Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Next-ennials vs stamps


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Uh, that's not what it says. They're closing the missile test site that they already announced as closed back in June, and are going with the stance they've been going with since 2002 - which is that they'll happily denuclearize once the US does as well

In other words, they still haven't given up shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Trump urges Spain to build a wall along its border with the Sahara Desert.

Spain, a country in Europe, does not have a border with the Sahara Desert, which is located in North Africa. Spain would have to invade several foreign countries in order to build such a wall, which would not be practically possible.

Trump also apparently said that the border with the Sahara Desert "can't be bigger than our border with Mexico", when it is several times the size.

I didn't know the US/Mexico border as about 2,000 miles long. The article says Spain does have a border near the Sahara in Ceuta and Melilla on the Morocco Mediterranean coast.. \

But it could be economically beneficial if Spain offered to fund the construction, and pay locals for to patrol the wall to countries that are struggling economically. I would suggest putting the wall through Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan. There would be several years of construction employment across those 5 countries, and then  an indefinite length of time employing thousands of people 24/7 as border patrol. As well as needing to put communications, roading, power, water, waste etc infrastructure in place. It could be the start of the greening of the Sahara.

 

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

As a psychologist I just have to point out that the "vividness" or number of details in a memory is no indication that it is an ACCURATE memory. There are many examples of vivid and detailed memories of crimes (including sexual assaults) where the witness does not correctly remember who the perpetrator was. 

This doesn't mean that Ms. Ford's memory is inaccurate, just that the degree of vividness and detail in it is no indication of whether or not it is. 

Is memory of emotion and feelings around events more accurate? The potential for mistaken identity is obviously a concern. But if your memory of feeling extreme distress is reliable then provided certain facts of an event are proven correct, then would the emotional state of the alleged victim be reliable and thus material to the case? When it comes to something like consent in the context of a drunken party I assume there is rarely any objective evidence. So the emotional state of the alleged victim is pertinent in a your word against mine situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What are the odds that the US will denuclearize, in your opinion?

Why would the US need to denuclearize?

Quote

Now, it's true Trump does deserve some credit for two things:
1) Being so dumb that the Koreans feel they have to bypass the US entirely.

Have you realized that it's the KOREAN peninsula we're talking about? It is ultimately the Korean people that need to work this out. Trump has played a large part in facilitating the stability and good relations in the region, now it's up to them. And the US chose to not take part in the discussions, remember? How you can twist that in your mind into Koreans bypassing the dumb Drumpf, is a mystery to me.

Quote

 

What's happening here is that the US has abandoned the idea of North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons. Thanks to Trump's loud mouth but ridiculous actions, everybody has accepted that NK is a nuclear power now. Instead of demanding denuclearization or regime change, the US will simply hope that NK liberalize "the Soviet way" through commerce and exchanges, especially with SK.

 

Even more unfounded claims. The reason Trump cancelled the Pompeo visits is because there wasn't enough progress on denuclearization.  The US wants more concrete steps taken in that direction. Kim has reportedly mentioned during talks with South Korean officials that he wants to achieve complete denuclearization during Trump's first term. 

Quote

So yeah, it's actually a success. A Pyrrhic success, since the US has granted NK everything it dreamt of and gotten nothing in return.

Care to elaborate on all those amazing things the US has granted NK? Because as far as I can see, NK is still in the same shitty situation it has been for a while now. They continue to be outpaced by the rest of the world. The pressure is on them to open up, while the US has nothing to lose. Even if NK keeps the nukes but signs a peace treaty, how is that not better than having nukes and being at war? That is not a pyrrhic victory, that is a victory in its true sense, for the US, since that's one less nation they are at war with, but especially for all the Korean people since they no longer live under the threat of possibly being nuked to dust at any moment. There would be absolutely no reason to use those nukes once they have ended the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Selig said:

What part of "if the United States takes corresponding measures" don't you get?

Why do you think "corresponding measures" refers to the US denuclearizing? Since it's obviously never going to happen, it much more likely refers to easing up on the sanctions, stopping the joint war games with SK, or something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SweetPea said:

Why would the US need to denuclearize?

 

Because that's the condition that North Korea has on giving up its nuclear weapons, and has been their position for a long time now. 

Just now, SweetPea said:

Have you realized that it's the KOREAN peninsula we're talking about? It is ultimately the Korean people that need to work this out.

The US is a signatory to the treaty that ended the Korean War. South Korea is not. So that'd be great, but the US has to be involved. 

Just now, SweetPea said:

 

Trump has played a large part in facilitating the stability and good relations in the region, now it's up to them. And the US chose to not take part in the discussions, remember? How you can twist that in your mind into Koreans bypassing the dumb Drumpf, is a mystery to me. 

That's true - but how that happened was by basically legitimizing North Korea as a nuclear power, something that the entire world had gone to great pains to avoid doing. Whether or not you think that's a good thing is something else, but it means that getting rid of NK's nukes is basically not going to happen, and the best thing that can happen is dealing with an NK nation with nukes in the nicest way possible. 

