The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

[ManUtd1999]

My take on the summit: I hope that we will see real progress in the weeks and months ahead. I was hoping to see more concessions from NK already, but this is better than nothing. At this stage, I won't criticize Trump and I won't go too far in praising him. It was one good step in the right direction (hopefully), but only one step.

The only thing he can partially claim is a strong economy and extremely low unemployment rate, which were both already in motion under Obama but have increased under Trump.

In October 2016, before Trump was even elected, the unemployment rate was 4.5%. This is very consistent with full employment. What happened in the past 1.5 years is just continuation of that trend. Nothing related to Trump, really.

The stock markets did phenomenally well in 2017-- no question about that. However, 2018 has been dismal for the stock markets. For example, there is basically no growth in the S&P this year. In fact, it's lower now than it was at the end of January. Part of this, of course, is a correction after the 22% of last year. But, if we end up having 2-3% this year, then by the end of the second year of the Trump presidency, we will have about 11-12% growth per year in the S&P. That is very good, but not unusual. For comparison, here are the returns during the Obama presidency and the first year of the Trump era:
2017: 21.83%
2016: 11.96%
2015: 1.38%
2014: 13.69%
2013: 32.39%
2012: 16.00%
2011: 2.11%
2010: 15.06%
2009: 26.46% (probably also reflects a rebound from the crash in 2008).

And so what we saw over the past 18 months is not unprecedented at all.

Another point: the budget deficit has increased in 2017 after declining during the 2nd half of the Obama presidency. All of that, of course, before the tax cuts took effect. It will rise even more.

One thing, though: I think that the Obama administration didn't communicate well enough and stress well enough the good numbers that Obama has left (such as the low unemployment rate). Republicans stressed the bad things in 2015-16 (high debt, for example). Trump and many of his followers kept mentioning the good numbers under Trump. Obama and his follower didn't talk about the good numbers as much under Obama. Trump kept tweeting about the stock markets (especially in 2017), and the media covered. Recently, Trump hasn't been tweeting as much about the stock markets, and guess what? The democrats are not talking and the media is silent. The media will wake up only when Trump decides so.

 

[Raoul]

This.

From someone who wanted to see the summit (errr Trump) fail. And get stabbed.

A vast majority of people viewed the summit is a positive thing. But given their respective histories of deception and not following through in the past, its understandable that people are viewing NK and Trump's actions with a degree caution.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Virtue signalling.

This new wave of conservatives seems to be obsessed with using buzz words, acronyms and labels in replace of having an actual discussions.

I quite enjoy talking politics with conservative friends and family that have thoughtful and insightful opinions and communicate in a mature manner. But it seems the current trend post-Trump is not to communicate in a efficient manner.

Have you read George Orwell essay Politics and the English Language ?

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

 

[Fearless]

A vast majority of people viewed the summit is a positive thing. But given their respective histories of deception and not following through in the past, its understandable that people are viewing NK and Trump's actions with a degree caution.

Not at all, though I wish that were the case. People genuinely want this to fail regardless of the past because it's Trump.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Of course you would.

Of course anyone would. Are you seconding my proposal then?

 

[Fearless]

This new wave of conservatives seems to be obsessed with using buzz words, acronyms and labels in replace of having an actual discussions.

I quite enjoy talking politics with conservative friends and family that have thoughtful and insightful opinions and communicate in a mature manner. But it seems the current trend post-Trump is not to communicate in a efficient manner.

Have you read George Orwell essay Politics and the English Language ?

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

If it doesn't involve grabbing pussy and eating raw meat, then no.

 

[Kentonio]

What's wrong with eating raw meat ?

It’s totally fecking French.

 

[ChaddyP]

spare us the handwringing about legitimizing regimes or whatever line the hawkish think tanks are promoting lately

For me. Legitimising a hostile regime is nothing new. But when you KNOW that's what they crave the most and then you give away that for basically free that's when I will say that's a poor decision. Hey it could end up working out in the end but as it stands it would appear trump has taken a massive gamble in hopes of a return that may or may not come. And its not like he can take back his hand shakes and photos if North Korea doesn't do what they promised him.

 

[Kentonio]

Yup.

And what would be an even better thing is if this leads to sanctions being lifted on a country where people are really struggling.

Im fairly sure the main recipient of lifted sanctions isn’t going to be the poorest people.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Not at all, though I wish that were the case. People genuinely want this to fail regardless of the past because it's Trump.

Can you provide any supporting evidence for your assertion?

