feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.

None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.

But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.

None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.

But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.

Now we're getting into the crux of the current debate I think...

I almost think the attributes you attributed is based on your dislike of who's controlling Congress and the WH.

I mean, I can say the same thing (albeit minus the ultra-nationalism) during the last administration.

Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).

You really can't without generalising the terms so much they become meaningless.

Obama did not build a cult of personality, neither did he build scapegoats out of minority members of society, he was not an ultra-nationalist and nor did he court ultra-nationalists such as the alt-right, he also never claimed that he would order the military to commit war crimes and that they would follow his orders.

 Vaktathi wrote:


EDIT: more and more I am coming to believe that major Twitter usage is a sign of a mental disorder. Nothing positive seems to flow from the platform, no matter what ones politics and tendencies are, and increasingly it appears its sole function is to either sling gak or to commit professional/social suicide.

 feeder wrote:

Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).

Yeah, my country engaged in that evil fethery too. I'd like to think we learn from our mistakes though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Greitens is gone

Wonder what changed, he looked set to fight it out.

EDIT: better link.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...

Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?

I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:

Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...

Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?

I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:

Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .

Meanwhile Trump can't help himself trying to get the crowd chanting Nobel, a Nobel Prize for doing... what?

 Ouze wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.

It's uncommon but it does happen here sometimes.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.

whembly, all you did was repeat your previous assertion. That isn't discussion. It isn't even argument. It's just shouting words in to the void.

You claimed fascism wouldn't happen because too many US citizens are armed. I pointed out that is a false defence, because where fascism has occurred it has happened with the willing support of armed citizens - that people with the power to have arms are the people with the power to make fascism happen.

In response, you have to do something other than just blindly repeat that armed citizens can stop it.

If anything it's my kids and grandkinds paying the bill.

Cute dodge, but also not true. Republicans are already beating the drum for social security and healthcare cuts to pay for it.

Happens everytime some major bill get passed.

Hey look everyone, whembly is making gak up. PPACA's two decade deficit impact, after the 2015 revision to account for how the law was actually implemented, is a saving of $0.9tn to $1.1tn.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
They were voted into power homie.... and they restricted gun ownership.

And here's this same piece of junk history, again. No, the Nazis didn't vote to restrict gun rights. They actually removed registration requirements on long arms, lowered the legal age for owning a gun, and dropped the requirement to register sales and purchases. They did stop Jews from owning guns, but that was just a formalisation of a process police were already undertaking.

So there's the actual facts of Nazis and firearms. I look forward to typing them out again in 6 to 12 months when you make that same false claim all over again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?

If you think that guns will stop a country from sliding in to fascism, why didn't the majority of Germans with their expanded gun rights do anything to stop Nazism?

Or is it exactly what I've already explained to you - the people with the power to make fascism happen are the people with the power to own all the guns. As such, if fascism starts happening then gun owners will not be part of the solution.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.

Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.

All of that matches Trump perfectly.

However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.

Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.

All of that matches Trump perfectly.

However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.

Okay... that's pretty damn spot on.

Even the Nick Cage reference.

Dear Gawd stop with that horrid movie!

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/ex-navy-sailor-pardoned-by-trump-says-hes-suing-comey-and-obama.amp.html

A lawsuit of Trumpian proportions.

".....But her emails!"

Sigh.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, but it's kind of a wash. Going to the White House and meeting the president isn't exactly the high honor it previously was - would you have been excited about it, if it wasn't for something related to a uniformed service?

It's not even a red team / blue team thing. I imagine there are no shortage of Republicans who wouldn't particularly want to meet Orange Foolius* and have their picture taken with him while he makes it about himself in some weird, crass way.



*Or, uh, have him attend their funerals. Snicker.

I sure would not. I'd rather get another root canal without anesthesia then meet that guy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.

That's about it though.

He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.

So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?

 LordofHats wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.

In my own experience, farmers are habitually in denial how dependent what they do is on government money. Something about bootstraps and such and those damn city folk always giving out money to minorities or something. SO I wouldn't be remotely shocked if they maintained that line right into the financial grave.

