News Flash!!!

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm going to try some meaningful conversation here.

Here's is the only viable solution I can see if people really do want to disarm North Korea.   

China supports North Korea and is one of their few supporters.     China's economy is largely depended on the US consumption of Chinese goods.  

China does not want a war with the US.   In fact, China has gone out of their way in recent decades to avoid any foereign wars at all, despite what we say about China.   When is the last time China started a war?     

Instead of tarrifs and a trade ware against China for what Trump is claiming as "unfair trade practices", go after China for supporting North Korea.  Make it hurt.   It might (and almost surely will) harm our economy as well, but if it get's rid of the nukes in North Korea, I'd still support it.  If China is forced to choose between the US and North Korea, I can almost guarantee that they would choose the US in the end.   They may flx their political muscles and throw a fit, but it would be that long before they caved.   

Oh and by the way, in case you were going to bring it up, I already know and will say that Obama did nothing at all to help the situation in North Korea.  
 

Naivete.  All of your Presidents in my lifetime did this.

Now, which President got to walk into North Korea to revive peace talks RIGHT AFTER trade negotiations with China?

Edited July 12, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Just now, Scott said:

Agreed.  I interact with people from many other countries (including ones I haven't been to) on an almost daily basis and I am very well versed in history, geography, foreign policies, etc.    

Then take your MSM blinders off.

[Guest Scott]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There is nobody here arguing over who is morally superior.  

Yes you guys are.   It's almost on a daily basis and not only in this thread.    And not only you either, but a big part of the US population.    And maybe sometimes me as well.  

 

[anatess2]

Just now, Scott said:

Yes you guys are.   It's almost on a daily basis and not only in this thread.    And not only you either, but a big part of the US population.    And maybe sometimes me as well.  

 

If you're meaning ME in that "you"... then you are very much mistaken.  I have been on many discussions on here, especially leading up to Nov 2016, where I have unequivocally expressed I do not concern myself with "who is more moral" in my preference of world leaders.  I am more concerned about who has a better and more effective policy and actually ACTS on it.

But yes.  Bill Clinton is a rapist.  Infowars.com.  Now you know why Alex Jones had to go.

[Guest Scott]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Naivete.  All of your Presidents in my lifetime did this.

Agreed.     I never claimed otherwise.   

Quote

Now, which President got to walk into North Korea to revive peace talks RIGHT AFTER trade negotiations with China?

Dennis Rodman also visited North Korea.   No results came out of it.     

If Trump solves the North Korea problem, he has my blessing.   I also have no crisism for Trump visting North Korea.

If it does get solved, without war, I believe the solution I pointed out is the only viable one.   It doesn't mean that I think it will happen.  

Edited July 12, 2019 by Scott

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And, as usual, you're carrying your own conversation. 

[Guest Scott]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Then take your MSM blinders off.

I have no blinders on and at least try to be unbiased.    I hold no loyalty to any party.   

PS, I do think you are at smart.   I do however think you have blinders on at times.    Go ahead an accuse me of the same thing (well, I guess you already have).

Edited July 12, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Agreed.     I never claimed otherwise.   

Dennis Rodman also visited North Korea.   No results came out of it.     

If Trump solves the North Korea problem, he has my blessing.   I also have no crisism for Trump visting North Korea.

If it does get solved, without war, I believe the solution I pointed out is the only viable one.   

It can be argued that Dennis Rodman did more to world peace than any of your Presidents before Trump in my lifetime.  And he didn't even get Alex Sigley - an Australian, not an American - out of North Korean detention.  Trump not only got Americans - alive and dead - out of North Korea, he even got out an Australian.

Edited July 12, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Mores]

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm going to try some meaningful conversation here. 

That's all I'm really asking for.  But all Godless has provided are accusations and characterizations and personal tastes.  I'm asking for evidence and actual criminal acts.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's is the only viable solution I can see if people really do want to disarm North Korea.   China supports North Korea and is one of their few supporters.     China's economy is largely depended on the US consumption of Chinese goods.  China does not want a war with the US.   In fact, China has gone out of their way in recent decades to avoid any foereign wars at all, despite what we say about China.   When is the last time China started a war?     

