Is Trump Keeping his Promises?

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The eagerness with which Conservatives jump on the media for the way it treats Trump has more to do with the recent overall history of media bias than any specific desire to defend Trump himself.  I'm not a Trump voter either but I am very much enjoying watching the pasting the mainstream media has been receiving lately.  They pushed too far and became complacent, assuming they wouldn't be challenged, and now they're getting their comeuppance. 

If nothing else, Trump has shifted the culture to a point where it became possible to reveal the bias in the media for what it is.  It's been very, very good.  Heck, even MSNBC is going to have a Conservative commentator now.

Ah, the irony if Donald Trump ends up being the best president of the last 30 years.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

has more to do with the recent overall history of media bias

Bias?

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Bias?

[unixknight]

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Bait of excellent quality would have been taken, would it not? 

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

North Korea is the issue of our time.  Kim Jong Un is the equivalent to Hitler back in 1938.  That is how serious the situation is.  Everything else is a sideshow distraction.

This is so out-of-phase I almost thought you were joking.  Yes, the situation is serious.  But no, Kim Jong Un and that entire family is not Hitler.  Not even close.  When was the last time you heard any of the Kims having ambitions for world domination?  Heck, when have you heard the Kims have ambitions to invade the rest of the Korean peninsula?  This is not what Kim wants.  All he wants is to be the big king of his small pond.  He makes noise when people outside of DPRK (like the UN's Human Rights Division) blows on his hair.  If you just let him stew on his own juices nothing would come out of it. 

The issue of DPRK is not "Hitler".  The issue of DRPK is the tail that wags that dog.  Kim is a Chinese pokemon card.  The pikachu that socialist China pulls out of its pocket when it wants something from the West.

So, what has Trump done on the DPRK regard - well, quite an amazing feat actually.  Trump has managed to blast Chinese trade practices on loudspeakers all over the planet and STILL got Xi to sit on DPRK.  Not only that - Trump managed to get China and Japan (that's like putting gas and flame next to each other) on an alliance with the RoKs to beef up a net of missile defenses... and made them put up money for it.

So yeah, Kim would rather launch nukes even if it means his entire country gets nuked out of existence, rather than submit to a power grab even from his own countrymen.  But believe it or not, that's not the problem in the pacific theater.

Edited July 6, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  I notice the biggest thing he promised to do, the most-voiced reason I hear people not comfortable with Trump give for holding their nose and voting for him, doesn't show up on your list, Larry.  That is, of course, he promised a staunch constitutional conservative pick for the Supreme Court.  Judge Gorsich

That's not his only accomplishment in that regard.

Gorsuch - Supreme Court

Thapar (another stellar constitutionalist) - Court of Appeals 6th Circuit

8 more judges - all of which could compete in the most constitutionalist of the century award - Courth of Appeals, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th - bogged down at Senate approval.  Yeah, that same Republican majority senate.  Makes you wonder if Republicans really want constitutionalists.

7 more judges - all constitutionalists - awaiting Senate approval in District Courts

5 more judges - all constitutionalists - awaiting approval in Federal Specialty Courts

 

This is a promise proven over and over and over.  Trump knows what constitutionalist means.

 

 

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

(First of all @person0 nice to meet you [insert handshake])

His exact quote during his campaign was "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United State." Here's the video of him saying it if you don't believe me.

 

Yes, he meant that.  Of course, it stems from the idea that all Jihadists are Muslims even as not all Muslims are Jihadists.  Since, at that time, he didn't yet have the security clearance to identify a jihadist from a non-jihadist, then a Muslim ban is his solution until we can have a process to sift the jihadists out of the Muslim immigrants.

Yes, Trump has since narrowed that focus down after gaining a better understanding of the current toolset used by the DHS to identify jihadists a lot of which is information available only with security clearance (which was one of the main disadvantages he had against Ted Cruz - Cruz, being a Senator, is privy to all kinds of inside-the-beltway information that Trump just didn't have being a private citizen).  The 7 countries on the ban list is the result - countries where there is no stable government to mine that kind of personal information on its citizens, or governments who refuse to provide that information.

