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.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
Singapore (CNN)US President Donald Trump put his extraordinary gamble with North Korea's Kim Jong Un to the test on Tuesday, sitting for unprecedented and surreal talks with the rogue kingdom's despotic leader in what he hopes will amount to a historic breakthrough.
Photographs of a document signed by Trump and Kim indicate the leaders agreed to "work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."
In exchange, Trump agreed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea.
The document also indicates the leaders will endeavor to establish "new US-DPRK relations."
"I think our whole relationship with North Korea and the Korean peninsula is going to be a very different situation than it has in the past," Trump said at the conclusion of the landmark summit, which culminated in formal signing ceremony.
"Today, we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind," Kim said through a translator. "The world will see a major change."
What precisely was agreed upon during the nearly five-hour summit was not initially clear as the two leaders sat next to each other and autographed documents in leather binders.
Trump said it was a "pretty comprehensive document," but offered no other details on what it contained. When asked about the prospects of denuclearizing North Korea -- the administration's longstanding objective -- Trump said the process would begin "very quickly."
He was more forthcoming about his negotiating partner, with whom he said he developed a "special bond."
"We learned a lot about each other and our countries," Trump said before bidding Kim farewell. "I learned he's a very talented man."
He said he would "absolutely" invite Kim to the White House.
The two men -- both intent on making history -- greeted each other earlier in the day with extended hands in front of a row of US and North Korean flags, a previously unthinkable sight that reflects a new chapter in the two countries' acrimonious relationship.
"We had a really fantastic meeting. A lot of progress," Trump told reporters three hours later after sitting for a series of talks and a working lunch. "Really very positive. I think better than anybody could have expected."
"Top of the line," Trump said. "Really good."
Trump's threats to politely walk out of the meeting if his expectations were unmet did not materialize. Instead he predicted he could "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" alongside his new partner.
"Working together, we'll get it taken care of," Trump said.
The remarks came amid an improbable series of events that few could have anticipated even three months ago. The unlikely images of US and North Korean counterparts engaging in friendly dialogue lent the day an air of unreality. In a detailed menu, the White House said the men were served Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream for dessert.
Other developments also fueled that impression. Minutes before the historic handshake, Trump tweeted that his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow had suffered a heart attack.
Immediately after the encounter, Dennis Rodman -- one of the only Americans to have met Kim -- was openly weeping while being interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo.
Even Kim seemed to acknowledge the surreality of the day.
"Many people in the world will think of this as a (inaudible) form of fantasy ... from a science fiction movie," his translator was overheard saying as the two leaders walked down a white-columned colonnade.
The day began with Trump patting Kim on the back and placing his hand on the North Korean's shoulder as they walked into their first meeting. Their body language was openly friendly, a striking warmth given Kim's iron grip on power and dismal record on human rights. Trump's move to meet him attracted fierce criticism for normalizing a regime routinely called out for its human rights abuses, that over years has built an image of fearsome renegade regime, throwing around threats of nuclear war.
It was not clear whether Trump raised those issues during the meetings. When asked if he confronted Kim over the death of Otto Warmbier -- the American who died days after his release from North Korean captivity -- Trump did not respond.
Speaking through an interpreter, Kim alluded to the longstanding enmity between his country and the United States.
"It has not been easy to come to this point," Kim said, according to a CNN translation of his remarks. "For us, the past has been holding us back and old practices and prejudices have been covering our eyes and ears, but we have been able to overcome everything to arrive here today."
Trump nodded in agreement.
The meeting comes only months after the two men traded nuclear taunts, ratcheting up tensions and leading to fears of war.
Whether nuclear disarmament is indeed the outcome of Tuesday's summit won't be known for years, if not decades. But the dramatic act of extending his hand to one of America's longtime adversaries will forever illustrate Trump's gut-driven, norm-shattering tenure.
