U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

[Jace, Extat]

No, @Tywin et al. Jace is not in her sarcasm today.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I hope the Jace is deep in her sarcasms.  

Presidents constantly overturning each other's unilateral decisions is one of the only ways I imagine Congress doing its fucking job once in a while.

[Rippounet]

If you want to puke in your mouth... This is the video that Trump presented Kim at their meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2LHJEhpmO4

Why is this pukeworthy? Because this video was never truly meant for Kim. Well, it may have been, on some level, but this is obviously propaganda meant for the world, and for American voters especially. This is what the Republicans needed to win the midterms. Brace yourself guys, because this may have ended any hopes of the Democrats retaking the House.
It presents the meeting as being Trump extending an olive branch to Kim. Which is hilarious if you bear in mind that Kim was always the one who wanted a meeting.
More importantly it proposes to Kim stuff that shouldn't even be on the table: "prosperity and innovation," investment, but also... reunification (hinted at), which is really up to the South to manage. For a first meeting, that's bold, to say the least. It goes waaay too far.
And of course, the presentation alone is pukeworthy. I thought the Reagan presidency had gone a bit far with Geneva (1985) but this... This is on an entirely different level. A movie-style trailer for a diplomatic meeting? Is this the world we live in?

Of course, it may show what Trump's plan is. Because he doesn't mind strongmen or human rights violations, it is actually possible that he wants to propose that American companies invest in NK under certain conditions. After all, NK is no doubt able to provide cheap labor for any company interested in doing shady business in a totalitarian country (the Trumps themselves won't mind at all). It's a well-known fact that some companies already do just that. That's the kind of deal that Kim cannot refuse.
At a glance this wouldn't be that different from what happened with the Soviet Union... Except it is. Gorbachev started liberalizing the Soviet Union and making significant concessions *before* the West started investing there. And let's bear in mind... The West was incredibly lucky with Gorbachev, a man who was an actual reformer and pacifist, an idealist who chose to give up the power he had when he had to, rather than start a bloodbath.
It isn't the same as Iran either. Iran is a theocracy, but it also has elections and moderate politicians, not to mention a people that has already shown a desire for improvement. It has the potential to liberalize itself, even though it will remain a threat to the region's stability in the foreseeable future.
But NK? Damn. We don't know much about what's happening there, but betting on Kim's goodwill is wild. Which means it all comes down to Trump's (and his team's) negotiating skills. If they screw up even a little bit, it will strengthen Kim's regime considerably. Worst case scenario it could provide him with the cash and the technology he needs to make his military a much greater threat. It could create a nightmare for Trump's successor.
The only hope I see is that Trump is so fickle that he can reverse any promise made today in the blink of an eye. And he could blame it all on Kim anyway. Ironically, Trump's dumb negotiating tactics could prevent him from making irreversible mistakes. It's not something I like to pin my hopes on, but fact is, Trump won't care at all if the negotiations crumble in a few months.
Because the true objective may have been the midterms all along. I'm not sure Trump gives a flying fuck about the Koreas. This seems to have been aimed at Americans from the start. And it could very very well work.
I hate to say it again, but Trump may have far more political acumen that people here give him credit for. He found the perfect issue to use. If the negotiations appear to progress for just five little months, he will secure an iron grip on U.S. institutions for another two years.

[felice]

@Lany Freelove Cassandra

Quote

Maybe it is me, but I read @2 like: currently there are TWO regimes on the Korean Peninsula, and Trump has agreed to work towards ONE. 

Indeed. It's hard not to see that as "the US will join forces with North Korea to conquer South Korea".

[Zorral]

Fire. Him. Now.

Why aren't we USians out on the streets every frackin' day screaming for his head hmmmm?

 

[Vin]

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Fire. Him. Now.

Why aren't we USians out on the streets every frackin' day screaming for his head hmmmm?

 

Yeah ... can we not ? Peaceful protests without disturbing other people's lives would be great (as in no blocking traffic and no vandalism) . 

Also to answer the question,it's because half of us seem to like his head . I'd say a better strategy would be to try to understand why that other half voted for him ( and no it's not because they're all "evil racist republicans" although some are , Spencer definitely is ) and put forth a candidate that can appeal to their concerns as well and not alienate them (one who doesn't publicly and proudly call them deplorables) .

I really don't like the degree to which people seem to be enjoying this polarization of our country . It's like a sport . Someone needs to try to bridge the gap sometime . 

