Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

Speaking of Trump tower, are we going to talk about the goalpost move from "Obama tapped my phones" to "Obama had the British tap my phones (!)"? Or did we decide that's such a ridiculous claim we're not even going to address it?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/he-spouts-exactly-the-same-bollocks-in-private-gchq-confirms-20170317124290

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39300191

The US has agreed not to repeat claims the UK's communications intelligence agency wiretapped Donald Trump in the weeks after he won the US election.
GCHQ denied allegations made by the White House that it spied on Mr Trump as president-elect.
No 10 has been assured the allegations would not be repeated, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said.
He said it had been made clear to US authorities the claims were "ridiculous and should have been ignored".

*slap*


Kudos for annoying your main ally , GREAT PLAN.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39300191

The US has agreed not to repeat claims the UK's communications intelligence agency wiretapped Donald Trump in the weeks after he won the US election.
GCHQ denied allegations made by the White House that it spied on Mr Trump as president-elect.
No 10 has been assured the allegations would not be repeated, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said.
He said it had been made clear to US authorities the claims were "ridiculous and should have been ignored".

*slap*


Kudos for annoying your main ally , GREAT PLAN.

I couldn't believe those allegations, either?

What in the name of God is going on at the White House?

To accuse your closest ally of spying on your POTUS...

Satire is well and truly dead

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/steve-stockman-jailed-election-law-charges

he seemed so nice too !




.. life moves fast eh ?

tneva82 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Poor people don't need food. The rich need tax breaks!

Why can't they just eat cake?

Republicans are amazing in one way. They kick poor to teeth all the time yet poor keep voting them. Unbelieavable.

In my rural, and heavily Republican town the schools are about 50%+ reduced lunch programs and our Median income is ~24,000K.

We have many more homeless children than trans-ones, but guess where all the concern goes.....

but guess where all the concern goes.....

Probably goes towards Clinton's email server...

We have people like that in the UK as well.

Area X get flooded because the Tory party cut flood defence funding.

Area X votes for Tory party at next election...

 Ouze wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Double posted, can't find a delete button.
Sorry folks.

Side note, if you post and it comes out double, just leave it: the duplicate post will be auto-deleted.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Apparently supporting the arts is something that is primarily only done for city folks. If the NEA disappeared tomorrow most of the people who live in counties that voted for Trump wouldn't notice any difference at all, what an amazing coincidence.

That, or 87% of NEA funding goes to people who live in metro areas is because.... 81% of the US lives in metro areas.

Which I am pretty sure you already knew, and tbh there are enough people that are willing to feign ignorance to score points. You're better then that.

You'll have to support that figure. Note the chart listed showed a very weighted portion to the top two cities in the US.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Double posted, can't find a delete button.
Sorry folks.

Side note, if you post and it comes out double, just leave it: the duplicate post will be auto-deleted.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Apparently supporting the arts is something that is primarily only done for city folks. If the NEA disappeared tomorrow most of the people who live in counties that voted for Trump wouldn't notice any difference at all, what an amazing coincidence.

That, or 87% of NEA funding goes to people who live in metro areas is because.... 81% of the US lives in metro areas.

Which I am pretty sure you already knew, and tbh there are enough people that are willing to feign ignorance to score points. You're better then that.

You'll have to support that figure. Note the chart listed showed a very weighted portion to the top two cities in the US.

We already covered this Frazz.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Double posted, can't find a delete button.
Sorry folks.

Side note, if you post and it comes out double, just leave it: the duplicate post will be auto-deleted.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Apparently supporting the arts is something that is primarily only done for city folks. If the NEA disappeared tomorrow most of the people who live in counties that voted for Trump wouldn't notice any difference at all, what an amazing coincidence.

That, or 87% of NEA funding goes to people who live in metro areas is because.... 81% of the US lives in metro areas.

Which I am pretty sure you already knew, and tbh there are enough people that are willing to feign ignorance to score points. You're better then that.

