So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Glenstache]

I also find it amusing that Trump's selling point to Kim was the thought of building Trump hotels and condos on the beach where they are doing weapons testing. This is stupefying for SO many reasons. Is that the only script he knows for negotiation? 

[GuitarStv]

It would appear that Trump had an historic meeting with Kim only in that he got effectively nothing from NK but provided hours of propaganda footage for Kim and agreed to stop military exercises with allies in the region.

I'm having a really hard time understanding how this constitutes a 'win' for the US

Donald Trump is legally able to order a nuclear strike anywhere in the world tomorrow if he felt like it.  Despite his discussion of fire and fury . . . this time nobody got blown up.  This is therefore a win for the US (and the rest of the world).

[OurTown]

I agree, I would rather have him seeking attention with a photo op than seeking attention with a nuclear first strike.  What I really don't understand is why the Congressional Republicans continue to go along with this farce.  I may have been in high school during the Reagan administration, but I wasn't asleep.  I seem to remember that national security was a core principle.  Peace through strength?  I also seem to remember that the Republicans are free traders.  Or at least they were.  Hello?  Is this thing on? 

[former player]

Republicans don't seem to be able to understand that there is a difference between what is good for Trump (day trading, publicity, insults, quick "wins" at the expense of longer-term losses) and what is good for America (none of the above).

[GuitarStv]

I'm so old that I remember when the Republicans were opposed to Russian involvement in US politics.

[Kris]

I'm so old that I remember when the Republicans were opposed to Russian involvement in US politics.

So's my three year-old grandson.

[acroy]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

[DarkandStormy]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

Did you like the Iran Deal, yes or no?

[Davnasty]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

Ya, why is everyone so concerned that the president makes petty comments for the whole world to see and uses physical domination to intimidate other world leaders? Look at what he's accomplished, he got Kim Jong Un to sign a piece of paper that says he's gonna try real hard to not have a nuclear arsenal.

Oh and +1 to getting baked, right on man.

[JLee]

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-if-hell-find-an-excuse-if-hes-wrong-about-kim-jong-un-2018-6

"I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey I was wrong,'" said Trump, before adding, "I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse."

[Glenstache]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

I'd say that there are a number of specific things he has done that are being critiqued. Additionally, his mannerisms do matter when dealing with the leaders of other countries. He is representing us. His petty comments matter in how we are perceived.

What are your thoughts on how he conducted himself at the G7 and with Kim in Singapore? Just curious for an alternate point of view.

[Johnez]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/live-news/trump-kim-conclude-historic-summit-in-singapore-live-updates-today-2018-06-12-live-updates/

"Look at this way, if Kim shakes Trump's hand and receives lavish praise from President Trump and tries to play President Trump, look what happened to Canada. Bad things are gonna happen. The worst thing you can do to President Trump if you're a foreign leader is try to play him," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

What happened to Canada? Did we destroy some nuclear arsenal? Overthrow the gov't? Cripple their military? Show to the world that it doesn't really pay to be long standing allies because fickle leadership is interested in tweeting for "points"? Somethinging?

Fecking sad and pathetic.

[partgypsy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-if-hell-find-an-excuse-if-hes-wrong-about-kim-jong-un-2018-6

"I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey I was wrong,'" said Trump, before adding, "I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse."

LOL

[OurTown]

I think the Rs will be much better off, long term, if they lose the House of Representatives in 2018.  If they win they can't impeach Trump because they are held hostage to their own Fox News base.  Then they are stuck with two more years of whatever damage Trump can manage to think up.  I know he is doing serious damage to our nation, but he is absolutely devastating the Republican party.

[GuitarStv]

I think the Rs will be much better off, long term, if they lose the House of Representatives in 2018.  If they win they can't impeach Trump because they are held hostage to their own Fox News base.  Then they are stuck with two more years of whatever damage Trump can manage to think up.  I know he is doing serious damage to our nation, but he is absolutely devastating the Republican party.

If Trump was damaging the Republican party, the Republican party would rise up and reject him post-haste.  Trump is the realization and embodiment of many long term goals of the Republican party.  He's exactly what they wanted, what they campaigned for, what their message is designed to attract, and what they appear to prefer.  That's why there's so little real opposition to anything that he says or does from his own party.  Why rock the boat when things are going so swimmingly?