Just now, SweetPea said:

Even more unfounded claims. The reason Trump cancelled the Pompeo visits is because there wasn't enough progress on denuclearization.  The US wants more concrete steps taken in that direction. Kim has reportedly mentioned during talks with South Korean officials that he wants to achieve complete denuclearization during Trump's first term. 

Right -that involves the US also giving up their nukes. 

Just now, SweetPea said:

Care to elaborate on all those amazing things the US has granted NK? Because as far as I can see, NK is still in the same shitty situation it has been for a while now.

Okay, let's see. NK has had a face to face meeting with the US - something that they've wanted and begged for for 30 years. They have gotten China, Russia, and other nations to relax sanctions and trade restrictions with them. They've gotten South Korea to talk with them. They've gotten the US to not do wargames. 

You might think these are small, but these are all things that North Korea has gotten which they wanted.

What has the US gotten out of it? 

Just now, SweetPea said:

They continue to be outpaced by the rest of the world. The pressure is on them to open up, while the US has nothing to lose. Even if NK keeps the nukes but signs a peace treaty, how is that not better than having nukes and being at war? That is not a pyrrhic victory, that is a victory in its true sense, for the US, since that's one less nation they are at war with, but especially for all the Korean people since they no longer live under the threat of possibly being nuked to dust at any moment. There would be absolutely no reason to use those nukes once they have ended the war.

See, this I agree with - this likely means there's less of a chance of preemptive war by the US, assuming Bolton et al don't go more insane. That's because basically the US lost what they wanted. They didn't want a dangerous, unpredictable and antagonistic nation to have nuclear weapons. Japan didn't want that. South Korea didn't want that. But they're likely going to have to settle for that as the lesser of two evils at this point. That isn't at all what the US actually wants, and dealing with a dangerous country which now has nukes and is run by familial dictatorship is not what tends to add to general stability of the world, but it is better than the alternative of actually going to war with that country. 

So...yay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Why do you think "corresponding measures" refers to the US denuclearizing? Since it's obviously never going to happen, it much more likely refers to easing up on the sanctions, stopping the joint war games with SK, or something along those lines.

Again, it literally means denuclearizing - either the US completely, or getting rid of the nuclear presence and capabilities in the entire Eastern Asian area. That's what they keep talking about - about removing the threat of nuclear weapons in the entire Korean peninsula. What do you think that means? They're pretty specific about it, honestly. The real first step they want is a peace treaty from the US, which would require the US to remove the troops from the DMZ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fionwe1987

Quote

But no one is saying her mere public accusation should tank the nomination. To the contrary, everyone who supports her is calling for a thorough FBI investigation, followed by a public Senate hearing, with the vote pushed to after such investigations are concluded, and all evidence that can be found has been laid bare to allow Senators to make an informed decision.

Then we are all in agreement. I got the feeling that people seemed to say that the mere accusation should disqualify Kavanaugh from being appointed, which is what I disagreed with.
And it's not like that there aren't other reasons for Kavanaugh not to become a SCOTUS justice...

Quote

You seem to be conflating accusation with credible accusation. Not all accusations are credible. The accusation that Obama was a Muslim who was born in Kenya and lied about his citizenship was not credible. The accusation that the Clintons murdered Vince Forster were not credible. The accusations that Democrats run a child sex ring from the basement of a pizzeria in DC are not credible. The accusation that Trump was born with Devil's horns that were surgically removed on his first birthday are not credible. 

The only thing you're saying here is that without evidence to base it on, the credibility of an accusation depends on your personal worldview and ideas to begin with. Uneducated, stupid, or crazy people, will see stupid or crazy theories as credible. Or theories that fit their political side's narrative...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

The only thing you're saying here is that without evidence to base it on, the credibility of an accusation depends on your personal worldview and ideas to begin with. Uneducated, stupid, or crazy people, will see stupid or crazy theories as credible. Or theories that fit their political side's narrative...

Yes, and that's what makes this a different accusation - which is that it has actual evidence to base it on. It has corroborating, contemporaneous witnesses. It has multiple people who have been told of it over many years prior to the allegations coming out. Etc, etc. This is a Big Deal. Credible accusations should be taken seriously, regardless of political side. 

You appear to be saying that without actual physical or direct witness evidence no accusation is credible, and that is, quite frankly, complete and utter bullshit of the highest order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Why do you think "corresponding measures" refers to the US denuclearizing? Since it's obviously never going to happen, it much more likely refers to easing up on the sanctions, stopping the joint war games with SK, or something along those lines.

You're more willing to believe in the honesty and integrity of North Korea's dictator than you are of Christine Blasey Ford. Ye gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Why do you think "corresponding measures" refers to the US denuclearizing? Since it's obviously never going to happen, it much more likely refers to easing up on the sanctions, stopping the joint war games with SK, or something along those lines.

