US Politics

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.

**Whirlwind**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The basic point is that Trump has gone off script and promised to halt exercises, without any concession from Kim.

All Kim did at this meeting, in the statement, was to reaffirm the statement he had given back in April, to denuclearise Korean peninsula.

We also have to remember that the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty came into force in the 1970s, yet in reality it has achieved relatively little in that time. Denuclearise then can subsequently mean anything if you base it on this approach.

Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.

**BaronIveagh**

Whirlwind wrote:

Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.

I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.

**Whirlwind**

BaronIveagh wrote:

I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.

Is there not laws against such conflicts of interest? But yes I can definitely see the potential.

**Easy E**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.

I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.

Good Ol' U.S. Grant is starting to wondering if he can retain his title as the most corrrupt U.S. President in history.

**Ustrello**

Easy E wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

Trump really has dropped the ball. China will use the reasoning to relax sanctions against NK. If Trump doesn't follow through with the military drills then the US is seen to be defaulting and China will be under much less pressure to reapply sanctions (not just now but for any future president). If the US withdraws that gives China much more influence over the region. Catch 22. Short term populism results trumping long term strategic vision.

I suspect it has more to do with the concessions that China gave Trump personally. He suddenly won several lawsuits his company had going in China and, after all, they also gave one of his realestate operations a 500 million dollar shot in the arm. Looks like China's investment is paying off to me.

Good Ol' U.S. Grant is starting to wondering if he can retain his title as the most corrrupt U.S. President in history.

Honestly a title I believe unfairly placed on him

**WrentheFaceless**

Ok I really dont understand why Trump is going so hard on Canada

Is it because Ivanka gave Trudeau a smolder?

**SickSix**

Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

**djones520**

SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

**Ustrello**

SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Did you actually read what he said or did you just pick out the headline? I have noticed it is a common theme among some posters to do the latter but I don't want to make that assumption with you, because he talked about the entire military cooperation between Canada and the United States and how long we have been allies

**d-usa**

At least he didn’t remind us about how Canada burned down the White House to justify tariffs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

We can, it just doesn’t absolve Trump of anything he does or says.

It’s not like Kim is a great guy because Trump signed a nothing burger and already told us how he will come up with some phony excuse if it doesn’t work out.

**Ustrello**

djones520 wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps

**d-usa**

Ustrello wrote:
djones520 wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps

We know what everyone said back in 2007:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/06/in-2007-barack-obama-said-hed-meet-with-north-kore.html

**Ustrello**

d-usa wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
djones520 wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps

We know what everyone said back in 2007:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/06/in-2007-barack-obama-said-hed-meet-with-north-kore.html

Oh I know all the bleating sheep noises coming from the GOP back then is silent now. But I know posters here will just move goal posts and try to flip the question without answering it

**thekingofkings**

Frazzled wrote:
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.
are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?

Yes, absolutely (provided we actually have a candidate)

**djones520**

Ustrello wrote:
djones520 wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps

As a man whose spent the last 16 years of his life in the very real possibility of dying in a war with this nation, along with millions of others... I'd have fething gak kittens if Obama had taken any steps to trying to settle things on that front.

I don't care who is responsible. The fact that anything is being done is good.

**BaronIveagh**

Whirlwind wrote:

Is there not laws against such conflicts of interest? But yes I can definitely see the potential.

Nope, seems the law says the opposite, POTUS is immune to Conflict of Interest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

are you going to vote Libertarian if the Democrats control both houses and are running a decent non HRC candidate?

Would depend on the Candidate. Just 'non HRC' is a bit... broad. If I felt they're President grade material, yes, I'd vote Democrat. Because Trump most definitely is not. He just gave up South Korea for a vaguely worded promise to do 'something'. That's not negotiation, that's capitulation.

**SickSix**

djones520 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
djones520 wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

Hey hey hey hey hey... Trump is involved, so we're not allowed to talk about anyone else maybe, possibly, remotely, having the chance at doing something wrong.

I'd like to imagine your reaction if Obama was making a deal with a dude who is literally the dictionary definition of a despot and as was pointed out earlier running holocaust level concentration and forced labor camps

As a man whose spent the last 16 years of his life in the very real possibility of dying in a war with this nation, along with millions of others... I'd have fething gak kittens if Obama had taken any steps to trying to settle things on that front.

I don't care who is responsible. The fact that anything is being done is good.

I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war? Oh wait, no those people wouldn't be the ones actually fighting and dieing so they don't really care.

People keep saying that any meeting with Rocketman is a win for him and gives him credibility. WHO is suddenly jumping on the Rocketman credibility train? The media? Well tjats a self fulfilling prophecy then isnt it?

He's accountable for his actions. But hey, maybe in a few months or year less N Koreans will starve to death and the credibile threat of war will go away.

Unimaginable!

**Vulcan**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vulcan wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.

To what point? The Republicans will just vote to tear it down when they get back in power, even if it's a really good deal, just because the Democrats did it.

As of right now, there is NO hope for anyone having long-term political agreements or treaties with America. NONE. That's what Trump and the current Congress has done for us.

