[cherdano]

LOL little drews really has no idea what to say about North Korea.

[cherdano]

One way to decrease border crsssings (legal or illegal) would be to make the US a hostile place in which foreigners to not feel welcome, or even physically safe. Would that be a good thing?

Or you could make sure that while the economy is growing, the profits are raked in by corporations, leaving very little for workers (immigrants or US natives). Would that be a good thing?

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-November-10, 18:57, said:

Since Trump was elected President, illegal border crossings have decreased by 40%. https://www.usatoday...wn-40/98935926/

Is this bad?

Not bad, just wrong. That link is from March. Take a look at the numbers in the months since. The YTD comparison with 2016 shows a 19% reduction with the trend clearly moving upwards. The comparison with Trump's first full month in office (Feb17) shows a 19% increase. But you know this because we have told you before - there was a rush to cross the border before the election at the end of 2016 followed by a lull, which is slowly returning back to normal. All DT has succeeded in doing is persuading those wanting to cross the border to do so a few months earlier than they might have done. The statistics do not support the idea that there is a long-term effect beyond that that was known during Obama's presidency.

Moreover, "illegal border crossings" refers only to a part of the Mexican border, which in turn is only a small part of illegal immigration in total. As has already been pointed out to you, the number of illegal immigrants in the US as a whole is stable and shows no reduction. It is another example of using cherry-picked data to claim a success that sounds good on first hearing but does not address any real issues or have any meaning in a wider context. Kind of like my executing a double guard squeeze but giving up 2 tricks in order to reach the correct position, then telling everyone what a great declarer I am for executing such a rare technique.

[hrothgar]

So, getting back to the actual topic at hand...

> What if North Korea is forcibly de-nuclearized but a half million people in South Korea die.
> Is this success or failure?

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-November-10, 18:51, said:

Since Trump was elected President unemployment has dropped to a 17 year low. http://money.cnn.com...port/index.html

Is this bad?

It's not bad, but it is very misleading.

The Unemployment Rate was at 7.6% when Obama receiving a stinking pile of $hit economy from President Bush in 2009. When Obama left in January 2017 the unemployment rate was 4.7%.

It is now 4.1% which is technically a 17-year low. So are you suggesting Trump deserves credit for lowering the needle for 0.6% in less than a year?

You can't spout a statistic and ask is this good or bad without providing the proper data point sets over time. We must be intellectually honest here.

There is a reason the unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% to 4.7% under Obama and from 4.7% to 4.1% under Trump but you have to be very careful about how you attribute these changes in labor rate participation to Presidential leadership.



Sources:
http://infographic.s...ment_rate_n.jpg
https://www.bls.gov/...b/wk2/art02.htm

You intended to make Trump look like a savvy business man because of our low unemployment rate, but he inherited a sizeable portion of this 17-year low from an Obama Presidency.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-11, 05:45, said:

You intended to make Trump look like a savvy business man because of our low unemployment rate, but he inherited a sizeable portion of this 17-year low from an Obama Presidency.

Aka, cherry-picked data not addressing any real issue. This is what any thinking person can take away from this administration on pretty much any subject. North Korea is another good example - calling Kim names surely plays well to the uneducated but does it address the issue in any way? Clearly not. Aside from classic (and obviously empty) sabre-rattling, I cannot see any way in which anyone could suggest that the Trump administration is addressing the issue beyond that of Obama's.

America has been talking to China about NK for a very long time. Military intervention has essentially been ruled out by the Comamnders throughout the time for the reasons already outlined by hrothgar. Outside of going against that advice and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, what else is the CiC putting forward as a practical solution that is new? Simple truth: the full military option is not going to happen - Kim and Xi both know this and probably laugh about it every time DT suggests is as a serious option.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnnn cherry-picked data, short-term trends due to other causes....now where have I heard that before????? Still, on a geological scale, the broken Trump clock has been right at least once and the juxtaposition of NK as the lowest carbon footprint nation should be the stuff that climate change fanatic dreams are made of.

How about Seal Team 6? (Another Obama-era solution.)

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-November-10, 18:46, said:

If a carnival barker is elected President, pray tell, what is the difference?

Quote

Captivating quote from The American President

Lewis: People want leadership. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership, Mr. President. They’re so thirsty for it, they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.

Sheperd: Lewis, we’ve had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty, Lewis. They drink it because they don’t know the difference.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE....

Idrews, we need you to drink a little less sand.

Source: https://m.youtube.co...h?v=HKTqS4bXugg

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 04:21, said:

Moreover, a number of Trump's appointments to lower courts are grossly unfit for office.

And don't forget about all the other federal appointments Trump still hasn't made.

[barmar]

So as we're seeing, many of Trump's "accomplishments" are simply NOT screwing up things that were already in progress. The economy was growing under Obama, and it still is under Trump; unemployment was trending down, and that continues.