After the men shook hands, they repaired inside for one-on-one talks. In that first meeting they were joined only by translators, a break from standard practice of having at least one aide present for high-stakes huddles.
Later in the day, advisers joined the talks for a larger bilateral session and a working lunch. Trump was joined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff John Kelly, national security adviser John Bolton and the US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim, who has lent his Korea expertise to the talks.
In the lead-up to the summit, US and North Korean officials were convening contentious final-hour negotiations in a Ritz Carlton hotel here in a bid to narrow gaps on key aspects of the meeting.
It's not clear what the US side has been able to extract from the North Koreans in terms of their willingness to get rid of their nuclear weapons or allow inspectors into the country to catalog the scale of their program.
Trump took keen interest in the pageantry of the day, insisting the pictures beamed around the world reflect a commanding leader making a decisive, world-altering move. At the same time, he'd admitted he doesn't believe he requires extensive preparation to take stock of Kim.
Instead, he told reporters last weekend he would rely on "my touch, my feel" to assess the young and mercurial leader.
On Monday, the White House announced that Trump would depart earlier than expected for Washington. But before he leaves, he'll sit for an interview with his friend, the Fox host Sean Hannity, and convene a media availability for other reporters.
A US official confirmed to CNN Trump's departure was moved up by more than 12 hours because Kim set his own departure for shortly after the summit.
Tuesday's meeting, convened at a luxury hotel on the island of Sentosa, comes just three months after Trump accepted North Korea's invitation for talks on the spot. It was an extraordinarily compressed timeline for the landmark summit, one that left aides scrambling to initiate communication with the hermit nation.
The sides first spoke through intelligence channels, with US analysts working to determine Kim's true willingness to abandon a nuclear program started by his grandfather and viewed by Pyongyang as a security blanket from outside aggressors.
Pompeo, who led the outreach as CIA director, traveled twice to North Korea for preliminary talks. His sessions with Kim amounted to the most robust contact ever between the United States and the North Korean leader, providing critical information about a man about whom little is known.
But a major advancement came in late April when South Korean President Moon Jae-in met with Kim at the Korean Demilitarized Zone, a diplomatic opening that laid the basis for the future engagement with Trump. Moon has pressed for a diplomatic path to east tensions on the peninsula, fearing a more violent alternative.
Talks proceeded at multiple levels, including logistical discussions to allay Kim's fears of being deposed while traveling further afield than he ever has before as the country's leader. The site of the historic talks was a matter of intense speculation before the US President announced on Twitter it would occur here in Singapore, the flashy Southeast Asian city-state that has eagerly accommodated the spectacle.
More than 2,500 journalists have convened here, with each leader's every movement tracked carefully. A day before the summit, Trump mostly remained inside his Shangri-la hotel, emerging only to meet with his Singaporean counterpart at the presidential palace. Later in the day, he met with senior advisers and phoned the leaders of Japan and South Korea.
Kim, meanwhile, was spotted taking a moonlit stroll around the high-end Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino, which is owned by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. Kim was cheered by onlookers who caught sight of the dictator, who until earlier this spring was not believed to have ever left North Korea as supreme leader.
CNN's Yuli Yang, Sophie Jeong, Yoonjung Seo and Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.
My god they're stroking each other's ego...
...and Dennis Rodman...whoa... but, hey, if Trump misses a shot, you'd have the best rebounder in history in Rodman.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 07:09:08
Well there isn't much news on details because there aren't any. Photos of the document show its basically a promise to denuclearize in exchange for security guarantees. Nothing of value has been said or done except for Kim.
So anyone else laughing at Trump's advisor saying Trudeau deserves a special place in hell, but Trump calling Kim, who runs a country with large concentration camps and terrible HR record, a man who loves his country very much? The cognitive dissonance of this admin is breathtaking.
