Donald Trump 2018

[jimmyjazz 47,183]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

North Korea isn't winning anything.  Thus they wanna talk just ask questions.  

I corrected your typo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

North Korea isn't winning anything.  Thus they wanna talk.  

The talk alone is their prize and we’ve already given it to them.  Lil Kim’s father would be so proud of his son for terrorizing the United States with rocket tests to force an American President to break bread with the leader of North Korea.

They have nothing to lose after the Summit and photos are taken.  

China is going to be the big winner when all is said and done if the U.S. draws back it’s troop levels, military exercises, and influence on the Korean Peninsula. 

[hayden_horn 11,402]

40 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

not sure of the timeline here, but thought this was hilarious:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-today-06-01-18/h_b2949d3aab93575db4390d47e5c996ec

Edit: according to this cnn link:

Quote

About that letter: He said the letter from Kim, delivered on Friday, was very nice, though later added he hadn't read it.

fucking luzl

Edited June 1, 2018 by hayden_horn

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

37 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Then at the end of the press conference he said he hadn't opened the letter yet. The man lies for the sake of lying.  

[RomaVicta 30,581]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Okie dokie.  As far as I know, sanctions remain in place with China's backing secured by Trump.  North Korea isn't winning anything.  Thus they wanna talk.  

 

I don't know the specific gains or progress made thus far, but there has to be something there if we are bothering.  For now, I'll take recent improved relations between North and South Korea as a sign.

Thanks for responding. You seem to be giving Trump a lot of credit on pretty thin evidence. Maybe you'll turn out to be right.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

not sure of the timeline here, but thought this was hilarious:

 

Ya, I watched the conference live and caught that, he started by saying it was a really nice letter and ended by saying he hasn't opened yet. Bizzaro world. 

[hayden_horn 11,402]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Ya, I watched the conference live and caught that, he started by saying it was a really nice letter and ended by saying he hasn't opened yet. Bizzaro world. 

we're through the looking glass. i love the "i could be in for a big surprise" line though. a weird moment of humor from a generally humorless man.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Ya, I watched the conference live and caught that, he started by saying it was a really nice letter and ended by saying he hasn't opened yet. Bizzaro world. 

Translation: Trump read the letter and it wasn’t that nice.

[retread 2,951]

1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

Then at the end of the press conference he said he hadn't opened the letter yet. The man lies for the sake of lying.  

Somebody on CNN yesterday said that he wakes up every day with no memory of what happened before that moment. He just starts talking and says whatever will help him today.

[Chuckie Finster 23,068]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

How does Jim Sciutto know any real details about discussions?  Of course nothing has been promised yet, but I'm guessing the tone and parameters have been outlined well enough to think that some positives will come.  How Jim Sciutto can be so sure that this is all a waste of time?

 The answer:  he can't possibly and he's talking out of his ass. 

What's the more likely scenario? 

Trump is desperate for a win and North Korea takes advantage of this to get the meeting they've long desired?  Or North Korea is abandoning a decades long history of unpredictability/ goal of nuclearization because Trump tweeted some shit?

It's weird to interact with folks living in a different universe.

[Brisketexan 106,890]

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

IMO the biggest problem with boomers is that they grew up during major prosperity they didn't earn.  That, more than anything, explains their subsequent interactions with the world. 

This is an incredibly important point.

On an old, forgotten shaggy board, I asked a question to the effect of whether our incredible postwar prosperity was a huge anomaly, and it was actually hurting us because we all think that's "normal," and thus the way things should always be/what we're entitled to.

The post above gets down to the issue of how it's killing us.  The Boomer's were born on history's third base, think they hit a triple, AND think they're entitled to third base or better in perpetuity.  They were born in a unique era -- one in which, if you kept your nose clean, showed up to work, and did your job reasonably well, you achieved unprecedented prosperity.  Even the bottom of the high school graduating class could get a good job on the Ford assembly line, make enough money for a house with two cars and a vacation, etc. (it helped that a huge hunk of the workforce -- black folks -- were frozen out of competition for the better jobs. The end of that advantage really came about starting in the late 60s).  And the Boomers EARNED all of those advantages -- after all, they showed up to work, and did their job, they DESERVE this incredible proseperity, and fuck everyone else who's just lazy.