What international treaty that was ratified by a previous session of Congress has been rescinded by the current session of Congress? I’ve seen Trump withdraw executive branch support from treaties that Obama supported but Congress never ratified but I don’t see Congress voiding ratified treaties. You may not like what Trump is doing, I don’t like all the things Trump is doing but he’s playing by the same rules governing foreign treaties that previous presidents have followed. The laws haven’t changed and they’re unlikely to change anytime soon, the US will still have existing obligations to ratified treaties and we’ll ratify our commitments to more treaties in the future. The incessant hyperbolic freak out over anything that Trump does has grown tiresome.

Tell me that if Obama HAD gotten a treaty instead of an agreement the Republicans would not have been every bit as hot to end it as they have everything ELSE Obama did in office.

**d-usa**

The (heavily propaganda laden) view to his own people, and to many wannabe dictators around the world, is that you can go from having no diplomatic relations with the US to having a private sit-down with the POTUS by blowing your own mountain to bits with nukes. The G7 can feth off, but KIM gets a signed letter with Trump who won’t sign his agreement with the summit he left to be there.

There is a ton of nice stuff NK could do that would make NK a better place for everyone involved. But they didn’t make any concessions for anything and still got a propaganda win by bringing Trump to the table.

**BaronIveagh**

SickSix wrote:

I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war? Oh wait, no those people wouldn't be the ones actually fighting and dieing so they don't really care.

Kim is not interested in peace. This was a glorified photo op for Him and Trump. Look at the actual results of the meeting: Nothing. They shook hands, they smiled and waved to the cameras, but the meat of the meeting? Dry squab.

This has done nothing but make the US look weak, and encourage a man who offers a very real threat of war, no matter what you seem to think Trump managed to achieve.

**Kanluwen**

SickSix wrote:

I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war? Oh wait, no those people wouldn't be the ones actually fighting and dieing so they don't really care.

Remember in 2008 when Obama was asked the same thing and a certain segment decried him being willing to (gasp) talk to NK?

People keep saying that any meeting with Rocketman is a win for him and gives him credibility. WHO is suddenly jumping on the Rocketman credibility train? The media? Well tjats a self fulfilling prophecy then isnt it?

It's a huge win for him. He now has months, if not years, of material for propaganda to dripfeed his populace to show that he(unlike his father) is getting the rest of the world to take North Korea seriously.

He's accountable for his actions. But hey, maybe in a few months or year less N Koreans will starve to death and the credible threat of war will go away.
Unimaginable!

Or in a few months or a year, the North Koreans will decide to launch an artillery saturation on Seoul and then start waving around nuclear armaments as a "stay away" to anyone trying to come to the aid of South Korea.

**SickSix**

Someone please show me where the way the civilized world has dealt with despots and dictators with Sanctions and refusing to come to the table has ever worked.

You know there is thing about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Maybe this meeting didnt solve the problem. But it's damn sure opened possibilites that weren't there before.

It's not Trump also suddenly disbanded the US military. These perceptions of who got weaker or stronger are just that, perceptions.

**BaronIveagh**

SickSix wrote:
Someone please show me where the way the civilized world has dealt with despots and dictators with Sanctions and refusing to come to the table has ever worked.

Duvalier, arguably. Though the refusing to come to the table part makes it tricky, as there's actually no such thing. Even countries without official lines of communication frequently engage in back channel dealings.

SickSix wrote:

But it's damn sure opened possibilites that weren't there before.

No, it really didn't. That's part of the problem. If anything, it made the situation worse.

**Kanluwen**

SickSix wrote:
Someone please show me where the way the civilized world has dealt with despots and dictators with Sanctions and refusing to come to the table has ever worked.

You know there is thing about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Maybe this meeting didnt solve the problem. But it's damn sure opened possibilites that weren't there before.

No, it really didn't. It was a stroking of this administration's ego. It's a smokescreen to deflect from actual issues that are still happening domestically.

It's not Trump also suddenly disbanded the US military. These perceptions of who got weaker or stronger are just that, perceptions.

Er no. We aren't being "perceived" as having sold out one of our more reliable allies in continental Asia--we did sell them out. We cancelled important international, interservice training exercises because someone couldn't be bothered to read his briefings and dossiers.

**BaronIveagh**

Kanluwen wrote:

Er no. We aren't being "perceived" as having sold out one of our

Two if you count Japan, since a war in Korea will involve them regardless.

**Kanluwen**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Er no. We aren't being "perceived" as having sold out one of our

Two if you count Japan, since a war in Korea will involve them regardless.

I specified "continental Asia".

Japan's an island--and while definitely it's at risk, it's also not continental.

**d-usa**

Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.

**SickSix**

d-usa wrote:
Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.

Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.

**d-usa**

Sanctions in place to curtail nuclear progress were successful in bringing Iran to the table to negotiate a nuclear deal that was successful in curtailing the nuclear program as confirmed by the agencies that monitors nuclear programs.

**Kanluwen**

SickSix wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Iran was a successful result of sanctions, until we decided to ignore the results and told Iran they can get back to making nukes.

Sure, I mean Iran being the worlds leader in state sponsored terrorism is better than having nukes I guess. I wouldn't really call anything about Iran a 'success'. But the most recent 'Iran Deal' was definitely NOT a successful strategy.

And what exactly did we get out of today?

Oh right. Commemorative coins!