anything I’ve actually argued.
My point revolved exclusively at you pointing the Mexican-American war as the last time the USA destroyed a neighboring government in a war and annexed territory from said government
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
It is definitely a concession. Did Trump even consult with the South Korean government or his own before agreeing to that?
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
It is definitely a concession. Did Trump even consult with the South Korean government or his own before agreeing to that?
Hell, there are reports that Trump didn't even consult his own military
Seriously, that isn't a joke. They seem as surprised as the rest of us.
But yes definitely a concession. If the standard is "we can just restart it" then nothing is a concession anymore.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!
Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!
Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.
I take it you've never been in the military and don't understand what the exercises are for, or how important they are to keeping said troops sharp.
Exercises are training so everything becomes muscle memory. How well do you think a sports team would do if they never practiced their sport?
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!
Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.
I take it you've never been in the military and don't understand what the exercises are for, or how important they are to keeping said troops sharp.
Exercises are training so everything becomes muscle memory. How well do you think a sports team would do if they never practiced their sport?
Of course they are important for keeping troops sharp, but that isn’t relevant to this discussion. And given how often our troops in Korea do drills and exercises I think canceling a few won’t hurt their ability to fight NK. NKs ground troops are poorly equipped, malnourished, and out classed anyway.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death
a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion
b) Striking first and invading North Korea.
There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book
And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...
That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
So why give this improvised concession that will only make Kim look good? This is the whole issue behind Trump negotiating with Kim. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind it and China is seemingly already trying to use it to manouver around sanctions. It only makes the US position worse in a small way.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death
a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion
b) Striking first and invading North Korea.
There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book
And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...
That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.
If that's the case, they could take South Korean troops over to Japan or the USA or something and train them there. They said no exercises in South Korea. They never said anything about exercises somewhere else.
It's not like the US military is short on cash these days.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
So why give this improvised concession that will only make Kim look good? This is the whole issue behind Trump negotiating with Kim. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind it and China is seemingly already trying to use it to manouver around sanctions. It only makes the US position worse in a small way.
Because Trump doesn't know how to do anything without declaring bankruptcy, living off his family wealth or not paying contractors
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it
And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it
And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But hey, let's not forget that the guy who just got a 1 page assurance ripped up a 12 page, in-depth verifiable deal with an antagonistic power done by Obama...
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it
And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
My point revolved exclusively at you pointing the Mexican-American war as the last time the USA destroyed a neighboring government in a war and annexed territory from said government
I didn't imply anything else besides that.
I actually meant to allude to the Texas revolution since it has a fair number of similarity to the situation in Chrimea but looking back I put the wrong year down didn’t I?
Whoops.
And okay. I thought you were joining in on that border line of talk. My mistake.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it
And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
Obama would have done it right. Obama wasn't a president who signs agreements then rips them by Twitter up on the way to the airport.
Please try to understand that a lot of people who are against Trump are against him not because he's a Republican but because he is a genuinely bad president who is doing real damage to US prestige and soft power.
Grey Templar wrote: And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
I would say the same thing I am going to say now: While I am dubious it will happen, I am hopeful that this can lead to peace on the Korean continent, denuclearization of NK, and a better standard of living and freedom for the North Korean people. This would be a great accomplishment for this or any other POTUS. Nothing we have done so far have improved the situation, and worst case scenario, we can resume the exercises anyway.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.
Sure this is true.
But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.
So why give this improvised concession that will only make Kim look good? This is the whole issue behind Trump negotiating with Kim. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind it and China is seemingly already trying to use it to manouver around sanctions. It only makes the US position worse in a small way.
Because Trump doesn't know how to do anything without declaring bankruptcy, living off his family wealth or not paying contractors
Well that's why he likes Kim, both run a family business based on exploiting their workers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death
a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion
b) Striking first and invading North Korea.
There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book
And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...
That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.
If that's the case, they could take South Korean troops over to Japan or the USA or something and train them there. They said no exercises in South Korea. They never said anything about exercises somewhere else.
It's not like the US military is short on cash these days.
I mean it sounds good in theory, but why with SK or NK go along with that? SK has a strained relationship with Japan, they train to defend their country and finally as long as it involves SK troops its going to be a problem for NK.
Grey Templar wrote: And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
I would say the same thing I am going to say now: While I am dubious it will happen, I am hopeful that this can lead to peace on the Korean continent, denuclearization of NK, and a better standard of living and freedom for the North Korean people. This would be a great accomplishment for this or any other POTUS. Nothing we have done so far have improved the situation, and worst case scenario, we can resume the exercises anyway.
People seem to forget about the concentration camps (potentially death camps?) that the Kim family runs in NK, if those still exist then every single agreement or treaty with NK will be tainted
Even if you manage to craft a deal with Kim on NK nuclear weapons its going to be downright impossible I think to get any serious reform on the HR front. The camps are a vital part of how NK keeps the state together and repress dissent. With that said, it doesn't make Trump's comments on HR any less fething stupid or insensitive.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death
a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion
b) Striking first and invading North Korea.
There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book
And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...
That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.
If that's the case, they could take South Korean troops over to Japan or the USA or something and train them there. They said no exercises in South Korea. They never said anything about exercises somewhere else.
It's not like the US military is short on cash these days.
Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!
Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.
I take it you've never been in the military and don't understand what the exercises are for, or how important they are to keeping said troops sharp.
Exercises are training so everything becomes muscle memory. How well do you think a sports team would do if they never practiced their sport?
Of course they are important for keeping troops sharp, but that isn’t relevant to this discussion. And given how often our troops in Korea do drills and exercises I think canceling a few won’t hurt their ability to fight NK. NKs ground troops are poorly equipped, malnourished, and out classed anyway.
They're not cancelling a few, they're cancelling all though. And given that SK is normally a 12 month posting, those exercises are very important for those new troops. It's not like just because the previous group went through the exercise the new group gets all that experience too.
Grey Templar wrote: And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
I would say the same thing I am going to say now: While I am dubious it will happen, I am hopeful that this can lead to peace on the Korean continent, denuclearization of NK, and a better standard of living and freedom for the North Korean people. This would be a great accomplishment for this or any other POTUS. Nothing we have done so far have improved the situation, and worst case scenario, we can resume the exercises anyway.
People seem to forget about the concentration camps (potentially death camps?) that the Kim family runs in NK, if those still exist then every single agreement or treaty with NK will be tainted
Yes, what NK has done has proven that you can essentially do a low-level holocaust without repercussions as long as you do it slowly enough. It's horrible.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
I think you are really thinking too much into this here. They only care if they are doing excersizes near NK. Why? Because each time they have to be on high alert because of a potential invasion. Plus the humiliation factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: So, we pissed off the G7 and had a Presidential summit with NK for... essentially nothing.
What an idiot. I feel dumber for having this idiot as our President. Maybe a SK reporter should throw a shoe at him.
We essentially know nothing right now. Only that Trump says it went better than expected.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
I think you are really thinking too much into this here. They only care if they are doing excersizes near NK. Why? Because each time they have to be on high alert because of a potential invasion. Plus the humiliation factor.
I'm not, this is ridiculous. The US has around 10K troops participating in every yearly exercise. You're going to invade NK with 10K troops? The 'fear' that the exercise has been a cover for an invasion has always been preposterous. The real issue is that NK thinks its practice for one in the future, and whether you do that in SK or Japan doesn't matter. The US training with SK troops is the issue here.
Anyone want to talk about Voter Roll purges instead of this waste -of-time PR Summit where the NK's make our President look like a bigger idiot than everyone all ready knows he is?
Basically if you move, do not respond that you have moved, and don't vote for 4-years in Ohio you can be purged from the voter rolls. I'm sure there is more to it.... but that is my brief and probably inaccurate summary.
Easy E wrote: Anyone want to talk about Voter Roll purges instead of this waste -of-time PR Summit where the NK's make our President look like a bigger idiot than everyone all ready knows he is?
Basically if you move, do not respond that you have moved, and don't vote for 4-years in Ohio you can be purged from the voter rolls. I'm sure there is more to it.... but that is my brief and probably inaccurate summary.
It’s 6 years. If you don’t vote for 2 years the state mails a notice to your last known address on the voter rolls. If you fail to respond to the mailed notice and you don’t vote for another 4 years (6years total of not voting) your name is expunged from the voter rolls. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t vote on a future election it just means you have to follow Ohio state law and register to vote at least 30 days prior to Election Day. If you don’t vote but respond to the mailed notice you stay on the rolls. States have an obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls and residents have a civic obligation to vote.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
I think you are really thinking too much into this here. They only care if they are doing excersizes near NK. Why? Because each time they have to be on high alert because of a potential invasion. Plus the humiliation factor.
I'm not, this is ridiculous. The US has around 10K troops participating in every yearly exercise. You're going to invade NK with 10K troops? The 'fear' that the exercise has been a cover for an invasion has always been preposterous. The real issue is that NK thinks its practice for one in the future, and whether you do that in SK or Japan doesn't matter. The US training with SK troops is the issue here.
This agreement does not mean that SK and US can't practice with their armies.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death
a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion
b) Striking first and invading North Korea.
There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book
And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...
That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.
If that's the case, they could take South Korean troops over to Japan or the USA or something and train them there. They said no exercises in South Korea. They never said anything about exercises somewhere else.
It's not like the US military is short on cash these days.
Yeah - exactly.
Isn't the US government running a massive deficit that turns into political jousting every two years or so, creating an ever larger national debt? You got something like 20 trillions in debt, representing around 105% of your GDP and growing (rather fast thanks to trump's economical policies of ''more money now and pay later''). You don't have a lot of money, you have a lot of credit. There's a huge difference between the two.
On Trump and Korea, it seems like an exercise of propaganda from both party. We will have to keep an eye on this in the comming years to see how it evolves. The good thing is that the status quo will remain as Un will be able to stabilise his regime thanks to those recent victories. The problem of hte implosion or explosion of North Korea will wait for a few more years.
Easy E wrote: Anyone want to talk about Voter Roll purges instead of this waste -of-time PR Summit where the NK's make our President look like a bigger idiot than everyone all ready knows he is?
Basically if you move, do not respond that you have moved, and don't vote for 4-years in Ohio you can be purged from the voter rolls. I'm sure there is more to it.... but that is my brief and probably inaccurate summary.
It’s 6 years. If you don’t vote for 2 years the state mails a notice to your last known address on the voter rolls. If you fail to respond to the mailed notice and you don’t vote for another 4 years (6years total of not voting) your name is expunged from the voter rolls. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t vote on a future election it just means you have to follow Ohio state law and register to vote at least 30 days prior to Election Day. If you don’t vote but respond to the mailed notice you stay on the rolls. States have an obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls and residents have a civic obligation to vote.
Indeed. It’s actually more lenient than CA. Here if you miss two cycles they stop sending you stuff and make you inactive.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
I think you are really thinking too much into this here. They only care if they are doing excersizes near NK. Why? Because each time they have to be on high alert because of a potential invasion. Plus the humiliation factor.
