nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

EdgeCase

I think I’ll give it a few weeks before I decide whether it’s a success or failure. Kim still has to go home and digest what just happened and Trump has to avoid tweeting anything that might undermine everything.

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair point.

But of course we can turn it around; if Hillary had won the election, and then met Kim in the present circumstances, what would Trump and the Trumpistas say? They would say that Hillary was rewarding Kim's illegality; that she had allowed him to bomb his way to the negotiating table, and that her treatment of him would encourage other rogue countries to follow the same course. All of which are points that could be made against Trump now.

And you'd think they were fools for making such points, the same points being made today all over the media.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, as I perhaps didn't make clear enough, I'm not saying that Trump is wrong to meet Kim, or that he should be criticised for it. I'm just saying (a) that getting Kim to a meeting is not the triumph that some seem to think. Any US president could have met Kim at any time; it's what Kim has been consistently seeking. And (b) the meeting with Kim has not, thus far, had a good outcome. All we can say is that it hasn't broken down yet. The Joint Statement could hardly have had less substance than it has.

That's fair.

pixelburp

I think best policy is to wait and see here, find out what the exact details are; peace is not achieved in one meeting. As said elsewhere the meat of any deal will be likely developed by Pompeo and whatever (decent) diplomats are left in the State Department.

Trump went for the pomp & show, got his friendly photo-op and can crow about it for a spell in between his inexplicable fights with the US's biggest allies and diplomatic friends :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

If he doesn't mess it up, and Democrats continue to attack him for it anyway, his supporters will use it to deflect and say "Look what they said about __."

The best thing the Democrats and CNN could do today would be to congratulate Trump on his achievement. Immediately, their other criticisms would regain an audience. Most people ignore it because it's all negative even though America is booming and people are happy.

Igotadose, I can't say I agree with you on the China angle.

Beechwoodspark

“This is gonna lead to more and more and more” says trump.

That can go either way I guess.

kilns

This could not have gone better for both men, both got what they wanted. Kim now has been recognised as a world leader and has gained the respect of the president of the USA, while in turn getting sanctions eased and bringing much needed benefits to his country.
Trump on the other side can use this as the legacy of his presidency and can keep referring back to this moment depsite all the other crap. Like can the average person recall anything else from Reagans presidency apart from the "pull this wall down" quote

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Peregrinus, if NK had tested a thermonuclear bomb at the start of Obama's or Bush's presidency, they'd have almost certainly met NK just like Trump did. Likewise, Hillary would probably meet if she were president. The days of kicking this issue down the road ended with that blast.

What would you have said if Moon met Kim, but Trump didn't? I respect your political posts on here, so I'm honestly interested in what you'd have called that. Meeting was "caving" so not meeting would have been "___"? Most posters on here would lambaste him for not chasing peace.

Fair point.

But of course we can turn it around; if Hillary had won the election, and then met Kim in the present circumstances, what would Trump and the Trumpistas say? They would say that Hillary was rewarding Kim's illegality; that she had allowed him to bomb his way to the negotiating table, and that her treatment of him would encourage other rogue countries to follow the same course. All of which are points that could be made against Trump now.

But, as I perhaps didn't make clear enough, I'm not saying that Trump is wrong to meet Kim, or that he should be criticised for it. I'm just saying (a) that getting Kim to a meeting is not the triumph that some seem to think. Any US president could have met Kim at any time; it's what Kim has been consistently seeking. And (b) the meeting with Kim has not, thus far, had a good outcome. All we can say is that it hasn't broken down yet. The Joint Statement could hardly have had less substance than it has.

RIGOLO

September 2017 NK tested a 60 kiloton thermonuclear device .

November 2017 NK tested an ICBM Inter Continental Ballistic Missile capable of travelling 8,000 miles on standard trajectory, both events following on from 10 years of development.

Trump didnt bring us to that point, previous US administrations , and the UN security council did.

Between Nov and Apr, well we all know what went on, world was on the brink of MAD Mutual Assured Destruction

June 2018 NK meets with the US President Donal Trump and signs an agreement.