This is  A GOOD THING about Trump.  He is not bogged down by political optics.  He has no problem changing his position if a better one presents itself - not better for him politically, no... better to accomplish his vision.  So, Trump supporters are with him because of the principles, the vision, behind his statements.  Build a Wall - this is not about the wall - this is about illegal immigration.  Make Mexico pay for it - this is not about Mexico, this is about fiscal awareness.  Etc. etc.  And on top of that, he is driving his opponents crazy - put solar panels on that wall.  That is not about solar panels - that is about the hypocrisy of his opponents.

So, let's say Trump doesn't even put a single brick on that promised wall - Trump supporters whose #1 issue is immigration are still going to elect him a second term... why?  Because, Trump didn't have to do anything but be elected President and the illegal crossings on the border drops to a trickle.

 

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, person0 said:

• Bring manufacturing jobs back                                    No, I don't see a way he can realistically accomplish that anyway.

If you haven't noticed, Chinese and Indian labor costs have been steadily rising for a decade as they start shifting from producer to consumer.  "Bringing back manufacturing jobs" is a promise for the US to COMPETE against the labor advantage of China/India/et.al.  The competition will not be on low-cost high-risk manufacturing like making fidget spinners.  The competition will be on high-end manufacturing like steel and rare earth minerals.  So, what has Trump done in this arena?  Well, very simple really - reduced the size of the EPA, working on reducing regulations, working on knocking out employer mandates on Obamacare, working on lowering business taxes...

So, you hear all these economists say "Gasp!  Automation is going to put so many people in the poor house!".  This is silly, of course.  Automation is going to reduce the need for low-cost high-risk labor in China and India and reshore manufacturing plants with US markets.  Where a Trump Administration comes in -   with automation providing a reduced low-skilled labor cost (it costs more to provide healthcare and bathrooms for the worker than what he can produce), reduced regulatory impediments, and reduced taxes, it is always going to be better for a manufacturing company to manufacture something for the US market in the US.  Of course, if your consumer is in China, it is better to manufacture it in China.  For a been-there-done-that case study of this - check out K'Nex (the makers of Lincoln Logs).

21 hours ago, person0 said:

• Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico    Nope.

The bulletpoint is mischaracterized.  Trump did not promise to impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico.  Rather, he promised to re-negotiate trade with China and Mexico both of which are currently ongoing.  The tariff imposition is on American manufacturing companies producing their products in foreign soil for a US market.  This hasn't been necessary yet as it hinges on a production-friendly American economy (need tax cut and healthcare at least accomplished).  Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has always used an appeal for a border tax as a means to increase revenues to plug the Budget Committee's deficits.

But, as far as what Trump has done on tariffs... he has shown that he has no problem using tariffs as a punitive measure against international hood-winkery... as has happened against the stupidity of our neighbor up north - Trudeau.

 

21 hours ago, person0 said:

• Put Clinton behind bars                                               No, and I doubt it will happen.

The dice is still on the air with this one.  Trump is using this as a bone to the Republicans that they can use as a trump card over the Clintons.  I have a feeling if Chelsea steps too far into the political arena (the Clintons are showing signs that they're prepping Chelsea to save the dynasty) this card will be played.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Not only that - Trump managed to get China and Japan (that's like putting gas and flame next to each other) on an alliance with the RoKs to beef up a net of missile defenses... and made them put up money for it.

Interesting.  Can you refer me to a source for this?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting.  Can you refer me to a source for this?

You'll have to read the weeds to get to this info.  It's not something you'd read straight off a newspaper.  I'll show you an example from DW below.  Now, of course, the Philippines is very much interested in this power play so the Philippine administration is keeping very close tabs.

