I'm not comparing the desirability of the US vs Angola. I am saying Angolan's and other pop. from non-first world should be taken into account when identifying most desirable countries that people want to migrate to.

When you factor in the whole world and look at the links I listed, it indicates the US is the most desired country (by far) that people want to immigrate to.

If the other countries you listed are that great, why isn't the world-in-aggregate emigrating to those places? Sure they beat the US in areas, but with "warts and all" its still the place (or perceived) to be.


I agree that gerrymandering is a problem.

You are in favor of the "Alternative Vote" system?

do you have a link for this?

White House announces Trump and Kim will have a bilateral meeting and working lunch tomorrow after their one-on-one tomorrow. Then Trump will have a press conference and depart Singapore at 8 p.m. No second day of meetings. pic.twitter.com/CwkJO30x86

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 11, 2018

thanks, wasn't finding. So basically a one-day summit and all of Korea's problems will be solved? He's such a negotiator.

How can you decide to cut this short before even exchanging one word ? And after communicating that you want to have little fixed program and give all the time in the world for actual conversation just yesterday ...

Maybe the hotel didn't have FOX.

It really is as easy as this in this case. The US has had amazing PR for a long time via a variety of media, reaching the furthest corners of the earth. People in most places don't know enough about most other countries to even entertain the though of moving there. Do you think before answering a simple poll like this, people get a week to review the pros and cons of all countries ?

Perception is reality sometimes.

Amazing PR? You think the world gets this image of US being all great? I think the world knows of the many flaws the US has and still wants to come and live here.

I would still like to get your top 5 countries you think are more desirable than the US?

You criticize the US alot. I think its fair to flesh out the discussion to allow me to counter your selections?

(and no, I certainly don't think that "sustainability" study answers the question)

Only one lunch is needed for a photo opp. Mission Accomplished!!

I agree with this. Hollywood has probably helped the most in how people think of the US. Most migrants don't know, for instance, that the Republic of Ireland has a higher GDP per capita (PPP) than the US.

Trump not even going to discuss human rights with North Korea at the summit.

Which he ought to, for more than just purely moral reasons:

By Law, Trump Must Discuss Human Rights with Kim | Human Rights Watch

Am I the only one that reads posters here saying this and translate that into "you're a fucking moron?" When I see this stuff, I sometimes think those posters should be punched in the face. Thank God it's just the Internet.

It appears that Trump changed his departure only after Kim decided to leave at 4 pm the first day.

Trump's going to end up at the DMZ with a boom box over his head playing Peter Gabriel.

Because i went straight there and it wasn't my 4th post basically explaining the same thing only to be told repeatedly that essentially the facts and figures are some sort of interesting, but ultimately nonconsequential cutesy opinion in the grand scheme of things that could maybe warrant a closer look if we manage to agree that they are indeed kinda sorta relevant. (not counting at least one other thread where the same user pretty much danced around similar topics with the same magnanimous tone. Not everything is varying degrees of "interesting". Some things are also true or wrong. Even in an age of alternate facts)

Not to mention it sounded a lot like the user in question suggested that discarding 3rd world countries in a comparison with the US makes the argument either not sensible or makes it an expression of thinly veiled racism and/or elitism on my/our part.

Still waiting on your 5 better countries.

I've already conceded UK, Australia and Canada as good candidates to Radii.

Denmark and Sweden easily make that list and as a bonus New Zealand.

I have some thoughts on these but I think I'll wait on his answer if you don't mind. I think he said there were plenty of countries ahead of the US.

I'll wait to see what 5 he comes up with, I'm sure he can come up with his original 5.

I find it interesting that all the places better than the US are ethnically very homogeneous. The outliers being Canada and New Zealand. Which is interesting to me as they were both English colonies.

Nike withdraws Iran World Cup squad's supply of boots due to sanctions

No shoes for you!

Yeaaah, you don't think he sees it as an obvious gotcha? Where you rip apart his 5 and then you end up into some strange argument over whether the cuisine in Luxembourg is as good as Omaha, Nebraska?

I like your sentence construction. It makes my head hurt. I think you are basically saying "I suck". Okay, I get it.