[OurTown]

I don't think slapping tariffs on our closest allies is a mainstream Republican position.

[Johnez]

I think the Rs will be much better off, long term, if they lose the House of Representatives in 2018.  If they win they can't impeach Trump because they are held hostage to their own Fox News base.  Then they are stuck with two more years of whatever damage Trump can manage to think up.  I know he is doing serious damage to our nation, but he is absolutely devastating the Republican party.

You underestimate the power of spin. Obama was probably the best thing that happened to the Trump base. Who save the auto industry? Who had the stock market rally for the better part of his presidency? Who tried to insure the poor and the unfortunate ones without employer covered insurance? The South and Rust Belt are not living in the boom times of past and unfortunately nobody can make that happen instantaneously, but the one who promises that is the one who gets elected it seems. Publicize 800 Carrier jobs saved and bury the hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk because of trade games with our allies and trading partners...

[Poundwise]

I agree, I would rather have him seeking attention with a photo op than seeking attention with a nuclear first strike.  What I really don't understand is why the Congressional Republicans continue to go along with this farce.  I may have been in high school during the Reagan administration, but I wasn't asleep.  I seem to remember that national security was a core principle.  Peace through strength?  I also seem to remember that the Republicans are free traders.  Or at least they were.  Hello?  Is this thing on?

Yes. I used to consider myself fairly conservative.  I'm for personal responsibility, fiscal prudence, military security, decorum and decent behavior, manners, free trade (mostly) and relaxed immigration.  I'm a square. I have this in common with a lot of moderate Republicans in the northeast.  But what's amazing is how Trump as president is our exact opposite on every issue... conservative where we're liberal and liberal where we're conservative. 

Some of my friends have gone full fake news, but most just close their eyes and ears and hope this will all go away.  A few like me have left completely and will not be going back.

[nereo]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

Ya, why is everyone so concerned that the president makes petty comments for the whole world to see and uses physical domination to intimidate other world leaders? Look at what he's accomplished, he got Kim Jong Un to sign a piece of paper that says he's gonna try real hard to not have a nuclear arsenal.

My concern is how we got here and what this means.
To recap, North Korea promised to not develop nuclear weapons in 1994 and again in 2005 in exchange for aid and a relaxation of sanctions.  Both times the wording was vague , but regardless they went back on their end of the bargain. In the meantime the Kims operated one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, and are in the running for the worst human rights violations in the last quarter century. In the last 6 years Kim Jun Un has accelerated their nuclear program. Since DJT has taken office he detonated several nuclear devices and fired delivery vehicles which could - at least in theory - reach the mainland US and without a doubt strike Japan and most of SE Asia.

This entire approach has been to gain international stature. They wanted the US to stop their war games in the area and to reduce their military presence in defense of our ally, S. Korea.  Mission accomplished.

So when I see POTUS - the supposed leader of the democratic world - shaking hands and talking about what a wonderful bond he has with a brutal dictator, it makes my stomach turn. When I consider how N. Korea reached this point - by starving its people, defying international law and threatening both their neighbors (our allies) and the US with nuclear strikes - it makes me want to vomit. When I see clips from North Korean state TV hailing the accomplishments of their 'dear leader' - accomplishments achieved only through impoverishing their nation and borrowing tech from the Russians...yes, that pisses me off too. We literally sat by while Kim developed nuclear warheads and ICBMs, and now that he has them we are giving him every damn thing on his wishlist from legitimacy of his regime to a reduction in our military presence.

Not too long ago the GOP defended free trade and a world order built on democracy.  We addressed (to varying degrees of success) human rights abuses and when our leaders failed (ahem, Syria) the GOP was quick to condemn.  Now what does it stand for with foreign policy?  Russia annexed Crimea and we're inviting it back to the G7 with open arms (over larger and more deserving countries like India and Brazil). We're letting China do whatever the hell it wants, bailing out a company our own analysts say is a national security threat. We're getting into spats over our most loyal allies for protecting certain industries just like we do domestically.

[GuitarStv]

I don't think slapping tariffs on our closest allies is a mainstream Republican position.

Yeah?

When the Republican president makes a decision and gets no real push back from his own party . . . well, maybe the idea is a lot more mainstream than you think it is.  Maybe you would have an argument if the party was actively scrambling to stop Trump.  But they're not.

