North Korea Situation

[Anh_Minh]

Even if you want to be optimistic and say Trump will uphold the deals he made (like, maybe you've never heard of him?), his successor might also decide not to honor treaties signed by a previous administration. Because that's how the US operates now, apparently.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Even if you want to be optimistic and say Trump will uphold the deals he made (like, maybe you've never heard of him?),

He is actually pretty much know to be very unreliable on deal he make; not paying contractors and relying much on bankruptcy laws was 2 thing he was the most know for before. It is not without reasons than US bank stopped lending him (or his projects) money.

[Ligerleon89]

After some of these events surrounding Trump, I'm already prepared to vote someone else in office. Granted everything in U.S. isn't so cool compared to at which point did U.S. starting taking hits, but he goes and possibly makes things worse in terms of USA's credibility, which can a problem sooner or later. I'm still leaning towards vote for someone else next election in my head.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ligerleon89

vote for someone else next election in my head.

Why wait for 2020? only this year we have an special offer, vote a democrat for congress and get trump impeached faster than you can say "stormy daniels", you will get a pence out of the deal; it might not be a dollar, but it is better than a zero to the left you have now.

[SeijiSensei]

Even if the Democrats retake both houses of Congress, there will be no impeachment proceeding. An impeachment effort in 2019-2020 would almost certainly result in a second term for Trump.

I've already seen two impeachments. The last one before Nixon was Andrew Johnson in 1868. Impeachment needs to return to being a rare event. I hope the Democrats realize that.

The impeachment of Clinton was largely motivated by revenge by the Republicans angry about the treatment of Nixon. Now that both sides have had their chance, that's enough impeachment for at least a few decades.

Originally Posted by Ligerleon89

After some of these events surrounding Trump, I'm already prepared to vote someone else in office.

Did you really expect anything else from Trump than what you've gotten? Why? Nothing I've seen so far, except perhaps for the depth and extent of his ties to Russia, has been a surprise. As mangamuscle says, you need to vote for Congressional Democrats this fall. If you live in a state with a governors' race, that race is also critically important if you don't want to see another round of gerrymandering in 2021.

Turnout among voters under 25 was an abysmal 17% in 2014.

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Even if the Democrats retake both houses of Congress, there will be no impeachment proceeding. An impeachment effort in 2019-2020 would almost certainly result in a second term for Trump.

I've already seen two impeachments. The last one before Nixon was Andrew Johnson in 1868. Impeachment needs to return to being a rare event. I hope the Democrats realize that.

The impeachment of Clinton was largely motivated by revenge by the Republicans angry about the treatment of Nixon. Now that both sides have had their chance, that's enough impeachment for at least a few decades.

Even if the amount of incriminating evidence becomes too overwhelming to ignore? If you want people to trust the system, Drumpf has to be shown where the reach of his power stops until you end up with a full-time dictator. Because Nixon has tried, you can bet Drumpf will try himself to go further and that is dangerous if he doesn't get nailed when evidence asks for it. And besides, the impeachment process is a "war of attrition" that ended up making it impossible for the sitting POTUS or for his successor to be elected in the end. Here are the facts though: Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Carter after Nixon was impeached, and then Al Gore was beaten by George W. Bush after Bill Clinton was impeached (for a ridiculous reason, but still).

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Did you really expect anything else from Trump than what you've gotten? Why? Nothing I've seen so far, except perhaps for the depth and extent of his ties to Russia, has been a surprise. As mangamuscle says, you need to vote for Congressional Democrats this fall. If you live in a state with a governors' race, that race is also critically important if you don't want to see another round of gerrymandering in 2021.

Turnout among voters under 25 was an abysmal 17% in 2014.

Very much this. The last 2 elections should be a hard and cold lesson for U25 voters by now, and there is just no excuse for not using that privilege they have with so many things at stakes.

edit: I wish we could create a new topic about US Politics to get this stuff in there.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

Even if the amount of incriminating evidence becomes too overwhelming to ignore? If you want people to trust the system, Drumpf has to be shown where the reach of his power stops until you end up with a full-time dictator. Because Nixon has tried, you can bet Drumpf will try himself to go further and that is dangerous if he doesn't get nailed when evidence asks for it.

So vote him out in 2020. An impeachment process would rally his supporters and keep wavering Republicans in line.

If you think impeachment will encourage people to "trust the system," you must not talk to or read about Trump supporters. All it would do is reinforce their belief that it's all a "witch hunt." Independents are likely to be swayed by that as well. See, for instance, https://www.npr.org/2018/04/18/60340...n-democrats-in and http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...if-they-retake.

Also, even if the House were to vote to impeach, it would fail in the Senate because it requires 67 votes to convict. There's no chance that would happen. If the Democrats do win control of the Senate, it will only be by a couple of seats.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The impeachment of Clinton was largely motivated by revenge by the Republicans angry about the treatment of Nixon.

I disagree, 24 years elapsed between both events. I dunno if the repubs back then were saying it was payback for Nixon, but from where I stand it is clear to see that the real reason they were angry enough to attempt to discredit Clinton at-any-cost was because he "overtake them from the left" (it is weird, I can't find any references on the internet, but I know clinton said something similar back then), stealing their raison d'être.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

If you think impeachment will encourage people to "trust the system," you must not talk to or read about Trump supporters. All it would do is reinforce their belief that it's all a "witch hunt." Independents are likely to be swayed by that as well. See, for instance, https://www.npr.org/2018/04/18/60340...n-democrats-in and http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...if-they-retake.

