Trump Praises Kim, Slams Trudeau, Taunts Iran in Historic Presser After North Korea Summit
Trump says the U.S. 'will be stopping war games' with South Korea: 'I want to get our soldiers out' ■ Trump says Iran is less confident after nuclear deal nixed: 'The sanctions are brutal'
U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that "we're ready to start a new history" following his historic summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un in Singapore. "Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace," he said....
Yep, Trump got played like an accordion. Large scale exercises are vital for interoperability and command and control in wartime. All this agreement does is make it easier for the North to eventually invade.
In other news, Trump's EPA is bringing back our old friend asbestos. What could go wrong?
I see where people here have posted that they are distrustful of populism. I agree - it can be dangerous, and more to the point, populism is completely insufficient and can only work to benefit the privileged few. How? Because inequality breeds hatred, and this is conveniently exploited for maximum effect.
Everyone sees the problems but no one gets to the heart of the matter. There is hate in our world. Who does it come from? Where? Has anyone ever noticed why gated white community whites/suburban whites are less hateful than rural whites? And it's not just whites that hate. Regardless of your definition of racism, the fact is that every so-called "people" is capable of prejudice and hatred. And it's bred in poverty. Suburbia is less hateful precisely because they are living a socialist lifestyle in a capitalist society. But their material needs are met - and this is crucial. We can all live such a lifestyle! We cannot sustain a capitalist lifestyle for all - but we can achieve a socialist lifestyle. And this is the key to destroying the threat and perceived need for reactionaries, dictators, and racial populism. Once and for all!
Let me state that I do not completely reject identity politics in a proper context - I respect a ground breaker like Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, because he was a socialist, among many, whose efforts to raise awareness of systematic inequality towards black Americans, in my opinion, helped create a society more conducive to socialist revolution.
But modern leftists have completely lost sight. If ever the old expression "can't see the forest for the trees" applied to anyone, it applies to the modern left, whose modern application of identity based activism is no longer rooted in dialectical soundness. For instance:
Think of a slave plantation in which the field slaves complain about lacking representation among the house slaves, and among which the house slaves complain about lacking representation among the plantation owners. The truth is that you can you bring "diversity" to the plantation, but at the end of the day, it's still a slave plantation. "But why not?", a field slave might ask. "It's our people's turn."
Was this woman a racist? Maybe. She may have very well been motivated by vicious racism. Or perhaps, for example, she was just a nosy snitch with low self worth, and she happened to know something for a change - she happened to know that grilling was against the law. So she takes the opportunity to make herself important for one moment in her life lacking in self-esteem and self-importance. And not once did she bring up race. And had she been black, no one would've brought up race. But she was white. Her skin was white. So clearly, she must be a racist. As disgusting as her behavior may have been, she is the only one at the scene who wasn't being outwardly racist. That's the irony.
But we know how they are, don't we? We know how those white people do.
Now poor whites, ever cognizant of their own struggles, naturally react with defensiveness and anger; they say disgusting things (not good). Meanwhile, their neighbors, poor blacks, ever cognizant of their own struggles, respond to this defensiveness and anger with even more defensiveness and anger; and they say disgusting things (not good). And what we are ultimately left with is a society in which the two groups of whom an alliance is most vital in the context of revolution, ultimate social justice and racial unity are the two groups most divided. Distrust. Hate. A vicious cycle. And by design.
Capitalists stay in power by dividing, and ultimately wielding, the working class against themselves.
At the risk of going too long - and I'll be happy to elaborate further if anyone has questions, is to simply ask everyone reading this to consider such a society in which poverty is significantly alleviated; a society in which everyone lives a socialist lifestyle. The private sector - at least for us - appears much the same. But there is a fundamental difference! We still have our i-Pads and Coca-Cola! We still work, we still consume - but you are paid far better wages, and the goods you consume are of far better quality. How is this possible? All profits go to the government instead of the pockets of the 1% (who use those profits to buy political power for themselves). We still have our goods and petty comforts - but the State is the sole proprietor, a State which in turn uses those profits to provide social justice for the people, and in the sole interest of the people.
