I am happy that the rhetoric on both sides has de-escalated, and I give both sides credit for that to an extent. It is a good outcome. But Trump really did not do a great job in the negotiations. It may be that that is irrelevant because of other factors however - NK may feel it is time for them to normalize relations now that with nuclear weapons they are secure, China seems to be leaning on them more and more, and South Korea has a leader who is more interested in peace than posturing. So the time might be right in any case. I hope so. If Trump ends up being awarded the credit for that, I can live with it, but I think awarding him the credit would be dumb. But he already got to be president of the United States, so we're way past dumb already.
Everyone agrees that the war between North and South Korea should be ended, the military forces on both sides should be reduced to a sensible level, and it also is important to denuclearise NK to uphold the principle of anti-proliferation (because nukes are very dangerous.)
No-one is against Trump trying to achieve this as an aim. The issues people have raised are these:
1. It's stupid for Trump to attempt an anti-nuke deal with NK while simultaneously repudiating a working anti-nuke deal with Iran.
2. The results of the summit don't get us any nearer to such a deal.
3. In order to achieve this ineffective result Trump made several important giveaways without getting anything in return. I won't bother listing them again.
This does not mean that a deal is impossible, and we all hope it could be done, but what else will Trump have to give away to do it?
Honestly if I was Iran, I would be cranking up the nuclear program again. Weapons grade. As much as they can afford to sink in to it. Apparently that is the only way to get this president to the table to negotiate and he is bad at it, so free loot basically. No guarantee he will not win another term and who knows, the person after him might be another Trump or Trumplike President.
They could definitely use this situation to their advantage.
The Wall Street Journal - Jan 2018 wrote:Around the same time, Mr. Trump had an idea about how to counter the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, which he got after speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin : If the U.S. stopped joint military exercises with the South Koreans, it could help moderate Kim Jong Un’s behavior. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis used an approach that aides say can work: “He says, ‘Your instincts are absolutely correct,’ and then gets him [the president] to do the exact opposite of what his instincts say,” said one person close to the White House. Mr. Trump dropped the idea, although he has ordered aides to give the exercises a low profile, eliminating press releases and briefings about them.
That said, I don't think halting exercises in pursuit of a lasting settlement in a bad thing, but the way it was done sounds all sorts of slapdash.
Also
Donald Trump's Twitter wrote:Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
President Donald Trump, through his Twitter account which has been declared by the White House to be official Presidential statements, has declared that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat.
I guess we'll see how that bears out.
Edit: on a side note, can anyone imagine the apoplexy that would occur had Obama made such a statement (particularly the "interesting and positive" part)? Especially among the many lauding Trump currently? Not that I want to poopoo the peace process here, just observing the reactions.
Hatling the exercises would be potentially a good thing if it was done in exchange for a meaningful concession by NK.
Instead it sounded like Trump was obsessed with saving money. He twice mentioned the cost of the exercises. Most people understand that armed forces are money sinks at the best of times, and they need training to become and stay effective, and this costs more money. But, si vis pacem, para bellum.
Secondly it was very wrong to make that decision and inform the world before having consulted with US regional allies.
All that being said, perhaps Kim will actually respond positively. While his family and regime have a long history of getting into talks and agreements and then reneging on whatever was promised, Kim himself does not yet. Maybe he will be different. (If he can trust Trump...)
Trump can't complain about exercises costing money while also making the US defense budget climb to new heights because in his opinion the army was a mess, its called having your cake and eating it too. Of course they cost money, but so much of the infrastructure in SK is already being paid for that actually cancelling them will be a drop in the ocean on the budget.
Trump is a disorganised mess who won't put in the work needed to master a brief.
Teump can blame Canada for invading the USA in 1812, when it was the USA who invaded Canada (or rather British North America since Canada didn't exist then) and use this as an excuse for strategic tariffs to overturn the balance of trade deficit between the USA and Canada when in fact the USA exports more to Canada than it imports from Canada.
He doesn't have much idea what is going on, and simply doesn't care anyway. The same attitude applies to his treatment of every issue that drifts into his rather hazy attention span. He just says stuff that he thinks will appeal to his base.
It doesn't matter as long as the Trumpist party are happy to applaud the colour of the sky changing on a daily basis.
My familiarity with the US legal system depends on films liek Twelve Angry Men and Legally Blonde, so I don't understand the implications of this development.
From my viewpoint it might appear that Cohen's law firm (that is to say, who are representing him) have dropped the case because after lokoing at the documents they have realised he is clearly guilty and they don't have any chance of a successful defence. This may be completely wrong on several points, of course.
Are your lawyers allowed to dump you under such circumstance if it was actually true?
In the US lawyers have the right to a motion to be relieved of counsel. The defendant can appeal this, and try to force the lawyer(s) to stay on, but would you really want that?
Doubtful, he would be stuck with a public defender. Also, if its close enough to trial, the judge can simply force the private lawyer to stick around in order to ensure a fair trial.
He wasn't a Public Defender, though. He was even more useless, because at least a Public Defender would be qualified in criminal law, unlike Louis Tully.
AndrewGPaul wrote: He wasn't a Public Defender, though. He was even more useless, because at least a Public Defender would be qualified in criminal law, unlike Louis Tully.
In my experience of Jury duty, half the battle is turning up on time. You get 50% credit from the judge just for standing there on time
Tuesday's scattered primaries seem to bolster the fact that Trump channeled the republican base better than any other Republican. The winners were pretty much Trumpers, and the losers were not. That is just a quick take on it.
In addition, on the Democratic side, the ladies seem to keep winning primaries.
Easy E wrote: Tuesday's scattered primaries seem to bolster the fact that Trump channeled the republican base better than any other Republican. The winners were pretty much Trumpers, and the losers were not. That is just a quick take on it.
In addition, on the Democratic side, the ladies seem to keep winning primaries.
I remember reading somewhere that the Dems have flipped their 43rd district/seat
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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...
Well, the people who already got kidnapped not so much. But as long as Trump and Kim keep up this good relations thing, there certainly won't be any more kidnappings.
Even if Trump did not get any hard, written-down concessions from North Korea (although with North Korea, a written concession doesn't have to mean anything), the détente between two nuclear powers who just months ago were threatening to destroy one another definitely brings a lot of benefit. A cordial relation with North Korea is so much better than being on the brink of war. If the cessation of joint US-South Korea exercises in Korea is the price for that, then I say that is a price well paid. It is not like the US or South Korea will stop cooperating or anything, and it massively reduces tensions. It is a good concession to make I think. It also shows to the world and North Korea that the US is willing to make compromises and work towards peace. Diplomatically, that is highly valuable as it shifts the onus to North Korea to make compromises as well. This could very well open up the way to a lasting peace, and if not, North Korea is to blame (barring the US doing anything stupid of course) and loses its last shreds of diplomatic credibility. That would mean no more deals in the future, and I am not sure North Korea could handle that.
My view of the Trump/Kim meeting is that Trump gave his fans a desperately needed 'win'. We see it in this thread, posters who have been silent for months after chowder-headed scandal after scandal kept piling up, suddenly coming out of the woodwork and claiming victory and progress despite actual evidence to the contrary.
What did the US gain from sitting down with Kim? The PotUS got to look competent and statesman-like, when in reality he is anything but.
feeder wrote: My view of the Trump/Kim meeting is that Trump gave his fans a desperately needed 'win'.
Indeed, transparently so. Lets just hope something actually concrete comes of it at some point.
We see it in this thread, posters who have been silent for months after chowder-headed scandal after scandal kept piling up, suddenly coming out of the woodwork and claiming victory and progress despite actual evidence to the contrary.
Easy E wrote: Tuesday's scattered primaries seem to bolster the fact that Trump channeled the republican base better than any other Republican. The winners were pretty much Trumpers, and the losers were not. That is just a quick take on it.
Well, that's what happens when you spend a decade using a media empire and various online associates to radicalize the base. The cesspool's starting to boil over and the conservative elites in Washington that used to be able to use the base's fears and anger are now being forced out because of it. Trump's election was basically proof that you can say or do basically anything, as long as it falls in with what Fox and Breitbart feed to the base. Just look at Neoconfederate Corey Stewart in Virginia, or Moore's campaign in Alabama.
And that's only been further fueled by the Republican's inability to do anything in the past year and a half other than failing to repeal the ACA and passing a massive tax cut for the rich. Remember Conor Lamb's election in PA - when the GOP realized that their tax cut message wasn't working, they fell back on "Be scared of brown people!" which is the Trumpian candidate's bread and butter.
So, AT&T, a content distributor, gets to buy Time Warner, a content creator. It's expected that Comcast, a content distributor, will announce a better-than-Disney offer to buy Fox, a content creator.
And Net Neutrality officially died this week.
Hmmm...
Trump gave away several important concessions, while annoying allies UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Canada by his sloppy, rude behaviour.
Trump gained zero from Kim.
The USA gained a possible in with Kim, but that could have been done without all the give-aways. Hopefully it will turn into something good.
You're right that Trumpists saw it as a win, but it has come to be obvious that if Trump sicked up on the Queen at a televised state dinner, somehow it would be seen a big win by Trumpists.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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...
Well, the people who already got kidnapped not so much. But as long as Trump and Kim keep up this good relations thing, there certainly won't be any more kidnappings.
Even if Trump did not get any hard, written-down concessions from North Korea (although with North Korea, a written concession doesn't have to mean anything), the détente between two nuclear powers who just months ago were threatening to destroy one another definitely brings a lot of benefit. A cordial relation with North Korea is so much better than being on the brink of war. If the cessation of joint US-South Korea exercises in Korea is the price for that, then I say that is a price well paid. It is not like the US or South Korea will stop cooperating or anything, and it massively reduces tensions. It is a good concession to make I think. It also shows to the world and North Korea that the US is willing to make compromises and work towards peace. Diplomatically, that is highly valuable as it shifts the onus to North Korea to make compromises as well. This could very well open up the way to a lasting peace, and if not, North Korea is to blame (barring the US doing anything stupid of course) and loses its last shreds of diplomatic credibility. That would mean no more deals in the future, and I am not sure North Korea could handle that.
Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.
So Pompeo has given NK the arbitrary deadline of 2 years for significant denuclearization without even having discussed what that entails or having an agreement with NK on it. Going well so far.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, AT&T, a content distributor, gets to buy Time Warner, a content creator. It's expected that Comcast, a content distributor, will announce a better-than-Disney offer to buy Fox, a content creator.
And Net Neutrality officially died this week.
Hmmm...
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.
If US could prevent destruction of Soul they would have invaded NK LONG TIME AGO! With US being one of the most aggressive invaders in the world why you think they haven't invaded NK decades ago? Because it would cause razing of Seoul which is capital of their ally and big huge civilian disaster...
Only way to stop US from doing yet another invasion is ability to hurt them or their allies enough they don't want to do. NK obviously has had that as otherwise US would have invaded them decades ago.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted a reporter on Wednesday after the journalist asked why the denuclearization of North Korea was not included in an agreement signed between the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, and President Trump.
“The president said it will be verified," the reporter said to Pompeo in South Korea, to which Pompeo responded, "Of course it will."
"Can you tell us a little bit more about what is, what is — what discussed about how," the reporter continued.
“Just so you know, you could ask me this, I find that question insulting and ridiculous and, frankly, ludicrous," Pompeo said. "I just have to be honest with you, it’s a game and one ought not to play games with serious matters like this."
Asking for details on North Korean denuclearization verification beyond "The President Said So" is a ridiculous and insulting question.
But the Iran deal was just unworkable and unverifiable...
Disciple of Fate wrote: 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...
Well, the people who already got kidnapped not so much. But as long as Trump and Kim keep up this good relations thing, there certainly won't be any more kidnappings. Even if Trump did not get any hard, written-down concessions from North Korea (although with North Korea, a written concession doesn't have to mean anything), the détente between two nuclear powers who just months ago were threatening to destroy one another definitely brings a lot of benefit. A cordial relation with North Korea is so much better than being on the brink of war. If the cessation of joint US-South Korea exercises in Korea is the price for that, then I say that is a price well paid. It is not like the US or South Korea will stop cooperating or anything, and it massively reduces tensions. It is a good concession to make I think. It also shows to the world and North Korea that the US is willing to make compromises and work towards peace. Diplomatically, that is highly valuable as it shifts the onus to North Korea to make compromises as well. This could very well open up the way to a lasting peace, and if not, North Korea is to blame (barring the US doing anything stupid of course) and loses its last shreds of diplomatic credibility. That would mean no more deals in the future, and I am not sure North Korea could handle that.
Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.
Diplomats generally have memories longer than a single day. South Korea may have some concerns over putting a stop to the exercises (although there is plenty of voices in South Korea that called for this as well), but they will have no doubt about the US caring for them and their concerns. The US spends massive amounts on protecting South Korea and has done so for over half a century. This 'deal' changes nothing about that and they will not forget that in South Korea. Only a total fool would question American commitment to South Korea. Also, North Korea has plenty of diplomatic credibility left. It is funny that you say it isn't so because it is really self-evident. China, the US and South Korea are all heavily invested into diplomacy with North Korea. They would not be if North Korea had no diplomatic credibility. The onus has never really been on North Korea before. Certainly, there have been deals with North Korea before, but in those deals the US or South Korea have never given any meaningful concessions to North Korea, not without making very heavy demands in return. This made North Korea reluctant to make any meaningful concessions of its own, which made the US angry which then made the DPRK angry which then led to the deal breaking down. Diplomatic negotiations work the same way as all negotiations. One side has to begin with making concessions, or both sides will stay reluctant and nothing will ever happen. Sometimes you have to give up a little to gain a lot. That is a central tenet of diplomacy. Furthermore, halting military exercises isn't really a big concession. It has no lasting impact whatsoever, since exercises can just be resumed in case the deal breaks down. Clearly, previous approaches to North Korea have all failed dramatically, since North Korea managed to obtain nuclear ICBMs and only a few months ago the whole region seemed more on the brink of war than ever before. Trump is now trying something new. Whether it will work out any differently from past failures only time will tell. But it is good that something new is being tried. If it doesn't, then no permanent harm is done. If it does, then that is a massive step forwards for the entire world.
Vaktathi wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, Mike Pompeo, our Secretary of State.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted a reporter on Wednesday after the journalist asked why the denuclearization of North Korea was not included in an agreement signed between the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, and President Trump.
“The president said it will be verified," the reporter said to Pompeo in South Korea, to which Pompeo responded, "Of course it will."
"Can you tell us a little bit more about what is, what is — what discussed about how," the reporter continued.
“Just so you know, you could ask me this, I find that question insulting and ridiculous and, frankly, ludicrous," Pompeo said. "I just have to be honest with you, it’s a game and one ought not to play games with serious matters like this."
Asking for details on North Korean denuclearization verification beyond "The President Said So" is a ridiculous and insulting question.
But the Iran deal was just unworkable and unverifiable...
As someone who once lied about my qualities on my resume and landed a job that was far beyond my ability to perform, I have some sympathy for the current administration. I know the stress of being asked to explain my incompetent actions to people who actually know what the feth they are talking about.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.
Diplomats generally have memories longer than a single day. South Korea may have some concerns over putting a stop to the exercises (although there is plenty of voices in South Korea that called for this as well), but they will have no doubt about the US caring for them and their concerns. The US spends massive amounts on protecting South Korea and has done so for over half a century. This 'deal' changes nothing about that and they will not forget that in South Korea. Only a total fool would question American commitment to South Korea.
Also, North Korea has plenty of diplomatic credibility left. It is funny that you say it isn't so because it is really self-evident. China, the US and South Korea are all heavily invested into diplomacy with North Korea. They would not be if North Korea had no diplomatic credibility. The onus has never really been on North Korea before. Certainly, there have been deals with North Korea before, but in those deals the US or South Korea have never given any meaningful concessions to North Korea, not without making very heavy demands in return. This made North Korea reluctant to make any meaningful concessions of its own, which made the US angry which then made the DPRK angry which then led to the deal breaking down. Diplomatic negotiations work the same way as all negotiations. One side has to begin with making concessions, or both sides will stay reluctant and nothing will ever happen. Sometimes you have to give up a little to gain a lot. That is a central tenet of diplomacy. Furthermore, halting military exercises isn't really a big concession. It has no lasting impact whatsoever, since exercises can just be resumed in case the deal breaks down. Clearly, previous approaches to North Korea have all failed dramatically, since North Korea managed to obtain nuclear ICBMs and only a few months ago the whole region seemed more on the brink of war than ever before. Trump is now trying something new. Whether it will work out any differently from past failures only time will tell. But it is good that something new is being tried. If it doesn't, then no permanent harm is done. If it does, then that is a massive step forwards for the entire world.