The 81% figure you cite uses a completely different definition of metropolitan area. 87% of NEA grants go to metropolitan areas and 90% of those metro areas have a population of 250k or greater as shown by the NEA chart I posted. 81% of the US population lives in urban areas by the US census definition of any town with at least 2.5k people in it. To restate my point in a factually correct manner, 87% of NEA grants go to metro areas and 90% of those areas have 250k or more people and only 82 cities in the US meet that criteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

So we have 74% of funding going to 82 cities which is why I pointed out that Trump, choosing to try to actually cut govt spending which has been a key Republican platform for decades but hasn't ever actually been done by a Republican administration, is focusing on programs that while insignificant to the overall budget are unlikely to be missed by his supporters. How did Trump do on election night in those 82 cities that 74% of NEA grants? Poorly so making the people there made at him doesn't change anything since they already were against him whereas actually cutting Federal programs even ones like the NEA will help him solidify support from his base that has recognized the fact that past presidents from the party that supposedly champions fiscal conservatism have all increased the size of the Federal govt and it's spending.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.citylab.com/amp/article/367462/

There are officially two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of between 2,500 and 50,000 people. For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. The 3,087 urban clusters account for 9.5 percent of the U.S. population.

Though these smaller urban clusters account for a relatively small portion of the total population, they make up the vast majority of the roughly 3,500 "urban" areas in the U.S. But is a town of 2,500 people really what we think of as "urban"?

According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Double posted, can't find a delete button.
Sorry folks.

Side note, if you post and it comes out double, just leave it: the duplicate post will be auto-deleted.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Apparently supporting the arts is something that is primarily only done for city folks. If the NEA disappeared tomorrow most of the people who live in counties that voted for Trump wouldn't notice any difference at all, what an amazing coincidence.

That, or 87% of NEA funding goes to people who live in metro areas is because.... 81% of the US lives in metro areas.

Which I am pretty sure you already knew, and tbh there are enough people that are willing to feign ignorance to score points. You're better then that.

You'll have to support that figure. Note the chart listed showed a very weighted portion to the top two cities in the US.

We already covered this Frazz.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Double posted, can't find a delete button.
Sorry folks.

Side note, if you post and it comes out double, just leave it: the duplicate post will be auto-deleted.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Apparently supporting the arts is something that is primarily only done for city folks. If the NEA disappeared tomorrow most of the people who live in counties that voted for Trump wouldn't notice any difference at all, what an amazing coincidence.

That, or 87% of NEA funding goes to people who live in metro areas is because.... 81% of the US lives in metro areas.

Which I am pretty sure you already knew, and tbh there are enough people that are willing to feign ignorance to score points. You're better then that.

The 81% figure you cite uses a completely different definition of metropolitan area. 87% of NEA grants go to metropolitan areas and 90% of those metro areas have a population of 250k or greater as shown by the NEA chart I posted. 81% of the US population lives in urban areas by the US census definition of any town with at least 2.5k people in it. To restate my point in a factually correct manner, 87% of NEA grants go to metro areas and 90% of those areas have 250k or more people and only 82 cities in the US meet that criteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

So we have 74% of funding going to 82 cities which is why I pointed out that Trump, choosing to try to actually cut govt spending which has been a key Republican platform for decades but hasn't ever actually been done by a Republican administration, is focusing on programs that while insignificant to the overall budget are unlikely to be missed by his supporters. How did Trump do on election night in those 82 cities that 74% of NEA grants? Poorly so making the people there made at him doesn't change anything since they already were against him whereas actually cutting Federal programs even ones like the NEA will help him solidify support from his base that has recognized the fact that past presidents from the party that supposedly champions fiscal conservatism have all increased the size of the Federal govt and it's spending.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.citylab.com/amp/article/367462/

There are officially two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of between 2,500 and 50,000 people. For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. The 3,087 urban clusters account for 9.5 percent of the U.S. population.