[/size]
Look no further than the Ethanol Mandate™ or the Sugar Subsidy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The people of the USA didn't elect Trump. He lost the popular vote.

David Mack
✔
@davidmackau
15h
Angela Merkel's office has released this photo taken today at the G7, which tells you a lot about how things went. pic.twitter.com/IXX6K3ayys

 Da Boss wrote:
When people say "He lost the popular vote" they mean when votes are counted on an individual basis, he got fewer votes than his opponent, and you know that.

Also, I would dispute that there are only 2 sides present in that photo.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Do you dispute his points at all?

Maybe you didn't follow the conversation. Frazzled said Newsom was a criminal on par with Blagojevich and was asked for something to substantiate that. Frazzled replied with nothing. The only thing approximating substantiation came from me, I pointed out Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Frazzled was asked a bunch more times, and eventually responded, not with any kind of criminal activity, all Frazzled did was list a bunch of Newsom policies he didn't like.

Sure, we could point out Frazzled descriptions of Newsom's policies are false (Newsom isn't actually planning on grabbing anyone's guns, Newsom's actual position is actually a fairly typical do nothing Democrat position, 'smart' guns etc). Or we could have a laugh that Frazzled thinks it is interesting or any way relevant that a Texas Republican doesn't like a California Democrat's policies.

But all that is besides the point. Frazzled claimed Newsom was a criminal. When asked for anything to substantiate this, Frazzled produced nothing. It was yet another instance of Republican mud slinging and rumour mongering based on nothing but lies and bs.

It's fething terrible.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.

Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.

There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.

You are literally posting gibberish.

 whembly wrote:
It's attitude like this, is a large part of "why Trump won".

The real problem with this forum is that as long as you remain superficially polite, you can keep doing this over and over again. Peregrine is totally right.

 Ouze wrote:
it's not an opinion that Blagovich is a convicted criminal. It's not an opinion that comparing someone to him is saying they have committed criminal acts.

The arguments you are making are desperate justification for a weak, lazy lie that was quickly abandoned because there was no possibility of defending it.

So, keep responding to you (and this inserting a new quarter into the bs spin machine over and over again), or just stop responding (and let the lazy, weak lies stand unchallenged)? The game of the OT

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Because we all have opinions. Just because you have one doesn't make it stone cold fact.

That's what you and Peregrine often misses.

It's not that you have opinions, it's that you post factually incorrect statements and assorted other dishonest arguments, evade and weasel out of acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that is presented to counter your claims, and then come back again later to re-post the same original claim as if none of the previous discussion ever happened. It's like how, back in election season, you kept posting the argument that the electoral college favors smaller states no matter how much indisputable mathematical evidence we provided to prove that it does not. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with and you'd be banned from many other forums (including forums with a significant right-wing presence, so don't try to make this about your choice of party) but because you don't use any bad words dakka considers it acceptable behavior.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz said and I quote "elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor?".
It is *you* who chose to interpret that Frazz is saying Newsom was a criminal.

Blagojevich is a criminal. he is currently imprisoned after being convicted of 17 criminal charges.

There is no interpretation that is possible otherwise. If you are comparing someone to Blagojevich, you are saying they are similar to a convicted felon.

You are literally posting gibberish.

Convicted felon for corruption. As in, "the Democratic Party Chicago Way" of politics.

I mean, nuance can be challenging on a message board... but, I didn't think it was that nuanced.

It isn't nuance. None of you have supplied any evidence that Newsom is corrupt at all, let alone to the level he would be on the same level as someone serving years in prison for corruption.

If I were to say that someone was a sleazebag on the level of Bill Cosby, what would you interpret that to mean?

“It’s been 5 years since 20 first graders were shot dead at Sandy Hook.

Since then:
14 killed in San Bernardino
49 killed in Orlando
58 killed in Vegas
26 killed in a Texas church

Enough.

