OptimisticOwl
Legend
Posts: 58,759
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex
|
RE: Trump Administration
(09-11-2018 03:27 PM)illiniowl Wrote: (09-11-2018 07:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (09-10-2018 03:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote: (09-10-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote: "Denuclearization" does not, in North Korean diplomatic doublespeak, mean what anyone else in the world takes that word to mean. It does not mean disarmament. It does not mean verification with inspections. It basically means they pinky swear not to build new nuclear weapons or use the ones they already have. A deal along those lines would be worse (for the rest of the world) than no deal -- so of course Kim wants it before Trump exits the stage, as he recognizes that he is not likely ever again to have such a manipulable, out-of-his-depth adversary to negotiate with.
"It basically means they pinky swear not to build new nuclear weapons or use the ones they already have."
You mean like the Iranian deal?
These negotiations, like any others between nations, will involve a long back and forth as the nations hide their true intentions and their true goals behind doublespeak and outright lies. Yes, it will take some time, and it is on us and our allies to make sure we get the kind of denuclearization we want. But you won't get anything by not talking, i.e., the Obama method. Ignoring them has not worked out so well.
...as he recognizes that he is not likely ever again to have such a manipulable, out-of-his-depth adversary to negotiate with.
Your language is just boilerplate left wing agenda. The reason they will talk is that they finally have somebody who will talk with them, and the reason they want to talk NOW is that they are worried that if the Democrats succeed in electing a Democrat in 2020, the Democrats will once again enforce a curtain of silence. Kim knows the only chance to get something done is now. He may not be dangling the carrot of denuclearization in good faith, but that doesn't mean he will not end up offering more than he intends in order to get things he wants. Have you never bought a used car? Or sold one?
Maybe nothing will come of these talks. If something does come of them, it is a 100% slam dunk certainty that you and the left will not like the results, just because it was Trump who got them.
(09-10-2018 08:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote: "Denuclearization" does not, in North Korean diplomatic doublespeak, mean what anyone else in the world takes that word to mean. It does not mean disarmament. It does not mean verification with inspections. It basically means they pinky swear not to build new nuclear weapons or use the ones they already have. A deal along those lines would be worse (for the rest of the world) than no deal -- so of course Kim wants it before Trump exits the stage, as he recognizes that he is not likely ever again to have such a manipulable, out-of-his-depth adversary to negotiate with.
As opposed to what it means in Iranian diplomatic doublespeak?
And you know this how?
Maybe you guys could try to keep your knee-jerk characterizations in check. I've been a conservative Republican for three decades.
I absolutely was against the Iran deal, both procedurally (never submitted for Senate ratification) and substantively. It literally consists of us giving them billions of dollars to upgrade their nuke program after a piddling ten-year pause, a blink of an eye if you have a thousand-year caliphate in mind (and we didn't even get strong inspection rights to verify that this worthless pause is even being honored). So all this whataboutism on Iran is wasted on me.
Apparently where we do differ, however, is whether two wrongs make a right. Boiled down, Obama gave Iran something for nothing. To be sure, the "nothing" was gussied up in all manner of pettifoggery and doublespeak so as to appear to be something, but it remained nothing. DPRK is going to run the same exact same play.* I hope whatever is left of your principles will allow you to appraise any deal objectively, and not just reflexively praise it because it was done by Trump and Not Obama (or Not Clinton).
* WSJ: Denuclearization Means Different Things to Kim and Trump, North Korean Defector Says
CNBC: North Korea committed to 'complete denuclearization' — but didn't define what that means
NYT: Trump and Kim May Define ‘Korea Denuclearization’ Quite Differently
As the negotiations continue, the differences in what each side wants will become clearer. Do you really think Trump and Pompeo et al will sign off on a deal that lets NK define what denuclearization means and how to enforce it? Seems odd for a President known for his negotiating and deal making. I don't see Trump being, like Obama, so desperate to get a deal that he gives the house away. Nor do I see Pompeo as a fool. But as you say, I will evaluate the deal when we have one, not now, before we have anything. It will not get my automatic seal of approval, as you suggest. Little does. But up to now, there is no deal to evaluate. Your evaluation seems to rest on your evaluation of Trump, not the deal.