Though these smaller urban clusters account for a relatively small portion of the total population, they make up the vast majority of the roughly 3,500 "urban" areas in the U.S. But is a town of 2,500 people really what we think of as "urban"?

According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543.

WE covered that 81% of the US population lives in cosmopolitan areas? Please reference where.

 Frazzled wrote:

WE covered that 81% of the US population lives in cosmopolitan areas? Please reference where.

It's literally in the post from the previous page that I just quoted in response to your post and you just quoted again. The US Census uses a very broad definition of urban area that places 81% of the population in urbanized areas. It's a very different definition than the metropolitan areas that receive the bulk of NEA grants for arts programs/events.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The 81% figure you cite uses a completely different definition of metropolitan area. 87% of NEA grants go to metropolitan areas and 90% of those metro areas have a population of 250k or greater as shown by the NEA chart I posted. 81% of the US population lives in urban areas by the US census definition of any town with at least 2.5k people in it. To restate my point in a factually correct manner, 87% of NEA grants go to metro areas and 90% of those areas have 250k or more people and only 82 cities in the US meet that criteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

So we have 74% of funding going to 82 cities which is why I pointed out that Trump, choosing to try to actually cut govt spending which has been a key Republican platform for decades but hasn't ever actually been done by a Republican administration, is focusing on programs that while insignificant to the overall budget are unlikely to be missed by his supporters. How did Trump do on election night in those 82 cities that 74% of NEA grants? Poorly so making the people there made at him doesn't change anything since they already were against him whereas actually cutting Federal programs even ones like the NEA will help him solidify support from his base that has recognized the fact that past presidents from the party that supposedly champions fiscal conservatism have all increased the size of the Federal govt and it's spending.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.citylab.com/amp/article/367462/

There are officially two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of between 2,500 and 50,000 people. For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. The 3,087 urban clusters account for 9.5 percent of the U.S. population.

Though these smaller urban clusters account for a relatively small portion of the total population, they make up the vast majority of the roughly 3,500 "urban" areas in the U.S. But is a town of 2,500 people really what we think of as "urban"?

According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Ya know, this clip from the Simpsons movie is becoming more and more relevant.

Difference being that Schwarzenegger is actually a very smart guy. He is an actual self made millionaire and he did it in property without having to declare bankruptcy

Basically, Schwarzenegger is everything Donald Trump wishes he was.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

WE covered that 81% of the US population lives in cosmopolitan areas? Please reference where.

It's literally in the post from the previous page that I just quoted in response to your post and you just quoted again. The US Census uses a very broad definition of urban area that places 81% of the population in urbanized areas. It's a very different definition than the metropolitan areas that receive the bulk of NEA grants for arts programs/events.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The 81% figure you cite uses a completely different definition of metropolitan area. 87% of NEA grants go to metropolitan areas and 90% of those metro areas have a population of 250k or greater as shown by the NEA chart I posted. 81% of the US population lives in urban areas by the US census definition of any town with at least 2.5k people in it. To restate my point in a factually correct manner, 87% of NEA grants go to metro areas and 90% of those areas have 250k or more people and only 82 cities in the US meet that criteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

So we have 74% of funding going to 82 cities which is why I pointed out that Trump, choosing to try to actually cut govt spending which has been a key Republican platform for decades but hasn't ever actually been done by a Republican administration, is focusing on programs that while insignificant to the overall budget are unlikely to be missed by his supporters. How did Trump do on election night in those 82 cities that 74% of NEA grants? Poorly so making the people there made at him doesn't change anything since they already were against him whereas actually cutting Federal programs even ones like the NEA will help him solidify support from his base that has recognized the fact that past presidents from the party that supposedly champions fiscal conservatism have all increased the size of the Federal govt and it's spending.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.citylab.com/amp/article/367462/

There are officially two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of between 2,500 and 50,000 people. For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. The 3,087 urban clusters account for 9.5 percent of the U.S. population.