Or us this just your opinion

 

[Snowjoe]

This new wave of conservatives seems to be obsessed with using buzz words, acronyms and labels in replace of having an actual discussions.

I quite enjoy talking politics with conservative friends and family that have thoughtful and insightful opinions and communicate in a mature manner. But it seems the current trend post-Trump is not to communicate in a efficient manner.

Have you read George Orwell essay Politics and the English Language ?

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

To be honest I think this is something that can be levelled at all sides of the political spectrum and not just conservatives, it’s rife amongst the liberal left too.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

If it doesn't involve grabbing pussy and eating raw meat, then no.

Cheers for another shining example of engagement in discourse there.

 

[GiddyUp]

My take on the summit: I hope that we will see real progress in the weeks and months ahead. I was hoping to see more concessions from NK already, but this is better than nothing. At this stage, I won't criticize Trump and I won't go too far in praising him. It was one good step in the right direction (hopefully), but only one step.


In October 2016, before Trump was even elected, the unemployment rate was 4.5%. This is very consistent with full employment. What happened in the past 1.5 years is just continuation of that trend. Nothing related to Trump, really.

The stock markets did phenomenally well in 2017-- no question about that. However, 2018 has been dismal for the stock markets. For example, there is basically no growth in the S&P this year. In fact, it's lower now than it was at the end of January. Part of this, of course, is a correction after the 22% of last year. But, if we end up having 2-3% this year, then by the end of the second year of the Trump presidency, we will have about 11-12% growth per year in the S&P. That is very good, but not unusual. For comparison, here are the returns during the Obama presidency and the first year of the Trump era:
2017: 21.83%
2016: 11.96%
2015: 1.38%
2014: 13.69%
2013: 32.39%
2012: 16.00%
2011: 2.11%
2010: 15.06%
2009: 26.46% (probably also reflects a rebound from the crash in 2008).

And so what we saw over the past 18 months is not unprecedented at all.

Another point: the budget deficit has increased in 2017 after declining during the 2nd half of the Obama presidency. All of that, of course, before the tax cuts took effect. It will rise even more.

One thing, though: I think that the Obama administration didn't communicate well enough and stress well enough the good numbers that Obama has left (such as the low unemployment rate). Republicans stressed the bad things in 2015-16 (high debt, for example). Trump and many of his followers kept mentioning the good numbers under Trump. Obama and his follower didn't talk about the good numbers as much under Obama. Trump kept tweeting about the stock markets (especially in 2017), and the media covered. Recently, Trump hasn't been tweeting as much about the stock markets, and guess what? The democrats are not talking and the media is silent. The media will wake up only when Trump decides so.

Good post but to much math and economic trends for a trump supporter to take on board when Hillary is to blame for everything. Trump sycophants dont deserve an inch when they are so blind to shit that went on yesterday, last week, last year or the last 40 years.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

If it doesn't involve grabbing pussy and eating raw meat, then no.

I see. So you are not really interested in a real discussion then.

 

[Fridge chutney]

I see. So you are not really interested in a real discussion then.

That has been painfully clear for the past few pages, unfortunately.

 

[Raoul]

In October 2016, before Trump was even elected, the unemployment rate was 4.5%. This is very consistent with full employment. What happened in the past 1.5 years is just continuation of that trend. Nothing related to Trump, really.

The stock markets did phenomenally well in 2017-- no question about that. However, 2018 has been dismal for the stock markets. For example, there is basically no growth in the S&P this year. In fact, it's lower now than it was at the end of January. Part of this, of course, is a correction after the 22% of last year. But, if we end up having 2-3% this year, then by the end of the second year of the Trump presidency, we will have about 11-12% growth per year in the S&P. That is very good, but not unusual. For comparison, here are the returns during the Obama presidency and the first year of the Trump era:
2017: 21.83%
2016: 11.96%
2015: 1.38%
2014: 13.69%
2013: 32.39%
2012: 16.00%
2011: 2.11%
2010: 15.06%
2009: 26.46% (probably also reflects a rebound from the crash in 2008).

And so what we saw over the past 18 months is not unprecedented at all.

Another point: the budget deficit has increased in 2017 after declining during the 2nd half of the Obama presidency. All of that, of course, before the tax cuts took effect. It will rise even more.

One thing, though: I think that the Obama administration didn't communicate well enough and stress well enough the good numbers that Obama has left (such as the low unemployment rate). Republicans stressed the bad things in 2015-16 (high debt, for example). Trump and many of his followers kept mentioning the good numbers under Trump. Obama and his follower didn't talk about the good numbers as much under Obama. Trump kept tweeting about the stock markets (especially in 2017), and the media covered. Recently, Trump hasn't been tweeting as much about the stock markets, and guess what? The democrats are not talking and the media is silent. The media will wake up only when Trump decides so.