 

And before you flex your fingers , no ;I don't like Trump , I didn't vote for him and I'm just as disappointed with his attitude towards the presidency . That doesn't mean I can't have open minded conversations with people who do support him to try to understand their concerns , some of which make perfect sense from their point of view (business tax policies and border security come up a lot as well as the job crisis in the fly over states ) .

 

Anyhow , this north Korea business is looking more cartoonish with every photo the comes out , and I totally agree that that looks like a propaganda trailer lol 

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Vin said:

Yeah ... can we not ? Peaceful protests without disturbing other people's lives would be great (as in no blocking traffic and no vandalism) . 

Also to answer the question,it's because half of us seem to like his head . I'd say a better strategy would be to try to understand why that other half voted for him ( and no it's not because they're all "evil racist republicans" although some are , Spencer definitely is ) and put forth a candidate that can appeal to their concerns as well and not alienate them (one who doesn't publicly and proudly call them deplorables) .

I really don't like the degree to which people seem to be enjoying this polarization of our country . It's like a sport . Someone needs to try to bridge the gap sometime . 

 

And before you flex your fingers , no ;I don't like Trump , I didn't vote for him and I'm just as disappointed with his attitude towards the presidency . That doesn't mean I can't have open minded conversations with people who do support him to try to understand their concerns , some of which make perfect sense from their point of view (business tax policies and border security come up a lot as well as the job crisis in the fly over states ) .

 

Anyhow , this north Korea business is looking more cartoonish with every photo the comes out , and I totally agree that that looks like a propaganda trailer lol 

So -- you lurve just how he's obeying Putin all the way down the line to take out our nation.  Eff U

[Vin]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So -- you lurve just how he's obeying Putin all the way down the line to take out our nation.  Eff U

Nice strawman . Can you please quote the instance where I said this ? Did you even attempt to understand what I said ? Be better than us vs them  mob mentality  

[Jace, Extat]

No.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

If you want to puke in your mouth...

<Snip>

I hate to say it again, but Trump may have far more political acumen that people here give him credit for. He found the perfect issue to use. If the negotiations appear to progress for just five little months, he will secure an iron grip on U.S. institutions for another two years.

Great post.  This will definitely increase Trump's approval at home.

[Yukle]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I hate to say it again, but Trump may have far more political acumen that people here give him credit for. He found the perfect issue to use. If the negotiations appear to progress for just five little months, he will secure an iron grip on U.S. institutions for another two years.

I agree with all of it, except this part.

Trump is working for Putin. So it's really Putin who has secured an iron grip on power.

How can Americans still fail to bring up with Trump at every chance: He had a one-on-one meeting with Putin for an hour at the G20. What does Putin hold over him?!

[JGP]

With Yukle. Political acumen. Shit makes me laugh. The guy was crying the blues during the last two weeks leading up to the election, 'the fix is in' was his whine, was it not? 

The wrong man at the right time, that's all... but he was right about that.

So anyway, about the SC decision, re: largely inactive voter purges, the work around is organizing registration drives yeah, or no?

ETA: Maddow is alleging Trump got the idea of ceasing joint drills with SK from Putin. It might make KJU more comfortable. If that's true... lol

[Rippounet]

Ok, to be fair, it's almost impossible such a brilliant idea comes from Trump himself.
I probably think of Reagan too much, but this seems right out of his playbook. Back when his administration was caught in the Iran-Contra mess he was able to use negotiations with Gorbachev to cast himself in an entirely different light. Without the INF deal, Reagan would probably have gone down in history as a different figure.
And now Trump is doing the same thing, but with propaganda that's far more intense. By surrounding himself with neocons like Bolton and Pompeo he's almost immune to criticism from his right (unlike Reagan, who had to contend with a lot of skepticism at the time). The Dems will find it almost impossible to mount an effective attack on "peacemaking" despite the obvious long-term risks for the region. They've never been great at it, not since Kennedy at least (who played dirty at the time, but that's another story).
Ever since Trump got elected I expected him to start a war and use the rally-round-the-flag to win reelection. But negotiations with NK... That's genius. The risks are minimal. Best case scenario he manages to push through a seemingly honest deal. Worst case scenario he can blame any failure on Kim. Either way it makes him look good. And the timing is excellent too: a deal doesn't need to be reached anytime soon, as long as there *appears* to be some kind of progress in the next six months. It covers the midterms at least, and if an actual deal comes through around 2019-2020 the Republicans will be screaming for a Nobel Prize right up to the 2020 election.
If I had to guess I'd say this strategy was imagined by someone who remembered the Reagan-Gorbachev summits and its PR benefits.
I even wonder if Bolton wasn't brought on board specifically to neutralize right-wing criticism. The chronology makes it possible.

