The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
Where is Trump going to find someone worse than this guy to appoint next? Is there a bottom to this below which no candidate can be found or is it Scarramuccis all the way down?
Klinker said:
Where is Trump going to find someone worse than this guy to appoint next? Is there a bottom to this below which no candidate can be found or is it Scarramuccis all the way down?
He picks anyone who is “nice” to him and kisses his ***. Expect more of the same.
Has this story been covered on MOL? If not, why not?
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/world/asia/korea-kim-moon-summit.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times
Has this story been covered on MOL? If not, why not?
Whats to talk about. Kim will make promises, South Korea and the US will make concessions and in a couple of years we will be right back where we started except North Korea will have a couple hundred more nukes and the missiles to drop them on our cities.
Those who will not (or, in this case, cannot) learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
mtierney said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/world/asia/korea-kim-moon-summit.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times
Has this story been covered on MOL? If not, why not?
You must be really desperate to try to de-Trump the Korean detente. 
But Mr. Trump is only one of three actors in this drama, and perhaps not the most crucial one. Mr. Moon, a progressive former human rights lawyer, ran for office on a platform of conciliation with the North and has moved aggressively to deliver on that promise. He, not Mr. Trump, has set the pace and terms of the negotiation with the North, though American officials say that Seoul is closely coordinating with Washington.
Mr. Kim, for his part, made a bold bet on diplomacy. His motives for seeking a rapprochement are open to debate. Skeptical analysts said the advancements in North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile program — as much as sanctions or threatened military strikes — made the timing right for an overture. Others say he is replaying the cycle of provocation and conciliation pioneered by his father and grandfather.
As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away
mtierney said:
You must be really desperate to try to de-Trump the Korean detente.
Agree that Trump is a big part of this but we should be clear, and cautious, about what "this" is. The Koreas have had detentes before, with NK extracting concessions during lovey periods and then storming off with threats and belligerence. The Koreas, and the world, need more than detente. NK needs to denuclearize. Stay tuned.
I definitely think we should make absolutely sure that Trump owns this.
What I want to know is whatever happened to "America First". I thought Trump wanted to be President for Pittsburgh not Pyongyang.
What's he done lately for Pittsburgh?
mtierney said:
You must be really desperate to try to de-Trump the Korean detente.
You're right. Trump had a lot to do with the detente between the two Koreas.
They were very worried, scared maybe. Trump's rhetoric, his often change of mind, his often firing of senior advisers, Sec State, Nat Sec, etc. Its not possible to deal ratoinally with someone like that.
They felt they needed to get ahead before Trump and his latest cohort of hires have the opportunity to screw everyone into another war.
LOST said:
What I want to know is whatever happened to "America First". I thought Trump wanted to be President for Pittsburgh not Pyongyang.
What's he done lately for Pittsburgh?
Wasn't that Playboy Bunny from Pittsburgh?
He's pumping money into the community. Some might say he is priming the economic pimp.
LOST said:
What I want to know is whatever happened to "America First". I thought Trump wanted to be President for Pittsburgh not Pyongyang.
What's he done lately for Pittsburgh?
I spent the weekend in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is doing fine and the last thing they need is Trump, believe me.
I heard John Bolton on Face the Nation. He kept on saying that Libya was the right model for how this should work with NK. But after Gaddafi gave up his nukes, he ended up being over-run and, more importantly, dead. I would think that's the last example they want to use.
Also, Kim said that he would de-nuke if US promised to not invade him. The last time we "promised" something to a nuke-state was with Iran, and Trump keeps on talking about how he is going to unilaterally pull out of that deal by May.
This whole thing doesn't seem to make sense. The only two reasonable explanations I can think of are:
1) This is a deliberate play by NK so they can claim "look, we tried, we even offered to de-nuke" in an effort to get China (and possibly others) to ease sanctions
2) Trump is getting played and will sign anything to win a Nobel prize, and Bolton/Pompeo are trying to sabotage the whole deal by telegraphing Kim that he would be an idiot to de-nuke
Klinker said:
I definitely think we should make absolutely sure that Trump owns this.
You needn't worry. If Trump gets a viable, verifiable deal, you won't be able to take it away from him.
If he doesn't he can always blame kim. After all the Kim.s have pulled that bait and switch before.
LOST said:
What I want to know is whatever happened to "America First". I thought Trump wanted to be President for Pittsburgh not Pyongyang.
What's he done lately for Pittsburgh?