Though these smaller urban clusters account for a relatively small portion of the total population, they make up the vast majority of the roughly 3,500 "urban" areas in the U.S. But is a town of 2,500 people really what we think of as "urban"?

According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543.

Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basically, Schwarzenegger is everything Donald Trump wishes he was.

Of course Schwarzie's not President though. I guess there's that.
(I like Schwarzie and actually agree with you).

I'd vote for him if he was able to run

Then we'd have Demolition Man coming true

 Easy E wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Poor people don't need food. The rich need tax breaks!

Why can't they just eat cake?

Republicans are amazing in one way. They kick poor to teeth all the time yet poor keep voting them. Unbelieavable.

In my rural, and heavily Republican town the schools are about 50%+ reduced lunch programs and our Median income is ~24,000K.

We have many more homeless children than trans-ones, but guess where all the concern goes.....

Your school should, and will, continue to offer the reduced lunch program and hopefully/probably some kind of breakfast program as well. When students are in school the school should make sure they get at least one decent meal and a good learning environment. A K-12 school is in session for 180 days a year and a school day is about 6-7 hours. When school isn't in session, when the day ends and during the 185 days a year when there is no school somebody else other than the school has to be responsible for those children/students. We already have programs to help kids when they're in school, when they're not in school if they still need help then we need other programs that aren't tied to the school to help them.

The rural poor really get it the worst. The Democrats advocate for the urban poor and the Republicans try to demonize the urban poor as the bad poor people so at least they get noticed. The rural poor are largely ignored by both parties yet they share a lot of the same problems as the urban poor, poor education, lack of job opportunities, lack of infrastructure support, very insular communities, etc. The focus on the urban poor can breed resentment in the rural poor which makes them susceptible to the Republican rhetoric against the urban poor but they also use a lot of the same assistance programs so when Republicans work against those programs the rural poor are hurt as well. Republicans try to play up the social issues that help them connect with the rural poor but their economic policies really don't do enough to help the rural poor.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Tillerson says diplomacy with North Korea has ‘failed’; Pyongyang warns of war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-stresses-regional-cooperation-to-curb-north-koreas-weapons-programs/2017/03/16/4ec5e07c-09ab-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.e7365a724e5f

TLDR; Basically Tillerson stating that the carrot-stick diplomatic strategy generallly prusued for the last 20 years has failed and that South Korea and Japan may need a "first strike" capability.

I think it is a not so subtle message to China that they need to be more aggressive in curtailing North Korea's nuclear and missle programs or else face an arms race with S. Korea and Japan. China is already very unhappy about the deployment of THAAD to S. Korea.

Also, if you follow Tillerson's arguement to its seemingly obvious conclusion, what is being discussed is intermediate range nuclear missles being deployed to S. Korea and Japan with possibly both nations having some kind of "fire" control.

I'm struggling to see an alternative though as I agree that carrot and stick diplomacy has failed as Kim Jong-un is a full on meglomaniac and bat s*** crazy who has effectively doubled down on the brinksmanship and between him and Kim Jong-il, they have proven they cannot be trusted to uphold their diplomatic committments. With Kim Jong-il it seemed to be about using their weapons development to exhort money/aid from the West, but that doesn't seem to be Kim Jong-un's objective.

I agree that the carrot-stick approach is either doing nothing, or at best maintaining the current stalemate.

This is really targeted towards China to force them to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39300191

The US has agreed not to repeat claims the UK's communications intelligence agency wiretapped Donald Trump in the weeks after he won the US election.
GCHQ denied allegations made by the White House that it spied on Mr Trump as president-elect.
No 10 has been assured the allegations would not be repeated, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said.
He said it had been made clear to US authorities the claims were "ridiculous and should have been ignored".

*slap*


Kudos for annoying your main ally , GREAT PLAN.