Which of course ignores that for most of our history -- and perhaps, we are returning to the mean -- folks who did just as they did were NOT blessed with such prosperity.  They worked in often brutal conditions, for shitty pay, and lived short, unpleasant lives.  A factory job actually being a ticket to "the good life" is NOT the typical way things were.  But that was the deal for the boomers and hey, if you can't have a life as good as theirs, it must be YOUR fault.

[Brisketexan 106,890]

Deleted double post.

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Brisketexan

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The talk alone is their prize and we’ve already given it to them.  Lil Kim’s father would be so proud of his son for terrorizing the United States with rocket tests to force an American President to break bread with the leader of North Korea.

They have nothing to lose after the Summit and photos are taken.  

China is going to be the big winner when all is said and done if the U.S. draws back it’s troop levels, military exercises, and influence on the Korean Peninsula. 

Good boy. There it is.  Now you've created narrative where Trump loses either way.   Beautiful.  

[lemonlime 5,503]

6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Ya, I watched the conference live and caught that, he started by saying it was a really nice letter and ended by saying he hasn't opened yet. Bizzaro world. 

Or he's functionally illiterate and is trying to cover that he has no fucking clue what the letter says.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we're through the looking glass. i love the "i could be in for a big surprise" line though. a weird moment of humor from a generally humorless man.

It could be my Stockholm Syndrome kicking in but Trump came across relatively likable in the Q&A today. Besides his contradicting statements. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Good boy. There it is.  Now you've created narrative where Trump loses either way.   Beautiful.  

I have been extremely consistent on this topic. Trump and America would win if he cancels the meeting.

I actually praised him when he wrote his poorly written cancellation letter.  I was glad we weren’t going to have a NK Summit.

[Kringelbert Fishtybuns 947]

13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

Kim just sent him a hand drawn dick butt.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have been extremely consistent on this topic. Trump and America would win if he cancels the meeting.

I actually praised him when he wrote his poorly written cancellation letter.  I was glad we weren’t going to have a NK Summit.

I disagree. As flawed as these talks and any future agreement might be, I much prefer that direction than the "fire and fury" "dotard" alternative. Similar to the Iran deal. Baby steps, but a flawed deal at least puts both sides into talks and ultimately a better relationship forms. 

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

What's the more likely scenario? 

Trump is desperate for a win and North Korea takes advantage of this to get the meeting they've long desired?  Or North Korea is abandoning a decades long history of unpredictability/ goal of nuclearization because Trump tweeted some shit?

It's weird to interact with folks living in a different universe.

I'd posit this possibility.  Maybe sanctions actually being supported (or unopposed by China) have crippled their country to the point that Kim fears his grip on the country is more tenuous than ever?  Maybe he truly wants his country to join the "community of nations"?  Then you throw in a rumored fortuitous nuclear bunker collapse and voila.  

And what's all this bs on this board about Trump "needing a win"?  If Trump is as crazy as y'all think he is, he thinks he wins at everything. He doesn't ever think he needs a win. He thinks he's always winning.  Your argument falls apart there. 

[HenryJames 67,347]

1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

I disagree. As flawed as these talks and any future agreement might be, I much prefer that direction than the "fire and fury" "dotard" alternative. Similar to the Iran deal. Baby steps, but a flawed deal at least puts both sides into talks and ultimately a better relationship forms. 

Well I don't think Kim is going to go for an Iran deal seeing as how Trump canceled that one.

[Mdhorn 6,166]

33 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump is bending the knee here, we are crawling to their table.

North Korea has already won.

Big daddy Putin already sent his minions to talk with NK ahead of US talks.  Wonder what they're going to get President Bone Spur to do now?  

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have been extremely consistent on this topic. Trump and America would win if he cancels the meeting.

I actually praised him when he wrote his poorly written cancellation letter.  I was glad we weren’t going to have a NK Summit.

