The First 100 days

Let's hope everything goes well.

 

If so, then libs must now revere him.
Sorry but those are the rules

 

Liberalism means being liked, not gayness.

 

Liberals are fans of Milo Yiannopoulos?

 

If Dem's were smart, they'd rebrand liberalism as pissing on your enemies and lauding your allies rather than the inverse which is what Trump is doing.

Conservatism: **** on your friends and celebrate your enemies

Could use some wordsmithing.

In reality, I have no problem with Trump meeting with Kim just as I had no problem when Obama suggested a meeting with Kim (unlike Sean Hannity). My hope is that Trump doesn't walk away calling Kim "weak and dishonest" simply because he doesn't jump when Trump says jump.

 

The problem is that too many liberals like our enemies and dislike at least one of our allies (Israel). Not all liberals dislike them, but significant numbers of them do.

That may be true of Trumpism. At a minimum, he acts like a jackass to them publicly.

I don't have a problem with meeting with bad guys so long as you're willing to hold the line on what's really important to you. That means being unafraid to walk away.

 

Trumpism is conservatism in 2018, for better or worse. He owns the Republican Party. Think he'll ever a acquiesce the power?

 

Branding wise, yes. However, if you think conservatism is an objective set of principles and beliefs that are independent of any person or political party (as I do), then no. For example, I'm not going to call Trump a fiscal conservative if he's not going to do anything about the $1T deficit. In fact, I'll call him a fiscal liberal, because that's what he'll be.

No, but I do wonder where it'll go after he's gone. My guess is that it won't go back.

 

Same WAPO writer, barely 2-years later
See if you can spot the difference

 

Trump did not give up anything. The media keeps saying “stopping joint military exercises is a big win for Kim.” That is a nothing concession. Our troops are still there. South Korea’s army is still there. They can both continue to exercise on their own. If North Korea does not make any efforts to disarm, our military has joint exercises again with South Korea. No sanctions were lifted and no troops are being removed. That is an acceptable offer to see if North Korea will really disarm. If North Korea does not, we are back to square one and have not lost anything.

The media taking the “everything Trump does is negative whether it is or not” approach to all news is tiresome.

 

I don't have an issue with halting military exercises either although it doesn't appear we received any negotiating concessions in kind. Using NK's "provacative" language to describe the exercises is a bit much. Additionally, SK was caught completely off guard by the statement which is never a positive when you surprise your allies. Overall, we should all take a wait and see approach on the actions of each side.

 

That’s what it comes down to really. If North Korea starts to disarm its nuclear weapons, this has been a success and both sides can move forward.

If North Korea does nothing, then we can resume military exercises and this whole summit was a giant waste of time.

I will say, long term, North Korea doing nothing would hurt them a lot more than us. While it would be bad Trump’s individual legacy (and leave him on par with Neville Chamberlin on foreign policy), it would kill any chance Kim Jong Un has at international credibility and, subsequently, any chance at negotiating with most of the world. I think North Korea would be guaranteeing permanent harsh sanctions as long as Un is in power if they follow this summit up with nothing. I also think it would hurt them with China and Russia as well as I think both China and Russia would see North Korea as less trustworthy.

We will have to see. I feel like the safe bet is North Korea doing nothing, but unlike the past, this summit makes reneging costlier than before.

I will also add, I think the tougher sanctions have managed to affect the North Korean elite and they almost certainly are ready for such sanctions to end. The question is will Kim Jong Un do the smart thing?

 

I believe that when China says "jump" Kim Jong Un says "how high?" Kim has taken 2 trips to meet with President Xi. I'm sure there was someone on the NK side assigned to relay everything that was being said back to China. So, we need to ask what China wants out of this deal. A more stable NK at less risk of famine would be helpful but they've been dealing with that for decades. What else? US pulling back our military off the Korean Peninsula maybe? If we pulled our troops out of SK we'd essentially acquiesce the Yellow Sea to China. Trump said this morning his longterm goal is to pull out our 28k troops from SK.

 

The issue is that he validated them as an equal. I don't have a huge issue. My understanding is that the whole Cuba thing saw a lot more give on their end before we actually met. My hope is that now we can do multi party talks between NK/SK/China/Japan and us. Maybe Kim can stop assassinating people.

 

What did Cuba give? They literally gave nothing. They didnt even agree to stop being one of the few countries in the world trading with North Korea. All that happened since we recognized them and opened an embassy was american tourists went over and gave them $ to keep the regime afloat and Cuba attacked our embassy with whatever baloney sonic weapon that China also seems to be using for some reason. We literally got nothing from Obama’s cuba deal and conceded quite a bit.

Also, I’ll note at time, supporters on the right and left did not want anything or care if anything was conceded. They just felt it was time to move on, so most did not pushback or care about the lack of concessions. I debated this very topic on hornfans and brought up the lack of concessions with cuba.