Yup. That's a big SMACK DOWN on the Whitehouse.

Good to see that partisanism has spread so far that even people who are blatantly racist don't get any pushback. Good job, GOP, good job.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/324406-rep-steve-king-claims-gop-colleagues-are-patting-me-on-the-back

As any Bible Belt-dwelling non-Christian could have told him, being informed that someone is 'praying for you' doesn't necessarily mean they approve of your actions...:p

Seriously, though. The Republicans need to get their crap in order.

 Spinner wrote:
As any Bible Belt-dwelling on-Christian could have told him, being informed that someone is 'praying for you' doesn't necessarily mean they approve of your actions...:p

Seriously, though. The Republicans need to get their crap in order.

Its the GOP, they won't or can't at this point otherwise the entire facade falls apart

At this point all we can do is hope that the moderates and blue voters who gave Trump a try will come swarming back to the left after seeing this dumpster fire.

 d-usa wrote:
At this point all we can do is hope that the moderates and blue voters who gave Trump a try will come swarming back to the left after seeing this dumpster fire.

You can bet on that happening.

There is a fundamental problem with the Republican party and its current ideology that inherently prevents them from being capable of governance.

They have been touting the evils of government for so long that government has fundamentally become "the enemy", and now that they have the reins of state they have no clue what to do. Actual governance is anathema to the Republican ideology.

The other issue is that, for all their concerns about how government can trample their freedoms and the risks of government overreach, the only apparati of government they typically support are the arms of the state that would be most directly involved in executing their worst nightmares of such things, LEA's and the military, above almost anything else.

Ultimately, actually governing goes so against their fundamental platform that they really have no idea what to do.

whembly wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Tillerson says diplomacy with North Korea has ‘failed’; Pyongyang warns of war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-stresses-regional-cooperation-to-curb-north-koreas-weapons-programs/2017/03/16/4ec5e07c-09ab-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.e7365a724e5f

TLDR; Basically Tillerson stating that the carrot-stick diplomatic strategy generallly prusued for the last 20 years has failed and that South Korea and Japan may need a "first strike" capability.

I think it is a not so subtle message to China that they need to be more aggressive in curtailing North Korea's nuclear and missle programs or else face an arms race with S. Korea and Japan. China is already very unhappy about the deployment of THAAD to S. Korea.

Also, if you follow Tillerson's arguement to its seemingly obvious conclusion, what is being discussed is intermediate range nuclear missles being deployed to S. Korea and Japan with possibly both nations having some kind of "fire" control.

I'm struggling to see an alternative though as I agree that carrot and stick diplomacy has failed as Kim Jong-un is a full on meglomaniac and bat s*** crazy who has effectively doubled down on the brinksmanship and between him and Kim Jong-il, they have proven they cannot be trusted to uphold their diplomatic committments. With Kim Jong-il it seemed to be about using their weapons development to exhort money/aid from the West, but that doesn't seem to be Kim Jong-un's objective.

I agree that the carrot-stick approach is either doing nothing, or at best maintaining the current stalemate.

This is really targeted towards China to force them to do something.

I can't imagine in anyway how trying to give China the option of either the US goes to war with North Korea or China does something, will work. Seriously, China will just choose to let the US go to war with North Korea. America blows money it doesn't have, kills millions of people and significantly diminshes itself in power and ability internationally. South Korea and Japan will balk because Japan will never actually use nuclear weapons and South Korea will be too busy burning.

Carrot and stick isn't working because carrot and stick doesn't actually work. Especially against a state like North Korea who is backed against a wall. Pulling out of South Korea would likely work much better than whatever the hell the US has been doing. And we would do some of that ole fiscal responsibility that the GOP lays claim to knowing about. Plus we might just gain some credibility with China.

d-usa wrote:At this point all we can do is hope that the moderates and blue voters who gave Trump a try will come swarming back to the left after seeing this dumpster fire.

