Jump to content

U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

It's not a great breakthrough but it is a great first step. I want peace on the Korean Peninsula, just like I want peace with Iran and good relations between the US and Cuba. I will root for Trump in this endeavor, just as I supported Obama pursuing peace with Iran and relations with Cuba. 

Same.  To me this is an issue where too many have their foam fingers out and maybe should put them away.  I really don't like Donald Trump, but if this is the beginning of a breakthrough then I am all for it.  I feel like if you were for the Iran Deal, you should be for putting to rest the Korean conflict.  Conversely, it is very hard to take seriously the many conservatives I've seen out there today nominating Trump for a nobel peace prize who skewered Obama and whined and cried about the Iran deal.  To me these two things really highlight the polarization and hypocrisy coming from both sides of the American political spectrum.  I feel like if you are against senseless war and conflict over old grudges that pre-date most of us being born, that should apply equally to Iran as well as North Korea.  

Not to extrapolate too much from this one thing, but one positive thing I kind of held out hope for when it comes to Trump is that he *might* actually have the stones to downsize the US military.  We are in far too many places and I do not want the US to spend billions to serve as global police force - especially for a country that hasn't had a real war in like 50 years.  They just make shit up now to justify it.  ISIS being the latest.  Bunch of fuckers with kitchen knives and a few captured humvees do not justify 600 billion / yr.  And I actually think that's a pretty popular opinion in the US across the whole spectrum.  I think the hawks and imperialists are on the wane in the court of public opinion. 

And, of course, one can make a very strong argument that the bloat of the US military / industrial complex is the reason why we can't have nice things in this country.  Much gnashing of teeth over the ability to afford healthcare and education programs while simultaneously shoveling 600 billion / yr at the military.  I don't think this is lost on too many people anymore.  

However, no president from either party in recent history has had the balls to really take a scalpel to the US military budget.  One reason is that the military is tied into the local economy in many places in the US.  Another is that the military is worshiped to an unhealthy degree in this country (almost on par with Jesus Christ) and any proposed cuts will always be portrayed by the side not in power as anti-American, anti-military, 'soft' on our enemies, etc., which is very unhealthy for reelection prospects.  I doubt Trump will be either because he seems to like his toys, but he does seem more likely than any president we've had recently to make a push to change the scope of our military activities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, S John said:

Same.  To me this is an issue where too many have their foam fingers out and maybe should put them away.  I really don't like Donald Trump, but if this is the beginning of a breakthrough then I am all for it.  I feel like if you were for the Iran Deal, you should be for putting to rest the Korean conflict.  Conversely, it is very hard to take seriously the many conservatives I've seen out there today nominating Trump for a nobel peace prize who skewered Obama and whined and cried about the Iran deal.  To me these two things really highlight the polarization and hypocrisy coming from both sides of the American political spectrum.  I feel like if you are against senseless war and conflict over old grudges that pre-date most of us being born, that should apply equally to Iran as well as North Korea.  

Not to extrapolate too much from this one thing, but one positive thing I kind of held out hope for when it comes to Trump is that he *might* actually have the stones to downsize the US military.  We are in far too many places and that I do not want the US to serve as global police force - especially for a country that hasn't had a real war in like 50 years.  And I actually think that's a pretty popular opinion in the US across the whole spectrum.  I think the hawks and imperialists are on the wane in the court of public opinion. 

And, of course, one can make a very strong argument that the bloat of the US military / industrial complex is the reason why we can't have nice things in this country.  Much gnashing of teeth over the ability to afford healthcare and education programs while simultaneously shoveling 600 billion / yr at the military.  I don't think this is lost on too many people anymore.  

However, no president from either party in recent history has had the balls to really take a scalpel to the US military budget.  One reason is that the military is tied into the local economy in many places in the US.  Another is that the military is worshiped to an unhealthy degree in this country (almost on par with Jesus Christ) and any proposed cuts will always be portrayed by the side not in power as anti-American, anti-military, 'soft' on our enemies, etc., which is very unhealthy for reelection prospects.  I doubt Trump will be either because he seems to like his toys, but he does seem more likely than any president we've had recently to make a push to change the scope of our military activities.  

Trump wants more money put into the military. It isn't clear what what he will do with it yet, but it is quite clear he is a friend of the  military industrial complex.

And if he can harm some poor or sick people to pay for it, he would be even happier.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Win for Kim

This was a very good day for the leader of North Korea

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-summit-with-trump-couldnt-have-gone-better-for-kim-jong-un.html

 

Quote

 

Many observers had worried about two possible scenarios for the summit: that nothing specific would be nailed down about the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and that, in the course of making security guarantees to Kim’s regime, Trump would concede too much on commitments to U.S. allies in South Korea and Japan.