This is my dream. The only way we achieve it is to unite. We must get to the heart of the matter - focus on the disease, not it's symptoms. Stop approaching this as if capitalism is fixable. It's not. Private ownership of capital and the means that produce it can never be reconciled with socialism, or equality. And as long as there is equality there will be suffering, and as long as there is suffering the capitalists will be there to keep their power by turning us against ourselves.
Workers of the west - workers of all races - UNITE!
Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty and has resulted in a greater increase in the quality of life for more people than any other socioeconomic system which came before it. Systems such as communism and socialism are the equivalents of dinosaurs and trilobites--species which were attempted by nature but discarded as failures in the long run. Their rightful place these days is to have a chapter or two devoted to them in history books, not existing in the real world.
Beyond that, I have to remind myself not to discuss anything more with you. I choose not to expend any effort attempting to point out all the ways in which your typical arguments are invalid and incorrect.
We can all live such a lifestyle! We cannot sustain a capitalist lifestyle for all - but we can achieve a socialist lifestyle. And this is the key to destroying the threat and perceived need for reactionaries, dictators, and racial populism. Once and for all!
@Stormvessel How do you know this? All the historical evidence seems to point to the contrary.
If you don't wish to speak with another forumite, there is no need to announce it--that just shows disrespect for other forumites when it's just as easy to keep that information to oneself.
The good old socialism/capitalism discussion again? Statistically speaking, I think the evidence is less convincing in favor of capitalism than usually presented, as the trying out socialism is heavily confounded with being sanctioned by the most powerful countries in the world, e.g. see what happened to Cuba.
If anything, I would say China, the US and Europe both show that the best system used to capitalism but combined with high taxes (ideally also inheritance), unions & state interventionism when necessary. Examples include German ordoliberalism and the post WW2 US economy. Not sure if those systems would still work given the globalism and ease of tax avoidance nowadays.
If I was in charge of government I would probably try to find a workable solutions having very moderate but progressive income taxes (all income categories treated equally), very high inheritance and gift taxes and free higher level education and health care. Otherwise accumulation of wealth over generations becomes a problem for capitalism. Besides, I think those rules would help make society closer to a meritocracy.
@Stormvessel I agree with quite a lot of what you say - for instance that less unequal societies tend to be happier and that we should try to avoid fighting between divisions in society. However, a couple of points: 1) You promote the idea of socialism as a means to get rid of harmful divisions, but wish to achieve that by uniting workers against the owners of capital. Do you see that division as purely a transitional phase, which will eventually melt away? Experience of historical revolutions suggests that's unlikely. 2) Your post suggests the State is a neutral entity separate from the people and working only in the interest of the people. However, the State is made up of people wielding power and there is no society in history in which people wielding power have not been tempted to abuse it. I think societies that are more successful about limiting this tendency are those where power is more dispersed between different groups, who can act as a check on each other. How would your proposed society avoid the abuse of power?
On the N. Korean deal, I think Trump took a big risk. There is very little Kim Jon Un gave on paper, only general statement and if Trump is dissatisfied with it he'll tear it up again. He'll be known as the treaty-tearing president.
Paris agreement on climate => Iran deal => G7 statement... it's starting to add up.
If you don't wish to speak with another forumite, there is no need to announce it--that just shows disrespect for other forumites when it's just as easy to keep that information to oneself.
On the N. Korean deal, I think Trump took a big risk. There is very little Kim Jon Un gave on paper, only general statement and if Trump is dissatisfied with it he'll tear it up again. He'll be known as the treaty-tearing president.
Paris agreement on climate => Iran deal => G7 statement... it's starting to add up.