What an incredible achievement.

Well done to all the diplomats working the back channel on this, especially Nikki Haley , US Ambassador to the UN, she got the 15 members of the UN Security Council including Russia and China all to bring pressure on the NK regime. A potential future First female president of the US.

And no, I dont think Trump supporters will bring up NK all the time, perhaps when discussing foreign policy achievements they may as it relates to that topic. But I expect when discusing POTUS economic achievements they can refer to DTs many economic achievements, when discussing unemployment rates, they can refer to DTs achievments on the black and hispanic unemployment rate among other things, when discussing DTs crackdown on opioid epidemic they can reference Trumps achievments in the fight on that , etc etc ...

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

Peregrinus, if NK had tested a thermonuclear bomb at the start of Obama's or Bush's presidency, they'd have almost certainly met NK just like Trump did. Likewise, Hillary would probably meet if she were president. The days of kicking this issue down the road ended with that blast.

What would you have said if Moon met Kim, but Trump didn't? I respect your political posts on here, so I'm honestly interested in what you'd have called that. Meeting was "caving" so not meeting would have been "___"? Most posters on here would lambaste him for not chasing peace.

Good point, AbG, the past might've been different. However, that didn't happen and now there is in fact a change in the relationship which will play out however it plays out, and it has to be credited to Trump, as painful as it feels to say that. Trump's finally, actually, done something that might not have been already in place (keeping the economy afloat due to QE), a long-time teaPublican plan (tax giveaways to the wealthy, screw over minorities to keep the base energized). This came out of the blue, really, especially given as destructive as Trump's been to the US internationally with his dismantling of the State department and all the hostility to the US's allies.

So, indirectly, Trump makes the Chinese happy yet again. If there is a relaxation of North Korean sanctions and some opening of aid to NK from the US, that'll please China, NK will cost them less.

There's a trend here.

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus, if NK had tested a thermonuclear bomb at the start of Obama's or Bush's presidency, they'd have almost certainly met NK just like Trump did. Likewise, Hillary would probably meet if she were president. The days of kicking this issue down the road ended with that blast.

What would you have said if Moon met Kim, but Trump didn't? I respect your political posts on here, so I'm honestly interested in what you'd have called that. Meeting was "caving" so not meeting would have been "___"? Most posters on here would lambaste him for not chasing peace.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Complete denuclearization of the peninsula likely involves inspections in South Korea by the DPRK. Be interesting to see how that works out.

I will compliment Trump - thought he'd screw this up completely and hasn't, and has done something his predecessors have not or could not do . . . .

Or would not do. Kim has been seeking talks with the US since forever, and previous administrations refused until Kim stopped his nuclear bluster. Trump reversed that policy and agreed to meet with no preconditions. Basically, Trump caved, and gave Kim what he had been demanding.

This is a gamble, obviously. It remains to be seen whether it will pay off in securing more responsible behaviour from Kim than he has displayed in the past.

Trump will undoubtedly hail the summit as a triumph; he would have done so regardless of its outcome, so not much can be inferred from that.

Viewed more dispassionately, the summit has not been a disaster. A disaster would have been if the summit had broken up in acrimony, or ended without a joint statement (though, note, in either of those cases Trump would still have hailed it as a triumph). We do, however, have a joint statement. Couple of points to note about this:

1. A "joint statement" is the lowest on the hierarchy of possible outcomes from a bilateral summit. An "declaration" or even an "agreement" would have been a much more significant outcome. But the chances of these were never very high; they require a great deal more prior engagement and detailed preparatory work than has happened here.

2. As joint statements go, this one is pretty watery.

3. Kim has committed to "work towards" the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. He has committed to this before, so getting him to do so now is not exactly a huge advance. The Joint Statement actually acknowledges this; Kim's commitment on this point is described as a "reaffirmation".