I'm not, this is ridiculous. The US has around 10K troops participating in every yearly exercise. You're going to invade NK with 10K troops? The 'fear' that the exercise has been a cover for an invasion has always been preposterous. The real issue is that NK thinks its practice for one in the future, and whether you do that in SK or Japan doesn't matter. The US training with SK troops is the issue here.
This agreement does not mean that SK and US can't practice with their armies.
This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
Easy E wrote: Anyone want to talk about Voter Roll purges instead of this waste -of-time PR Summit where the NK's make our President look like a bigger idiot than everyone all ready knows he is?
Basically if you move, do not respond that you have moved, and don't vote for 4-years in Ohio you can be purged from the voter rolls. I'm sure there is more to it.... but that is my brief and probably inaccurate summary.
It’s 6 years. If you don’t vote for 2 years the state mails a notice to your last known address on the voter rolls. If you fail to respond to the mailed notice and you don’t vote for another 4 years (6years total of not voting) your name is expunged from the voter rolls. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t vote on a future election it just means you have to follow Ohio state law and register to vote at least 30 days prior to Election Day. If you don’t vote but respond to the mailed notice you stay on the rolls. States have an obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls and residents have a civic obligation to vote.
If that's all there is to it, and there are no hidden shenanigans going on, then I'm cool with that.
They seem a well equipped, well trained, and numerous force.
I'm not saying that the US should pull the plug and walk away
But America won't be fighting in the trenches. They'll be launching jets from aircraft carriers or firing a 1000 cruise missiles Pyongyang's way or something similar.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
I think you are really thinking too much into this here. They only care if they are doing excersizes near NK. Why? Because each time they have to be on high alert because of a potential invasion. Plus the humiliation factor.
I'm not, this is ridiculous. The US has around 10K troops participating in every yearly exercise. You're going to invade NK with 10K troops? The 'fear' that the exercise has been a cover for an invasion has always been preposterous. The real issue is that NK thinks its practice for one in the future, and whether you do that in SK or Japan doesn't matter. The US training with SK troops is the issue here.
This agreement does not mean that SK and US can't practice with their armies.
This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
An invasion of NK would start with overwhelming air and sea power - very few soliders if any would see action for a few weeks or more. A solider is almost meaningless on the modern battlefield. We conduct massive displays of military power just outside of their waters. The exercises on land mean very little.
Easy E wrote: Anyone want to talk about Voter Roll purges instead of this waste -of-time PR Summit where the NK's make our President look like a bigger idiot than everyone all ready knows he is?
Basically if you move, do not respond that you have moved, and don't vote for 4-years in Ohio you can be purged from the voter rolls. I'm sure there is more to it.... but that is my brief and probably inaccurate summary.
It’s 6 years. If you don’t vote for 2 years the state mails a notice to your last known address on the voter rolls. If you fail to respond to the mailed notice and you don’t vote for another 4 years (6years total of not voting) your name is expunged from the voter rolls. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t vote on a future election it just means you have to follow Ohio state law and register to vote at least 30 days prior to Election Day. If you don’t vote but respond to the mailed notice you stay on the rolls. States have an obligation to maintain accurate voter rolls and residents have a civic obligation to vote.
If that's all there is to it, and there are no hidden shenanigans going on, then I'm cool with that.
My apprehension about it is the fact that you have to “ check in” with the state every “x” years in order to use a right... a right that includes not voting. But nothing stoppifng you from reregistering so the burden is really low. Not to mention we put in soft burdens on other aspects our rights
They seem a well equipped, well trained, and numerous force.
I'm not saying that the US should pull the plug and walk away
But America won't be fighting in the trenches. They'll be launching jets from aircraft carriers or firing a 1000 cruise missiles Pyongyang's way or something similar.
Traditionally yes.... it’s the trip wire effect.
While NK may want to annihilate SK, the didn’t want to invit a war with the US.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
BTW, can Trump actually stop the military excersises in South Korea? Isn't there a Congressional decision on having those?
They seem a well equipped, well trained, and numerous force.
I'm not saying that the US should pull the plug and walk away
But America won't be fighting in the trenches. They'll be launching jets from aircraft carriers or firing a 1000 cruise missiles Pyongyang's way or something similar.
Yeah - SK would woop NK even witohut US support. However - with it NK is one of the easiest countries to destroy with airpower to - it is a narrow peninsula - anti air defenses can be easily removed from 3 directions. Plus any retaliatory missile strike would be easily intercepted.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
BTW, can Trump actually stop the military excersises in South Korea? Isn't there a Congressional decision on having those?
Hes commander in chief. The only thing he can't order the armed forces to do without consent is go to war. During a war he can do anything with it.
Which is also why it's silly to keep saying things like. "He didn't even inform the military about the decision" - well - he doesn't have to.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
BTW, can Trump actually stop the military excersises in South Korea? Isn't there a Congressional decision on having those?
The President, as Commander in Chief, can decide not to hold the exercises. Congress cannot mandate the military do anything, they can nix the President's authorization to deploy forces, cut funding, etc, but they cannot compel an exercise to take place.
Which is also why it's silly to keep saying things like. "He didn't even inform the military about the decision" - well - he doesn't have to.
While true, that said, just because he doesn't *have* to doesn't mean that it's not moronic however. Cancelling large scale military readiness exercises on an offhanded whim with no input or planning is no minor thing.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, why would NK fall for such an obvious move? The issue is that they train together period, not where they do it. NK knows what its about whether you do it in Japan or SK.
I think you are really thinking too much into this here. They only care if they are doing excersizes near NK. Why? Because each time they have to be on high alert because of a potential invasion. Plus the humiliation factor.
I'm not, this is ridiculous. The US has around 10K troops participating in every yearly exercise. You're going to invade NK with 10K troops? The 'fear' that the exercise has been a cover for an invasion has always been preposterous. The real issue is that NK thinks its practice for one in the future, and whether you do that in SK or Japan doesn't matter. The US training with SK troops is the issue here.
This agreement does not mean that SK and US can't practice with their armies.
This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
An invasion of NK would start with overwhelming air and sea power - very few soliders if any would see action for a few weeks or more. A solider is almost meaningless on the modern battlefield. We conduct massive displays of military power just outside of their waters. The exercises on land mean very little.
So you shift from saying that the exercise presents a potential invasion to saying it means very little? The naval and air forces participating from the US side are only a small number, far fewer than what would be gathered for a full scale invasion. You can't seriously be arguing that NK fear should be taken serious? The invasion of Afghanistan alone, the world's military butthole, was initially proposed to involve 60.000 US troops in the initial invasion. Are we seriously going to argue that 10K represent an existential threat?
Ustrello wrote: And Seoul would be turned into a recreation of that hive city that the DKoK bombarded for more than 10 years.
Where do you think US air-power would target first? Offensive capability would be removed first.
There was a video on youtube about North Korean self-propelled artillery. 200mm stuff or something. It's all tucked away in concrete bunkers or something.
Yeah, the USA will know where it is and could probably take them out, but the problem is that if those things fire first, then Seoul becomes a smoking pile of rubble.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
BTW, can Trump actually stop the military excersises in South Korea? Isn't there a Congressional decision on having those?
As Vakathi said, not really. The exercises are a natural development out of the Korean War to keep the alliance trained. The manner in which they have been conducted has shifted over time and there are years in which nothing was done. This however breaks a 20 year period of active training. Last time they got cancelled it was because the US achieved some actual progress in talks with NK (although NK reneged on them later),now they got cancelled at a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Hes commander in chief. The only thing he can't order the armed forces to do without consent is go to war. During a war he can do anything with it.
Which is also why it's silly to keep saying things like. "He didn't even inform the military about the decision" - well - he doesn't have to.
This is such a terrible argument. Just because the president doesn't have to inform or discuss his opinions doesn't mean its a good idea if he just goes out and does things without them knowing. Yeah, technically he could declare war on China on TV tomorrow and not tell the military, but it would be fething stupid.
The result of this meeting is pathetic. Truly pathetic in Trump's part. And even more pathetic will be the amount of support coming from the GOP side. Iran couldn't be counted on to maintain denuclearization with extensive oversight and no evidence they were enriching urainum beyond the agreed amount. But NK can be trusted to denuclearize with no oversight because Trump and Kim have a 'special bond'.
On the upside it's a ready-made argument for day-to-day interactions, and one that I imagine will cut pretty deep.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This agreement does not mean anything to begin with. The exercises is just something Trump threw out there without informing the US military. And really, practicing outside of SK is never going to happen. We're talking about 10.000 US troops versus 200.000 South Koreans with all their equipment that would need to be ferried over every year, and basically sending half the army overseas when you still have an official enemy right outside your border. Its completely unrealistic if it is even politically feasible. The whole point is that NK wants the US to stop practising with SK, they are going to push that harder now that Trump has already handed over the yearly exercise.
BTW, can Trump actually stop the military excersises in South Korea? Isn't there a Congressional decision on having those?
As Vakathi said, not really. The exercises are a natural development out of the Korean War to keep the alliance trained. The manner in which they have been conducted has shifted over time and there are years in which nothing was done. This however breaks a 20 year period of active training. Last time they got cancelled it was because the US achieved some actual progress in talks with NK (although NK reneged on them later),now they got cancelled at a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Hes commander in chief. The only thing he can't order the armed forces to do without consent is go to war. During a war he can do anything with it.
Which is also why it's silly to keep saying things like. "He didn't even inform the military about the decision" - well - he doesn't have to.
This is such a terrible argument. Just because the president doesn't have to inform or discuss his opinions doesn't mean its a good idea if he just goes out and does things without them knowing. Yeah, technically he could declare war on China on TV tomorrow and not tell the military, but it would be fething stupid.
Ustrello wrote: And Seoul would be turned into a recreation of that hive city that the DKoK bombarded for more than 10 years.
Where do you think US air-power would target first? Offensive capability would be removed first.
By which time you would already have tens of thousands of dead.
Where do you get the information that he didn't inform the relevant people anyways? I'm sure hes had briefings with his military staff about possible outcomes from this meeting. You know...they can ask questions. Plus - do they even need to know? This is not a pressing matter...
Ustrello wrote: And Seoul would be turned into a recreation of that hive city that the DKoK bombarded for more than 10 years.
Where do you think US air-power would target first? Offensive capability would be removed first.
You are naive as hell if you think that will stop it
No - I just know what the US military is capable of. ESP our Navy. SK likely has the most advance anti missle systems on earth. A first strike against NK would result in approx 90% of their offensive capabilities being destroyed within a 30 minute period. Few in SK would die. NK would be rendered impotent in a few days. All they could do is hide in buildings and holes and hold out for guerrilla warfare.
Where do you get the information that he didn't inform the relevant people anyways? I'm sure hes had briefings with his military staff about possible outcomes from this meeting. You know...they can ask questions. Plus - do they even need to know? This is not a pressing matter...
It might not be, but this still is a thing your own government and allies would like you to run by them first.