So you would rather have the status quo of the last few decades? Agree to disagree.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

I disagree. As flawed as these talks and any future agreement might be, I much prefer that direction than the "fire and fury" "dotard" alternative. Similar to the Iran deal. Baby steps, but a flawed deal at least puts both sides into talks and ultimately a better relationship forms. 

North Korea is not a legitimate threat, even with nukes.

Cripple them with economic sanctions.  Sanction the shit out of their two biggest enablers, Russia and China.  

Keep up the pressure until their government collapses from within. 

Fuck coddling brutal dictators that murder their family members and run a concentration camp state.

 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

Well I don't think Kim is going to go for an Iran deal seeing as how Trump canceled that one.

Agreed. I meant even though there were flaws in the Iran deal, I still preferred it to the alternative of no deal at all. Similarly, if, big IF, a deal is made with NK it will certainly have flaws in it, but I can look past flaws if we're taking a step in the right direction. 

[jimmyjazz 47,183]

Which is worse:  our Moron In Chief sits down to talk with an idiot (Un) or a guy with a brain (Putin)?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

So you would rather have the status quo of the last few decades? Agree to disagree.  

Prepare to have the status quo for several more decades because of Trump.

[Mdhorn 6,166]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I'd posit this possibility.  Maybe sanctions actually being supported (or unopposed by China) have crippled their country to the point that Kim fears his grip on the country is more tenuous than ever?  Maybe he truly wants his country to join the "community of nations"?  Then you throw in a rumored fortuitous nuclear bunker collapse and voila.  

And what's all this bs on this board about Trump "needing a win"?  If Trump is as crazy as y'all think he is, he thinks he wins at everything. He doesn't ever think he needs a win. He thinks he's always winning.  Your argument falls apart there. 

Really think hard about this and try to use logic.  Does it seem logical that China is going to let the US get their way in their backyard when they've been talking about exchanging their own sanctions with the US?  Seriously, you keep that hand drawn clown picture in your back pocket and keep pretending it's a card.  

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

North Korea is not a legitimate threat, even with nukes.

Cripple them with economic sanctions.  Sanction the shit out of their two biggest enablers, Russia and China.  

Keep up the pressure until their government collapses from within. 

Fuck coddling brutal dictators that murder their family members and run a concentration camp state.

 

They might not be a threat to the US mainland, and that's debatable, but they are certainly a threat to our allies in the region and out 30,000 troops in SK. 

I agree that it's not a just world when guys like Assad and Kim Jung Un are in power, but if Libya and Iraq have taught us anything, the ensuing power vacuum of regime change in impoverished countries can be much much worse than the status quo of an immoral dictator. 

Put me on the side of stability. 

[Mdhorn 6,166]

10 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Well I don't think Kim is going to go for an Iran deal seeing as how Trump canceled that one.

That would seem rather logical but oh well.  Kim is stringing this out.  I expect it will get cancelled again because why does he care?

[lemonlime 5,503]

7 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I disagree. As flawed as these talks and any future agreement might be, I much prefer that direction than the "fire and fury" "dotard" alternative. Similar to the Iran deal. Baby steps, but a flawed deal at least puts both sides into talks and ultimately a better relationship forms. 

 

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have been extremely consistent on this topic. Trump and America would win if he cancels the meeting.

I actually praised him when he wrote his poorly written cancellation letter.  I was glad we weren’t going to have a NK Summit.

It doesn't matter.  This isn't about what U.S. policy to NK should be, or what a theoretical president, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Rubio should do.  This is about the show Trump is putting on, without having the first fucking clue what he's doing, except for flattery and greed.  Hell, in 24 hours he's praised NK and made an enemy of Canada.  Going to the doctor to get the growth checked out might make sense, but you don't do it when the only person who can drive you is drunk and high and is only taking you so he can break into the narcotics cabinet to steal drugs to sell.  

There is no policy.  There is no plan.  Other than Trump wants praise and to line his coffers.  What we as a country should be doing is entirely irrelevant to this conversation or anything that could happen to relations with NK right now.