4. Undoubtedly as a quid pro quo, Trump has committed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea. On the one hand, this is a genuinely new commitment; the US has not done this before. So in a sense Kim has gained more from this summit than the Trump has; an actual new commitment. On the other hand, "security commitments" (i.e. undertakings not to attack) from Trump's US are a currency of limited value; Trump has just torn up the security commitments that the US gave to Iran because, basically, he regrets the fact that they were given; presumably he would as lightly tear up any security commitments he gives to North Korea if he later comes to regret them. So maybe the North Koreans haven't gained much of value. And maybe they realise that. I'm guessing that when push comes to shove they will require rather more than this from the US before their commitment to "work towards" complete denuclearisation results in any actual denuclearisation.

5. To my mind, the most significant commitment is the commitment to "hold follow-on negotiations led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official". In other words, they'll keep talking, and furthermore Trump won't personally be involved in those talks so they won't be subordinated to his need for constant bombast. They might make some real progress. Until they do, either celebration or congratulation is premature.

Igotadose

Complete denuclearization of the peninsula likely involves inspections in South Korea by the DPRK. Be interesting to see how that works out.

I will compliment Trump - thought he'd screw this up completely and hasn't, and has done something his predecessors have not or could not do. This is going to benefit Trump, no question. My guess is that what happens in the long run is there is a slow trickle of change in the North, sanctions on the North start to relax, and Trump and the tGOP trumpet any slight positive seeming change over and over in their media. Every conversation about anything else unflattering to Trump, gets turned back by him to "But, hey, look at how well we did in North Korea! Families are reuniting! Peace has broken out on the peninsula!" etc. etc.

[Deleted User]

jooksavage wrote: »

Well if there isnt a commitment in that co-signed agreement, its all been a massive waste. Kim is already the winner here - Trump met him as a peer and legitmized his regieme, which essentially the world's largest concenteation camp. However, if theres a committment to de-nuclearization and human rights reforms, it may have been worth it.

Do tell how you would organise these meetings, or would you just not bother? Maybe give Kim a little small chair and make him wear a silly hat?

Pelvis wrote: »

Kim looking like a proper Statesman in all these pictures. Mission accomplished as far as he's concerned. Maybe Trump will suggest he join the G7?

He looked like a lost child trying to work out when to smile.

Christy42

It is a first step. Very little appears to have been agreed.

From the sounds of it no more military manoeuvres from the US and South Korea and North Korea won't show off more tests.

Wanderer78

jooksavage wrote: »

Well if there isnt a commitment in that co-signed agreement, its all been a massive waste. Kim is already the winner here - Trump met him as a peer and legitmized his regieme, which essentially the world's largest concenteation camp. However, if theres a committment to de-nuclearization and human rights reforms, it may have been worth it.

leaders of the 'democratic' world have the tenancy to lie, can we really trust this chap? tis all a game

Pelvis

Kim looking like a proper Statesman in all these pictures. Mission accomplished as far as he's concerned. Maybe Trump will suggest he join the G7?

jooksavage

Wanderer78 wrote: »

He's no interest in doing that, it's all a game

Well if there isnt a commitment in that co-signed agreement, its all been a massive waste. Kim is already the winner here - Trump met him as a peer and legitmized his regieme, which essentially the world's largest concenteation camp. However, if theres a committment to de-nuclearization and human rights reforms, it may have been worth it.

[Deleted User]

It is still unclear what they have signed. Trump said that would become clear shortly and that he would “discuss this at great length” in a press conference to be held in about 45 minutes, but that the document was “comprehensive”.

“A lot of goodwill went into this, a lot of work, a lot of preparation. We’re very proud of what took place today,” said Trump.

Trump said the relationship between the world and North Korea was going to change in light of the agreement. “It’s going to be a very much different situation to what it has been in the past,” said Trump. “We are going to take care of a very big and very dangerous problem for the world.”

30 minutes from now I guess.

[Deleted User]

Amazing that people expect denuclearisation to happen in a morning's talks.

Wanderer78

jooksavage wrote:

Waiting to see if Kim agrees to de-nuclearization. Kim himself has refused to answer questions from the press pool on this so that's not good, though hopefully that has more to do with him not being familiar with the press bsrking questions at him.