Trump proved the skeptics right on the first worry, a bit less so on the second.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, S John said:

Same.  To me this is an issue where too many have their foam fingers out and maybe should put them away.  I really don't like Donald Trump, but if this is the beginning of a breakthrough then I am all for it.  I feel like if you were for the Iran Deal, you should be for putting to rest the Korean conflict.  Conversely, it is very hard to take seriously the many conservatives I've seen out there today nominating Trump for a nobel peace prize who skewered Obama and whined and cried about the Iran deal.  To me these two things really highlight the polarization and hypocrisy coming from both sides of the American political spectrum.  I feel like if you are against senseless war and conflict over old grudges that pre-date most of us being born, that should apply equally to Iran as well as North Korea.  
 

I want peace on the Korean peninsula.  What I see is the US making small, but meaningful concessions to NK, and getting only promises in return.  If Trump can get a tangible, verifiable and meaningful concession from NK, I'll happily admit he made a good move.  It hasn't happened yet, and seeing how he is strutting around like he's singlehandedly achieved world peace, I doubt very much it is going to happen.  But I hope I'm wrong. 

Quote

Not to extrapolate too much from this one thing, but one positive thing I kind of held out hope for when it comes to Trump is that he *might* actually have the stones to downsize the US military.  We are in far too many places and that I do not want the US to serve as global police force - especially for a country that hasn't had a real war in like 50 years.  And I actually think that's a pretty popular opinion in the US across the whole spectrum.  I think the hawks and imperialists are on the wane in the court of public opinion. 

And, of course, one can make a very strong argument that the bloat of the US military / industrial complex is the reason why we can't have nice things in this country.  Much gnashing of teeth over the ability to afford healthcare and education programs while simultaneously shoveling 600 billion / yr at the military.  I don't think this is lost on too many people anymore.  

However, no president from either party in recent history has had the balls to really take a scalpel to the US military budget.  One reason is that the military is tied into the local economy in many places in the US.  Another is that the military is worshiped to an unhealthy degree in this country (almost on par with Jesus Christ) and any proposed cuts will always be portrayed by the side not in power as anti-American, anti-military, 'soft' on our enemies, etc., which is very unhealthy for reelection prospects.  I doubt Trump will be either because he seems to like his toys, but he does seem more likely than any president we've had recently to make a push to change the scope of our military activities.  

 

I would love for Trump (or any president) to do this, but what makes you think he's about to slash military budgets?  Everything he's said is explicitly the opposite, that our military is in shambles, that we need to increase military spending dramatically, etc.  He is constantly lobbying for more military funding.  Obviously Trump changes his mind whenever he wants, but there is no evidence he's about to suddenly embrace a smaller military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/06/12/we-just-shook-hands-trump-confused-by-trudeaus-pushed-around-comment-after-g7-summit.html

WASHINGTON—Escalating his attack on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, U.S. President Donald Trump is now pledging to punish “the people of Canada” economically because of the post-G7 news conference in which Trudeau criticized Trump’s tariffs.

“That’s going to cost a lot of money for the people of Canada. He learned. You can’t do that. You can’t do that,” Trump said Tuesday in Singapore after meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

Trump repeated the vague threat in an interview with ABC.

“I actually like Justin, you know, I think he’s good, I like him, but he shouldn’t have done that. That was a mistake. That’s going to cost him a lot of money,” Trump said.

Trudeau offered a restrained response.

I don't think a restrained response is appropriate. Trump is going to "punish" us? I don't think anything less than recalling our ambassador is satisfactory here. Demand the presence of the US ambassador for an explanation and inform State that their POTUS is a fucking loose cannon who is threatening some sort of collective punishment on the US's oldest and closest ally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Altherion said:

First, you are drastically overestimating how much has actually changed. Trump being rude to our allies is amusing (possibly even to the allies he's being rude to because they're laughing at him), but it doesn't change the practical reasons for all of those relationships and they're not going to walk away simply because of one rude leader.

Paris accord. G7 summit. Major tariffs on allies with more to come. Making deals with our allies' enemies. Jerusalem as the capital. 

16 hours ago, Altherion said:

Second, why do you think that the possibility of change is a bad thing? Yes, the US has pursued generally the same policy for a long time... but consistent is not the same thing as good.

Change isn't a bad thing.

Change without reason and with no coherent goals is bad. 