[toganet]

I don't think slapping tariffs on our closest allies is a mainstream Republican position.

Yeah?

When the Republican president makes a decision and gets no real push back from his own party . . . well, maybe the idea is a lot more mainstream than you think it is.  Maybe you would have an argument if the party was actively scrambling to stop Trump.  But they're not.

I think they're also just not good at getting on the same page or getting things done.  The last decade they've been focused on opposition and obstruction, so maybe they're just out of practice?

In a lot of ways we are seeing the outcome of the dogwhistles that have always been there re: race, class, social safety net, tolerance, etc.  The reality behind the supposed policy.

Stir that all in with the fear of their own base (who Trump Fox News controls) and I don't think the GOP will do anything to stop Trump.

I could imagine a scenario in which the Dems gain control, Mueller reveals a large smoking gun, and it's absolutely clear that Trump is out.  Then the GOP will jump up and say they knew it all along, and be the ones calling loudest for his ouster.

[OtherJen]

I think the Rs will be much better off, long term, if they lose the House of Representatives in 2018.  If they win they can't impeach Trump because they are held hostage to their own Fox News base.  Then they are stuck with two more years of whatever damage Trump can manage to think up.  I know he is doing serious damage to our nation, but he is absolutely devastating the Republican party.

If Trump was damaging the Republican party, the Republican party would rise up and reject him post-haste.  Trump is the realization and embodiment of many long term goals of the Republican party.  He's exactly what they wanted, what they campaigned for, what their message is designed to attract, and what they appear to prefer.  That's why there's so little real opposition to anything that he says or does from his own party.  Why rock the boat when things are going so swimmingly?

Thank you. I can't believe that more people didn't see this coming. I'm 40 and it's been in the works since my childhood and the start of the "Religious Right" movement. Sarah Palin was the final warning of the point of no return.

[scottish]

Trying to understand Trump's agenda is a fascinating exercise.

He dissed the G7 leaders to try and appear tough.   Anyone who stood up to him would be available for a scapegoat if the Nork meeting went sideways.

He's signed a meaningless agreement with the Nork leader which he will claim no other president could have done & now he will use the "denuclearization" as leverage in the midterm election as well as trying to get a Nobel peace prize.    10 to 1 says there will be no independent inspections of the Nork nuclear facilities, it will all be on the word of Kim.

It's really unfortunate that the prez has such moral turpitude.   With his influence skills he could do a lot of good if he had some ethics.

[Silverado]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

[Roadrunner53]

Okay, I am a dummy but I do not get how the USA can demand that other countries disband their nukes when we have nukes. Granted, we don't want to get into a nuclear war but why are we allowed to have nukes when we demand other countries do away with theirs. DUH to me but I don't get it!

[nereo]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

Let's be clear.  Kim Jun Un is a ruthless dictator who murdered his own brother, enslaves thousands of his own people and routinely kills people to stay in power. There are no free elections and the judicial system is entirely at the control of Kim and its frequently used to incarcerate his detractors (and keep would-be dissenters in line)  Similar things can be said about Putin and Russia.  They stay in power through a combination of propaganda and fear. Giving Kim the spotlight in this manner helps solidify his regime.

As for which countries our doctrine says we can and can't be 'friends' with - I thought it was pretty clear.  For the last century we have been supportive of any country where the people are at least reasonably free and where the government in power doesn't threaten us with war and destruction. We are enemies with countries that threaten to blow up our cities and/or that are run by dictators who kill thousands of their people to stay in power.  As foreign doctrines go, ours is pretty easy to understand.

 IN case you missed it, Kim literally threatened the US just a few months back when he boasted of his new ability to strike any US city and turn it into ash and rubble.  And that wasn't a one-off - North Korea has routinely threatened the US and attacked our closest ally in the region.

[Glenstache]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

In principle, yes being on positive terms is better than negative terms. Of course.

If a country is not shown to be positive towards us, or has done things that directly threaten us, such as say: interfering in our elections, launching test ICBMs over our allies, threatening us with nuclear attack, etc, then maybe we don't want to be friends with them and should consider what they are looking to get out of a meeting. Case in point, part of NK's objective in having a nuclear arms program was to use it as leverage to increase world standing, and to leverage it to get other concessions. A big pompous affair attended by POTUS gives Kim that. In long term nasty negotiations, it can be advantageous to offer an olive branch in order to change the dynamic. However, nothing about Trump's behavior to date indicates any motive in that direction.