The S&P is actually up slightly this year. It just wont do as well as it did last year when the market spent most of Trump's first 12 months pricing in anticipated benefits of deregulation and off shore repatriation. Much of the gains under Obama were obviously a result of markets recovering from the great recession, so the massive gains that took place in 2009, 2013 etc were part of the recovery process. That is now complete and the gains we have seen during Trump's time can't be attributed to the recovery any more. They are simply the market pricing in the aforementioned benefits of Trump being President. The Dems therefore will have a hard time campaigning against Trump on economics or employment numbers.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Not at all, though I wish that were the case. People genuinely want this to fail regardless of the past because it's Trump.

You still don't understand.

I have literally zero faith in Trump's intentions regarding this summit. This utter lack of faith does not stem from some sort of irrational hatred of people with orange hair and tiny hands. I judge Trump solely on his own words and actions. I explained in a later post why I think Trump meeting with Kim is a bad thing.

Saying I hope Kim jumps over the table and stabs Trump in the face has nothing to do with me wanting world peace to fail, it has to do with me being positive that world peace will never be on the table (it won't ever be full stop, but whatever) with a megalomaniac fecknugget like Trump at the table. He can't even unite his own country, let alone the Korean Peninsula. I want Kim to stab Trump in the face not in the capacity of president, but in the capacity of lying, two face, rapist thundercnut.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

To be honest I think this is something that can be levelled at all sides of the political spectrum and not just conservatives, it’s rife amongst the liberal left too.

Thats probably true. I personally dont see it as much but I would definitely call that out i. Libs too. Labels and buzz words replacing critical thinking is something everyone should oppose on all sides.

 

[Abizzz]

Not at all, though I wish that were the case. People genuinely want this to fail regardless of the past because it's Trump.

Blaming people for "wanting it to fail" is like the people who blamed some for "wanting LFC to win against City because they're less likely to win the whole thing".

Me, or anyone else, wanting it to fail would have no effect on the outcome at all. Which changes nothing about the fact that it is going to fail because there is a raving lunatic in charge.

 

[DOTA]

Im fairly sure the main recipient of lifted sanctions isn’t going to be the poorest people.

Well, yeah, the main recipient of any wealth around the world is not the poorest.

 

[Florida Man]

For me. Legitimising a hostile regime is nothing new. But when you KNOW that's what they crave the most and then you give away that for basically free that's when I will say that's a poor decision. Hey it could end up working out in the end but as it stands it would appear trump has taken a massive gamble in hopes of a return that may or may not come. And its not like he can take back his hand shakes and photos if North Korea doesn't do what they promised him.

Thing is, there isn’t any route to Korean peace that wouldn’t be big gamble. So any progress that doesn’t involve war, even considering history of deception on either side, should at least be welcomed.

 

[Florida Man]

Cheers for another shining example of engagement in discourse there.

That guy is hopeless

 

[ManUtd1999]

The S&P is actually up slightly this year. It just wont do as well as it did last year when the market spent most of Trump's first 12 months pricing in anticipated benefits of deregulation and off shore repatriation. Much of the gains under Obama were obviously a result of markets recovering from the great recession, so the massive gains that took place in 2009, 2013 etc were part of the recovery process. That is now complete and the gains we have seen during Trump's time can't be attributed to the recovery any more. They are simply the market pricing in the aforementioned benefits of Trump being President. The Dems therefore will have a hard time campaigning against Trump on economics or employment numbers.

Yes, it's 2% this year, but that's hardly something to celebrate.

In the end, when we look at the first two years of the Trump presidency, there won't be anything unusual. Honestly, so far, I don't see anything special about the economy under Trump. There was a good trend and it continued. We will know better once the GDP numbers for the second quarters are announced. The first quarter's GDP growth rate was 2.2%. Again, nothing unusual. In fact, the first quarter of 2017 was better.

Here are GDP growth and net job creation over the past 5-6 years. No real differences.


GDP growth rate:

Net job creation:

 

[Boycott]

There is certainly a discrepancy in how Obama was portrayed which has credit. Yes he was a lively, smart and fantastic "scripted" orator but some of the reporters in his presence were in such awe there was not good balance. I think that complacency led to the rise of Trump. Trump did not out of nowhere storm to victory through 2015-2016. He was the figurehead of a movement that started in 2010 with the tea party influencing the mid-terms.