So, this is the latest news story out of the pacific theater (this thing has, of course, been going on for decades).  DW is a German news source - taking a news item from Germany on the pacific theater will have the flavor of what these 3 power brokers want the world population to see rather than what these 3 power brokers are actually trying to accomplish.  But before you go to the news stories, these are what we already know:

1.) China already has a missile defense system.

2.)  Japan has part of a system but is not sufficient.

3.)  RoK also has a system but it is US provided.

4.)  Trump has already gotten Chinese cooperation over DPRK.  China deployed troops to the line and imposed sanctions way back in... was it April?

5.)  Trump fired a public trial balloon on RoK's missile funding back in... April?  It was timed right before the RoK presidential elections in May.  And not long after that - in a matter of days - the missile system's deployment was started with the previous administration owning up to providing the property where the missile defense is installed.  This defense system has, of course, been in the works for years.  It hasn't become operational because of delays and roadblocks in negotiations (in my humble opinion because Obama is more concerned with political optics but that's just myself talking).  Now, not only did the missile got installed in a matter of days, RoK owned up to a contribution - even after the trial balloon produced a very negative response in the RoK media.  They didn't have to do that.  So, this is an RoK move that signals - yes, we contributed to the defense system, we're just going to own up to a very small part of it (for media play) so that if somebody later on finds out about our contribution there won't be a cow to put back in the kettle.

So, the latest (this is actually articles from June but not much has changed since):

http://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-fires-missiles-south-korea-halts-thaad-missile-defense/a-39157317

http://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-fires-missiles-south-korea-halts-thaad-missile-defense/a-39157317

Okay, so when you read that knowing the entire history of these negotiations it's very easy to spot the political posturing.  But here are the facts that you can gather from the news article - not only is the RoK missile system installed, there's more of it than was previously made public.  The US, of course, cannot install without approval from the RoK government.  The international implications of the US backdooring such an install is worthy of WW3.  So the political posturing of the RoK (note, this is a new administration that is the political opponent of the previous one) is to lay the blame on the previous administration so they can claim that they don't know anything about it but not make it look like the US bullied the current admin.  It's a brilliant media-appeasement move.

Then, of course, China has to rattle the cage.  Xi has to politically posture in response.  It would cause a Chinese revolution if Xi would not say anything about more missiles in the RoK.  So, you see this in the 2nd article.  But first, Japan.  The US is helping Japan with radar to complete their system.  Note that the US is simply helping.  This is a Japanese project.  So Xi is also rattling the cage with Japan.  Note that Xi is not rattling the cage against the US.  So, it is another media posturing play.

Now... DPRK continues its warpath.  It is also important to note that Kim has gone rogue.  He is facing threats from within his countrymen, even his own family.  So this current warpath he is on could be an all-or-nothing attempt at holding on to power.  But what we know is that China, Japan, and RoK are ready for it.  Yes ,there are articles coming out that says RoK is stopping the additional launchers of the THAAD project for environmental reasons.  But Moon's administration will not comment on whether the launchers are already operational, just not in the current golf course the others are on.  But they are ready - signalled by Trump telling China last June that the DPRK can be stopped without China.

So, Trump delivers a speech today about North Korea with a message to Xi - stop with the political posturing already:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN19R1NM

So... next move is on Kim.

Edited July 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, he meant that.  Of course, it stems from the idea that all Jihadists are Muslims even as not all Muslims are Jihadists.  Since, at that time, he didn't yet have the security clearance to identify a jihadist from a non-jihadist, then a Muslim ban is his solution until we can have a process to sift the jihadists out of the Muslim immigrants.

I'm sure the 3 million+ Muslims currently living in the US will be relieved to hear that Trump's rhetoric against their entire religion was just a necessity based in his lack of a security clearance.  

 

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Make Mexico pay for it - this is not about Mexico, this is about fiscal awareness. 

I wonder if President Nieto feels the same way. 

 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm sure the 3 million+ Muslims currently living in the US will be relieved to hear that Trump's rhetoric against their entire religion was just a necessity based in his lack of a security clearance.  