[Mdhorn 6,166]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

 

It doesn't matter.  This isn't about what U.S. policy to NK should be, or what a theoretical president, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Rubio should do.  This is about the show Trump is putting on, without having the first fucking clue what he's doing, except for flattery and greed.  Hell, in 24 hours he's praised NK and made an enemy of Canada.  Going to the doctor to get the growth checked out might make sense, but you don't do it when the only person who can drive you is drunk and high and is only taking you so he can break into the narcotics cabinet to steal drugs to sell.  

There is no policy.  There is no plan.  Other than Trump wants praise and to line his coffers.  What we as a country should be doing is entirely irrelevant to this conversation or anything that could happen to relations with NK right now.

There pretty much hasn't been a plan even for his staff, which is why they're always revolving.  

Edited June 1, 2018 by Mdhorn

[Mdhorn 6,166]

47 minutes ago, kevwun said:

and then 2 weeks later Trump Tower Pyongyang will be announced.

It won't be announced.  It will be discovered.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

26 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

 

It doesn't matter.  This isn't about what U.S. policy to NK should be, or what a theoretical president, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Rubio should do.  This is about the show Trump is putting on, without having the first fucking clue what he's doing, except for flattery and greed.  Hell, in 24 hours he's praised NK and made an enemy of Canada.  Going to the doctor to get the growth checked out might make sense, but you don't do it when the only person who can drive you is drunk and high and is only taking you so he can break into the narcotics cabinet to steal drugs to sell.  

There is no policy.  There is no plan.  Other than Trump wants praise and to line his coffers.  What we as a country should be doing is entirely irrelevant to this conversation or anything that could happen to relations with NK right now.

All this is true but we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to avoid the discussion of what our policy SHOULD be.

Our perception of North Korea is totally fucked up IMO. They are not an autonomous rogue state.  They are a weaponized arm of China, nothing more.  

North Korea isn’t going to do shit without the blessing of China and China needs stability waaay more than we do.  What the fuck happened to the United States standing up for human rights and combating egregious oppression of populations. 

Yes, a collapse of the North Korean regime would be bloody and messy but that’s the only way real positive change can be made sometimes...unless North Korea completely opens up their society, fat chance of that happening.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

But I digress...

CON AIR

[GW Hayduke 1,957]

https://m.imgur.com/r/PoliticalHumor/jVxtGtv

[woohorn 1,131]

Haven't heard from Tiffany in a while. Oh, 1st of the month. Check time.

[Tuco 5,093]

Foreign policy is something that, up until Trump, had been fairly consistent from one administration to the next.  You look at Iran, Israel, North Korea - the differences were mainly those of lean and direction, not starting position.  I don't claim to understand the intricacies of foreign policy, but my guess is most presidents have the humility to listen to the professionals at State, and the intelligence to understand why those positions are the way they are.  When Obama was running for President, he said he'd be willing to talk to NK directly.  (And the conservative media lost their collective shit.) But Obama didn't do it. I imagine that Obama listened to the advice of people who have studied the issue exclusively for decades, weighed their advice against what his gut said, and in the end deferred to their judgment.

The goal, for a long time, has been to engage North Korea in six party talks.  (US, NK, SK, Japan, China, Russia). The idea is that every stakeholder has their own issues and by holding the discussions concurrently, you avoid having NK play one against the other.  Deterrents are based on the consensus of multiple parties.  Concessions will require agreement with multiple parties.  This has been the goal from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. 

I certainly appreciate the "it's always good to talk" mentality.  I don't necessarily fully appreciate the dangers of bilateral discussions.  Maybe the professionals at State are wrong and Trump is right.  But I would feel better about it if that wasn't his belief on every issue.  He knows more than the generals about war.  He knows more about the economy than economists.  He knows more about the environment than scientists.  Education, experience, and expertise are irrelevant compared to his version of papal infallibility.  That's what concerns me.    

[scottsins 2,047]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/01/politics/trump-north-korea-letter/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Wait, is it still amateur hour?  

How unpredictable that Kim would beg for US to come back to the table?!

If North Korea and Kim bend the knee i can't wait to hear here how Trump fucked up.  Better keep those responses in your back pocket. 