That the U.S. might halt joint military exercises with South Korea appeared to catch Seoul somewhat off guard, with the South Korean defense ministry saying that it would need to understand the “exact meaning and intent” of Trump's statements Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.
American forces in South Korea, too, said they had not received updated orders, according to the AP, and would continue to work with South Korean partners toward military exercises until they hear differently from the Pentagon or U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
Ustrello wrote: And Seoul would be turned into a recreation of that hive city that the DKoK bombarded for more than 10 years.
Where do you think US air-power would target first? Offensive capability would be removed first.
You are naive as hell if you think that will stop it
No - I just know what the US military is capable of. ESP our Navy. SK likely has the most advance anti missle systems on earth. A first strike against NK would result in approx 90% of their offensive capabilities being destroyed within a 30 minute period. Few in SK would die. NK would be rendered impotent in a few days. All they could do is hide in buildings and holes and hold out for guerrilla warfare.
You do realize for NK not to notice that massive buildup it would have to be blind as well as deaf? NK is going to start shooting the second it realizes an invasion is coming. Hundreds of thousands of people might die and you unleash one of the largest humanitarian and economic crises seen in this century. And more importantly why? NK has been sitting pretty for decades, why is now, after they developed nukes the time to go for it?
Ustrello wrote: And Seoul would be turned into a recreation of that hive city that the DKoK bombarded for more than 10 years.
Where do you think US air-power would target first? Offensive capability would be removed first.
You are naive as hell if you think that will stop it
No - I just know what the US military is capable of. ESP our Navy. SK likely has the most advance anti missle systems on earth. A first strike against NK would result in approx 90% of their offensive capabilities being destroyed within a 30 minute period.
Even if we hold thay as true, 30 minutes under the barrage of potentially as many as thirty thousand big guns is no walk in the park. There is a reason the US has not tried to do this already.
More to the point, looking at every major US conflict of the last 30 years, even with satellites scanning every patch of ground, active airborne surveillance, and laser guided smart bombs, through Iraq and Serbia and Afghanistan and other places, anyone expecting air power to neutralize such capabilities in minutes is going to be sorely mistaken.
More likely is the big guns will run out of ammo in a couple of hours and NK will be unable to resupply them
NinthMusketeer wrote: The result of this meeting is pathetic. Truly pathetic in Trump's part. And even more pathetic will be the amount of support coming from the GOP side. Iran couldn't be counted on to maintain denuclearization with extensive oversight and no evidence they were enriching urainum beyond the agreed amount. But NK can be trusted to denuclearize with no oversight because Trump and Kim have a 'special bond'.
On the upside it's a ready-made argument for day-to-day interactions, and one that I imagine will cut pretty deep.
Pretty much this. Trump has managed to achieve very little that has not been promised before whilst offering things up that other neighbouring states will also be over the moon about.
I particularly 'like' Trumps' statement when asked about transcripts of what KJU agreed was "I don’t need to verify as I have one of the great memories of all time."
So based on past history I think we can conclude that KJU could have agreed anything because Trump will not be able to recall any of it.
Is this a joke? First of all those are not all combat troops. Second of all, the 7th Fleet is spread out over a vast area, not all hugging NK territorial waters ready to go. The 7th Air Force has about a 100 aircraft in SK. How is that an indication of an impending invasion?
NinthMusketeer wrote: The result of this meeting is pathetic. Truly pathetic in Trump's part. And even more pathetic will be the amount of support coming from the GOP side. Iran couldn't be counted on to maintain denuclearization with extensive oversight and no evidence they were enriching urainum beyond the agreed amount. But NK can be trusted to denuclearize with no oversight because Trump and Kim have a 'special bond'.
On the upside it's a ready-made argument for day-to-day interactions, and one that I imagine will cut pretty deep.
It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.
This thread proves the poll findings that a lot of Republicans have swung in behind Trump to the extent that they will defend anything he does on the basis that "he isn't forbidden by law not to..." or the equivalent, not matter what a foolish or immoral decision it was.
Are there really people who truly think it's a good idea to plan military operations without informing the military about the operational plan?
That said, of course Trump hadn't informed the military of his decision to halt the wargames because he didn't think of it himself until a few seconds before he blurted it out in a ploy to extend the amount of time he has looking presidenty and statesmanny on TV
He also came out with a load of toss spank about what great beaches NK has and how you could build the world's best hotels there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The result of this meeting is pathetic. Truly pathetic in Trump's part. And even more pathetic will be the amount of support coming from the GOP side. Iran couldn't be counted on to maintain denuclearization with extensive oversight and no evidence they were enriching urainum beyond the agreed amount. But NK can be trusted to denuclearize with no oversight because Trump and Kim have a 'special bond'.
On the upside it's a ready-made argument for day-to-day interactions, and one that I imagine will cut pretty deep.
It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.
But its a tiny step on a road that we have gone down multiple times, except now NK's hand is much stronger. We have been through these steps even at the high point of the above mentioned adventurism.
And yes,its is historic for no other reason than a US president meeting dear leader. But any US president could have chosen to do this, the question is, what does it actually add of value beyond giving Kim something to show at home?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: This thread proves the poll findings that a lot of Republicans have swung in behind Trump to the extent that they will defend anything he does on the basis that "he isn't forbidden by law not to..." or the equivalent, not matter what a foolish or immoral decision it was.
Are there really people who truly think it's a good idea to plan military operations without informing the military about the operational plan?
That said, of course Trump hadn't informed the military of his decision to halt the wargames because he didn't think of it himself until a few seconds before he blurted it out in a ploy to extend the amount of time he has looking presidenty and statesmanny on TV
He also came out with a load of toss spank about what great beaches NK has and how you could build the world's best hotels there.
Sorry! I broke the swear filter again!!
Imagine a Trump hotel in NK though, "Ocean view or concentration camp view?"
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
It means nothing if there is no commitment. What has actually been gained. We are in the same position as we were yesterday. Shaking hands doesn't mean anything. You can shake hands whilst ruining friendships between allies as seen at the G7.
but at least peace is given another chance.
There has been 'peace' for 50 years or so. There's been no major conflict since the Korean War. No one is shelling each other daily and so on. All Trump has managed to do is give vindication to a despot and his brutal control of a population.
NK is probably the only place in the world where Trump would get permission to build a hotel.
Well, that's not 100% correct. He probably could get permission in Saudi Arabia, Russia or Israel.
feth us all, what a world we are living in! That the extreme right-wing Republican President of the USA should flip off the G7 to go and buddy-buddy with the hereditary dictator of the last true Communist paradise on Earth!
Is this a joke? First of all those are not all combat troops. Second of all, the 7th Fleet is spread out over a vast area, not all hugging NK territorial waters ready to go. The 7th Air Force has about a 100 aircraft in SK. How is that an indication of an impending invasion?
What is you joke is that you don't think the US Navy could sneak forces into a giant area the size of the pacific ocean without NK knowing about it.
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
It means nothing if there is no commitment. What has actually been gained. We are in the same position as we were yesterday. Shaking hands doesn't mean anything. You can shake hands whilst ruining friendships between allies as seen at the G7.
but at least peace is given another chance.
There has been 'peace' for 50 years or so. There's been no major conflict since the Korean War. No one is shelling each other daily and so on. All Trump has managed to do is give vindication to a despot and his brutal control of a population.
What if Kim comes to the US? Allows NK and SK to move inbtween each other? Allows US industry to move in and turn NK into an economic power house. These are all things that are possible if you get to the point where we can communicate without the fear of nukes being chucked around willy nilly.
BTW - we still don't know a dang thing about what has been agreed upon. You know nothing about trump if you think he'd make a bad deal. His entire ego is about making good deals. He wrote a best selling book - called - the art of the deal.
Reading you guys talk about trump right now almost reminds me of the night he got elected. I wonder what the reaction will be the same when this turns out to be a good deal...
Is this a joke? First of all those are not all combat troops. Second of all, the 7th Fleet is spread out over a vast area, not all hugging NK territorial waters ready to go. The 7th Air Force has about a 100 aircraft in SK. How is that an indication of an impending invasion?
What is you joke is that you don't think the US Navy could sneak forces into a giant area the size of the pacific ocean without NK knowing about it.
Well they wouldn't have to, because the sea within striking distance isn't the size of the Pacific Ocean. The issue is that you seem to genuinely believe that the US could move in assets and launch a devastating first strike to prevent serious retaliation without NK ever suspecting anything. Moving the forces required for such a strike would just not allow for such secrecy.
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
It means nothing if there is no commitment. What has actually been gained. We are in the same position as we were yesterday. Shaking hands doesn't mean anything. You can shake hands whilst ruining friendships between allies as seen at the G7.
but at least peace is given another chance.
There has been 'peace' for 50 years or so. There's been no major conflict since the Korean War. No one is shelling each other daily and so on. All Trump has managed to do is give vindication to a despot and his brutal control of a population.
What if Kim comes to the US? Allows NK and SK to move inbtween each other? Allows US industry to move in and turn NK into an economic power house. These are all things that are possible if you get to the point where we can communicate without the fear of nukes being chucked around willy nilly.
BTW - we still don't know a dang thing about what has been agreed upon. You know nothing about trump if you think he'd make a bad deal. His entire ego is about making good deals. He wrote a best selling book - called - the art of the deal.
Reading you guys talk about trump right now almost reminds me of the night he got elected. I wonder what the reaction will be the same when this turns out to be a good deal...
Really? NK has had the ability to "chuck" nukes for 1 year out of its 73 year existence. Trying to argue that this is what stopped any progress is just facetious. It doesn't matter what the US offers,what matters is what Kim needs for Kim's regime to survive.
Again, nothing has been agreed upon beyond vague promises to get rid of nuclear weapons in exchange for security promises. To pretend anything significant got spoken about and decided upon in 30 minutes is just unrealistic.
And yes, Trump loves making deals so much his entire business history is a how to on how not to make them.
Is this a joke? First of all those are not all combat troops. Second of all, the 7th Fleet is spread out over a vast area, not all hugging NK territorial waters ready to go. The 7th Air Force has about a 100 aircraft in SK. How is that an indication of an impending invasion?
What is you joke is that you don't think the US Navy could sneak forces into a giant area the size of the pacific ocean without NK knowing about it.
Well they wouldn't have to, because the sea within striking distance isn't the size of the Pacific Ocean. The issue is that you seem to genuinely believe that the US could move in assets and launch a devastating first strike to prevent serious retaliation without NK ever suspecting anything. Moving the forces required for such a strike would just not allow for such secrecy.
What happens every time we do military excersizes there with our navy with SK? It's a giant build up of force that NK has to prepare for every single time we do it. It would be the perfect ruse for the invasion. Which is what this is all about.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NK has had nukes for quite a while. Only Recently have they have the ability to launch missles that reach can reach the US.
This has always been about protecting SK and Japan.
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
It means nothing if there is no commitment. What has actually been gained. We are in the same position as we were yesterday. Shaking hands doesn't mean anything. You can shake hands whilst ruining friendships between allies as seen at the G7.
but at least peace is given another chance.