It is also a bit of a tricky moral thing to congratulate the dictator of a country with a horrendous, terrible, gut wrenching human rights history for , "running his country tough." This is anathema to what are often espoused as American values. 

[former player]

In plain language, the USA has elected a traitor to the White House.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Okay, I am a dummy but I do not get how the USA can demand that other countries disband their nukes when we have nukes. Granted, we don't want to get into a nuclear war but why are we allowed to have nukes when we demand other countries do away with theirs. DUH to me but I don't get it!

Answer:

 IN case you missed it, Kim literally threatened the US just a few months back when he boasted of his new ability to strike any US city and turn it into ash and rubble.  And that wasn't a one-off - North Korea has routinely threatened the US and attacked our closest ally in the region.

[Poundwise]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

Have you ever read about North Korean prison camps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeryong_concentration_camp
https://freekorea.us/camps/22-2/
This is was just one of several camps, many of which are still in operation.

I would have difficulty shaking Kim's hand. And I found seeing our flag next to the DPRK flag... just shameful.

[Glenstache]

I also recommend reading gary wills book 'bomb power' for a bit more depth on the nuclear issue and executive power.

[Kyle Schuant]

I don't mind having a policy of not dealing with countries which are undemocratic and/or have human rights abuses. But that would shorten the list of trading partners considerably, for example Saudi Arabia would be right out, as would Pakistan, Egypt, and so on. The US would have to buy $1.3 trillion of currency and Treasury bonds back from China and stop all trade with them. And no sunny holiday more trips to Thailand, military government, don't you know. Mexico? Well, drug war, corrupt police, forget about them. Nepal's a communist government, so strike climbing Everest off your bucket list. And India keeps having women and children raped and murdered, it's not government policy but is a widespread enough issue that we could call it part of the society. And...

And then we'd have to think about where to draw the line, for example Australia and most civilised countries have abolished the death penalty, and some like the EU won't extradite people if they'll face the death penalty back home - so should Australia not deal with the United States?

I'm good with that, I'm not sure that's the argument people really want to make, though.

It's also worth considering that the picture given to us of other countries may not be entirely accurate. Consider for example this article about the United States. Most of it isn't lies as such, it's true but not the whole truth. If the US can be misrepresented in this way by Arab media, is it possible that other countries are misrepresented by US and other Western media? Maybe just possible?

Now, obviously DPRK is a brutal dicatorship. But those other countries that fall a bit closer to that line of "let's not deal with countries like this", how about them? By what process will all this be assessed? I'm happy for it to be arbitrary and for most of the world to stop dealing with the USA, but again I don't think that's the argument people here are trying to make. Be careful where your own logic leads you.

[nereo]

...
Now, obviously DPRK is a brutal dicatorship. But those other countries that fall a bit closer to that line of "let's not deal with countries like this", how about them? By what process will all this be assessed? I'm happy for it to be arbitrary and for most of the world to stop dealing with the USA, but again I don't think that's the argument people here are trying to make. Be careful where your own logic leads you.

If only there were an international agency with member-states who's mission was to sort all this out!   It could set standards, foster discussion and facilitate trade. It could even seek to punish the worst state-actors with sanctions while providing relief for those in dire need!  Oh why don't we have something like this??

BTW - that article you linked is not even remotely related to what is being discussed. The US has a shit-ton of social problems, but there's not even a line of equivalence between socio-economic entrenchment and dragging tens of thousands of your people out of their beds to work in slave camps.

[RetiredAt63]

Great way to discourage trade, Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MgAmjAP_aI

[Chris22]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

Let's be clear.  Kim Jun Un is a ruthless dictator who murdered his own brother, enslaves thousands of his own people and routinely kills people to stay in power. There are no free elections and the judicial system is entirely at the control of Kim and its frequently used to incarcerate his detractors (and keep would-be dissenters in line)  Similar things can be said about Putin and Russia.  They stay in power through a combination of propaganda and fear. Giving Kim the spotlight in this manner helps solidify his regime.