Actually, China's human rights abuses were FAR worse before Nixon.  It was only after capitalism was partially introduced to their communist economy that TPTB decided to treat their citizens as an asset and a resource rather than chattle to be moved about at will.  Not as good as we'd like it.  But certainly better than they were.  And being another sovereign nation, there is only so much influence we can have on them.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Instead of tarrifs and a trade ware against China for what Trump is claiming as "unfair trade practices", go after China for supporting North Korea.  Make it hurt. 

That's been tried before.  No good.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

If China is forced to choose between the US and North Korea, I can almost guarantee that they would choose the US in the end.   They may flx their political muscles and throw a fit, but it would be that long before they caved.   

I'm not so certain.  10 to 15 years ago, I'd say yes.  But now, our marketshare of the world economy has dwindled.  China has spent untold monies on developing third world countries to curry favor in the U.N. and other international circles.  They have done a lot more than any other nation on earth to increase their presence and dominion over the world.  They're just doing it through diplomacy rather than warfare.  They might not LIKE leaving us.  But they will if they feel like they need to.

And that is the big question.  Just how far can we push them before they say,"Uhmm... No more.  We're done here."  ?  I don't know if anyone (including Trump or the Chinese) knows the answer to that question.

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Oh and by the way, in case you were going to bring it up, I already know and will say that Obama did nothing at all to help the situation in North Korea. 

Nope.  I've already said what I wanted to about that.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

<regarding Trump vs Clinton moral superiority>  Yes you guys are.   It's almost on a daily basis and not only in this thread.    And not only you either, but a big part of the US population.    And maybe sometimes me as well. 

No, you're reading into it.  Go and actually QUOTE what I've written.  I never said either of them is morally superior to the other.  I've said that they're BOTH morally bankrupt.  You're seeing things that aren't there.

My point is that there is or is not evidence.  This is a legal question, not a moral one.  That's ALL I'm talking about regarding any comparison between the two.  Stop reading into it and see what is actually written.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

I have no blinders on and at least try to be unbiased.    I hold no loyalty to any party.   

PS, I do think you are at smart.   I do however think you have blinders on at times.    Go ahead an accuse me of the same thing (well, I guess you already have).

When you agree with statements such as these, and speaking for non-Americans... your blinders are on.

"- reckless use of tariffs to shape international trade policy   - consistent leniency towards nations like North Korea and Russia; the former is responsible not only for countless human rights atrocities against their own citizens, but also responsible for the death of a US citizen, and the latter has mountains of evidence stacked against it suggesting that it interfered in the 2016 election."

[Guest Scott]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Dennis Rodman did more to world peace than any of your Presidents before Trump.  And he didn't even get Alex Sigley - an Australian, not an American - out of North Korean detention.  Trump not only got Americans - alive and dead - out of North Korea, he even got out an Australian.

OK, that's a fair point.    What I mean is no one has done anything to solve the real problem in North Korea.  And Trump does deserve credit for helping with the prisoner release.  

As I said before, if Trump helps solve the problem in North Korea, he has my blessing.

Although I don't agree with everything Trump does, I do not want him to fail.   I think poorly of people who want to see the president fail only because he is in a different party or not who they voted for.   I would be thrilled if President Trump were successful, especially with situations such as North Korea.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

OK, that's a fair point.    What I mean is no one has done anything to solve the real problem in North Korea.  And Trump does deserve credit for helping with the prisoner release.  

As I said before, if Trump helps solve the problem in North Korea, he has my blessing.

Although I don't agree with everything Trump does, I do not want him to fail.   I think poorly of people who want to see the president fail only because he is in a different party or not who they voted for.   I would be thrilled if President Trump were successful, especially with situations such as North Korea.

Yet you agreed with Godless' obviously partisan narrative.

Edited July 12, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

Actually, China's human rights abuses were FAR worse before Nixon.  It was only after capitalism was partially introduced to their communist economy that TPTB decided to treat their citizens as an asset and a resource rather than chattle to be moved about at will.  Not as good as we'd like it.  But certainly better than they were.  And being another sovereign nation, there is only so much influence we can have on them.

I agree with you 100%.   China is getting better and better even if they aren't where they should be.    I'd even go as far as to say that compared to the past they are only marginally a Communist country.   That doesn't mean I don't think China has a long way to go concerning things like human rights though. 

