Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'm not sure what the value of continually re-posting this, Kap. I think I can count it being posted 4X. Anyway, I walked my comment back a bit saying that I criticized the Trump administration too quickly.

For me, here's the pros and cons of the PDJT/KJU Summit:

Pros - there's a high level dialogue between two nations possessing nuclear weapons (the technical capabilities of NK not completely known) where heretofore there was none.

Cons - the outcome, as it is defined in the post summit, jointly signed communique, is vague.

Here are future outcomes that I'd like to see: Over time, there is an exchange of real value between the US and NK involving a reduction of US military presence in SK and inspections of NK facilities producing fissionable material conducted by the IAEA.

At this point, I don't think there is any point, other than political, if you are so inclined, in clapping hands or puffery about being right or wrong. It is what it is, which at this point, isn't substantively a great deal. I think it is worth it to remember Kim-Jung-Un and his Chinese puppeteers are died-in-the-wool Communists with values and strategic intentions vastly different than those of the democracies of Western nations.

I'm skeptical that in today's world, even though Communism as it is practiced as a political and economic form of governance has changed, embracing the leaders of Communist countries has value. Certainly as a means of expanding dialog, its fine. Beyond that and as a means of including such countries as partners in a multilateral alliance, I'd question the utility of that. OTH, since the Trump Doctrine of international relations seem to be one of unilateralism, assuming that the US could be the author of such a new world order, I suppose that could work. But, that would be a significant departure from the current world order and a change that I'm not sure is possible or desirable.

[Jeff Buchanan]

[iam416]

Cons - the outcome, as it is defined in the post summit, jointly signed communique, is vague.

I'm not sure what you expected. Did you expect that a one-day meeting would resolve all Korean peninsula issues? This isn't the final outcome. It's AN outcome which will, hopefully, produce an acceptable final outcome. SPOILER ALERT -- there will be more steps in the process if that is to occur. It seems to me that the most rational conclusion here is that it's a productive first step. That shouldn't be hard to say.

I concur re Communism and believe your rationale extends equally to Islamic states, at least insofar as you're talking about vastly different core values from Western liberalism.

Finally, there have been ample posts here about PDJT-NK. There were the "holy shit, he's going to get us into a nuclear war" posts. There were the "holy shit, China is going to use NK to play him over" posts. There were the "Ha! PDJT got played b/c the summit is off" posts. There are the "this all means nothing" posts with a small dose of "how hypocritical." The point being that there is almost no action PDJT could take our outcome he could achieve that wouldn't be shit on by a lot of folks here.

[iam416]

Colbert with an awesome #Hottake.

Kapture should post those quotes five times a day.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'm not sure what you expected. Did you expect that a one-day meeting would resolve all Korean peninsula issues? ........ There are the "this all means nothing" posts with a small dose of "how hypocritical." The point being that there is almost no action PDJT could take our outcome he could achieve that wouldn't be shit on by a lot of folks here.

Frankly, I didn't expect much more than what the world got. It's still something.

See my comment: "At this point, I don't think there is any point, other than political, if you are so inclined, in clapping hands or puffery about being right or wrong."

IOW, I get your point.

[AlabamAlum]

I have a format style question: why are we posting PDJT as opposed to just DJT? Are there people who don't know that Trump is the president? I don't remember that with BHO or W or WJC or Bush 41 (not that there was a lot of internet chatter about him because that's before the Internet was a huge thing).

Is there a reason dor the P on Trump's initials? Is it sass? I can respect sass.

[iam416]

I think I started using PDJT both as sass and as an homage to the silly verbiage of certain SEC fans in referring to certain coaches as "Coach Full Name" -- e.g., you surely know what I mean when I say CMR couldn't win in the SEC so he left for easier terrain.

As I am a natural leader and esteemed forum elder, it caught on.

[CGVT]

FDT is more appropriate

[Kapture1]

UFcTxACCDBKhpqA9K-aU_5yHvdaPdxZMSwaFY0jDFsA.jpg?w=1024&s=4ec988dbe6a6d9f5b32306f1a1bc624b.jpg

[Kapture1]

I spell 0bama with a zero rather than an O.

[AlabamAlum]

I think I started using PDJT both as sass and as an homage to the silly verbiage of certain SEC fans in referring to certain coaches as "Coach Full Name" -- e.g., you surely know what I mean when I say CMR couldn't win in the SEC so he left for easier terrain.

As I am a natural leader and esteemed forum elder, it caught on.

I don't think that I have ever been confused by CMR or CNS, or whatever. In fact, I used to love using that device with Urban. Although with the turnover the SEC has had with coaches, I am not sure it is a given that most know all of them without a good bit of context.

[Jeff Buchanan]

As talent mentions, there is no shortage of room for out-takes after the fact on the NK/US Summit. I think it is much easier to find fault with PDJT than it is to find positives, other than that we've already mentioned - it's a start; its a dialogue.

I think that fundamentally, the problem for Trump is the baggage he's managed to pile up for himself as it colors just about everything he does:

Trump?s flattery (of Kim) is noteworthy because he is much better known for vinegar than honey in his public statements. Yet his high praise for Kim stands together with his prior compliments for autocratic leaders around the globe, and in contrast to his sharp words for allies, especially democratic ones, over recent weeks, especially some harsh swipes at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trump?s overt indifference to the question of human rights also shocks the conscience, and together with the emerging consensus that Kim got the better of Trump at the negotiating table, it raises new questions about Trump?s judgment and statesmanship.

Liberals are going to lean on this sort of thing as the author of this piece does. I can't say if it is fair or not ...... depends on the moment I suppose. But looked at in a different light, Trump, the disruptor, as he likes to fancy himself, seems to be setting America on a new course and trying to write the rules for the world order he seems to be trying to arrange. I don't think any of us can predict whether this all works or blows up in his face. We are, as has been the case since his assumption of the Presidency, waiting to see what the outcomes actually are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/trumps-effusive-unsettling-flattery-of-kim-jong-un/562619/

[froot loops]

I'm not sure what you expected. Did you expect that a one-day meeting would resolve all Korean peninsula issues? This isn't the final outcome. It's AN outcome which will, hopefully, produce an acceptable final outcome. SPOILER ALERT -- there will be more steps in the process if that is to occur. It seems to me that the most rational conclusion here is that it's a productive first step. That shouldn't be hard to say.

I concur re Communism and believe your rationale extends equally to Islamic states, at least insofar as you're talking about vastly different core values from Western liberalism.

Finally, there have been ample posts here about PDJT-NK. There were the "holy shit, he's going to get us into a nuclear war" posts. There were the "holy shit, China is going to use NK to play him over" posts. There were the "Ha! PDJT got played b/c the summit is off" posts. There are the "this all means nothing" posts with a small dose of "how hypocritical." The point being that there is almost no action PDJT could take our outcome he could achieve that wouldn't be shit on by a lot of folks here.

The spolier alert is probably correct, but I would say I have less confidence than every other administration that there will be good follow up. Follow up means a framework of something like the Iran deal.

And having your president give up the carrot of meeting the dictator of NK should be more than a 1 day meeting. Think Nixon goes to China and the laborious negotiations over that communique. Talking is always better than not talking. But I certainly don't want the president lauding how popular the North Korea leader is. That is absurd on its face.

The 1st step can't be the only step.

[crashcourse]

for those "esteemed forum elders" it should be noted that demented incontinent crackpot is the next stage of development as Wizarb has shown. although his esteemed stage only lasted a post or two coinciding with his absence and desintigrating with his return

[iam416]

Liberals are going to lean on this sort of thing as the author of this piece does. I can't say if it is fair or not

Let me help you - it's not.