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.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, according to the Trump administration and many people in here, they signed a worthless non-binding paper since the POTUS can’t make any deals with anyone that actually matter.

I’m surprised Kim didn’t insist on meeting with our Congress and the real leaders of making deals rather than our figurehead.

So... you think previous potus can bind future potus??? Because that’s really what you’re saying....

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

Then you're not a libertarian. A libertarian is not going to vote to give any party control of both Congress and the executive.

 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

 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.

Xenomancers wrote:it was essentially the US giving Iran tons of money while Iran could still very easily continue to produce Nukes in secret.

 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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

According to basically the US GOP and Israel. Certainly not to any other signatories to the agreement.

Likewise, if we're going to harangue Iran over state sponsored terrorism, it's not like we haven't spent the last...17 years literally surrounding them on two fronts from Afghanistan and Iraq, supplying hundreds of militant groups with mountains of cash and equipment through Pakistan to Libya and almost literally every nation in between (but especially the nations right on their border).

To boot, within living memory, going back to WW2, they've been invaded and had their governments overthrown or had oppressive regimes imposed or supported by the UK and USA multiple times, and fought a brutal decade long war with US supported Iraq (during the course of which the US shot down an Iranian airliner, however one wants to frame the circumstances of that event). As is today, they have chaos in nations on two flanks as a result of US foreign policy, and see the US backing their immediate regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's not like they have a whole lot of reasons to feel comfortable about US intentions, even before Trump just arbitrarily dumped the deal.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
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.

 sebster wrote:
The NK thing finally gave me some insight in to the appeal of Trump. The pomp and ceremony around this deal were kind of amazing. Because there's been past deals with NK, first in 1994 then in 2007. Both deals got far greater levels of commitment from North Korea than this deal, but neither deal received much fanfare, I don't remember either deal getting out of the international section of the broadsheets. It certainly didn't get breathless, live coverage from every news service.

But Trump's deal got amazing coverage, despite that deal being almost completely hollow. The whole of the deal is Kim will 'work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula'. So he's committing to working towards doing something. But that doesn't really matter. We got pictures of Kim and Trump walking the grounds, smiling together. We got the announcement of the deal. We got Dennis Rodman crying on tv wearing a MAGA hat.

The details of the deal slowly came out later, and we learned Trump agreed to end joint exercises and a drawdown of US troops, in exchange for that commitment to work towards doing something. But it doesn't matter, Trump only has to keep the spectacle going for about an hour, when the wheels fall off after 61 minutes the only people still watching are the political junkies. Everyone else has had their fill of the Trump show for the day, and moved on to living their actual lives or something.

I'll happily admit that me noticing Trump is all show and no substance is hardly a great insight. It isn't so much that I learned this for the first time, but it's the first time I understood it more than just knew it. Because I was busy last night with sick kids, so all I got was the news headline saying there was a deal for denuclearisation, which was all I knew for about 5 hours until I could sit down and read the actual deal and learn it was junk. For five hours I lived in the world that a lot of Trumpers live in all the time, sold on Trump performance, and never actually seeing the real substance.

Standout syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Salena Zito, with veteran Republican strategist Brad Todd, reports across five swing states and over 27,000 miles to answer the pressing question: Was Donald Trump's election a fluke or did it represent a fundamental shift in the electorate that will have repercussions--for Republicans and Democrats--for years to come.

The history of the American electorate is not a litany of flukes; instead it is a pattern of tectonic plate-grinding, punctuated by a landscape-altering earthquake every generation or so. Donald Trump's electoral coalition is smashing both American political parties and its previously impenetrable political news media.The political experts called the 2016 election wrong and in the wake of the 2016 election surprise, the experts have continued to blow it - looking to predict the coming demise of the President without pausing to consider the durability of the trends and winds that swept him into office.