As for which countries our doctrine says we can and can't be 'friends' with - I thought it was pretty clear.  For the last century we have been supportive of any country where the people are at least reasonably free and where the government in power doesn't threaten us with war and destruction. We are enemies with countries that threaten to blow up our cities and/or that are run by dictators who kill thousands of their people to stay in power.  As foreign doctrines go, ours is pretty easy to understand.

 IN case you missed it, Kim literally threatened the US just a few months back when he boasted of his new ability to strike any US city and turn it into ash and rubble.  And that wasn't a one-off - North Korea has routinely threatened the US and attacked our closest ally in the region.

So, I don't have any interest in defending Trump, but help me understand.

For a while, we had sanctions.  Sanctions didn't help in keeping NK from developing more advanced nukes (the "can strike any American city" threat).  Trump did apply pressure on China, etc, to urge them to stop circumventing/helping others circumvent the sanctions.

Then, Trump started trading barbs with Kim Jung Un on Twitter, and everyone said "OMG he's going to start a nuclear war with NK WTF is he doing" and people were pissed when he threatened Un with our bigger, badder nukes.  But that opened a dialogue, and lead to a potential meeting, which was on again/off again.

Now, Trump is meeting with Un and everyone is pissed that they are too friendly.

So, to recap:

-Sanctions did nothing
-Trump too mean, bad
-Trump too friendly, bad

How does he win in your eyes here?  Just continue on Obama's path (ineffective sanctions which lead to NK's increased nuclear abilities)?  Because it basically seems like WHATEVER Trump does, it's wrong.

Is this real criticism, or is it simply more Trump Derangement Syndrome?

[Barbaebigode]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

Let's be clear.  Kim Jun Un is a ruthless dictator who murdered his own brother, enslaves thousands of his own people and routinely kills people to stay in power. There are no free elections and the judicial system is entirely at the control of Kim and its frequently used to incarcerate his detractors (and keep would-be dissenters in line)  Similar things can be said about Putin and Russia.  They stay in power through a combination of propaganda and fear. Giving Kim the spotlight in this manner helps solidify his regime.

As for which countries our doctrine says we can and can't be 'friends' with - I thought it was pretty clear.  For the last century we have been supportive of any country where the people are at least reasonably free and where the government in power doesn't threaten us with war and destruction. We are enemies with countries that threaten to blow up our cities and/or that are run by dictators who kill thousands of their people to stay in power.  As foreign doctrines go, ours is pretty easy to understand.

 IN case you missed it, Kim literally threatened the US just a few months back when he boasted of his new ability to strike any US city and turn it into ash and rubble.  And that wasn't a one-off - North Korea has routinely threatened the US and attacked our closest ally in the region.

So, I don't have any interest in defending Trump, but help me understand.

For a while, we had sanctions.  Sanctions didn't help in keeping NK from developing more advanced nukes (the "can strike any American city" threat).  Trump did apply pressure on China, etc, to urge them to stop circumventing/helping others circumvent the sanctions.

Then, Trump started trading barbs with Kim Jung Un on Twitter, and everyone said "OMG he's going to start a nuclear war with NK WTF is he doing" and people were pissed when he threatened Un with our bigger, badder nukes.  But that opened a dialogue, and lead to a potential meeting, which was on again/off again.

Now, Trump is meeting with Un and everyone is pissed that they are too friendly.

So, to recap:

-Sanctions did nothing
-Trump too mean, bad
-Trump too friendly, bad

How does he win in your eyes here?  Just continue on Obama's path (ineffective sanctions which lead to NK's increased nuclear abilities)?  Because it basically seems like WHATEVER Trump does, it's wrong.

Is this real criticism, or is it simply more Trump Derangement Syndrome?

In a divided country and world there will always be those that will be against X or Y no matter what.

About the bolded part, are you sure it was the twitter storm that made this meeting possible? IMO it's more likely that Kim's nukes and the capability to deliver them that did the trick. Remember that the detente seen now it's not just from the US.

[ncornilsen]

wow ya'll really hate this guy. Not what he actually does, but how he does it, the man himself and his mannerisms. Critiquing his petty comments, body language...
Going to keep this up for another 6.5years? points for fortitude, demerits for wasting precious time.

It is funny to see a group expend so much energy on negativity. Very unhealthy. I am not a fan of his at all, but I don't see how taking a step to establish a relationship can be bad. What does providing NK with propaganda have to do with anything?