He's no interest in doing that, it's all a game

jooksavage

Waiting to see if Kim agrees to de-nuclearization. Kim himself has refused to answer questions from the press pool on this so that's not good, though hopefully that has more to do with him not being familiar with the press bsrking questions at him.

2 Scoops

Would love to be a fly on the wall

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1006344513554530305

everlast75

jooksavage wrote: »

Trump to be interviewed by Sean Hannity immediately after the summit. Who better than someone with the gravitas, intellectual curiosity and journalistic integrity of Hannity to do this? Truly a man respected by all sides.

Trump hasn't done a tv interview with anyone apart from friendly tv since Lester Holt... can understand why!

I hope Trump does a Fox and Friends and Hannity can't hang up on him. A full meltdown would be nice.

But we all know how rehearsed it will be, due to the fact that they speak to each other on the phone every night

StringerBell

That's right, because its The Donald that is giving NK what they have wanted for years we must forget that it is what they have wanted. Legitimacy, recognition and a seat at table. This is now something they have been forced into by the almighty Donald.

We must also forget how opposed his fan club were to even the thought of Obama being open to going to "hang out" with terrorists of course, standard.

Unfortunately things don't actually work like that outside of the Fox MSM bubble/echo chamber (whatever the cool word is today), it would be one of the more hilarious passages of human history if it were not so potentially tragic.

What I can never get my head around is what some people get out of it, really. The motivation is a struggle to comprehend. Is it all just about money? Making a quick buck and **** the consequences? Who knows

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Trump has managed a serious win on the NK scenario.

Instead of throwing stones from afar and just mocking Kim Jong Un, he's brought him to the table, treated him like any other leader of a nuclear super power and fed his ego by feigning consideration that he's an actual threat. Now that Kim feels he's at the big boy table he's conceded freeing hostages and scaling back on nuclear weapons, thanks to Donald Trump.

We are now in a scenario thought impossible a few years ago, where NK is behaving like other countries, sitting at the table and communicating for a diplomatic resolution. This is the first time Kim feels that he's talking to a man who might actually glass his communist hell hole out of existence, but appreciates the respect that he's actually being talked to now, not just pontificated at.

This is sales 101 and the upside of letting a businessman do business.

The Kims have always wanted to come to the table. This isn't that impressive. Lets see what actually comes of this.

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Genuine question.

Why do Trump supporters post either false or speculative comments in here and then when corrected piśś off and disappear for weeks, before repeating the process months later?

If this NK stuff works out, expect them to stick around and cling to it for dear life.

If not, *poof*

You'd think they'd be more cautious. I've seen the pattern so many times:

"Look, he didn't shít his pants. You people in your echo chamber have no idea how smart he is."

Later, after the inevitable textile defacation...

*Crickets*

derb12

I think it's entirely possible that the best way to deal with a narcissistic and dangerous dictator is to put him in a room with a narcissistic and unhinged wannabe dictator and see what happens. Trump is obviously incapable of normal diplomatic relations with democratically elected traditional allies so maybe this is his "chance to shine". With Dennis Rodman on hand to complete the triad of lunacy, anything could happen!
Luckily, whatever deal gets hammered out in the next few months we have a handy check-list of "must-haves" that were deficiencies of the Iran deal. On second thoughts the main problem with the Iran deal was that Obama negotiated it, so maybe identical terms with NK will be fine!

jooksavage

Trump to be interviewed by Sean Hannity immediately after the summit. Who better than someone with the gravitas, intellectual curiosity and journalistic integrity of Hannity to do this? Truly a man respected by all sides.

[Deleted User]

There hasn't been a peep out of the trumpists here about his treatment of Americas closest allies lately except for some soy boy rubbish about Trudeau. But fawning over him for sitting down with Kim. Laughable.

weisses

This whole meeting is something that is playing out exactly as NK is planning for years. Deflected North Koreans told back In 2016 what the timeline would be

NK will not denuclearise ...probably will do something about long range ballistic capabilities so they cannot strike north America in return for massive financial support ... And Trump will go home as a winner without achieving anything significant