Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 180: The Summit All Fears

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/bill-clinton-al-franken-sexual-harassment/index.html

Try not to sound so disappointed Bill
---

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1006473764018835457

Trump said he brought Kim to the table by showing him what the future could look like should he choose the path of peace: "Instead of [testing missiles] you could have the best hotels in the world right there. Think of it from a real estate perspective" https://t.co/XBC0Sh0nRK https://t.co/dlxvxLPcLG

... you have got to be kidding me.
---

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-says-north-koreans-love-kim-jong-un

Amazing how much people will say they love you when you throw their whole family in a labor camp if they say otherwise!!!
---

Russians really love Putin too!
---

Big baby is nothing without his PDAs
---

To me it feels like NK got so out of control that China backed off a bit and so we're swooping in. And hey, if they can lob nukes, it's nice to be their pal when no one else is.

It would be nice to see our president have some honesty about the situation (ie this is a long process) and some grace for our allies (SK has done a lot for the NK situation). I do like Trump's appeal about the hotels, actually. It's along the lines of his talk-past-the-deal tactic.
---

So Trump is buddying up with North Korea and insulting Canada. Okay.

And it seems that a lot of Americans are with Trump about insulting Trudeau because, once again, anti-left sentiment. WTF.
---

https://twitter.com/tackettdc/status/1006497155278831617

As an example, they have great beaches, he said during a news conference after his meeting with Mr. Kim. You see that whenever theyre exploding their cannons into the ocean. I said, Boy look at that view. Wouldnt that make a great condo? https://t.co/v5O57neseH

... not the Onion
---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/tackettdc/status/1006497155278831617

As an example, they have great beaches, he said during a news conference after his meeting with Mr. Kim. You see that whenever theyre exploding their cannons into the ocean. I said, Boy look at that view. Wouldnt that make a great condo? https://t.co/v5O57neseH

... not the Onion

Wtf...
---

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1006473156868091904

Trump says he trusts Kim Jong Un. And if he's wrong? "I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey I was wrong,'" said Trump, before adding, "I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse." https://t.co/J2k6ehVhW1 https://t.co/onKaUHP2f3

This is more honest than anything he's said in decades.
---

just got to the half-way point of the White House's bizarre-ass 2 video and my eyes burst open

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A838gS8nwas" data-time="

what the fuck is this

ahahahaah I continued to the end now WILL HE SHAKE THE HAND OF PEACE?!!!?!?!
---

neonreaper posted...

I do like Trump's appeal about the hotels, actually. It's along the lines of his talk-past-the-deal tactic.

The problem is that theyll be Trump hotels
---

Is backlash towards the left so big that people like how Trump cozies up to dictators while going around insulting other democratically-elected leaders?
---

Peace___Frog posted...

This is more honest than anything he's said in decades.

"Maybe a rope" was pretty damn honest, and in much the same way by trailing behind his previously blusterous statement.
---

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1006535798689353728

Really makes me think.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1006535798689353728

Really makes me think.

This has to be intentional right? Rubios not that oblivious
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1006535798689353728

Really makes me think.

This has to be intentional right? Rubios not that oblivious

There is no way he didn't know what he was doing. Especially with the way he phrased it.
---

Could someone please explain the difference, if any, between the agreement with NK and the deal Trump reneged on with Iran?
---

Espeon posted...

Could someone please explain the difference, if any, between the agreement with NK and the deal Trump reneged on with Iran?

NK has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. NK therefore has a better bargaining position.
---

Espeon posted...

Could someone please explain the difference, if any, between the agreement with NK and the deal Trump reneged on with Iran?

The Iran deal actually had specifics and details.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

neonreaper posted...

I do like Trump's appeal about the hotels, actually. It's along the lines of his talk-past-the-deal tactic.

The problem is that theyll be Trump hotels

I'm fine with 100 new Trump hotels in NK if it gets them to open up the country.

By the way, I heard that real estate prices in Dandong, China (on the NK border) are up 1000% this year, even before the Summit yesterday. There's a ton of business opportunity here if NK does decide to open for business.
---

I should clarify:

What is the difference between what Trump claimed was wrong with the Iran deal, and what the NK deal actually IS? Because the claim was that the U.S. got nothing from the Iran deal and gave up a lot...yet Im seeing nothing to show that that description doesnt apply to the NK deal.
---

YeahNot_an_Owl posted...