Quite a few North Korea experts seem surprised it was even more barebones than they expected it to be. Certainly nothing historical beyond a US president sitting down with a Kim.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 07:47:19
Trump issued more than 20 straight denials of his campaign meeting with Russian government officials. We have since learned of more than 70 such meetings. And it isn't like these guys came clean and volunteered all the meetings, that's just a list of meetings we've learned about so far, with more constantly being discovered. Just this last week we learned of Ivanka meeting with a Russian contact to help organise a Putin meeting. The fact these meetings are still being hidden, and Trump and his staff told so many lies about their meetings isn't proof of Trump's guilt, but it sure isn't nothing.
One of these meetings involved Trump's own son, alongside his son-in-law and campaign manager meeting with Russians to arrange the receipt of Russian intelligence on Hillary Clinton. When this meeting was publicly revealed, after Jr released three lies mischaracterising the meeting, Jr eventually admitted the meeting was to get intel on Clinton but claimed nothing came of the meeting and just asked us to trust him and now he was telling the truth after being caught lying three times previously. We then learned that he was lying when he claimed he wrote the statement, it was actually dictated by Trump Sr, something that took three or four false statements before it was eventually admitted. Again, not absolute proof in itself, but calling it nothing is a lie.
Russia used wikileaks to launder its release of stolen data. We know Stone and Don Jr had multiple contacts with Julian Assange, and Stone knew of the Podesta email releases ahead of time, something Stone has since lied about. Again, not evidence of Trump's direct collusion with Russia, but it's far from nothing.
We have emails chains between Trump's Chief of Staff Manafort and Russian operatives. Manafort was famously working for Trump for free, but in his emails with his Russian contacts he makes it clear his work for Trump is meant to clear his substantial debt to a Russian oligarch. Exactly what Manafort was doing that would be so valuable to a Russian oligarch is one hell of a big question. There's no evidence what he was doing had Trump's knowledge, but that leads to the biggest point of all...
If all this stuff was happening without Trump's knowledge, wouldn't he want to know who in his staff was colluding with Russia? Wouldn't a US president want to know the extent to which a foreign country looked to interfere in a US election? But Trump fired Comey, in his own words to get rid of the 'Russia thing', and has tried multiple times to fire Mueller. AA man who was entirely naive of the contacts his staff made with Russia would support an investigation, not only to identify and clean out the staff who lied to him, but to clear his own name. Yet Trump instead works against the investigation and tells wild lies about it.
Sure, there is nothing publicly known that is a clear smoking gun that absolutely proves Trump knew about the work Russia was doing and coordinating it with his staff, but the claim both Frazzled and whembly have made here, that the investigation is fizzling out with no connection found is absolutely bonkers.
Oh crap I am posting here again.
Yes, here in this crazy place where people asked you to substantiate your allegations against politicians. Better stay away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
This is a direct copy paste of the currrent line being pushed by FOX News, that Paul Ryan parroted the other day, and here it is turning up as whembly's opinion. Anyhow, it's junk.
The 'process crimes' were crimes committed by people when they lied to the FBI. Why did lie to the FBI? Because they were trying to conceal their contacts with Russia.
The claim Manafort's crimes were unrelated to the campaign is ignoring that the crimes in question were about political corruption fueled by Russian dirty money. It's also trying to clear Trump's name by saying Manafort was already a criminal when Trump hired him. It's bonkers.
It's also ignoring the ludicrous string of charges being formed against Michael Cohen, which absolutely relates to the Russian scandal because a bunch of the secret payments to Cohen came from Russian oligarchs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 08:28:01
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Now that Trump is busy kicking sand in the former allies faces, it is clear that he needs new friends. North Korea sounds like a nice candidate for that...
I have the results of the last chamber: You are a horrible person. That's what it says: A horrible person... We weren't even testing for that.
whembly wrote: The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state. WI is a small state that likely won't impact the collective EV tally. The point is that *it could* in the future elections, especially since it's trending purplish now (ala CO).