[Fez]

Foreign policy hasn't driven a US election since 1968; even 2006 was more a reaction to Bush's domestic failures than to the Iraq war. Smoke and mirrors diplomacy with North Korea, or even actual tangible successes, won't change the needle either.

The midterms are essentially going to come down to how much Democrats can tie Trump to rising costs of gas and health care premiums. Maybe something about the tariffs too, if any have actually be implemented by then. That's it.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Because the true objective may have been the midterms all along. I'm not sure Trump gives a flying fuck about the Koreas. This seems to have been aimed at Americans from the start. And it could very very well work.
I hate to say it again, but Trump may have far more political acumen that people here give him credit for. He found the perfect issue to use. If the negotiations appear to progress for just five little months, he will secure an iron grip on U.S. institutions for another two years.

Heh, no.  I agree Trump did this in a last-ditch effort to save the midterms, but he gravely miscalculated.  There's no way this moves the needle for Trump voters, and especially for anti-Trump voters.  If he actually gets something tangible from Un?  Maybe.  But as Fez said, that's not how elections work.  Consumed a lot of coverage today - both online and cable - and everyone essentially retreated to their corners.  And this is before the second and third day stories which will further scrutinize questions like why did Trump give up as much as he did; and what's actually the next step in this process?  Both questions I sincerely doubt he has answers for.  Totally expect him to try and schedule another meeting for, like, November 1st, but it will be nakedly pathetic unless there's something to come out of it.  

2 hours ago, Vin said:

Peaceful protests without disturbing other people's lives would be great (as in no blocking traffic and no vandalism) .

Peaceful protests inherently block traffic.  Otherwise they're not very successful protests.

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

which, in case this wasn't already posted, might be done by Scott Pruitt...there might be a loophole law where they can get rid of Sessions and replace him with any cabinet member already confirmed for any other job by the Senate

OMG when will this red herring end?  If and when Trump decides to fire Mueller it will have nothing to do with Scott Fucking Pruitt.  It will be an act of desperation, and will severely cripple his presidency.  We can now can actually take a rather long view on Trump's approval.  You know the only time it significantly dipped (after his appropriately way-too-quick honeymoon)?  When he fired Comey.  Firing Mueller will have an exacerbated effect.

54 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

ETA: Maddow is alleging Trump got the idea of ceasing joint drills with SK from Putin. It might make KJU more comfortable. If that's true... lol

Pretty sure it's China that benefits the most from all this.

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Gorbachev started liberalizing the Soviet Union and making significant concessions *before* the West started investing there. And let's bear in mind... The West was incredibly lucky with Gorbachev, a man who was an actual reformer and pacifist, an idealist who chose to give up the power he had when he had to, rather than start a bloodbath.

This is really a cliff notes version.  The beginning of normalizing relations with the Soviets began in the 70s with Brezhnev and detente.  Than Gorbachev accelerated things with glasnost and perestroika.  But all of that was rooted in necessity - the Soviet economy was collapsing and they needed to open up to the west.

[JGP]

1 minute ago, DMBouazizi said:

Pretty sure it's China that benefits the most from all this.

Sure. But it's still funny. And I have to laugh.

Have to. 

[Vin]

9 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

 

Peaceful protests inherently block traffic.  Otherwise they're not very successful protests.

You can always protest peacefully at a park  cities are full of those ,or stick to the side walk at least .

People blocking my way to work or home make me resent them not sympathize with their cause . Seems like bad pr strategy to me .

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Vin said:

You can always protest peacefully at a park  cities are full of those ,or stick to the side walk at least .

People blocking my way to work or home make me resent them not sympathize with their cause . Seems like bad pr strategy to me .

No, seems like you just don't care about whatever cause they're protesting.  There have been a number of anti-Trump protests that have been so numerous there's no logistical way they could possibly be held solely in parks.  This comes across as simply whining, because that's what it is.

[JGP]

Kim's not to savvy either.

[Vin]

7 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

No, seems like you just don't care about whatever cause they're protesting.  There have been a number of anti-Trump protests that have been so numerous there's no logistical way they could possibly be held solely in parks.  This comes across as simply whining, because that's what it is.

Meh , I don't like civil unrest in general . Never went to a protest and don't plan to ever go to one . And no , no matter the cause I'm not gonna give a pass to hooliganism and mobs high jacking roads and disturbing my life (doesn't matter if it's the alt right or antifa). Parks are huge and can accommodate thousands so I don't see the logistical dilemma here unless you're saying we have daily 100k+ protests that I somehow missed .