On "dancing around" I think this is the 4th or 5th time I requested your list of countries you think is more desirable than the US?

Its easy to snipe, let's check out your list? According to you, the US is nowhere close to the top so you shouldn't have problems coming up with your original 5?

Nope, I really don't think that.

He (whomario) is supposedly ripping apart my argument on the US as a pretty desirable place to live/be.

Why shouldn't I get a shot as his?

Radii listed his. I see his point, I conceded some and I countered some. I had something to react to vs just a plain old "sustainability study".

Colonies tend to be far more ethnically diverse, for obvious reasons. The "New World" and sub-Saharan Africa are far more ethnically diverse than Europe or China.

A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse countries - The Washington Post

Ironically, considering the current outcry, the US always does very well when it comes to unemployment among (legal/documented of course) immigrants due to strict criteria compared to other countries.


Better for what ? I'm not going to play the "but where do immigrants want to go or where are they most likely to (...)" game because i really don't see that leading anywhere. My original assessment was that the US isn't quite as prosperous and "free" as FOX made it out to be: which is supposedly light years ahead of anybody else with all other countries toiling in the dark ages of repression and unfair socialism or sth.

So in terms of livability/quality of life for the majority of citizens, which was always my point, i can only point to the figures already posted and then you can take your pick of the vast majority of OECD countries ranking ahead of the US, which ranks below the OECD average pretty much everywhere. And that even includes countries like Chile, Poland, Estonia or Mexico, not just other great industrial nations.

I simply don't feel i need to weed out the ideal candidates to submit into the debate given the available data. And yes, of course there are categories the US does fairly good in, even a few they are near the top. But it's undeniable that, when you consider a large spread of categories, many OECD countries statistically offer it's citizens a safer, more well maintained place to live with better health care resulting in better overall health. Also a lot of those countries invest more into renewable energy and offer better education on average for much lower costs (just because you have a few elite universities doesn't really change that fact for the majority of the population), thus setting themselves up better for the future.

https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/He...TED-STATES.pdf

United States - OECD Data

Read this as you want in between "still doing ok in categories i care about" and "still better than others and actually pretty good considering the Rest of the World" but in no way do these numbers indicate that somehow the US is the greatest place in the world to live. Which is all i ever wanted to state, simply because i find it statement that lies at the root of a lot of the issues in your country.

Which i have a great fondness for, otherwise i wouldn't bother to take part in these discussions.

I will say Ireland surprised me in the list of indicators. Higher GDP per capita (PPP) than the US and a lower Gini Coefficient (Switzerland also does the same, but that's more expected I think). I had heard Ireland got hit hard by the 2008 crisis - it appears it has rebounded quite significantly.

Your first link just refers to Health?

Your second shows US data?

I really don't want this to be nebulous. Why can't you just list your 5?

Do you really want me to pick India which is on your first link?

Well of course YOU don't, because that's what you are planning on doing! Instead of dealing with his substantive issues, you've gone into a name your 5 rut and when someone has mentioned some, you go "I have some thoughts on these"

And just to be super clear here: I never even said the US isn't a "pretty desirable place to live", especially in the grand scheme of things. The point was that it is pretty ignorant to think it is far and above every other country when there is just an abundance of facts pointing to the opposite assumption when comparing the US with places even roughly comparable in terms of development.

Then i posted an easy to digest/read overview of how the US stacks up with other developed countries in a number of important categories that allow for a pretty straight forward and factual comparison. And in none of these do they come out on top, much less in the sum of all categories. In fact they rank closer to the bottom and below average in most categories when compared with a group of countries that includes many countries that shouldn't even be close to the US.

There is no "my 5" because that isn't the bloody point and it really doesn't do the subject justice to simplify it in that way :) I won't go on and on about how one or the other can't be correct since not all 5 measure above the US in all categories. Which no 5 likely do. But which also isn't the point. Just like a 41-41 NBA team is still average even if it manages to beat the Warriors once during the season.

I think i have linked enough comparative material to show that there is a substantial number (more than 5) of countries consistently ranking considerably ahead in a substantial number of categories to be considered ahead of the US rather than light years behind.