It isn't about cancelling the exercise, that's missing the point. The point is that the US made a concession that would also involve its SK ally without informing said ally first. When your friend starts bartering things you do together away without informing you first that is quite the slap in the face. Also the amount the US spends in Korea is an absolute steal (also because SK covers half the US costs) considering the return on investment. This 'deal' changes perceptions and only a fool would not consider this a snub to US allies by having China know about allied strategy first of all people. Just because the US is still committed to SK does not mean this was a smart thing to do.
No, NK has zero diplomatic credibility left, I have no clue why you think they do after they broke TWO previous agreements. You saying that this is the time they are going to lose all credibility is just meaningless. They have done it twice before and they are still talking to NK, why would they stop talking if NK does it again? You can't just totally ignore a country because they have zero credibility, because you never know when they are in the hole deep enough that they finally have to put in some. The onus sure as hell has been on NK as the party who broke two previous agreements and killed dozens of SKs in 2010, the idea that the US had to hand over anything is ridiculous.
Look up the 2005 and 1994 agreements, they did give meaningful concessions to NK, opening of economic ties, import of resources, development aid. While the 1994 agreement was a clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms, the NKs we're already secretly continuing development anyway. The thing requested was not developing nuclear weapons, that's it! Seriously, read up on it, we have been here before twice and twice before the NK walked out after the countries involved had come to an agreement. A lot more was given up in the past and here we are, with nuclear NK.
The region was only on the brink of war because Trump himself pushed the sabre rattling so hard. Its like being glad the arsonist put out the fire. Trump isn't trying anything new, exercises were put on hold in 94 as well. Nothing here is new except for the downright apologetic behaviour of what is an absolutely inhumane regime. The idea that this is somehow a huge or new development is totally false, Clinton got invited by Kim Jong Il, this is what the Kim family wants, just look at how NK media is reporting this.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.
Diplomats generally have memories longer than a single day. South Korea may have some concerns over putting a stop to the exercises (although there is plenty of voices in South Korea that called for this as well), but they will have no doubt about the US caring for them and their concerns. The US spends massive amounts on protecting South Korea and has done so for over half a century. This 'deal' changes nothing about that and they will not forget that in South Korea. Only a total fool would question American commitment to South Korea.
Also, North Korea has plenty of diplomatic credibility left. It is funny that you say it isn't so because it is really self-evident. China, the US and South Korea are all heavily invested into diplomacy with North Korea. They would not be if North Korea had no diplomatic credibility. The onus has never really been on North Korea before. Certainly, there have been deals with North Korea before, but in those deals the US or South Korea have never given any meaningful concessions to North Korea, not without making very heavy demands in return. This made North Korea reluctant to make any meaningful concessions of its own, which made the US angry which then made the DPRK angry which then led to the deal breaking down. Diplomatic negotiations work the same way as all negotiations. One side has to begin with making concessions, or both sides will stay reluctant and nothing will ever happen. Sometimes you have to give up a little to gain a lot. That is a central tenet of diplomacy. Furthermore, halting military exercises isn't really a big concession. It has no lasting impact whatsoever, since exercises can just be resumed in case the deal breaks down. Clearly, previous approaches to North Korea have all failed dramatically, since North Korea managed to obtain nuclear ICBMs and only a few months ago the whole region seemed more on the brink of war than ever before. Trump is now trying something new. Whether it will work out any differently from past failures only time will tell. But it is good that something new is being tried. If it doesn't, then no permanent harm is done. If it does, then that is a massive step forwards for the entire world.
It isn't about cancelling the exercise, that's missing the point. The point is that the US made a concession that would also involve its SK ally without informing said ally first. When your friend starts bartering things you do together away without informing you first that is quite the slap in the face. Also the amount the US spends in Korea is an absolute steal (also because SK covers half the US costs) considering the return on investment. This 'deal' changes perceptions and only a fool would not consider this a snub to US allies by having China know about allied strategy first of all people. Just because the US is still committed to SK does not mean this was a smart thing to do.
No, NK has zero diplomatic credibility left, I have no clue why you think they do after they broke TWO previous agreements. You saying that this is the time they are going to lose all credibility is just meaningless. They have done it twice before and they are still talking to NK, why would they stop talking if NK does it again? You can't just totally ignore a country because they have zero credibility, because you never know when they are in the hole deep enough that they finally have to put in some. The onus sure as hell has been on NK as the party who broke two previous agreements and killed dozens of SKs in 2010, the idea that the US had to hand over anything is ridiculous.
Look up the 2005 and 1994 agreements, they did give meaningful concessions to NK, opening of economic ties, import of resources, development aid. While the 1994 agreement was a clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms, the NKs we're already secretly continuing development anyway. The thing requested was not developing nuclear weapons, that's it! Seriously, read up on it, we have been here before twice and twice before the NK walked out after the countries involved had come to an agreement. A lot more was given up in the past and here we are, with nuclear NK.
The region was only on the brink of war because Trump himself pushed the sabre rattling so hard. Its like being glad the arsonist put out the fire. Trump isn't trying anything new, exercises were put on hold in 94 as well. Nothing here is new except for the downright apologetic behaviour of what is an absolutely inhumane regime. The idea that this is somehow a huge or new development is totally false, Clinton got invited by Kim Jong Il, this is what the Kim family wants, just look at how NK media is reporting this.
Lets see where this goes first.
I don't know where you get the idea that North Korea was the only one to break the previous agreements. The breakdown of those deals was as much the fault of the US as it was of North Korea, the 1994 failure arguably was even more the fault of the US. The US has not given North Korea anything at all in the past. Certainly, the US has been willing to make noticeable concessions, but those were always accompanied by very heavy demands. And it is not really a concession if you demand a lot more in return. Unsurprisingly, this strategy has failed utterly with North Korea. They may have entered into the deals, but with such demands placed on them they obviously never seriously considered actually doing anything. They just tried to get as much out of it before the US noticed 'hey they are not actually doing anything'. Now the US has thrown them a bone, an actual concession that is not tied down with massive demands. It is something new, it might work. If so, great! If not so, no harm done. This is what North Korea wants, yes. But it is also what we want. Or should want. Everybody wants peace, nobody wants North Korea to be isolated. I have said it before and I will say it again, but taking North Korea seriously, and integrating them into economical relationships is the biggest chance we have to solve the Korean problem. If that solution includes giving North Korea what it wants, then good for them. What matters is that we get what we want, and making a small concession or two might break open negotiations that have been stuck for the past half-century.
I don't have a very positive view of Trump, but if the arsonist is putting out fires instead of setting them, that is a great thing. At least, he isn't doing anything negative and harmful for a change, and that is nice. Trump has already demolished more than enough.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It isn't about cancelling the exercise, that's missing the point. The point is that the US made a concession that would also involve its SK ally without informing said ally first. When your friend starts bartering things you do together away without informing you first that is quite the slap in the face. Also the amount the US spends in Korea is an absolute steal (also because SK covers half the US costs) considering the return on investment. This 'deal' changes perceptions and only a fool would not consider this a snub to US allies by having China know about allied strategy first of all people. Just because the US is still committed to SK does not mean this was a smart thing to do.
No, NK has zero diplomatic credibility left, I have no clue why you think they do after they broke TWO previous agreements. You saying that this is the time they are going to lose all credibility is just meaningless. They have done it twice before and they are still talking to NK, why would they stop talking if NK does it again? You can't just totally ignore a country because they have zero credibility, because you never know when they are in the hole deep enough that they finally have to put in some. The onus sure as hell has been on NK as the party who broke two previous agreements and killed dozens of SKs in 2010, the idea that the US had to hand over anything is ridiculous.
Look up the 2005 and 1994 agreements, they did give meaningful concessions to NK, opening of economic ties, import of resources, development aid. While the 1994 agreement was a clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms, the NKs we're already secretly continuing development anyway. The thing requested was not developing nuclear weapons, that's it! Seriously, read up on it, we have been here before twice and twice before the NK walked out after the countries involved had come to an agreement. A lot more was given up in the past and here we are, with nuclear NK.
The region was only on the brink of war because Trump himself pushed the sabre rattling so hard. Its like being glad the arsonist put out the fire. Trump isn't trying anything new, exercises were put on hold in 94 as well. Nothing here is new except for the downright apologetic behaviour of what is an absolutely inhumane regime. The idea that this is somehow a huge or new development is totally false, Clinton got invited by Kim Jong Il, this is what the Kim family wants, just look at how NK media is reporting this.
Lets see where this goes first.
I don't know where you get the idea that North Korea was the only one to break the previous agreements. The breakdown of those deals was as much the fault of the US as it was of North Korea, the 1994 failure arguably was even more the fault of the US. The US has not given North Korea anything at all in the past. Certainly, the US has been willing to make noticeable concessions, but those were always accompanied by very heavy demands. And it is not really a concession if you demand a lot more in return. Unsurprisingly, this strategy has failed utterly with North Korea. They may have entered into the deals, but with such demands placed on them they obviously never seriously considered actually doing anything. They just tried to get as much out of it before the US noticed 'hey they are not actually doing anything'. Now the US has thrown them a bone, an actual concession that is not tied down with massive demands. It is something new, it might work. If so, great! If not so, no harm done. This is what North Korea wants, yes. But it is also what we want. Or should want. Everybody wants peace, nobody wants North Korea to be isolated. I have said it before and I will say it again, but taking North Korea seriously, and integrating them into economical relationships is the biggest chance we have to solve the Korean problem. If that solution includes giving North Korea what it wants, then good for them. What matters is that we get what we want, and making a small concession or two might break open negotiations that have been stuck for the past half-century.
I don't have a very positive view of Trump, but if the arsonist is putting out fires instead of setting them, that is a great thing. At least, he isn't doing anything negative and harmful for a change, and that is nice. Trump has already demolished more than enough.
I don't know where you get the idea from I said NK was the only one to break them. I clearly said 94 was a "clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms". But again, that the US failed in 1994 doesn't matter. Even if te US would have lived up to its side of the bargain NK secretly continued the development of nuclear weapons as was discovered later.
You can just look up what the US and other countries offered up to NK, it wasn't nothing. And how is the demand to stop the production and getting rid of the means to develop nuclear weapons "very heavy demands"? You're acting like they demanded the whole government was to be dismantled or something. Again, what was offered to NK was completely fair, normalized political and economic relations and development aid in exchange for its nuclear program. If this was such a terrible deal why did Iran take it?
Again, this makes zero sense, what did the US have to give concessions for? Trump handed NK a freebie for no reason, which again is nothing new as exercises were already stopped in 1994 as a sign of goodwill when progress was actually being made. That is when you should make these types of concessions, as a reward for good behaviour. This certainly isn't what I want, I don't want the President of the US bending over backwards in complementing a brutal dictator, none of this was necessary. Sure, talk with NK, but don't go giving in to the man and praising him. Everybody wants peace, but the price is not always worth paying.
Also you seriously misunderstood my arsonist comparison. The arsonist himself set the fire he later put out, that isn't praiseworthy, its just stupid. The region was on the brink of war because Trump was pushing it to that point. And so far yes, he has already done something negative, by pretending human rights isn't a big deal. He is normalizing horrific acts as something patriotic,lets see how quickly that is going to get picked up on by other dictators.
I don't know where you get the idea from I said NK was the only one to break them. I clearly said 94 was a "clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms". But again, that the US failed in 1994 doesn't matter. Even if te US would have lived up to its side of the bargain NK secretly continued the development of nuclear weapons as was discovered later.
You can just look up what the US and other countries offered up to NK, it wasn't nothing. And how is the demand to stop the production and getting rid of the means to develop nuclear weapons "very heavy demands"? You're acting like they demanded the whole government was to be dismantled or something. Again, what was offered to NK was completely fair, normalized political and economic relations and development aid in exchange for its nuclear program. If this was such a terrible deal why did Iran take it?
Again, this makes zero sense, what did the US have to give concessions for? Trump handed NK a freebie for no reason, which again is nothing new as exercises were already stopped in 1994 as a sign of goodwill when progress was actually being made. That is when you should make these types of concessions, as a reward for good behaviour. This certainly isn't what I want, I don't want the President of the US bending over backwards in complementing a brutal dictator, none of this was necessary. Sure, talk with NK, but don't go giving in to the man and praising him. Everybody wants peace, but the price is not always worth paying.
Also you seriously misunderstood my arsonist comparison. The arsonist himself set the fire he later put out, that isn't praiseworthy, its just stupid. The region was on the brink of war because Trump was pushing it to that point. And so far yes, he has already done something negative, by pretending human rights isn't a big deal. He is normalizing horrific acts as something patriotic,lets see how quickly that is going to get picked up on by other dictators.
Because Iran is a completely different country than North Korea? Iran is a pseudo-democratic country that doesn't really need nuclear weapons anyway as they already have plenty of soft and hard power to play around in the Middle East with. North Korea on the other hand is a nightmarish totalitarian regime that needs those nuclear weapons for its very survival now that its conventional military is getting so outdated. Totally different things. The US demanding North Korea give up their nuclear program entirely was kinda like if North Korea had demanded a full US withdrawal from South Korea. It is not a reasonable demand at all, not without guarantees that replace NK's need for nuclear weapons. Without such guarantees North Korea will never fully give up everything. And wisely so, considering the US has anything but a trustworthy reputation. Qaddafi agreed to a deal similar to the one offered to North Korea. A few years later, American bombers appeared in the skies over Libya and Qaddafi ended up dead.
Asking North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons is only going to be possible after a lot of trust has been built up between it and the US. And how do you build up trust?
It is like the US and North Korea are two enemy soldiers involved in a standoff. They are both pointing a gun at each other and threatening to shoot. If the US asks North Korea to lower or put down his gun without putting down his own gun simultaneously, what do you think is going to happen? Nothing of course, North Korea is not that stupid. No, first you need a degree of trust between these two, so that they dare lower their gun without fearing they will be instantly shot. Trump is now talking friendly to North Korea and lowering the US' gun just a tiny little bit. That is how you slowly start to build up that trust.
There is no such thing as too high a price for peace, because the price for not having peace is ultimately always going to be higher. Even if it does not end in a destructive war (which still is highly likely), the continuing problem is costing South Korea a lot, it is costing the US a lot and most of all it is costing the North Korean people a lot.
And I'd wish all arsonists put out the fires they made themselves. The world would be a better place. If an arsonist apparently reconsiders his crimes and decides to put the fire out again, that is nothing but commendable. Certainly, he should never have set the fire in the first place, but that is unchangeable now, and preventing damage by putting it out again is the next best thing.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, AT&T, a content distributor, gets to buy Time Warner, a content creator. It's expected that Comcast, a content distributor, will announce a better-than-Disney offer to buy Fox, a content creator.
And Net Neutrality officially died this week.
Hmmm...
Has nothing to do with the principles of net neutrality.
Also Comcast was already a content creator (owns the NBC suite).
I really don't like the vertical integrations here and think distributors should be forbidden to own contents.
In fairness though, much of the big content creators already owns distribution infrastructures for their content (they just don't have direct clients like the distributors).
LordofHats wrote: 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.
While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.
This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.
The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.
But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
Edit: dunno why formatting above isnt working, it previews fine
Capital U on the first [url=]?
Edit: nope.
Extra spaces between [url=] and the title?
Edit2: yep.
Gracias!
Vulcan wrote:
LordofHats wrote: 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.
While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.
This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.
The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.
But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
That probably went out the window after the US shot down an Iranian airliner, killing almost 300 people and over 60 children, and George Bush the Elder, as Vice President of the United States of America, literally went on live TV and dropped this bomb a couple months before he was elected President...