We have a message for the @NRA: If you hurt people, we are coming for your guns.”

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We should use facts to justify statements and stop use hyperbolic statements to derail threads.

How 'bout it? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he is even close to the level Blagojevich is at.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You tried to convince me otherwise and I've submitted/posited counter points. You simply reject them out of hand. That Electoral College debate was exactly that. (I'm still stunned that you keep harping that EC doesn't strengthen smaller state's stature... the math is indisputable, especially when you break it down by population per EV).

I reject your counterpoints because your counterpoints are factually incorrect. The math for EC votes is that small states do not benefit, period. Your simplistic analysis of population per EV does not accurately evaluate the situation. Wyoming may have a very low ratio of population per EV, probably the lowest in the US, but it has very little electoral power. Wyoming is going to give its three EV to the republican candidate every year, no matter what. Therefore neither party spends any meaningful amount of time or effort campaigning there, and there is minimal incentive to consider Wyoming in any policy decisions. All of the attention and policy consideration goes to a small number of swing states. It is those states, not small states, that have disproportionately high electoral power. Abolish the EC, on the other hand, and every Wyoming citizen's vote is worth as much as a citizen of a swing state's vote.

But of course we've told you this, over and over again. We've provided the hard evidence of campaign time and effort spent on each state, evidence which clearly shows that both parties ignore the small states you claim the EC benefits. And yet you refuse to accept it because Your Team considers the EC a good thing.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
We should use facts to justify statements and stop use hyperbolic statements to derail threads.

How 'bout it? I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he is even close to the level Blagojevich is at.

So if we're trying to dial down hyperbole... why bring up Blogojevich? Why not "Why is Gavin such a problem for you whem?"

I don't care what your problems are with him. Stop attempting to misdirect. I care that people are held accountable for sleazy, hyperbolic comments and for defending those sleazy, hyperbolic comments.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Again, I do not care. How is he as sleazy as Blagojevich?

The @NRA is completely complicit in yesterday's shooting, as are all our leaders who have done nothing to stop this violence. If you cannot protect the kids of this country, you should not maintain any position of influence or power.

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

*sigh*
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.

CA was a red state for Reagan. States shift generationally to one party to another. It's not all fixed Peregrine.

In my opinion, there is that dirty word again, the abolition of EC would cause more harm than good by concentrating political power to smaller more populous regions. We'd see Panem. Furthermore, it'd destroy the last vestige of federalism and turn the US into a super-state, rather than a collection of 50 independent states.

This makes zero sense. Your example of why you "ignore small states at their own peril" is that California went to Reagan, literally the biggest state flipping is an example of why the small ones matter? If 10 small states all flip we're talking about a blowout scenario in which the small states would only enlarge the victory, but do zero to deliver the victory in the first place. Even in your example to advocate why small states matter, small states still don't matter.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, (snip)..

I am curious. What do you base that on?

 nels1031 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
.

Bill Clinton

James Carville, who worked for Bill Clinton.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.

As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

He's saying there is nothing tying Trump yet.

The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.

As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.

We need a return to the Bull Moose party.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.

whembly, I have explained to you maybe a half dozen times now that Wisconsin didn't matter and was never going to matter. There was 229 EV that Trump won by more than 3%, this was Trump's base of votes, the stuff he was sure to get in anything but a horrific blow out. From there Trump had to pick up enough swing states to reach 270, and this election the states in play were Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Florida (29).

Now do the maths. Try and figure out the combination in which Wisconsin tips the election. Because if Trump wins Florida, then all Trump needs is to pick up either Michigan or Pennsylvania to win. Wisconsin doesn't matter either way, if Trump gets neither Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin can't get him to 270, and if Trump wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania then he wins with or without Wisconsin.

The only way Wisconsin actually plays a role in deciding the election is if Trump lost Florida, but won Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which case then Wisconsin would decide the election. But that's a very, very silly scenario and Clinton and everyone else was quite right not to focus on it.