My first link has already been posted a page ago and then twice over and it compares among a wide spread of categories.

As for my 2nd set of links: I figured health would deserve a 2nd seperate link based on the same data, feels kind of an important factor when it comes to questions of quality of live ... And the other link shows the US ranking in all categories compared to all other OECD countries. It places a single Subject within a group of Subjects within a statistical analysis. Making it much easier to navigate rather than having to pull of every category and then locate the US' place in the rankings.

yeah, same for me. Ireland has definitely come a long way in a very short time. And not just in a few categories and/or areas of life. Lots of investment in recreational avenues as well, marked progress socially and a very active younger generation in terms of political and social activity. Might even actually profit from the UK heading into the Iceberg named Brexit, at least that's what a friend of mine keeps telling me whose studying economics and specialises on the british isles :)
Similar narrative goes for Iceland. In general i think that the smaller and more "cohesive" countries have an easier time shaking off these crises due to having a lot less 'inertia' when it comes to adjusting economical policies and implementing them.

When I said one of the greatest place to be, you had some sarcasm and then said "but do you have any contemporary statistics/research to back this up?".

It does sound as if you are saying the US is not that desirable of a place to live?


Later on you continued on "facts". You provide a "sustainability study" as your facts to justify your position.

I provided facts with links that show the vast majority of the world want to immigrate to the US "warts and all". I replied to your sustainability study ...

It's only a rut because he hasn't answered the question after 5 requests?

I honestly need something solid to understand his point of view. I had a better understanding of Radii when he came up with his list. He may not agree with my counters but at least there was something to react to.

Whomario seemed to have provided "Chile, Poland, Estonia or Mexico" as countries he thinks are better than the US as more desirable? (trying to confirm)

I think Mexico/Chile is pretty far out (don't know much about Estonia) but it may just be me.

You said you didn't say the "US wasn't a desirable place to live" and I think you did (see above post).

If you don't think the US is a desirable place to live, you must think there are plenty of others.

Asking for 5 specific ones allows to level set before continuing the discussion (vs potentially a moving target re: whatabout this other country).

If you really didn't say (or mean to say) the "US wasn't a desirable place to live", then lost of wasted time today.

I get that it is frustrating to discuss something with someone who doesn't seem to be arguing the facts you are presenting or having the kind of rational discourse you're seeking. But when you go the "you really don't get..." you're using a passive aggressive form of calling him an idiot. I just think if you can't avoid going that route, you should just walk away from the discussion. It's clear at that point you two aren't going to have a meeting of the minds.

I feel like I see this sorta thing from a lot of posters here now.

You listed studies showing where people want to go, a "want" that is based on incomplete knowlegde and/or personal reasons/contact via media.

I also didn't link a sustainability study but an analysis of the categories set forth by the UN as a way to judge the development of countries on their road to sustainability. Which kinda is something one might want to be.

And thinking that preservation of the marine environment or climate action is merely cerebral and is not kinda important to the quality of live in the near future at the very least (and i am talking in a decade or two, not centuries from now), i don't even know where to start ... Let's get practical: they don't refer to dive tourism, but the fact that a ton of food comes from there. Climate action also includes a lot of measurements improving live right now, for example promote/support sustainable energy or less exhaust from cars. Both of which improves the air quality in big cities which again seems kind of a worthwhile goal.
And Obesity is a) an indicator to a flawed "system" based on a lack of information/education and b) leads to a variety of health related problems, which again the US isn't as well equipped to handle as it should be.

But if all you want to hear is that the US is 1) that many people still want to go to, is 2) a place that is better than the majority of countries where immigrants do come from and can 3) be a great place right now in the right situation ? Sure. Don't think anybody can argue against that.

But when measuring it against other developed western countries, the quality of life for the grand sum of it's citizens in terms of prosperity, education, health and safety ? It's objectively lagging behind a substantial number of them.

If you hang around with idiots for 15 years, eventually you get tired of their idiocy?

I do see your point, that's fair.

I think this is a fair statement. I don't think it invalidates the conclusion. It may be incomplete but that doesn't mean its not accurate.