Now you're trying to change the subject and deflect away from your initial claim that the EC helps small states in favor of a completely unrelated argument that state party alignments can change over time. If WI becomes a purple state it gains electoral power, but it does so because it is now a swing state, not because it is a small state with more EV per person than a large state. If WI continued the shift and became a solid red state it would lose all of that power, despite continuing to have the same EV/population ratio.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable..
First of all, you're making a straw man argument here and appealing to an "unstated premise" instead of the argument that was actually made. The argument is that you are wrong in your claim that the EC helps smaller states, a fact which is backed up by overwhelming amounts of mathematical and empirical evidence. Whether or not removing the EC is a good idea it is simply a fact that it does not help smaller states as you claim. And yet you will continue to make the argument that it does.
Second, I am extremely skeptical of your argument here. You want to dispute the idea that the EC is undemocratic, but you're talking about a system where the president is elected by a small group of individuals who are free (however unlikely they are to do so) to vote for whoever they want regardless of the will of the people, and even in the best-case scenario for democracy the value of each voter is inherently unequal. Hell, even your defense of the EC concedes that it is an undemocratic system! You proudly claim that the EC operates in an undemocratic manner by giving disproportionate value to certain voters, you just disagree about which group of voters it is. And the alternative system is the very definition of democracy, where each citizen makes an equal vote and the winner is determined by a direct count of those votes.
As far as I can tell the "worst way imaginable" is defined entirely by the fact that Your Team currently benefits from the EC and therefore feels compelled to defend it, and a direct popular vote would favor The Other Team in the current (and foreseeable) environment.
The founders had the EXACT SAME fears and arguments about highly populated regions v. the less populated regions. Those concerns are just as valid as they are now.... hence how the EC was devised.
The founding fathers also didn't have modern math, statistical and game theory analysis of elections, etc. So I wouldn't be too eager to hold them up as the ultimate authority.
But you're also wrong about this. The founding fathers had very different arguments for the EC. It was originally about two things, as stated explicitly by the creators of the system:
1) A belief that the common people were too stupid to be trusted to pick the right person, and the system needed the ability to have qualified electors make the correct choice for them. IOW, "if we don't like the outcome of democracy ignore it".
2) Arguments over slavery, specifically the pro-slavery states being against allowing black people anti-slavery states to vote and give the anti-slavery states more total votes in a direct popular vote. The solution was to count the slaves towards the state's population (and therefore number of EV), but not to allow them to vote.
I think you can see why these are both terrible arguments, and examples of why we shouldn't treat the founding fathers as infallible experts on everything.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It is staggering to me to see people say the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt when they supported the Benghazi hearings. Wow.
Aren't you concerned about your democracy being under attack by a hostile foreign power? I thought the Republican party prided itself on patriotism, but I suppose that was another lie.
Steelmage99 wrote: I get that the current White House is leaking like a sieve, but that isn't actually the norm.
Please, do not attempt to normalize such highly dysfunctional behaviour by expecting the same level of incompetence from the Mueller investigation.
To be fair, the Mueller investigation is remarkably tight. Previous special counsels released far more, both publicly and privately.
The reason why is probably twofold. First Mueller never talked to the press much through his career, and this very noticeable when he ran the FBI. The other part is Mueller knows Trump can be provoked in to firing Mueller, if public statements or actions were made against Trump or his family, so Mueller is moving very strategically.
Note that doesn't mean I am assuming Mueller has a substantiated case against Trump or anything like that. I don't know, no-one does. And for Mueller while he is still investigating, that's exactly the point.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Chinese and Russian vessels are free to travel those waters as they please, because they are international waters. There is no such thing as de facto control of international waters. What China is looking to do in the South China sea is establish it as territorial waters, giving them the right to pick and choose which vessels are allowed to enter. China has made this claim in international courts and been rejected.
You're really way off the reservation here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: What international treaty that was ratified by a previous session of Congress has been rescinded by the current session of Congress?