Espeon posted...

Could someone please explain the difference, if any, between the agreement with NK and the deal Trump reneged on with Iran?

The Iran deal actually had specifics and details.

Yeah, I can't help but notice the similarity between this deal and the Anglo-German friendship agreement Chamberlain and Hitler signed in 1938. No details, driven heavily by a claimed personal trust between the leaders, big promises of peace.
---

Espeon posted...

I should clarify:

What is the difference between what Trump claimed was wrong with the Iran deal, and what the NK deal actually IS? Because the claim was that the U.S. got nothing from the Iran deal and gave up a lot...yet Im seeing nothing to show that that description doesnt apply to the NK deal.

What we're getting from the NK deal is they get rid of their nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have any, so they don't have anything so valuable to give us.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

I should clarify:

What is the difference between what Trump claimed was wrong with the Iran deal, and what the NK deal actually IS? Because the claim was that the U.S. got nothing from the Iran deal and gave up a lot...yet Im seeing nothing to show that that description doesnt apply to the NK deal.

What we're getting from the NK deal is they get rid of their nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have any, so they don't have anything so valuable to give us.

You mean the nuclear weapons they cant use because they blew up their only testing facility? Again, it seems to me like America gave up a lot in exchange for nothing, whereas the Iran deal was more balanced.
---

Espeon posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

I should clarify:

What is the difference between what Trump claimed was wrong with the Iran deal, and what the NK deal actually IS? Because the claim was that the U.S. got nothing from the Iran deal and gave up a lot...yet Im seeing nothing to show that that description doesnt apply to the NK deal.

What we're getting from the NK deal is they get rid of their nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have any, so they don't have anything so valuable to give us.

You mean the nuclear weapons they cant use because they blew up their only testing facility? Again, it seems to me like America gave up a lot in exchange for nothing, whereas the Iran deal was more balanced.

They already finished testing. They have the weapons built already. And even if their delivery technology is unreliable, that's not a chance we want to take.
---

Trump's comments about the hotels is absolutely correct, though. Development of North Korea is the long term guarantee of any peace deal, for both sides. They don't trust us, for good reason, and we don't trust them, for good reason. But if in 15 years Pyongyang resembles Seoul or Singapore, no one is going to want to go back.
---

red sox 777 posted...

What we're getting from the NK deal is they get rid of their nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have any, so they don't have anything so valuable to give us.

Are you actually that naive or what
---

Peace___Frog posted...

red sox 777 posted...

What we're getting from the NK deal is they get rid of their nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have any, so they don't have anything so valuable to give us.

Are you actually that naive or what

Read my posts. I compared it to the Anglo-German friendship agreement of 1938. They haven't actually handed over any nukes yet. But if they do, then that would be a bargain well struck.
---

And I guess, when it comes time to hand over the nukes, it'll be to China or Russia. Dems are going to throw a fit if it's Russia.
---

The main difference is the things NK agreed to are what they are already doing (they dont need to test nuclear missiles now that they have nuclear missiles) and in exchange WE agreed to begin looking at winding down our military presence in SK.

Plus we have no agreed upon means of enforcement of the deal on either side.

So the main difference is this is beginning life as a meaningless sheet of paper while the Iran deal was merely turned into one by Trumps policies.
---

Trump agreed to stop military drills in South Korea in exchange for the vague promise of denuclearization.

What a dealmaker.
---

Espeon posted...

I should clarify:

What is the difference between what Trump claimed was wrong with the Iran deal, and what the NK deal actually IS? Because the claim was that the U.S. got nothing from the Iran deal and gave up a lot...yet Im seeing nothing to show that that description doesnt apply to the NK deal.

the nk deal was negotiated by a republican administration

the iran deal was negotiated by a black guy
---

The military exercises themselves can be easily restarted. That's not a big concession. It doesn't change the reality that NK would lose a war, badly.

If we gave them lots of cash before they disarmed, that would be possibly overly trusting. Because we can't get it back if they don't hold up their end of the deal.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It doesn't change the reality that NK would lose a war, badly.

Of course they would, but they would also kill millions of South Korean civilians in the process.
---

why doesn't this topic have a "politics" tag I am very offended
---

So uh we talking North Korea here?

Good first step. Hopefully something comes out of it. I remain skeptical.