This isn't to defend Clinton's campaign, which was dreadful. But it was dreadful for lots of lots of reasons that had nothing to do with electoral vote strategizing, where the Clinton camp figured out the lay of the land perfectly well. Afterall, Clinton visited Michigan and Pennsylvania lots more that Wisconsin, and her vote decline there was much worse, which tells you a lot about the effect of Clinton's stump speeches.

The point is that I've explained this to you a lot of times now, whembly. And you still refuse to understand it, because you don't like how it challenges how you would prefer to understand the 2016 campaign and the electoral college system. This is the problem whembly. You are knee deep in a culture that simply doesn't process unwelcome information.

Singapore (CNN)US President Donald Trump put his extraordinary gamble with North Korea's Kim Jong Un to the test on Tuesday, sitting for unprecedented and surreal talks with the rogue kingdom's despotic leader in what he hopes will amount to a historic breakthrough.

Photographs of a document signed by Trump and Kim indicate the leaders agreed to "work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."
In exchange, Trump agreed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea.

The document also indicates the leaders will endeavor to establish "new US-DPRK relations."

"I think our whole relationship with North Korea and the Korean peninsula is going to be a very different situation than it has in the past," Trump said at the conclusion of the landmark summit, which culminated in formal signing ceremony.

"Today, we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind," Kim said through a translator. "The world will see a major change."

What precisely was agreed upon during the nearly five-hour summit was not initially clear as the two leaders sat next to each other and autographed documents in leather binders.
Trump said it was a "pretty comprehensive document," but offered no other details on what it contained. When asked about the prospects of denuclearizing North Korea -- the administration's longstanding objective -- Trump said the process would begin "very quickly."

He was more forthcoming about his negotiating partner, with whom he said he developed a "special bond."

"We learned a lot about each other and our countries," Trump said before bidding Kim farewell. "I learned he's a very talented man."

He said he would "absolutely" invite Kim to the White House.

The two men -- both intent on making history -- greeted each other earlier in the day with extended hands in front of a row of US and North Korean flags, a previously unthinkable sight that reflects a new chapter in the two countries' acrimonious relationship.

"We had a really fantastic meeting. A lot of progress," Trump told reporters three hours later after sitting for a series of talks and a working lunch. "Really very positive. I think better than anybody could have expected."

"Top of the line," Trump said. "Really good."

Trump's threats to politely walk out of the meeting if his expectations were unmet did not materialize. Instead he predicted he could "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" alongside his new partner.

"Working together, we'll get it taken care of," Trump said.

The remarks came amid an improbable series of events that few could have anticipated even three months ago. The unlikely images of US and North Korean counterparts engaging in friendly dialogue lent the day an air of unreality. In a detailed menu, the White House said the men were served Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream for dessert.

Other developments also fueled that impression. Minutes before the historic handshake, Trump tweeted that his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow had suffered a heart attack.

Immediately after the encounter, Dennis Rodman -- one of the only Americans to have met Kim -- was openly weeping while being interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo.

Even Kim seemed to acknowledge the surreality of the day.

"Many people in the world will think of this as a (inaudible) form of fantasy ... from a science fiction movie," his translator was overheard saying as the two leaders walked down a white-columned colonnade.

The day began with Trump patting Kim on the back and placing his hand on the North Korean's shoulder as they walked into their first meeting. Their body language was openly friendly, a striking warmth given Kim's iron grip on power and dismal record on human rights. Trump's move to meet him attracted fierce criticism for normalizing a regime routinely called out for its human rights abuses, that over years has built an image of fearsome renegade regime, throwing around threats of nuclear war.

It was not clear whether Trump raised those issues during the meetings. When asked if he confronted Kim over the death of Otto Warmbier -- the American who died days after his release from North Korean captivity -- Trump did not respond.

Speaking through an interpreter, Kim alluded to the longstanding enmity between his country and the United States.

"It has not been easy to come to this point," Kim said, according to a CNN translation of his remarks. "For us, the past has been holding us back and old practices and prejudices have been covering our eyes and ears, but we have been able to overcome everything to arrive here today."