I like to call these people...the moron block.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

d-usa wrote:At this point all we can do is hope that the moderates and blue voters who gave Trump a try will come swarming back to the left after seeing this dumpster fire.

I like to call these people...the moron block.

Now, now. You can't fault people for not expecting Trump and the GOP to do what they said they would do and continue to act in the manner they have been acting for the past two decades, because her emails.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Tillerson says diplomacy with North Korea has ‘failed’; Pyongyang warns of war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-stresses-regional-cooperation-to-curb-north-koreas-weapons-programs/2017/03/16/4ec5e07c-09ab-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.e7365a724e5f

TLDR; Basically Tillerson stating that the carrot-stick diplomatic strategy generallly prusued for the last 20 years has failed and that South Korea and Japan may need a "first strike" capability.

I think it is a not so subtle message to China that they need to be more aggressive in curtailing North Korea's nuclear and missle programs or else face an arms race with S. Korea and Japan. China is already very unhappy about the deployment of THAAD to S. Korea.

Also, if you follow Tillerson's arguement to its seemingly obvious conclusion, what is being discussed is intermediate range nuclear missles being deployed to S. Korea and Japan with possibly both nations having some kind of "fire" control.

I'm struggling to see an alternative though as I agree that carrot and stick diplomacy has failed as Kim Jong-un is a full on meglomaniac and bat s*** crazy who has effectively doubled down on the brinksmanship and between him and Kim Jong-il, they have proven they cannot be trusted to uphold their diplomatic committments. With Kim Jong-il it seemed to be about using their weapons development to exhort money/aid from the West, but that doesn't seem to be Kim Jong-un's objective.

I agree that the carrot-stick approach is either doing nothing, or at best maintaining the current stalemate.

This is really targeted towards China to force them to do something.

I can't imagine in anyway how trying to give China the option of either the US goes to war with North Korea or China does something will work. Seriously, China will just choose to let the US go to war with North Korea. America blows money it doesn't have, kills millions of people and significantly diminshes itself in power and ability internationally. South Korea and Japan will balk because Japan will never use a nuclear weapons, South Korea will be burning.

Carrot and stick isn't working because carrot and stick doesn't actually work. Especially against a state like North Korea who is backed against a wall. Pulling out of South Korea would likely work much better than whatever the hell the US has been doing. And we would do some of that ole fiscal responsibility that the GOP lays claim to knowing about. Plus we mighy just gain some credibility with China.

SK / Japan doesn't WANT the US to leave SK... since technically, we're still at war with NK.

What's interesting is that SK's President was recent removed from office. So, who knows what the politics will be regarding reunification.

However, China doesn't WANT NK to collapse as it'll be a refugee nightmare for them.

There have been studies after studies that have found that hungry children, as well as children who are preoccupied with thinking about how they are going to eat until they return to school the next morning, are unable to pay as much attention in class and suffer academically from the effect of food insecurity.

Aside from all of that, let's just pretend that Trump & Company is right and the program does nothing academically. That still leaves the simple fact that the budges boils down to "I don't want to give food to poor children." And "feth the poor" is just standard MO for many of the GOP leaders in charge up there.

 d-usa wrote:

Aside from all of that, let's just pretend that Trump & Company is right and the program does nothing academically. That still leaves the simple fact that the budges boils down to "I don't want to give food to poor children." And "feth the poor" is just standard MO for many of the GOP leaders in charge up there.

Here's the kicker...

The last Federal budget that was passed was in 2007 for fiscal year '08.

POTUS' budget since then are basically meaningless. Can't see the House to simply pick up Trump's Budget and use it as a framework.

Wait till (or if) Congress starts passing budgets to get your blood pressure up... otherwise, it's MOAR continuing resolutions...