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

That's been tried before.  No good.

I'm not so certain.  10 to 15 years ago, I'd say yes.  But now, our marketshare of the world economy has dwindled.  China has spent untold monies on developing third world countries to curry favor in the U.N. and other international circles.  They have done a lot more than any other nation on earth to increase their presence and dominion over the world.  They're just doing it through diplomacy rather than warfare.  They might not LIKE leaving us.  But they will if they feel like they need to.

And that is the big question.  Just how far can we push them before they say,"Uhmm... No more.  We're done here."  ?  I don't know if anyone (including Trump or the Chinese) knows the answer to that question.

I still think they would cave, though I don't know what the timeline would be.   It comes down to rewards an benifits.   Our marketshare has declined and the economy is indeed global, but the Chinese aren't stupid.    When it comes down to benifits, they have a lot more to gain siding with the US than they do with North Korea, if it comes down to being forced to choose one over the other.   

China would rather play both sides (US and North Korea) and getting benifits for both, as they have been doing and are still doing, but if it really came down to it, I believe that they would choose the US in the end.   

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

You're seeing things that aren't there.

I'm seeing more than is just in this thread, but others as well.   I'm not speaking of just you specifically either.    Take that as you will.  

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree with you 100%.   China is getting better and better even if they aren't where they should be.    I'd even go as far as to say that compared to the past they are only marginally a Communist country.   That doesn't mean I don't think China has a long way to go concerning things like human rights though. 

I still think they would cave, though I don't know what the timeline would be.   It comes down to rewards an benifits.   Our marketshare has declined and the economy is indeed global, but the Chinese aren't stupid.    When it comes down to benifits, they have a lot more to gain siding with the US than they do with North Korea, if it comes down to being forced to choose one over the other.   

China would rather play both sides (US and North Korea) and getting benifits for both, as they have been doing and are still doing, but if it really came down to it, I believe that they would choose the US in the end.   

I think you have a misconception of the relationship between China and DPRK.  China is not "siding with" DPRK.  China is the benefactor of DPRK for the main purpose of using them to threaten the US with their nukes.

Perfect example from 2 months back - Chinese-US trade negotiations broke down when Trump refused to cave... DPRK fired a test missile.  DPRK doesn't do these things on their own choosing.  DPRK does this things at Chinese bidding.  If this Chinese-DPRK relationship is not put into proper context, then the significance of Trump walking into North Korea without his secret service immediately after the China-US trade negotiations at the G20, (including a very warm visit to Japan and RoK), is lost.

By the way, leading into the G20, China offered on the table - without provocation nor coercion - agri purchases.  This is an acknowledgement that China is in a weaker position going into the G20 and they needed the US to be agreeable.  That means, that missile test failed to make any impact on Trump even after the mayhem of the MSM.  The past week, China STILL has not made good on that offer.  You can surmise that China feels they have gained an upperhand and don't feel the need to make good on that offer.  Why would China feel that way?  What has happened recently that made China confident?  I'll give you... Epstein.  A scandal whipped up by your very own Mainstream Media.

Edited July 12, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yet you agreed with Godless' obviously partisan narrative.

Perhaps go back and read what I really said.

Unless I misunderstood your post, you said that non-Americans are disgusted with the ignorance of American voters making such claims. 

I responded by saying that the same things Godless' was saying are the same things a lot of people in other countries say about us (whether the things they say are 100% true or not).  I can assure you that this is true and I stand by my statement.    

Although you have accussed me about getting off topic, I can still expound more on the individual things Godless said, both with the things I personally agree with and they things that I don't.  I don't claim to agree with everything Godless said, but I do agree that a lot of other non-Americans are saying the same thing.   Maybe you didn't mean it, but the way you phrased the post, you seem to be implying that (all, most, a majority, many, a few-what did you mean?) non-Americans are disgusted by the claims.   A lot of non-Americans are not only not disgusted by it, but are making the same claims.    This is what I am saying.   

 

 

 

 

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Scott said:

Perhaps go back and read what I really said.

Unless I misunderstood your post, you said that non-Americans are disgusted with the ignorance of American voters making such claims. 