Are you then saying if people had perfect information, they would pick Mexico or Chile instead of the US? Because I would dispute that and conclude something(s) is missing from your study.


This is the link you posted https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-...loped-country/

There is a link in there with the 17 categories Sustainable Development Goals .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform

It analyzes the US based on these sustainability categories. I don't understand the nuance, it seems as if it is a sustainability study that was used to compare the US to other countries.



Let's agree to disagree here. Way too cerebral and long term for what most immigrant people want for their lives. I contend you are at the top of Maslow and most are still looking at a couple rungs down.


I happy with this agreement but would update and say "most people still want to go to by far" (per my links).


I'm willing to have this discussion if you add "citizens and minorities/immigrants". I think it'll be educational for me.

Here are a couple quick questions to show my hand ...

1) Do you think immigrants or first-gen immigrants have this same level of prosperity in France or Greece?
2) How welcoming are immigrants or first-gen immigrants in Finland?
3) Are there any domestic Nordic companies that have minorities as CEO's?

My POV

The US is pretty diverse. Immigrants and minorities definitely help but honestly sometimes hurt. I am not blaming all immigrants (I am one myself) and I don't know where the balance/cut-off is.

Are some of these less diverse Nordic countries better ranked than the US because of their lack of diversity? I don't know but it would be interesting to understand if there may be a relationship.

Hence my request to factor in minorities/immigration into our analysis and not just citizens.

I really don't think you get the point of arguing on the internet.

;)

Woah. Larry Kudlow has had a heart attack and is at Walter Reed.

God bless.

I sense another clarification coming from Bill.

Norms have changed meaning previously it would be okay?

Why doesn't he just clam up.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/polit...ent/index.html

The USA and NK as equals. Why would we agree to this?

I think its a good die roll.

(just kidding)



Damn that Larry Kudlow for upstaging me on my biggest moment

He starves and kills his own people. Even if he gives up nukes, which I can't imagine he will, he's still one of the worst leaders in the world. We're putting him on equal footing with the USA.

Might be more ashamed than ever to be an American seeing deal with this dictator .

Minute is up. Wonder what he thinks?

My prediction is "Trump will say crazy kid is serious" and continue to build off this. Too much good press for him so far.

So what if he really isn't, Trump will find a way to say it wasn't his fault.

Man, I'm so old I remember when republicans were up in arms about Obama saying he would meet with leaders of Iran and NK.

So you're like 12 or something?

He has full and complete power over his people, Trump admires this and perhaps even envies it.

not altered

Hold up a minute, we’re upset that at a meeting that people were upset was not going to happen, now we’re upset it is happening. Them we are breathless because Trump was leaving early. BUT, it turns out that is alright because Kim Jong Un was leaving first. Now, we’re upset because the flags were all at the same level.

Do I have this right?

Welcome to America :lol:

He's only 70?

I wonder if the only thing that comes out of this is "this is just the first step." Then Trump and Kim plan a whole mess of future Singapore vacations.

McConnell's stalling worked. Vote went down expected ideological lines.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

Fascinating to watch coverage from the UK. It's been almost wall to wall coverage of the summit this morning, with only partial breaks for local news.

I think this is about what we expected. Lots of photo ops for Un. No real policy.

It reminds me of when Ric Flair would do the job to a local territorial guy and then win the title back a few days later. Bizarre times for sure.

This is the first time the US acknowledges what would be a huge concession to North Korea, stopping the annual military exercises that the US has long regarded as defensive and NOT provocative. Trump just went with the North Korea line and called them provocative #breaking

— Elise Hu (@elisewho) June 12, 2018

"We've done exercises for a long period of time, I call 'em war games. They're tremendously expensive ... South Korea contributes but not 100 percent ... We fly in bombers from Guam. Very expensive. And I think it's very provocative..." -Trump

— Elise Hu (@elisewho) June 12, 2018

"We've done exercises for a long period of time, I call 'em war games. They're tremendously expensive ... South Korea contributes but not 100 percent ... We fly in bombers from Guam. Very expensive. And I think it's very provocative..." -Trump

— Elise Hu (@elisewho) June 12, 2018

I think its good we are stopping the wargames with SK. It's a concession but the wargames are a provocation (e.g. imagine something like that happening on our borders or a NATO ally's border) and its a significant but easy card to play. The wargames can be restarted if truly no/little progress is made.