16 hours ago, Altherion said:

Why is any of this a good thing? The consistent foreign policy has made certain wealthy people a great deal wealthier, but it has not made the vast majority of us safer or richer or better off in any way. Of course, as with most things about Trump, his chances of making it better are not very large, but simply providing some impetus for change is worthwhile.

I'm fine with change; what I'm not fine with is this specific change, nor am I fine with the US doing it alone in the world or being closer to authoritarians than democracies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

I want peace on the Korean peninsula.  What I see is the US making small, but meaningful concessions to NK, and getting only promises in return.  If Trump can get a tangible, verifiable and meaningful concession from NK, I'll happily admit he made a good move.  It hasn't happened yet, and seeing how he is strutting around like he's singlehandedly achieved world peace, I doubt very much it is going to happen.  But I hope I'm wrong. 

I would love for Trump (or any president) to do this, but what makes you think he's about to slash military budgets?  Everything he's said is explicitly the opposite, that our military is in shambles, that we need to increase military spending dramatically, etc.  He is constantly lobbying for more military funding.  Obviously Trump changes his mind whenever he wants, but there is no evidence he's about to suddenly embrace a smaller military.

Well he might pull those 30 k troops out of South Korea and put them in Iran. I can't see that would make our situation any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

It's not a great breakthrough but it is a great first step. I want peace on the Korean Peninsula, just like I want peace with Iran and good relations between the US and Cuba. I will root for Trump in this endeavor, just as I supported Obama pursuing peace with Iran and relations with Cuba. 

Why is it a great first step? 

Why is the US granting concrete concessions and NK giving nothing in return a great first step?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m deeply skeptical of that. Yes, the next president can undo some of what Trump’s done, but what about the president after that?  The Republican party is now the party of Trump, not Reagan or Eisenhower or whoever you want to cite. Our allies will not trust us until they can prove that they’ve shed themselves of this phase, so unless you think the next few presidents will be Democrats, it will take time to earn their trust again. What Trump has done, more than anything else, is shown that a president’s word only matters as long as they’re still in office. Other presidents have gone back on prior president’s agreements, but it’s never been as stark as this, and the rest of the world will not forget that quickly.

Well, this seems to based on the attitudes (and party ID) of future presidents, which I don't think is really worth speculating about right now.  If a president takes similar hostile stances and actions will that be a problem?  Of course.  But as long as Trump's successor(s) returns to the status quo/world order of the west, the rest of the west will be eager to re-normalize relations.

14 minutes ago, S John said:

Same.  To me this is an issue where too many have their foam fingers out and maybe should put them away.  I really don't like Donald Trump, but if this is the beginning of a breakthrough then I am all for it. 

I, like 72% of Americans, agree in principle with the president taking a more active role in negotiating with North Korea.  But that doesn't mean Trump should not be criticized for how many concessions he's made in those negotiations with basically nothing to show for it.  It has nothing to do with tribalism - although in that respect if this was a Democratic president the GOP would be introducing impeachment articles based on such incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, كالدب said:

Why is it a great first step? 

Why is the US granting concrete concessions and NK giving nothing in return a great first step?

not participating in war games costs what?

Trump shaking hands with Kim costs what?

It brought Kim to the table. He feels good about Trump and where this is headed. Nothing has been granted, lets just see where this plays out. 

Anything is better than nuclear posturing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't any kind of "breakthrough" with NK, just an example of Trump's stupidity and how he can be so easily played by someone like Kim. He's a fool and I'm not sure how any concessions bought with anything short of a signed peace treaty and concrete de-escalation of nukes and conventional weapons is a "good deal". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well he might pull those 30 k troops out of South Korea and put them in Iran. I can't see that would make our situation any better.

It'll take a helluva lot more than 30k troops to accomplish anything in Iran (unless you mean just on the border with Iran as a threat).  Iran's military is a great deal stronger than Iraq's was, with a larger population, and a larger and less hospitable area to occupy.  Everything about a US invasion of Iran makes my stomach turn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frog Eater said:

not participating in war games costs what?

Trump shaking hands with Kim costs what?

It costs two of the four main points of leverage we had in negotiations - one's any leader with a half a brain would refuse to give up without getting concrete agreements from Un.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

not participating in war games costs what?

Readiness with an important ally facing one of the biggest ground forces in the world.

4 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Trump shaking hands with Kim costs what?

Giving something someone else wants away for free is good why?

4 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

It brought Kim to the table. He feels good about Trump and where this is headed. Nothing has been granted, lets just see where this plays out. 

Anything is better than nuclear posturing. 

He and his father made the same statements with Clinton and with Bush. 