 

I wonder if President Nieto feels the same way. 

 

That is silly of course.  Muslims already in this country are not IMMIGRANTS and would, therefore, have no impact.  Muslims in their own countries are also not immigrants and would, therefore, have no impact.

For some reason, the anti-Trumpers think every person in the planet has the right to immigrate to the US.  News to us Filipinos.

President Nieto is, of course, not running nor has much to say about the US Treasury.  Well, unless you ask leftists - they think Mexico and its citizens is the responsibility of the US Treasury.

Edited July 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That is silly of course.  Muslims already in this country are not IMMIGRANTS and would, therefore, have no impact.  Muslims in their own countries are also not immigrants and would, therefore, have no impact.

This isn't about immigration. It's about the rhetoric used towards an entire religious group and the position that rhetoric puts American Muslims in, many of whom were born and raised in the US. You're naive if you think that blanket statements about Muslim immigrants aren't going to result in negative attitudes towards Muslim non-immigrants in the US. Heck, the travel ban, as currently implemented, really isn't that huge of a deal. You're right, Trump made adjustments and turned into something relatively reasonable. I'm not worried about the travel ban. I'm worried about the cultural impact Trump's early rhetoric has had on the Muslim community in the US. 

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

President Nieto is, of course, not running nor has much to say about the US Treasury.  Well, unless you ask leftists - they think Mexico is  a part of the US Treasury.

Nor are we running Mexico's treasury. So how can we presume to claim that Mexico is going to pay for our border security initiatives? I'm all for working towards cooperation from the Mexican government to help curb illegal border crossing. But instead we have a president who is allowing reckless rhetoric to throw a wrench in negotiations before they've even begun. 

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

This isn't about immigration. It's about the rhetoric used towards an entire religious group and the position that rhetoric puts American Muslims in, many of whom were born and raised in the US. You're naive if you think that blanket statements about Muslim immigrants aren't going to result in negative attitudes towards Muslim non-immigrants in the US. Heck, the travel ban, as currently implemented, really isn't that huge of a deal. You're right, Trump made adjustments and turned into something relatively reasonable. I'm not worried about the travel ban. I'm worried about the cultural impact Trump's early rhetoric has had on the Muslim community in the US. 

Nor are we running Mexico's treasury. So how can we presume to claim that Mexico is going to pay for our border security initiatives? I'm all for working towards cooperation from the Mexican government to help curb illegal border crossing. But instead we have a president who is allowing reckless rhetoric to throw a wrench in negotiations before they've even begun. 

And that's what you (and the rest of the left) still haven't grasped.  Trump is pragmatic.  Rhetoric is for children to play with.  Grown-ups don't run a foreign policy nor trade deals by rhetoric.  And yes, Obama did that.  Which is one of the reasons he's a bad president.  And yes, the Democratic and Republican Parties do that.  Also why the Democrat Party is powerless and Trump's win can't be equated to a Republican win.

The US is running Mexico's treasury?  In what planet?

Edited July 6, 2017 by anatess2

[person0]

33 minutes ago, Godless said:

This isn't about immigration. It's about the rhetoric used towards an entire religious group and the position that rhetoric puts American Muslims in, many of whom were born and raised in the US. You're naive if you think that blanket statements about Muslim immigrants aren't going to result in negative attitudes towards Muslim non-immigrants in the US. Heck, the travel ban, as currently implemented, really isn't that huge of a deal. You're right, Trump made adjustments and turned into something relatively reasonable. I'm not worried about the travel ban. I'm worried about the cultural impact Trump's early rhetoric has had on the Muslim community in the US. 