So crazy kid has had a successful charm initiative so far. Great for his ego and maybe encourage him to be less crazy and more neighborly. Has suspended nuclear testing (which I think is easily verifiable). And may get a trip to US.

Trump has conceded some US higher ground points being on equal stage with the crazy kid, effectively said we can do business with him, and we've stopped wargames with SK. Not sure but suspect Trump's favorability has gone up in SEA also, so good for his ego.

All this gets us to a point of (hopefully) further substantive discussions.

I personally want the NK situation "taken care of" one way or another. Trump is probably the person to make this happen and he has 2.5 years. Definitely still a die roll but worth the risk IMO.

You mean like Russia does all the time on numerous ally borders.


He suspended it because the mountain they were using to test collapsed. It's why he's at the table right now. We are/were in a complete position of strength. There was no reason to concede anything at this point.


But, why are we conceding. They have millions of people in death camps and their populace has no freedoms at all. This isn't just a nuclear discussion.

But, as far as the nuclear discussion goes, we've just given North Korea time to get their program back in order...and we aren't going to have troops ready just in case "crazy kid" decides that he wants to reunify Korea during that time.

We've now legitimized North Korea while completely disregarding our allies only days before. Funny world we're living in where the dictators are the ones we talk nice to and make concessions for and those that have tried to protect freedoms in the past are now pushed to the side and punished.


I get this want, but just giving ground with no solid strategy is probably not a good idea. As you said, Trump has 2.5 years; what happens then? What happens if no real ground has been made and a new president comes in and decides to ramp up rhetoric again because North Korea is making no progress on what they've said they'd do? What happens if the next president decides to break any agreement that's been made because they don't feel like honoring it anymore?

You know...kind of like Iran. Speaking of which, why isn't Trump meeting with the Iranian President or Supreme Leader?

Months or years of work in an agreement with Iran, and Trump burns it down because the black man was involved. 5 hours of talking with NK, and he bends over for vague promises so he can claim victory.



At least he didn't say "Peace in our time", I guess.

Sounds like the South Koreans weren't consulted or told in advance about the suspension of military exercises.

No doubt he has a hard-on for Putin. Best guess is he's got lots of business dealings with the Russian oligarchs and he's thinking ahead post-presidency. Nevertheless, my point is that it is provocative. I think this is a legit beef from the crazy kid.


I think the reason is to change the dynamics and get the crazy kid to the table. TBH, it starts with Nukes and goes from there. NK survived a much worse famine in the 2000's and came back stronger.


Yes, real concern that crazy kid is stringing Trump along.

Do you think one or two wargames will degrade our ability that much to defend SK that much? I'm all for us withdrawing our troops way south or close by and letting SK ramp up their military, they have the means to do it now.


Yes, you are right. All I can say is this is a special case with nukes. No excuse on mistreating Canada.


What else has worked? He is trying to change the dynamics.

Has the old Clinton-Bush-Obama or Hillary thing worked. I think deep down we know high likelihood that Hillary would have continued the same path and nothing would get done other than status quo.

I guess status quo is an option but not one I prefer.


No excuses here. We know its because its part of the brown skin's guy legacy and probably because of the Israeli connection and votes.

You know Trump may have actually accomplished something when we fall back on the race card.

Seriously why isn't more peace (regardless of the leader) a good thing? I'm talking both here and with Iran and with Russia... FOFC is certainly a tamer version of Facebook, twitter, etc but Americans keep wanting to blame politicians for the divide and our country's image. It was quite clear from 2009-2016 that a significant portion of this country wanted failure from it's own president because "our team" well yesterday this board proved "their team" is no different. It's the American people to blame not the politicians they just say what the people will vote for.

By the way it is "peace for our time" for your Hitler reference.

Iran agreement signed and broken within a couple years.. Gadaffi de-nuclearized, tortured and killed.