You're missing the point that good and productive treaties are DOA in congress because of Republican partisan hostility. The Iran deal secured an end to the Iranian nuclear program and the IAEA able to put in place as many inspectors as they please, and for nothing more than the end of sanctions. The US got what it wanted, for no cost.
But there was no way it was ever going to result in a ratified treaty, because Republicans were never going to give Obama a win, even when the process was conceived of and begun by a Republican presidency.
So that's the situation now. Dealing with the US means nothing will be ratified, because of Republican dysfunction. Which means it will be always be free to cancelled when a Republican wins the presidency, if that new Republican president is an angry man-child who acts out malice and confusion.
I mean sure, you could argue that maybe Trump is some kind of huge outlier, and in future Republican presidents will be more like the sombre Republican statesman we saw before Trump, GW Bush. Or that Republican president will be like the crop of sombre statesmen that were in the Republican primary field, those men of honour, steeped in understanding of international diplomacy, men like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee.
Yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state.
You just repeated the same nonsense I explained to you was wrong. Wisconsin was not ignored because it was an assumed gimme. It was ignored because the maths of the 2016 EC made it almost impossible for Wisconsin to flip the election. If Clinton held either Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin didn't matter. If Clinton held neither Michigan or Pennsylvania, then Wisconsin didn't matter.
True.. I think it was you that said Clinton was to technocratic, rather than repeating easily understood stump speeches.
I've said it a bunch of times, but I never retail politics as bad as Clinton saying she had lots of policies and rather than explain them you should go to her website. Remarkably awful.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable.
I don't push that. I've explained my own view many times. And you not only don't understand my argument, you remain unaware it even exists.
To explain it very briefly, there is nothing wrong with weighting results towards minor states to ensure they stay relevant. Living in a small state in a federalist system with our own small state protections, I get it.
The point is the current system is broken, and while it gives a weighting to small states it doesn't actually give them a greater voice, unless they happen to be very close to 50-50 Dem/Rep split, and even then they might not matter.
What would make all states relevant, while keeping the weighting to small states, would be to end the winner take all in the electoral college. Shift to EC awarded by vote share. Hey presto problem solved.
Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?
There is no problem with you or anyone having a different opinion. The problem is when you claim things that aren't true, and when you completely fail to understand other people's arguments. Look at the WI thing above, I've explained that so many times, but you still keep claiming it was about Clinton assuming a state was in the bag when that wasn't the assessment at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 09:12:38
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?
There is no problem with you or anyone having a different opinion. The problem is when you claim things that aren't true, and when you completely fail to understand other people's arguments.
Okay. I'm done.
Look at the WI thing above, I've explained that so many times, but you still keep claiming it was about Clinton assuming a state was in the bag when that wasn't the assessment at all.
nvm... I'm done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 10:00:19
So Trump just said North Korea was "rough" regarding HR but that HR records are "rough in a lot of places". Certainly its only rough in those other places out of love for their own countries right? Besides those NK people in concentration camps are #winning according to Trump (I can't believe he actually said they were the winners )
Some gems about his uncle being an expert on this stuff and NK beaches being prime real estate for hotels.
So, Trump has said he is going to cancel US-SK military exercises and China is considering lowering sanctions, all this in return for: a vague promise from Kim. Just the best deals.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 10:34:11
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
whembly wrote: The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state. WI is a small state that likely won't impact the collective EV tally. The point is that *it could* in the future elections, especially since it's trending purplish now (ala CO).
Now you're trying to change the subject and deflect away from your initial claim that the EC helps small states in favor of a completely unrelated argument that state party alignments can change over time. If WI becomes a purple state it gains electoral power, but it does so because it is now a swing state, not because it is a small state with more EV per person than a large state. If WI continued the shift and became a solid red state it would lose all of that power, despite continuing to have the same EV/population ratio.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable..