There has been 'peace' for 50 years or so. There's been no major conflict since the Korean War. No one is shelling each other daily and so on. All Trump has managed to do is give vindication to a despot and his brutal control of a population.
You can see the conundrum in this situation... no?
I mean the status quo wouldseem to be continuing the same things over and over again.... adopting a Mean Girls tactic by ignoring their existence and hope really, really hard that sanctions would change their despicable ways?
Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table. Once at the table... did you expect Trump to continue his “ rocket man” and “my nuke button is bigger” rhetoric??? This is his weird version of diplomacy...
Now if he tries to give away the candy store without significant concession... I’ll be right there with you in condemning trump. But considering an ugly war may be on hold for the time being... I’m willing to see how this unfolds.
Reading you guys talk about trump right now almost reminds me of the night he got elected. I wonder what the reaction will be the same when this turns out to be a good deal...
As I just told my co-worker:
If this turns into the real deal, I will take back my hostile attitude towards it, apologize if I need to. He may even get my vote in 2020. Until then, this is just him running his mouth with no idea what hes doing. For having the "best memory", he also seems to have the issue of "his recollection keeps changing". Time shall see, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Is this a joke? First of all those are not all combat troops. Second of all, the 7th Fleet is spread out over a vast area, not all hugging NK territorial waters ready to go. The 7th Air Force has about a 100 aircraft in SK. How is that an indication of an impending invasion?
What is you joke is that you don't think the US Navy could sneak forces into a giant area the size of the pacific ocean without NK knowing about it.
Well they wouldn't have to, because the sea within striking distance isn't the size of the Pacific Ocean. The issue is that you seem to genuinely believe that the US could move in assets and launch a devastating first strike to prevent serious retaliation without NK ever suspecting anything. Moving the forces required for such a strike would just not allow for such secrecy.
What happens every time we do military excersizes there with our navy with SK? It's a giant build up of force that NK has to prepare for every single time we do it. It would be the perfect ruse for the invasion. Which is what this is all about.
NK has had nukes for quite a while. Only Recently have they have the ability to launch missles that reach can reach the US.
This has always been about protecting SK and Japan.
You do realize that one of the largest exercises in years in SK involved three aircraft carriers and around a 100 or so US AF planes? That's a grand total of around 300 aircraft. Its far from a giant buildup. The invasion of Iraq say 150.000 Us troops move into the region plus allies, how does 10.000 represent anywhere near a giant buildup? No exercise has ever come close to the huge buildup required to deliver a knockout punch in days. You don't think NK will notice when one year 10 times the normal amount of US troops suddenly come over to exercise? Does NK not have a functioning intelligence agency?
NK has not had nukes for quite a while, what NK had was a nuclear device they were unable to miniaturize to a sufficient extent or develop a reliable delivery system until last year. Again, they did not have the ability to "chuck" nukes around and even now we're talking about perhaps one or two, which sure as hell are going to be launched if the US is going to attempt an invasion. Again, why invade NK when it is far too late now?
The detonated a small Nuke in 2006. This is essentially the point at which you can declare NK a nuclear power. 3 years later the bomb got 3 times stronger. It doesn't really matter though - a 1 kt explosion would decimate a city.
Delivering a bomb to a neighboring country is not hard - you can actaully load it into a cannon and fire it that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon I'm sure NK could build this right?
I mean the status quo wouldseem to be continuing the same things over and over again.... adopting a Mean Girls tactic by ignoring their existence and hope really, really hard that sanctions would change their despicable ways?
Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table. Once at the table... did you expect Trump to continue his “ rocket man” and “my nuke button is bigger” rhetoric??? This is his weird version of diplomacy...
Now if he tries to give away the candy store without significant concession... I’ll be right there with you in condemning trump. But considering an ugly war may be on hold for the time being... I’m willing to see how this unfolds.
The detonated a small Nuke in 2006. This is essentially the point at which you can declare NK a nuclear power. 3 years later the bomb got 3 times stronger. It doesn't really matter though - a 1 kt explosion would decimate a city.
Delivering a bomb to a neighboring country is not hard - you can actaully load it into a cannon and fire it that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon I'm sure NK could build this right?
Its was nuclear power with no delivery mechanism until last year. Its very useful if all your enemies willingly stand around it when you make it go off.
Xenomancers wrote: You know nothing about trump if you think he'd make a bad deal. His entire ego is about making good deals. He wrote a best selling book - called - the art of the deal.
But he's a pretty bad businessman, when you get down to it. He's got several failed projects behind him, hotels, casinos, even an airline. Some were saved by financiers on the condition Trump provides only his name and stays out of daily management.
I'll give him kudos on his fearless attitude though, there's nothing he thinks he can't do.
Reading you guys talk about trump right now almost reminds me of the night he got elected. I wonder what the reaction will be the same when this turns out to be a good deal...
As I just told my co-worker:
If this turns into the real deal, I will take back my hostile attitude towards it, apologize if I need to. He may even get my vote in 2020. Until then, this is just him running his mouth with no idea what hes doing. For having the "best memory", he also seems to have the issue of "his recollection keeps changing". Time shall see, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
EDIT: Spelling.
It seems to me that if Trump can denuclearise Korea it will be great, but that will have to be balanced against his re-nuclearising Iran, which is in a considerably more volatile region.
d-usa wrote: Has the NK congress ratified this letter yet? Can the next Kim just trash it?
Didn't Kim kill off all of his successors?
No he killed off the old guard/his competitors. He still has a sister and a wife, given his age and if he isn't sterile or something, getting kids is on the table.
Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
d-usa wrote: Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
Xenomancers wrote: You know nothing about trump if you think he'd make a bad deal. His entire ego is about making good deals. He wrote a best selling book - called - the art of the deal.
But he's a pretty bad businessman, when you get down to it. He's got several failed projects behind him, hotels, casinos, even an airline. Some were saved by financiers on the condition Trump provides only his name and stays out of daily management.
I'll give him kudos on his fearless attitude though, there's nothing he thinks he can't do.
Well hes done quite a lot - became a billionaire while simultaneously being a bad business man and then became president of the United States. When nobody said he could. LOL. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a huge fan of him myself. I do think he has a skill set and a presence that leads him to win in negotiations. Some of the dumbest people I know get deals on cars and boats when they buy them and I can't believe they paid so little. That is the way I see Trump. Hes like your standard Redneck type guy that can walk out of a dealership with 10k off his new Chevy.
Reading you guys talk about trump right now almost reminds me of the night he got elected. I wonder what the reaction will be the same when this turns out to be a good deal...
As I just told my co-worker:
If this turns into the real deal, I will take back my hostile attitude towards it, apologize if I need to. He may even get my vote in 2020. Until then, this is just him running his mouth with no idea what hes doing. For having the "best memory", he also seems to have the issue of "his recollection keeps changing". Time shall see, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
EDIT: Spelling.
It seems to me that if Trump can denuclearise Korea it will be great, but that will have to be balanced against his re-nuclearising Iran, which is in a considerably more volatile region.
On aggregate Trump would come out with a deficit.
That is a good point - I never really considered Iran denuclearized anyways though. I don't trust Iran. I don't trust NK anymore - I do think NK has a lot to gain from coming out of their closet and joining the world. They have an image of what they could have been just south of them I think. The suffering - being broke...that has to get old.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
That assumes that Kim actually cares about getting a deal with Trump/The USA.
He may well do, because apparently the sanctions are biting hard.
OTOH he may not care, since he's now got his day in the international top table diplomacy sun, and the Chinese are talking about scaling back their sanctions.
Let's ignore the Republican bs-tronic view for a moment and review the gains and concessions on both sides.
Kim got a world peace summit with the President of the USA, and the Chinese started talking about ending sanctions. He didn't make any promises or concessions.
Trump got a world peace summit with the hereditary dictator of North Korea. He abandoned the previous US principle of verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, and he promised to end military preparedness against a state which is at war with the UN. He also green-lit NK's human rights abuses.
d-usa wrote: Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
This is true - which is why we aren't going to get the real details until trump addresses congress. Even the worthless democratic congressmen will have no choice but to go along with any possitive NK deal Trump made with Kim. Otherwise - they risk losing support from their voter base.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
Most countries in East Asia would rather have the US stay in the region, on account that China is the one filling in as Great Satan in East Asia.
d-usa wrote: Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
This is true - which is why we aren't going to get the real details until trump addresses congress. Even the worthless democratic congressmen will have no choice but to go along with any possitive NK deal Trump made with Kim. Otherwise - they risk losing support from their voter base.
The real details are what's written in the signed statement. Everything else is meaningless, and most of it a product of Trump's overactive imagination.
Kilkrazy wrote: That assumes that Kim actually cares about getting a deal with Trump/The USA.
He may well do, because apparently the sanctions are biting hard.
OTOH he may not care, since he's now got his day in the international top table diplomacy sun, and the Chinese are talking about scaling back their sanctions.
Let's ignore the Republican bs-tronic view for a moment and review the gains and concessions on both sides.
Kim got a world peace summit with the President of the USA, and the Chinese started talking about ending sanctions. He didn't make any promises or concessions.
Trump got a world peace summit with the hereditary dictator of North Korea. He abandoned the previous US principle of verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, and he promised to end military preparedness against a state which is at war with the UN. He also green-lit NK's human rights abuses.
This clearly is 5-0 to Kim.
Sorry, I broke the swear filter again.
China just wants a piece of the pie. The can get some too if they play nice.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
I think it is fair to say that no matter what happens, even if Trump should actually manage to finally bring peace to Korea, US troops will be staying in South Korea and at least Japan for the foreseeable future. South Korea may actually send US troops away at some point as part of a peace process or even reunification with the north, but Japan is going to want to keep them around seeing as that Japan is far from friendly with both China and Korea.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
Most countries in East Asia would rather have the US stay in the region, on account that China is the one filling in as Great Satan in East Asia.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
I think it is fair to say that no matter what happens, even if Trump should actually manage to finally bring peace to Korea, US troops will be staying in South Korea and at least Japan for the foreseeable future. South Korea may actually send US troops away at some point as part of a peace process or even reunification with the north, but Japan is going to want to keep them around seeing as that Japan is far from friendly with both China and Korea.
What they want and what happens may be very different things.
Well hes done quite a lot - became a billionaire while simultaneously being a bad business man and then became president of the United States. When nobody said he could. LOL. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a huge fan of him myself. I do think he has a skill set and a presence that leads him to win in negotiations. Some of the dumbest people I know get deals on cars and boats when they buy them and I can't believe they paid so little. That is the way I see Trump. Hes like your standard Redneck type guy that can walk out of a dealership with 10k off his new Chevy.
All of Trump's businesses have performed below the stock market average. If he had taken the money he inherited from his dad and just stuck it in an index fund he would be 3 times richer today than he actually is.
Since 1988, Trump's wealth has increased by 300%, whilst the S&P500 has grown by 1366% since that time.
As for getting a discount on a Chevy, literally anyone can do that. If you're not driving the price down then you're paying way over the value of the car.