George H.W. Bush wrote:
I'll never apologize for the United States of America...Ever! I don't care what the facts are.
To be fair, as much as I could believe Trump doing something like that, the NK media could say anything and would be expected to propagate the story that Kim emerged triumphant and successful over the great American oppressor. If they started saying Kim thrashed Trump in a WWE Smackdown Extravaganza, I would not be shocked.
Edit: dunno why formatting above isnt working, it previews fine
Capital U on the first [url=]?
Edit: nope.
Extra spaces between [url=] and the title?
Edit2: yep.
Gracias!
Vulcan wrote:
LordofHats wrote: 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.
While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.
This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.
The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.
But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
That probably went out the window after the US shot down an Iranian airliner, killing almost 300 people and over 60 children, and George Bush the Elder, as Vice President of the United States of America, literally went on live TV and dropped this bomb a couple months before he was elected President...
George H.W. Bush wrote:
I'll never apologize for the United States of America...Ever! I don't care what the facts are.
To be fair, as much as I could believe Trump doing something like that, the NK media could say anything and would be expected to propagate the story that Kim emerged triumphant and successful over the great American oppressor. If they started saying Kim thrashed Trump in a WWE Smackdown Extravaganza, I would not be shocked.
Kim has NO chance, even Vinny Mac and Umaga were no match for Trump at Wrestlemania!
Well as if it couldn't get any worse on his track record for endorsing and liking despots and murderers
“He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “So he’s a very smart guy, he’s a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.”
When Baier pointed out some of the unsavory things Jong Un is accused of doing in North Korea, Trump demurred.
“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said. “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.”
“I’m not for Russia, I’m for the United States,” Trump said. “But as an example, if Vladimir Putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in Canada, I could say ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria? Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of the Ukraine, get out of Ukraine, you shouldn’t be there? Just come on. Now, I think I’d probably have a good relationship with him or I’d be able to talk to him better than if you call somebody on a telephone and talk. If I’m sitting like I was with the others, for instance the new prime minister of Italy. He is a great guy, we had a great relationship. He agrees with me on Putin by the way.”
Ustrello wrote: Well as if it couldn't get any worse on his track record for endorsing and liking despots and murderers
“He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “So he’s a very smart guy, he’s a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.”
When Baier pointed out some of the unsavory things Jong Un is accused of doing in North Korea, Trump demurred.
“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said. “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.”
“I’m not for Russia, I’m for the United States,” Trump said. “But as an example, if Vladimir Putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in Canada, I could say ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria? Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of the Ukraine, get out of Ukraine, you shouldn’t be there? Just come on. Now, I think I’d probably have a good relationship with him or I’d be able to talk to him better than if you call somebody on a telephone and talk. If I’m sitting like I was with the others, for instance the new prime minister of Italy. He is a great guy, we had a great relationship. He agrees with me on Putin by the way.”
This guy is too crazy to be real.
His sweet-talking to Kim better produce some results, or being crazy is all he will be remembered for. It definitely is something the US hasn't tried before though. Maybe it works. Kim would not be the first despot to have a weak spot for flattery.
Also, no Trump, Russia will not get out of Ukraine. Absolutely never.
Well, you gotta be tough to take over your fathers business and it takes questionable ethics and morals to build a real estate business in NYC run a country like NK.
While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.
This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.
To be sure. Revolutions always set everyone on edge, but the overwhelming majority of standing state today was founded by revolution or a war of unification at some point in time and most Revolutions aren't like the American one. Most are exceptionally bloody, with purges and civil war. The Saudi's didn't come to power because everyone thought they were swell either. They did it by conquest.
The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.
Oh yeah. That whole thing basically soured the entire thing, but I also think it needs important clarifications.
The Iranian government didn't storm a US Embassy. A bunch of stupid college kids did. They weren't government agents, not that Americans have ever bothered keeping up to date on Iranian affairs ever since. The only real debate is whether or not Ruhollah Khomeini knew about the scheme before it happened (which I think is unknowable, but possible). The real issue is that Khomeini validated the act after the fact. He was anti-West and wanted to build simultaneous support for that position in Iran and use it to undercut the Communists who are always a powerful group whenever there's a revolution these days. Even as his successor has tried to be more reserved, Iran is definitely still paying the cost for being a very short sighted at that point.
The bright point is that Iran seems to have long since realized how horribly that backfired on them. It left Iran diplomatically isolated on the eve of the Iran-Iraq War, and economically crippled after that. They've spent the better part of the last 30 years trying to get past the hole they dug.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
A think a big get together where the US and Iran exchange apologies would actually go a long way. It's not a rotten idea. The Iran Hostage Crisis, Flight 655, the Beirut Bombings. Combine it with highlighting a few points of solidarity (Iranian marchers expressing sympathy and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, US-Iranian cooperation in overthrowing the Taliban, and the US veto of the 2008 Bombing plan proposed by Israel). The entire conflict between the US and Iran is one of the dumbest in the world today. Too bad the current present shot a broadside into fixing it. I think we've been set back decades on repairing that fence.
It turns out Trump can listen his advisors. Trump's plan to reduce tensions on the Korean pensinsula actually came from one of his closest advisors, who told Trump that ending joint military exercises could help moderate Kim and improve the situation. That advisor - Vladimir Putin. At the time Jim Mattis talked Trump out of that plan, probably because Mattis is a deep state operative. But in the end Mr Putin's sagely advice won out.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-trump-a-how-to-guide-1516303402
Xenomancers wrote: US troops aren't going anywhere in any kind of foreseeable future.
I agree, but note the only reason you and I can both form that opinion is that we assume Trump's words mean nothing. In May Trump said he had ordered the Pentagon to prepare options for troop reductions in South Korea. He later denied this, because of course he did.
So yeah, while you and I both think US troops are staying in SK, it should be noted the only way we can form that opinion is because we assume the president of the United States routinely talks gibberish that means nothing.
A think a big get together where the US and Iran exchange apologies would actually go a long way. It's not a rotten idea. The Iran Hostage Crisis, Flight 655, the Beirut Bombings. Combine it with highlighting a few points of solidarity (Iranian marchers expressing sympathy and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, US-Iranian cooperation in overthrowing the Taliban, and the US veto of the 2008 Bombing plan proposed by Israel). The entire conflict between the US and Iran is one of the dumbest in the world today. Too bad the current present shot a broadside into fixing it. I think we've been set back decades on repairing that fence.
I was quite hoping that the anti-nuke deal would be a step toward that end. There really is no good reason for Iran and America to be enemies aside from that year of outright stupidity on Iran's part, and the fallout from that year out outright stupidity.
In more 'both sides' news, the guy who won the Republican primary for the Virginia senate is Corey Stewart. Stewart's platform is built around anti-immigration and cultural resentment (confederate statues etc), basically it's the Trump model. In fact Stewart claims he was Trump before Trump. But Stewart is so much more Trump than Trump. After Charlottesville Trump gave weak criticisms of the white supremacists involved, which he then kind of then backed off of. But Stewart went so much further, not only refused to criticise the events at Charlottesville but attacking any Republican who did condemn the rally. Which makes sense, when you note that one of the major organisers of the Charlotteville rally was Jason Kessler, who is a straight up white nationalist and close friend and political ally of Stewart.
Stewart is also tightly connected to Paul Nehlen, an anti-semite who's running in the Republican house primary in Paul Ryan's old seat. Stewart has endorsed Nehlen, the two have shared staffing resources, and Stewart has called Nehlen a hero for running against Paul Ryan. Meanwhile Nehlen has produced 'enemy's lists' of some the people who have criticised is views, claiming that most were Jewish (they weren't, Nehlen was just guessing). Nehlen is racist enough to get banned from twitter (he tweeted an image of Meghan Markle photoshopped with an image of a primitive fossil), and he's actually racist enough the Republicans won't accept him, Ryan thrashed him in past primary campaigns, and Ryan's replacement will too. But he isn't too racist for Corey Stewart, who has now, finally, distanced himself from Nehlen, but then continued to have his on-line team attack the people who highlighted the links between Stewart and Nehlen. And that on-line team just happens to be the same people who ran Roy Moore's operation, because of course it is.
Trump is not an anomaly that just happened one time. People like Trump, including some much worse than Trump, keep getting nominated. Most of them go down in flames to their Democratic opponents, but that's not good enough. I don't agree with Ben Shapiro on much, but he is bang on with this comment; "is not only politically stupid, it ends with the nomination of utterly unpalatable candidates who toxify the party as a whole.”
Oh, and Trump has already gone on twitter endorsing Corey Stewart. Because of course.
EDIT - just to note I got most but not all of the above from a Vox piece. I can grab the link if anyone is interested.
Kilkrazy wrote: 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 author of the book, Tony Schwartz, speaks frequently about his regret in writing The Art of the Deal and playing a role in creating the myth of Donald Trump. He now writes regular pieces for newspapers giving his insight in to how utterly broken Trump is. Here's a choice quote Schwartz from one of those pieces;
"He was always cartoonish, but compared with the man for whom I wrote The Art of the Deal 30 years ago, he is significantly angrier today: more reactive, deceitful, distracted, vindictive, impulsive and, above all, self-absorbed – assuming the last is possible."
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.
When looking at how badly Trump negotiated the whole deal, it's important to note he had screwed it up even before he got to Singapore. By granting a meeting with Kim he'd already given to NK parity and legitimacy by agreeing to meet face to face. Kim could turn up to Singapore and get no deal, and he would still have gained an enormous amount because he'd gotten a US president to meet for talks. In contrast Trump had got nothing in exchange, but was making big statements hyping up the deal, putting pressure on himself to walk away with something.
All of which meant when Trump and Kim did met, all the pressure was on Trump to make a deal, while Kim was free to walk away.
Which is exactly why the final deal had lots of giveaways to NK, while all NK did was repeat the vague statement they had made before the summit. Because through the absolute incompetence, Trump had managed to gift all negotiating power to one of the world's weakest countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
You thinik Trudeau mentioning the US/Canadian closely allied work in past wars was sleazeball, but you don't say anything about the absolutely bonkers responses that came from Trump officials. Larry Kudlow said it was a betrayal, Peter Navarro said Trudeau stabbed Trump in the back, and said there was "a very special place in hell for people who betrayed Donald Trump".
Anyhow, here's Trudeau's comments that got Trump so angry;
""I highlighted directly to the president that Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs on our steel and aluminum industry, particularly did not take lightly the fact that it’s based on a national security reason that for Canadians, who either themselves or whose parents or community members have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in far off lands and conflicts from the First World War onwards, that it’s kind of insulting. And highlighted that it was not helping in our renegotiation of NAFTA and that it would be with regret, but it would be with absolute certainty and firmness that we move forward with retaliatory measures on July 1, applying equivalent tariffs to the ones that the Americans have unjustly applied to us. I have made it very clear to the president that it is not something we relish doing, but it is something that we absolutely will do, because Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around."
Honestly, anyone who says that comment is sleazeball, but thinks nothing of the comments from Navarro and Kudlow is utterly ridiculous. Don't be one of those ridiculous people, SickSix. Be a sensible person. Admit your comment was badly mistaken, and try again with something sensible.
I don't know where you get the idea from I said NK was the only one to break them. I clearly said 94 was a "clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms". But again, that the US failed in 1994 doesn't matter. Even if te US would have lived up to its side of the bargain NK secretly continued the development of nuclear weapons as was discovered later.
You can just look up what the US and other countries offered up to NK, it wasn't nothing. And how is the demand to stop the production and getting rid of the means to develop nuclear weapons "very heavy demands"? You're acting like they demanded the whole government was to be dismantled or something. Again, what was offered to NK was completely fair, normalized political and economic relations and development aid in exchange for its nuclear program. If this was such a terrible deal why did Iran take it?
Again, this makes zero sense, what did the US have to give concessions for? Trump handed NK a freebie for no reason, which again is nothing new as exercises were already stopped in 1994 as a sign of goodwill when progress was actually being made. That is when you should make these types of concessions, as a reward for good behaviour. This certainly isn't what I want, I don't want the President of the US bending over backwards in complementing a brutal dictator, none of this was necessary. Sure, talk with NK, but don't go giving in to the man and praising him. Everybody wants peace, but the price is not always worth paying.
Also you seriously misunderstood my arsonist comparison. The arsonist himself set the fire he later put out, that isn't praiseworthy, its just stupid. The region was on the brink of war because Trump was pushing it to that point. And so far yes, he has already done something negative, by pretending human rights isn't a big deal. He is normalizing horrific acts as something patriotic,lets see how quickly that is going to get picked up on by other dictators.
Because Iran is a completely different country than North Korea? Iran is a pseudo-democratic country that doesn't really need nuclear weapons anyway as they already have plenty of soft and hard power to play around in the Middle East with. North Korea on the other hand is a nightmarish totalitarian regime that needs those nuclear weapons for its very survival now that its conventional military is getting so outdated. Totally different things. The US demanding North Korea give up their nuclear program entirely was kinda like if North Korea had demanded a full US withdrawal from South Korea. It is not a reasonable demand at all, not without guarantees that replace NK's need for nuclear weapons. Without such guarantees North Korea will never fully give up everything. And wisely so, considering the US has anything but a trustworthy reputation. Qaddafi agreed to a deal similar to the one offered to North Korea. A few years later, American bombers appeared in the skies over Libya and Qaddafi ended up dead.
Asking North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons is only going to be possible after a lot of trust has been built up between it and the US. And how do you build up trust?
It is like the US and North Korea are two enemy soldiers involved in a standoff. They are both pointing a gun at each other and threatening to shoot. If the US asks North Korea to lower or put down his gun without putting down his own gun simultaneously, what do you think is going to happen? Nothing of course, North Korea is not that stupid. No, first you need a degree of trust between these two, so that they dare lower their gun without fearing they will be instantly shot. Trump is now talking friendly to North Korea and lowering the US' gun just a tiny little bit. That is how you slowly start to build up that trust.
There is no such thing as too high a price for peace, because the price for not having peace is ultimately always going to be higher. Even if it does not end in a destructive war (which still is highly likely), the continuing problem is costing South Korea a lot, it is costing the US a lot and most of all it is costing the North Korean people a lot.
And I'd wish all arsonists put out the fires they made themselves. The world would be a better place. If an arsonist apparently reconsiders his crimes and decides to put the fire out again, that is nothing but commendable. Certainly, he should never have set the fire in the first place, but that is unchangeable now, and preventing damage by putting it out again is the next best thing.
The whole point was that they weren't very heavy demands. Both Iran and NK could feel sufficiently threatened by the US to justify nuclear weapons. If anything Iran was facing the bigger risk in the 2000's. North Korea on the other hand is a virtual protectorate of China with a gun to the head of SK. Saying that NK giving up its nuclear weapons because it needs them for survival is already admitting they are negotiating out of bad faith. Nothing has changed on that front. What is worse is that Pompeo has openly stated that there is no sanctions relief until full verified denuclearization, which are incredibly one sided terms compared to 94 and 05. Liibya was an entirely different case from NK. Libya had absolutely zero conventional leverage or allies to prevent such an outcome. If the US wanted NK gone and could do so at an acceptable price it would have been. Libya was a third rate player in a corner of the world they couldn't even bother to depose of until he ignited a civil war. The only reason it gets brought up is because we have the idiot Bolton running around.
Now you're stating the impossible, if nuclear weapons are vital for its survival why would they ever give them up against a man who less then a year ago threatened with "fire and fury"? And his high ranking staff are pro war and bring up Libya? The comparison is terrible. The US is a giant that could step on NK, but NK has put a bomb under a school full of children that goes off the moment it gets stepped on. If the US asks NK to dismantle its nuclear arsenal it still has said bomb under the school. The idea that nuclear weapons, that have functioned as such for less than a year, have held off invasion for the last 27 years is quite silly, its the same fantasy as the Foal Eagle exercises one year suddenly crossing the border, it doesn't line up with reality.
There is such a thing as too high a price when the war isn't actually ongoing. Lets say for example that NK wants Seoul in return for peace, nobody would pay that. Demands can certainly go too far, they don't make it worth it. You need to negotiate from a position where NK isn't extorting you because they now have nukes. And regardless of peace its not going to cost either the US less or the NK people less, because at the end of the day the US budget keeps going up and NK is a self imposed brutal dictatorship that needs these methods to survive.
