Stormy Sues Trump

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."  ~~  Benjamin Franklin    

thedailybeast.com:  The Four People who know what Stormy Daniels has on Trump

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-four-people-who-know-what-stormy-daniels-has-on-trump?ref=home

tjohn said:

Kim caved on nothing.  At best, he said everything is on the table.  In exchange for what is the question.

Meanwhile, domestically, he can claim that the people, through their sacrifice, have forced the American President to come to the negotiating table.

I am sure that Trump's hardball tactics helped get us to this point.  But, again, for Trump to win, he has to achieve denuclearization of the Peninsula.  That is his campaign promise.

I wouldn't dispute that, and as I have said several times already, you can't trust what he says today, it can change tomorrow.

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

bub said:

These guys aren't too keen about Trump's diplomatic triumph.  Just another lefty "fake news" rag I guess:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/dont-meet-with-kim/ 

BCC said:

tjohn said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:


Again I ask, how do you find Kim is a winner when he caved on important issues and Trump offered nothing?

The meeting itself is a lot more than nothing, you see.

But if you pretend that Kim doesn't win just by securing a face to face meeting with the President of the United States, then you can say that Trump offered nothing.

I don't have to pretend anything. When you invite someone to a meeting and offer the possibility of giving him much of what he wants, and he offers nothing in return other to meet, it leaves you looking weak not a winner.


If Trump had in fact offered something in return I would give credence to your position.

If you are a reader of NR you know that it has regular commentators who are strongly anti-Trump and on occasion includes the Editorial Board. It is not some Right wing 'rag' and gives voice to both sides.

Here you are holding up NR as a source of reasonable opinion that directly contradicts what you are saying.  Who the hell are you?

Yes, i'm saying the writers are civil and rarely running around with their hair on fire. So. Whatcontradicts what I am sayig

BCC, I am still curious about the SK ambassador and State Dept diplomats being held up by Democrats.

The point is you're characterizing the mere agreement to meet as a win but the leading intellectual conservative mag, NR, does not offer a single voice praising the deal as a win or a promising lead on a positive outcome.  It's a mix of negative reactions and silence.       

BCC said:

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

bub said:

These guys aren't too keen about Trump's diplomatic triumph.  Just another lefty "fake news" rag I guess:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/dont-meet-with-kim/ 

BCC said:

tjohn said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:


Again I ask, how do you find Kim is a winner when he caved on important issues and Trump offered nothing?

The meeting itself is a lot more than nothing, you see.

But if you pretend that Kim doesn't win just by securing a face to face meeting with the President of the United States, then you can say that Trump offered nothing.

I don't have to pretend anything. When you invite someone to a meeting and offer the possibility of giving him much of what he wants, and he offers nothing in return other to meet, it leaves you looking weak not a winner.


If Trump had in fact offered something in return I would give credence to your position.

If you are a reader of NR you know that it has regular commentators who are strongly anti-Trump and on occasion includes the Editorial Board. It is not some Right wing 'rag' and gives voice to both sides.

Here you are holding up NR as a source of reasonable opinion that directly contradicts what you are saying.  Who the hell are you?

Yes, i'm saying the writers are civil and rarely running around with their hair on fire. So. Whatcontradicts what I am sayig

bub said:

The point is you're characterizing the mere agreement to meet as a win but the leading intellectual conservative mag, NR, does not offer a single voice praising the deal as a win or a promising lead on a positive outcome.  It's a mix of negative reactions and silence.       

BCC said:

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

bub said:

These guys aren't too keen about Trump's diplomatic triumph.  Just another lefty "fake news" rag I guess:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/dont-meet-with-kim/ 

BCC said:

tjohn said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:


Again I ask, how do you find Kim is a winner when he caved on important issues and Trump offered nothing?

The meeting itself is a lot more than nothing, you see.

But if you pretend that Kim doesn't win just by securing a face to face meeting with the President of the United States, then you can say that Trump offered nothing.

I don't have to pretend anything. When you invite someone to a meeting and offer the possibility of giving him much of what he wants, and he offers nothing in return other to meet, it leaves you looking weak not a winner.


If Trump had in fact offered something in return I would give credence to your position.

If you are a reader of NR you know that it has regular commentators who are strongly anti-Trump and on occasion includes the Editorial Board. It is not some Right wing 'rag' and gives voice to both sides.

Here you are holding up NR as a source of reasonable opinion that directly contradicts what you are saying.  Who the hell are you?