Considering what an idiot it is, and how worried many of us were about what he might do to our country, I suppose it's something to celebrate. But it still doesn't make him a good President.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-11, 06:17, said:

Aka, cherry-picked data not addressing any real issue. This is what any thinking person can take away from this administration on pretty much any subject. North Korea is another good example - calling Kim names surely plays well to the uneducated but does it address the issue in any way? Clearly not. Aside from classic (and obviously empty) sabre-rattling, I cannot see any way in which anyone could suggest that the Trump administration is addressing the issue beyond that of Obama's.

America has been talking to China about NK for a very long time. Military intervention has essentially been ruled out by the Comamnders throughout the time for the reasons already outlined by hrothgar. Outside of going against that advice and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, what else is the CiC putting forward as a practical solution that is new? Simple truth: the full military option is not going to happen - Kim and Xi both know this and probably laugh about it every time DT suggests is as a serious option.

Agreed. Well stated.

Here were earlier posts that completely support your assertions (though one refers to Iraq, same principles apply).

PassedOut, on 2016-February-09, 14:33, said:

Okay. If a successful US foreign policy means nothing bad happening around the world, you are right. But I don't see it that way.

Obama has resisted the droolers who are constantly calling for more US "boots on the ground." He has stopped the US from engaging in torture. He has insisted that the rules of engagement for the conflicts he inherited be structured to try to reduce civilian casualties.

I recognize that there's lots of support for the notion that we should bomb the hell out of people until they start to like us: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

Certainly Obama is not perfect, and we're never going to get a perfect leader. But I like that Obama does not subscribe to the idea that, "Real men don't think things through." Conservative David Brooks put it this way:

The goal of the US cannot be to fix everything wrong in the world, and especially not by blowing stuff up. Yes, we do need to defend ourselves, particularly since we've already gone out of our way to enrage so many folks by blowing stuff up.

But our policy goal must be to avoid making things worse, and to join with other countries to fix what we can. And, beyond that, to work on becoming the best country that we can be.

RedSpawn, on 2017-September-29, 07:48, said:

AMEN!

We have our noses all up in the Asia-Pacific Rim and are wagging our finger in a sanctimonious manner to China to tell them to handle this situation or we will.

We can't be the global police in every foreign policy matter. We have to allow China to make its own call in this region without considering our nuclear arsenal as a viable solution to a rogue state.

As a country, we need to put the cowboy diplomacy away (ka-pow, ka-pow, ka-boom, ka-boom) and follow China's lead instead of dictating the endgame in the region. The nuclear option is not even an option. It is a highway exit with no return access or a dead end street with no "U" turns allowed.

China has responded to this melodrama in a coolheaded and patient way. They have even snickered at our immature Rocket Man characterization of King Jong Un. Cool heads will prevail. Someone needs to remind our snake oil salesman of this adage.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 04:21, said:

So, about all those issues with North Korea that you are ignoring...

I don't much care for Gorsuch's politics. However, part of a president's responsibility is to appoint Supreme Court justices.
I don't consider Gorsuch a completely inappropriate selection. (Please note: I am in no way a fan of originalism)

With this said and done, the seat that Gorsuch was appointed to was stolen, so it is VERY doubtful that you will ever find anyone on the left to speak of this action in approving terms.

Moreover, a number of Trump's appointments to lower courts are grossly unfit for office.

Which issues on North Korea am I ignoring. I have already made several posts regarding North Korea. Can you read?

Given North Korea's record of not keeping its agreements regarding stopping nuclear weapon development, what would you suggest that the rest of the world do to handle the situation?

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 08:46, said:

Which issues on North Korea am I ignoring. I have already made several posts regarding North Korea. Can you read?

Given North Korea's record of not keeping its agreements regarding stopping nuclear weapon development, what would you suggest that the rest of the world do to handle the situation?

You have not answered the following question:

How many lives can be taken in a military US nuclear intervention of North Korea that topples the evil regime and meets your foreign policy success standard?

I know you think this is a loaded question, but it's not. War and cowboy diplomacy is never free; there is always a heavy price to pay.

DEBT
DISEASE
DEATH
DISABILITY
DESTRUCTION

will always result.

Innocent human lives are at stake. Thus, if you suggest we should potentially drop the bomb on North Korea to eliminate the nuclear hijacking threat NK poses, what is the maximum tolerable casualty rate you will accept to get rid of the NK "problem" and deem this foreign policy strategy a success?

Oh yeah, these are the dirty and weighty policy questions Trump and the military industrial complex will not ask of you in their public messaging. They will call the innocent people who died over there "collateral damage" of war theater.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 08:46, said:

Which issues on North Korea am I ignoring. I have already made several posts regarding North Korea. Can you read?

Lets try this for the fourth time...

> What if North Korea is forcibly de-nuclearized but a half million people in South Korea die.
> Is this success or failure?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 08:46, said:

Given North Korea's record of not keeping its agreements regarding stopping nuclear weapon development, what would you suggest that the rest of the world do to handle the situation?