A better place would be to not let those arsonists have lighters. Again, its silly to praise the arsonist for putting out the fire when that fire threatened a lot of other people. He didn't prevent anything, he caused it in the first place.
But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
On the other hand the US has done some gakky things it never apologized for either. Supporting Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner, indeed the whole CIA debacle.
Take it on a global level, the US has done a lot of very undiplomatic things it never apologized for. Its a bit odd to expect everyone to start apologizing before you can make progress. Its entirely unrelated to the type of progress you want to make as well, its a step you take after the initial agreement goes well. To drag it to NK, NK has killed multiple US soldiers in violation of the ceasefire, but NK has never really been requested to apologize for it. Now if an agreement comes out of this, then you can start looking at apologies.
Yup, sounds about right, like I said, its about more than the exercise, its the whole percetion behind it.
Shi Yinhong, an international relations expert at People's University in Beijing, said Trump's pledge to halt military maneuvers is, from China's perspective, almost "too good to be true."
Shi predicts that such a move could face stiff domestic opposition. If U.S. troops in South Korea were to really halt military exercises, he says, it could cause allies to lose confidence in Washington and undermine the entire U.S. military presence in Asia.
Ustrello wrote: Well as if it couldn't get any worse on his track record for endorsing and liking despots and murderers
“He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “So he’s a very smart guy, he’s a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.”
When Baier pointed out some of the unsavory things Jong Un is accused of doing in North Korea, Trump demurred.
“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said. “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.”
“I’m not for Russia, I’m for the United States,” Trump said. “But as an example, if Vladimir Putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in Canada, I could say ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria? Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of the Ukraine, get out of Ukraine, you shouldn’t be there? Just come on. Now, I think I’d probably have a good relationship with him or I’d be able to talk to him better than if you call somebody on a telephone and talk. If I’m sitting like I was with the others, for instance the new prime minister of Italy. He is a great guy, we had a great relationship. He agrees with me on Putin by the way.”
This guy is too crazy to be real.
His sweet-talking to Kim better produce some results, or being crazy is all he will be remembered for. It definitely is something the US hasn't tried before though. Maybe it works. Kim would not be the first despot to have a weak spot for flattery.
Also, no Trump, Russia will not get out of Ukraine. Absolutely never.
I mean just come on, just do it. Bet you thought you would never hear Donald employ his pillow talk on Putin
SickSix wrote: Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?
You thinik Trudeau mentioning the US/Canadian closely allied work in past wars was sleazeball, but you don't say anything about the absolutely bonkers responses that came from Trump officials. Larry Kudlow said it was a betrayal, Peter Navarro said Trudeau stabbed Trump in the back, and said there was "a very special place in hell for people who betrayed Donald Trump".
Anyhow, here's Trudeau's comments that got Trump so angry;
""I highlighted directly to the president that Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs on our steel and aluminum industry, particularly did not take lightly the fact that it’s based on a national security reason that for Canadians, who either themselves or whose parents or community members have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in far off lands and conflicts from the First World War onwards, that it’s kind of insulting. And highlighted that it was not helping in our renegotiation of NAFTA and that it would be with regret, but it would be with absolute certainty and firmness that we move forward with retaliatory measures on July 1, applying equivalent tariffs to the ones that the Americans have unjustly applied to us. I have made it very clear to the president that it is not something we relish doing, but it is something that we absolutely will do, because Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around."
Honestly, anyone who says that comment is sleazeball, but thinks nothing of the comments from Navarro and Kudlow is utterly ridiculous. Don't be one of those ridiculous people, SickSix. Be a sensible person. Admit your comment was badly mistaken, and try again with something sensible.
And then note that Trump made the actual sleazeball comment when he tried to justify his tariffs by saying Canadians burned down the White House in the War of 1812.
This is the first time Ive seen every spectrum of Canadian politics (except that really special corner that thinks we should have Trump in Canada aka people who supported O'Leary) be so completely pissed off with the USA, that people are actually organizing boycotts of american goods and rallying people together.
Honestly, Trumps little backlash and harsh words at Trudeau have been the best PR for the Liberals theyve gotten in the last few years.
SickSix wrote: I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war?
What you're missing is that there's a whole lot of options outside of making concessions to NK in exchange for nothing, and going to war. It's how things operated for decades prior to this. NK was contained but not threatened or provoked.
I honestly don't know how you forgot 'keep doing what we were doing' was an option. How is that not the first option people are aware of?
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?
There's a whole world that isn't America. Inside NK Kim's legitimacy is dependent largely on the appearance of strength. Kim is now going home having faced a US president as an equal, and gotten that US president to give him things without anything given in return. Inside NK Kim's rule looks far more effective and legitimate.
There are also other countries involved in the containment of NK who are far less committed to isolation than the US, primarily China, but also Russia, Pakistan and a bunch of others. With China, for instance, their overall preference is to ignore NK as much as possible, but there are specific individuals who can make a lot of money with trade. So there's always tension within China about how much effort is put in to enforcing their sanctions. With consistent, worldwide condemnation of NK China's position is made clear and breaches of the sanctions are embarrassing to China. With Trump talking up Kim as just the greater guy ever, there's no reason for China to exert to political pressure to make sure regional interests actually follow through on sanctions.
And there's a bunch of others. How does the US now put pressure on Turkey or Cuba for imprisoning journalists, when they're ignoring the forced labour camps in NK?
Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.
No, I'm sure it was Obama's weakness that emboldened him.
Kilkrazy wrote: By what metrics do you judge the USA to be one of the most aggressive in the world?
'
What other country has been invading other countries like US? People make noise about russia but at least they haven't invaded and toppled goverments of other countries with made up charges. US has done that before, US could have done that easily with NK as well. Not like anybody could even stop them short of triggering apocalypse. So only reason US hasn't done is that it would be too painful to them by casualties to their allies. The moment US doesn't mind sacrificing SK is the moment they can invade at will.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.
Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?
Wasn't even talking about that old. I'm talking about events that happened in my life time and even more specifically things that happened when I was old enough to realize(hint I was born 14.6.1982 so you can figure out range of potential things from there)
If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
What I am saying is that you have an impression that the USA is highly aggressive and goes about invading places, but what we need is a list of the places it has invaded and the circumstances, in order to compare with other countries.
For example, the USA invaded Kuwait and Iraq in the early 1990s in coalition with other nations, under UN resolution, to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invaders.
In 2014 Russia invaded the Crimea in order to annex it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya
Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba
This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.
Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya
Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba
This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.
Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
I didn't forget. I'm going off the ones that Tneva82 said happened in his lifetime, I'm pretty sure he hasn't been alive since 1882. Also really, South Korea? And US troops never supported the Kuomintang against Mao, it was WW2 assistance, real aid only came once Taiwan became the Kuomintang state. Unless you want to go over your theory of Taiwan not being a country again.
And yes, the US has had a terrible record in the Cold War. However, aside from Iraq its absolutely doing better now. The 4 invasions weren't really proper invasions either (Granada being an invitation to intervene, Panama having killed US citizens and Afghanistan the whole 9/11 happening), only Iraq didn't have a real justification. The only reason that the US is so exceptional in this is that it is the only power able to project itself around the world like this while being the sole remaining superpower and policeman of its international system. Also people having memories from before they were born is a paradox, then its not a memory, its just history. Russia and China are exceptional in their goals compared to the US in the 21st century.
Iron_Captain wrote: But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
Now, seeing as the Soviet Union invaded half Europe, with a continuous military presence for 45 years, I'm going to dispute that claim of yours. Just ask the Czech.
That's not to say the US haven't been a lot more proactive at regime change and fething up countries they don't like than people seem to credit them for, mind...
Through all this, a key advantage in the US arsenal has been the US' ability to appear benevolent, at least to their allies. Whether this was actually the case or not is largely irrelevant, it worked well enough for most purposes. This perception has been changed rather abruptly with presidents like W. Bush, and Trump, and I'm not sure people in the US realize just how much they're losing there.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.
Nonsense - this has been an ongoing issue for over a decade - really for almost 70 years.
Xenomancers wrote: Nonsense - this has been an ongoing issue for over a decade - really for almost 70 years.
It's an ongoing issue that was in a relatively stable position before Trump started tweeting at the situation. North Korea's bad behavior was directed only at its own citizens, and there wasn't a whole lot of concern over war beyond the general background level of risk. People only started talking about an impending risk of war when Trump threatened to nuke North Korea and escalated the situation beyond the background level. Now we seem to be back down to the everyday level of war threats and Trump somehow gets praise for it.
Right...the past 12 years of nuclear testing havn't caused any kind of tension with the rest of the world. NK hasn't been a threat for anything but the past year - when trump started talking tough with them.
Is that how you see it?
When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress? Mind boggling.That is due to Trump BTW. While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will. This is actually a very standard way to open up diplomatic talks with a nation - the criticism of it is totally unjustified. He is talking it up a little to much but it's Trump - hes not going to stop being a loud mouth.
Xenomancers wrote: Right...the past 12 years of nuclear testing havn't caused any kind of tension with the rest of the world.
Of course it has caused tension. But you'll notice that North Korea still has those nukes, and their only concession was to stop testing at a test site that was already destroyed. Their nuclear program is the background level of risk. It was there before Trump's twitter threats, it's there now.
When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress?
I don't really, because nothing of substance has happened there. You're ignoring the fact that things like this are how North Korea plays its game. It's a whole good cop/bad cop cycle, this is just the part where North Korea plays nice in front of the cameras and offers symbolic statements of cooperation.
That is due to Trump BTW.
{citation needed}
You know that the two leaders met and shook hands without Trump, right?
While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will. This is actually a very standard way to open up diplomatic talks with a nation - the criticism of it is totally unjustified. He is talking it up a little to much but it's Trump - hes not going to stop being a loud mouth.
So you agree that the value of the summit is entirely hypothetical and it means nothing if it isn't followed by more than just propaganda? And that, if no concessions by North Korea follow, Trump gave them free propaganda fodder because he didn't understand how diplomacy works?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?
Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.
I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.
Xenomancers wrote: Right...the past 12 years of nuclear testing havn't caused any kind of tension with the rest of the world. NK hasn't been a threat for anything but the past year - when trump started talking tough with them.
Is that how you see it?
When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress? Mind boggling.That is due to Trump BTW.
In what way is it due to Trump? NK and SK started talking without Trump, and it was NK that reached out, it was Trump that canned the talks then said they were back on after NK said "we're still open to it"
While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will.
Based on what? NK's track record? Where they play around and blow it all up down the road? Trump's track record? Of doing the exact same thing at ten times the pace?
We can hope something happens, but if you're *sure* something will happen, you're living on the moon.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?
Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.
I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.
Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years
I don't see what's changed in Korea. Kim is using the same playbook as his dad and grandpa. He rattles his saber, tensions increase. He plays nice, makes agreements and gets aid. Then he ignores agreements, and starts rattling his saber again. This will play out the same way, sure the sun will rise.
Yes, there's the nuclear component, but it's nothing Kim can ever use without ensuring the absolute destruction of his country and family. It's just a bigger saber to rattle.
Now, what's changed in the U.S. is that we have a president who's less interested in long-term solutions than scoring points immediately by putting on a big show and capturing some good optics. Trump is a massive fething gift from God to the Kim regime.
But again, this also works politically for Trump, because most people don't have a shred of understanding about the history and situation on the Korean peninsula. And when Kim reneges and starts rattlin', Trump will fire off some angry tweets and the whole charade will begin anew. Trump and Kim can use each other for each other's benefit indefinitely. It's a great deal for Trump...not so much for the U.S., rest of the world, or the people of NK.
If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?
Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?
Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.
I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.
Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years
Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.
Xenomancers wrote: If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?
Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?
Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.
I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.
Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years
Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.
Because it happened with the Kim jong il, there were literally a collage of all the times the two leaders have shaken hands before in this thread earlier
Xenomancers wrote: If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?
Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?
Nobody here can answer that, but given that he has nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of big guns aimed at Seoul, chances are low. The threat to Kim has not changed, the US was just as capable under Obama, and his retaliatory measures remain just as capable, while Trump, beyond Twitter bluster, has yet to show any particular increase in military aggression in practice.
More likely Kim is completely out of money to run his regime and needs access to foreign capital and/or critical food/resource imports. That's typically what drives NK reproachment.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?
Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.
I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.
Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years
Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.
Given that the current Kim has only been in power 5 of those 20 years, that's probably why. That said, his behavior has matched his predecessors pretty much step for step thus far.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?
Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.
I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.
Really, so I imagined the two previous times South Korean presidents met Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang to attempt a normalisation of relationships? Did I also dream that president Kim Dae-jung received the nobel prize for peace in 2000 in recognition of his efforts?
Xenomancers wrote: If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?
What risk is there? If the US does anything to him North Korea erases Seoul from the map, and that's not even considering the nukes. Meanwhile coming to the US and meeting with the US president is a major propaganda victory for North Korea. Of course they'll accept the chance if Trump is dumb enough to offer it for free.
Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?
It's possible. Trump is unstable and incompetent enough that I could see him being afraid that Trump won't understand (or won't care about) the political and military situation that makes doing anything to North Korea impossible and will let South Korea die if it means taking down North Korea. But fear of a madman with a suicide bomb isn't the same as fear of a competent and powerful enemy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: New leaders can make new change. Why can't you look at this in a positive way?
Because it's the same old pattern so far, and nothing new has been accomplished. The only reason to see any optimism here is if you want to believe in Trump.
Xenomancers wrote: If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?
Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?
Risk coming? You're acting like the US would immediately throw him in gitmo if he sets foot on US soil. There is no risk attached, if Kim decides to screw the deal he will be long gone to Pyongyang.
And if Kim is truly scared of Trump, that only makes Trump look worse at negotiating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: New leaders can make new change. Why can't you look at this in a positive way?
Because looking at this in a positive way doesn't meant throwing all history and background knowledge overboard. North Korea is inherently untrustworthy because the absolute monarchy does everything it can to keep itself in power and screw everything else.
Xenomancers wrote: New leaders can make new change. Why can't you look at this in a positive way?
Because neither leader involved is known for wise, inclusive, stable, thoughtful statesmanship that enhances their respective nation's standing in the world, their reputations and actions thus far have literally been the opposite of that. I mean, Trump literally tanked a denuclearization deal a month ago for no reason, at least not one any other signatories or validators thought was relevant, and just burned almost every major US ally before running off to meet with Kim. You're going out of your way to be intentionally naieve here.
We've also seen this game go 'round before with 2 other NK leaders and several other US Presidents.
Nobody here is hoping the talks fail, but there's little substance to see beyond propaganda victories.
Xenomancers wrote: If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?
Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?
Nobody here can answer that, but given that he has nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of big guns aimed at Seoul, chances are low. The threat to Kim has not changed, the US was just as capable under Obama, and his retaliatory measures remain just as capable, while Trump, beyond Twitter bluster, has yet to show any particular increase in military aggression in practice.
More likely Kim is completely out of money to run his regime and needs access to foreign capital and/or critical food/resource imports. That's typically what drives NK reproachment.
China putting the real squeeze on for a change likely drove the need this time. China doesn't care who rules NK, as long as it remains a satellite. China only cares that Trump and Kim were pushing towards creating a desolate wasteland on its eastern border which it was going to suffer from. That's why China is so quick to talk about dropping sanctions for zero progress.
Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan (left) talks to a U.S. Army helicopter crew member in Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, after a supply delivery mission for residents affected by Hurricane Maria, Oct. 23, 2017.
A month after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan stepped off a helicopter in the town of Ceiba with a mission: Get relief supplies to people in need.
He and FEMA's regional administrator, Thomas Von Essen, told the town's mayor and other mayors from across the island that generators, plastic roofs and tarps would be there within days.
"There are 50,000 more blue tarps coming in over the next week," Buchanan said. "So these will all get pushed to all the mayors."
Von Essen added that FEMA had as many as 500 generators on the island before the storm and would soon distribute them.
