I'm reserving judgment...

[2ndRateMind]

... What is it with Trump and his 'bromances' with demagogue dictators? Putin, say, or Kim Jong Un.

It is certainly true that you cannot make peace with your friends, only your enemies. But when your enemies are nuclear armed, starve their people, and lock up a significant proportion of them in concentration camps for daring to criticise the regime, it seems to me to be a moral error to be too friendly with them, and a strategic error to trust them to deliver on documents they have signed up to.

You can, it is said, tell the worth of a man from the company he keeps. If so, Trump's obvious attraction to bad people, and his aggressive, bullying posture toward his good allies, seems to condemn him utterly.

Perhaps, amid bad company, he thinks his virtues evident, and perhaps this massages his ego. Whereas, among good company, his vices are evident, and that ego takes a significant hit. Whatever, it seems to me that America is being run along the lines of what is good for Trump's ego, according to Trump, and not for the good of the American nation, or for the good of the world. I won't be at all sorry when this aberation of popular democracy has been consigned to history, and we get a US president with the intellectual bandwidth, familiarity with geo-politics, and moral stature, to truly be the leader of the free world, not just in name, but also in competence.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

... What is it with Trump and 'bromances' with demagogue dictators? Putin, say, or Kim Jong Un.

It is certainly true that you cannot make peace with your friends, only your enemies. But when your enemies are nuclear armed, starve their people, and lock up a significant proportion of them in concentration camps for daring to criticise the regime, it seems to me to be a moral error to be too friendly with them, and a strategic error to trust them to deliver on documents they have signed up to.

You can, it is said, tell the worth of a man from the company he keeps. If so, Trump's obvious attraction to bad people, and his aggressive, bullying posture toward his good allies, seems to condemn him utterly.

Perhaps, amid bad company, he thinks his virtues evident, and perhaps this massages his ego. Whereas, among good company, his vices are evident, and that ego takes a significant hit. Whatever, it seems to me that America is being run along the lines of what is good for Trump's ego, according to Trump, and not for the good of the American nation, or for the good of the world. I won't be at all sorry when this aberation of popular democracy has been consigned to history, and we get a US president with the intellectual bandwidth, familiarity with geo-politics, and moral worth, to truly be the leader of the free world, not just in name, but also in competence.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him. However, he's right about this. I prefer him opening dialogue with Putin and Kim Jong Un rather than just ignoring them or trading macho "I'm going to blow you up first" banter. 

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him. However, he's right about this. I prefer him opening dialogue with Putin and Kim Jong Un rather than just ignoring them or trading macho "I'm going to blow you up first" banter. 

Yeah. I kind of agree. God made the world such that there is nothing so bad a little good can't result. But we could just try and implement the good without the preceding bad.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

You can, it is said, tell the worth of a man from the company he keeps. If so, Trump's obvious attraction to bad people, and his aggressive, bullying posture toward his good allies, seems to condemn him utterly.

Heh.  So, I'm not hardly the biggest fan of Trump, but it's a mistake to think he has more dealings with the seedy leaders of the world than past presidents.  Public awareness of such things are a function of agenda-driven media coverage, not reality.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Yeah. I kind of agree. God made the world such that there is nothing so bad a little good can't result. But we could just try and implement the good without the preceding bad.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Would you rather him start nuking Pyongyang and starting a World War? Me either. 

[Guest MormonGator]

And the added benefit is that Dennis Rodman has once again become a valued political commentator. 

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Would you rather him start nuking Pyongyang and starting a World War? Me either. 

Hmmm.

For three generations, the Kim dynasty has been pursuing nukes in preference to economic development. Are we really supposed to believe that now they have nukes, the leadership suddenly prefers prosperity for the people....?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm.

For three generations, the Kim dynasty has been pursuing nukes in preference to economic development. Are we really supposed to believe that now they have nukes, the leadership suddenly prefers prosperity for the people....?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 Hmmm....

No, I don't trust the Kim dynasty either. 

Again though, what is your alternative? 

[2ndRateMind]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Again though, what is your alternative? 

I am sure, if all we contributors to this thread put our minds in gear and collaborated effectively, we could arrive at a suitable strategy. For certain though, I would not want to reduce the pressure on the Kim regime, (say, by canceling joint US/South Korean military exercises) without first achieving some significant concession.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Fether]

I’ll say it... I like Trump.

His morals not so much, but I have agreed with almost every decision he has made in office. Haven’t had that for a while (granted I’m on my early 20s so prior to Obama I was never too interested in the politics)

I didn’t vote for him, but I wish I did.

[Guest MormonGator]

21 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I am sure, if all we contributors to this thread put our minds in gear and collaborated effectively, we could arrive at a suitable strategy.

It's always easy to make decisions when you don't have to deal with the outcome of them, isn't it?  