The Great Revolt delves deep into the minds and hearts of the voters the make up this coalition. What emerges is a group of citizens who cannot be described by terms like "angry," "male," "rural," or the often-used "racist." They span job descriptions, income brackets, education levels, and party allegiances. What unites them is their desire to be part of a movement larger than themselves that puts pragmatism before ideology, localism before globalism, and demands the respect it deserve from Washington.

Zito and Todd have traveled on over 27,000 miles of country roads to interview more than 300 Trump voters in 10 swing counties. What they have discovered is that these voters were hiding in plain sight--ignored by both parties, the media, and the political experts all at once, ready to unite into the movement that spawned the greatest upset in recent electoral history. Deeply rooted in the culture of these Midwestern swing states, Zito and Brad Todd reframe the discussion of the "Trump voter" to answer the question: What next?

During the election, the deluge of hate that came my way when I expressed my disapproval of then-candidate Donald Trump was so violent that I purchased a gun.

But these days, the vitriol is coming from the other side. Chance the Rapper, for example, was was eviscerated online for suggesting that “Black people don’t have to be democrats,” and eventually pressured into apologizing. His comment came after Kanye West faced a firestorm of criticism after tweeting in support of Donald Trump. Earlier this year, country singer Shania Twain, a Canadian, also felt the need to apologize for stating that, were she an American citizen with voting rights, would have voted for Trump.

Expressing anything resembling support for the Trump administration has become nothing short of a taboo. And while these backlashes are hardly the same as the tweets I would get threatening my family during the election, they do raise the question, should Americans really be publicly shamed and bullied into apologizing for stating that they support the President of the United States?

There is more than a chance that this could spectacularly backfire.

During the primary season and general election, I was a vocal conservative against Trump. I could not fathom how anyone could possibly support such an oaf, such a bully, for President.

But I’m starting to understand.

*

Before the election, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf published a dialogue he had with a 22-year old Trump supporter living and working in Silicon Valley. How could such a man possibly support then-candidate Trump, was the question Friedersdorf put to him. “For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture,” the Trump supporter told him. “That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc.”

This backlash against political correctness is what got Donald Trump elected. Not only do Trump’s voters continue to believe his level of political correctness is correct, but surveys consistently find the highest correlation between being anti-P.C. and supporting Trump, stronger even than feelings about immigration. According to a survey in ClearThinking.org covered in Reason, believing “there is too much political correctness in this country” was the second most reliable predictor for whether someone would vote for Trump (the first was party affiliation).

It’s not just on national issues, either. In a survey conducted for their book on the populist revolt that led to Trump’s election, “The Great Revolt”, Salena Zito found that 85% of Trump voters wanted the United States to make our own decisions on major issues and challenge other nations to follow our example.

We’ve seen how that unwillingness to adhere to traditional political norms has paid off in dividends internationally. Every President has been told that he simply cannot move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and watching Trump thumb his nose at that convention has been refreshing for many conservatives including myself.

So it’s ironic that the very cause of Trump’s election — the over-policing of discourse to conform to liberal notions of political correctness — has reached a fever pitch in the wake of his election.

By PC culture, I don’t mean things like the very positive fact that we can’t call minorities ugly epithets anymore. I mean liberals defining what counts as “appropriate” speech and demanding fealty to these standards, such that every perceived wrong step, every comment they don’t like, is turned into something as egregious as the N word.

This obsession with political correctness, which fueled Donald Trump’s election, has now spread and mutated to incorporate him. Part of being a member of politically correct culture has now become an insistence on repudiating the President and his election. Americans are told they should not, they cannot, support this man, under any circumstances. To do so is racist, the cardinal sin of our generation.

In 2018, supporting the President of the United States will get you labeled a racist.

Liberals point to things like the new policy on immigration which separates children from their parents, comparing it to the Nazis. The overreaches and abuses in the realm of immigration are heartbreaking and disheartening. It’s disingenuous, however, for liberals to suddenly be concerned given how much of Trump’s treatment of immigrants is merely an extension of Obama-era policies. Recently several instances of abuses were shared, from kids in cages to prison buses, which were at the time blamed on the Trump administration, but were later exposed to be from before his inauguration.