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Tillerson says diplomacy with North Korea has ‘failed’; Pyongyang warns of war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-stresses-regional-cooperation-to-curb-north-koreas-weapons-programs/2017/03/16/4ec5e07c-09ab-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.e7365a724e5f

TLDR; Basically Tillerson stating that the carrot-stick diplomatic strategy generallly prusued for the last 20 years has failed and that South Korea and Japan may need a "first strike" capability.

I think it is a not so subtle message to China that they need to be more aggressive in curtailing North Korea's nuclear and missle programs or else face an arms race with S. Korea and Japan. China is already very unhappy about the deployment of THAAD to S. Korea.

Also, if you follow Tillerson's arguement to its seemingly obvious conclusion, what is being discussed is intermediate range nuclear missles being deployed to S. Korea and Japan with possibly both nations having some kind of "fire" control.

I'm struggling to see an alternative though as I agree that carrot and stick diplomacy has failed as Kim Jong-un is a full on meglomaniac and bat s*** crazy who has effectively doubled down on the brinksmanship and between him and Kim Jong-il, they have proven they cannot be trusted to uphold their diplomatic committments. With Kim Jong-il it seemed to be about using their weapons development to exhort money/aid from the West, but that doesn't seem to be Kim Jong-un's objective.

I agree that the carrot-stick approach is either doing nothing, or at best maintaining the current stalemate.

This is really targeted towards China to force them to do something.

I can't imagine in anyway how trying to give China the option of either the US goes to war with North Korea or China does something will work. Seriously, China will just choose to let the US go to war with North Korea. America blows money it doesn't have, kills millions of people and significantly diminshes itself in power and ability internationally. South Korea and Japan will balk because Japan will never use a nuclear weapons, South Korea will be burning.

Carrot and stick isn't working because carrot and stick doesn't actually work. Especially against a state like North Korea who is backed against a wall. Pulling out of South Korea would likely work much better than whatever the hell the US has been doing. And we would do some of that ole fiscal responsibility that the GOP lays claim to knowing about. Plus we mighy just gain some credibility with China.

SK / Japan doesn't WANT the US to leave SK... since technically, we're still at war with NK.

What's interesting is that SK's President was recent removed from office. So, who knows what the politics will be regarding reunification.

However, China doesn't WANT NK to collapse as it'll be a refugee nightmare for them.

China could build a wall. Though in seriousness, there wouldn't be many refugees leaving North Korea I suspect as they will be dead.

South Korea doesn't actually want the US to be there but doesn't want to have to figure out how to do protect their own country. Really everything has spiraled out of control. The more the US is there brandishing its "carrot-stick" the more they need to be there. A measured withdraw would have a better effect then promising North Korea you will kill evetybody if they don't submit to US power.

Really we could just end the war with North Korea. We don't have to be technically at war with them anymore. Its doing significant damage to the US and it needs to stop. At the rate we are going North Korea will eventually win because the US will finally crap the bed.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Aside from all of that, let's just pretend that Trump & Company is right and the program does nothing academically. That still leaves the simple fact that the budges boils down to "I don't want to give food to poor children." And "feth the poor" is just standard MO for many of the GOP leaders in charge up there.

Here's the kicker...

The last Federal budget that was passed was in 2007 for fiscal year '08.

POTUS' budget since then are basically meaningless. Can't see the House to simply pick up Trump's Budget and use it as a framework.

Wait till (or if) Congress starts passing budgets to get your blood pressure up... otherwise, it's MOAR continuing resolutions...

Out of curiosity, how often were federal budgets passed before then? Were they barely ever passed before then or is it only since the election of Obama and then subsequent Republican control of both houses of congress that federal budgets have ended up in limbo?

Nope... he won't let this go:

.@POTUS to Merkel: "As far as wiretapping, I guess, this past administration - at least we have something in common perhaps." pic.twitter.com/GPUXE7UqH1
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 17, 2017

I wonder if the other leaders of the world think Trump is the icky dumb kid.

Merkel is probably like, "ewwww, why is das cheeto even talking to me."