[2ndRateMind]

It's always easy to make decisions when you don't have to deal with the outcome of them, isn't it?  

So, I am posting in the hope that in some small way, I will affect the democratic consensus. I neither have nor want any further power. But such as that consensus is altered, I accept full responsibility, and will, come the end of days, happily answer to God for my efforts.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 12, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that if Obama had just done what Trump did, his base would be soiling themselves with glee right now while most of us on the right would be crying “treason!”?  

That said:  we’ve been deadlocked for decades, and sometimes a shakeup is good.  Time will tell.  If not for the fact that the NorKos apparently lost their blast testing facility, I would be much more cynical about dismissing this as a “Peace in our time!” moment.  But maybe they’re ready to deal.  If that’s the case, then I see the decision to meet with the NorKos rather like the decision to kill bin Laden:  the opportunity itself is not necessarily due to any great genius by the sitting president; but it would take a real chowderhead to let such a moment pass and the president thus still gets some props for taking the opportunity when it comes.

And as for supposed inappropriate coziness with the Russkies:  I’ll talk about that with anyone who can show me contemporaneous proof that *they* had similar concerns back in 2012 about a) Obama’s “more flexibility after the election” hit mic comments to Medvedev, or b) Obama’s dismissive reply to Romney’s campaign warnings about Russian ambitions.  But until such proof is provided, I’m likely to classify concerns about Trump-Russia connections as partisan hackery.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[unixknight]

For decades it's been

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

The West:  Well... Okay.

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

The West:  Well... Okay.

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

The West:  Well... Okay.

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

The West:  Well... Okay.

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

The West:  Well... Okay.

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

The West:  Well... Okay.

Am I the only one who's old enough to remember a few months ago when it went like this:

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

Trump:  Divert an aircraft carrier battlegroup toward the Korean Peninsula and call it a military exercise.

North Korea: So heyyyyyy how about we meet and talk!

[Guest MormonGator]

The horrible truth is that everyone in the Kim dynasty is a bully at best, and a psychopath at worst.  With a bully, you need to push back.  I learned this in third grade. Like @unixknight said, divert an aircraft carrier towards Pyongyang and let him take the next step.

If Kim was a psychopath like his father, he would have already started a war. 

‘Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.’-Attributed to Churchill 

[bytebear]

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm.

For three generations, the Kim dynasty has been pursuing nukes in preference to economic development. Are we really supposed to believe that now they have nukes, the leadership suddenly prefers prosperity for the people....?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think Trump gave him an out. He can still gain international recognition and respect but not have nukes.  I actually think it's a good deal for both sides.

[Still_Small_Voice]

There is one thing I like about Donald Trump.  I like that he is making the Washington D.C. swamp people angry.  It's been by the few and for the few in Washington D.C. for too long.  Glad to see they are not getting what they want because it is better for us.

[warnerfranklin]

And this is why I don’t bother to talk politics....

lowest unemployment in years....

bringing peace to korea....

making fair trade deals for our nation....

destroyed isis....

withdrew from tpp, Iran deal, and Paris climate accord....

stockmarkef up 40%....

2m less people on food stamps....

4% growth....

and somehow people say he hasn’t achieved anything....

okay.... if you say so....😐

and he doesn’t “hangout with Putin and Kim”.  It’s called diplomacy.  And seriously if you are shocked by that were you equally shocked when President Obama’s heaped praise on people like Castro or Chavez or Mugabe or any of the other dictators you care to name?  Or his apology tours where he blamed our country for all the ills of the world?  If not, then please....

My biggest problem with politics is the intellectual dishonesty that goes on on both sides of the aisle. 

That, and arguments of this sort do not draw anyone closer to Christ. 

[pwrfrk]

What I see is DPRK wanting to be accepted and recognized as a sovereign nation.  I cannot explain the way they treat their people, but I think the whole thing could change for the better if we recognized and accept DPRK as a sovereign nation.  Who knows what Kim Song Il's other problems are.

As for nukes, I think we need more countries armed.  I think the US is playing as the playground bully.  That's my ball and I want you to play my game!  Or I'm taking my ball home!"  We were never appointed or hired as any kind of global leadership.  We're just another country on the globe.

[2ndRateMind]

4 hours ago, warnerfranklin said:

And this is why I don’t bother to talk politics...

...That, and arguments of this sort do not draw anyone closer to Christ. 

That's an interesting point of view. For my part, I have always considered politics to be 'applied religion'. I think if more people saw it that way, rather than a cynical exercise in the deployment of power, the world might be a considerably better place, and, who knows? Maybe people would be drawn closer to Christ.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 13, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that if Obama had just done what Trump did, his base would be soiling themselves with glee right now while most of us on the right would be crying “treason!”?  