Define “bend the knee”.  It’s important so that the goalposts don’t get moved after the fact.

[4th&Five 42,004]

The man literally can’t keep his lies straight for 8 fucking minutes and there are people on here still carrying his water and thinking he has some grand plan. 

Hes a fucking moron. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

All this is true but we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to avoid the discussion of what our policy SHOULD be.

Our perception of North Korea is totally fucked up IMO. They are not an autonomous rogue state.  They are a weaponized arm of China, nothing more.  

North Korea isn’t going to do shit without the blessing of China and China needs stability waaay more than we do.  What the fuck happened to the United States standing up for human rights and combating egregious oppression of populations. 

Yes, a collapse of the North Korean regime would be bloody and messy but that’s the only way real positive change can be made sometimes...unless North Korea completely opens up their society, fat chance of that happening.

I don't know enough about NK on this, and I would defer to the professionals.  Unfortunately there are none of them advising Trump, and even if they were, he wouldn't listen to anything they say other than ingratiating compliments to his ego.  That said it is an excuse for right now.  Trump can't negotiate for ice from Eskimos.  And even if he could he wouldn't do so on our behalf, but only for himself.  Trump's meeting with Un, if it happens, will not end well for the US.  Whether that's because the strategy is flawed or because Trump is a greedy narcissist who won't listen to professionals is beyond my ability to understand.  But what our policy should be doesn't matter right now, because Trump negotiating with Un can't end well for the U.S. in general, even though Trump may get his name attached to some Asian burger shacks.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I don't know enough about NK on this, and I would defer to the professionals.  Unfortunately there are none of them advising Trump, and even if they were, he wouldn't listen to anything they say other than ingratiating compliments to his ego.  That said it is an excuse for right now.  Trump can't negotiate for ice from Eskimos.  And even if he could he wouldn't do so on our behalf, but only for himself.  Trump's meeting with Un, if it happens, will not end well for the US.  Whether that's because the strategy is flawed or because Trump is a greedy narcissist who won't listen to professionals is beyond my ability to understand.  But what our policy should be doesn't matter right now, because Trump negotiating with Un can't end well for the U.S. in general, even though Trump may get his name attached to some Asian burger shacks.

No matter what happens, Kim Jong Un will come out of the Summit stronger and have a tighter grip on his slave state. 

And Trump will get to claim that as a win.

It’s sickening.

[Biff Tannen 46,165]

John Brennan WaPo opinion article.  SIAP:

 

Quote

 

 

By John Brennan June 1 at 7:42 AM

John Brennan served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 to January 2017.

 

 

My first visit to the Oval Office came in October 1990, when I was a 35-year-old CIA officer. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait two months before, and President George H.W. Bush wanted to discuss the implications of a U.S.-led military coalition that would ultimately push the Iraqis out.

I remember the nervousness I felt when I entered that room and met a president of the United States for the first time. By the time the meeting ended, his intellectual curiosity, wisdom, affability and intense interest in finding the best policy course to protect and promote U.S. interests were abundantly evident.

Over the next quarter-century, I returned to the Oval Office several hundred times during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The jitters that accompanied my first Oval Office visit dissipated over time, but the respect, awe and admiration I held for the office of the presidency and the incumbents never waned. The presidents I directly served were not perfect, and I didn’t agree with all of their policy choices. But I never doubted that each treated their solemn responsibility to lead our nation with anything less than the seriousness, intellectual rigor and principles that it deserved. Many times, I heard them dismiss the political concerns of their advisers, saying, “I don’t care about my politics, it’s the right thing to do.”

 

The esteem with which I held the presidency was dealt a serious blow when Donald Trump took office. Almost immediately, I began to see a startling aberration from the remarkable, though human, presidents I had served. Mr. Trump’s lifelong preoccupation with aggrandizing himself seemed to intensify in office, and he quickly leveraged his 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. address and his Twitter handle to burnish his brand and misrepresent reality.