The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races,[4][5][6] to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.[6] This left Republicans in control of 26 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

Fast forward two years, Obama is re-elected. He gets a second term, and a second shot at gaining a democratic congress to push through his agenda.

This midterm election became the most expensive in history, with total spending reaching $3.7 billion (including spending by outside entities[2]), while producing the lowest turnout since 1942 at only 36.4%.[3][4][5]

The elections saw sweeping gains by the Republican Party in the Senate, House, and in numerous gubernatorial, state, and local races. The Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time since 2006, and increased their majority in the House.[6] The Republicans also gained two seats in governors' races.[7]

Overall, the elections resulted in the largest Republican majority in the entire country in nearly a century, with 54 seats in the Senate, 247 (56.78%) in the House, 31 governorships (62%), and 68 state legislative chambers. Moreover, Republicans gained their largest majority in the House since 1928, the largest majority in Congress overall since 1928, and the largest majority of state legislatures since 1928.[8][9][10]

You have a president who cultivated a very popular image yet his party suffered two mammoth defeats in both midterms when his whole memo was Hope and Change. They had the pop culture affiliations, they had the talk shows and social media at their whim. They had the mainstream media who willed on the first African-American president (Bill Clinton's words). All of this, plus the notion after Bush the democrats should have been in power for the next decade with the republicans reeling. So how did they fail so badly? That goes back to complacency. Everything was ok as long as Obama occupied the white house. Only now with Trump do they preach the importance of local and state government. If the house switches they'll herald it as #TheResistance winning yet their inertia is the damn reason why they have to resist.

FWIW I use scripted in quotations because Hillary Clinton is scripted when delivering speeches yet for her that's used as a negative. Charisma and delivery clearly matters more than authenticity of the words. I like Obama generally but when people say he couldn't get things done due to a republican congress, it's a fallacy to me given it went republican in year 2 of his presidency, and when given another shot the dems failed to turn out.

 

[shabadu84]

The S&P is actually up slightly this year. It just wont do as well as it did last year when the market spent most of Trump's first 12 months pricing in anticipated benefits of deregulation and off shore repatriation. Much of the gains under Obama were obviously a result of markets recovering from the great recession, so the massive gains that took place in 2009, 2013 etc were part of the recovery process. That is now complete and the gains we have seen during Trump's time can't be attributed to the recovery any more. They are simply the market pricing in the aforementioned benefits of Trump being President. The Dems therefore will have a hard time campaigning against Trump on economics or employment numbers.

They absolutely can and should campaign against the impact his policies have had (or not had) on inflation and wages. There's still plenty to talk about in terms of impact that people are seeing in their day to day lives, especially people that are seeing their healthcare costs rising and don't have growing 401k's. Speak to those people, offer realistic solutions rather than strong-man empty promises and you absolutely can challenge the bogus idea that Trump is helping the economy for all Americans.

 

[Kentonio]

So how did they fail so badly? That goes back to complacency. Everything was ok as long as Obama occupied the white house.

That was apparently Obama's own fault. He decided he didn't need the grassroots organization any more, and the Dems paid for it badly.

 

[roseguy64]

On the contrary:

1. Economy is in fantastic shape. Fair enough but a continuation of the Obama trend. Nothing drastically different.
   
2. Lowest Black/Latino American unemployment in many years. See answer to one.
   
3. Lowest general unemployment in many years. See answer to one.
   
4. Moved embassy to Jersualem. This was supposed to be a reward to Israel for completion of a solution to the Israel-Palestine situation but it's for his base.
   
5. Restricted illegal immigration by giving ICE more powers. I'm 90% sure the answer to one fits here. He's just made it far more harsh and Nazi-like.
   
6. Judicial appointments in particular Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.Campaign promise fulfilled. You're right.
   
7. Ended Iran deal. A stupid campaign promise done which will have negative effects.
   
8. Negotiated peace with North Korea. That's mostly been South Korea and China. Also, there's no peace there yet.
   
9. Tax reform. Agenda of giving more to the rich. Done yes.
   
10. Isis destroyed. See answer to one.
    
11. Individual mandate repealed. Yeah.
    
12. Deregulation. Yeah.
    
13. Withdrew from Paris Accord. Yeah but woefully stupid based on him thinking China is perpetuation a hoax about climate change
    
14. Negotiated release of three American hostages back from North Korea. That's happened for pretty much every US President recently. Just with less narcissism.
    
15. Cracked down on Sanctuary cities. Meh.
    
16. Cut federal funding for Abortion. Okay.
    
17. Stood up to a corrupt and biased media. And cuddled up to other corrupt and biased media.

And responded. A lot of these universal positives he's championed as having accomplished are based on the work the Obama administration did and he's just praising himself for not being incompetent enough to mess it up. The tax reform though could backfire as he's created a larger deficit and will cut needed programs to make up the difference which it likely won't.

 

[ManUtd1999]

Good post but to much math and economic trends for a trump supporter to take on board when Hillary is to blame for everything. Trump sycophants dont deserve an inch when they are so blind to shit that went on yesterday, last week, last year or the last 40 years.

When it comes to Trump's supporters-- it is what it is. We can't do much with that. We can, however, do a better job among Trump voters who are not strong supporters of his. And we have to do a better job in bringing democrats to vote in 2018 and in 2020. Not voting was our problem in 3 of the last 4 election cycles.

 

[Raoul]

They absolutely can and should campaign against the impact his policies have had (or not had) on inflation and wages. There's still plenty to talk about in terms of impact that people are seeing in their day to day lives, especially people that are seeing their healthcare costs rising and don't have growing 401k's. Speak to those people, offer realistic solutions rather than strong-man empty promises and you absolutely can challenge the bogus idea that Trump is helping the economy for all Americans.

Its just very difficult to make a believable case to the public that Dems can do a better job when the economy, markets, and employment are at all time highs. Healthcare on the other hand, is definitely a winning issue for the Dems. More importantly, they need a grand vision of where they are taking all of the important policies.

 

[Raoul]

Yes, it's 2% this year, but that's hardly something to celebrate.

In the end, when we look at the first two years of the Trump presidency, there won't be anything unusual. Honestly, so far, I don't see anything special about the economy under Trump. There was a good trend and it continued. We will know better once the GDP numbers for the second quarters are announced. The first quarter's GDP growth rate was 2.2%. Again, nothing unusual. In fact, the first quarter of 2017 was better.

Here are GDP growth and net job creation over the past 5-6 years. No real differences.


GDP growth rate:

Net job creation:

Well yes there's nothing special about what Trump is doing other than deregulating, a bit of repatriating, and generally shifting the construct towards 3% growth. That may not happen each quarter but the way things are going, the Dems don't have a valid case to make that the economy and markets aren't doing well....just as Trump and GOP didn't have the same case to make 2 years ago when Obama's economy was doing well.

 

[ChaddyP]

Thing is, there isn’t any route to Korean peace that wouldn’t be big gamble. So any progress that doesn’t involve war, even considering history of deception on either side, should at least be welcomed.

i agree but lets not forget a massive show of faith was given to the Koreans in the past with the aid coming in for a starving nation and they shit all over it and went back on the agreement. Similarly the aid couldnt exactly be taken back. The irony that they are starving because of the weapons program the regime is funding and the US gives them aid and ask to stop the weapons testing to which they take the aid, continue to starve the people and continue the weapons programme that is only there to help the dictatorship not be toppled over like in Libya.

Yes there should be a gamble but giving so much without getting anything of real substance other than a promise that they wont be bad again is striking to me. All this has done is given North Korea a nice photo opp to use as more propaganda , given China more freedom in the south china sea , blind sided south korea , and made the USA legitamise a dictator without much to show for it.

Who knows Kim might have an epiphany and decide he will hand over his nuclear weapons and missile systems and allowing international inspectors to check that the regime is keeping its word while not asking for the Nuclear umbrella that currently covers Japan and South Korea to be dismantled. Who knows he may just throw away years of blood, sweat ,tears, lives and starvation used to gather his weapons all on the whim of the word of one president to "protect him" of which cant change what will happen if another president comes in like what has happened to Iran. Maybe Kim just decide to have fancy starbucks and trump hotels popping up in north korea while still somehow managing to keep the citizens under and umbrella of disinformation and lack of free thought.

Peace is nice but its comlpicated

 

[Florida Man]

They absolutely can and should campaign against the impact his policies have had (or not had) on inflation and wages. There's still plenty to talk about in terms of impact that people are seeing in their day to day lives, especially people that are seeing their healthcare costs rising and don't have growing 401k's. Speak to those people, offer realistic solutions rather than strong-man empty promises and you absolutely can challenge the bogus idea that Trump is helping the economy for all Americans.

The change in how insurers charge those with pre-existing medical comditions would be a good thing to campaign on too.