Did I miss a memo that says we have to be enemies with NK? Or Russia? Is there something in our doctrine here that we can't be non-enemies with countries? Or that we somehow have to friends with others?

Let's be clear.  Kim Jun Un is a ruthless dictator who murdered his own brother, enslaves thousands of his own people and routinely kills people to stay in power. There are no free elections and the judicial system is entirely at the control of Kim and its frequently used to incarcerate his detractors (and keep would-be dissenters in line)  Similar things can be said about Putin and Russia.  They stay in power through a combination of propaganda and fear. Giving Kim the spotlight in this manner helps solidify his regime.

As for which countries our doctrine says we can and can't be 'friends' with - I thought it was pretty clear.  For the last century we have been supportive of any country where the people are at least reasonably free and where the government in power doesn't threaten us with war and destruction. We are enemies with countries that threaten to blow up our cities and/or that are run by dictators who kill thousands of their people to stay in power.  As foreign doctrines go, ours is pretty easy to understand.

 IN case you missed it, Kim literally threatened the US just a few months back when he boasted of his new ability to strike any US city and turn it into ash and rubble.  And that wasn't a one-off - North Korea has routinely threatened the US and attacked our closest ally in the region.

So, I don't have any interest in defending Trump, but help me understand.

For a while, we had sanctions.  Sanctions didn't help in keeping NK from developing more advanced nukes (the "can strike any American city" threat).  Trump did apply pressure on China, etc, to urge them to stop circumventing/helping others circumvent the sanctions.

Then, Trump started trading barbs with Kim Jung Un on Twitter, and everyone said "OMG he's going to start a nuclear war with NK WTF is he doing" and people were pissed when he threatened Un with our bigger, badder nukes.  But that opened a dialogue, and lead to a potential meeting, which was on again/off again.

Now, Trump is meeting with Un and everyone is pissed that they are too friendly.

So, to recap:

-Sanctions did nothing
-Trump too mean, bad
-Trump too friendly, bad

How does he win in your eyes here?  Just continue on Obama's path (ineffective sanctions which lead to NK's increased nuclear abilities)?  Because it basically seems like WHATEVER Trump does, it's wrong.

Is this real criticism, or is it simply more Trump Derangement Syndrome?

With Trump, this is probably a good operating assumption until demonstrated otherwise.  (by that, I mean both that whatever trump does should be regarded with suspicion; and that no matter what trump does, good or bad, democrats will whine about it.)

But, the 'kick the can' approach by Trump's former presidents failed us. 

[FIRE@50]

In a divided country and world there will always be those that will be against X or Y no matter what.

About the bolded part, are you sure it was the twitter storm that made this meeting possible? IMO it's more likely that Kim's nukes and the capability to deliver them that did the trick. Remember that the detente seen now it's not just from the US.
[/quote]

No, it was Trump's stupidity that allowed the meeting to happen. He thinks he will be a hero when all he has done is give away the store.

Compare the Obama administration negotiating the Iran nuclear deal with Trump negotiating with NK. Obama didn't meet with a murderous dictator and tell him how much of an honor it was to do so. The Obama administration actually negotiated a meaningful deal involving several countries. Trump has declared that deal to be the worst in history and thrown it away. Trump has given NK a level of legitimacy that it does not deserve while also turning his back on numerous allies.

[StarBright]

So, I don't have any interest in defending Trump, but help me understand.

For a while, we had sanctions.  Sanctions didn't help in keeping NK from developing more advanced nukes (the "can strike any American city" threat).  Trump did apply pressure on China, etc, to urge them to stop circumventing/helping others circumvent the sanctions.

Then, Trump started trading barbs with Kim Jung Un on Twitter, and everyone said "OMG he's going to start a nuclear war with NK WTF is he doing" and people were pissed when he threatened Un with our bigger, badder nukes.  But that opened a dialogue, and lead to a potential meeting, which was on again/off again.

Now, Trump is meeting with Un and everyone is pissed that they are too friendly.

So, to recap:

-Sanctions did nothing
-Trump too mean, bad
-Trump too friendly, bad

How does he win in your eyes here?  Just continue on Obama's path (ineffective sanctions which lead to NK's increased nuclear abilities)?  Because it basically seems like WHATEVER Trump does, it's wrong.