I dunno about pulling all our troops out of South Korea, but if South Korea doesn't have a threat it wouldn't be the worst thing to reduce presence.
---

North Korea will always remain a threat to South Korea until they normalize their society
---

Icehawk posted...

why doesn't this topic have a "politics" tag I am very offended

yeah wtf. this is like the third time in a row jakyl didn't add it >_>
---

Corrik posted...

I dunno about pulling all our troops out of South Korea, but if South Korea doesn't have a threat it wouldn't be the worst thing to reduce presence.

Technically South Korea is under threat until there's a peace treaty (or even unification but who the hell knows if or when that's going to happen). Even without nukes the North has enough conventional weapons to reduce Seoul to rubble. Pulling U.S. troops out of the peninsula entirely would be an enormous concession and I wouldn't even contemplate it without some equally large concession on North Korea's part.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It doesn't change the reality that NK would lose a war, badly.

Of course they would, but they would also kill millions of South Korean civilians in the process.

That would happen whether or not we held military exercises. As a deterrent it adds very little value.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

I dunno about pulling all our troops out of South Korea, but if South Korea doesn't have a threat it wouldn't be the worst thing to reduce presence.

Technically South Korea is under threat until there's a peace treaty (or even unification but who the hell knows if or when that's going to happen). Even without nukes the North has enough conventional weapons to reduce Seoul to rubble. Pulling U.S. troops out of the peninsula entirely would be an enormous concession and I wouldn't even contemplate it without some equally large concession on North Korea's part.

Well, I can't imagine we would ever remove troops unless they had denuclearized and a treaty was signed with a normalization of relations.

We are kind of past the day when we need to be there for an action with the information age upon us. A base would be good to keep there, but I do not know if we need 7000 troops posted there at all times.
---

I know the NK thing is HOT, but we have an "agreement" on both sides that means absolutely nothing, so I don't think it warrants tons of conversation, outside of several embarrassing Trump moments the last 24 hours. There is nothing on paper, and NK is not serious about this. Nothing serious is going to come from a meeting between the two top leaders, "planned" out like a month in advance, and a president who thinks attitude is all that matters. It's all just a photo op.

I'm more interested in what will actually matter, trade wars that are inbound.

A. Do you think there are enough republicans with balls to actually get legislation through that stops trump's tariffs? (No)

B. Do you agree with this article, that the best way to handle trump would be to sanction his own businesses instead of the country at large? I think it makes sense, though I imagine the politics in the home countries would be bad, as it wouldn't be a strong enough response in terms of pure dollars..

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17422492/sanction-trump-organization
---

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

I dunno about pulling all our troops out of South Korea, but if South Korea doesn't have a threat it wouldn't be the worst thing to reduce presence.

Technically South Korea is under threat until there's a peace treaty (or even unification but who the hell knows if or when that's going to happen). Even without nukes the North has enough conventional weapons to reduce Seoul to rubble. Pulling U.S. troops out of the peninsula entirely would be an enormous concession and I wouldn't even contemplate it without some equally large concession on North Korea's part.

Well, I can't imagine we would ever remove troops unless they had denuclearized and a treaty was signed with a normalization of relations.

We are kind of past the day when we need to be there for an action with the information age upon us. A base would be good to keep there, but I do not know if we need 7000 troops posted there at all times.

They're there as a sort of absolute guarantee that the US will defend South Korea from invasion. Hopefully that won't be necessary in the future but we aren't there yet.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

I dunno about pulling all our troops out of South Korea, but if South Korea doesn't have a threat it wouldn't be the worst thing to reduce presence.

Technically South Korea is under threat until there's a peace treaty (or even unification but who the hell knows if or when that's going to happen). Even without nukes the North has enough conventional weapons to reduce Seoul to rubble. Pulling U.S. troops out of the peninsula entirely would be an enormous concession and I wouldn't even contemplate it without some equally large concession on North Korea's part.

Well, I can't imagine we would ever remove troops unless they had denuclearized and a treaty was signed with a normalization of relations.

We are kind of past the day when we need to be there for an action with the information age upon us. A base would be good to keep there, but I do not know if we need 7000 troops posted there at all times.

They're there as a sort of absolute guarantee that the US will defend South Korea from invasion. Hopefully that won't be necessary in the future but we aren't there yet.

Obviously that would be a last concession for full cooperation with North Korea. Ending war games was a tease.
---

Icehawk posted...