Again, I disagree. If the muller's probe is stopped because "we do not want to risk bolstering trump's base" or if said probe finds clear proof or collusion (or something worse) and do nothing about it, it would not only embolden the repubs who will chant "witch hunt" ad nauseum, but independents will also think they are right, just like they thought hillary was a crook because neither she nor her party rose to the occasion to point out the lies. Democrats have been appeasers for too long.

Also, even if the House were to vote to impeach, it would fail in the Senate because it requires 67 votes to convict. There's no chance that would happen. If the Democrats do win control of the Senate, it will only be by a couple of seats.

Remember the senate has more mature legislators who will not want people to remember they supported a crooked president when reelection time comes. IMO the democrats do not even need to win the senate if trump continues to act flaunting his ignorance, catastrophe will come soon enough.

[Yu Ominae]

I find it ironic that Trump is leading the show in North Korea while the one with Iran is going the other way around.

[Key Board]

Israel and Saudi Arabia are pressuring the US to cripple Iran
there is no such factor for North Korea

[mangamuscle]

So now NK is asking the USA to drop military exercises AND the exigence that they should get rid of their nukes for the start of any negotiation. This comes as no surprise, but If trump caves to Kim demands, even I will be surprised and will start to call him "pussy in chief".

[dragon1412]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

So now NK is asking the USA to drop military exercises AND the exigence that they should get rid of their nukes for the start of any negotiation. This comes as no surprise, but If trump caves to Kim demands, even I will be surprised and will start to call him "pussy in chief".

seriously
There is no way this will be accepted, military exercise is one things but denuclearization is definitely on the table, and this again,come no surprise, NK have a history of breaking treaty

[Toukairin]

Same old whining going on for years from the Kims when they know those exercises always take place around the exact same time of the year. If they want to show something in response, why don't they do exercises of their own with China or Russia? Everyone does military exercices with allies.

If the Norks want to throw the talks in the garbage bin just for that, it's going to be their loss through attrition. Time is definitely not on their side.

[dragon1412]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

Same old whining going on for years from the Kims when they know those exercises always take place around the exact same time of the year. If they want to show something in response, why don't they do exercises of their own with China or Russia? Everyone does military exercices with allies.

If the Norks want to throw the talks in the garbage bin just for that, it's going to be their loss through attrition. Time is definitely not on their side.

I personally think they are trying the same thing as the past, trying to get the most out of this deal if possible by making impossible demands, there was the food aids in the past, and this is actually pretty much the same negotiation tactics NK use

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by dragon1412

I personally think they are trying the same thing as the past, trying to get the most out of this deal if possible by making impossible demands, there was the food aids in the past, and this is actually pretty much the same negotiation tactics NK use

I think the difference here is that in the past NK would sing a pact, receive the freebies and then brake the pact. So either Kim is emboldened by trump's recent ZTE flip-flop and/or he has secured financial aid from china so he can play the long game. In the meantime if there is no denuclearization deal trump lacks the "win" he desires to prove the world he is the best thing to happen since sliced bread was invented.

IMO ronald reagan was the donkey that blew the flute, his increased military spending had the side effect of destroying the USSR. trump is desperately trying to repeat the trick, but he is only is making an ass of himself in the process.

[SeijiSensei]

I doubt the political and military officials in the DPRK are of one mind when it comes to negotiating with the US. i suspect revanchist elements in the regime thought Kim got too far ahead of his skis and brought him back to earth. Same issues as we see with Iran with "moderate" forces like Rouhani trying to remain relevant while surrounded by the mullahs on one side and groups like the Revolutionary Guard on the other.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I doubt the political and military officials in the DPRK are of one mind when it comes to negotiating with the US.

I would not put those two in the same category, NK is more like cuba, a goverment controlled by one family where the have the monopoly of power. Iran does have different factions and a goverment that holds elections to change politicians every few years, so I would put them in another category.

At most someone in the NK government might have translated for Kim the recent declarations of john bolton, on how the USA would implement the "lybia model" in the peninsula, but if someone in the NK tried to pressure Kim, I think he would be executed ipso facto.

[mangamuscle]

"North Korea says it's still willing to meet with Trump"

https://us.cnn.com/2018/05/24/asia/n...ntl/index.html

Where have I seen this before?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=055wFyO6gag

[shadow1296]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I would not put those two in the same category, NK is more like cuba, a goverment controlled by one family where the have the monopoly of power. Iran does have different factions and a goverment that holds elections to change politicians every few years, so I would put them in another category.

At most someone in the NK government might have translated for Kim the recent declarations of john bolton, on how the USA would implement the "lybia model" in the peninsula, but if someone in the NK tried to pressure Kim, I think he would be executed ipso facto.

that could be a huge reason why the US cancelled talks, so they can rethink strategy. because if NK heard at all that the US was going to use the "lybia model" a model that they think would threaten their regime you wouldn't get anywhere with negotiations with them. Not saying that did happen but it is a high possibility

[SeijiSensei]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/w...otiations.html

Where things stand now in the view of veteran national security correspondent David Sanger.

Mr. Moon’s task is to rebuild what fell apart. But first there must be a diagnosis of what went wrong.

Overheated language on both sides — including unsubtle reminders of each country’s willingness to wipe the other off the map — was part of it. But that was an occasional feature of the Cold War, too.

The bigger problem was that the United States and North Korea were never on the same page about what the objective of the negotiation should be. Mr. Trump, Mr. Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had one vision: what they called “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.”

But it was a one-sided affair — never once did they raise the likelihood that the United States would have to give something up, too.

Mr. Kim used the phrase “denuclearization” as well, but he seemed to be discussing something more like arms control. He was willing to give up part of the arsenal, but only as the United States pulled back its troops in South Korea and gradually surrendered its ability to threaten the North.