I can imagine a joint effort between China and the United states to rebuild NK into a civilized and prosperous nation. It could be a good thing if china also decides they want to throw down the hatchet and start doing business. With prosperity will come social change. All positive things. Ofc it could go another way - I chose to be positive right now.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
Most countries in East Asia would rather have the US stay in the region, on account that China is the one filling in as Great Satan in East Asia.
You will miss us when we are gone.
I mean by the time when the US is gone you will miss it too, because such a dramatic shift in 70 years of policy will probably be bad news for the US overall.
I mean the status quo wouldseem to be continuing the same things over and over again.... adopting a Mean Girls tactic by ignoring their existence and hope really, really hard that sanctions would change their despicable ways?
Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table. Once at the table... did you expect Trump to continue his “ rocket man” and “my nuke button is bigger” rhetoric??? This is his weird version of diplomacy...
Now if he tries to give away the candy store without significant concession... I’ll be right there with you in condemning trump. But considering an ugly war may be on hold for the time being... I’m willing to see how this unfolds.
NK already has nukes with recent advancement of ICBM that can reach US soils. Iran isn’t there yet, so sanctions is still an effective tool for Iran, especially for a country who wants to be a regional powerhouse. NK’s leadership seems content to maintain power over their country.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
Most countries in East Asia would rather have the US stay in the region, on account that China is the one filling in as Great Satan in East Asia.
You will miss us when we are gone.
I mean by the time when the US is gone you will miss it too, because such a dramatic shift in 70 years of policy will probably be bad news for the US overall.
d-usa wrote: Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
So... you think previous potus can bind future potus??? Because that’s really what you’re saying....
whembly wrote: NK already has nukes with recent advancement of ICBM that can reach US soils. Iran isn’t there yet, so sanctions is still an effective tool for Iran, especially for a country who wants to be a regional powerhouse. NK’s leadership seems content to maintain power over their country.
North Korea is the prime example of why just blindly trusting sanctions doesn't work in these instances. One of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world managed to develop nuclear weapons under heavy sanctions. How would sanctions cripple Iran's ability to develop nukes when it couldn't even stop NK when the world was on the same side?
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
Whether you think this was a great piece of negotiation on Trump's part seems to depend on whether you are a Republican.
On the positive, it's a great excuse for the US to start pulling troops out of the region. Just think of all the countries will celebrate when the Great Satan leaves the area to the beneficent China.
Most countries in East Asia would rather have the US stay in the region, on account that China is the one filling in as Great Satan in East Asia.
You will miss us when we are gone.
I mean by the time when the US is gone you will miss it too, because such a dramatic shift in 70 years of policy will probably be bad news for the US overall.
Why?
Because nobody, not even someone as disruptive to US international politics as Trump has seriously considered pulling back US troops. If the moment comes that US troops pull out of the region, that likely means a serious decline of US influence and power, plus the knock on effect for the US's economic system. Unless we have an even more bonkers person becoming president that is.
Xenomancers wrote: You know nothing about trump if you think he'd make a bad deal. His entire ego is about making good deals. He wrote a best selling book - called - the art of the deal.
But he's a pretty bad businessman, when you get down to it. He's got several failed projects behind him, hotels, casinos, even an airline. Some were saved by financiers on the condition Trump provides only his name and stays out of daily management.
I'll give him kudos on his fearless attitude though, there's nothing he thinks he can't do.
I literally giggled when I read that comment by Xeno. I know posting that is skirting rule #1 but honestly I don't think there's a serious response to be had to such a blatantly false sentiment.
Xenomancers wrote: You know nothing about trump if you think he'd make a bad deal. His entire ego is about making good deals. He wrote a best selling book - called - the art of the deal.
But he's a pretty bad businessman, when you get down to it. He's got several failed projects behind him, hotels, casinos, even an airline. Some were saved by financiers on the condition Trump provides only his name and stays out of daily management.
I'll give him kudos on his fearless attitude though, there's nothing he thinks he can't do.
I literally giggled when I read that comment by Xeno. I know posting that is skirting rule #1 but honestly I don't think there's a serious response to be had to such a blatantly false sentiment.
Trump didn't write that book. It was ghost-written for him. The real author got a 50% perpetual deal, which is unheard of, without having to negotiate about it.
The truth is that Trump is a gakky, useless negotiator. As we saw at Singapore.
Kim gave away nothing and got an unprecedented equals level meeting with the POTUS, proposed reductions in the sanctions by China, the promise of ending joint military defence exercises by his two most dangerous enemies, and US presidentlal endorsement of his human rights abuses.
Trump got nothing, and horrified his regional allies and military high command.
d-usa wrote: Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
Nothing of substance was accomplished at this meeting. Trump and Kim had a face to face conversation in a room. We don’t know the content of that conversation. The USA has incurred no obligations or commitments because of this meeting. No treaty or agreement has been presented to Congress for ratification. At this time Trump has the ability to steer and enact foreign policy through the executive branch power at his disposal during his term as President. If no agreement manifests and gets ratified by Congress then the next administration is free to conduct foreign policy as they see best whether that is a continuation of anything Trump did or a complete repudiation of it or anything in between.
All we know now is that Trump skipped the G7 to meet with Kim, met with Kim and is now describing that meeting with Kim in a manner that at least in his own estimation, makes him look good. We’ll have to wait and see if anything of substance materializes in the upcoming days/weeks.
Because it makes you looks unstable and long time allies you anger have long time memories. Canada might take decades to get less pissed at the US. And, believe it or not, that's actually an ally the US needs to secure it;s northern boarder and make sure the Russian nukes are not on their way. US trade also uses Canada's waterways, and atm they do it free.
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.
All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.
We also have to remember that the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty came into force in the 1970s, yet in reality it has achieved relatively little in that time. Denuclearise then can subsequently mean anything if you base it on this approach.
Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.
Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.
I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.
I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.
Is there not laws against such conflicts of interest? But yes I can definitely see the potential.
Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.
I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.
Good Ol' U.S. Grant is starting to wondering if he can retain his title as the most corrrupt U.S. President in history.
Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.
I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.
Good Ol' U.S. Grant is starting to wondering if he can retain his title as the most corrrupt U.S. President in history.
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Did you actually read what he said or did you just pick out the headline? I have noticed it is a common theme among some posters to do the latter but I don't want to make that assumption with you, because he talked about the entire military cooperation between Canada and the United States and how long we have been allies
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
We can, it just doesn’t absolve Trump of anything he does or says.
It’s not like Kim is a great guy because Trump signed a nothing burger and already told us how he will come up with some phony excuse if it doesn’t work out.
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps
Oh I know all the bleating sheep noises coming from the GOP back then is silent now. But I know posters here will just move goal posts and try to flip the question without answering it
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?
Yes, absolutely (provided we actually have a candidate)
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps
As a man whose spent the last 16 years of his life in the very real possibility of dying in a war with this nation, along with millions of others... I'd have fething gak kittens if Obama had taken any steps to trying to settle things on that front.
I don't care who is responsible. The fact that anything is being done is good.
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?
Would depend on the Candidate. Just 'non HRC' is a bit... broad. If I felt they're President grade material, yes, I'd vote Democrat. Because Trump most definitely is not. He just gave up South Korea for a vaguely worded promise to do 'something'. That's not negotiation, that's capitulation.
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps
As a man whose spent the last 16 years of his life in the very real possibility of dying in a war with this nation, along with millions of others... I'd have fething gak kittens if Obama had taken any steps to trying to settle things on that front.
I don't care who is responsible. The fact that anything is being done is good.
I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war? Oh wait, no those people wouldn't be the ones actually fighting and dieing so they don't really care.
People keep saying that any meeting with Rocketman is a win for him and gives him credibility. WHO is suddenly jumping on the Rocketman credibility train? The media? Well tjats a self fulfilling prophecy then isnt it?
He's accountable for his actions. But hey, maybe in a few months or year less N Koreans will starve to death and the credibile threat of war will go away.
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.
To what point? The Republicans will just vote to tear it down when they get back in power, even if it's a really good deal, just because the Democrats did it.
As of right now, there is NO hope for anyone having long-term political agreements or treaties with America. NONE. That's what Trump and the current Congress has done for us.
What international treaty that was ratified by a previous session of Congress has been rescinded by the current session of Congress? I’ve seen Trump withdraw executive branch support from treaties that Obama supported but Congress never ratified but I don’t see Congress voiding ratified treaties. You may not like what Trump is doing, I don’t like all the things Trump is doing but he’s playing by the same rules governing foreign treaties that previous presidents have followed. The laws haven’t changed and they’re unlikely to change anytime soon, the US will still have existing obligations to ratified treaties and we’ll ratify our commitments to more treaties in the future. The incessant hyperbolic freak out over anything that Trump does has grown tiresome.
Tell me that if Obama HAD gotten a treaty instead of an agreement the Republicans would not have been every bit as hot to end it as they have everything ELSE Obama did in office.
The (heavily propaganda laden) view to his own people, and to many wannabe dictators around the world, is that you can go from having no diplomatic relations with the US to having a private sit-down with the POTUS by blowing your own mountain to bits with nukes. The G7 can feth off, but KIM gets a signed letter with Trump who won’t sign his agreement with the summit he left to be there.
There is a ton of nice stuff NK could do that would make NK a better place for everyone involved. But they didn’t make any concessions for anything and still got a propaganda win by bringing Trump to the table.
I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war? Oh wait, no those people wouldn't be the ones actually fighting and dieing so they don't really care.
Kim is not interested in peace. This was a glorified photo op for Him and Trump. Look at the actual results of the meeting: Nothing. They shook hands, they smiled and waved to the cameras, but the meat of the meeting? Dry squab.
This has done nothing but make the US look weak, and encourage a man who offers a very real threat of war, no matter what you seem to think Trump managed to achieve.
I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war? Oh wait, no those people wouldn't be the ones actually fighting and dieing so they don't really care.
Remember in 2008 when Obama was asked the same thing and a certain segment decried him being willing to (gasp) talk to NK?
People keep saying that any meeting with Rocketman is a win for him and gives him credibility. WHO is suddenly jumping on the Rocketman credibility train? The media? Well tjats a self fulfilling prophecy then isnt it?
It's a huge win for him. He now has months, if not years, of material for propaganda to dripfeed his populace to show that he(unlike his father) is getting the rest of the world to take North Korea seriously.
He's accountable for his actions. But hey, maybe in a few months or year less N Koreans will starve to death and the credible threat of war will go away.
Unimaginable!
Or in a few months or a year, the North Koreans will decide to launch an artillery saturation on Seoul and then start waving around nuclear armaments as a "stay away" to anyone trying to come to the aid of South Korea.
Someone please show me where the way the civilized world has dealt with despots and dictators with Sanctions and refusing to come to the table has ever worked.
You know there is thing about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Maybe this meeting didnt solve the problem. But it's damn sure opened possibilites that weren't there before.
It's not Trump also suddenly disbanded the US military. These perceptions of who got weaker or stronger are just that, perceptions.
SickSix wrote: Someone please show me where the way the civilized world has dealt with despots and dictators with Sanctions and refusing to come to the table has ever worked.