Yes, i'm saying the writers are civil and rarely running around with their hair on fire. So. Whatcontradicts what I am sayig

You really have no idea what's going on here. It is not I who am characterizing the mere meeting as being a win, it is the people who have opposed me

I have pointed out that it is more than a 'mere meeting'. Noko has made some offers that, if they work out could lead to peace in stead of a nuclear war. It remains to be seen whether or not they carry through on these proposals or are FOS and trying to use them to continue their atomic advances.

That' s why trump has added a 'concrete action' to his demands.

dave23 said:

BCC, I am still curious about the SK ambassador and State Dept diplomats being held up by Democrats.

If you are so curious, do your own homework and don't bother me with your worn out BS.

Maybe I don't what's going on but when you say Kim has already "lost badly", your touting a win (that no one at NR seems to think is a win):

Also you haven't taken into account that we have promised nothing, while NOKO has offered a variety of accommodations to our demands. That can reasonably be assumed, even by someone with half a brain, that Kim has lost badly. I would say right now we are in the driver's seat and it remains to be seen how this ultimately plays out.

bub said:

Maybe I don't what's going on but when you say Kim has already "lost badly", your touting a win (that no one at NR seems to think is a win):




Also you haven't taken into account that we have promised nothing, while NOKO has offered a variety of accommodations to our demands. That can reasonably be assumed, even by someone with half a brain, that Kim has lost badly. I would say right now we are in the driver's seat and it remains to be seen how this ultimately plays out.

Thank you for agreeing with me and repeating practically all the points I've made - apparently not realizing it.

I do think NR is a reasonably  good source of information for either side of an argument. It should be obvious from what I wrote that I don't agree with the Editors opinion and I will leave it at that.

BCC said:

 it is the people who have opposed me 

Are we quoting Syndrome now?

I don't agree that its a win or even that there' an "it" because NK has said nothing - its all SK hearsay at this point - and NK has shamelessly backslid on their own direct nice talk many times in the past.  Not sure where you're finding agreement between us.  Quoting you should not be misread as agreement.

BCC said:

bub said:

Maybe I don't what's going on but when you say Kim has already "lost badly", your touting a win (that no one at NR seems to think is a win):




Also you haven't taken into account that we have promised nothing, while NOKO has offered a variety of accommodations to our demands. That can reasonably be assumed, even by someone with half a brain, that Kim has lost badly. I would say right now we are in the driver's seat and it remains to be seen how this ultimately plays out.

Thank you for agreeing with me and repeating practically all the points I've made - apparently not realizing it.


I do think NR is a reasonably  good source of information for either side of an argument. It should be obvious from what I wrote that I don't agree with the Editors opinion and I will leave it at that.

ridski said:

BCC said:

 it is the people who have opposed me 

Are we quoting Syndrome now?

I’m still stuck on The Singularity.

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC, I am still curious about the SK ambassador and State Dept diplomats being held up by Democrats.

If you are so curious, do your own homework and don't bother me with your worn out BS.

Asking you to back up a claim isn't BS.

Here is your 3/10 1:41 pm post:

“Yes, i'm saying the writers are civil and rarely running around with their hair on fire. So. Whatcontradicts what I am sayig”

BCC said:

bub said:

Maybe I don't what's going on but when you say Kim has already "lost badly", your touting a win (that no one at NR seems to think is a win):




Also you haven't taken into account that we have promised nothing, while NOKO has offered a variety of accommodations to our demands. That can reasonably be assumed, even by someone with half a brain, that Kim has lost badly. I would say right now we are in the driver's seat and it remains to be seen how this ultimately plays out.

Thank you for agreeing with me and repeating practically all the points I've made - apparently not realizing it.


I do think NR is a reasonably  good source of information for either side of an argument. It should be obvious from what I wrote that I don't agree with the Editors opinion and I will leave it at that.

Thank you for answering your own question. 

dave23 said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC, I am still curious about the SK ambassador and State Dept diplomats being held up by Democrats.

If you are so curious, do your own homework and don't bother me with your worn out BS.

Asking you to back up a claim isn't BS.

I said that I had read that the Dems were were holding up appointing people to the extent that at that rate it would take 11years to complete the appointments. Dave Schmidt soon after posted an article that spelled out in detail how that was happening and verified what I had said.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with him

Red_Barchetta said:







Here is your 3/10 1:41 pm post:




“Yes, i'm saying the writers are civil and rarely running around with their hair on fire. So. Whatcontradicts what I am sayig”

BCC said:

bub said:

Maybe I don't what's going on but when you say Kim has already "lost badly", your touting a win (that no one at NR seems to think is a win):




Also you haven't taken into account that we have promised nothing, while NOKO has offered a variety of accommodations to our demands. That can reasonably be assumed, even by someone with half a brain, that Kim has lost badly. I would say right now we are in the driver's seat and it remains to be seen how this ultimately plays out.