Trump’s quote: “I want to get our soldiers out,” he said, but noted “that’s not part of the equation right now.”

No, I dont think he plans to remove troops during his presidency, although Im sure he would welcome a north korean regime collapse and move to democracy giving him opportunity to remove the troops.

Getting our troops out should be the long term goal. We do not need permanent military bases everywhere to police the world. However, we do have a commitment to protect south korea as long as a north korean threat exists. Until there is a regime change, the threat will likely exist and our troops will stay. If true peace is ever achieved on the korean peninsula (almost certainly requiring regime change in the north), yes, our troops should go home.

Also, who cares if China has the yellow sea? We have the Gulf of Mexico. Mexico has the Gulf of California. Russia has the Sea of Okhotsk. If we achieve actual peace on the korean pennisula, see if I care if China has the Yellow Sea.

 

South Korea probably cares. The Phillipines cared about the South China Sea but were powerless to do anything. At one time we attempted to support our allies but that may be shifting based on the actions/statements of the current administration. This may be the new Trump doctrine: "We're America, *****"

 

South Korea has a 3 mile border for shipping out of the Yellow Sea. Otherwise, the sea could only be used for trade between South Korea and China. It seems like in a situation where there was peace on the korean peninsula, the Yellow Sea would be something for those two to work out and would not involve us. If China is a bigger country and has more leverage, that is a South Korean problem. Sort of like we are a bigger country and have more leverage in the Gulf of Mexico than Cuba. Or would your prefer Russia come help their old ally Cuba and help make things fair?

Unless China invades South Korea, I see no reason to get involved with the Yellow Sea once the North Korea situation is resolved.

 

Yes, he did say that while Pompeo has stated that we've agreed to "unique security" arrangements for NK. It's anyone's guess what those may be but I'm guessing it has to do with ensuring Kim remains in power in NK. I'd agree with you that pulling our troops out has to be dependent on a regime change. It just seems like all of that talk is very premature and goes directly against what Trump previously claimed when he said he wasn't going to "telegraph" his moves.

 

Some might see making the NK free of nukes IS supporting our allies, some like South Korea and Japan.

 

Let me use a picture to illustrate. You may be confusing the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea.

If you are China, it's pretty clear why you don't want the US to have a military presence in SK, especially as significant as we have today. Our presence there is second only to their border with Russia as an immediate military threat. I've long advocated for not being the world's cop but strategically, we'd be giving up prime position against and opponent by vacating SK.

 

That's clearly a win all around, if that indeed occurs.

 

What would the Yellow Sea be used for other than shipping to China for South Korea?

Sorry, mispoke in my previous post. Meant “yellow sea”. Will edit.

I am just not sure China is a prime opponent in the long run as far as invasions go. We trade too much with them. Of course who knows what the future holds? I doubt anyone in 1900 could have predicted the next 100 years. I am not interested in a long term military presence on China’s border if there is no actual imminent threat.

Nearly the whole world has gone capitalist. The current long term issues among the powerful nations are trade policies and cyberwarefare. Obviously, things can change. On the current course, I do not think China would want the massive economic blowback a war with South Korea would bring.

 

Natural Resources seems to be all the rage.

 

Again, that seems like a local issue. We control our section of the world. I do not want China telling us what we can do off the coast of California. I do not see it as our place to tell them what to do on their coast.

 

It started out just as a negotiation to swap prisoners. Changing that government is a decade long plan that requires exposing the population to some capitalism to grow the change in the people.

 

We gave Vietnam business in the early 90s and it had the opposite effect. Business in Vietnam funds and supports the regime. No political uprising followed. The Castro regime will keep and does keep all foreign dollars flowing in. The people do not get to keep anything, just like Vietnam. The USSR collapsed because its economy collapsed, not because it was exposed to capitalism. What is the historic precedent of a regime collapsing because it was propped up with money? That does not even make sense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.833b05a18bfb

Here is a good washington post editorial on the topic.

Trade with Cuba helps:
1. The current regime
2. Rich Americans who want to invest (assuming cuba doesnt seize their investments like last time)
3. American tourists and cigar buyers
4. North Korea, who buys arms from Cuba to get around sanctions

Trade with Cuba hurts:
1. The chances for freedom and democracy in Cuba
2. Any American who owned assets in Cuba before Castro
3. Any Central or South American country fighting Cuban sponsored terrorists
4. The chances for freedom and democracy in Venezuela

The whole trading with cuba will magically produce democracy has to be one of the biggest rich person lies (they want to invest/vacation and could care less about the freedom of the cuban people) that a good portion of the american population bought.

 

Meanwhile, CNN has Trump approval rating on the economy at 54%. I’m looking forward to the Blue Trickle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval_economy-6182.html