Why would North Korea ever get rid of their nukes. Answer: they won't. Why would they follow in the steps of other countries we've fucked over. In the event they some how overlooked that, John Bolton was helpful enough to hammer that point home.

They've already gotten everything they wanted out of this fiasco, now they just want to see how long they can string this out. I'd expect this to be pretty long with Trump ignoring everyone around him and using his gut to form policy based on 60 seconds of dialogue.

What is the issue with this? NK has been around 70 years. Trump isnt dealing with an ISIS leader and negotiating. He is negotiating with a leader of a recognized country, one that can de-stabilize an important region.

Im not sure why this is a bad thing. Except it was done by a republican.

The problem isn't negotiating, it's giving away things for free. What has NK given so far? They've possibly shut down a testing facility that might have been destroyed previously and was of questionable utility now that they have so many working bombs, but the CIA says the shutdown was less that it appeared. They've released three prisoners that shouldn't have been in jail in the first place.

Meanwhile we agreed to a summit and staged it in a way that legitimizes Kim and places him on equal footing to the US. We refuse to mention human rights. Trump gives Kim enormous propaganda by saying he trust him and that Kim loves his people. And we blindside our allies and cancel future military exercises.

pic.twitter.com/tJG3KIn2q0

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2018

He's killed millions of his own people and his country's a prison camp.

I can't stand Trump, but if he pulls this off I will give him due credit. I think the skepticism comes from NK's history (and rightly so) coupled with the process of denuclearization will long outlast Trump's time in the Whitehouse.

It could be a historic accord, or it could be the ultimate troll job by Kim, saying all this to placate someone he might see as crazier than him. This stops the wargames, which makes him look good, then they take their time, but still do just enough to eventually ease some sanctions, then when there is a new president find something else to use as a trigger to back out and start it up again.

I think at this point you could almost flip a coin. I don't get why anybody would root for a President to fail, even hating him. But Trump has shown he can be easily swayed, is prone to reverse field at any moment and is definitely about himself. So it makes sense he could also be embellishing a lot to prop himself up and also use it as a rallying call for mid terms.

What happens beyond that, I doubt he has given a second thought. I truly hope this does go as intended, I really do. But it is WAY too early to substantially celebrate anything.

The only thing trump has given away is American brand value. He's done it because it's expendable to him. That's not something he'd do with his own brand though.

There are zero arguments in this thread that say more peace is a bad thing.

Fairly amazing you're already calling the exercises war games.

Just quoting Trump.

Strongly disagree in this context. We gave Kim nearly everything he was looking for and we walk away with a promise to continue negotiations and vague promises of denuclearization of the peninsula. And we did so in a way that alienates a long time ally.

Are you referring to South Korea?

Not sure but I would think they are good with this summit and the results.

Based on what? North Korea gave up nothing, promised nothing concrete, and got everything they wanted. The US gave up decades of political leverage and in exchange received nothing but vague statements and promises.

I'm sure South Korea is happy they're at the table, but this is the exact outcome people fear with Trump. He has a history of caving to the last person he talks to. Trump was tougher on the other G7 countries than North Korea this week.

South Korea will be pissed over the ceasing of military exercises, but they have been pushing heavily for this summit. Throwing a bitch fit when Trump canceled it for a few minutes.

So fuck em.

I do think SK is happy. They have seemed more conciliatory towards NK and would be surprised to find out they are negative towards giving up "war games" or feel alienated.

I did a quick look but didn't see anything. I'm sure there'll be polls soon on how SK feels about this, interesting to find out.

Well, at least it's better than Hawaii, Alaska and the West coast being radioactive, which seemed where this was going 8 months ago.



*shrug*

Obama wasn’t dealing with an ISIS leader either and the country he dealt with had been around a lot longer in a region that we value greatly. He was able to get them to denuclearize and have round the clock maintenance of all their facilities and regular inspections. Republicans torched him for it from the day that agreement with Iran was signed until Trump blew it up a few months ago; even came up with a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral. Now, Iran has started to plan to renuclearize. Spare me the party-blaming BS.