First of all, you're making a straw man argument here and appealing to an "unstated premise" instead of the argument that was actually made. The argument is that you are wrong in your claim that the EC helps smaller states, a fact which is backed up by overwhelming amounts of mathematical and empirical evidence. Whether or not removing the EC is a good idea it is simply a fact that it does not help smaller states as you claim. And yet you will continue to make the argument that it does.
Second, I am extremely skeptical of your argument here. You want to dispute the idea that the EC is undemocratic, but you're talking about a system where the president is elected by a small group of individuals who are free (however unlikely they are to do so) to vote for whoever they want regardless of the will of the people, and even in the best-case scenario for democracy the value of each voter is inherently unequal. Hell, even your defense of the EC concedes that it is an undemocratic system! You proudly claim that the EC operates in an undemocratic manner by giving disproportionate value to certain voters, you just disagree about which group of voters it is. And the alternative system is the very definition of democracy, where each citizen makes an equal vote and the winner is determined by a direct count of those votes.
As far as I can tell the "worst way imaginable" is defined entirely by the fact that Your Team currently benefits from the EC and therefore feels compelled to defend it, and a direct popular vote would favor The Other Team in the current (and foreseeable) environment.
The founders had the EXACT SAME fears and arguments about highly populated regions v. the less populated regions. Those concerns are just as valid as they are now.... hence how the EC was devised.
The founding fathers also didn't have modern math, statistical and game theory analysis of elections, etc. So I wouldn't be too eager to hold them up as the ultimate authority.
But you're also wrong about this. The founding fathers had very different arguments for the EC. It was originally about two things, as stated explicitly by the creators of the system:
1) A belief that the common people were too stupid to be trusted to pick the right person, and the system needed the ability to have qualified electors make the correct choice for them. IOW, "if we don't like the outcome of democracy ignore it".
2) Arguments over slavery, specifically the pro-slavery states being against allowing black people anti-slavery states to vote and give the anti-slavery states more total votes in a direct popular vote. The solution was to count the slaves towards the state's population (and therefore number of EV), but not to allow them to vote.
I think you can see why these are both terrible arguments, and examples of why we shouldn't treat the founding fathers as infallible experts on everything.
I'm not trying to change the subject... I'm still saying the EC still helps smaller states moreso that going to some sort of NPV system. Ya'll do make compelling arguments that in this last election the smaller states didn't have impact. That doesn't change my opinion that the EV could have some swap in future elections. These things wax 'N wane over generations.
It bears repeating:
Its the United States of America...
where we have an Electoral College system, wherein the potus and vp aren’t elected directly by the voters, but rather by electors who are chosen through the popular votes from each state. So instead of one national popular vote, it's literally 51 separate popular votes by state (& DC). So yeah, I very much dispute the idea that the EC is undemocratic.
Part of the rationale is that every part of the nation has some kind of say over the next potus. The federalist papers goes over some of the rationale because a system like this diffuses an otherwise 'direct democracy' that weakens the ability of politicians to scaremonger and use emotional appeals to take power. Succinctly stated, it blunts the vagaries of the electorate. Or it should... which didn't happen because HRC was a horrible campaign candidate (don't @ me!), while Trump is the WTFcandidate. My sincere hope is this is an aberration and not the norm going forward.
In any event, the EC system is supposed to encourage the potus' and their political parties to consider all Americans in 50 states in rhetoric and action. It also protects large swaths of the nation from being ignored or bullied. The system as a whole incentivizes DC... the potus and the Senate really...to craft policy that meets the needs of WI as well as NY.
The practical matter of the EC is that elections are tailored to winning states, not people. Maybe in this day and age, with the advent of technology, social media and travel a NPV system would work better. I know there are tons of conservatives in blue states, for instance, who do not vote today because they understand that the majority around them have a different political outlook. Just as liberals in red states don't really votes because redstater outnumbers. This is why HRC's NPV numbers are so meaningless because some just don't vote (plus CA had practically nothing for CA GOP'ers to vote for). SO a direct national election would mean focusing on blue-state Republicans and red-state liberals regions.