I responded by saying that the same things Godless' was saying are the same things a lot of people in other countries say about us (whether the things they say are 100% true or not).  I can assure you that this is true and I stand by my statement.    

Yes.  Non-Americans who are politically aware who are fighting their own political battles in their own countries constantly getting undermined by another ineffective US President's foreign policy.  People who pay attention to US Congressional hearings listening to Congress grill another Secretary of State about toppling another head of state for "human rights violations" because... their women don't drive, or sodomy is criminal, or extra-judicial killings... when all they really want is to gain political capital for the next election or feed the globalist agenda or the military industrial complex.  People who have been fighting Chinese economic abuses, territorial encroachment, drug proliferation, but can't do anything because that nuke test is getting waaaay too close and the US is more worried about winning the next election and... climate change. 

Yes, there are more non-Americans more concerned about who wins the next soccer league and who Taylor Swift is dating than there are non-Americans who are actually actively working to make their countries better.  I'm not talking about those people.

 

Quote

 

Although you have accussed me about getting off topic, I can still expound more on the individual things Godless said, both with the things I personally agree with and they things that I don't.  I don't claim to agree with everything Godless said, but I do agree that a lot of other non-Americans are saying the same thing.   Maybe you didn't mean it, but the way you phrased the post, you seem to be implying that (all, most, a majority, many, a few-what did you mean?) non-Americans are disgusted by the claims.   A lot of non-Americans are not only not disgusted by it, but are making the same claims.    This is what I am saying.   

Oh, and lest I forget... Fake News Media plagues the entire planet.  The narrative gets parroted everywhere.

Edited July 12, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

China is not "siding with" DPRK.

I agree.   They want it both ways and side with both the US and North Korea in order to reap the benefits.   

Quote

China is the benefactor of DPRK for the main purpose of using them to threaten the US with their nukes.

I don't buy that the main reason for the Chinese support is to threaten the US with North Korean nukes.  China already has 260-280 nukes to threaten us with.  If China wants North Korea to be a nuclear power, they could easily arm them.

China supports North Korea for economic (especially) and stratigic reasons.

In recent years, China and North Korea trade has grown a lot.  China uses North Korean ports for the importation of goods and fossil fuels.   Ecomomically though, the US is still a lot more important to China than North Korea is to China.  

As far as stratigic purposes go, North Korea is the buffer zone between western powers (though South Korea) and if war between China and the US (or other western powers) broke out, there would be no buffer zone for a land invasion of China if North Korea fell.

China does not want North Korea to be unstable.  China also fears North Korea.   They fear that if the West pushes too hard against North Korea that there could military action that would harm Chima or be a regime collapes.

When it comes down to it though, if China were forced to choose between the US and North Korea, my bet is that they will choose the US.  

 

[Guest Scott]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  Non-Americans who are politically aware who are fighting their own political battles in their own countries constantly getting undermined by another ineffective US President's foreign policy.  People who pay attention to US Congressional hearings listening to Congress grill another Secretary of State about toppling another head of state for "human rights violations" because... their women don't drive, or sodomy is criminal, or extra-judicial killings... when all they really want is to gain political capital for the next election or feed the globalist agenda or the military industrial complex. 

I agree 100%.    There is nothing you say above that I disagree with.  I have been saying the same thing for many years.   At least we have common ground here.  

Quote

People who have been fighting Chinese economic abuses, territorial encroachment, drug proliferation, but can't do anything because that nuke test is getting waaaay too close and the US is more worried about winning the next election and... climate change. 

I still think China has no interest in a war with the US.   I also think that they are key to helping solve the situation-if it ever gets solved.  

 

 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree.   They want it both ways and side with both the US and North Korea in order to reap the benefits.     

There's no "siding".  Siding means - DPRK does things independently and China just sides with it or not.  The historical context of the Korean War should inform this.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't buy that the main reason for the Chinese support is to threaten the US with North Korean nukes.  China already has 260-280 nukes to threaten us with.  If China wants North Korea to be a nuclear power, they could easily arm them.     

China supports North Korea for economic (especially) and stratigic reasons. 

You just said it a page or so ago that China avoids war with the superpowers.  They wag DPRK to THREATEN war and take complete deniability as a propaganda tactic to sway public sentiment.  Even though everybody knows China does this, there is no official records of anything that acknowledges this.  It is the same situation with Israel having nukes.  Everybody knows they have nukes but there is no official records of anything that acknowledges this.