I know the NK thing is HOT, but we have an "agreement" on both sides that means absolutely nothing, so I don't think it warrants tons of conversation, outside of several embarrassing Trump moments the last 24 hours. There is nothing on paper, and NK is not serious about this. Nothing serious is going to come from a meeting between the two top leaders, "planned" out like a month in advance, and a president who thinks attitude is all that matters. It's all just a photo op.

I'm more interested in what will actually matter, trade wars that are inbound.

A. Do you think there are enough republicans with balls to actually get legislation through that stops trump's tariffs? (No)

B. Do you agree with this article, that the best way to handle trump would be to sanction his own businesses instead of the country at large? I think it makes sense, though I imagine the politics in the home countries would be bad, as it wouldn't be a strong enough response in terms of pure dollars..

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17422492/sanction-trump-organization

If they want to guarantee Trump and the Republicans win reelection, they can try that. Americans won't take well to that kind of interference.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

I know the NK thing is HOT, but we have an "agreement" on both sides that means absolutely nothing, so I don't think it warrants tons of conversation, outside of several embarrassing Trump moments the last 24 hours. There is nothing on paper, and NK is not serious about this. Nothing serious is going to come from a meeting between the two top leaders, "planned" out like a month in advance, and a president who thinks attitude is all that matters. It's all just a photo op.

I'm more interested in what will actually matter, trade wars that are inbound.

A. Do you think there are enough republicans with balls to actually get legislation through that stops trump's tariffs? (No)

B. Do you agree with this article, that the best way to handle trump would be to sanction his own businesses instead of the country at large? I think it makes sense, though I imagine the politics in the home countries would be bad, as it wouldn't be a strong enough response in terms of pure dollars..

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17422492/sanction-trump-organization

If they want to guarantee Trump and the Republicans win reelection, they can try that. Americans won't take well to that kind of interference.

Yeah, Americans don't give a damn about tariffs on normal American goods due to Trump's trade policies, but putting sanctions on a "billionaire"'s businesses would be going TOO FAR for the middle class of America. MAGAAAAAAA
---

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

I know the NK thing is HOT, but we have an "agreement" on both sides that means absolutely nothing, so I don't think it warrants tons of conversation, outside of several embarrassing Trump moments the last 24 hours. There is nothing on paper, and NK is not serious about this. Nothing serious is going to come from a meeting between the two top leaders, "planned" out like a month in advance, and a president who thinks attitude is all that matters. It's all just a photo op.

I'm more interested in what will actually matter, trade wars that are inbound.

A. Do you think there are enough republicans with balls to actually get legislation through that stops trump's tariffs? (No)

B. Do you agree with this article, that the best way to handle trump would be to sanction his own businesses instead of the country at large? I think it makes sense, though I imagine the politics in the home countries would be bad, as it wouldn't be a strong enough response in terms of pure dollars..

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17422492/sanction-trump-organization

If they want to guarantee Trump and the Republicans win reelection, they can try that. Americans won't take well to that kind of interference.

Yeah, Americans don't give a damn about tariffs on normal American goods due to Trump's trade policies, but putting sanctions on a "billionaire"'s businesses would be going TOO FAR for the middle class of America. MAGAAAAAAA

It doesn't hurt them because they aren't being hit with tariffs, but it does insult them by trying to dictate their choice of president. Heavy on the insults, light on the actual pressure. A perfect recipe for digging in heels.
---

How does it dictate their choice of president? The logic in sanctioning Trump businesses is that Trump doesn't care about how trade wars affect every day Americans. The only thing he cares about is himself. Hurting Trump instead of actual people is the most effective way to get through to him. He is only vulnerable to this because he lied, as always, and did not divest from his businesses.
---

Icehawk posted...

How does it dictate their choice of president? The logic in sanctioning Trump businesses is that Trump doesn't care about how trade wars affect every day Americans. The only thing he cares about is himself. Hurting Trump instead of actual people is the most effective way to get through to him. He is only vulnerable to this because he lied, as always, and did not divest from his businesses.

Getting through to Trump is not the important thing. Getting through to the American people is the important thing.

And if other countries are really going to trade 100 billion in tariffs on them for 10 million in tariffs on Trump businesses, that's a big win for Americans. It's basically putting in tariffs without any retaliation. After "negotiating" a deal that good, Trump could start a donation site and get back more than he lost from the sanctions from Americans happy about what a great job he did renegotiating our trade deals.
---