Presidents throughout the years have differed in their approaches to policy, based on political platforms, ideologies and individual beliefs. Mr. Trump, however, has shown highly abnormal behavior by lying routinely to the American people without compunction, intentionally fueling divisions in our country and actively working to degrade the imperfect but critical institutions that serve us.

Although appalling, those actions shouldn’t be surprising. As was the case throughout his business and entertainment careers, Mr. Trump charts his every move according to a calculus of how it will personally help or hurt him. His strategy is to undercut real, potential and perceived opponents; his focus is to win at all costs, irrespective of truth, ethics, decency and — many would argue — the law. His disparagement of institutions is designed to short-circuit legitimate law enforcement investigations, intelligence assessments and media challenges that threaten his interests. His fear of the special counsel’s work is especially palpable, as is his growing interest in destroying its mandate.

 

For more than three decades, I observed and analyzed the traits and tactics of corrupt, incompetent and narcissistic foreign officials who did whatever they thought was necessary to retain power. Exploiting the fears and concerns of their citizenry, these demagogues routinely relied on lies, deceit and suppression of political opposition to cast themselves as populist heroes and to mask self-serving priorities. By gaining control of intelligence and security services, stifling the independence of the judiciary and discrediting a free press, these authoritarian rulers followed a time-tested recipe for how to inhibit democracy’s development, retard individual freedoms and liberties, and reserve the spoils of corrupt governance for themselves and their ilk. It never dawned on me that we could face such a development in the United States.

 

On the international front, Mr. Trump pursues policies that are rooted in uninformed campaign promises, a determination to upend actions of his predecessors and an aversion to multilateral engagements. His ad hoc and frequently impulsive approach to national security is short-sighted and dangerous, as allies and partners are left uncertain about U.S. strategy and objectives.

The impact of the Trump presidency will be felt for many years to come. Most worrisome is that his use of falsehoods, his mean-spirited and malicious behavior, and his self-absorption will be emulated by many young Americans — indeed, young people globally — who look to the president of the United States as a role model.

The damage also will be felt by the millions of Americans who believe in Mr. Trump because of their concern about being left behind in a rapidly changing globalized world. These Americans have a legitimate gripe that politicians and political parties of all stripes have failed to deliver on the promise that America is the land of opportunity for all, irrespective of race, creed or place of residence. At a time when deep-seated fears of socioeconomic and cultural change need to be addressed honestly and without prejudice, Mr. Trump grandstands like a snake-oil salesman, squandering his formidable charisma and communication skills in favor of ego, selfishness and false promises.

Many have condemned my public criticism of Mr. Trump, arguing that as a former CIA director, I should bite my tongue. My criticisms, however, are not political; I have never been and will never be a partisan. I speak out for the simple reason that Mr. Trump is failing to live up to the standards that we should all expect of a president.

As someone who had the rare privilege of directly serving four presidents, I will continue to speak out loudly and critically until integrity, decency, wisdom — and maybe even some humility — return to the White House

 

[Chad Fuck 18,134]

23 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Foreign policy is something that, up until Trump, had been fairly consistent from one administration to the next.  You look at Iran, Israel, North Korea - the differences were mainly those of lean and direction, not starting position.  I don't claim to understand the intricacies of foreign policy, but my guess is most presidents have the humility to listen to the professionals at State, and the intelligence to understand why those positions are the way they are.  When Obama was running for President, he said he'd be willing to talk to NK directly.  (And the conservative media lost their collective shit.) But Obama didn't do it. I imagine that Obama listened to the advice of people who have studied the issue exclusively for decades, weighed their advice against what his gut said, and in the end deferred to their judgment.

The goal, for a long time, has been to engage North Korea in six party talks.  (US, NK, SK, Japan, China, Russia). The idea is that every stakeholder has their own issues and by holding the discussions concurrently, you avoid having NK play one against the other.  Deterrents are based on the consensus of multiple parties.  Concessions will require agreement with multiple parties.  This has been the goal from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. 

I certainly appreciate the "it's always good to talk" mentality.  I don't necessarily fully appreciate the dangers of bilateral discussions.  Maybe the professionals at State are wrong and Trump is right.  But I would feel better about it if that wasn't his belief on every issue.  He knows more than the generals about war.  He knows more about the economy than economists.  He knows more about the environment than scientists.  Education, experience, and expertise are irrelevant compared to his version of papal infallibility.  That's what concerns me.    