Trump nodded in agreement.

The meeting comes only months after the two men traded nuclear taunts, ratcheting up tensions and leading to fears of war.

Whether nuclear disarmament is indeed the outcome of Tuesday's summit won't be known for years, if not decades. But the dramatic act of extending his hand to one of America's longtime adversaries will forever illustrate Trump's gut-driven, norm-shattering tenure.

After the men shook hands, they repaired inside for one-on-one talks. In that first meeting they were joined only by translators, a break from standard practice of having at least one aide present for high-stakes huddles.

Later in the day, advisers joined the talks for a larger bilateral session and a working lunch. Trump was joined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff John Kelly, national security adviser John Bolton and the US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim, who has lent his Korea expertise to the talks.

In the lead-up to the summit, US and North Korean officials were convening contentious final-hour negotiations in a Ritz Carlton hotel here in a bid to narrow gaps on key aspects of the meeting.

It's not clear what the US side has been able to extract from the North Koreans in terms of their willingness to get rid of their nuclear weapons or allow inspectors into the country to catalog the scale of their program.

Trump took keen interest in the pageantry of the day, insisting the pictures beamed around the world reflect a commanding leader making a decisive, world-altering move. At the same time, he'd admitted he doesn't believe he requires extensive preparation to take stock of Kim.

Instead, he told reporters last weekend he would rely on "my touch, my feel" to assess the young and mercurial leader.

On Monday, the White House announced that Trump would depart earlier than expected for Washington. But before he leaves, he'll sit for an interview with his friend, the Fox host Sean Hannity, and convene a media availability for other reporters.

A US official confirmed to CNN Trump's departure was moved up by more than 12 hours because Kim set his own departure for shortly after the summit.

Tuesday's meeting, convened at a luxury hotel on the island of Sentosa, comes just three months after Trump accepted North Korea's invitation for talks on the spot. It was an extraordinarily compressed timeline for the landmark summit, one that left aides scrambling to initiate communication with the hermit nation.

The sides first spoke through intelligence channels, with US analysts working to determine Kim's true willingness to abandon a nuclear program started by his grandfather and viewed by Pyongyang as a security blanket from outside aggressors.

Pompeo, who led the outreach as CIA director, traveled twice to North Korea for preliminary talks. His sessions with Kim amounted to the most robust contact ever between the United States and the North Korean leader, providing critical information about a man about whom little is known.

But a major advancement came in late April when South Korean President Moon Jae-in met with Kim at the Korean Demilitarized Zone, a diplomatic opening that laid the basis for the future engagement with Trump. Moon has pressed for a diplomatic path to east tensions on the peninsula, fearing a more violent alternative.

Talks proceeded at multiple levels, including logistical discussions to allay Kim's fears of being deposed while traveling further afield than he ever has before as the country's leader. The site of the historic talks was a matter of intense speculation before the US President announced on Twitter it would occur here in Singapore, the flashy Southeast Asian city-state that has eagerly accommodated the spectacle.

More than 2,500 journalists have convened here, with each leader's every movement tracked carefully. A day before the summit, Trump mostly remained inside his Shangri-la hotel, emerging only to meet with his Singaporean counterpart at the presidential palace. Later in the day, he met with senior advisers and phoned the leaders of Japan and South Korea.
Kim, meanwhile, was spotted taking a moonlit stroll around the high-end Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino, which is owned by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. Kim was cheered by onlookers who caught sight of the dictator, who until earlier this spring was not believed to have ever left North Korea as supreme leader.
CNN's Yuli Yang, Sophie Jeong, Yoonjung Seo and Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.

 sebster wrote:

Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?

There is no problem with you or anyone having a different opinion. The problem is when you claim things that aren't true, and when you completely fail to understand other people's arguments.

Look at the WI thing above, I've explained that so many times, but you still keep claiming it was about Clinton assuming a state was in the bag when that wasn't the assessment at all.