No, we wouldn't.  There is a MARKED difference between the Obama-Castro and Obama-Iran deal and the Trump-Kim deal.  MARKED.  Drastically.

Edited June 13, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

... What is it with Trump and his 'bromances' with demagogue dictators? Putin, say, or Kim Jong Un.

It is certainly true that you cannot make peace with your friends, only your enemies. But when your enemies are nuclear armed, starve their people, and lock up a significant proportion of them in concentration camps for daring to criticise the regime, it seems to me to be a moral error to be too friendly with them, and a strategic error to trust them to deliver on documents they have signed up to.

You can, it is said, tell the worth of a man from the company he keeps. If so, Trump's obvious attraction to bad people, and his aggressive, bullying posture toward his good allies, seems to condemn him utterly.

Perhaps, amid bad company, he thinks his virtues evident, and perhaps this massages his ego. Whereas, among good company, his vices are evident, and that ego takes a significant hit. Whatever, it seems to me that America is being run along the lines of what is good for Trump's ego, according to Trump, and not for the good of the American nation, or for the good of the world. I won't be at all sorry when this aberation of popular democracy has been consigned to history, and we get a US president with the intellectual bandwidth, familiarity with geo-politics, and moral stature, to truly be the leader of the free world, not just in name, but also in competence.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

The majority of the residents of the Pacific Theater disagree with you.  

 

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, unixknight said:

For decades it's been

North Korea:  "Well start a war if you don't give us more food!!!"

Yes.  Literally, decades.  I remember being in high school in the '80's, reading Dave Barry's year in review, giggling at how North Korea developing nukes and being rabidly insane while we send them aid, was a recurring theme year after year.

Well, they got nukes.  That means Trump failed.  But not only that, Obama failed before Trump.  And Bush II before Obama.  And Clinton before Bush II. And Bush I before Clinton.  And Reagan before Bush I.  Were people worried about NK getting nukes in the Carter administration?  I was too young and not paying attention.  But yeah, 1988-2018. That's 30 full years, at least.

Folks who want to partisan politics this thing to death - well, have fun with that.  I don't really find much persuasive from either side in the matter. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Folks who want to partisan politics this thing to death - well, have fun with that.  

Right, it'll never happen. The people who claim to want partisanship to end have no idea how politics works. 

In the adult world you have to take a side. 

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm.

For three generations, the Kim dynasty has been pursuing nukes in preference to economic development. Are we really supposed to believe that now they have nukes, the leadership suddenly prefers prosperity for the people....?

Best wishes, 2RM.

There are scenarios at play that is very different from previous Kims.  Kim Jong Un is a millennial with the same interest in tech as most millennials.  His reign is marked by a STARK contrast between his people and that of RoK that has skyrocketed economically and enjoying all the benefits of modern tech.  In addition to that, Xi is siding with Trump and has joined the alliance against the DPRK.  Kim has lost his one single purpose for nukes - being China's dog that they can whip out whenever they want something from the West.  And with that the Kims lost their one avenue for living "the high life" due to China and Russia joining the imposition of sanctions and Iran freezed out.

So, this Trump strategy started with the forming of the ASEAN alliance against DPRK.  That was the first step - going head to head with China on Trade and making them blink.  With that Trade negotiation comes the concessions for the Pacific Theater.  They are intertwined.   DPRK continued shooting missiles over Japan.  The Alliance then beefed up their military presence and the RoK and Japan defense systems got put online.  Then next came the crippling sanctions.  The stage is set.  Kim stopped shooting missiles, released political prisoners, shook hands with Moon and begged Trump for negotiations.  Moon opened up the stage at the Olympics and showed the people of the DPRK what it feels like to be part of the world.

So then the Summit started and the very first thing Trump did was to show Kim a video of what is possible in the DPRK if Kim concedes.  Trump basically enticed Kim with being the leader of a technologically advanced, economically prosperous people of Korea with beaches rivaling Miami and trade centers rivaling New York.  Kim signed over his nukes among other things (a lot to do with Iran - that's where this is headed next, the dismantling of the Iran deal).

Kim is not his father.  Yes, he still desires adoration from his people.  He still demands a dictatorship.  But he doesn't want to lead a people of squalor.  He wants the adoration to continue with him as the benevolent dictator swimming in high tech gadgets.

I was hoping for a unified Korea under Moon with the Kims exiled.  But I guess if that is not possible, then a DPRK detached from the Chinese is the next best thing.

Now, fasten your seatbelts for the next move - Iran.  It's coming soon to the Middle Eastern theater.  Netanyahu sent the first diplomatic fire - free water.

 

In any case... think what you will about the US/DPRK negotiations, we here in the Pacific are breathing a huge sigh of relief.  We don't even mind that our currency is dropping like anchors compared to the US dollar.  Go USA - get rich!  We're the better for it!

Edited June 13, 2018 by anatess2