I always thought foreign policy was a major part of the President's job.
BCC said:
LOST said:I always thought foreign policy was a major part of the President's job.
What I want to know is whatever happened to "America First". I thought Trump wanted to be President for Pittsburgh not Pyongyang.
What's he done lately for Pittsburgh?
It is. I was being sarcastic. It was Trump who said that his job was to worry about "Pittsburgh not Paris". And you do not have to remind me that he have repeatedly told us to pay no attention to what he says.
If the Korea deal succeeds, and DJT wins a Nobel peace prize, we will understand why. But do we know why BHO won his?
You are putting a guy who inherited one of the poorest countries on Earth, a place where people eat the bark off of trees and leveraged it into a meeting of equals with the President of the United States in a room with a guy who inherited $100 million and had to declare bankruptcy 6 times.
What exactly to you imagine is going to happen in that room?
I don't think the Nobel committee is going to mess up by handing a peace prize to a US president for quite some time.
Klinker said:
You are putting a guy who inherited one of the poorest countries on Earth, a place where people eat the bark off of trees and leveraged it into a meeting of equals with the President of the United States in a room with a guy who inherited $100 million and had to declare bankruptcy 6 times.
What exactly to you imagine is going to happen in that room?
I imagine one of the guys is going to outsmart the other one. But Trump will still blame that on the Democrats.
mtierney said:
If the Korea deal succeeds, and DJT wins a Nobel peace prize, we will understand why. But do we know why BHO won his?
Well, you might "understand" why Trump won, but no one else will.
Maybe you can explain it to us.
Also, calling for the prize before anything has actually been accomplished smells of the rankest desperation.
I suppose Trump could share in a Noble Peace Prize if the Korean peace process is successful. But even mtierney would have to admit that at this moment commenters on both the right and the left are united in their assessment that Trump's role is not to screw this up. And people of all political persuasions are at best only mildly optimistic that he won't.
Mtierney, BCC:
Your assignment is to define denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula from the perspective of Kim Jong Un and then from that of Trump. You get extra credit if you can identify areas where differences in perspective might result in negotiating impasses.
Trump appears to be selecting the site for the negotiations based on its suitability for his victory celebration. This meeting is shaping up to be the greatest diplomatic disaster since Chamberlain went to Munich.
I have already said things are moving in the right direction but there is a long way to go. I have also pointed out that the Kim's have a record of offering denuclearization and backing out, and Trump has made it clear he recognizes this.
So your assignment is to prove things are moving in the wrong direction and why.
What alternative would you suggest
BCC said:
I have already said things are moving in the right direction but there is a long way to go. I have also pointed out that the Kim's have a record of offering denuclearization and backing out, and Trump has made it clear he recognizes this.
So your assignment is to prove things are moving in the wrong direction and why.
What alternative would you suggest
The alternative I suggest is that everyone stop trying to score a rhetorical victory about something that hasn't happened yet.
BCC said:
I have already said things are moving in the right direction but there is a long way to go. I have also pointed out that the Kim's have a record of offering denuclearization and backing out, and Trump has made it clear he recognizes this.
So your assignment is to prove things are moving in the wrong direction and why.
What alternative would you suggest
What do you see "moving in the right direction"? Almost everything that has happened thus far in Korea has happened before always with the end result that NK takes everything that they can and ultimately gives nothing in return. We are about to put the worst negotiator on the planet in a room with a man who, whatever else you might say about him, is not an idiot. What good do you think can come from that?
Klinker said:
BCC said:What do you see "moving in the right direction"? Almost everything that has happened thus far in Korea has happened before always with the end result that NK takes everything that they can and ultimately gives nothing in return. We are about to put the worst negotiator on the planet in a room with a man who, whatever else you might say about him, is not an idiot. What good do you think can come from that?
I have already said things are moving in the right direction but there is a long way to go. I have also pointed out that the Kim's have a record of offering denuclearization and backing out, and Trump has made it clear he recognizes this.
So your assignment is to prove things are moving in the wrong direction and why.
What alternative would you suggest
Perhaps the signing of a peace treaty after 65 years.
Perhaps the pressure from China, the UN, and the sanctions which are starting to bite?
I said, the Kim's have pulled this bait and switch several times and Trump is well aware of it.
I agree we should not 'misunderestimate' Mr Kim
Other than that would you or TJ advise dropping out of negotiations?
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
He's done.
https://www.politico.com/story...