Is this real criticism, or is it simply more Trump Derangement Syndrome?

To your bolded, I'll give it a shot - My understanding is that the situation for the US is basically unchanged from where it was during President Obama's (and Bush's and Clinton's) tenure. But President Trump has used much more volatile and potentially dangerous language (both positive and negative, ie. My nuke is bigger than your nuke and conversely legitimizing the regime) and we, as of this moment, are at status quo (NK still has nukes and there is no schedule to de-nuke). So why introduce more volatility for no change?

Also our allies (South Korea) are important to us as well and Trump's positive and negative language makes their position more precarious.

[Poundwise]

So, I don't have any interest in defending Trump, but help me understand.

For a while, we had sanctions.  Sanctions didn't help in keeping NK from developing more advanced nukes (the "can strike any American city" threat).  Trump did apply pressure on China, etc, to urge them to stop circumventing/helping others circumvent the sanctions.

Then, Trump started trading barbs with Kim Jung Un on Twitter, and everyone said "OMG he's going to start a nuclear war with NK WTF is he doing" and people were pissed when he threatened Un with our bigger, badder nukes.  But that opened a dialogue, and lead to a potential meeting, which was on again/off again.

Now, Trump is meeting with Un and everyone is pissed that they are too friendly.

So, to recap:

-Sanctions did nothing
-Trump too mean, bad
-Trump too friendly, bad

How does he win in your eyes here?  Just continue on Obama's path (ineffective sanctions which lead to NK's increased nuclear abilities)?  Because it basically seems like WHATEVER Trump does, it's wrong.

Is this real criticism, or is it simply more Trump Derangement Syndrome?

Hi Chris,

Yeah, it's pretty weird to see the swapping of opinions from left and right about talks with Kim Jong Un, and lots of other stuff as well. My personal opinion when Obama wanted to talk to Kim was "Wha-a-a-t?" but in the end somebody talked him down and he didn't.

I think the real problem is HOW Trump is talking with NK. He didn't do his homework, and now they're eating our lunch.  Those joint military exercises and "war games" that he suspended are not for show; they actually are necessary for our military readiness in the event of war. 

To understand the issues better, I suggest you take a look at this guy's site.  He really knows what he's talking about, and CARES. He's not a liberal either.

https://freekorea.us/2018/06/11/why-trump-cant-lift-north-korea-sanctions-unilaterally/
https://freekorea.us/2018/04/30/moon-jae-in-just-put-seoul-on-a-collision-course-with-the-u-s-u-n-sanctions/
https://freekorea.us/2018/06/12/agreed-framework-iii-a-fisking/

 In the end, if Trump's barging around bursts things open and the prison camps are abolished without war, that will be great. But I don't think that will be the outcome. I think we are a lot weaker internationally than we were two years ago, and it's going to get even worse.  We've seriously damaged our best alliances with Europe and North America, and now we're messing with our Asian alliances. If Trump weakens our military strength in South Korea, we're going to see some pulling away there. 

[Roadrunner53]

Trump uses every opportunity as a publicity stunt to make it like a reality show. It would be refreshing to see our leader speak eloquently and with intelligence. Donny can barely string a sentence together and repeats himself over and over. He insults people and degrades them to make himself (he thinks) better and smarter. He is an outright bully and goes against what his wife is trying to bring forth as an anti bullying theme.

So, North Korea was just something Donny did to try to get the Nobel Peace Prize. That is all he is looking for. Everything he does is for him and his empire. Nothing for Americans. While he was in NK it was just a game show for Donny. Butter up Kim, praise him, tell him how wonderful he is to get what he wants so he can go before the press and say 'look what I did, I am so special'.

By the way, what happened to replacing the ACA with something better and cheaper? How many millions of times did he say that while campaigning? As soon as he got elected all he wanted to do was kill it.

It is hard to believe anything Donny says. He has no integrity, he lies, he cheats and acts like a petulant toddler having a hissy fit because mommy won't give him a lollypop.

[Poundwise]

I think it also has to be clear that the Kim family, by overseeing a regime of terror for over  half century, is in too deep to ever participate in anything like perestroika or glasnost.  It's not the case where a president can point to past horrors and say, "that happened under another administration, not mine!"

Kim Jong-Un can't let go even a little bit. Once the people of North Korea understand what has happened to them, the Kims are dead. Some crimes are unforgivable.  The end of their rule will be more Gaddafi than Gorbachev.

[Freedom2016]

Trump uses every opportunity as a publicity stunt to make it like a reality show. It would be refreshing to see our leader speak eloquently and with intelligence. Donny can barely string a sentence together and repeats himself over and over. He insults people and degrades them to make himself (he thinks) better and smarter. He is an outright bully and goes against what his wife is trying to bring forth as an anti bullying theme.

So, North Korea was just something Donny did to try to get the Nobel Peace Prize. That is all he is looking for. Everything he does is for him and his empire. Nothing for Americans. While he was in NK it was just a game show for Donny. Butter up Kim, praise him, tell him how wonderful he is to get what he wants so he can go before the press and say 'look what I did, I am so special'.

By the way, what happened to replacing the ACA with something better and cheaper? How many millions of times did he say that while campaigning? As soon as he got elected all he wanted to do was kill it.

It is hard to believe anything Donny says. He has no integrity, he lies, he cheats and acts like a petulant toddler having a hissy fit because mommy won't give him a lollypop.

I share this perspective. I'm a big believer that whatever comes out of the mouth is a reflection of the thinking inside the head. Given the constant barrage of verbal diarrhea that flows from 45's mouth... well... let's just say the NK thing is not indicative of a well-considered thought process.

There are very very smart people who have devoted years to the North Korea problem who obviously haven't cracked the nut.

And so maybe -- because he's not constrained by the critical thinking that has stopped everybody else from going guns blazing after NK -- he will stumble, BY ACCIDENT, into a good thing that works out well for everybody involved. Hell, a broken clock is right twice a day.

But his motivations are as described above - thoroughly selfish and shallow and short-term. And, so, yes, I view everything he does with suspicion because none of his actions are motivated by serving the American people.

[Chris22]

So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

[Kris]

Hmm. Blog posts from political and foreign policy expert Scott Adams.

I’m convinced.

[nereo]

So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

That's one view, but not necessarily my view. FWIW I would consider myself very much a centrist and until recently shared many of the opinions that GOP held on foreign affairs. There was a lot I didn't like about Obama's foreign doctrine as well.
My cricitisms are more along the lines that this administration keeps pissing things away while gaining very little.

[Chris22]

Hmm. Blog posts from political and foreign policy expert Scott Adams.

I’m convinced.

If you've got something to add to the conversation, let's hear it.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't. 

[DavidAnnArbor]

the South Korean leader laid the groundwork for Kim Jung Un's willingness to meet with Trump in the first place.

[Malloy]

So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

You'll forgive me for not leaping to conclude that, if Scott Adams wrote it, it must be worth something.  Here's some other stuff that Scott Adams has written:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams

"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone.”

The dude doesn't believe in fossils:

"Why does a well-established scientific fact set off my usually-excellent bullshit filter like a five-alarm fire? It’s the fossil record that has been bugging me the most. It looks like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Tastes like bullshit. Why isn’t it bullshit? All those scientists can’t be wrong."

Sure-he said Trump would win, and he did.  Because a bunch of mouthbreathers like Scott Adams who aren't sexist but.... and aren't racist but...and love science but... voted for him. I know, I know-when I call them mouthbreathers it makes them really, really angry at SJWs and then they vote for Trump extra hard. 

I am rooting for Trump's effort with North Korea. Because I'm an American, and I don't root for my country to fail or look stupid (these are trying times for us).  I would also have been OK with Obama engaging NK in talks, and I didn't dissolve into spittle-flecked rages when contemplating it only to turn around demand Trump be carved into Mt. Rushmore for doing what I said would have been unacceptable for Obama.  See how that works?  Maybe Republicans can try it sometime.

[Davnasty]

So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

No. If that's your conclusion from the responses to your question I suspect while you may have read all of them, you only absorbed the ones that you want to refute. I thought Poundwise gave some pretty good reasoning and additional reading links on the topic. Not to mention the many tactical mistakes cited prior to your question.

Oh yeah, and Scott Adams' opinion isn't going to convince me of anything. I love his comics and I've even read one of his books and I think he paints a funny and sometimes painfully accurate picture of the corporate world, but that's where his expertise ends. He's kind of an ass.