Duvalier, arguably. Though the refusing to come to the table part makes it tricky, as there's actually no such thing. Even countries without official lines of communication frequently engage in back channel dealings.
SickSix wrote: Someone please show me where the way the civilized world has dealt with despots and dictators with Sanctions and refusing to come to the table has ever worked.
You know there is thing about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Maybe this meeting didnt solve the problem. But it's damn sure opened possibilites that weren't there before.
No, it really didn't. It was a stroking of this administration's ego. It's a smokescreen to deflect from actual issues that are still happening domestically.
It's not Trump also suddenly disbanded the US military. These perceptions of who got weaker or stronger are just that, perceptions.
Er no. We aren't being "perceived" as having sold out one of our more reliable allies in continental Asia--we did sell them out. We cancelled important international, interservice training exercises because someone couldn't be bothered to read his briefings and dossiers.
d-usa wrote: Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.
Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.
Sanctions in place to curtail nuclear progress were successful in bringing Iran to the table to negotiate a nuclear deal that was successful in curtailing the nuclear program as confirmed by the agencies that monitors nuclear programs.
d-usa wrote: Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.
Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.
A reaffirmation of a promise made a few months ago to do something at some point in the future to have fewer nukes and to agree to something at some point with some conditions to be determined to verify that the thing we haven’t actually agreed on is actually happening.
d-usa wrote: Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.
Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.
Iran is way less dangerous than premier US ally Saudi Arabia, but ofc they also don't provide big US business with billions of dollars. Where there's money the US frequently looks the other way. Saudi-funded terrorists mostly kill the other sort of muslims anyway (or often their own to make a show) so it's no big deal.
d-usa wrote: Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.
I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.
So... you think previous potus can bind future potus??? Because that’s really what you’re saying....
Clearly they can't, given Trump's circular-filing of the Iran agreement...
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?
Would depend on the Candidate. Just 'non HRC' is a bit... broad. If I felt they're President grade material, yes, I'd vote Democrat. Because Trump most definitely is not. He just gave up South Korea for a vaguely worded promise to do 'something'. That's not negotiation, that's capitulation.
Then you're not a libertarian. A libertarian is not going to vote to give any party control of both Congress and the executive.
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?
Would depend on the Candidate. Just 'non HRC' is a bit... broad. If I felt they're President grade material, yes, I'd vote Democrat. Because Trump most definitely is not. He just gave up South Korea for a vaguely worded promise to do 'something'. That's not negotiation, that's capitulation.
Then you're not a libertarian. A libertarian is not going to vote to give any party control of both Congress and the executive.
I think you may be grossly overestimating our pull and clout in elections, at the moment our votes are ... principle only.
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps
Well, we already know how they reacted to Obama making a deal with a hostile theocracy that has violated diplomatic immunity in the past....
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.
That is somewhat rich coming from the side, that has continually deflected any kind of criticism with invocations of Hillary and Obama - to such a degree that it has reached meme-status.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the now-closed spin-off thread about Kim Jong-un being willing to visit the White House
Xenomancers wrote:it was essentially the US giving Iran tons of money while Iran could still very easily continue to produce Nukes in secret.
d-usa wrote: Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.
Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.
According to basically the US GOP and Israel. Certainly not to any other signatories to the agreement.
Likewise, if we're going to harangue Iran over state sponsored terrorism, it's not like we haven't spent the last...17 years literally surrounding them on two fronts from Afghanistan and Iraq, supplying hundreds of militant groups with mountains of cash and equipment through Pakistan to Libya and almost literally every nation in between (but especially the nations right on their border).
To boot, within living memory, going back to WW2, they've been invaded and had their governments overthrown or had oppressive regimes imposed or supported by the UK and USA multiple times, and fought a brutal decade long war with US supported Iraq (during the course of which the US shot down an Iranian airliner, however one wants to frame the circumstances of that event). As is today, they have chaos in nations on two flanks as a result of US foreign policy, and see the US backing their immediate regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's not like they have a whole lot of reasons to feel comfortable about US intentions, even before Trump just arbitrarily dumped the deal.
d-usa wrote: Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.
Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.
According to basically the US GOP and Israel. Certainly not to any other signatories to the agreement.
Likewise, if we're going to harangue Iran over state sponsored terrorism, it's not like we haven't spent the last...17 years literally surrounding them on two fronts from Afghanistan and Iraq, supplying hundreds of militant groups with mountains of cash and equipment through Pakistan to Libya and almost literally every nation in between (but especially the nations right on their border).
To boot, within living memory, going back to WW2, they've been invaded and had their governments overthrown or had oppressive regimes imposed or supported by the UK and USA multiple times, and fought a brutal decade long war with US supported Iraq (during the course of which the US shot down an Iranian airliner, however one wants to frame the circumstances of that event). As is today, they have chaos in nations on two flanks as a result of US foreign policy, and see the US backing their immediate regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's not like they have a whole lot of reasons to feel comfortable about US intentions, even before Trump just arbitrarily dumped the deal.
This.
I mentioned this earlier in thread. Iran generally plays by the same rules everyone else plays by, which is pretty remarkable considering how trying to do so continually screws them. Literally every Middle Eastern state partakes in state sponsored terrorism, and lots of non-Middle Eastern states. It's part of the status quo in a world order where open warfare is deemed unacceptable (EDIT: Unless your a US led coalition anyway) and generally gets your country slammed with those pesky sanctions that supposedly do nothing according to some people.
I'd agree that sanctions don't really work on dictators. Important note, Iran is a democracy with a theocratic specific executive authority. Sanctions worked on Iran because building the bomb became more trouble than it was worth more than a decade ago which is why they gave up by all accounts in 2003-2007. However against dictatorships sanctions are effective in curtailing the power of the dictatorship. Sanctions in the lates 80s and 90s completely crippled Saddam Hussein, and have kept North Korea in the 50s in a shocking number of ways. Countries with growing economies and democratic systems have a pretty good track record of caving to sanctions. For dictatorships, well just cause you can't remove the brutal dictator doesn't mean you can't remove yourself from enabling their brutal dictatorship.
The NK thing finally gave me some insight in to the appeal of Trump. The pomp and ceremony around this deal were kind of amazing. Because there's been past deals with NK, first in 1994 then in 2007. Both deals got far greater levels of commitment from North Korea than this deal, but neither deal received much fanfare, I don't remember either deal getting out of the international section of the broadsheets. It certainly didn't get breathless, live coverage from every news service.
But Trump's deal got amazing coverage, despite that deal being almost completely hollow. The whole of the deal is Kim will 'work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula'. So he's committing to working towards doing something. But that doesn't really matter. We got pictures of Kim and Trump walking the grounds, smiling together. We got the announcement of the deal. We got Dennis Rodman crying on tv wearing a MAGA hat.
The details of the deal slowly came out later, and we learned Trump agreed to end joint exercises and a drawdown of US troops, in exchange for that commitment to work towards doing something. But it doesn't matter, Trump only has to keep the spectacle going for about an hour, when the wheels fall off after 61 minutes the only people still watching are the political junkies. Everyone else has had their fill of the Trump show for the day, and moved on to living their actual lives or something.
I'll happily admit that me noticing Trump is all show and no substance is hardly a great insight. It isn't so much that I learned this for the first time, but it's the first time I understood it more than just knew it. Because I was busy last night with sick kids, so all I got was the news headline saying there was a deal for denuclearisation, which was all I knew for about 5 hours until I could sit down and read the actual deal and learn it was junk. For five hours I lived in the world that a lot of Trumpers live in all the time, sold on Trump performance, and never actually seeing the real substance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: So anyone else laughing at Trump's advisor saying Trudeau deserves a special place in hell, but Trump calling Kim, who runs a country with large concentration camps and terrible HR record, a man who loves his country very much? The cognitive dissonance of this admin is breathtaking.
The day after Kudlow said Trudeau deserved a special place in hell, Kudlow had a heart attack. Kudlow is fine now and recovering, so really this was just a rather pointed warning shot from God, who must be quite a fan of Trudeau.
sebster wrote: The NK thing finally gave me some insight in to the appeal of Trump. The pomp and ceremony around this deal were kind of amazing. Because there's been past deals with NK, first in 1994 then in 2007. Both deals got far greater levels of commitment from North Korea than this deal, but neither deal received much fanfare, I don't remember either deal getting out of the international section of the broadsheets. It certainly didn't get breathless, live coverage from every news service.
But Trump's deal got amazing coverage, despite that deal being almost completely hollow. The whole of the deal is Kim will 'work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula'. So he's committing to working towards doing something. But that doesn't really matter. We got pictures of Kim and Trump walking the grounds, smiling together. We got the announcement of the deal. We got Dennis Rodman crying on tv wearing a MAGA hat.
The details of the deal slowly came out later, and we learned Trump agreed to end joint exercises and a drawdown of US troops, in exchange for that commitment to work towards doing something. But it doesn't matter, Trump only has to keep the spectacle going for about an hour, when the wheels fall off after 61 minutes the only people still watching are the political junkies. Everyone else has had their fill of the Trump show for the day, and moved on to living their actual lives or something.
I'll happily admit that me noticing Trump is all show and no substance is hardly a great insight. It isn't so much that I learned this for the first time, but it's the first time I understood it more than just knew it. Because I was busy last night with sick kids, so all I got was the news headline saying there was a deal for denuclearisation, which was all I knew for about 5 hours until I could sit down and read the actual deal and learn it was junk. For five hours I lived in the world that a lot of Trumpers live in all the time, sold on Trump performance, and never actually seeing the real substance.
I'll comment on the appeal of Trump in a bit...
But, I think all sides are losing their minds over this summit. This is nothing more than a glamorous photo shoot with a promise to meet again at a later date to continue negotiation. This is literally a nothingburger except that both Trump and Kim met to begin negotiations.
Standout syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Salena Zito, with veteran Republican strategist Brad Todd, reports across five swing states and over 27,000 miles to answer the pressing question: Was Donald Trump's election a fluke or did it represent a fundamental shift in the electorate that will have repercussions--for Republicans and Democrats--for years to come.
The history of the American electorate is not a litany of flukes; instead it is a pattern of tectonic plate-grinding, punctuated by a landscape-altering earthquake every generation or so. Donald Trump's electoral coalition is smashing both American political parties and its previously impenetrable political news media.The political experts called the 2016 election wrong and in the wake of the 2016 election surprise, the experts have continued to blow it - looking to predict the coming demise of the President without pausing to consider the durability of the trends and winds that swept him into office.
The Great Revolt delves deep into the minds and hearts of the voters the make up this coalition. What emerges is a group of citizens who cannot be described by terms like "angry," "male," "rural," or the often-used "racist." They span job descriptions, income brackets, education levels, and party allegiances. What unites them is their desire to be part of a movement larger than themselves that puts pragmatism before ideology, localism before globalism, and demands the respect it deserve from Washington.