Everything China does on the modern era world stage is for economic reasons.  They have a billion mouths to feed.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

In recent years, China and North Korea trade has grown a lot.  China uses North Korean ports for the importation of goods and fossil fuels.   Ecomomically though, the US is still a lot more important to China than North Korea is to China.  

Think about what you're saying... you're trying to compare the buying power of the United States with the DPRK like there's even a comparison that can be made.  It's like you're telling me how a dog would choose to eat steaks over pieces of kibble.  Obviously, the relationship between China and DPRK is NOT THAT.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

As far as stratigic purposes go, North Korea is the buffer zone between western powers (though South Korea) and if war between China and the US (or other western powers) broke out, there would be no buffer zone for a land invasion of China if North Korea fell.

This is half right.  But, DPRK's physical barrier is very inconsequential when you consider that there are US military bases surrounding that area of the pacific theater that can launch weapons, supplies, and soldiers into Beijing without ever needing to set foot on non-Chinese, non-US-base land.  Although, the half part that is right is that China has shown not to tolerate the presence of US or US-allied forces in DPRK... hence, the Chinese involvement in the Korean War.  

This is not about actual physical war.  This is about having good pokemon cards at the economic trading table.  

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

China does not want North Korea to be unstable.  China also fears North Korea.   They fear that if the West pushes too hard against North Korea that there could military action that would harm Chima or be a regime collapes.  

I don't believe this.

China doesn't fear DPRK.  There is not going to be a DPRK vs ROK or DPRK vs US war, especially with Jong-un. There is only going to be China/Russia/Iran vs US allies with DPRK as the useful pawn.  

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

When it comes down to it though, if China were forced to choose between the US and North Korea, my bet is that they will choose the US.  
 

Steaks and pieces of kibble... I don't even understand why you think this is a choice.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I agree 100%.    There is nothing you say above that I disagree with.  I have been saying the same thing for many years.   At least we have common ground here.      

Very good. 

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

  I still think China has no interest in a war with the US.

Nobody wants a war with the US.  Not even Iran (regardless of their rhetoric).  After WWII, the US has been the one that goes out of their country to wage war and topples regimes when something they don't like happens outside of their borders... there's the Red Scare, then there's the Axes of Evil, etc. etc.

But yes, I have to qualify this statement with... no government/country wants to wage war with the US.  9/11 was not about a country wanting to wage war with the US.

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

 I also think that they are key to helping solve the situation-if it ever gets solved.  

Of course, they are.  So this is why I really like Trump.  He got into office vowing to correct the Chinese trade imbalance.  But, the first thing he did was form the pacific alliance against the DPRK... and CHINA WAS IN IT.  China, of course, needed to be in it hoping for a favorable hand in the trade negotiations.  Then Trump warned Kim (through twitter, even!) that his "rockets are bigger than yours".  China couldn't do anything because they're in the alliance and trade negotiations hasn't started.  Then Trump met with Kim - a millenial - and showed him the economic possibilities of the DPRK - he won't be just the god emperor of an impoverished country, he can be the god emperor of a country sporting the latest iphones and bullet trains if they can negotiate peace talks.  Then he went and started the trade imbalance corrections with China at the same time telling Kim he can buy coal from the US for cheap (the one thing they really need from China which is part of the reason they have to do China's bidding).... etc. etc. etc.

Now, how do you think peace talks is going to fare if the US President goes into diplomacy vowing to "charge Kim with all these human rights violations"... or refuse to do anything diplomatic because it might "legitimize human rights violations"...

Edited July 12, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Everything China does on the modern era world stage is for economic reasons.  They have a billion mouths to feed.

Quote

Steaks and pieces of kibble... I don't even understand why you think this is a choice.

Quote

This is not about actual physical war.  This is about having good pokemon cards at the economic trading table.  

 

Quote

It's like you're telling me how a dog would choose to eat steaks over pieces of kibble.

It sounds to me that you are supporting what I said.  Isn't the above what I have been saying?   

So, if it did come down to it, do you think China would cave and support the US if an all out trade war were threatened against China because of there support of North Korea?   I think they would cave for all the reasons you list above, though I don't know what the timeline would be.  

