Hope the President does a good job for USA

[Calliecake]

Red, I know she felt bad. She called me immediately afterward and said was unable to delete the whole post because Kenny had quoted the post. You both were banned. It's over.

 

[arkieb1]

ark
Sadly, There are no easy solutions with N.K...What would you suggest to the world leaders ?

I disagree I think the sanctions are hurting them particularly the pressure we are all putting on China to withdraw things like food, fuel and cheap Chinese workers going into North Korea.

You have been conducting wargames along with Australia and South Korea in my part of the world for the past couple of months, the US in the last few weeks could have stopped doing mock war scenarios, and making North Korea think they could possibly be invaded, and actually engaged in talks with North Korea to de-escalate the situation. I'm sorry but I do not believe going to war is going to be a good outcome or that it is the only solution.

And if you think that it's just going to be as simple as the US and it's allies and North Korea going at it, you are kidding yourself. If North Korea targets and fires first then a US response will be warranted and most of the world will agree, but if Trump acts first, it is highly likely that places like Russia and China would then side with North Korea.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I disagree I think the sanctions are hurting them particularly the pressure we are all putting on China to withdraw things like food, fuel and cheap Chinese workers going into North Korea.

Stop fooling yourself. China and Russia is not gonna do much on sanctioning N.K., and Trump will not the first shot.

 

[Bonfire]

@arkieb1 N. Korea doesn't negotiate, not with the U.S. They do not hold a seat on The United Nations Security board. The U.S. never strikes preemptively. And China has held back in getting involved in sanctioning N.K. They have nothing to gain from it.

 

[redwood66]

@arkieb1 N. Korea doesn't negotiate, not with the U.S. They do not hold a seat on The United Nations Security board. The U.S. never strikes preemptively. And China has held back in getting involved in sanctioning N.K. They have nothing to gain from it.

I agree with this but there is also $1 trillion going between China and the US in trade goods. They buy over a trillion and much of that is food from our farmers and ranchers. With 1.35 billion people you would think it would behoove them to put a better damper on NK.

 

[Bonfire]

Yes, and China is North Korea's biggest trade partner. Main food and energy source.
China doesn't want a regime collapse and have an influx of refugees.The recent nuclear missile launches have put a strain on China's support, and up to now have opposed harsh sanctions. China'a actions are what would have the most impact.

 

[redwood66]

Yes, and China is North Korea's biggest trade partner. Main food and energy source.
China doesn't want a regime collapse and have an influx of refugees.The recent nuclear missile launches have put a strain on China's support, and up to now have opposed harsh sanctions. China'a actions are what would have the most impact.

Yes it would. Perhaps it will work that they are being called to actually be helpful because nothing else seems to have worked over the past 3 presidents.

 

[arkieb1]

Stop fooling yourself. China and Russia is not gonna do much on sanctioning N.K., and Trump will not the first shot.

We will see, I'm not so sure that Trump won't fire the first shot, it depends how N. Korea provokes him.

 

[t-c]

I find it interesting that we mention putting pressure on China to put pressure on North Korea as if that's a concept only discovered by this administration. Previous administrations have long known this and I'm sure made use of it. The only difference is that they have not conducted their negotiations over Twitter and have not publicly threatened sanctions/trade war on China that they know they can't follow through.

China may be importing a lot from the US, but remember that they run a trade surplus against us, which means we import more from them. We will hurt just as badly (if not more so) if we get into a trade war with China. There are a lot of businesses and people that rely on Chinese goods. And considering that Trump is set to remove us from all multilateral trade alliances (TPP - done, NAFTA, trans-Atlantic) we won't be in any position to negotiate good bilateral trade deals if we have closed off one giant market.

 

[Bonfire]

No one is saying sanctions started with Trump or that pressure on China started with Trump. Problem is, past administrations *both sides* have pretty much scratched their heads over what to do about N. Korea. Now that Un has figured out how to attach a nuclear war head to a long range missile and is testing it brings a heightened urgency to pressuring China to step in. Obama tightened sanctions. Didn't make a difference apparently. China can make a difference if they can be persuaded to take on sanctioning N.K.

 

[t-c]

No one is saying sanctions started with Trump or that pressure on China started with Trump. Problem is, past administrations *both sides* have pretty much scratched their heads over what to do about N. Korea. Now that Un has figured out how to attach a nuclear war head to a long range missile and is testing it brings a heightened urgency to pressuring China to step in. Obama tightened sanctions. Didn't make a difference apparently. China can make a difference if they can be persuaded to take on sanctioning N.K.

The North Korean's leader's family name is Kim; his given name is Jong-un.

Of course China can make a difference if they can be persuaded to impose sanctions on North Korea -- my point is that other administrations have tried persuading China to do so. Perhaps the fact that North Korea is so close to having nuclear missiles will be impetus for China, but the fact is they have other priorities that are not necessarily aligned with those of the US.

China has imposed sanctions on North Korea, but they will not impose enough sanctions to collapse the North Korean regime...it simply isn't in China's interest. Unfortunately Kim Jong-un would likely choose to starve his people rather than give up (developing) his nuclear weapons, because he sees it as his only defense against what they see as US aggression (this is how our actions against Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein has come to bite us in the butt).

 

[Bonfire]

Basically sounds as if we are arguing the same things t-c.

 

[Bonfire]

Russia also has joined in with sanctions against N.K. Previously they had been supplying food, oil and medicine. Humanitarian aid. Now the Central Bank of Russia has ordered all banks to halt all financial dealings with N.Korean organizations on the UN sanctions list. This in response to penalize for it's nuclear testing and to curb it's weapons of mass destruction program. Way back in '94 during the first NK nuclear crisis, Russia proposed the eight party talks. Included were, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, the U.S., China, Japan, the IAEA and the UN Secretary General. A lot of history to get where we are today obviously. The situation has evolved. I agree Trumps mouthing off is not helping a serious and complicated situation.

 

[Tekate]

I have posted many pointers for him to read, he doesn't or he would not worship Reagan. I hate the tax on SS (as I am on it now )

This was something called a false boom. We are still paying the price for reaganomics today.

You really should brush up on your history DF!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I have posted many pointers for him to read, he doesn't or he would not worship Reagan. I hate the tax on SS (as I am on it now )

Our economy was booming under Reagan wish I can say the same about Obama.

 

[Calliecake]

Are you kidding @Dancing Fire? How quickly you forget what occurred during the Bush Administration.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Are you kidding @Dancing Fire? How quickly you forget what occurred during the Bush Administration.

True, Our economy goes in cycles no matter which party is in power. However, Obama is the only post war Prez. who didn't see a 3% growth during his 2 term as Prez.

 

[Tekate]

Really? Obama inherited the worst recession since 1929 (and some economists say worse than).. brought the economy back and we thrived. You need to read.

Our economy was booming under Reagan wish I can say the same about Obama.

 

[t-c]

A recession worse than anything since the Great Depression and it's excused as "our economy goes in cycles". Obama shepherds the economy from near collapse and he's criticised for not growing the economy fast enough. @Dancing Fire for your shameless bias and resistance to facts; you seem to be modeling yourself on the current president.

 

[AGBF]

Thank you so much Tekate and t-c. Sometimes I think I am permanently stuck Through The Looking Glass. My husband worked on the TARP program for Neel Kashkari (which I have said here before, so pardon me for the repetition). That was "The Troubled Asset Relief Program", the program to bail out the big banks. Although he does not work for Treasury, he was temporarily assigned to The Treasury Department of George W. Bush because Treasury does not have bankers (which is his profession). The banks were a complete mess in 2008. I remember him saying that the value of our home had plummeted and would never recover. We had bought it at top dollar in 2004. Sometimes I think I am the only person who remembers how frightening this period was!

AGBF

 

[Dancing Fire]

Really? Obama inherited the worst recession since 1929 (and some economists say worse than).. brought the economy back and we thrived. You need to read.

I'm not judging him on his first 6 yrs. it was his last 2 yrs.... Obama care killed the economy.

 

[Dancing Fire]

A recession worse than anything since the Great Depression and it's excused as "our economy goes in cycles". Obama shepherds the economy from near collapse and he's criticised for not growing the economy fast enough. @Dancing Fire for your shameless bias and resistance to facts; you seem to be modeling yourself on the current president.

I'll comment after his first 4 yrs. Good or bad.

 

[t-c]

I'll comment after his first 4 yrs. Good or bad.

It's not like his character will change for the better in 4 years. In fact, it's likely to get worse.

 

[Tekate]

Obamacare killed the economy? Based on what? if you say this stuff, please post places that aren't far right or far left concurring with this.

here's Bloomberg, whom I consider republican oriented.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-19/ranking-the-obama-economy

By these measures, the economy strengthened the most between 1993 and 2000, when President Bill Clinton was in office, followed by the Obama years, 2009-2016. So whatever you think of Obama’s policy choices, the U.S. economy did better while he was in the White House than it did under all but one of his five most recent predecessors.

and:

The election of Reagan in 1980 was followed by the worst recession between World War II and the 2008 financial crisis. A spectacular rebound helped make the 40th president’s economy improve third-fastest of the period under review. It had the biggest annual increase in per capita disposable income and the strongest bond-market performance as measured by the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Total Return Value Unhedged USD Index. The Reagan economy tied Carter’s with the second-biggest average yearly increases in GDP. But the 1987 crash undermined the global performance of the stock market, which did worse than in any presidency after 1976.

A little reading goes a LONG way in understanding the past.

I'm not judging him on his first 6 yrs. it was his last 2 yrs.... Obama care killed the economy.

 

[House Cat]

Our economy was booming under Reagan wish I can say the same about Obama.

Ok, you literally repeat the same phrases over and over again.

You know nothing of our history. That's ok. In your eyes, Reagan is Jesus. Probably because your personal bank account was fat. Never mind that people were literally starving, smoking crack like fiends with the cocaine provided by his adminstration and shooting one another with weapons also provided by his administration.

And, once again, that booming economy that you remember so fondly, is what is hurting us now..it was propped up on the backs of future generations.

I wouldn't expect you to understand because Reagan is your party's only darling. All of the rest of your recent presidents are complete failures. The sad news is that Reagan is too..maybe the worst. He ran one of the most corrupt administrations of all time and his economy was built on smoke and mirrors. Don't worry though, we're all coming around and kind of liking GW in a cute, we miss him dearly...now that Trump is in office...sort of way.

 

[ksinger]

Guys, guys. Give it a rest. DF may be a long time member of this forum, but he's still a troll when it comes to politics or culture. He's been doing this for freakin' EVER. When things get slow, he starts trying to get a reaction, and there's generally someone who'll bite. He loves it. He's about as predictable as the sun rising and setting. In my nearly 10 years here, he's never supported his bumper sticker analyses of politics, and I can pretty much guarantee he's never read a real history book, you know, one with depth and nuance, one that isn't written as a long stream-of-consciousness collection of bumper stickers.

Write your responses for yourselves or because you want others to read them, but you might want to just quit trying to make him "see" anything, because, ain't gonna happen. You will type many keystrokes, write well, and support your assertions with numbers, or examples, or history, and he will not discuss by showing you how you're wrong and supporting his assertions with anything he's read, he'll respond by deflecting with another bumper sticker, or one sentence about how he believes what he believes because he believes it.

Remember, facts mean nothing, and historical reality means nothing. We are in post-reality America and you're going to bash yourselves bloody on that insensate wall unless you pace yourselves. HE is so not worth it.

 

[minousbijoux]

Guys, guys. Give it a rest. DF may be a long time member of this forum, but he's still a troll when it comes to politics or culture. He's been doing this for freakin' EVER. When things get slow, he starts trying to get a reaction, and there's generally someone who'll bite. He loves it. He's about as predictable as the sun rising and setting. In my nearly 10 years here, he's never supported his bumper sticker analyses of politics, and I can pretty much guarantee he's never read a real history book, you know, one with depth and nuance, one that isn't written as a long stream-of-consciousness collection of bumper stickers.

Write your responses for yourselves or because you want others to read them, but you might want to just quit trying to make him "see" anything, because, ain't gonna happen. You will type many keystrokes, write well, and support your assertions with numbers, or examples, or history, and he will not discuss by showing you how you're wrong and supporting his assertions with anything he's read, he'll respond by deflecting with another bumper sticker, or one sentence about how he believes what he believes because he believes it.

Remember, facts mean nothing, and historical reality means nothing. We are in post-reality America and you're going to bash yourselves bloody on that insensate wall unless you pace yourselves. HE is so not worth it.

Well said!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Remember, facts mean nothing, and historical reality means nothing. We are in post-reality America and you're going to bash yourselves bloody on that insensate wall unless you pace yourselves. HE is so not worth it.

Yup, you are right ...nothing is worth posting unless we agree with the left wingers here...

 

[AGBF]

Guys, guys. Give it a rest. DF may be a long time member of this forum, but he's still a troll when it comes to politics or culture. He's been doing this for freakin' EVER. When things get slow, he starts trying to get a reaction, and there's generally someone who'll bite. He loves it. He's about as predictable as the sun rising and setting. In my nearly 10 years here, he's never supported his bumper sticker analyses of politics, and I can pretty much guarantee he's never read a real history book, you know, one with depth and nuance, one that isn't written as a long stream-of-consciousness collection of bumper stickers.

Write your responses for yourselves or because you want others to read them, but you might want to just quit trying to make him "see" anything, because, ain't gonna happen. You will type many keystrokes, write well, and support your assertions with numbers, or examples, or history, and he will not discuss by showing you how you're wrong and supporting his assertions with anything he's read, he'll respond by deflecting with another bumper sticker, or one sentence about how he believes what he believes because he believes it.

Remember, facts mean nothing, and historical reality means nothing. We are in post-reality America and you're going to bash yourselves bloody on that insensate wall unless you pace yourselves. HE is so not worth it.

An excellent summary of the situation, k. I may have discussed issues with ruby, but at least I have always had the sense not to discuss them with Dancing Fire. There is a time for hope and a time to resign oneself to the inevitable. Attempting to persuade Dancing Fire to consider any historical argument is futile so one must choose the latter course when dealing with him.

Deb

 

[Dancing Fire]

I wouldn't expect you to understand because Reagan is your party's only darling. All of the rest of your recent presidents are complete failures. The sad news is that Reagan is too..maybe the worst.

Nahhh, Carter and Obama is fighting over each other for the title of "worst post war Prez". Maybe we can bring Carter back if you prefer high inflation or Obama if you prefer a slow growth economy. Sadly the Dem. party have had change for the worse . What happened to the Kennedy Dems. of the 60's?