You should definitely consider stopping being worried.  My father and entire family on his side are Muslim immigrants from Israel/Palestine and Jordan.  Yes, they are still actively Muslim, too.  They were smart enough to realize that Hillary was the worst candidate of the two.  Why would you presume trumps rhetoric is having such a terrible effect on Muslims across the country?  My impression (being a member of the 'Muslim' community, even though it is not my religion) is that in reality the people who are most offended are self-righteous, self-loathing, left-wing activists (mostly white ).  I am not worried one bit about the cultural aspect of Trump's rhetoric.  Most American's are intelligent enough to know or to quickly realize that you must take anything Trump says with a grain of salt.  Those who are not are most plausibly either uninformed, uneducated, or purposefully propagating an anti-Trump agenda.

It may not be the most appropriate way for President Trump to speak or act, but it doesn't mean we should all be scrambling in fear.  As should be clear by the injunctions to his travel bans, the President on his own has very little power.

Edited July 6, 2017 by person0

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, person0 said:

You should definitely consider stopping being worried.  My father and entire family on his side are Muslim immigrants from Israel/Palestine and Jordan.  Yes, they are still actively Muslim, too.  They were smart enough to realize that Hillary was the worst candidate of the two.  Why would you presume trumps rhetoric is having such a terrible effect on Muslims across the country?  My impression (being a member of the 'Muslim' community, even though it is not my religion) is that in reality the people who are most offended are self-righteous, self-loathing, left-wing activists (mostly white ).  I am not worried one bit about the cultural aspect of Trump's rhetoric.  Most American's are intelligent enough to know or to quickly realize that you must take anything Trump says with a grain of salt.  Those who are not are most plausibly either uninformed, uneducated, or purposefully propagating an anti-Trump agenda.

It may not be the most appropriate way for President Trump to speak or act, but it doesn't mean we should all be scrambling in fear.  As should be clear by the injunctions to his travel bans, the President on his own has very little power.

Actually @Godless is onto something. Just because your Muslim family members (and good for them, they are entitled to their opinion of course) might not have an issue with it doesn't mean that what Trump is trying to do is legal and appropriate, or that it doesn't concern the Muslim community. 

And just because they disagree with Trump doesn't make them "uniformed" or "uneducated" or "propagating an Anti-Trump agenda". 

Edited July 6, 2017 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Actually @Godless is onto something. Just because your Muslim family members (and good for them, they are entitled to their opinion of course) might not have an issue with it doesn't mean that what Trump is trying to do is legal and appropriate, or that it doesn't concern the Muslim community. 

And just because they disagree with Trump doesn't make them "uniformed" or "uneducated" or "propagating an Anti-Trump agenda". 

Yes.

Except that what Trump is doing is legal and appropriate.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You'll have to read the weeds to get to this info.  It's not something you'd read straight off a newspaper.  I'll show you an example from DW below.  Now, of course, the Philippines is very much interested in this power play so the Philippine administration is keeping very close tabs.

So, this is the latest news story out of the pacific theater (this thing has, of course, been going on for decades).  DW is a German news source - taking a news item from Germany on the pacific theater will have the flavor of what these 3 power brokers want the world population to see rather than what these 3 power brokers are actually trying to accomplish.  But before you go to the news stories, these are what we already know:

1.) China already has a missile defense system.

2.)  Japan has part of a system but is not sufficient.

3.)  RoK also has a system but it is US provided.

4.)  Trump has already gotten Chinese cooperation over DPRK.  China deployed troops to the line and imposed sanctions way back in... was it April?

5.)  Trump fired a public trial balloon on RoK's missile funding back in... April?  It was timed right before the RoK presidential elections in May.  And not long after that - in a matter of days - the missile system's deployment was started with the previous administration owning up to providing the property where the missile defense is installed.  This defense system has, of course, been in the works for years.  It hasn't become operational because of delays and roadblocks in negotiations (in my humble opinion because Obama is more concerned with political optics but that's just myself talking).  Now, not only did the missile got installed in a matter of days, RoK owned up to a contribution - even after the trial balloon produced a very negative response in the RoK media.  They didn't have to do that.  So, this is an RoK move that signals - yes, we contributed to the defense system, we're just going to own up to a very small part of it (for media play) so that if somebody later on finds out about our contribution there won't be a cow to put back in the kettle.