But today, it's clear none of those promises were kept, and FEMA and the federal government failed on multiple fronts to help the devastated island recover.
NPR and the PBS series Frontline examined hundreds of pages of internal documents and emails. Rather than a well-orchestrated effort, they paint a picture of a relief agency in chaos, struggling with key contracts, basic supplies and even its own workforce.
Internal briefing documents show FEMA never had 500 generators on the island before the storm — it had 25. Its plastic roof program was out of plastic, and the most tarps FEMA ever produced was 125,000 — months after people needed them.
FEMA's federal coordinating officer for Maria, Michael Byrne, said blame rests with the storm, not with federal responders contending with taxed resources and complicated geography.
"If there's a villain here, it's the 190 mph winds and the 50 inches of rain," Byrne said. "That's the villain. That's what did the damage to the people. We've done nothing but try to remedy that."
Still, as NPR and Frontline traveled the island in the months after the storm, it was clear many of the problems were man-made.
In Luquillo, Mayor Jesus Rodriguez said he had been waiting more than two months for FEMA to provide just seven generators that would power the town's water pumps. He said he couldn't understand what could hold up such a critical request in a town that had no running water.
"Water is life," he said, frustrated.
In Piñones, William Torruella, a pastor, and his congregation spent weeks gathering supplies on their own to deliver to nearby towns. He said when FEMA arrived in Morovis, two months after the storm, he asked what had taken so long. Officials told him the roads to the town had been closed.
"They were not closed," Torruella said, shaking his head. "I've been going there. The excuses do not explain what's happening."
Even an international disaster worker checking on survivors in Yabucoa in January was confused by the delays.
"We were pretty surprised to see how slow the response was [in Puerto Rico]," said Alice Thomas, a program manager with Refugees International, who has been to more than a dozen disasters. "Compared especially to major emergencies I've seen in foreign countries," she said. "And we couldn't get over particularly how bad the shelter response was."
The seemingly simple process of distributing tarps to storm victims illustrates the problem. Thomas said storm victims need tarps in the first week or two if they hope to save their homes.
"Why they couldn't get tarps, I do not know," she said, adding that federal officials working on the ground called the tarp delays a "mystery."
When asked what accounted for the delays, FEMA's Byrne said it was difficult to get supplies to Puerto Rico because it's an island.
"We had problems getting everything," he said. "When you have to ship it, you have to add seven days or sometimes longer to everything that you want to bring in. It's definitely a challenge."
Yet 20 years ago, after Hurricane Georges hit the island, there weren't reports of these logistical problems.
And the agency's own records reflect a different picture.
According to planning and briefing documents, the agency did not pre-position enough supplies on the island before the storm, as federal rules require. The day Maria hit, agency records show, FEMA had fewer than 12,000 tarps on the island. Then, the agency failed to acquire more.
First, records show, FEMA hired a company that was just two months old. It didn't provide a single tarp. Then FEMA chose a company whose last contract had been for $4,000 worth of kitchen utensils for a prison. It didn't produce a single tarp either.
Finally, FEMA turned to a third company, called Master Group. Its specialty, according to its website, is importing hookah tobacco. It produced some tarps, but when employees examined them in a warehouse in January, FEMA says, the tarps failed a quality-control inspection.
Import records examined by NPR and Frontline show the company brought the tarps in from China, which violates federal contracting rules. After NPR and Frontline questioned FEMA about this, the agency suspended the company.
FEMA was also struggling with contracts to deliver food, diesel fuel and other supplies.
Byrne said these were just a few troubled contracts out of more than 2,000 that did not have problems.
"We had a couple of ones that didn't work out well and we dealt with it," Byrne said. "I continue [to] focus on getting it solved."
Behind the scenes, though, some federal workers were discouraged. In one email, a top Army Corps official complained to FEMA managers, "We cannot survive any longer with any delay of materials," the engineer wrote. "I cannot keep saying we are trying. ... I need solutions."
The Army Corps' plastic roof program, known as blue roofs, provides stronger roof sheeting tied down to houses. Without tarps, it became even more critical.
But FEMA didn't have enough plastic sheeting on the island. In the first month after Hurricane Irma in Florida, records show, the Army Corps put up 4,500 blue roofs. In Puerto Rico, just 439.
"It goes back to how much material do you have?" said Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, who oversees the Army Corps. "Almost all the warehouses were empty. So when we hit, the amount of available supplies, either generators, blue roof material, whatever it might be, were just not there ... that could have gotten us more of a jump-start."
When it came to getting the lights on, federal officials chose a contractor named Fluor — a company with global experience building power generation plants but little experience rebuilding the grids that distribute power to communities. Government sources said they went with Fluor because it was a company they trusted, but they also described weeks of bureaucratic delays as the company got up to speed.
But that wasn't all that was causing FEMA headaches. FEMA was struggling with its own staff. One internal staffing document reveals that more than a quarter of the staff FEMA hired to provide people assistance on the island was "untrained" and another quarter was "unqualified."
Byrne bristles at the suggestion that FEMA didn't help people.
"I think we've done a lot of support," he said. "How can you look at the fact that we gave a billion dollars in assistance out, that we've given out 62 million liters of water, 52 million meals to the people. How can you categorize that as not providing assistance? I find that that doesn't connect."
Still, he said FEMA will learn from its mistakes. There were "a number of places where we weren't perfect," he said. "I'll accept that. I'm going to keep working to get better."
Four months after the storm, in a small neighborhood near San Juan called Villa Hugo, local resident Oscar Carrión wasn't waiting for help.
He had taken it upon himself to turn the lights on and had already restored power to 3,000 neighbors.
"I'm afraid of heights and of the electrical current," he said in Spanish. "The first time I got up there, I was trembling all over. I still tremble."
Carrión owns a grocery and has four kids. He has no experience working on power poles and doesn't own any safety equipment. He and his neighbors pooled together $2,500 to buy an old rusted bucket truck.
On this day, the neighbors unwound wire along the street and Carrión worked pole to pole.
"I guess I am taking a risk," he said, "but it's difficult to live in the dark. We were tired of hearing that they can't get to us. So we've decided to move forward on our own."
As he got back into the truck, he paused for a minute and said, "If we don't do it, nobody will do it for us."
@CBSNews
More
WATCH: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks to reporters in Beijing as he meets with China's foreign minister days after the historic U.S.-North Korea summit https://cbsn.ws/2HOYudP
"We have made very clear that the sanctions and the economic relief that North Korea will receive will only happen after the full denuclearization, the complete denuclearization of North Korea," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says https://cbsn.ws/2HOYudP 0:56
Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan (left) talks to a U.S. Army helicopter crew member in Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, after a supply delivery mission for residents affected by Hurricane Maria, Oct. 23, 2017.
A month after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan stepped off a helicopter in the town of Ceiba with a mission: Get relief supplies to people in need.
He and FEMA's regional administrator, Thomas Von Essen, told the town's mayor and other mayors from across the island that generators, plastic roofs and tarps would be there within days.
"There are 50,000 more blue tarps coming in over the next week," Buchanan said. "So these will all get pushed to all the mayors."
Von Essen added that FEMA had as many as 500 generators on the island before the storm and would soon distribute them.
But today, it's clear none of those promises were kept, and FEMA and the federal government failed on multiple fronts to help the devastated island recover.
NPR and the PBS series Frontline examined hundreds of pages of internal documents and emails. Rather than a well-orchestrated effort, they paint a picture of a relief agency in chaos, struggling with key contracts, basic supplies and even its own workforce.
Internal briefing documents show FEMA never had 500 generators on the island before the storm — it had 25. Its plastic roof program was out of plastic, and the most tarps FEMA ever produced was 125,000 — months after people needed them.
FEMA's federal coordinating officer for Maria, Michael Byrne, said blame rests with the storm, not with federal responders contending with taxed resources and complicated geography.
"If there's a villain here, it's the 190 mph winds and the 50 inches of rain," Byrne said. "That's the villain. That's what did the damage to the people. We've done nothing but try to remedy that."
Still, as NPR and Frontline traveled the island in the months after the storm, it was clear many of the problems were man-made.
In Luquillo, Mayor Jesus Rodriguez said he had been waiting more than two months for FEMA to provide just seven generators that would power the town's water pumps. He said he couldn't understand what could hold up such a critical request in a town that had no running water.
"Water is life," he said, frustrated.
In Piñones, William Torruella, a pastor, and his congregation spent weeks gathering supplies on their own to deliver to nearby towns. He said when FEMA arrived in Morovis, two months after the storm, he asked what had taken so long. Officials told him the roads to the town had been closed.
"They were not closed," Torruella said, shaking his head. "I've been going there. The excuses do not explain what's happening."
Even an international disaster worker checking on survivors in Yabucoa in January was confused by the delays.
"We were pretty surprised to see how slow the response was [in Puerto Rico]," said Alice Thomas, a program manager with Refugees International, who has been to more than a dozen disasters. "Compared especially to major emergencies I've seen in foreign countries," she said. "And we couldn't get over particularly how bad the shelter response was."
The seemingly simple process of distributing tarps to storm victims illustrates the problem. Thomas said storm victims need tarps in the first week or two if they hope to save their homes.
"Why they couldn't get tarps, I do not know," she said, adding that federal officials working on the ground called the tarp delays a "mystery."
When asked what accounted for the delays, FEMA's Byrne said it was difficult to get supplies to Puerto Rico because it's an island.
"We had problems getting everything," he said. "When you have to ship it, you have to add seven days or sometimes longer to everything that you want to bring in. It's definitely a challenge."
Yet 20 years ago, after Hurricane Georges hit the island, there weren't reports of these logistical problems.
And the agency's own records reflect a different picture.
According to planning and briefing documents, the agency did not pre-position enough supplies on the island before the storm, as federal rules require. The day Maria hit, agency records show, FEMA had fewer than 12,000 tarps on the island. Then, the agency failed to acquire more.
First, records show, FEMA hired a company that was just two months old. It didn't provide a single tarp. Then FEMA chose a company whose last contract had been for $4,000 worth of kitchen utensils for a prison. It didn't produce a single tarp either.
Finally, FEMA turned to a third company, called Master Group. Its specialty, according to its website, is importing hookah tobacco. It produced some tarps, but when employees examined them in a warehouse in January, FEMA says, the tarps failed a quality-control inspection.
Import records examined by NPR and Frontline show the company brought the tarps in from China, which violates federal contracting rules. After NPR and Frontline questioned FEMA about this, the agency suspended the company.
FEMA was also struggling with contracts to deliver food, diesel fuel and other supplies.
Byrne said these were just a few troubled contracts out of more than 2,000 that did not have problems.
"We had a couple of ones that didn't work out well and we dealt with it," Byrne said. "I continue [to] focus on getting it solved."
Behind the scenes, though, some federal workers were discouraged. In one email, a top Army Corps official complained to FEMA managers, "We cannot survive any longer with any delay of materials," the engineer wrote. "I cannot keep saying we are trying. ... I need solutions."
The Army Corps' plastic roof program, known as blue roofs, provides stronger roof sheeting tied down to houses. Without tarps, it became even more critical.
But FEMA didn't have enough plastic sheeting on the island. In the first month after Hurricane Irma in Florida, records show, the Army Corps put up 4,500 blue roofs. In Puerto Rico, just 439.
"It goes back to how much material do you have?" said Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, who oversees the Army Corps. "Almost all the warehouses were empty. So when we hit, the amount of available supplies, either generators, blue roof material, whatever it might be, were just not there ... that could have gotten us more of a jump-start."
When it came to getting the lights on, federal officials chose a contractor named Fluor — a company with global experience building power generation plants but little experience rebuilding the grids that distribute power to communities. Government sources said they went with Fluor because it was a company they trusted, but they also described weeks of bureaucratic delays as the company got up to speed.
But that wasn't all that was causing FEMA headaches. FEMA was struggling with its own staff. One internal staffing document reveals that more than a quarter of the staff FEMA hired to provide people assistance on the island was "untrained" and another quarter was "unqualified."
Byrne bristles at the suggestion that FEMA didn't help people.
"I think we've done a lot of support," he said. "How can you look at the fact that we gave a billion dollars in assistance out, that we've given out 62 million liters of water, 52 million meals to the people. How can you categorize that as not providing assistance? I find that that doesn't connect."
Still, he said FEMA will learn from its mistakes. There were "a number of places where we weren't perfect," he said. "I'll accept that. I'm going to keep working to get better."
Four months after the storm, in a small neighborhood near San Juan called Villa Hugo, local resident Oscar Carrión wasn't waiting for help.
He had taken it upon himself to turn the lights on and had already restored power to 3,000 neighbors.
"I'm afraid of heights and of the electrical current," he said in Spanish. "The first time I got up there, I was trembling all over. I still tremble."
Carrión owns a grocery and has four kids. He has no experience working on power poles and doesn't own any safety equipment. He and his neighbors pooled together $2,500 to buy an old rusted bucket truck.
On this day, the neighbors unwound wire along the street and Carrión worked pole to pole.
"I guess I am taking a risk," he said, "but it's difficult to live in the dark. We were tired of hearing that they can't get to us. So we've decided to move forward on our own."
As he got back into the truck, he paused for a minute and said, "If we don't do it, nobody will do it for us."
"Heckuva job, Brownie!"
I don't know all that goes into in preparing for/executing plans for these natural disasters... nor do I think many realize the logistical nightmare by the simple fact that PR is an island.
Still... I find this really, really disturbing that we can't get our gak together for our people.
Boiled down, Trump so far has managed to get a few hours chat with Kim, and got Kim to say he will visit Washington. That's all he has achieved apart from lots of fake news coverage.
Maybe Trump can parlay this meeting into a successful agreement with Kim. We won't know that for 10 years, so it's pointless to talk about it now.
The question is whether Trump could have got this far without giving so much away to Kim, and without having annoyed and alarmed so many US allies.
The answer clearly is yes. He could have done it a lot better if he had prepared properly. For one thing, Mike Pompeo wouldn't have to spend the days after the summit "clarifying" things.
The worry is that maybe Trump never prepares properly, and can't make good agreements around the world.
So far, Trump diplomacy has left a literal trail of wreckage around the world. NAFTA, TTIP, the Paris Accord, the Iran nuclear anti-prolifeation deal -- all trashed and nothing built up to replace them.
(I am using 'literal' in its modern sense of 'figurative'.)
Maybe in 10 years we'll have a denuclearised Korean peninsula, and a re-nuclearised middle east thanks to repudiating the Iran agreement.
Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
If they were given free reign and a proper budget for it, the US Army could probably put the Red Cross to shame. Unfortunately, they have to take direction from FEMA.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
No argument from me on that front...
Even Hawaii is having logistic problems with the big Island volcano eruptions... and that's a tiny sliver of issues compared to Maria's aftermath in PR.
The thing is, was Hurricane Maria hitting Puerto Rico really a surprise to anyone? Were we really not prepared to respond to a Hurrican hitting US territory before Hurrican season?
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If they were given free reign and a proper budget for it, the US Army could probably put the Red Cross to shame. Unfortunately, they have to take direction from FEMA.
My army friend pretty much the same damn thing...
They could even *use* it as training exercise on "how to" invade a region, rebuild roads/bridges, etc...
Furthermore, I work for a large healthcare institution in the midwest... and Maria's impact was felt across the US as many medical companies compound medications at their PR locations (major tax incentives)... we've been having fluids/premix shortages, that forced the local IV rooms to compound many things that they used to just buy premix commercially prior to Maria's impact. (FDA had to relax regulations to allow international purchasing of premix products)
Still... no excuse not to have a "D-day like" plan to restore PR...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: The thing is, was Hurricane Maria hitting Puerto Rico really a surprise to anyone? Were we really not prepared to respond to a Hurrican hitting US territory before Hurrican season?
Maybe the issue wasn't the initial response...but, more of the lack of sustained response to keep things going. I really don't know as news has been really light... and the local PR news paper only seems to talk about the fact that funds isn't being disbursed fast enough.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
Mostly brown?
Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya
Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba
This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.
Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
This list is in error.
Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico were Spanish territories conquered as part fo the Spanish American War. The US never attacked or invaded South Korea.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
It's an island composed of almost 80% Caucasians of European decent. Holy freaking crap. They don't get to vote because they aren't a state. There are a lot of reasons why PR is not a state - it certainly is not to their benefit to not be. It really is up to the people though and more than half don't want to be a state.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
It's an island composed of almost 80% Caucasians of European decent. Holy freaking crap. They don't get to vote because they aren't a state. There are a lot of reasons why PR is not a state - it certainly is not to their benefit to not be. It really is up to the people though and more than half don't want to be a state.
Wrong again, in 2017 the referendum (which was a low turnout of 23%) voted over 90 percent for statehood, and even in 2012 there was a 61 percent vote for statehood. Honestly do basic research before you post crap
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is): Hawaii Cuba Puerto Rico Philippines Honduras (twice) Nicaragua Haiti Dominican Republic Panama South Korea Guatemala Dominican Republic (again) El Salvador Nicaragua (again) Panama (again) Libya
Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places: Mexico Russia (as part of an allied force) China North Vietnam Cuba
This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.
Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
This list is in error. Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico were Spanish territories conquered as part fo the Spanish American War. The US never attacked or invaded South Korea.
Cuba and Puerto Rico were both Spanish territories yes. The US invaded to replace the Spanish colonial regimes in those places with their own. That is definitely 'regime change', if not outright conquest. The Philippines actually had their own government after overthrowing the Spanish with US aid. The US then decided to come in and feth them up anyway. Korea too, had established its own government (which had been requested by the Japanese) when the US came in and decided it was not the "right kind" of government. Hint: said government made the mistake of calling itself a "People's Republic", not to be confused with the later DPRK, which came about after the Soviets had brought what remained of the People's Republic of Korea under their control and established a guy named Kim-Il-Sung as head puppet. We all know what happened next.
Iron_Captain wrote: But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
Now, seeing as the Soviet Union invaded half Europe, with a continuous military presence for 45 years, I'm going to dispute that claim of yours. Just ask the Czech. That's not to say the US haven't been a lot more proactive at regime change and fething up countries they don't like than people seem to credit them for, mind...
Through all this, a key advantage in the US arsenal has been the US' ability to appear benevolent, at least to their allies. Whether this was actually the case or not is largely irrelevant, it worked well enough for most purposes. This perception has been changed rather abruptly with presidents like W. Bush, and Trump, and I'm not sure people in the US realize just how much they're losing there.
That was WW2. The US was doing exactly the same thing. And the US still has a military presence in Germany. I deliberately left the World Wars out because of the clusterfeth of invasions on all sides. After WW2 ended, the Soviets invaded several places to protect their puppet regimes from falling. But as I said, the US did that many, many times as well and I left those "defensive invasions" of my list as well. After WW2 ended, the Soviets in fact never invaded any place with intentions to change the regime there.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying the Soviet Union was any better than the US, because they definitely weren't. I am just making the factual statement that the US has invaded a lot more places than the Soviets did. Of course, the Soviets made up for this lack of aggression by being nasty in different ways.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
It's an island composed of almost 80% Caucasians of European decent. Holy freaking crap. They don't get to vote because they aren't a state. There are a lot of reasons why PR is not a state - it certainly is not to their benefit to not be. It really is up to the people though and more than half don't want to be a state.
Wrong again, in 2017 the referendum (which was a low turnout of 23%) voted over 90 percent for statehood, and even in 2012 there was a 61 percent vote for statehood. Honestly do basic research before you post crap
Hadn't seen 2017 results. Why the sudden change? Plus - what is the hold up - they aren't going to get pushback from congress. Statehood = more tax revenue for the US. They will welcome them with open pockets.
Mostly brown?
Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%,
In the eyes of Trump supporters that makes them brown.
Which does not actually make them brown. "Brown" isn't even a race or ethnicity. Even the whitest people become brown if they stay in the sun for long enough.
Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If they were given free reign and a proper budget for it, the US Army could probably put the Red Cross to shame. Unfortunately, they have to take direction from FEMA.
The Navy did a very good job in Operation Tomodachi, helping to relieve Japan after the earthquake and tsunami.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If they were given free reign and a proper budget for it, the US Army could probably put the Red Cross to shame. Unfortunately, they have to take direction from FEMA.
The Navy did a very good job in Operation Tomodachi, helping to relieve Japan after the earthquake and tsunami.
Yeah, we are great at relief efforts overseas, its when our domestic agencies get involved that things do downhill...
None of this was un-rumoured or even un-known during the election, but somehow got brushed under the carpet and ignored.
This time it's happening in criminal court with written evidence.
I'll gladly say I think the man is unfit to lead a dog on a walk, much less the country, but this is getting a bit silly. Yes, if we throw enough at the wall, some of it will stick, but it isn't going to change anything. His supporters will continue to believe this is an unjust witchhunt, and keep on doing their thing, and everyone else already hates him. This is a waste of taxpayer dollars for a publicity stunt, plenty of which are already being wasted. Let Muller finish his investigation, and move on from there. Because if he doesn't get nailed for that, then he is immune to pretty much everything.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
I'm sure there plenty of evidence, and that he is actually guilty of it. I just think that the Democrats are hurting pretty badly to smear Trump, and this looks like half an opportunity to do so. This won't lead to an impeachment, it won't lead to any more negative press than he is already receiving. He will have to pay a fine and possibly disband the non-profit.
If they waited until the conclusion of the FBIs investigation, and then tacked it on, it would have much more profound results.
Like I said, I don't want the man in office, but I know a lost cause when I see one.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, but that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a racist.
However let's get back to the new criminal charges.
"A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!"
#Trump
Hummm....that is interesting. I'd start with trying to disprove that statement.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
No argument from me on that front...
Even Hawaii is having logistic problems with the big Island volcano eruptions... and that's a tiny sliver of issues compared to Maria's aftermath in PR.
Somewhat of a tangent here, but I read an article on Politico that made a case for reviving the Civil Defense program. People have mocked 'duck and cover' for years, but the reality is that seeking shelter, etc. is what folks should do in the event of a limited nuclear strike or nuclear terrorist event. And people don't know that. Of course, there are no political points to be scored with dusting it off and/or expanding/enhancing other preparedness and relief programs. They'd just be prudent moves that should enjoy bipartisan support.
Which means they're non-starters in the current political climate, of course. Why do anything that can't be used as a club against the other party?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
Mostly brown?
Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.
You are correct and my term was hyperbolic and inappropriate, however the point was that Puerto Rico and its people are often not seen as American. It's a far off place with lower income standards and they predominantly speak something other than English. Half the US population isnt aware that Puerto Rico is part of the US. Whether through simple ignorance or intentional bias, that has consequences.
It's probably because it isn't a state, as you'd think this wouldn't be tolerated if it were a US state, rather than a territory.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya
Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba
This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.
Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
This list is in error.
Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico were Spanish territories conquered as part fo the Spanish American War. The US never attacked or invaded South Korea.
If we drag that list back to 1871 we can say we technically invaded South Korea
(Or at least a place within their 2018 borders)
Xenomancers wrote:
Hadn't seen 2017 results. Why the sudden change? Plus - what is the hold up - they aren't going to get pushback from congress. Statehood = more tax revenue for the US. They will welcome them with open pockets
It is in the hands of congress. They can take it up whenever they want. As is, they are unlikely to go out of their way to add several million new, majority Democratic, voters, and likely 2 new Dem senators.
That said, the most recent referendum did have very low turnout, but the earler 2012 referendum showed a 61.2% result for statehood.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Not really. You have a president who called the predominantly white, descended from Spanish, population of your southern border rapists.
Thinking his supporters who cheered for that would suddenly make a distinction for a separate predominantly white, descended from Spanish, population seems a bit naive.
The guy who said a judge couldn't give him a fair ruling on the case against his con-job of a university because he had Mexican heritage somehow isn't racist? The guy who had to be sued to rent to black people somehow isn't racist?
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Reviving Civil Defence is a good idea given the amount of extra weather crap coming our way due to Climate Change.
But to return to the topic of Puerto Rico's hurricane disaster versus the USN response to the Japanese tsunami, one of the big differences was that the Japanese government paid for Operation Tomodachi. We know Trump is against military spending, and presumably Puerto Rico is too poor to pay for military intervention there. That doesn't explain the lies, though.
But to return to the topic of the charges against the Trump Foundation and its "proprietors", Trump's counter-blast tweet isn't on the charge sheet. Instead, they've got documentary evidence of Trump personally directing illegal spending of funds on his private affairs. Allegedly.
To be honest I think half that stuff could be Trump's usual sloppiness and disorganisation as much as it might be deliberate embezzlement.
But when you're a top business man operating a charity for years there comes a point where the distinction is irrelevant. You are required to obey some basic rules of governance and if you don't, you're culpable by default.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did. It actually makes sense not to allow immigrants into your country without a proper vetting process from countries known to have ISIS influence...His proposal was a pause (until a proper vetting process could be established) on immigration from a few select nations because of potential infiltration of the US by ISIS.
This makes a lot of sense actually.
The guy who said a judge couldn't give him a fair ruling on the case against his con-job of a university because he had Mexican heritage somehow isn't racist? The guy who had to be sued to rent to black people somehow isn't racist?
Come on.
It's a complete waste of time to rehash this argument.
Trump is someone who has said and done lots of obviously racist things. That appeals to part of his base support. The more you prove it the more they like him.
Plus, 87% of the GOP currently support Trump whatever they think of him privately.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did. It actually makes sense not to allow immigrants into your country without a proper vetting process from countries known to have ISIS influence...His proposal was a pause (until a proper vetting process could be established) on immigration from a few select nations because of potential infiltration of the US by ISIS.
This makes a lot of sense actually.
Well he did say this, so no, not a select few countries:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
It is clearly not what he said - when you take something out of context - it takes on a new meaning. Like I said - you are being intellectually dishonest.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
It is clearly not what he said - when you take something out of context - it takes on a new meaning. Like I said - you are being intellectually dishonest.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did. It actually makes sense not to allow immigrants into your country without a proper vetting process from countries known to have ISIS influence...His proposal was a pause (until a proper vetting process could be established) on immigration from a few select nations because of potential infiltration of the US by ISIS.
This makes a lot of sense actually.
It doesn't as the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US since the World Trade Center attack have been carried out by american citizens.
Banning people from elsewhere, who are not going to the US to carry out attacks but instead just recruiting people in the US over the internet, from going to the US does nothing to actually stop the people who are carrying out attacks.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Xenomancers wrote: “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Because what Trump actually wanted was illegal, again from the horse's mouth:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”
And what Vaktathi posted still defeats your claim that the media coined the term Muslim ban
Just to clarify, your argument is that Trump didn't coin the term "muslim ban" , despite his spokesman saying that Trump specifically called it "muslim ban".
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Yes, that was them trying to find a way to legally create a muslim ban, which is what Trump asked for.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Sure....right after directly calling it a Muslim ban, which they couldnt do, and theyre explaining how they got around that. They're not subtle about the intent here being Muslims, and, it should be pointed out, shows that the term "Muslim Ban" was a not a term created out of thin air by "the media".
That intent is what in fact got those travel ban EO was struck down by the courts initially, and why even the redrafted order is still facing legal challenge. Intent matters in law quite a bit. An action can be legal or illegal depending entirely on intent.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
It is clearly not what he said - when you take something out of context - it takes on a new meaning. Like I said - you are being intellectually dishonest.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best; they're not sending you,They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I'm sorry, which part of that was a mistake? Which is being intellectually dishonest? Those are the exact words from his mouth! In what context can that have been a good thing?
Xenomancers wrote: ... .... ...
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
'm sorry to say that that is merely Lies and Fake News by Giuliani.
Every muslim who has carried out an act of terrorism in the USA was either a US citizen or came from a country not on Trump's ban list.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, but that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a racist.
However let's get back to the new criminal charges.
"A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!"
#Trump
Hummm....that is interesting. I'd start with trying to disprove that statement.
This is the actual quote;
"The sleazy New York Democrats, and their now disgraced (and run out of town) A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!..."
Vaktathi wrote: One has to wonder...do all NK officer uniforms come like 2 sizes too large for a reason? Like...they always look like theyre wearing Daddys clothes.
Well, maybe they are.
North Korea isn't really known for its great manufacturing capabilities and it has a massive army to supply with uniforms. I would not be surprised if a lot of things are handed down father to son in NK, including military uniforms. I know for a fact that medals are inheritable, which is why you see North Koreans wear so many of them. It is just not their own, but also those of their father and grandfather and other relatives.
So... the IG report over FBI's handling of Clinton's email server investigation dropped.
There's some realGreek Tragedy here... that CNN's Jake Tapper hits on:
@jaketapper
DOJ IG: "found no documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to" decisions made about the Clinton investigation through the July 2016 conclusion 1/
@jaketapper
yet IG also said those political views from FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and special counsel Lisa Page expressed in text "messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned."
2/
@jaketapper
3/ The IG is very specific about that though -- saying no evidence anything impacted the decisions through July 2016, when announcement made to not prosecute Hillary Clinton.
@jaketapper
4/ Of this August 2016 text, the IG is quite critical:
Lisa Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Peter Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
@jaketapper
5/ IG says that exchange "is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI..."
@jaketapper
6/ Moreover -- and this is a complicated one so stay with me -- the IG suggests that Strzok may have had bias that impacted a decision to not prioritize the Weiner computer issue -- though how this went down may have ultimately hurt Hillary Clinton.
@jaketapper
7/ IG says "we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias." ("Midyear" = Clinton email investigation)
@jaketapper
8/ IG specifically mentions the "We'll stop it" text. (p. 329) and says "Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects."
@jaketapper
9/ But how it played out is the exact opposite. Weiner laptop sat there from September 29 through Oct 27. IG believes the only thing that prompted FBI to finally act on Weiner laptop were "people outside of the FBI" (from US Attorney SDNY) asking about it
@jaketapper
10/ IG makes it clear he doesn't believe any of the other explanations as to why FBI acted before end of October. He calls them "unpersuasive."
@jaketapper
11/ IG: "The FBI had all the information it needed on September 29 to obtain the search warrant that it did not seek until more than a month later. The FBI’s neglect had potentially far-reaching consequences..." (p. 330)
@jaketapper
12/ What were those "far-reaching consequences"? Comey going public with the warrant, notifying Congress and perhaps impacting the election. IG says it quite clearly.
@jaketapper
13/ IG: "Comey told the OIG that,
had he known about the laptop in the beginning of October and thought the email review could have been completed before the election, it may have affected his
decision to notify Congress."
@jaketapper
14/ IG: "Comey told the OIG, 'I don’t know [if] it would have
put us in a different place, but I would have wanted to have the opportunity.'"
!!!!
@jaketapper
15/ In other words, IG suspects Strzok was biased against Trump, and that may have influenced the decision to sit on the Weiner laptop for a month. Which might have ultimately set a course of events in motion that cost Clinton, his preferred candidate, the presidency.
To recap: McCabe says he mentioned this “big deal” to Comey in September but that apparently nothing much was done. Strzok got a briefing about what had been found in early October and then did nothing for 3 weeks (the implications here was the Strzok would be *the guy* to move the ball forward at this stage... we'll see if that's accurate).
Finally, the lack of action was noticed outside the FBI (the crews who found the laptop:SDNY FBI) and everyone went into 'Oh gak Mode!' trying to make up for the lost time.
Again, the report doesn’t really prove/disprove partisanship was a problem... but even the IG says:
a) Strzok’s partisanship raises questions and
b) no other credible explanation for the delay has been offered.
So the Greek Tragedy of this particular event is that it’s possible that someone, maybe McCabe...maybe Strzok...I'm not clear on it yet, was slow-walking this, trying to run out the clock on the election, believing that a Clinton win would render all of that moot. That back-fired spectacularly, and resulted in Comey’s letter to Congress, the one Clinton blames for her loss. So maybe the real cause of Clinton’s loss was pro-Clinton partisanship at the FBI.
I'd opine that saying that is precisely how Trump won. By convincing voters to believe that there are no nuances, and that all politicians are equally corrupt. It's bollocks, of course, but Trump didn't have to convince people to vote for him so much as he needed to convince people to just not bother voting.
feeder wrote: The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.
I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.