Kim gave nothing North Korea hasn't been "promising" for the last 25 years. It amounted to a kid saying they would definitely brush their teeth before bed without supervision. On the flip-side, Obama's Iran deal had inspectors on the ground 24/7/365. Because that was the actual fruits of painstaking diplomacy over years. What you got from Trump today, outside of everything else, was a revelation of his pure laziness. He put on show, got nothing, and legitimized perhaps the most oppressive regime on the planet.
Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty and has resulted in a greater increase in the quality of life for more people than any other socioeconomic system which came before it. Systems such as communism and socialism are the equivalents of dinosaurs and trilobites--species which were attempted by nature but discarded as failures in the long run. Their rightful place these days is to have a chapter or two devoted to them in history books, not existing in the real world.
Beyond that, I have to remind myself not to discuss anything more with you. I choose not to expend any effort attempting to point out all the ways in which your typical arguments are invalid and incorrect.
I'll agree with the argument about communism obviously. But I'd be remiss to not point out that the Democratic Socialist countries in Scandanavia are consistently, year after year, rated as having the happiest citizens on Earth. Of course they are in no way PURE socialism, but nor is the US entirely capitalist. Two of the most popular governmental programs, Social Security and Medicare, are almost entirely socialist in nature.
I believe he's going to attack Iran, it's already done on the economic side and I see a military strike drawing closer and closer. It's the same pattern as 2003. Inspectors says things are running fine on the ground, US presidency lies and present made up proofs and bang. The only missing part here is the bang, otherwise we've got everything else.
I believe he's going to attack Iran, it's already done on the economic side and I see a military strike drawing closer and closer. It's the same pattern as 2003. Inspectors says things are running fine on the ground, US presidency lies and present made up proofs and bang. The only missing part here is the bang, otherwise we've got everything else.
You may have to wait for his domestic scandals to really hit the fan before this happens, but with Bolton at his side, there is no way you can discount this line of thinking.
Human Rights was always off the table for this meeting and people/journalist bringing it up constantly is quite frankly, annoying.
The Trump administration had/has one clear goal for North Korea and that is complete denuclearization. Once that is done, the west and the world can start chipping away at the other problems that plague the hermit country like the countless human rights abuses. Bring it up now there is a strong possibility that North Korea walks away from everything and we're back to name calling through Twitter and State Media.
Things like this take time. One just has to look at how far China has come since Nixon visited to understand that. They are far from perfect, but they aren't as bad as they were in the 70s.
Trump also did not get nothing out of it. Hostages were freed prior to the meeting. They'd still be locked away had Trump not reached out and agreed. Everything else though was a North Korea show.
That said, I felt like I stayed up for nothing. Fell asleep before Trump started talking to reporters after I read what they signed. Here is hoping that the back room politicking can take this further.
Once the leaders in the DPRK realize how much money they can make by denuclearizing themselves and opening up the country for tourism and trade, they will kick themselves for not doing it years ago. Money is a great motivator for change.
If we are going to adhere to the point of view that we do not associate with countries which have poor human rights records, then we are going to have to stop having anything to do with places like China, India, many Middle Eastern countries (including Saudi Arabia), almost all of Central America, and most of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa.
Once the leaders in the DPRK realize how much money they can make by denuclearizing themselves and opening up the country for tourism and trade, they will kick themselves for not doing it years ago. Money is a great motivator for change.
If we are going to adhere to the point of view that we do not associate with countries which have poor human rights records, then we are going to have to stop having anything to do with places like China, India, many Middle Eastern countries (including Saudi Arabia), almost all of Central America, and most of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa.
Except if Libya is brought up. Self-preservation trumps all.
Except if Libya is brought up. Self-preservation trumps all.
And on that point, with the mood music around Iran at the moment, it's a bit difficult to see what security guarantees the US can give Kim that would convince him to genuinely get rid of nuclear weapons.
Except if Libya is brought up. Self-preservation trumps all.
And on that point, with the mood music around Iran at the moment, it's a bit difficult to see what security guarantees the US can give Kim that would convince him to genuinely get rid of nuclear weapons.