Thank you for agreeing with me and repeating practically all the points I've made - apparently not realizing it.


I do think NR is a reasonably  good source of information for either side of an argument. It should be obvious from what I wrote that I don't agree with the Editors opinion and I will leave it at that.

Thank you for answering your own question. 

I said I liked NR and repeated that.. I don't see any contradiction to what I said, nor do I see a question.

Show me a contradiction. What you have said so far .is meaningless.

So there is no contradiction but there is disagreement.  Understood.  

The contradiction is between NR's opinion and your opinion about this alleged diplomatic breakthrough.  About NR itself, we are in agreement.   There is no rigid editorial line at NR, which makes their across the board lack of praise for Trump's latest move all the more telling.

BCC said:

I said that I had read that the Dems were were holding up appointing people to the extent that at that rate it would take 11years to complete the appointments. Dave Schmidt soon after posted an article that spelled out in detail how that was happening and verified what I had said.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with him

The article, which I noted was eight months old, did not spell out anything specific about State Department nominations. I posted it for informational purposes, which readers here could take as they wished. It was not my intent to verify anything, other than the source of where the “11 years” reference came from.

Not only that, but also the "11 years" came up in the discussion of why there's no ambassador to South Korea.  There's no nominee, so the "11 years" is irrelevant.

DaveSchmidt said:

BCC said:

I said that I had read that the Dems were were holding up appointing people to the extent that at that rate it would take 11years to complete the appointments. Dave Schmidt soon after posted an article that spelled out in detail how that was happening and verified what I had said.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with him

The article, which I noted was eight months old, did not spell out anything specific about State Department nominations. I posted it for informational purposes, which readers here could take as they wished. It was not my intent to verify anything, other than the source of where the “11 years” reference came from.

Also have to laugh at the "we became very good at obstructing but they're worse" whining.  Such classic human self-justification - "my degree of misbehavior is the baseline of what is acceptable."    

Trump feels that he doesn't need ambassadors or anyone else, for that matter. He's behaving like an all-out dictator, and throwing away any collaborative pretenses. He's unilaterally deciding policy and warning others not to criticize him. He's seizing power and this is alarming, or should be to most rational people. 

But he changes his "decisions" constantly and on a whim.

DaveSchmidt said:

BCC said:

I said that I had read that the Dems were were holding up appointing people to the extent that at that rate it would take 11years to complete the appointments. Dave Schmidt soon after posted an article that spelled out in detail how that was happening and verified what I had said.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with him

The article, which I noted was eight months old, did not spell out anything specific about State Department nominations. I posted it for informational purposes, which readers here could take as they wished. It was not my intent to verify anything, other than the source of where the “11 years” reference came from.

Nothing changed during the 8 months

You pretty much verified what both sides were doing in the way of obstruction, spelled out clearly what they had done and and why it was taking so long to get appointments.

So far, no one has refuted what you wrote about that.

LOST said:

But he changes his "decisions" constantly and on a whim.

Yet there are people on MOL who take him at his word. Go figure.

BCC said:

LOST said:

But he changes his "decisions" constantly and on a whim.

Yet there are people on MOL who take him at his word. Go figure.

Yes.  I guess some are stuck in simpler times when even fairly slippery politicians on the national stage didn't lie with such abandon.

From viewing and participating in some of the many threads about him in the last two years, I don't get the impression many MOLers view him as anything but a supreme compulsive BS artist the likes of which the White House may never have seen before.  That doesn't mean his words lack consequences. 

sirtjohn said:t

BCC said:

LOST said:

But he changes his "decisions" constantly and on a whim.

Yet there are people on MOL who take him at his word. Go figure.

Yes.  I guess some are stuck in simpler times when even fairly slippery politicians on the national stage didn't lie with such abandon.

bub said:

From viewing and participating in some of the many threads about him in the last two years, I don't get the impression many MOLers view him as anything but a supreme compulsive BS artist the likes of which the White House may never have seen before.  That doesn't mean his words lack consequences. 

It's ^this.

I don't believe anything he says.  But a lot of what he says warrants criticism because it should never have been said.  And as president, the fact that he says these things, and the fact that he's never credible has consequences. 

BCC said:



I said that I had read that the Dems were were holding up appointing people to the extent that at that rate it would take 11years to complete the appointments. Dave Schmidt soon after posted an article that spelled out in detail how that was happening and verified what I had said.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with him

That doesn't apply to the SK ambassador or the State Dept, which is what we were talking about. 

very few here take him at his word. But what do you suggest - that we simply ignore what he says?

BCC said:

LOST said:

But he changes his "decisions" constantly and on a whim.

Yet there are people on MOL who take him at his word. Go figure.