You presume there is anyone left at State who can provide such counsel.  Remember the beeline to the exits AFTER Tillerson had essentially purged the Dept.?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

You presume there is anyone left at State who can provide such counsel.  Remember the beeline to the exits AFTER Tillerson had essentially purged the Dept.?

The foreign policy advisors/experts that get listeners are in the military and CIA, not so much the State Dept anymore.  That’s not something Trump started but he accelerated the demise of the State Dept, it’s been going on for decades and it’s cost us big time over the last few decades.

 

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Really think hard about this and try to use logic.  Does it seem logical that China is going to let the US get their way in their backyard when they've been talking about exchanging their own sanctions with the US?  Seriously, you keep that hand drawn clown picture in your back pocket and keep pretending it's a card.  

What makes you think China and USA can’t agree on anything?  Maybe they have the same interests here?  Does it benefit China to have deteriorating vassal state with millions of potential refugees next door?  I don’t think so.  I think it benefits their entire region to have North Korea more compliant and less dangerous.  I think it benefits the entire world to have one less rogue state with nukes if possible. 

I guess I’m just amazed at people’s inability to see any kind of potential positive outcome.  Your hatred for Trump is just too strong.  It’s gonna be a long 4, probably 8 years for y’all.

 

[RomaVicta 30,581]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

what's all this bs on this board about Trump "needing a win"?  If Trump is as crazy as y'all think he is, he thinks he wins at everything. He doesn't ever think he needs a win. He thinks he's always winning.

This also occurred to me when I read the passage responded to. It's a mistake to apply normal analysis to Trump's actions. I don't think he thinks strategically. He just keeps fucking with things hoping to find an advantage or profit or the pretense for claiming praise.

It's amusing and frustrating to watch journalists and analysts put on their serious faces and regurgitate their usual crap about sending messages and ultimate strategies which are usually childish even when we have a sane president. Now it's counterproductive because they rely on the false premise that President Trump is business as usual.

He's not. That's the story.

[RomaVicta 30,581]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

North Korea is not a legitimate threat, even with nukes.

Cripple them with economic sanctions.  Sanction the shit out of their two biggest enablers, Russia and China.  

Keep up the pressure until their government collapses from within. 

Fuck coddling brutal dictators that murder their family members and run a concentration camp state.

 

My disposition towards NK is similar to yours, but has this approach ever actually caused a regime to fall?

As in Iraq, you get high infant mortality and deprivation for the masses while the rulers make a ton of money on the black market. They hold power by tightening down on repression which causes the people to suffer in new ways.

Un is a bad man who should be deposed, but it's never really very easy and you never know what you're going to get afterwards.

[David Dennison 19,538]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What makes you think China and USA can’t agree on anything?  Maybe they have the same interests here?  Does it benefit China to have deteriorating vassal state with millions of potential refugees next door?  I don’t think so.  I think it benefits their entire region to have North Korea more compliant and less dangerous.  I think it benefits the entire world to have one less rogue state with nukes if possible. 

I guess I’m just amazed at people’s inability to see any kind of potential positive outcome.  Your hatred for Trump is just too strong.  It’s gonna be a long 4, probably 8 years for y’all.

 

The man you voted for is a complete moron. That does not bode well for negotiations of any kind.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

My disposition towards NK is similar to yours, but has this approach ever actually caused a regime to fall?

The Soviet Union

 

 

[pyrohornIII 4,846]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This is an incredibly important point.

On an old, forgotten shaggy board, I asked a question to the effect of whether our incredible postwar prosperity was a huge anomaly, and it was actually hurting us because we all think that's "normal," and thus the way things should always be/what we're entitled to.