There is no agreement with the United States worth a crap these days.
Just ask Iran, the G7, the Paris Climate Agreement, NAFTA, etc.
Congress should write North Korea a letter saying that whatever agreement they reached with the President is likely to be void after the next election just like how they did exactly that with Iran.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
An agreement that was flat-out PREVENTING Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even though the media and Republicans were screaming at the time it wouldn't work. And was actually doing what the supposed goal of this North Korea "summit" is.
Now Mike Pence is saying, merely 12 hours later, that the US is NOT ending it's military exercises with South Korea. So we didn't even make it full day/night cycle before that narrative fell apart.
And this is my major problem with Trump meeting with North Korea. Not the meeting itself, but the idea that through his personal inertia, he can just will things to happen. He didn't put any work into it, the Administration has put in no work, and they expect it to work anyway. It isn't going to. And on the flip-side, the Iran deal took YEARS to come together, and they threw it away. They are not only lazy in the extreme, but that laziness makes them think the hard work of diplomacy doesn't matter.
I wonder how many fiscal conservatives held their collective noses and voted for Trump?
It's always been a ruse. When push comes to shove, almost 100% of fiscal conservatives would run around with their hair on fire if someone came for their Social Security or Medicare. As for Republicans in Congress, it's always been an elaborate game. I've mentioned it many times before, but it bears repeating. The conservative playbook is Washington is pretty simple (and it is mostly sold to the "heartland"): The moment a Democrat takes office, you start talking about the debt. You never stop talking about the debt. Everything a Democrat does is connected to the debt. You ESPECIALLY signal that programs like food stamps and any social welfare benefits are responsible for the debt (and, you know, not our obscene military budget). This works especially well if you can tie those benefits to "undeserving" minority demographics.
When Republicans take back the government, the entire narrative shifts 180 degrees instantaneously. I'm talking within minutes. You immediately pass tax cuts that benefit the upper 1%, not only to pay them off for their campaign contributions, but to continue the cycle of the self-fulfilling prophecy. You blow a massive hole in the debt ON PURPOSE, so that in 4 or 8 years, you can immediately do another 180 and start talking about the debt again. This has been going on non-stop since Reagan took office in 1980. And let's be honest....it basically works.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
righto.
So how binding is this agreement with Donny Tiny hands? That's the point. ----
There was a 5 minute North Korea propaganda video that aired for reporters before Trump came out. After much eyerolling Trump came out and said how did you like my video? hahahahahaha Trump literally made a North Korea propaganda video for them.
Comments
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-after-north-korea-summit-we-re-ready-to-start-a-new-history-1.6171490
Trump Praises Kim, Slams Trudeau, Taunts Iran in Historic Presser After North Korea Summit
Trump says the U.S. 'will be stopping war games' with South Korea: 'I want to get our soldiers out' ■ Trump says Iran is less confident after nuclear deal nixed: 'The sanctions are brutal'
U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that "we're ready to start a new history" following his historic summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un in Singapore. "Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace," he said....
In other news, Trump's EPA is bringing back our old friend asbestos. What could go wrong?
Everyone sees the problems but no one gets to the heart of the matter. There is hate in our world. Who does it come from? Where? Has anyone ever noticed why gated white community whites/suburban whites are less hateful than rural whites? And it's not just whites that hate. Regardless of your definition of racism, the fact is that every so-called "people" is capable of prejudice and hatred. And it's bred in poverty. Suburbia is less hateful precisely because they are living a socialist lifestyle in a capitalist society. But their material needs are met - and this is crucial. We can all live such a lifestyle! We cannot sustain a capitalist lifestyle for all - but we can achieve a socialist lifestyle. And this is the key to destroying the threat and perceived need for reactionaries, dictators, and racial populism. Once and for all!
Let me state that I do not completely reject identity politics in a proper context - I respect a ground breaker like Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, because he was a socialist, among many, whose efforts to raise awareness of systematic inequality towards black Americans, in my opinion, helped create a society more conducive to socialist revolution.