It’s impossible to take liberals and journalists concerns about the welfare of immigrants at face value after their eight year slumber through the entire Obama administration.

But it’s not only disingenuous. What the President’s opponents don’t seem to understand is the hysteria and excuses are only driving more Americans into believing that we were desperately in need of a corrective.

The refusal to accept that millions of Americans knowingly voted for Trump will only help the President earn another term. For the hysteria from the left over dissent of any kind, but especially pertaining to Trump, is precisely what has resulted in the “owning the liberals” mentality on the right, which is only gaining steam.

As Salena Zito explains in “The Great Revolt”, “Rust Belt voters watched on cable television as the Left and journalists pigeonholed their rebellion as an ugly bout of white nationalism, doubling down on all the elitist snobbery those voters sought to rebuke.”

And it’s starting to get to me, too.

Instead of trying to understand Americans and their choice for President, anyone voicing even a modicum of support for the administration is bullied into apologies and silence. The media turn public statements of support for the President into a news story for their viewers and readers to get outraged over. That’s the least of the media’s campaign against the President, which includes countless mistakes and corrections which only seem to break one way: against the administration. For a group of professionals who express shock and horror at the label “Fake news!” many members of the media are doing nothing but providing more ammunition for Trump’s attacks.

When he does do something well, like finally moving our embassy to Jerusalem or stepping out of an extraordinarily flawed Iran nuclear deal, it’s ignored or villainized. Americans notice the double standard; the refusal to see anything positive, and the fixation on everything negative. There are some accomplishments every American can, or should, admit are positives. The economy is in fantastic shape; Trump has brought home American political prisoners from North Korea and Venezuela; he has pushed through the first steps of important criminal justice reform. Those stories are roundly ignored by a media intent on taking down the President, not reporting on his administration.

It’s enough to make even a NeverTrumper like me into a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter.

Well, it’s almost enough. Every time he opens his mouth, I am reminded why I couldn’t vote for him. I’m reminded of his words about there being “very fine people” on both sides of Charlottesville. But if the President’s opponents continue to ignore his accomplishments and mindlessly attack him for another few years, it could create even more spiteful Trump voters as a result.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

Well, it’s almost enough. Every time he opens his mouth, I am reminded why I couldn’t vote for him. I’m reminded of his words about there being “very fine people” on both sides of Charlottesville. But if the President’s opponents continue to ignore his accomplishments and mindlessly attack him for another few years, it could create even more spiteful Trump voters as a result.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It is definitely a concession. Did Trump even consult with the South Korean government or his own before agreeing to that?

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Even if you manage to craft a deal with Kim on NK nuclear weapons its going to be downright impossible I think to get any serious reform on the HR front. The camps are a vital part of how NK keeps the state together and repress dissent. With that said, it doesn't make Trump's comments on HR any less fething stupid or insensitive.

 Xenomancers wrote:
We essentially know nothing right now. Only that Trump says it went better than expected.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. It’s actually more lenient than CA. Here if you miss two cycles they stop sending you stuff and make you inactive.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Which is also why it's silly to keep saying things like. "He didn't even inform the military about the decision" - well - he doesn't have to.

 Frazzled wrote:

Then you're not a libertarian. A libertarian is not going to vote to give any party control of both Congress and the executive.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Where do you get the information that he didn't inform the relevant people anyways? I'm sure hes had briefings with his military staff about possible outcomes from this meeting. You know...they can ask questions.

Plus - do they even need to know? This is not a pressing matter...

 Xenomancers wrote:
No - I just know what the US military is capable of. ESP our Navy. SK likely has the most advance anti missle systems on earth. A first strike against NK would result in approx 90% of their offensive capabilities being destroyed within a 30 minute period. Few in SK would die.

 whembly wrote:
It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?