By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.
Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.
The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.
wut?
The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.
I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.
Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.
Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.
So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.
Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.
...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.
feeder wrote: The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.
I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.
By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.
Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.
The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.
wut?
The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.
I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.
Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.
Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.
So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.
Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.
...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.
25 years of GOP lies, you mean.
I thought she was gettin' locked up? Oh wait, it looks like that is actually most of the PoSPotUS's campaign staff
feeder wrote: The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.
I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.
By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.
Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.
The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.
wut?
The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.
I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.
Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.
Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.
So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.
Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.
...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.
25 years of GOP lies, you mean.
I thought she was gettin' locked up? Oh wait, it looks like that is actually most of the PoSPotUS's campaign staff
BaronIveagh wrote: Interestingly, the state AG for New York may have found a way around Trump being immune to prosecution.
Papers were filed this morning that New York is suing Trump for violating New York law.
There's legs to this NY indictment of Trump foundation...the New York AG included in their petition an actual picture of a note that is clearly in Trump's handwriting directing his charitable foundation to use funds to settle a legal issue involving Mar-a-lago. Trump can deflect all he wants...that's clearly illegal.
Can't tell if this is a big BIG BIG deal... meaning felony charges... but *still*, this is the kind of stuff that my old MO governor resigned over... if it's civil and the kind you'd get a slap on the wrist and pay a fine... it'd be to Trump's interest to settle.
Funnily enough, Sarah Sanders defends the Trump Foundation by saying "The foundation raised $18 million and gave nearly $19 million to charity while having virtually zero in expenses."
As it happens, that's exactly the defense offered by supporters of the Clinton Foundation.
The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.
I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.
Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.
Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.
So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.
Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.
...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd opine that saying that is precisely how Trump won. By convincing voters to believe that there are no nuances, and that all politicians are equally corrupt. It's bollocks, of course, but Trump didn't have to convince people to vote for him so much as he needed to convince people to just not bother voting.
It’s not that there are no nuances it’s just the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Being less evil doesn’t make you virtuous. Trump helped people stay home by being a candidate that many people never seriously considered to be viable or capable of winning and Hillary helped convince people to stay home by being out of touch, uncharismatic and staid. Candidates aren’t entitled to votes from people that don’t believe that candidates are worthy. It’s the responsibility of the Parties and candidates to convince voters to vote for them the voters aren’t beholden to the Parties to hold their nose and cast a vote for a gakky candidate just because.
feeder wrote: The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.
I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.
By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.
Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.
The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.
All of those politicians lied and misled with partial truths and all of them tried to put on a false front a project an image to woo voters that wasn’t an accurate representation of themselves. Bush raised taxes, Clinton did have sex with that woman, Bush didn’t find WMDs or accomplish the mission in Iraq, Obama didn’t shut down Gitmo or let me keep my health insurance plan, Trump isn’t going to build a wall or take away NK’s nuclear program. Yes Trump lies more profusely and unabashedly than previous presidents but we’ve let presidents lie to us for decades so why wouldn’t we eventually get t a candidate that just doesn’t give a fetch about the truth when the truth clearly isn’t of interest to the electorate? If we’ve shown repeatedly that we’ll hold our collective nose and accept that we have to choose between a douche and a poop sandwich on Election Day why are we surprised that an overtly stinky and disgusting poop sandwich got elected?
Honestly if Christ himself were to come on down from the heavens, this administration and quite a few "christian" republicans would him fake and a menace
White House defends border separations: 'It's biblical to enforce the law'
Christopher Wilson 3 hours ago
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email
The White House cited a nonexistent law and the Bible to defend the government’s controversial policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children upon their arrest at the U.S. border with Mexico.
CNN reporter Jim Acosta asked press secretary Sarah Sanders about comments made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier Thursday, in which he referenced the Bible to defend the administration’s border tactics.
“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” said Sessions.
In her first press briefing since CBS News reported that she may soon leave her position in the Trump administration, Sanders said she had not heard Sessions’s exact comments but agreed with the sentiment.
“I can say it is very biblical to enforce the law,” said Sanders, “that is repeated a number of times in the Bible.”
But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
On the other hand the US has done some gakky things it never apologized for either. Supporting Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner, indeed the whole CIA debacle.
Take it on a global level, the US has done a lot of very undiplomatic things it never apologized for. Its a bit odd to expect everyone to start apologizing before you can make progress. Its entirely unrelated to the type of progress you want to make as well, its a step you take after the initial agreement goes well. To drag it to NK, NK has killed multiple US soldiers in violation of the ceasefire, but NK has never really been requested to apologize for it. Now if an agreement comes out of this, then you can start looking at apologies.
The problem is you're overlooking Iran's GROSS breech of diplomatic procedure.
Ever wonder why diplomats are immune to prosecution - the famed 'diplomatic immunity'? It's to keep the government of a nation from trumping up charges and imprisoning accredited diplomatic officials to extort concessions from the nation they represent. Diplomats need to be free to act on behalf of their nation in a diplomatic role. If you can't trust the government you're talking to to NOT kill, torment, or imprison your diplomats, how do you talk to them? That's why diplomatic immunity exists, and why for hundreds of years here in the west only the most uncivilized nations would attack an accredited diplomat.
I can accept that students on a rampage might have started things. I can see the Marines on guard not being willing (or ordered not to) shoot a horde of unarmed, ununiformed people. But when we did get our people back, their reports CLEARLY told us that they were held by the Iranian military for virtually their entire captivity... and they were not treated well, either.
Let's go over that again. The Iranian military - an agency of the Iranian government - held our accredited diplomats in violation of all international law and tradition, and tormented if not tortured them. The U.S.S.R. never went that far. Heck, even NORTH KOREA never went that far. It's pretty much a declaration of unrestricted war. "We're so against you we don't even care to talk to you anymore" is what they said when they did that. The only thing that kept America from wiping Iran off the map at that point was the certainty of Soviet intervention once Iran was on the ropes, and America's overall preoccupation with the Soviets in the first place.
The dick moves you point out afterwards - supporting Iraq, the downing of the airliner, the sanctions - all were in response to that violation of international law and tradition and undeclared war.
I never said America shouldn't apologize for it's dick moves. But Iran HAS TO make the first move to rehabilitate that quintessentially uncivilized act to reopen formal communications with America. It HAS TO apologize for what it did, and promise not to do it again. Only then can diplomatic process begin again.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.
No, I'm sure it was Obama's weakness that emboldened him.
Obama's been out of office for a year now, and he CERTAINLY wasn't the one on twitter talking about bringing all sorts of destruction down on NK the past year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.
Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?
Leaving aside the invasion and near genocide of the Native Americans, there's Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, (we'll call the WWII and Korean actions self-defense), Cuba again, Laos and Cambodia (during Vietnam), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iraq again.
And I'm sure I've missed at least one that's hovering in the back of my mind.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
Mostly brown?
Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.
Spetulhu wrote: 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.
Money plays a role, but it isn't really sole determinant people make it out to be. For instance Pakistan has no money, but the US still actively protects Pakistan because of long established relationships. For instance, in 2010 the US secured clear evidence that NK was exporting its nuclear capabilities, and they presented this info, largely to other countries in Asia to get them on-board with tightening sanctions. It worked great, except over time it emerged that the US had not revealed the role Pakistan played as a middle man in selling the nuclear tech for cash. The US didn't reveal that because it was protecting its relationship with Pakistan.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You know how you look at Mexicans?
That's how Norwegians look at us, BECAUSE of how you look at Mexicans.
whembly wrote: 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.
A president of the United States doing a glamorous photo shoot with a tyrant who operates forced labour camps and executes family members with anti-aircraft cannon is something people should lose their minds over.
This is literally a nothingburger except that both Trump and Kim met to begin negotiations.
Except for the bit where Trump proclaimed it an epochal meeting, and later tweeted that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. It is a big deal that after getting that nothingburger deal from Kim, Trump is acting like the job is done. That even further weakens the US position, makes it harder for them to walk away from future negotiations, which means the US will need to give up more to get less in the actual 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.
I haven't read the book but I have read excerpts and what I read was mired in dubious assumptions. First and foremost is the idea that you can take a subject words at face value and gain any real kind of insight. Sure, all these Trump supporters will say they favour practical solutions over ideology, but who doesn't? The point is that what people consider practical solutions is informed, likely on a sub-conscious level, by ideology.
Anyhow, my point wasn't about addressing the greater mystery of why people like Trump, that is destined to be an ever-lasting mystery, like jello with meat in it or Steve Gutenberg. My point was I got, for just a minute, an idea of what it was like to be in the place where you see Trump's claim, but not see the immediate follow up that Trump's claim was bs. Now, even just a few days later I actually find it hard to put myself in that mindset where I thought Trump had actually done something.
It was instructive to me how when a person follows the news only enough to get that first headline, Trump's bs actually works. That's all I was saying. On the greater issue of Trump's appeal, I've pretty much given up guessing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: 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.
And here is the problem. All of it. You pick and choose when something matters, to invent a fantasy around cheering for your team, and denigrating the other team.
Presenting the horrendously stupid Jerusalem embassy shift or cancellation of the Iran deal as 'doing something well' is bad enough, that you present it as unquestionably shows a frame of mind that is, to be frank, completely uninterested in the actual results of either decision.
Presenting the economy as doing well is blatant hypocrisy. It is the same economy that was inherited from Obama. Jobs growth has continued as it was under Obama (actually it's slowed a bit, but given we're reaching full employment that's to be expected), and that's seen the fall in unemployment continue. But what is telling is this exact economy was a constant source of attack and anger for Republicans throughout the Obama administration, to the point where we saw regular claims that BLS figures must be fictional. Now Trump inherits that economy, and what was claimed to be such a dire state of affairs is suddenly an economy in fantastic shape.
And when you celebrate Trump bringing home prisoners from North Korea, did you ever spend a second celebrating the dozen prisoners Obama brought home from NK? Why is it an accomplishment for Trump, but nothing worth mentioning for Obama?
Anyhow, my point wasn't about addressing the greater mystery of why people like Trump, that is destined to be an ever-lasting mystery, like jello with meat in it or Steve Gutenberg. My point was I got, for just a minute, an idea of what it was like to be in the place where you see Trump's claim, but not see the immediate follow up that Trump's claim was bs. Now, even just a few days later I actually find it hard to put myself in that mindset where I thought Trump had actually done something.
It was instructive to me how when a person follows the news only enough to get that first headline, Trump's bs actually works. That's all I was saying. On the greater issue of Trump's appeal, I've pretty much given up guessing.
Ah... I see what you mean. Yeah, that's a pretty apt analysis.
whembly wrote: 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.
And here is the problem. All of it. You pick and choose when something matters, to invent a fantasy around cheering for your team, and denigrating the other team.
Presenting the horrendously stupid Jerusalem embassy shift or cancellation of the Iran deal as 'doing something well' is bad enough, that you present it as unquestionably shows a frame of mind that is, to be frank, completely uninterested in the actual results of either decision.
Presenting the economy as doing well is blatant hypocrisy. It is the same economy that was inherited from Obama. Jobs growth has continued as it was under Obama (actually it's slowed a bit, but given we're reaching full employment that's to be expected), and that's seen the fall in unemployment continue. But what is telling is this exact economy was a constant source of attack and anger for Republicans throughout the Obama administration, to the point where we saw regular claims that BLS figures must be fictional. Now Trump inherits that economy, and what was claimed to be such a dire state of affairs is suddenly an economy in fantastic shape.
And when you celebrate Trump bringing home prisoners from North Korea, did you ever spend a second celebrating the dozen prisoners Obama brought home from NK? Why is it an accomplishment for Trump, but nothing worth mentioning for Obama?
Um... that was an article seb, I didn't write.
Also, this?
And here is the problem. All of it. You pick and choose when something matters, to invent a fantasy around cheering for your team, and denigrating the other team.
Pick up a mirror buddy. We're all cheering for our team. Own it.
whembly wrote: General Mattis is on record saying he knew about all that...
Of course, he could be covering Trump's ass here.
General Mattis is doing what he can to keep the ship running. He is a loyal servicemen to his country and government, and should be admired for that. In the end, like Colin Powell, he will be left with a career awkwardly bookended by service to a failed presidency, when his motivation was only ever to limit those failures.
It isn't fair, of course, but such is life for many public servants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Cold relations where NK launches missiles and acting belligerently.
Yeah... that's what we're probably looking at if history is of any guide.
NK's belligerent acts wasn't driven by frosty relations with the US. It was always about extorting stuff from the west and building its siege mentality to bring its population more in to line.
All this has done is reward NK for its most belligerent act - building nukes. It will only encourage them to continue their current strategy.
You're acting like this is it. Pompeo/SK/NK is working to keep the dialogue/negotiation ongoing.
My point is that in on-going negotiations the US position is only going to be weaker. Kim is free to walk away at any point, because so far its all wins for him. Whereas the US needs to continue talks in order to justify the political capital and concessions already committed. Which means Kim can continue pressing the US for more, while giving away less.
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.
Success depends on what is given for what is gained. It is irrelevant who is president, only what the deal is.
If NK agreed to a time table of steps to move to complete, irreversible de-nuclearisation, then it would be reasonable in response to agree to a timetable of sanctions relief.
If NK agreed to, say, something as crazy as ending all human rights abuses, open elections administered by the UN, then I could see Kim being given immunity from prosecution, enormous ecomonic development programs being offered, and the US removing troops from the peninsula.
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?
Then it would be symbolism with nothing of meaning achieved.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.
Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?
Leaving aside the invasion and near genocide of the Native Americans, there's Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, (we'll call the WWII and Korean actions self-defense), Cuba again, Laos and Cambodia (during Vietnam), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iraq again.
And I'm sure I've missed at least one that's hovering in the back of my mind.
Drop in the bucket compared to Italy, look at all those countries Rome invaded. Don't get me started on Mongolia.
...Or we can understand that it's unproductive to be bringing up things from over a century ago when trying to discuss how the US acts in the context of modern geopolitics. Further, what country in all of human history has not been aggressive when it is the dominant military power? If we look at the greater picture the US doesn't stand out.
Kilkrazy wrote: From my viewpoint it might appear that Cohen's law firm (that is to say, who are representing him) have dropped the case because after lokoing at the documents they have realised he is clearly guilty and they don't have any chance of a successful defence. This may be completely wrong on several points, of course.
Are your lawyers allowed to dump you under such circumstance if it was actually true?
Lawyers will defend you even if you're clearly guilty. You still deserve legal representation.
The guys Cohen hired were rumoured to cost several hundred thousand a week, and that money was all poured in to fighting over every single bit of correspondence the FBI had captured, claiming it was protected under attorney/client privilege. That strategy went nowhere, almost nothing was deemed protected, because Cohen was doing almost no work for Trump as a lawyer.
In the wake of that, it makes sense to fire you're insanely expensive legal outfit, and get one costing 1/50 as much as you move to the next stage.
As to whether this means Cohen is flipping, I doubt it. I mean, I have no idea if Cohen is flipping or not, but him firing his legal staff isn't a sign he is. Other guys who've turned state's did change lawyers, but the immediately hired specialist lawyers who negotiate deals with the feds. There is no way Cohen is going to negotiate a deal like that without a specialist lawyer.
So I think the most likely thing at this point is Cohen has no idea what his next step is, so he's cut the lawyers he can't afford, and is fumbling for a new plan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Asking for details on North Korean denuclearization verification beyond "The President Said So" is a ridiculous and insulting question.
This is the pattern with almost all the Trump administration officials today - they make an absurd claim, and when the obvious question comes they make a big show of being angry that the question is even being asked, just so they can avoid having to answer the question.
But the Iran deal was just unworkable and unverifiable...
There is no possible way anyone can honestly reach the point where the Iran deal was bad, but this debacle with NK is promising. It is not possible. But almost all of the right keeps claiming, which tells you everything you need to know about the state of intellectual honesty on the US right wing today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress? Mind boggling.That is due to Trump BTW.
A South Korean ran for the presidency committing to friendlier terms with North Korea, the South Koreans elected him, that South Korean pursued negotiations with the North, and then took the terms of those talks to Trump.
And according to SickSix that is all due to Trump. This is ridiculous.