The post above gets down to the issue of how it's killing us.  The Boomer's were born on history's third base, think they hit a triple, AND think they're entitled to third base or better in perpetuity.  They were born in a unique era -- one in which, if you kept your nose clean, showed up to work, and did your job reasonably well, you achieved unprecedented prosperity.  Even the bottom of the high school graduating class could get a good job on the Ford assembly line, make enough money for a house with two cars and a vacation, etc. (it helped that a huge hunk of the workforce -- black folks -- were frozen out of competition for the better jobs. The end of that advantage really came about starting in the late 60s).  And the Boomers EARNED all of those advantages -- after all, they showed up to work, and did their job, they DESERVE this incredible proseperity, and fuck everyone else who's just lazy.

Which of course ignores that for most of our history -- and perhaps, we are returning to the mean -- folks who did just as they did were NOT blessed with such prosperity.  They worked in often brutal conditions, for shitty pay, and lived short, unpleasant lives.  A factory job actually being a ticket to "the good life" is NOT the typical way things were.  But that was the deal for the boomers and hey, if you can't have a life as good as theirs, it must be YOUR fault.

I agree with all of this.  Until we understand the American Dream has been usurped and people like dotard are using the ghost of it to grab votes, then we are doomed.  Things have changed and we as a country haven't adjusted.  More like we have been lulled into a state of fat entitled hypnosis by a lot of snake oil salesmen.  Our expectations, priorities and values have been changed through media and marketing assaults. 

I am a late boomer.  I grew up in small town Texas where we had about 6,000 people in our community.  About 3,500 within the city limits, another 1,500 who lived just outside in unincorporated "mekskin town", and the rest in the outlying farms.   We had a segregated elementary school, one for each side of the tracks.   We had 3 independent drug stores, 3 hardware stores, a plumbing shop, two auto parts, eight mom and pop diners or cafes, an HEB and a Piggly Wiggly, one Perry Bros. five and dime, three barbers and 2 hair salons, two banks, jeweler, maybe 5 insurance agents, six full service stations, one mercantile store, probably 8 gins and 4 elevators in a 5 mile radius.   And we were one of the smaller communities in the county.

That was a lot of jobs for a lot of people.  A lot of people were living the American dream.  Owning and working their own business or farm.   There was some oil income, and maybe 25% of the town worked in nearby plants or refineries.

There were a lot of people who worked as employees of those small businesses, or contractors who serviced those businesses.  

It wasn't perfect, especially for the Mexican Americans(the racial stuff is a whole 'nother subject).  But in most cases it was better than what had preceded for all, considering they had just come out of The Great Depression and WW2.

Several factors were at play though.  The GI Bill was hugely instrumental in housing and education for many, including my father.  Social Security and fair labor laws were being instituted.  There was a huge market for our goods, since the rest of the world was rebuilding their factories, infrastructures.  And one thing often overlooked is that income inequality was at its lowest in a century from 1943 to 1983.  That means the dollar was stronger in the middle class than at other times.   People could do the things Brisket is talking about with one income earner in the family. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Now most of those opportunities are gone.  The systems have changed in almost all aspects.  Corporations and chains have killed off those jobs.  Farms that survived on 1,000 acres now need 6,000 to survive due to economies of size.  For good or bad, Walmart played a big part in the demise of these smaller towns.   Honestly, if it wasn't going to be Walmart, it would be some other corporation.   (I do hate Walmart though.)  And now the big box stores are being threatened by Amazon and the ilk.  Add to that that mechanization, robotics and AI is beginning to replace jobs and you have even less opportunities for employment. 

Still, a lot of these boomers were raised with that mindset that if their parents could do it, then they should be able to do it as well.  A lot of pressure from parents to have these boomers be even more "successful" than their previous generation.   And they pass that pressure down to their own kids.  Maybe it's not pressure, but disappointment, frustration and anger.   Maybe the isolationist movement has been embedded in us because of these feelings that are being handed down generation to generation now.  Everybody looking out for themselves now. 

And it is everywhere, not just rural Texas, but the rust belt is hit just as hard.  Watch the Flint special on Netflix. 

Personally, I think one of the first steps in righting the ship will be to readjust the income distribution, make the middle class strong again.  But that same middle class we  should be making stronger is voting for people like trump who keep tipping the scales the other way.   So brainwashed.