Trump and North Korea

[Cow Poke]

IIRC the next exercise was not scheduled until the Spring of 2019 so putting it on hold now is hardly much of a concession.

And it's not the first time it was used as a bargaining chip, either a stick or a carrot.

[rogue06]

It's pretty hard, even for Fox, to pretend that Trump got something substantive out of the deal. There's no proof that Nth Korea will follow up on its promises to “work toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” North Korea has made similar promises to the previous three US administrations, and each time it has reneged. Furthermore Trump has betrayed the US's South Korean ally by giving up the joint military exercises, which is precisely what Kim AND China have both been after for ages, and got nothing in return.

You seem to have missed the fact that North Korea gave up three hostages and a promise to return the remains of servicemen from the Korean War that they had always refused to even discuss returning. And we didn't even have to give them a pallet of cash in return.

[One Bad Pig]

That one's easy. Obama spoke at UVM in his last couple of years in office. His speech was about the challenges of the modern era, and the challenges America faces in the coming years.

Also, Obama spoke often about the accomplishments of the administrative and legislative team. He was not beyond tooting his own horn, but it was the exception to the rule - not the rule. Trump does it each and every speech I have seen, in any context.

I was hoping for more than a vague assertion. "[Obama] was not beyond tooting his own horn" is a massive understatement.

[rogue06]

On Netflix's "The Break with Michelle Wolf" they asked the audience the question "Are You Sort Of Hoping We Don't Get Peace With North Korea So You Wouldn't Have To Give Trump Credit?"

71% said yes.

It is pretty difficult to find anything on this but here is a video clip that I'm not directly linking to due to the use of a naughty word for the rectum https://twitter.com/BrentHBaker/status/1003709048557064199

Bill Maher on HBO hopes for economic disaster for the U.S. purely because that would hurt Trump and these idiots would rather see a nuclear armed North Korea than Trump get any credit for disarmament

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28353[/ATTACH]

Increasingly unhinged folks.

00000000000000ars2c.jpg

It seems that the left has changed one of their slogans: Give Peace Nuclear War A Chance

[One Bad Pig]

I have neither the time nor inclination to trace through all of this. From my perspective, it is an marvelous example of the ongoing problem with the right recognizing that racial inequality and disenfranchisement is alive and well in the U.S. of A. In my experience, no amount of evidence will counter that perspective.

I agree, but that's probably not what you intended to say.

It's sad - because there remains a great deal of work to be done. The right will either join in and be part of the solution, or they will be marginalized as the rest of us work to solve the problems.

I see your broad-brush, and raise you one. The policies of the left are doing a bang-up job of perpetuating the problem, because the left generally is not interested in a solution. A solution might cost them votes.

[carpedm9587]

I was hoping for more than a vague assertion. "[Obama] was not beyond tooting his own horn" is a massive understatement.

You know - my entire involvement in this discussion is an error. I noted Trump's perpetual self-aggrandizement, and the response was "what about Obama?" I fell right into the "whataboutism" trap. What Obama may or may not have done is irrelevant to the observation that Trump self-promotes and brags personally - about himself - at every opportunity, claims credit for things he did not do, claims he accomplished things he did not, and exaggerates many (all?) claims beyond credibility.

[carpedm9587]

I agree, but that's probably not what you intended to say.

The second "perspective" refers to the "ongoing problem with the right recognizing that racial inequality and disenfranchisement is alive and well in the U.S. of A," which is what immediately precedes it in the paragraph. However, the use of perspective caused some (like you) to link it to the first use of perspective instead, leading to a bit of ambiguity. Better worded, it would have said:

I have neither the time nor inclination to trace through all of this. From my perspective, it is an marvelous example of the ongoing problem with the right recognizing that racial inequality and disenfranchisement is alive and well in the U.S. of A. In my experience, no amount of evidence will counter that lack of recognition by so many on the right.

I see your broad-brush, and raise you one. The policies of the left are doing a bang-up job of perpetuating the problem, because the left generally is not interested in a solution. A solution might cost them votes.