While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will.
And I am sure when the next stage of negotiations falls apart, or ends with NK still not committing to anything of substance, you will simply drop away from dakka from the politics thread for a month or two.
This is actually a very standard way to open up diplomatic talks with a nation - the criticism of it is totally unjustified. He is talking it up a little to much but it's Trump - hes not going to stop being a loud mouth.
Absolute balderdash. I challenge you to provide a single negotiation in the history of the US where they started by making concessions in exchange for a nothing. You must be able to provide a single deal with the US president heaping praise on a tyrant guilty of mass human rights abuses.
I mean, for you to know this NK deal is normal, you must know of lots of other deals which began exactly the same way. And if you can't list even a single deal that was similarly began, well...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. In 2000 the SK president met with Kim Jong-il. In 2007 Kim Jong-il met with the next SK president.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: More likely Kim is completely out of money to run his regime and needs access to foreign capital and/or critical food/resource imports. That's typically what drives NK reproachment.
The NK economy has actually been doing pretty well lately. It's growing at about 4%, and while its base is so low it is not going to catch up in real terms to SK or anyone else any time soon, it would be helping the NK coffers quite nicely.
I think its more likely that NK, having reached a stage where it can semi-reliably fire a nuke armed missile quite a long way, is now looking to transform that power in to legitimacy and concessions from the US. And while they've got an easy mark like Trump on the other side, what better time to come to the table?
But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.
On the other hand the US has done some gakky things it never apologized for either. Supporting Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner, indeed the whole CIA debacle.
Take it on a global level, the US has done a lot of very undiplomatic things it never apologized for. Its a bit odd to expect everyone to start apologizing before you can make progress. Its entirely unrelated to the type of progress you want to make as well, its a step you take after the initial agreement goes well. To drag it to NK, NK has killed multiple US soldiers in violation of the ceasefire, but NK has never really been requested to apologize for it. Now if an agreement comes out of this, then you can start looking at apologies.
The problem is you're overlooking Iran's GROSS breech of diplomatic procedure.
Ever wonder why diplomats are immune to prosecution - the famed 'diplomatic immunity'? It's to keep the government of a nation from trumping up charges and imprisoning accredited diplomatic officials to extort concessions from the nation they represent. Diplomats need to be free to act on behalf of their nation in a diplomatic role. If you can't trust the government you're talking to to NOT kill, torment, or imprison your diplomats, how do you talk to them? That's why diplomatic immunity exists, and why for hundreds of years here in the west only the most uncivilized nations would attack an accredited diplomat.
I can accept that students on a rampage might have started things. I can see the Marines on guard not being willing (or ordered not to) shoot a horde of unarmed, ununiformed people. But when we did get our people back, their reports CLEARLY told us that they were held by the Iranian military for virtually their entire captivity... and they were not treated well, either.
Let's go over that again. The Iranian military - an agency of the Iranian government - held our accredited diplomats in violation of all international law and tradition, and tormented if not tortured them. The U.S.S.R. never went that far. Heck, even NORTH KOREA never went that far. It's pretty much a declaration of unrestricted war. "We're so against you we don't even care to talk to you anymore" is what they said when they did that. The only thing that kept America from wiping Iran off the map at that point was the certainty of Soviet intervention once Iran was on the ropes, and America's overall preoccupation with the Soviets in the first place.
The dick moves you point out afterwards - supporting Iraq, the downing of the airliner, the sanctions - all were in response to that violation of international law and tradition and undeclared war.
I never said America shouldn't apologize for it's dick moves. But Iran HAS TO make the first move to rehabilitate that quintessentially uncivilized act to reopen formal communications with America. It HAS TO apologize for what it did, and promise not to do it again. Only then can diplomatic process begin again.
It was a gross breach of diplomatic procedure. But diplomatic immunity is only one part of international law. Its important sure, but nowhere does it say its a crime trumping shooting down a civilian airliner or organizing a coup. A declaration of unrestricted war makes little sense either. The downing of the airliner is a clear breach of international law too, one that could be considered a war crime. North Korea has comitted acts just as terrible, even if it didn't fall under the diplomatic immunity aspect of international law.
Now that doesn't mean Iran shouldn't apologize, but setting it as a prerequisite for restarting the diplomatic process is a bit much. With it, we would have never gotten the Iran deal. And it damages long term prospects of rebuilding relations with Iran. A lot of the younger people aren't anti Western, but treating them by the standards of 40 years ago is steadily pushing them towards it. You have to be pragmatic in your approach, the US isn't averse to being pragmatic over the morally superior road either.
Xenomancers wrote: The sooner imagined racism like this disappears the sooner humanity can move forward in social harmony.
When he attempted to defend the FEMA performance in PR, Trump said the issue was lazy Puerto Ricans who wanted everything done for them.
So no, there is nothing imagined about the racial element to the Trump administration's pathetic FEMA response. However, in this case the racism isn't just on the part of Trump and his supporters. There is racism throughout this. The news media barely covered the build up to Maria in PR, despite clear signs it was going to be vastly bigger than the heavily covered incidents in Texas etc. And in the wake of the failed FEMA response, as the bodies piled up, coverage remained almost nil, a tiny fraction of the New Orleans disaster. When it was covered, it was almost always done as a means to attack Trump, not out of actual concern for people being denied basic services.
So yeah, racism is a big part of why a whole lot of people in PR have died. But this time it is way to easy to say it was just Trump and call it a day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: "A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!"
#Trump
Hummm....that is interesting. I'd start with trying to disprove that statement.
That's bonkers. The requirements of a charity don't begin and end with getting rid of the money. What the money is spent on and why it is spent there matters.
Here's Lewandowski, then Trump campaign manager, straight up telling the foundation he wants disbursements to Iowa groups to come out before the Iowa caucus.
Here's Trump campaign staff, with explicit approval from Trump, dictating to the Foundation where to spend the cash.
And here's a Foundation staffer asking the Trump campaign which organisations should receive money, and how much each should get.
You know when people went looking in to the Clinton Foundation for criminal activity, and the right wingers were all certain there would be this vast treasure trove of illegality. It is stuff like those three instances that was being looked for. They found nothing of the sort with the Clinton Foundation, but here with Trump we've have it, plain as day, in the most brazen form you can imagine, Trump campaign staff directing the Trump Foundation to make disbursements clearly intended to benefit the Trump campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman).
25 years of right wingers searching for anything they can get on the Clintons, including many years of Republicans using government powers to investigate. In the end the grand total of criminal activity ever found against either Clinton was Bill lying about an affair.
But you continue to believe they're corrupt despite nothing but accusations and no evidence for 25 years. It isn't even politics any more, it's an article of blind faith. It's like the holy trinity, the Bill, the Hillary and the immaculate corruption.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Funnily enough, Sarah Sanders defends the Trump Foundation by saying "The foundation raised $18 million and gave nearly $19 million to charity while having virtually zero in expenses."
As it happens, that's exactly the defense offered by supporters of the Clinton Foundation.
No, it's not, that's completely false.
It was pointed out that the Clinton Foundation had low overheads, but that was in response to the specific, dishonest charge that only a small percentage of Foundation activity was spent on organisational goals.
The defense of the Clinton Foundation against charges of criminality was that there was not a single instance of Foundation funds being motivated by political motives.
Whereas with the Trump administation, it is absolutely clear funds were paid for political ends, as directed by the Trump campaign.
We are dealing with people that uncritically accepts any statement (no matter how ridiculous), and completely blocks out when the statement is disproven or no evidence is presented in support of the statement.
We are talking about people who says; "Democrats are criminals", and in the back of their heads, they go;
- Hillary knowingly and deceitfully mishandled 30.000 Top Secret e-mails
- Hillary sold 20% of US' uranium to Russia
- Obama wiretapped Trump in Trump Tower
- Hillary was the cause of Benghazi
- A lot of Democrats are pedophiles, that had secret meetings in a pizza parlour
- Barack Obama isn't an American
- The Nunes Memo proves that the DOJ abused FISA warrants
- The Steele Dossier has been completely disproven
- Obama is the father of ISIS
- Hillary would have started WW3 with Russia over Syria
- Democrats wants to allow everybody (and especially "Muslim terrorists") into the US - with no vetting whatsoever.
- Obama gave millions to Iran to support terrorism
- CNN was raided by the FCC for deceiving the American public
- Hillary has had several people killed because they "knew too much"
- Nancy Pelosi was arrested by the Secret Service for an attempted coup against the US President.
Facts do not matter to these people. It doesn't matter if the ridiculous statements are later shown to be misleading or plain wrong.
The damage has been done, and the statements have already taken part in forming the opinions of these people.
whembly wrote: Um... that was an article seb, I didn't write.
I know you didn't write it. I also know you didn't put it there because you know it was junk nonsense.
Pick up a mirror buddy. We're all cheering for our team. Own it.
You realise you just admitted you're on team Trump. I mean, we all know you've been flirting with it for a while, but I think the announcement should have been a little more special than this.
It's like a couple who've dating for ages and we're all waiting for them to announce the engagement, and they think they're playing it cool by just dropping it to a lull in the conversation one night.
Shout it from the rooftops, whembly. You and Trump are finally hitched.
Steelmage99 wrote: Facts do not matter to these people. It doesn't matter if the ridiculous statements are later shown to be misleading or plain wrong.
The damage has been done, and the statements have already taken part in forming the opinions of these people.
Yep, just look at this IG report that's just been released. Trump and his apparatchiks hyped this up, bigly. It was the report that was gonna throw a whole new light on the FBI and prove it's all a corrupt organisation pulling for Clinton. After the wire tap, the Nunes midnight run, unmasking, the Steele dossier, the Nunes memo, spygate and probably bunch of others I'm forgetting, Trump asked his supporters to believe that this time Trump's accusation is actually going to amount to something. And his supporters believed it, as they always did.
Then, today, the IG released the report and while it notes the FBI screwed up a bunch of processes, it plainly states there was not a single point of evidence suggesting political bias in the investigation.
Is there a single Trumper out there questioning whether Trump should be believed? Nope. And next month when some lunatic on reddit invests a new theory about discrediting the FBI that works its way through conservative media before Trump latches on to it, all those same true believers will be there, believing that this is the one.
The point is that Trump and the GOP are not genius mind-control fiends who have the power of brain-washing ordinary people to believe their claptrap.
The point is that a lot of people dislike the progressive movement in general for various reasons of identity insecurity, sexism. and similar biases. Not all of them of course, but a significant number.
These people want to hear messages that tell them the proggresive movement is wrong, bad, illegal, and thereby justify and confirm their emotional state, so they lap up Trump's lies and ignore the facts that contradict them.
It doesn't matter what the report says. All his supporters are going to home in on is Strzok(?) and Page from this report. That more wasn't uncovered is just through the efforts of more Clinton supporters in the deep state like them. Once Trump wakes up we can expect a tweet where he sees things in the report that aren't there. Just long enough to distract and obscure the facts until something else newsworthy happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well speaking of the other newsworthy thing, I forgot to mention that Trump is probably going to announce a new round of tariffs against China today, running in the tens of billions. Meanwhile China has already lined up countermeasures specifically to hit Trump's supporter base. This might hurt his base pretty badly once harvest season comes around.
Some people in this thread are really coming across as the Americans that the rest of the world hates. Not the forward thinkers, the idealists or the inventors that brought the rest of the world forward (at a profit), but seem to be the regressive cavemen that think the entire world revovles around America, and that the only positive change could possibly come about because an American president deigned it.
Trump supporters arent chanting for a Nobel anymore aftee he ripped up the Iran deal, at least. The idea of him winning one after that is pretty laughable.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Meanwhile China has already lined up countermeasures specifically to hit Trump's supporter base. This might hurt his base pretty badly once harvest season comes around.
Don't worry.
They will blame it on the (supposedly) bad economy that President Obama left the country with (despite evidence to the contrary), and use it as an argument why they need four more years to "clear up the mess".
Unfortunately enough of Americans are ignorant and unintelligent enough to accept that as actually being the case.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Trump and the GOP are not genius mind-control fiends who have the power of brain-washing ordinary people to believe their claptrap.
The point is that a lot of people dislike the progressive movement in general for various reasons of identity insecurity, sexism. and similar biases. Not all of them of course, but a significant number.
These people want to hear messages that tell them the proggresive movement is wrong, bad, illegal, and thereby justify and confirm their emotional state, so they lap up Trump's lies and ignore the facts that contradict them.
I mean, I totally agree! 100%, I think it should be fair to call the people who looked at a man with a strong history of racist comments and actions, who mocked a disabled reported live on TV, who bragged about sexual assault, attacked gold star families, mocked war heroes, and so on; and decided "yeah, I'm OK with this" on their bs. I think it's totally OK to speculate that they are largely sexist, just as you did above (and some, I presume, are good people). I think it's self evident, and I think it's a little intellectually dishonest that we should all pretend that's not the truth because maybe they see babies being taken away from immigrant mothers while breastfeeding and feel a tiny twinge of buyers remorse; because it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded of their moral flexibility and the completely foreseeable outcome.
I think it's OK to remind them that we got exactly what was advertised. So is that OK again? I am 100% ready to get on board that train.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.
Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?
Leaving aside the invasion and near genocide of the Native Americans, there's Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, (we'll call the WWII and Korean actions self-defense), Cuba again, Laos and Cambodia (during Vietnam), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iraq again.
And I'm sure I've missed at least one that's hovering in the back of my mind.
Drop in the bucket compared to Italy, look at all those countries Rome invaded. Don't get me started on Mongolia.
...Or we can understand that it's unproductive to be bringing up things from over a century ago when trying to discuss how the US acts in the context of modern geopolitics. Further, what country in all of human history has not been aggressive when it is the dominant military power? If we look at the greater picture the US doesn't stand out.
Mongolia has never invaded anyone. Italy only exists as a country since 1861, it already has plenty of invasions to its name but not nearly as much as the US. You are referring to events that are so long ago that present-day peoples and countries did not even exist yet. That is a big difference from events that are only a century or just two centuries ago. That is recent history.
In modern times, the US definitely stands out. Other dominant military powers, notably the Soviet Union and China, have also been aggressive, but the US has taken aggression to entirely new levels. The US has invaded lots and lots of places in a very short timeframe. It really should not be surprise that that makes other countries see the US as overly militaristic and aggressive, and that it makes countries opposed to the US very, very nervous. Things that happened a century ago are most certainly not irrelevant in the context of modern geopolitics. Quite the contrary, past events usually have a very long-lasting impact on geopolitics and having an extensive knowledge of past events is key to understanding geopolitics.
The Bill The Hillary and the Immaculate Corruption might just be some of the funniest things to ever come out of a US politics thread and I think we should all just clap our hands for a moment cause damn DakkaDakka OT That’s fetching funny
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You know how you look at Mexicans?
That's how Norwegians look at us, BECAUSE of how you look at Mexicans.
That is because they are snobs and havn't had the migration crisis we are having. Aprox 12 Million illegal immigrants over the last 2 decades. Nearly 3 times the population of Norway. Imagine if Norway had to take that on? Their tone would change quite quickly. It's rather absurd to want people to be nice to people literally invading your territory.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was very careful to make the remarks as general as possible, avoid racism, and to point out that there are GOP supporters who aren't -ists.
Perhaps US social and political life is so fethed up that this thread should be locked in a dungeon and forgotten about.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To get us back on safer ice, here is an article from arch-capitalist rag The Economist on Trump's Singapore Summit.
So generalizing Trump supporters as racists is bad but generalizing a significant portion of Trump supporters/anti-Progressives whatever those are, as sexists is fine because sexism isn’t racism?
That kind of gross generalization of people is the same as before. Just like when Hillary blamed losing votes on women who were oppressed/intimidated by their husbands into voting for Trump. Sure it might have happened somewhere but there’s zero evidence that it happened for sure or that it happened frequently enough to have any significant impact.
Trump has said and done sexist things and it’s certainly possible/likely that some people who voted for Trump are sexist. However, it is a giant unfounded leap to say that a significant portion of the 62 million Trump voters are sexist. It smacks of I don’t like Trump, I don’t like Trump supporters, Trump supporters are sexist bad people.
thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.