Zito and Todd have traveled on over 27,000 miles of country roads to interview more than 300 Trump voters in 10 swing counties. What they have discovered is that these voters were hiding in plain sight--ignored by both parties, the media, and the political experts all at once, ready to unite into the movement that spawned the greatest upset in recent electoral history. Deeply rooted in the culture of these Midwestern swing states, Zito and Brad Todd reframe the discussion of the "Trump voter" to answer the question: What next?
During the election, the deluge of hate that came my way when I expressed my disapproval of then-candidate Donald Trump was so violent that I purchased a gun.
But these days, the vitriol is coming from the other side. Chance the Rapper, for example, was was eviscerated online for suggesting that “Black people don’t have to be democrats,” and eventually pressured into apologizing. His comment came after Kanye West faced a firestorm of criticism after tweeting in support of Donald Trump. Earlier this year, country singer Shania Twain, a Canadian, also felt the need to apologize for stating that, were she an American citizen with voting rights, would have voted for Trump.
Expressing anything resembling support for the Trump administration has become nothing short of a taboo. And while these backlashes are hardly the same as the tweets I would get threatening my family during the election, they do raise the question, should Americans really be publicly shamed and bullied into apologizing for stating that they support the President of the United States?
There is more than a chance that this could spectacularly backfire.
During the primary season and general election, I was a vocal conservative against Trump. I could not fathom how anyone could possibly support such an oaf, such a bully, for President.
But I’m starting to understand.
*
Before the election, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf published a dialogue he had with a 22-year old Trump supporter living and working in Silicon Valley. How could such a man possibly support then-candidate Trump, was the question Friedersdorf put to him. “For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture,” the Trump supporter told him. “That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc.”
This backlash against political correctness is what got Donald Trump elected. Not only do Trump’s voters continue to believe his level of political correctness is correct, but surveys consistently find the highest correlation between being anti-P.C. and supporting Trump, stronger even than feelings about immigration. According to a survey in ClearThinking.org covered in Reason, believing “there is too much political correctness in this country” was the second most reliable predictor for whether someone would vote for Trump (the first was party affiliation).
It’s not just on national issues, either. In a survey conducted for their book on the populist revolt that led to Trump’s election, “The Great Revolt”, Salena Zito found that 85% of Trump voters wanted the United States to make our own decisions on major issues and challenge other nations to follow our example.
We’ve seen how that unwillingness to adhere to traditional political norms has paid off in dividends internationally. Every President has been told that he simply cannot move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and watching Trump thumb his nose at that convention has been refreshing for many conservatives including myself.
So it’s ironic that the very cause of Trump’s election — the over-policing of discourse to conform to liberal notions of political correctness — has reached a fever pitch in the wake of his election.
By PC culture, I don’t mean things like the very positive fact that we can’t call minorities ugly epithets anymore. I mean liberals defining what counts as “appropriate” speech and demanding fealty to these standards, such that every perceived wrong step, every comment they don’t like, is turned into something as egregious as the N word.
This obsession with political correctness, which fueled Donald Trump’s election, has now spread and mutated to incorporate him. Part of being a member of politically correct culture has now become an insistence on repudiating the President and his election. Americans are told they should not, they cannot, support this man, under any circumstances. To do so is racist, the cardinal sin of our generation.
In 2018, supporting the President of the United States will get you labeled a racist.
Liberals point to things like the new policy on immigration which separates children from their parents, comparing it to the Nazis. The overreaches and abuses in the realm of immigration are heartbreaking and disheartening. It’s disingenuous, however, for liberals to suddenly be concerned given how much of Trump’s treatment of immigrants is merely an extension of Obama-era policies. Recently several instances of abuses were shared, from kids in cages to prison buses, which were at the time blamed on the Trump administration, but were later exposed to be from before his inauguration.
It’s impossible to take liberals and journalists concerns about the welfare of immigrants at face value after their eight year slumber through the entire Obama administration.
But it’s not only disingenuous. What the President’s opponents don’t seem to understand is the hysteria and excuses are only driving more Americans into believing that we were desperately in need of a corrective.
The refusal to accept that millions of Americans knowingly voted for Trump will only help the President earn another term. For the hysteria from the left over dissent of any kind, but especially pertaining to Trump, is precisely what has resulted in the “owning the liberals” mentality on the right, which is only gaining steam.
As Salena Zito explains in “The Great Revolt”, “Rust Belt voters watched on cable television as the Left and journalists pigeonholed their rebellion as an ugly bout of white nationalism, doubling down on all the elitist snobbery those voters sought to rebuke.”
And it’s starting to get to me, too.
Instead of trying to understand Americans and their choice for President, anyone voicing even a modicum of support for the administration is bullied into apologies and silence. The media turn public statements of support for the President into a news story for their viewers and readers to get outraged over. That’s the least of the media’s campaign against the President, which includes countless mistakes and corrections which only seem to break one way: against the administration. For a group of professionals who express shock and horror at the label “Fake news!” many members of the media are doing nothing but providing more ammunition for Trump’s attacks.
When he does do something well, like finally moving our embassy to Jerusalem or stepping out of an extraordinarily flawed Iran nuclear deal, it’s ignored or villainized. Americans notice the double standard; the refusal to see anything positive, and the fixation on everything negative. There are some accomplishments every American can, or should, admit are positives. The economy is in fantastic shape; Trump has brought home American political prisoners from North Korea and Venezuela; he has pushed through the first steps of important criminal justice reform. Those stories are roundly ignored by a media intent on taking down the President, not reporting on his administration.
It’s enough to make even a NeverTrumper like me into a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter.
Well, it’s almost enough. Every time he opens his mouth, I am reminded why I couldn’t vote for him. I’m reminded of his words about there being “very fine people” on both sides of Charlottesville. But if the President’s opponents continue to ignore his accomplishments and mindlessly attack him for another few years, it could create even more spiteful Trump voters as a result.
This^...especially her last paragraph.
I'm not sure how big the "I'm a conservative, unlike Trump, and I didn't vote for the jackass the last time, but feth the people on the left and sign me up for moar MAGA 2020" vote is going to be... but I think it's going to be a not insignificant number because that's the sad state of our current politics.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.
What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.
You don't understand how this works. Trump has agreed to a clear, measurable thing. When he reverses course it will be a clear, measurable break of his commitment. Kim agreed to a vague concept, to be started at some point later on. He can do nothing for years without it being clear he's broken his side of the deal.
Get it now? This is the difference between a clear commitment to do a specific thing starting now, and a commitment to vague concept at some point later on.
Well, it’s almost enough. Every time he opens his mouth, I am reminded why I couldn’t vote for him. I’m reminded of his words about there being “very fine people” on both sides of Charlottesville. But if the President’s opponents continue to ignore his accomplishments and mindlessly attack him for another few years, it could create even more spiteful Trump voters as a result.
The thing is, ignore what accomplishments? His tax cut? Dismanteling Obama era regulations and deals? Starting a trade war with your own allies? Praise North Korea and just being downright apologetic for the last Gulag system on Earth?
The issue with this author is that she build up a strawman. In the accomplisment department there is little to look at that is fully attributable to Trump. Even the author doesn't go into accomplishments beyond Trump giving the world the finger and some shallow remarks on the Iran deal and a few prisoners being released (as has every admin). Sure the economy is doing well, but its hard to argue that wouldn't have been the case under a run of the mill replacement.
On the other hand the attacks aren't mindless. Plenty of people have given extensive reasoning behind what Trump is doing is wrong in their opinion. Trump giving the world the finger is damaging the US internationally. Which subsequently gets handwaved away with "oh you just hate Trump". They sound exactly like a Trump supporter instead of a so claimed 'never Trump' one.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It is definitely a concession. Did Trump even consult with the South Korean government or his own before agreeing to that?
South Korea has expressed surprise and concern about the announcement. Which is diplomatic speak for 'what the fu....'
In terms of his own government, I have no idea if Trump's concession was run past the State Department, but the DoD has stated they have received no order to stop future joint operations with South Korea. Which is bureaucratic speak for 'this is the first time I'm hearing about this'.
What was really interesting was China actually announced Trump's concession on joint operations before Trump announced it. Which tells you about the importance of the concession. As soon as the meeting with Trump was over, Kim immediately told his team about the concession, and they immediately told China, who immediately made a public announcement about it.
Grey Templar wrote: And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.
You're trying to argue that it's okay for Republicans be shamelessly partisan, because hypothetical Democrats would be hypothetically partisan if a hypothetical Democrat hypothetically produced the same hypothetical deal. It's a crap argument.
Anyhow, while we don't have an example of a Democratic president ever producing a deal where actual concessions were made in exchange for a promise to being talking about doing something at some point, because we don't an instance of any president doing something that incompetent, what we do have are past North Korea deals. GW Bush built a six party deal with NK, and I said at the time the framework for it was really good. It had clear milestones and timelines for each side, and they were nicely balanced so neither side had to commit more than the other at any point in the process. I was no fan of GW Bush, but his deal was very well constructed. And I was far from alone in this, the deal was broadly applauded.
So while I can't talk about hypothetical Democrats hypothetically loving a bad hypothetical deal signed by a hypothetical Democratic president, I do know that good deals from Republicans presidents are recognised as good deals. Whereas this deal is being attacked because it is terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Even if you manage to craft a deal with Kim on NK nuclear weapons its going to be downright impossible I think to get any serious reform on the HR front. The camps are a vital part of how NK keeps the state together and repress dissent. With that said, it doesn't make Trump's comments on HR any less fething stupid or insensitive.
It's a fair point that a NK deal isn't going to achieve much about NK's brutality. Any deal getting NK to stop its repression would be a deal getting Kim to abdicate, because there's no regime without it.
However, it does mean that any deal with NK would be written within the context of NK repression. It's why past US presidents have refused to meet with NK leadership, and the deals struck have read been focused on specific tit for tat trades and concessions, not general statements of intent. The latter are full of trust and goodwill, things you do with friends and peers, the former are how you deal with tyrants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: We essentially know nothing right now. Only that Trump says it went better than expected.
We have the deal, signed and publically presented. That's all there is to know and we know it. And that deal sucks.
Trump and Kim talked for five hours and no-one knows what happens in those talks, but it doesn't matter. No other people were present, not even translators, and no notes were taken. What the men discussed and promised does not matter, none of it will ever come up again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. It’s actually more lenient than CA. Here if you miss two cycles they stop sending you stuff and make you inactive.
This is straight up bs. It is the direct opposite of California's electoral law. Here's how the law is applied in California, in case anyone actually cares what the truth is;
"Second, it may not operate to remove the name of any person from an official list of registered voters by reason of the person's failure to vote."
The only way you will be removed from the rolls in California is by your own request, your death, criminal conviction, or if the US postal services informs CA you have moved (in which case CA will contact you to confirm).
This is far from the first time you've claimed something that is in direct contrast to the truth, Grey Templar. Stop it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Which is also why it's silly to keep saying things like. "He didn't even inform the military about the decision" - well - he doesn't have to.
What? What a president can do is very different to what a functional president operating effectively will do.
