Trump, Kim sign "comprehensive" document

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Agree, but we have 30,000 troops stationed in Japan.  We are not going to be removing our nuclear capabilities from that area.

I don't disagree. I am merely pointing out the thinking of the DPRK, historically. No one said they were reasonable in their thought process.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Zona does a good job of pointing out my issues with this type of comparison.  I know there's an element of jest in your initial post, but this type of comparison is made by some in the US at an alarming rate.

Yeah it sure was more of a joke in this case. That being said, I can't quite go as far along with you as to consider calling Trump an autocrat to be outright silly. Not that I want to defend exaggerations, but there are certain signs that it's not outrageous to see him in that light... 

...loyalty pledges, calling the press Americas enemies (as of today, Americas "biggest" enemies), attacking the judiciary, wanting to interfere with FBI investigations and the DOJ, attacking institutions (up to comparisons with Nazi Germany) while trying to undermine them and claiming victimhood, feeding and promoting a distinct pro-Trump network with having close personal relations to several hosts, villifying opponents, and of course praising other authoritarians while dismissing democratic leaders. All this and more paints a picture to me where you can't really take too much issue with being seen as having authoritarian tendencies. Is it exaggerated often, sure. Doesn't mean there's nothing there at all.

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 12:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah it sure was more of a joke in this case. That being said, I can't quite go as far along with you as to consider calling Trump an autocrat to be outright silly. Not that I want to defend exaggerations, but there are certain signs that it's not outrageous to see him in that light... 

...loyalty pledges, calling the press Americas enemies (as of today, Americas "biggest" enemies), attacking the judiciary, wanting to interfere with FBI investigations and the DOJ, attacking institutions (up to comparisons with Nazi Germany) while trying to undermine them and claiming victimhood, feeding and promoting a distinct pro-Trump network with having close personal relations to several hosts, villifying opponents, and of course praising other authoritarians while dismissing democratic leaders. All this and more paints a picture to me where you can't really take too much issue with being seen as having authoritarian tendencies. Is it exaggerated often, sure. Doesn't mean there's nothing there at all.

Yes. Trump has all the characteristics of the Authoritarian Personality. At the moment he is hemmed in by democratic institutions designed to check presidential overreach.

But he challenges those checks every day, making it plain enough what he would LIKE to do to political opponents and the press and how he would LIKE to solve political conflicts with other countries.  That is one of the concerns raised by his presidency, why people speak of impending constitutional crisis. Rush Limbaugh seems to think that over the last year he is weeding out the softies in his staff--which means he is removing advisors who advise constraint and remind him of precedent and decorum.

The worst thing about the situation is that the authoritarian characteristics seem to drive a lot of his support--the demonization of minorities and "tough talk" to other foreign leaders, the stated willingness to rain "fire and fury" on NK, and chants of "lock her up."  He is the kind of leader a significant number of Americans now admire, want and whose policies they take on faith.  For many there is a total disconnect between Trump's behavior and the criticism it elicits. No challenge to democratic institutions here at all. Just haters.

[Belsnickel]

This was a fun thread to read:

Anyone else perusing the local, Asia-based reaction to the #TrumpKimSummit? A bracing experience.

— Mary Kissel (@marykissel) June 13, 2018

[*bfine32*]

Folks kind of move the bar once one hurdle is obtained.

When the talk first arose of Trump meeting with Kim, folks said it will never happen because Trump doesn't know how it works.

Then the Summit was announced and folks said Kim will back out

Then Trump backed out and many said "see I told you"

Then the summit occurred and now folks are saying "it was a failure" for countless reasons

I cannot wait for the spin if NK actually starts denucularization due to groundwork set by this summit

Trump had a face to face meeting with the leader of NK, something no other sitting President has done and the new spin is "because they didn't want to". If we did nothing but establish a bit of rapport with a hostile nucular country it was a success anything built upon it will be a bonus. Unless you are of the ilk that would rather see Trump fails even if it means hurting folk.

[fredtoast]

From November 2017.  Russia and China propose that the US and NK suspend military exercises in return for NK halting its weapons programs.  Trump rejects the idea.  Trump also tried to claim that Chinese President Xi Jinping rejected the proposal, but apparently that was not true.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-usa/china-says-dual-suspension-proposal-still-best-for-north-korea-idUSKBN1DG10Y

So both Russia and China were big winners after what happened at this summit.

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump had a face to face meeting with the leader of NK, something no other sitting President has done and the new spin is "because they didn't want to". If we did nothing but establish a bit of rapport with a hostile nucular country it was a success anything built upon it will be a bonus. Unless you are of the ilk that would rather see Trump fails even if it means hurting folk.