Trump said it was an “honor” to meet with Kim. “Honor” usually isn’t a word that should be used in those situations, especially by the side that should be showing strength. He also said (jokingly I think) that Kim’s citizen support him with great fervor. I get that word-choice isn’t a big deal in regular day-to-day conversations, but it’s a huge deal on the world stage. Trump looked weak; Kim got what he wanted, and more. America continues to flounder on the world stage. Republican/Democrat doesn’t matter...Trump’s just an idiot.

Hopefully, things get worked out. Hopefully, Trump’s gotten his photo op and will stay away while the big boys negotiate. Hopefully, other dictators aren’t emboldened by what they saw.

Noted libtard Tom Nichols:

I just watched a completely clueless President proclaim a special bond with one of the most ruthless murderers in the world, whom he thinks is “a talented man” who “loves his country.” If I cringed any harder my spine would snap.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) June 12, 2018

Oh wait, he's a nuclear policy expert, who teaches at the Naval War College and is a lifelong Republican.

Democrats applaud Obama having historic summit with brutal dictator Castro. Republicans lose their shit.


Republicans applaud Trump having historic summit with brutal dictator Kim. Democrats lose their shit.

I'll take Castro (Raul, anyway) any day of the week over Kim.

Though given our historical (and even current) judgement on who are the good guys and bad guys, I don't think we have a leg to stand on. Let's just try and be friends with everybody and let them sort their own shit out. I know, completely unrealistic. But a guy can dream.

Ah yes, still calling the guy "crazy" who is playing a shitty hand like a damned poker world champion.

Also, this happened in 2012:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/w...lear-work.html

Are we at the flop, turn or river right now?

North Korea has said they'd curb their nuclear program for decades. They never do. It's always used as some stunt to get something they want.

I don't mind the meeting. If you can get something done, that's great. This meeting didn't accomplish that. Which is fine because that sometimes happens.

My issues is with the constant praise Trump lavished him with. The fact they allowed so much media to document the event. And giving up something when NK gave up nothing in return. It's great propaganda for a dictator to go back to his country with.

Frankly, our only hope is that our traditional allies understand that this is just a really weird, screwed up Trump phase. Boot him out in 2020 and work on repairing the damage that's been done in this absolute fuckery of a presidency.

Too late. How can anyone assume we won't turn around and vote in a similar dumbass in 2028?

When the Mueller investigation is complete and an unbelievably long list of crimes committed by Trump, his family, and so many of his inner circle are laid on the table for all to see, 30-40% of the country will call bullshit, deep state, witchhunt, led by Sean Hannity and friends. The branch of government designed to deal with this exact situation will do nothing b/c team > country and the rule of law, and that will be all that anyone needs to see to know what to think about the US going forward.

I have no idea why this point keeps getting glossed over.

You know why. It's to make Trump look like he accomplished something.

AT&T/Time-Warner merger can go forward, and judge basically told the government off:


AT&T-Time Warner merger: Judge approves deal

I knew NK had promised to denuclearize before, I just didn't realize how many times: 2012, 2007, 2005, 1994, 1992, 1985.

Meanwhile, he's driven a wedge between the US and their biggest allies in order to swing for the fences on NK by walking down this same well-trodden path to try find something to hang his hat on, while also fostering better relations with Russia who would happily remove the USA from the map if they could do it with no repercussions. What a week.

So based on the results of this past week, are the top allies of the US North Korea and Russia? Based on Trump talk, these seem to be the people he respects the most.

A few primaries tonight-in South Carolina, our embarassing former governor Mark Sanford is looking like he might lose the GOP primary (thank God) thought its not called yet, and in Virginia, Tim Kaine, gets a Trump disciple (and racist) in Corey Stewart to run against and hopefully beat. Other Repubs in the state are already saying how terrible it is that he won the Primary.


Sanford has now conceded

I'm leaning towards Russia.

There's something there ...

Ge here: http://ericbrakeyforsenate.com/

This is now the GOP nominee for U.S. Senator in Maine.

So it appears Trump showed the Korean leader a made-up movie trailer showing him what would happen if he agreed to denuclearize:


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...eaders-n882591

North Korea has agreed to denuclearization 13 times since the mid-80's. Not sure why this time it's different.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare