Stormy Sues Trump
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.
No big deal the Stormy thing. She's dropping her puppies all over the place. She's one of so many other felines that throw themselves at power guys all the time. He's a horn dog... get a grip. Most likely sells well come election time. He'll drive over the bridge as well.
alex4855 said:
No big deal the Stormy thing. She's dropping her puppies all over the place. She's one of so many other felines that throw themselves at power guys all the time. He's a horn dog... get a grip. Most likely sells well come election time. He'll drive over the bridge as well.
As is so often the case, the original action is less of a story than the attempts to cover it up.
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.
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.
The White House is setting forth conditions - "concrete steps" have to be taken by North Korea toward denuclearizing for U.S. to meet with Kim.
cramer said:
The White House is setting forth conditions - "concrete steps" have to be taken by North Korea toward denuclearizing for U.S. to meet with Kim.
Maybe they can hire some diplomats and an ambassador to SK soon.
tjohn said:
alex4855 said:
No big deal the Stormy thing. She's dropping her puppies all over the place. She's one of so many other felines that throw themselves at power guys all the time. He's a horn dog... get a grip. Most likely sells well come election time. He'll drive over the bridge as well.
As is so often the case, the original action is less of a story than the attempts to cover it up.
Cover, she covers nothing. Her puppies are milking it all the way to his election victory.
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.
dave23 said:
cramer said:
The White House is setting forth conditions - "concrete steps" have to be taken by North Korea toward denuclearizing for U.S. to meet with Kim.
Maybe they can hire some diplomats and an ambassador to SK soon.
Maybe the Democrats can stop dragging their feet in accepting people nominated for these positions. I read somewhere that at the rate they are holding hearings it will take 11 years to gt finished.
Nevermind. I think we all fell for the usual Trumpian "the check is in the mail".
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/politics/north-korea-meeting-trump-conditions/index.html
I don't really care about perceived winners and losers, but the WH is walking back (to use a dreadful phrase) the notion that Trump would meet without conditions.
BCC said:
Maybe the Democrats can stop dragging their feet in accepting people nominated for these positions. I read somewhere that at the rate they are holding hearings it will take 11 years to gt finished.
Oh? Can you tell me who the nominee to South Korea is? And the list of diplomats in State Dept that are being held up by Democrats?
ETA: Because the Democrats have actually contacted Tillerson about the lack of diplomats.
BCC said:
Maybe the Democrats can stop dragging their feet in accepting people nominated for these positions. I read somewhere that at the rate they are holding hearings it will take 11 years to gt finished.
Did you miss the part where Democrats basically have no say in the approval process. It's a numbers thing and the Republicans have a slight majority.
BCC said:
dave23 said:
cramer said:
The White House is setting forth conditions - "concrete steps" have to be taken by North Korea toward denuclearizing for U.S. to meet with Kim.
Maybe they can hire some diplomats and an ambassador to SK soon.
Maybe the Democrats can stop dragging their feet in accepting people nominated for these positions. I read somewhere that at the rate they are holding hearings it will take 11 years to gt finished.
"While the world watched the two Koreas walk together at the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympic Games in PyeongChang, there was one person not in attendance: the U.S. ambassador to Seoul. The reason was simple: despite being in office for over a year, the Trump administration has yet to appoint one. As has been widely reported, the previously presumed appointment of Victor Cha as the next ambassador was withdrawn last week, allegedly the result of a fundamental disagreement over North Korea policy between Cha on the one hand and President Donald Trump and his advisers on the other."
https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/still-no-us-ambassador-in-south-korea/
BCC said:
dave23 said:
cramer said:
The White House is setting forth conditions - "concrete steps" have to be taken by North Korea toward denuclearizing for U.S. to meet with Kim.
Maybe they can hire some diplomats and an ambassador to SK soon.
Maybe the Democrats can stop dragging their feet in accepting people nominated for these positions. I read somewhere that at the rate they are holding hearings it will take 11 years to gt finished.
Who the hell are you?
The 11 years complaint, from eight months ago (NYT): https://nyti.ms/2vvQRUe
The ambassador to Australia has only just been appointed a couple of weeks ago. At the time, the news articles were full of lists of other places without their full complement of embassy/consular staff.
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.
I’m gonna state right here that the meeting of the two “leaders” never takes place. Anyone agree?
librarylady said:
I’m gonna state right here that the meeting of the two “leaders” never takes place. Anyone agree?
Yup. Sarah already started walking it back yesterday. If we're talking about Kim, we're not talking about Stormy or Mueller or any of the myriad other things that make the U.S. an international embarrassment for having elected this grifter.
Really, are we to believe that Kim is suddenly, after years of starving his people to spend money on nukes, is going to abandon them? He's achieved what dad and granddad couldn't: equal stature with the U.S. My, have we fallen.
DaveSchmidt said:
The 11 years complaint, from eight months ago (NYT): https://nyti.ms/2vvQRUe
Thank you for saving me the trouble.
Interesting to see response of questioners.
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.
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?
I've made that same observation about NR on this site. But when a position is from "The Editors," you can believe there's a strong consensus behind it. I didn't notice any of the individual contributors dissenting from The Editors and singing the praises of Trump's latest move.
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.
BCC said:
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.
In this case, the two sides of SK ambassador and diplomats issue are truth (Trump and Tillerson aren't bothering) and lies (it's the Democrats' fault).
librarylady said:
I’m gonna state right here that the meeting of the two “leaders” never takes place. Anyone agree?
I think the meeting will take place. Trump wants to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (for real, this time.) He'll make sure the meeting takes place.
There is some speculation that Putin is encouraging Kim - Putin wants to give Trump a big win.
Plus, Trump hasn't been invited to the royal wedding on May 19. His meeting with Kim in May will overshadow that.
eta - A new thread should probably be started about the Trump-Kim proposed meeting.
Trump didn't offer "nothing". He agreed to a meeting.