That's not really new spin, it's what I've been saying from the start, and it's the truth. the DPRK has tried from its inception to have a meeting between a Kim and our POTUS. We have denied them this because it legitimizes their regime and elevates them on the world stage. That has been our policy towards the DPRK. Agree or disagree with that it isn't spin, that's reality.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 04:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not really new spin, it's what I've been saying from the start, and it's the truth. the DPRK has tried from its inception to have a meeting between a Kim and our POTUS. We have denied them this because it legitimizes their regime and elevates them on the world stage. That has been our policy towards the DPRK. Agree or disagree with that it isn't spin, that's reality.

You can suggest the meetings didn't happen prior simply because other US Presidents didn't want to meet with NK, but the reality is they wanted to meet they just couldn't work out the details. Why did Clinton send Albright over there twice to try to work something out? Because he didn't want the meeting? I suppose SK should be ashamed that they legitimized the regime by not only conducting a meeting of Presidents but even participated on the same team with them in the Olympics.

I suppose Trump just doesn't know how it works if he cannot see the benefits gained from all these other Presidents not wanting to meet face to face and legitimize the regime.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2018, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump had a face to face meeting with the leader of NK, something no other sitting President has done and the new spin is "because they didn't want to". If we did nothing but establish a bit of rapport with a hostile nucular country it was a success anything built upon it will be a bonus. 

Well we know Obama was willing to meet with Kim because Sean Hannity kept squealing about how that was a terrible idea.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 05:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well we know Obama was willing to meet with Kim because Sean Hannity kept squealing about how that was a terrible idea.

Actually Obama "legitimized" Cuba by meeting with their leader and it was a move I applauded. Not sure Hannity's spin on it as unlike apparently many on here I don't listen to the guy. I did use to watch the show that had him and Alan Combs on it every now and then.

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can suggest the meetings didn't happen prior simply because other US Presidents didn't want to meet with NK, but the reality is they wanted to meet they just couldn't work out the details. Why did Clinton send Albright over there twice to try to work something out? Because he didn't want the meeting? I suppose SK should be ashamed that they legitimized the regime by not only conducting a meeting of Presidents but even participated on the same team with them in the Olympics.

I suppose Trump just doesn't know how it works if he cannot see the benefits gained from all these other Presidents not wanting to meet face to face and legitimize the regime.

A meeting between Kim and POTUS elevates the regime on the world stage. No prior POTUS was willing to do this without a ton of conditions worked out, which I take as meaning they did not want to do this. The Kim family has been trying all along to do this. Trump having a meeting with Kim doesn't take much effort on his part because of this.

Also, trying to draw an equivocation between POTUS meeting Kim and Moon is asinine. The status is different because of the difference in the nations. Even meeting the Xi isn't the same because of the relationship with China. Because of the status of the US economically, as a world leader, and as an adversary, the heads of state meeting is uniquely elevating.

And Trump doesn't know how any of it works. Whether it's foreign or domestic policy.

[*Nately120*]

(06-13-2018, 05:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Obama "legitimized" Cuba by meeting with their leader and it was a move I applauded. Not sure Hannity's spin on it as unlike apparently many on here I don't listen to the guy. I did use to watch the show that had him and Alan Combs on it every now and then.

Wasn't Combs just there to "prove" that democrats are doormats, though?

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 05:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Wasn't Combs just there to "prove" that democrats are doormats, though?

I always thought he gave as good as he got; given, I was not a regular.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2018, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose Trump just doesn't know how it works if he cannot see the benefits gained from all these other Presidents not wanting to meet face to face and legitimize the regime.

Trump just said that NK is no longer a nuclear threat.

Based on that do you think Trump knows how this works?  Because to me it is glaring proof that he is completely clueless.

[*Nately120*]

(06-13-2018, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I always thought he gave as good as he got; given, I was not a regular.

Possibly.  He seemed more like a way for Fox to seem balanced and provide a perpetual left-ish punching bag for Hannity.
Seemed like genius marketing to me.  We are so balanced and fair we're going to let you watch Hannity eviscerate this doormat liberal on a daily basis.  Huzzah.

Again, I wasn't a regular, I just recall thinking he just let Hannity run all over him because (as my cousin will tell you about his wife) you just can't battle crazy.

[Dill]

(06-12-2018, 11:15 PM)BBengalzona Wrote: North Korea serves a purpose for China. But it also serves a purpose for Russia. Notice that Russia and China are not nearly as concerned with North Korea having nukes as the U.S. is. In fact, they are almost completely unconcerned about it. Yet, they have been 'within range' of those nukes from the very beginning.

Why is that?