But modern leftists have completely lost sight. If ever the old expression "can't see the forest for the trees" applied to anyone, it applies to the modern left, whose modern application of identity based activism is no longer rooted in dialectical soundness. For instance:
Think of a slave plantation in which the field slaves complain about lacking representation among the house slaves, and among which the house slaves complain about lacking representation among the plantation owners. The truth is that you can you bring "diversity" to the plantation, but at the end of the day, it's still a slave plantation. "But why not?", a field slave might ask. "It's our people's turn."
A very simply and modern example of the type of hypocrisy and total blindness this type of approach breeds in a society among well-meaning leftists, is the recent example of the "white woman" calling the police on "black people" for using a grill at the lake.
Was this woman a racist? Maybe. She may have very well been motivated by vicious racism. Or perhaps, for example, she was just a nosy snitch with low self worth, and she happened to know something for a change - she happened to know that grilling was against the law. So she takes the opportunity to make herself important for one moment in her life lacking in self-esteem and self-importance. And not once did she bring up race. And had she been black, no one would've brought up race. But she was white. Her skin was white. So clearly, she must be a racist. As disgusting as her behavior may have been, she is the only one at the scene who wasn't being outwardly racist. That's the irony.
But we know how they are, don't we? We know how those white people do.
Now poor whites, ever cognizant of their own struggles, naturally react with defensiveness and anger; they say disgusting things (not good). Meanwhile, their neighbors, poor blacks, ever cognizant of their own struggles, respond to this defensiveness and anger with even more defensiveness and anger; and they say disgusting things (not good). And what we are ultimately left with is a society in which the two groups of whom an alliance is most vital in the context of revolution, ultimate social justice and racial unity are the two groups most divided. Distrust. Hate. A vicious cycle. And by design.
Capitalists stay in power by dividing, and ultimately wielding, the working class against themselves.
At the risk of going too long - and I'll be happy to elaborate further if anyone has questions, is to simply ask everyone reading this to consider such a society in which poverty is significantly alleviated; a society in which everyone lives a socialist lifestyle. The private sector - at least for us - appears much the same. But there is a fundamental difference! We still have our i-Pads and Coca-Cola! We still work, we still consume - but you are paid far better wages, and the goods you consume are of far better quality. How is this possible? All profits go to the government instead of the pockets of the 1% (who use those profits to buy political power for themselves). We still have our goods and petty comforts - but the State is the sole proprietor, a State which in turn uses those profits to provide social justice for the people, and in the sole interest of the people.
This is my dream. The only way we achieve it is to unite. We must get to the heart of the matter - focus on the disease, not it's symptoms. Stop approaching this as if capitalism is fixable. It's not. Private ownership of capital and the means that produce it can never be reconciled with socialism, or equality. And as long as there is equality there will be suffering, and as long as there is suffering the capitalists will be there to keep their power by turning us against ourselves.
Workers of the west - workers of all races - UNITE!
Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty and has resulted in a greater increase in the quality of life for more people than any other socioeconomic system which came before it. Systems such as communism and socialism are the equivalents of dinosaurs and trilobites--species which were attempted by nature but discarded as failures in the long run. Their rightful place these days is to have a chapter or two devoted to them in history books, not existing in the real world.
Beyond that, I have to remind myself not to discuss anything more with you. I choose not to expend any effort attempting to point out all the ways in which your typical arguments are invalid and incorrect.
If anything, I would say China, the US and Europe both show that the best system used to capitalism but combined with high taxes (ideally also inheritance), unions & state interventionism when necessary. Examples include German ordoliberalism and the post WW2 US economy. Not sure if those systems would still work given the globalism and ease of tax avoidance nowadays.
If I was in charge of government I would probably try to find a workable solutions having very moderate but progressive income taxes (all income categories treated equally), very high inheritance and gift taxes and free higher level education and health care. Otherwise accumulation of wealth over generations becomes a problem for capitalism. Besides, I think those rules would help make society closer to a meritocracy.