Trump deciding without military consultation to cancel joint operations is within his powers, but a president making commitments to other countries without consulting with his military about the consequences of those operations is obviously a terrible way to manage national security.
Your argument here, which is effectively trying to reduce actions down to 'well he can do it therefore there's can't ever be anything wrong with it' is an obviously ridiculous claim. And you know it was ridiculous, because there is no way you've ever spent one second of your life thinking that all a president is ever judged on is whether his action was legal, with no thought given to the consequences of the decision.
Then you're not a libertarian. A libertarian is not going to vote to give any party control of both Congress and the executive.
No, I'm an independent. I get to vote in favor of whatever I feel like, since I'm not a slave to a given party. Voting a particular parties way does not make one a member of that party, nor mean that your 100% behind a given parties aims or ideology.
Xenomancers wrote: Where do you get the information that he didn't inform the relevant people anyways? I'm sure hes had briefings with his military staff about possible outcomes from this meeting. You know...they can ask questions.
The statement from the force deployed in South Korea;
"USFK has received no updated guidance on execution or cessation of training exercises — to include this fall's schedule Ulchi Freedom Guardian, in coordination with our South Korean partners we will continue with our current military posture until we receive updated guidance from the Department of Defense (DoD)"
Remove the carefully chosen diplomatic speech and what you're left with is a statement that this is the first they've heard of it, and they're going to carry on as they are until ordered otherwise.
Plus - do they even need to know? This is not a pressing matter...
Yes. How is that even a question? The military needs to be informed about what its CinC is committing it to do or not do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: No - I just know what the US military is capable of. ESP our Navy. SK likely has the most advance anti missle systems on earth. A first strike against NK would result in approx 90% of their offensive capabilities being destroyed within a 30 minute period. Few in SK would die.
North Korea has 14,300 artillery pieces and rocket launchers on the border with South Korea. Most are not in range of Seoul but they're all in range of South Korean population centers.
These weapons are dug in to mountains and housed in reinforced bunkers. It is an old fashioned, low tech way of war but its good enough for what NK wants.
Your claim that the US would destroy 90%, 12,870 weapons, within 30 minutes isn't a military assessment. It is fan fiction. 12,870 successful strikes against hardened positions, all inside of 30 minutes. The US military is awesome in its capabilities, but it isn't powered by make believe.
It's even sillier when you consider that in order to reach serious capability in the region the US would have to begin a lengthy period of build up, likely months, before unleashing their strike. For the US to be ready for this 300 minute alpha strike, we would need NK to just sit there, for months, while the US built up a vast force capable of deploying 12,870 strikes within 30 minutes.
And even if we accept that nonsense, you're asking us to believe that the remaining 330 weapons operating for longer than half an hour would kill only a few South Koreans. That's not even a boisterous faith in US firepower, it's just plain made up silliness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.
No, this is nonsense. The alternative to big shows of nonsense promises of committing to talk about doing something isn't war, it is the status quo, which was cold relations but no-one actually killing anyone.
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.
No, this is nonsense. The alternative to big shows of nonsense promises of committing to talk about doing something isn't war, it is the status quo, which was cold relations but no-one actually killing anyone.
Cold relations where NK launches missiles and acting belligerently.
Yeah... that's what we're probably looking at if history is of any guide.
whembly wrote: It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?
And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes. Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.
No, this is nonsense. The alternative to big shows of nonsense promises of committing to talk about doing something isn't war, it is the status quo, which was cold relations but no-one actually killing anyone.
Cold relations where NK launches missiles and acting belligerently.
Yeah... that's what we're probably looking at if history is of any guide.
Well, it's a good thing Trump got him to commit to stop launching missiles in writing!
Oh wait, he didn't. So what we're left with is the status quo minus SK-US military cooperation.
whembly wrote: Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table.
The reason we appeared on the brink of war is because Trump was trying to provoke NK. You're basically trying to argue that Trump saved us from a war started by Trump.
Also, you're once again parrotting a FOX News line that is a straight up lie. Trump did not bring Kim to the table. NK has been pursuing a sit down with a US president for decades. The US has known the massive boost to its legitimacy that NK leadership would get by sitting with a US president, so it did not grant that meeting, it was to be held back until extensive conditions were met, including extensive progress towards dismantling their nuke program. Then Trump got a call from President Moon suggesting the meeting, and 45 minutes later without any consultation with the State Dept he agreed to the meeting. He gifted NK an enormous boost while getting nothing in return. This wasn't only foolish in itself, it also gifted Kim all the advantages when they did meet. Because Kim already had a huge win, he could walk away from Singapore with no deal and still be a huge winner, while Trump needed a deal. This is why the final deal ended up with Trump giving up joint operations, while Kim did nothing more than repeat the general commitment to do something or other later on.
whembly wrote: Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table.
The reason we appeared on the brink of war is because Trump was trying to provoke NK. You're basically trying to argue that Trump saved us from a war started by Trump.
Also, you're once again parrotting a FOX News line that is a straight up lie. Trump did not bring Kim to the table. NK has been pursuing a sit down with a US president for decades. The US has known the massive boost to its legitimacy that NK leadership would get by sitting with a US president, so it did not grant that meeting, it was to be held back until extensive conditions were met, including extensive progress towards dismantling their nuke program. Then Trump got a call from President Moon suggesting the meeting, and 45 minutes later without any consultation with the State Dept he agreed to the meeting. He gifted NK an enormous boost while getting nothing in return. This wasn't only foolish in itself, it also gifted Kim all the advantages when they did meet. Because Kim already had a huge win, he could walk away from Singapore with no deal and still be a huge winner, while Trump needed a deal. This is why the final deal ended up with Trump giving up joint operations, while Kim did nothing more than repeat the general commitment to do something or other later on.
I agree with this. It's a good point.
But let me say something to everybody who's concerned about Trump stopping the military exercises.
When France withdraw from NATO command structures back in the day, there was still high level contacts and staff briefings behind the scenes.
In public, the US and South Korean militaries will go through the motions of obeying Trump but behind the scenes, it will be business as usual.
whembly wrote: Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table.
The reason we appeared on the brink of war is because Trump was trying to provoke NK. You're basically trying to argue that Trump saved us from a war started by Trump.
Can't really disagree with that.
Also, you're once again parrotting a FOX News line that is a straight up lie.
I only watch CNN when I have time.
Trump did not bring Kim to the table. NK has been pursuing a sit down with a US president for decades. The US has known the massive boost to its legitimacy that NK leadership would get by sitting with a US president, so it did not grant that meeting, it was to be held back until extensive conditions were met, including extensive progress towards dismantling their nuke program. Then Trump got a call from President Moon suggesting the meeting, and 45 minutes later without any consultation with the State Dept he agreed to the meeting. He gifted NK an enormous boost while getting nothing in return. This wasn't only foolish in itself, it also gifted Kim all the advantages when they did meet. Because Kim already had a huge win, he could walk away from Singapore with no deal and still be a huge winner, while Trump needed a deal. This is why the final deal ended up with Trump giving up joint operations, while Kim did nothing more than repeat the general commitment to do something or other later on.
The joint operations is a small thing as the everyday daily training still occurs at the border and the next big US & NK joint operations is next spring. Nothing stopping SK & US from re-engaging the joint operations if NK janks everyone again by then.
You're acting like this is it. Pompeo/SK/NK is working to keep the dialogue/negotiation ongoing.
How 'bout this. Take Trump out of the equation (or even superimpose that it's HRC the President): What would be your criteria(s) that would be considered as a success? Total de-nuclearlization? Reunification? Some believe it's getting them to face up to the Human Rights violations or bust.
What if, the only thing we get out of all of this, is an actual end of the armistice and a peace treaty, and no denuking?
The issue isn't that this was only the first meeting or that the exercises can be restarted. The issue is that NK developed nuclear weapons and has a much stronger hand to negotiate with.
Now to kick off the negotiation Trump immediately makes a concession on the exercises, which if restarted NK is going to use as proof of US bad faith. Not only did Trump hand Kim that with some vague promise about a rocket site in private, he also praises dear leader and seriously downplays the horrible nature of the regime. If this was a poker game Trump just showed his opponent his hand because he is so desperate to be liked. If the NKs are smart they are going to involve Trump in all major parts from now on, because Trump is going to be much easier to deal with than Pompeo. Trump just wants to look good at home, who knows what he might hand over without being prompted?
But let me say something to everybody who's concerned about Trump stopping the military exercises.
When France withdraw from NATO command structures back in the day, there was still high level contacts and staff briefings behind the scenes.
In public, the US and South Korean militaries will go through the motions of obeying Trump but behind the scenes, it will be business as usual.
Nothing to worry about in this regard.
Well nobody is worried about stopping the exercises from a military cooperation point of view. We all know they are still going to cooperate. The issue is that you let an enemy nation (make no mistale, NK sunk a SK warship several years ago) dictate the terms of your alliance and that you give in to those terms without getting anything tangible in return.
Poor Abe, he spend so much time trying to convince Trump of Japanese concerns and then Trump just threw Abe under the bus. Well at least all those kidnapped Japanese are the real winners here...
whembly wrote: The joint operations is a small thing as the everyday daily training still occurs at the border and the next big US & NK joint operations is next spring. Nothing stopping SK & US from re-engaging the joint operations if NK janks everyone again by then.
Even if you set aside that premise it's still yet another case of Trump provoking our allies while getting nothing in return. Trump insulted our ally (who does have something to offer) to make himself look good, in negotiations where they other side doesn't even have anything to offer besides being nicer to that ally. It's like if you went to the store to buy a gift for your friend's birthday, but in negotiating with the store to pay for the gift you agreed to cancel your friend's party and throw the gift in the trash.
This is what you and Trump don't seem to understand: diplomacy is about perception just as often as it is about practical exchanges of value. Pride, honor, shared values, etc, these things all matter. And building a strong relationship from them takes time, much longer than it takes to damage that relationship. Even if cancelling the joint exercises with South Korea has negligible practical effect it still tells South Korea that they aren't as important, that we don't respect them as much. And that kind of thing comes back to get you in the future, when you really wish you had that solid friendship that you used to have.
How 'bout this. Take Trump out of the equation (or even superimpose that it's HRC the President): What would be your criteria(s) that would be considered as a success? Total de-nuclearlization? Reunification? Some believe it's getting them to face up to the Human Rights violations or bust.
The criteria is meaningful and lasting progress towards North Korea becoming a better country, not just propaganda victories and endless cycles of North Korea's game of good cop/bad cop. We can argue about degrees of success, and all of the things you mentioned would be successes of some degree. But nothing like that has happened yet. All we have had is one more repetition of North Korea's game, except this time they found a US president gullible and narcissistic enough to play along with the game and hand them an even bigger win.
What if, the only thing we get out of all of this, is an actual end of the armistice and a peace treaty, and no denuking?
That would certainly count as a win (assuming the peace treaty is legitimate and followed by actual demilitarization, not just symbolic statements about having peace), but it's also nothing more than wishful thinking. It hasn't happened, and there is no credible reason to believe that it will happen.
Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states. 
) says it is
)