Drews, do you spend any time actually reading what other people write?

This is the second time that you have said that I haven't posted anything on this subject.

In fact, I made a post yesterday timestamped 13:16 well before your first petulant little whine
I'll repost it for your convenience...

BTW, you might consider that make gross and obvious errors of this sort is precisely the reason why everyone else on this thread is treating you like you're an idiot.

Quote

FWIW, few quick thoughts of my own regarding the situation in North Korea.

First and foremost, I categorically reject any thought that the United States should take military action against North Korea.

Back in 2003, the United States launched a preemptive attack against Iraq under the pretense that the Iraqi government was building weapons of mass destruction.

1. The US government got it wrong. The Bush administration misrepresented evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction.
2. US military actions lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilized the Middle East to this day

There have been a lot of consequences of this action.

We wasted trillions of dollars
We killed hundreds of thousands of people
And, last but not least, we destroyed our credibility wen it comes to claiming that we "need" to take preemptive military action

Assume for the moment that we attack North Korea and this leads the North Korean regime to annihilate Seoul, killing somewhere between a quarter and half million people.
Even though it was the North Koreans who launched the artillery shells, the US will be blamed because this is a highly likely outcome of our cowboy diplomacy.

The US maybe a hyper power, but we can not survive the fallout of killing this many innocent people yet again because we're "afraid".

From my own perspective, the best outcome to this situation would be a set of trilateral talks between the United States, China, and South Korea trying to come to an accommodation regarding what the Korean peninsula would look after the collapse of the North Korean regime. I don't know what this would look like... Would there be one Korea or two? Would the US maintain any kind of military presence in South Korea? There's a LOT of stuff to be worked out here.

However, once folks have reached an agreement on this front, we might be able to get the Chinese to actually take necessary actions to move things into a good direction.

These are the sorts of actions that we need.

Not stupid statements about "Little Rocket man"
Not begging / pleading for the Chinese to do something without setting up the preconditions for success
Not threats that we're going to nuke the North Koreans
Not undercutting the State Department

Oh yeah, actually appointing an ambassador to South Korea might be a good idea.

[Winstonm]

I see that Vladimir Putin's denials of election meddling are again being supported by Trump while he disparages the ex-heads of 3 U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI as "political hacks", as if name-calling about the heads will somehow magically transform to a fairy tale the results of the agencies' non-political-hack staffers.

Personally, I prefer a president who is on our side.

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-11, 09:04, said:

You have not answered the following question:

How many lives can be taken in a military US nuclear intervention of North Korea that topples the evil regime and meets your foreign policy success standard?

I know you think this is a loaded question, but it's not. War and cowboy diplomacy is never free; there is always a heavy price to pay.

DEBT
DISEASE
DEATH
DISABILITY
DESTRUCTION

will always result.

Innocent human lives are at stake. Thus, if you suggest we should potentially drop the bomb on North Korea to eliminate the nuclear hijacking threat NK poses, what is the maximum tolerable casualty rate you will accept to get rid of the NK "problem" and deem this foreign policy strategy a success?

Oh yeah, these are the dirty and weighty policy questions Trump and the military industrial complex will not ask of you in their public messaging. They will call the innocent people who died over there "collateral damage" of war theater.

That is a loaded question. First, my foreign policy success standard in the case of North Korea is to achieve a peaceful resolution. You are the one who seems intent on war and loss of life. Why is that?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 09:19, said:

Lets try this for the fourth time...

> What if North Korea is forcibly de-nuclearized but a half million people in South Korea die.
> Is this success or failure?

I would consider that a failure. Now lets look at the other side of the equation. What if North Korea successfully nuclearizes and then subsequently kills millions of people. Is this success or failure?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 09:25, said:

Drews, do you spend any time actually reading what other people write?

This is the second time that you have said that I haven't posted anything on this subject.

In fact, I made a post yesterday timestamped 13:16 well before your first petulant little whine
I'll repost it for your convenience...

BTW, you might consider that make gross and obvious errors of this sort is precisely the reason why everyone else on this thread is treating you like you're an idiot.

hrothgar you are right. I either forgot or missed your post.

I disagree with your primary point. Military action is always an option, perhaps not a good one, but sometimes a necessary one. Otherwise we just submit to nuclear blackmail. Is this what you are advocating?

Your analogy to Iraq is misleading. There is no doubt that North Korea has nuclear capability and will soon have the ability to deliver it internationally. Do you dispute this?

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-11, 10:50, said:

I see that Vladimir Putin's denials of election meddling are again being supported by Trump while he disparages the ex-heads of 3 U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI as "political hacks", as if name-calling about the heads will somehow magically transform to a fairy tale the results of the agencies' non-political-hack staffers.

Personally, I prefer a president who is on our side.

If you think the US intelligence agencies tell the truth you are far more gullible than I thought.