And 'anything is better than nuclear posturing' is obviously false. I'm fully on board giving Trump credit where it's due, but right now it doesn't look like anything special other than the US giving NK things they want in exchange for more empty promises. And it's hard for me to give much credit to Trump given that when he had a contract to denuclearize a country, he ripped it up - and that one actually had teeth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

I want peace on the Korean peninsula.  What I see is the US making small, but meaningful concessions to NK, and getting only promises in return.  If Trump can get a tangible, verifiable and meaningful concession from NK, I'll happily admit he made a good move.  It hasn't happened yet, and seeing how he is strutting around like he's singlehandedly achieved world peace, I doubt very much it is going to happen.  But I hope I'm wrong. 

I would love for Trump (or any president) to do this, but what makes you think he's about to slash military budgets?  Everything he's said is explicitly the opposite, that our military is in shambles, that we need to increase military spending dramatically, etc.  He is constantly lobbying for more military funding.  Obviously Trump changes his mind whenever he wants, but there is no evidence he's about to suddenly embrace a smaller military.

I don't think he is going to slash military budget.  This is 100% wild speculation - but if our allies are pissed off at us and our enemies aren't enemies any more, then do we need 50k strong military bases in Germany and Italy (where they don't want them) or South Korea (where we maybe won't need them)?  I don't think we really need them now, for the record.  But then I see the recent crazy activity of antagonizing allies and extending the olive branch to enemies and just happen to notice that it does set the stage a bit for a global draw-down.  Not needed here, unwanted there.  And NO I don't think it's part of some grand brilliant strategy on Trump's part, just that I could see how 5-10 years from now we may no longer be welcome or needed in many of the places we are in today.  

2 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

 

I, like 72% of Americans, agree in principle with the president taking a more active role in negotiating with North Korea.  But that doesn't mean Trump should not be criticized for how many concessions he's made in those negotiations with basically nothing to show for it.  It has nothing to do with tribalism - although in that respect if this was a Democratic president the GOP would be introducing impeachment articles based on such incompetence.

I have to agree with Frog Eater here.  What we aren't going to do war games with South Korea anymore?  OOOOOoooo.  I mean, honestly though - who gives a shit?  We've been doing these things since the 50's and we've never once used it as a springboard to launch an attack on North Korea and unless THEY do something insane we aren't going to ever attack them.  We all know this is theater at this point.  Our capabilities have been well demonstrated to Un and everyone else in the last half century.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, S John said:

What we aren't going to do war games with South Korea anymore?  OOOOOoooo.  I mean, honestly though - who gives a shit?  We've been doing these things since the 50's and we've never once used it as a springboard to launch an attack on North Korea and unless THEY do something insane we aren't going to ever attack them.  We all know this is theater at this point.  Our capabilities have been well demonstrated to Un and everyone else in the last half century.  

Again, (1) it's negotiating 101 to not give away something the other side wants in exchange for effectively nothing, (2) the exercises are understandably important to the RoK as they (along with our troops) provide their main deterrent, and (3) the exercises incorporate new capabilities plus confirm readiness and coordination between the US and the RoK, so no they aren't just "theater."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Aemon Stark said:

I don't know why my last paragraph is appearing as part of the quote. 

Coding error. Happens once in a while where you get trapped in what you’re quoting.

That said, you recall your ambassador and we’ll kick you guys out of the NHL. I mean, our glorious American teams have pretty much already done that anyways!

:commie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Coding error. Happens once in a while where you get trapped in what you’re quoting.

That said, you recall your ambassador and we’ll kick you guys out of the NHL. I mean, our glorious American teams have pretty much already done that anyways!

:commie:

We'll just have to recall our players then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMBouazizi said:

Again, (1) it's negotiating 101 to not give away something the other side wants in exchange for effectively nothing, (2) the exercises are understandably important to the RoK as they (along with our troops) provide their main deterrent, and (3) the exercises incorporate new capabilities plus confirm readiness and coordination between the US and the RoK, so no they aren't just "theater."

We all know the score.  We know that North Korea is a piss poor excuse for a country, but one that is still dangerous enough to do some serious damage on their way to a fiery oblivion if they ever actually started anything.  Everyone knows this, including NK's leadership.  Unless they are suicidal, they are not going to attack SK, Japan, or any US forces and the last several decades of saber rattling have shown that they are not suicidal. 

Putting a hold on joint exercises with SK doesn't change any of this.  It's not like its difficult to start them up again.  It doesn't hurt anything to give Un a minor concession and see what he does with it.  Don't see the harm in building some trust with them after 60 years of the opposite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...