So, the latest (this is actually articles from June but not much has changed since):

http://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-fires-missiles-south-korea-halts-thaad-missile-defense/a-39157317

http://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-fires-missiles-south-korea-halts-thaad-missile-defense/a-39157317

Okay, so when you read that knowing the entire history of these negotiations it's very easy to spot the political posturing.  But here are the facts that you can gather from the news article - not only is the RoK missile system installed, there's more of it than was previously made public.  The US, of course, cannot install without approval from the RoK government.  The international implications of the US backdooring such an install is worthy of WW3.  So the political posturing of the RoK (note, this is a new administration that is the political opponent of the previous one) is to lay the blame on the previous administration so they can claim that they don't know anything about it but not make it look like the US bullied the current admin.  It's a brilliant media-appeasement move.

Then, of course, China has to rattle the cage.  Xi has to politically posture in response.  It would cause a Chinese revolution if Xi would not say anything about more missiles in the RoK.  So, you see this in the 2nd article.  But first, Japan.  The US is helping Japan with radar to complete their system.  Note that the US is simply helping.  This is a Japanese project.  So Xi is also rattling the cage with Japan.  Note that Xi is not rattling the cage against the US.  So, it is another media posturing play.

Now... DPRK continues its warpath.  It is also important to note that Kim has gone rogue.  He is facing threats from within his countrymen, even his own family.  So this current warpath he is on could be an all-or-nothing attempt at holding on to power.  But what we know is that China, Japan, and RoK are ready for it.  Yes ,there are articles coming out that says RoK is stopping the additional launchers of the THAAD project for environmental reasons.  But Moon's administration will not comment on whether the launchers are already operational, just not in the current golf course the others are on.  But they are ready - signalled by Trump telling China last June that the DPRK can be stopped without China.

So, Trump delivers a speech today about North Korea with a message to Xi - stop with the political posturing already:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN19R1NM

So... next move is on Kim.

So basically, the fact that THAAD is probably operational, that Japan is improving its system, and that China isn't yelling at US over it; means that a) Trump has obtained China's agreement for South Korea and Japan to re-arm and b) Trump has miraculously brokered some sort of Sino-Japanese detente?

Hmm.  Color me unconvinced, but . . . we'll see, I guess.  

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So basically, the fact that THAAD is probably operational, that Japan is improving its system, and that China isn't yelling at US over it; means that a) Trump has obtained China's agreement for South Korea and Japan to re-arm and b) Trump has miraculously brokered some sort of Sino-Japanese detente?

Hmm.  Color me unconvinced, but . . . we'll see, I guess.  

I spend the time to try to explain what's happening in the region to acquiesce to your request for sources distilling that entire spaghetti into a forum post without making it into a book and that's all you got out of it?

My post was an illustration of how I read the stitches on a fast ball thrown at us through the media outlets so YOU can see what I see when you dig for information.  It was not meant to be the end-all be-all of Trumps' DPRK foreign policy work.  You did see the "for example" I so stated right?

Edited July 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I spend the time to try to explain what's happening in the region to acquiesce to your request for sources distilling that entire spaghetti into a forum post without making it into a book and that's all you got out of it?

My post was an illustration of how I read the stitches on a fast ball thrown at us through the media outlets so YOU can see what I see when you dig for information.  It was not meant to be the end-all be-all of Trumps' DPRK foreign policy work.

I do appreciate your perspective; and I'm sorry that my failure to unqualifiedly accept your conclusions seems to constitute a personal insult to you.  Nevertheless, I asked for a *source*; not a series of inferences, to back your earlier claim that

Quote

Not only that - Trump managed to get China and Japan (that's like putting gas and flame next to each other) on an alliance with the RoKs to beef up a net of missile defenses... and made them put up money for it.

Fundamentally, you have no source; you're just suggesting that you can tell the chihuahua is going to win the dog fight because because a) the tone of the great dane's barking is a little off, and b) you yourself happen to be a lifelong member of a chihuahua enthusiast club.  