I actually agree with the highlighted segment. The rest is just a perpetual right-wing meme. I know of a lot of people on the left (and a few on the right) engaging in social justice activities in support of minorities. None of them want racism to continue because it gets the left votes. And the entire concept is frankly ludicrous. The party that actually, positively, addresses the problem of racism would become the default party of minorities. The problem is many well-intentioned people perpetuate racism by adopting strategies that focus on race, instead of adopting strategies that focus on the effects of racism. When they focus on race, they do two things: 1) they perpetuate racism, and 2) they leave out in the cold those majority people (i.e., usually white) also suffering from the same effects (for other reasons), creating resentment and anger.

There are places to attack racism head-on (e.g., the resume problem, etc.). Most other strategies, IMO, should focus on effects.

[Littlejoe]

You know - my entire involvement in this discussion is an error. I noted Trump's perpetual self-aggrandizement, and the response was "what about Obama?" I fell right into the "whataboutism" trap. What Obama may or may not have done is irrelevant to the observation that Trump self-promotes and brags personally - about himself - at every opportunity, claims credit for things he did not do, claims he accomplished things he did not, and exaggerates many (all?) claims beyond credibility.

I think the point that should have been made is: they ALL do it, left, right it doesn't seem to matter.

There's an old saying: "How do you know a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving." Self promotion is the new thing. Nobody toots your horn like yourself. It's how the Peter principle goes from theory to reality IMO.

[carpedm9587]

I think the point that should have been made is: they ALL do it, left, right it doesn't seem to matter.

There's an old saying: "How do you know a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving." Self promotion is the new thing. Nobody toots your horn like yourself. It's how the Peter principle goes from theory to reality IMO.

Yes, every politician makes claims. No doubt about it. You cannot become a politician without convincing people you can make a difference, and that requires talking about yourself. Good leaders make those claims in the name of the people they are running to serve. "We can move ahead." "We can make things better." They lead. They engender enthusiasm.

Trump is a different animal. When he is not personally claiming credit, he's blaming someone else for the failure. And he takes credit for things he did not do, and for things that have not actually been done! It is mind-blowing to me that anyone cannot see the difference between Trump and ANY president that has preceded him in my lifetime. We have had inspirational leaders, we have had competent leaders, and we've a a few well-meaning-but-pretty-impotent leaders. Trump is the first full-blown megalomaniac in my experience.

[Sparko]

That one's easy. Obama spoke at UVM in his last couple of years in office. His speech was about the challenges of the modern era, and the challenges America faces in the coming years.

Also, Obama spoke often about the accomplishments of the administrative and legislative team. He was not beyond tooting his own horn, but it was the exception to the rule - not the rule. Trump does it each and every speech I have seen, in any context.

[Mountain Man]

My favorite was when Obama referred to himself over 100-times in a speech ostensibly about Hillary.

And in each president's first State of the Union address, Obama referred to himself four-times as often as Trump.

[rogue06]

My favorite was when Obama referred to himself over 100-times in a speech ostensibly about Hillary.

And in each president's first State of the Union address, Obama referred to himself four-times as often as Trump.

00000000000000ars8a.gif
But I choose to pretend otherwise since any evidence
to the contrary is nothing but a right wing meme

[Sparko]

My favorite was when Obama referred to himself over 100-times in a speech ostensibly about Hillary.

And in each president's first State of the Union address, Obama referred to himself four-times as often as Trump.

Those are just examples not arguments!

[carpedm9587]

My favorite was when Obama referred to himself over 100-times in a speech ostensibly about Hillary.

And in each president's first State of the Union address, Obama referred to himself four-times as often as Trump.

Yeah - I've been through these...as well as through the original speeches. The first one is a disingenuous removal the references from context, most of which were either self-deprecating, collective references (e.g., my administration), or simply innocuous (counting such things as "I am here to address you").

The second makes the mistake of number of instances versus length of references. It's apples and oranges. You also can pick one speech from each person and end up making Obama look good or Trump look bad. Try looking over the breadth of their speeches to see the pattern.

[carpedm9587]

Those are just examples not arguments!

Exactly.