This is an excellent question. By way of answering it, I want first to say that, while you are correct that R and C are not as concerned as the US about NK nukes, I cannot agree that they are "almost completely unconcerned."  E.g., they have willingly supported (if selectively enforced) the US/UN led sanctions. In Feb. Russia stopped imports of nickel  and copper and stopped exports of helicopters and other advanced equipment, and pledged to send back at least some of the NK workers in Russia. Last year they refused to extradite an NK defector. NK is one of the few countries who recognized Russia's Crimea claims, so Russians don't want to hurt their "friend"; but they recognize this wouldn't be a problem if NK had not produced nukes.

You know that NK serves as a "buffer" between a US client and the PRC, and the expense and time it drains from US foreign policy is a plus for them.  But it is a problem for China on several fronts, as it parks a large contingent of US forces in SK (on their block, so to speak), plus the yearly "provocative war games."  Then there are the porous borders and the potential that a trickle of refugees could become masses following conflict or were the state to collapse.  Kim's verbal battles with the US increase that risk. With Trump in the equation, someone who won't take nukes "off the table," the stakes increase mightily.  I don't think China can accept a nuclear strike so close to its borders. Same for Russia. They have to be thinking of what they can/should do when Trump finds out what denuclearization really means for Kim and Trump's own bravado will make him look weak if he doesn't do something "military" to show he means business, can't be played, etc. (I don't think even Trump would consider a nuclear strike a first option, but any military action action would likely start an uncontrollable escalation.)  The whole world would condemn a US first strike, but Russia and China would appear especially weak if they didn't try to prevent it, draw red lines, etc.

NK nukes are a two-edged sword for R and C.  They draw unwanted conflict, US military forces, and nuclear risk to R and C borders. This they certainly do not like.

But They cannot just remove NK's nukes and move the US off the peninsula, so, making the best of a bad situation, they have to like what they are seeing right now--the rift between the US and its allies; the reception of Kim by other world leaders, raising the chance of easing or ending UN sanctions which hurt their economies too.  It is unlikely even partial denuclearization can go forward with resumption of six-lateral talks, which keeps C and R in the game, shaping the outcome to heir interests. That may look like "unconcern" about nukes; but they will be very concerned if nukes escalate conflict on their borders.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 05:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A meeting between Kim and POTUS elevates the regime on the world stage. No prior POTUS was willing to do this without a ton of conditions worked out, which I take as meaning they did not want to do this. The Kim family has been trying all along to do this. Trump having a meeting with Kim doesn't take much effort on his part because of this.

Also, trying to draw an equivocation between POTUS meeting Kim and Moon is asinine. The status is different because of the difference in the nations. Even meeting the Xi isn't the same because of the relationship with China. Because of the status of the US economically, as a world leader, and as an adversary, the heads of state meeting is uniquely elevating.

And Trump doesn't know how any of it works. Whether it's foreign or domestic policy.

So you actually didn't men something as trivial as "didn't want", what you actually meant was what I suggested "couldn't set the stage.

Your Merica trumps all other countries is to be admired, So glad you have such pride in the Nation. Personally, I cannot be that condescending toward other Nations; although, I do realize that POTUS is the most powerful man in the world. 

Dude typing on a keyboard in a message forum is expounding on how the most powerful man in the world doesn't know how any of it works. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump just said that NK is no longer a nuclear threat.

Based on that do you think Trump knows how this works?  Because to me it is glaring proof that he is completely clueless.

Of course he knows how it works. The fact that he said that plainly illustrates it. He may think NK is still a nucular power, but he gains nothing by saying such this close after the summit.

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 05:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A meeting between Kim and POTUS elevates the regime on the world stage. No prior POTUS was willing to do this without a ton of conditions worked out, which I take as meaning they did not want to do this. The Kim family has been trying all along to do this. Trump having a meeting with Kim doesn't take much effort on his part because of this.

Also, trying to draw an equivocation between POTUS meeting Kim and Moon is asinine. The status is different because of the difference in the nations. Even meeting the Xi isn't the same because of the relationship with China. Because of the status of the US economically, as a world leader, and as an adversary, the heads of state meeting is uniquely elevating.

And Trump doesn't know how any of it works. Whether it's foreign or domestic policy.

In terms of the differential in international social capital, it's really like the governor of CA meeting with the LA leader of MS 13 in a lavish hotel in San Franciso, with all kinds of hand shaking and photo ops, and the governor's boosters calling this a "historic first."  Followed by a very public agreement that a de escalation of MS 13 AND police violence will begin. Soon.  Meantime Brown talks about how this leader "loves his people" and had to be tough and very smart to come up through the gang ranks. Boosters then further claim that what previous governors did "wasn't working" but now we are "talking" and Brown got "an agreement." No one would take the step but Trump Brown did!  Now the mayors of LA and San Diego and several Texas cities will meet with this leader as well. Big win for Brown here.

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude typing on a keyboard in a message forum is expounding on how the most powerful man in the world doesn't know how any of it works. 

Yes. And "dude" is right.  That is why the chaos presidency is a growing problem.