1) You promote the idea of socialism as a means to get rid of harmful divisions, but wish to achieve that by uniting workers against the owners of capital. Do you see that division as purely a transitional phase, which will eventually melt away? Experience of historical revolutions suggests that's unlikely.
2) Your post suggests the State is a neutral entity separate from the people and working only in the interest of the people. However, the State is made up of people wielding power and there is no society in history in which people wielding power have not been tempted to abuse it. I think societies that are more successful about limiting this tendency are those where power is more dispersed between different groups, who can act as a check on each other. How would your proposed society avoid the abuse of power?
Socialism has this in common with islamism, you introduce a dose of it, your country will turn inevitably in a dumphole.
Paris agreement on climate => Iran deal => G7 statement... it's starting to add up.
The Trump administration had/has one clear goal for North Korea and that is complete denuclearization. Once that is done, the west and the world can start chipping away at the other problems that plague the hermit country like the countless human rights abuses. Bring it up now there is a strong possibility that North Korea walks away from everything and we're back to name calling through Twitter and State Media.
Things like this take time. One just has to look at how far China has come since Nixon visited to understand that. They are far from perfect, but they aren't as bad as they were in the 70s.
Trump also did not get nothing out of it. Hostages were freed prior to the meeting. They'd still be locked away had Trump not reached out and agreed. Everything else though was a North Korea show.
That said, I felt like I stayed up for nothing. Fell asleep before Trump started talking to reporters after I read what they signed. Here is hoping that the back room politicking can take this further.
An opportunity for Trump was going to heap praise on himself and say what a huge tremendous successful day it was while not accomplishing much.
If we are going to adhere to the point of view that we do not associate with countries which have poor human rights records, then we are going to have to stop having anything to do with places like China, India, many Middle Eastern countries (including Saudi Arabia), almost all of Central America, and most of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa.
Just ask Iran, the G7, the Paris Climate Agreement, NAFTA, etc.
Congress should write North Korea a letter saying that whatever agreement they reached with the President is likely to be void after the next election just like how they did exactly that with Iran.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
Now Mike Pence is saying, merely 12 hours later, that the US is NOT ending it's military exercises with South Korea. So we didn't even make it full day/night cycle before that narrative fell apart.
And this is my major problem with Trump meeting with North Korea. Not the meeting itself, but the idea that through his personal inertia, he can just will things to happen. He didn't put any work into it, the Administration has put in no work, and they expect it to work anyway. It isn't going to. And on the flip-side, the Iran deal took YEARS to come together, and they threw it away. They are not only lazy in the extreme, but that laziness makes them think the hard work of diplomacy doesn't matter.
I wonder how many fiscal conservatives held their collective noses and voted for Trump?
When Republicans take back the government, the entire narrative shifts 180 degrees instantaneously. I'm talking within minutes. You immediately pass tax cuts that benefit the upper 1%, not only to pay them off for their campaign contributions, but to continue the cycle of the self-fulfilling prophecy. You blow a massive hole in the debt ON PURPOSE, so that in 4 or 8 years, you can immediately do another 180 and start talking about the debt again. This has been going on non-stop since Reagan took office in 1980. And let's be honest....it basically works.
So how binding is this agreement with Donny Tiny hands? That's the point.
----
Relevant:
Article from 14 hrs ago.. Iran warns North Korea: Trump could cancel deal before getting home
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-iran/iran-warns-north-korea-trump-could-cancel-deal-before-getting-home-idUSKBN1J813Y
because:
The next president (hahahaha) is already saying parts of the "deal" were flim flam bullcrap.
-------------
Finally,
There was a 5 minute North Korea propaganda video that aired for reporters before Trump came out. After much eyerolling Trump came out and said how did you like my video? hahahahahaha Trump literally made a North Korea propaganda video for them.