From a tactical perspective, I’m not sure that setup would work out exactly as one would imagine, because you can't use current conventional wisdom as its based on the current EC system. Maybe that's the conservative strain in me that loathe to see massive change of this nature. Even still... this is academic as pushing through a constitutional amendment isn't likely going to happen, so instead of banging on that drum that EC should change, maybe polticians should work within the system to build cross appeal.
IN the end, I'd argue that the EC system does more good than harm. I would say that even if HRC is now potus. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, and if the EC were replaced by a NPV system, it would not be the end of the world.
At the end of the day, this is debate of whether the EC is a system that meets our modern needs. I know where you stand, and you know where I do.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty. There is the debacle with a certain island Chain in SEA but tat thing was a mess of asshollery of its own nature and not comparable to the situation in Ukraine. If an argument is going to be made that Russia and Chinas actions are justifiable because the US did it to then we should actually look for cases where the US did it to which is impossible for China and rough for Russia.
Which is just my point. The US didn’t do it too and the entire line of reasons it is childish and pedantic.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty.
I don't think France considered Alsace and Lorraine less annexed back in 1871 because there was the treaty of Frankfurt (incidentally a great-great-grandparent of mine ended up here because she didn't wanted to take German nationality, but their family weren't really fond of the French either, so goes the family tale).
The winner gets to dictate conditions on the losing side of a war, especially when there are territorial changes involved.
After signing an agreement with Kim Jong-un scant on detail, President Trump held an extraordinary press conference where he held court as reporters fired questions.
In case you missed it, here are some of the memorable, and frankly, jaw-dropping, things he said.
On North Korean prisoners: "I think they are one of the great winners today."
On military exercises with South Korea: "We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money... Plus I think it is very provocative."
On the need to check notes from his meeting: "I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that."
On apologising if things don't go as planned: "I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong," he said, before adding: "I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that. But I’ll find some kind of an excuse."
On why he thinks experts are wrong about denuclearisation taking 15 years: "I think whoever wrote that is wrong... There will be a point at which when you are 20 percent through you can’t go back. I had an uncle who was a great professor for, I believe, 40 years at MIT. And I used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. He was a great expert. He was a great brilliant genius."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 12:23:16
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Kilkrazy wrote: How is it that NK can get to irrevocable denuclearisation after finishing 20% of the work, and Iran can't?
Because his uncle also told him never to trust Iran
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty.
I don't think France considered Alsace and Lorraine less annexed back in 1871 because there was the treaty of Frankfurt (incidentally a great-great-grandparent of mine ended up here because she didn't wanted to take German nationality, but their family weren't really fond of the French either, so goes the family tale).
The winner gets to dictate conditions on the losing side of a war, especially when there are territorial changes involved.
It’s an important distinction to draw nonetheless. A treaty is like a divorce. One side might be miserable with the outcome but at least they had a say in the matter because unconditional peace agreements are remarkably rare no matter how strong the victor is. Annexation is like punching your spouse in the face and declaring that your taking over the kitchen and they have to keep our. It’s not a semantically game here. These things are meaningful distinctions.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848,
1898.
Not counting it cause the Spanish ceded territory by treaty.
I don't think France considered Alsace and Lorraine less annexed back in 1871 because there was the treaty of Frankfurt (incidentally a great-great-grandparent of mine ended up here because she didn't wanted to take German nationality, but their family weren't really fond of the French either, so goes the family tale).
The winner gets to dictate conditions on the losing side of a war, especially when there are territorial changes involved.
It’s an important distinction to draw nonetheless. A treaty is like a divorce. One side might be miserable with the outcome but at least they had a say in the matter because unconditional peace agreements are remarkably rare no matter how strong the victor is. Annexation is like punching your spouse in the face and declaring that your taking over the kitchen and they have to keep our. It’s not a semantically game here. These things are meaningful distinctions.