 

[ChaddyP]

well navaro probably has to resign now after appologising for his outlandish remarks

appologies in this administration just dont cut it

 

[Fearless]

You still don't understand.

I have literally zero faith in Trump's intentions regarding this summit. This utter lack of faith does not stem from some sort of irrational hatred of people with orange hair and tiny hands. I judge Trump solely on his own words and actions. I explained in a later post why I think Trump meeting with Kim is a bad thing.

Saying I hope Kim jumps over the table and stabs Trump in the face has nothing to do with me wanting world peace to fail, it has to do with me being positive that world peace will never be on the table (it won't ever be full stop, but whatever) with a megalomaniac fecknugget like Trump at the table. He can't even unite his own country, let alone the Korean Peninsula. I want Kim to stab Trump in the face not in the capacity of president, but in the capacity of lying, two face, rapist thundercnut.

If you'd wanted Trump to stab Kim in the face for being a proven genocidal tyrant I'd have more respect for you. But then you'd call Trump a warmonger and it's better to jaw jaw and all that hypocritical horse shit.

 

[Raoul]

well navaro probably has to resign now after appologising for his outlandish remarks

appologies in this administration just dont cut it

Last person to apologize (iirc) was Raj Shah, for which Trump apparently scolded him behind the scenes after.

 

[Florida Man]

i agree but lets not forget a massive show of faith was given to the Koreans in the past with the aid coming in for a starving nation and they shit all over it and went back on the agreement. Similarly the aid couldnt exactly be taken back. The irony that they are starving because of the weapons program the regime is funding and the US gives them aid and ask to stop the weapons testing to which they take the aid, continue to starve the people and continue the weapons programme that is only there to help the dictatorship not be toppled over like in Libya.

Yes there should be a gamble but giving so much without getting anything of real substance other than a promise that they wont be bad again is striking to me. All this has done is given North Korea a nice photo opp to use as more propaganda , given China more freedom in the south china sea , blind sided south korea , and made the USA legitamise a dictator without much to show for it.

Who knows Kim might have an epiphany and decide he will hand over his nuclear weapons and missile systems and allowing international inspectors to check that the regime is keeping its word while not asking for the Nuclear umbrella that currently covers Japan and South Korea to be dismantled. Who knows he may just throw away years of blood, sweat ,tears, lives and starvation used to gather his weapons all on the whim of the word of one president to "protect him" of which cant change what will happen if another president comes in like what has happened to Iran. Maybe Kim just decide to have fancy starbucks and trump hotels popping up in north korea while still somehow managing to keep the citizens under and umbrella of disinformation and lack of free thought.

Peace is nice but its comlpicated

Nothing you said that I don’t disagree with. I’d still argue that there is more postive than negative from this summit as it currently stands. Of course that can all change and end up like it did before. In that case, the worst that comes out of that is Trump being made to look foolish, which is what most of the world thinks of him anyway. In other words, not much difference.

On the other hand, taking a hawakish gamble that involves military action not only could make Trump look foolish, but have an incredibly bad knock on effect for the region and the US. As if we need another fecking conflict to deal with.

 

[KirkDuyt]

If you'd wanted Trump to stab Kim in the face for being a proven genocidal tyrant I'd have more respect for you. But then you'd call Trump a warmonger and it's better to jaw jaw and all that hypocritical horse shit.

Fair point, how about they both stab eachother and we’ll call it even.

Also if you were a superhero you’d be assumption man. Do they teach you this shit at alt-right cnut debate school or something? You all do it

Also Also Trump cant stab people, his bonespurs would flare up.

 

[Abizzz]

How can Trump and his supporters simultaneously champion the economy and be cry babies about trade and economic relations? How can they champion the economy when all they ever do is complain about the economy?

The fact some are trying to sell this Kim meeting as anything other than one vain wannabe dictator meeting on vain murderous dictator is telling. Nothing was achieved, America sold their allies (once again under Trump) for nothing in return. Seriously what percentage of Trumpites is on them happy pills?

 

[Florida Man]

How can Trump and his supporters simultaneously champion the economy and be cry babies about trade and economic relations? How can they champion the economy when all they ever do is complain about the economy?

The fact some are trying to sell this Kim meeting as anything other than one vain wannabe dictator meeting on vain murderous dictator is telling. Nothing was achieved, America sold their allies (once again under Trump) for nothing in return. Seriously what percentage of Trumpites is on them happy pills?

Where are they complaining about the economy?

 

[Florida Man]

Also Also Trump cant stab people, his bonespurs would flare up.

He’d have to bring the Mooch back onto the team to do that.