I'm not sure what you are diagreeing with here.

 

Quote

I don't believe this.

China doesn't fear DPRK. 

It's not Jim Jong-Un nor the North Korean military that they fear.   China fears North Korea because they fear a regime collapse.  

Also, I don't think China wants North Korea to have nukes (which I assume is your main point of disagreement).   If they did, they would supplied them already.   And unlike Israel (as you brought up), China is open about being a nuclear power.    It is likely that only the US and Russia have more nukes than China.   

Quote

Nobody wants a war with the US.  Not even Iran (regardless of their rhetoric).  After WWII, the US has been the one that goes out of their country to wage war and topples regimes when something they don't like happens outside of their borders... there's the Red Scare, then there's the Axes of Evil, etc. etc.

Yet again we agree.
 

Quote

But yes, I have to qualify this statement with... no government/country wants to wage war with the US.  9/11 was not about a country wanting to wage war with the US.

And yet again we agree.   We're getting off topic now, but the above is why the Iraq War was a lost cause before it began.

The US viewed the war as us fighting a country and had the intention of replacing it with a country with the same name, but a different form of government.

The problem is that a lot of people in that region don't want a country (or government) the same way as we think of one.    What they want is that only their clan, religion, sect, or whatever has control over those in their immediate sphere of influence.    

Edited July 12, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Godless]

6 hours ago, Mores said:

You've already bought into the narrative that Trump was part of Epstein's crimes.  Let me be clear.  I DON'T KNOW if he is.  I'd really be ecstatic if we found that even Bill Clinton was not involved in it.  But the evidence is already there for Clinton being involved.  There has yet been NO EVIDENCE provided that Trump was involved in it.

I'm not married to the guy.  I have no trouble removing him from office if it was found that he did.  But can we at least wait for actual EVIDENCE before you're ready to impeach the guy?  That's all I'm asking for.  EVIDENCE.  Yet you've already become convinced it's an established fact.

Show me where I said Trump was guilty. I believe that there are dots that need connecting. Connecting those dots may exonerate Trump, or they may reveal him to be a pedophile. Epstein and Trump have a long history of interaction and shared associations. Trump's (now former) Labor Secratary got Epstein his infamous plea deal, which his victims have spent over a decade teying to overturn. Probably not the kind of guy I would want in my Cabinet. It's no secret that Trump is a womanizer, a creep, and a pervert. I don't know that Trump is guilty of anything, but there are an awful lot of "coincidences" that are worth investigating. 

 

Quote

I'd ask you to take a step back and TRULY CONSIDER how much of this is characterization.  How much of it is only politically motivated?  Remember, we ALL readily admit the guy is morally bankrupt.  But Bill Clinton proved that such character is not sufficient to be classified as "High Crimes & Misdemeanors."  Since Clinton set the precedent, the GOP realizes that there's no use in spending time, money, and political capital on something that will not achieve anything (e.g. Ted Cruz said the reason why they wouldn't impeach Obama was because they knew there weren't enough votes in the Senate to remove him anyway.  So, what's the point?  He was right)  Dems, on the other hand, are perfectly content running every witch hunt and fishing expedition ad nauseam.

Litmus test: What is stuff that "I disapprove of"?  And what is ILLEGAL!!!

Firmly disapprove of his behavior.  What was illegal?

To be clear, holding a president accountable for his actions takes many forms, not just impeachment. Checks and balances and whatnot. The GOP seems content to let Trump do whatever he wants and release statements of disapproval when he does something they don't like rather than, you know, using their Constitutional mandate to reign in the power of the Executive Branch as needed.

Quote

Define "reckless" in this sense.  Characterization.  Nothing more.  What has he actually DONE that would harm American trade strategies?  Not what he's talked about.  Not what he's considered.  Not what he's threatened.  What has he actually DONE that would be considered "reckless" by the informed, educated, swing voter?

Soybean farmers are hurting as a result of our tariffs. They got some help from American taxpayers, but what next? Trump said his policies are good for American farmers, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And if it were true, then why the subsidization?

The impact on other industries is mostly unclear at this point. I know many breweries have reported higher costs for the cans they package their beer in as a result of tariffs on imported aluminum. 