You can't change the meaning of words just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

NK wants to be rid of the threat of US nuclear weapons in exchange for its denuclearization. It's nothing new, the whole world knows this. There's no "much more likely" here. And it's fair, if you think about it.

So yes, it's never going to happen. Both NK and the US will keep their nuclear weapons.

16 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Trump has played a large part in facilitating the stability and good relations in the region, now it's up to them. And the US chose to not take part in the discussions, remember? How you can twist that in your mind into Koreans bypassing the dumb Drumpf, is a mystery to me.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that I wrote "2) letting the Koreas bypass the US entirely," thus acknowledging that it is indeed a choice?

16 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

The pressure is on them to open up, while the US has nothing to lose.

You really don't get it, do you? Kim doesn't mind "opening up."He'll take all the business and foreign money he can and use it to strengthen his regime. This is what all Trump's predecessors tried to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What an absolute idiot.

I trust Wert's posts, but I thought it had to be from a spoof site.

It was not......

.......we're boned. 

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

It was a 'declaration', which has been done countless times.  Let's wait to see if anything actually happens.

Yeah, this is the key. If progress is had, great, but let's slow down Charlie Brown, or Lucy is gonna pull that football again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I mean, really @SweetPea - read this history and tell me how much of it sounds like now. We're at the 'make deals with South Korea for small economic values in exchange for making promises they won't keep', circa 1990, 2000, and 2010. 

Why do you do this to yourself, Kal? I know you enjoy a good debate, but I fear for your heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, and that's what makes this a different accusation - which is that it has actual evidence to base it on.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. What evidence are we talking of?

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It has corroborating, contemporaneous witnesses.

Witnesses to what? Not the rape itself, obviously.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It has multiple people who have been told of it over many years prior to the allegations coming out.

That's worthless. I've been saying for years that my former boss was a bitch and a thief but me saying it doesn't make it so. It just means I hate her guts.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You appear to be saying that without actual physical or direct witness evidence no accusation is credible,

38 years later? Yep, pretty much.

But don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to believe that a douchebag fratboy can be a rapist. Especially one who famously doesn't respect women's reproductive rights. In other words the accusation is credible to me. It suits my worldview. It suits my political beliefs.
But that's not enough for legal or political consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. What evidence are we talking of?

Witnesses to what? Not the rape itself, obviously.

That's worthless. I've been saying for years that my former boss was a bitch and a thief but me saying it doesn't make it so. It just means I hate her guts.

38 years later? Yep, pretty much.

But don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to believe that a douchebag fratboy can be a rapist. Especially one who famously doesn't respect women's reproductive rights. In other words the accusation is credible to me. It suits my worldview. It suits my political beliefs.
But that's not enough for legal or political consequences.

Do you think political consequences should have the exact same standard as as if he was accused of a crime? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Jeff Flake Calls Donald Trump Jr.’s Joke About Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser “Sickening”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/flake-trump-jr-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-joke-sickening.html

Quote

Donald Trump Jr. is, unofficially, his father’s liaison to crude, internet-based “alt-right” Trump supporters. In this role, he made the following Instagram post about the letter that Christine Blasey Ford sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school:*

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Sen. Jeff Flake Calls Donald Trump Jr.’s Joke About Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser “Sickening”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/flake-trump-jr-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-joke-sickening.html

 

Does that mean Flake will have the guts to buck his party on Bart O'Kavanaugh? I notice that Senator Hand-Wringer didn't even @ Donnie Jr. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Republicans ‘duck and cover’ on pre-existing conditions
GOP candidates can’t neutralize attacks over Obamacare’s most popular protections.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/19/obamacare-midterms-republicans-pre-exisiting-conditions-793328

Quote

 

Republicans are struggling to convince voters they will protect people with pre-existing conditions as Democrats trying to build a blue wave for November pound them for threatening to take away sick people’s health care.

Republicans have sought for weeks to defuse public angst over the issue, alternately vowing to protect coverage for vulnerable Americans while trying to fire up opposition to Democrats’ growing embrace of single payer.


Polling shows heightened public concern over pre-existing conditions – 75 percent say it's "very important" to keep Obamacare's insurance protections – and greater trust in Democrats to deal with the issue. The GOP’s most direct attempt to address the insurance protections – a recent Senate bill Republicans said would protect sick patients – backfired spectacularly after it quickly became clear the measure wouldn’t actually cover the pre-existing conditions it claimed to protect. The Trump administration's support for a lawsuit in Texas that would gut the health care law also hasn't helped the perception Republicans won't protect patients with pre-existing conditions.

That’s left Republicans, who took control of Washington after years of vague promises to replace Obamacare, grasping to find a new health care message just weeks out from midterm elections. Their inability to neutralize the pre-existing condition issue is hurting their efforts in tight races that will determine control of Congress.

“This is the killer app of Obamacare,” said Republican strategist Rick Wilson, pointing to the broad bipartisan support for the law’s health protections. “What you have to do at this point is duck and cover.”

 

 

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...