A neat trick, if you can do it.  And, as I said--we'll see.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I do appreciate your perspective; and I'm sorry that my failure to unqualifiedly accept your conclusions seems to constitute a personal insult to you.  Nevertheless, I asked for a *source*; not a series of inferences, to back your earlier claim that

Fundamentally, you have no source; you're just suggesting that you can tell the chihuahua is going to win the dog fight because because a) the tone of the great dane's barking is a little off, and b) you yourself happen to be a lifelong member of a chihuahua enthusiast club.  

A neat trick, if you can do it.  And, as I said--we'll see.

Sigh.

Did I say I was insulted?  You asked for a source.  What did you expect?  A link to the NYT or NYP stating the exact same thing?  You won't find it.  You think the Philippine government looks at the NYT or whatever to figure out what's happening?  They do not.

Fundamentally, I gave you a glimpse on how to figure out what's going on in the world from the American armchair especially if you have not been following these things for the decades it's been going on.  I am not a chihuahua enthusiast club.  My family has been in the Philippine government for decades before I was born.  You don't have to believe me of course.

You know the problem with "-- we'll see -" instead of trying to figure out why something happened the way it happened?  You end up electing people like the Clinton - Bush - Obama trifecta.

Edited July 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You asked for a source.  What did you expect?  A link to the NYT or NYP stating the exact same thing?  You won't find it.  You think the Philippine government looks at the NYT or whatever to figure out what's happening?  They do not.

"Alliance" typically designates a written agreement.  Or, at least, an announcement that such an agreement exists.

And I couldn't care three straws what the murderous thug-ocracy that is the Duterte regime, conducts its business; so long as Duterte's lap dogs don't try to export their dysfunction to my homeland.

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And that's what you (and the rest of the left) still haven't grasped.  Trump is pragmatic.  Rhetoric is for children to play with.  Grown-ups don't run a foreign policy nor trade deals by rhetoric.  And yes, Obama did that.  Which is one of the reasons he's a bad president.  And yes, the Democratic and Republican Parties do that.  Also why the Democrat Party is powerless and Trump's win can't be equated to a Republican win.

Trump's entire presidential campaign was based on rhetoric. "Build the wall", "Lock her up", "Drain the swamp". The Muslim ban, the "extreme vetting", JOBS JOBS JOBS. These were all catchy populist talking points from a populist candidate. You may be smart enough to see through the rhetoric and focus on actual policy, but don't pretend that the rhetoric doesn't exist and that it didn't energize long-quiet demographics within our population (for better or worse). 

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The US is running Mexico's treasury?  In what planet?

I think you misread my post.

[Mike]

I don't believe claims that President Trump is pragmatic although I believe he knows what he wants. In that context I'm thinking about Kim Jong-un's rationale for the DPRK nuclear weapons program. I think Kim Jong-un is not a madman as some characterize him--I think he is rational despite his rhetoric--I think he also knows what he wants. I think he has no intention of launching a weapon at the U.S., but he reasons that it makes perfect sense to possess (and further develop) the ability to credibly threaten in order to prevent the U.S. or South Korea from advancing against him. As @Godless pointed out (accurately I perceive) President Trump is often about rhetoric, and so I wonder how his wants will play out in dealing with the DPRK. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Mike

[Guest]

I have to admit, I feel a little better seeing that people are not as worried about North Korea as I am @Vort @anatess2.  Perhaps I am overreacting to the whole situation.  I read a thing today about our missle defense systems, and while they would be overwhelmed from a full missle attack by Russia or China, they are perfectly capable of shooting down the entire North Korean nuclear arsenal if it were launched simultaneously (as we have a 50% or better track record per shot, and we can launch multiple interception missles per ICBM).  That, and it would absolutely be suicide for North Korea to launch even a single ICBM against the United States.

Perhaps I should be more worried about Putin instead?  What do you guys think - is Putin misunderstood, a true threat, or a clown?