It is a long journey between where we are and where we want to be. There is no guarantee we will get there or get anywhere at all, but I am encouraged that we are at least discussing it.
As for you, If it quacks like a duck... You certainly talk like a Democrat, even to using the same rhetoric to describe Trump. You even malign the principles and goals of anybody opposing you. Quack, quack, is what I hear from you. But If you say you are a Republican, I will take your word for it. Would you admit to being a NeverTrumper?
LOL. You can take my daughter's word for it. Her name is Reagan.
I do plead guilty to violating the 11th commandment ("Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican"), although I'd like a ruling from the Gipper on whether that applies when the label has been hijacked. Speaking of labels, #NeverTrump is obsolete. That was a primary/election thing, and he won -- and yes, without my vote (but Hillary did not get it either, and I truly am glad she's not POTUS) -- so it's over for now. He has until 2020 to squash the need for that movement again. I don't think he's doing so hot. I've been measuring his performance against conservative principles and even just basic standards of competence from 2016 to now and truly the only good things have come when he's either outsourced the job (e.g., to Heritage Foundation) or when the adult conservatives minding the store have literally ignored or thwarted his aims. That is dysfunctional and undemocratic as all get out but thank heaven for it, for now.
You seem to measure him solely against alternative Democratic examples. That is really nothing more than whataboutism at the end of the day. And to the extent you really would not like to see a Democratic ascendancy in the future (I sure don't), I think it's dangerous to ignore the adage that when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Trump is doing his level best to make the idea of voting Republican anathema for a generation to quite a large segment of people who might otherwise be persuadable. To put it simply, every day he makes it harder for someone like Ben Sasse or Paul Ryan to become president someday. I'd think that would concern you, knowing who they'll be running against.
Back to North Korea, I wouldn't watch a drunk surgeon with wobbly hands pick up a scalpel with my child on the table and say, come now, to be fair, we must wait until the operation is done before we render an assessment. Were you this patient and noncommittal when Obama's hand was on the tiller? Or at some point had you seen enough to make a judgment about how he would do?
I mean, if he was such a great dealmaker, there would be a wall by now with "Hecho en Mexico" stamped all over it, and Obamacare would be repealed and replaced with something fantastic and awesome. No. He "gets things done" only when the numbers were always there to begin with. You or I could do that, for Pete's sake. North Korea - or any other task where he needs to persuade a determined adversary - does not appear to me to be within his skill set. Do you have a positive case to make to the contrary?
I appreciate the exchange.
The thing is, the alternatives to Trump ARE Democrats. I like Sasse and Ryan, and others, but in the end it comes down to who is better/worse: Trump or the Democrat. All the Democrats likely to be the alternative are worse than Trump. Better behaved and less likely to tweet, but also in favor of more taxes and more regulations. I will take the not-so-good over the terrible any time.
FYI, I was never a Trumper during the primaries, and when push came to shove I did not vote for either Trump or Hillary. But I would vote for Trump now. Employment is up, unemployment down, the Dow is up, wages are up, jobs are coming back. I have always advocated for lower taxes and less regulation, and that's what we got and that is what is working. It is more than Trump just being lucky to be the dog on the porch when the sun rises. And the alternative is not Sasse, but Harris or Warren, and then all the good stuff stops. Better a watchdog that sleeps through the burglary than one that bites his owner.
I just don't think the surgeon is drunk, and in any case, I would not say I would rather let my child's cancer continue untreated. I don't know why you think he is an incompetent deal maker, but the evidence says otherwise. I say let him talk, and if he brings a deal to the table that is bad, let Congress take care of it. But let's wait to have a deal before we condemn it.
BTW, I have always opposed the Wall, and still do. Stupid idea. But all in all, even Trump is better than any leading Democrat.
Does Reagan have a twin named Ron?
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2018 11:23 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
|
|