(08-30-2018 04:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 04:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him. But I've spent decades counting on mainstream republicans to protect me from the socialist/communist/collectivist left. And they've done a piss-poor job. If Trump is the only thing protecting me from the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Bernie, Fauxcohontas, and Ocasio-Cortez, then the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I wish I had another option. But I don't see one.

Gavin Newsome perhaps? Or Kamala Harris?

(08-30-2018 04:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 02:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why does me giving Trump credit for this matter so much to you?

Maybe it was this smart-ass remark:

"...after you and Tanq tried furiously to pat Trump on the back for "progress" that was made."

since then all you have done is try "furiously" to deny that any progress has been made, resting your case totally on the lack of a finished product.

Maybe we need to look up the definition of "progress", while we are at it.

Stop being flippant. No tangible upside to it.

I will sign a tangible piece of paper saying I will stop being flippant for ten years if you will give me $30B.

Pretty good upside, I think.

Can we get that legal agreement done with a real glitzy, shiny embossing? Makes all the difference you know. Perhaps *you* will make an enforceable bigboy promise not to throw a party in your backyard that will keep us awake.

Now that I know that I need a 'legal agreement' to make things tangible, maybe that will be a good thing for me.

And I just realized I need to apologize for the 'Irish jig' comment I made previously. Im sure its racist in some manner. If not to the Irish, maybe its a dog-whistle for slurring those pesky Welsh....

(05-24-2018 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 09:10 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 11:09 AM)sts60 Wrote:  My goodness, there’s a lot to unpack in your penultimate post. I promise a diligent response, but I’m in about-once-a-day mode, so kindly bear with me.

I appreciate the response and will wait on you.

And now I'm envisioning OO as Fry's dog in Futurama. Ok then.

(Though I think sts60 will actually get back; that's just what popped to mind with the phrase "I will wait on you.")

He asked for time, and I felt in the spirit of honest discussion, I should grant him as much time as he needs.

However, I am going out of town tomorrow for 5 days, and working from an IPad is not my forte, so I hope he hurries. I really am anxious to find out his narrative of the crime Mueller is investigating. Whatever crime that may be.

I will wait

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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.

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...
maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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.

(09-10-2018 08:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...
maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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?

(09-10-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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.

Quote:...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 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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.

I wouldnt characterize the US Air Force acting as a version of Brinks Armored and delivering 1.3 billion dollars in cash to the mullahs as 'ignoring them.'

But that is just me.

Quote:...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.

Maybe Kim thinks Trump will courier to him 1.3 billion in greenbacks like our last chief executive did in a nuclear 'negotiation'. I keep waiting for a pic of c-130 and shrink-wrapped bales of greenbacks with the guys escorting the cash wearing 'Publisher's Clearinghouse' windbreakers....

(09-10-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...
maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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?

(09-10-2018 03:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Maybe you guys could try to keep your knee-jerk characterizations in check. I've been a conservative Republican for three decades.

(09-10-2018 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 03:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Maybe you guys could try to keep your knee-jerk characterizations in check. I've been a conservative Republican for three decades.

So, let me get this straight. I'm pointing out that the two deals are similar (except we haven't sent the NorKs a big pile of money) and you are calling me out because the two deals are similar.

I have no great expectations with North Korea. Something is better than nothing, and I don't really see that we've given anything away yet. I have a son in Tokyo, so I'm kind of glad that KJU isn't shooting off more rockets. But I have no huge expectations where this will lead.

I've said before, my position on nuclear proliferation would be to say something like, "Look, we don't think you need nukes, and we don't see any good to come from your having them, so we will try to keep you from getting them. But at the end of the day, we probably can't stop you if you want them badly enough. So here's our deal. If you ever use them, or attempt to use them, or certainly if you let any of them fall into the hands of terrorist actors, we reserve the right to treat that as a nuclear attack on the USA, and accordingly to respond with the full weight and force of our nuclear arsenal. So if you don't want your country to glow in the dark for about a millennium, be very damned careful."

(09-10-2018 07:05 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 03:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Maybe you guys could try to keep your knee-jerk characterizations in check. I've been a conservative Republican for three decades.

So, let me get this straight. I'm pointing out that the two deals are similar (except we haven't sent the NorKs a big pile of money) and you are calling me out because the two deals are similar.
I have no great expectations with North Korea. Something is better than nothing, and I don't really see that we've given anything away yet. I have a son in Tokyo, so I'm kind of glad that KJU isn't shooting off more rockets. But I have no huge expectations where this will lead.
I've said before, my position on nuclear proliferation would be to say something like, "Look, we don't think you need nukes, and we don't see any good to come from your having them, so we will try to keep you from getting them. But at the end of the day, we probably can't stop you if you want them badly enough. So here's our deal. If you ever use them, or attempt to use them, or certainly if you let any of them fall into the hands of terrorist actors, we reserve the right to treat that as a nuclear attack on the USA, and accordingly to respond with the full weight and force of our nuclear arsenal. So if you don't want your country to glow in the dark for about a millennium, be very damned careful."

It seemed like you responded to my expressed fear of Trump giving NK something for nothing with an assumption that anyone who criticizes him must be doing so from his left and therefore must also have supported the Iran deal (which certainly would be hypocritical if true). If that was wrong, I apologize.
Look, the strategy outlined in your last paragraph could also be described as "no deal," right? There's no exchange in it, no compromise . . . and my whole point is, I think a policy of "no deal" can be entirely legitimate and appropriate. "No deal" is better than "bad deal." Something is not necessarily better than nothing; if it leaves you worse off in the long run (or no worse off but all you did was pay for a circular trip), that's "something" all right but it's worse than nothing. "Go f*** yourself" (a/k/a strategic indifference), for all its off-puttingness, absolutely can be a better strategy than "let's talk" if talking can only either waste time or lead to a worse outcome. (As an aside, it's why the advice to Trump to decline Mueller's invitation to "talk" is certainly the right advice from a legal standpoint and probably a political one as well.)
Personally, I think Kim has been playing Trump to date like the proverbial fiddle. He decided to ramp up the provocations, knowing that Trump would hit the roof and threaten fire and fury. Then Kim would ease off, letting Trump appear to have a win. His adversary's famously needy ego suitably stroked, he would then dangle the chance of a historic, peacemaking summit -- something no sane USA president of either party has fallen for before, but Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize to match Obama's, and just may be willing to overpay. Just like Obama did (to the tune of $150 billion) with Iran.
All I can say is, thank God for the principled conservative "resistance" alluded to in the NYT op-ed. Trump may yet get his chance to play-act at diplomacy but thankfully there are adults in the room who hopefully won't let him do any real damage.

(09-10-2018 03:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...
maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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

(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:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...
maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"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?

(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.

(09-18-2018 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/648883919/trump-orders-declassification-of-documents-about-fbi-sought-by-house-republicans

Generally, guilty parties want to cover things up and innocent ones want all the evidence to see the light of day.

Brennan, Schumer and Schiff are against declassifying these documents.

Draw your own conclusions.

(09-18-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/648883919/trump-orders-declassification-of-documents-about-fbi-sought-by-house-republicans

Generally, guilty parties want to cover things up and innocent ones want all the evidence to see the light of day.

Brennan, Schumer and Schiff are against declassifying these documents.

Draw your own conclusions.

Four hours and nobody has come forward to explain why the Democrats oppose the declassification?

I thought maybe one would tell us why Putin ordered Trump to do this.