And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?

And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.

No, this is nonsense. The alternative to big shows of nonsense promises of committing to talk about doing something isn't war, it is the status quo, which was cold relations but no-one actually killing anyone.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It’s.... a first tiny step in right direction...no?

And yeah, the media critic/supporters are losing their minds as this is “historic”. The agreement is nothing more than a promise at this point, but at least peace is given another chance. I think that folks weary of the adventurism of Iraq/Syria//Afghanistan/etc ought to look at the with skeptical and hopeful eyes.
Otherwise we’d be looking at a real ugly war that we haven’t seen in quite some time.

No, this is nonsense. The alternative to big shows of nonsense promises of committing to talk about doing something isn't war, it is the status quo, which was cold relations but no-one actually killing anyone.

Cold relations where NK launches missiles and acting belligerently.

Yeah... that's what we're probably looking at if history is of any guide.

 whembly wrote:
Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table.

The reason we appeared on the brink of war is because Trump was trying to provoke NK. You're basically trying to argue that Trump saved us from a war started by Trump.

Also, you're once again parrotting a FOX News line that is a straight up lie. Trump did not bring Kim to the table. NK has been pursuing a sit down with a US president for decades. The US has known the massive boost to its legitimacy that NK leadership would get by sitting with a US president, so it did not grant that meeting, it was to be held back until extensive conditions were met, including extensive progress towards dismantling their nuke program. Then Trump got a call from President Moon suggesting the meeting, and 45 minutes later without any consultation with the State Dept he agreed to the meeting. He gifted NK an enormous boost while getting nothing in return. This wasn't only foolish in itself, it also gifted Kim all the advantages when they did meet. Because Kim already had a huge win, he could walk away from Singapore with no deal and still be a huge winner, while Trump needed a deal. This is why the final deal ended up with Trump giving up joint operations, while Kim did nothing more than repeat the general commitment to do something or other later on.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Many believed we’re on brink of war.... seems like Trump rattled Kim a bit and brought him to the table.

The reason we appeared on the brink of war is because Trump was trying to provoke NK. You're basically trying to argue that Trump saved us from a war started by Trump.

Also, you're once again parrotting a FOX News line that is a straight up lie.

Trump did not bring Kim to the table. NK has been pursuing a sit down with a US president for decades. The US has known the massive boost to its legitimacy that NK leadership would get by sitting with a US president, so it did not grant that meeting, it was to be held back until extensive conditions were met, including extensive progress towards dismantling their nuke program. Then Trump got a call from President Moon suggesting the meeting, and 45 minutes later without any consultation with the State Dept he agreed to the meeting. He gifted NK an enormous boost while getting nothing in return. This wasn't only foolish in itself, it also gifted Kim all the advantages when they did meet. Because Kim already had a huge win, he could walk away from Singapore with no deal and still be a huge winner, while Trump needed a deal. This is why the final deal ended up with Trump giving up joint operations, while Kim did nothing more than repeat the general commitment to do something or other later on.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But let me say something to everybody who's concerned about Trump stopping the military exercises.

When France withdraw from NATO command structures back in the day, there was still high level contacts and staff briefings behind the scenes.

In public, the US and South Korean militaries will go through the motions of obeying Trump but behind the scenes, it will be business as usual.

Nothing to worry about in this regard.

 whembly wrote:
The joint operations is a small thing as the everyday daily training still occurs at the border and the next big US & NK joint operations is next spring. Nothing stopping SK & US from re-engaging the joint operations if NK janks everyone again by then.

How 'bout this. Take Trump out of the equation (or even superimpose that it's HRC the President): What would be your criteria(s) that would be considered as a success? Total de-nuclearlization? Reunification? Some believe it's getting them to face up to the Human Rights violations or bust.

What if, the only thing we get out of all of this, is an actual end of the armistice and a peace treaty, and no denuking?