A treaty after a military is lipstick on a pig. You don't get much of a choice when you sign something at gunpoint.
Ask the Germans in the 20s on how Versailles felt to them.
So Kim and Trump signed a pledge to "work toward denuclearizing" NK, but little else is apparent at this point.
Let's hope it means something, but as of right now, it basically just says "we'll talk about it". We've seen NK play games like this before, lets hope they're desperate enough to mean it this time.
Also, apparently this video Trump had shown to Kim during the summit, taken from the WH conference stream. It is...odd to say the least, coming off as a mix between a Scientology promo and reality TV ad. Very definitely seeks to engage the egos of Trump and Kim directly and personally.
After signing an agreement with Kim Jong-un scant on detail, President Trump held an extraordinary press conference where he held court as reporters fired questions.
In case you missed it, here are some of the memorable, and frankly, jaw-dropping, things he said.
On North Korean prisoners: "I think they are one of the great winners today."
On military exercises with South Korea: "We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money... Plus I think it is very provocative."
On the need to check notes from his meeting: "I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that."
On apologising if things don't go as planned: "I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong," he said, before adding: "I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that. But I’ll find some kind of an excuse."
On why he thinks experts are wrong about denuclearisation taking 15 years: "I think whoever wrote that is wrong... There will be a point at which when you are 20 percent through you can’t go back. I had an uncle who was a great professor for, I believe, 40 years at MIT. And I used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. He was a great expert. He was a great brilliant genius."
Jesus...
To add to that, he also went and tols Hannity and said he "felt foolish" using "harsh rhetoric" against Kim for a segment airing tonight.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 13:50:05
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
Well at least Kim can finally fire his propaganda staff. He has all the footage he needs for the rest of his reign: "Supreme Leader forces US to negotiate with its newfound nuclear strength and demands it stops its military exercises! US gives in to dear leader *insert two more sentences of Kim praise*, leader stronk!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 13:58:21
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Dreadwinter wrote: This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
The whole document means nothing, its just vague slogans of intent
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Dreadwinter wrote: This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Dreadwinter wrote: This signature means absolutely nothing. It was entirely about the pomp and making a show of things. Also, selling those sweet sweet commemorative coins! I wonder if Kim is getting some kickbacks from that.
Remember, Trump is not bound by this document and he can shred it on the airplane home should he so desire. Because that is the world we live in.
Say what you want about Trump, at least he made the world a more sassy place
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
After signing an agreement with Kim Jong-un scant on detail, President Trump held an extraordinary press conference where he held court as reporters fired questions.
In case you missed it, here are some of the memorable, and frankly, jaw-dropping, things he said.
On North Korean prisoners: "I think they are one of the great winners today."
On military exercises with South Korea: "We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money... Plus I think it is very provocative."
On the need to check notes from his meeting: "I have one of the great memories of all time. I don’t have to do that."
On apologising if things don't go as planned: "I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong," he said, before adding: "I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that. But I’ll find some kind of an excuse."
On why he thinks experts are wrong about denuclearisation taking 15 years: "I think whoever wrote that is wrong... There will be a point at which when you are 20 percent through you can’t go back. I had an uncle who was a great professor for, I believe, 40 years at MIT. And I used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. He was a great expert. He was a great brilliant genius."
Our President Ladies and Gentleman.
This whole time period makes everyone in the US look dumb.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
You once had a POTUS who's biggest regret was not being able to hang his Vice-POTUS. Trump is bad, but he's not in that league just yet.
Anyway, my main point is this: I think Trump and the USA have been played by Joe Commie.
Vague commitments and a show for the cameras = the square root of gak.
The North Koreans have won a propaganda coup in my book, shaken down the South Koreans and the USA for some bags of rice, and are laughing all the way to the bank.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
)
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