Using tariffs as a catalyst for trade negotiations strikes me as the equivalent of two rivals pointing guns at an innocent bystander, while each gunman demands that the other gives the bystander a kevlar vest. Spoiler alert: American consumers -you and I- are the innocent bystander.

Quote

What would you expect him to do?  NK already has the strictest sanctions imposed on them.  Do you want to go to war with them?  For what?  And risk war with China as well? Now who's reckless?

I want our talks with NK to address human rights issues in that country. I want transparency from Kim regarding the welfare and treatment of his citizens. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be talking to NK, and I sincerely think it's admirable that we've gotten as far as we have. I just can't shake the feeling that a big reason we've gotten this far is because we're deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

Quote

As far as election interference -- again, I'm troubled at your lack of self awareness.  The entire Mueller investigation dug up TONS of evidence against Hillary Clinton being the beneficiary of such meddling.  But I don't hear anyone on your side crying for her arrest.  So, what exactly do you want him to do?

I'd like him to take the election interference seriously. I'd like to see him hold Putin accountable for Russian involvement in electoral interference, but he seems unwilling to do that.

Quote

Name them.  We can discuss.  But those I've read about over the last year were penny candy and meaningless accusations.  Tell me something I haven't heard of and we can discuss.

How much revenue has Mar-a-Lago generated as a result of government business being conducted there? What about his golf resorts? How much taxpayer money is going into Trump businesses? I couldn't find straight answers to these questions because the issue of whether or not those financials should be disclosed is still being fought in the courts. But they are questions worth asking, and finding answers for.

So no, I don't have specific examples. Chalk that up to an administration that insists on being as transparent as a brick wall. This brings us back to Trump's inner circle. Federal indictments, jail time, plea deals. For someone so legally immaculate and squeaky clean, Trump sure loves to surround himself with criminals. Again, I'm not calling Trump a criminal, but so much relentless obstruction doesn't exactly scream "innocent". You want these questions to go away? Let's see those tax returns. Let's see some administration officials testify before the House oversight committees. Nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong, right? 

Quote

Obama had the same problems that Trump has because of the same funding and legislative issues.  Trump has set out the plan to fix the problem.  But he requires Congressional approval to do much of what needs to be done.  And the Democratic House will.not.budge.  They're using these children as a political football rather than wanting to solve the problem. Trump wants funding to expand programs at the border so, the detainees will not have to be so cramped.  But Dems just want to keep emphasizing how bad Trump is to the point that they refuse to fund the obvious solutions.

 If Obama asked for the same things, the bills would have been rushed through the House with tens of billions in pork attached to it.  But because it is Trump... He could ask for emergency medical funding to help "The Mother Teresa of America" pay her medical bills, and they would call it racist and elitist. 

So, what do you want to do?  He's got solutions.  And they've proven to be effective -- to the level that he has power to implement them.  But Dems won't admit it.  He is now taking to Executive Order options -- which he has continually only used as a last resort.  But you'd blame him for inaction when he doesn't do it.  And you blame him for abuse of power when he does do it. So, exactly what are his options?

Believe it or not, I agree with your stance that the Democrat-controlled House is complicit in the humanitarian crisis at the border. 

If Trump writes an EO that will directly result in improved living conditions for detained refugees, you won't hear me complaining about it. But he won't do it because, like the Democrats, he loses political leverage if progress is made at the border. One side (or ideally, both) will need to make some concessions in order for anything to change. 

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Godless

[Vort]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Everything China does on the modern era world stage is for economic reasons.  They have a billion mouths to feed.

This assumes China holds its citizens' wellbeing as a primary concern. I believe that presumption to be untrue. The Chinese citizenry is a resource to be exploited, and nothing else. Their wellbeing is important only insofar as it contributes to economic strength and international prestige.

This ugly Darwinian fact is not the worst of it, but that a majority of American politicians think exactly the same way about us.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

there's the Red Scare, then there's the Axes of Evil

Both well-founded, I might add.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

Trump said his policies are good for American farmers, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And if it were true, then why the subsidization?

Sixty years ago, Ezra Taft Benson warned of the foolishness and counterproductive nature of agricultural subsidies. His opinion was, shall we say, not well-received. Are you now agreeing with him?