kurtster wrote: 
Regardless of that first part, there are plenty of photos of Obama knowing what a shovel is and using it correctly.
Is using a shovel what's more valuable than being able to have an intelligent discussion/debate? 
Dealing with the current President (he won; get over it) there's this concern:

Trump's failure to fill energy panel is stalling shovel-ready projects

And here he is with his wife...wait...daughter...with their GOLD PLATED SHOVELS. And folks wanted him because he's one of them?

Dotard sounds so modern with all the other tards...

 aflanigan wrote: 
Well we know that Obama would lose in knowing what a shovel ready project is for openers.  And that was one of the foundations of his campaign.  I bet that he still doesn't know, let alone what a shovel is and how to use one.

Trumpisms

 aflanigan wrote: 
Make sure to forbid teleprompters. Remember how Obama couldn't make a speech without one. Let's make sure he doesn't have that unfair advantage! Sad!

 kurtster wrote: 
Any time you want to put money on a mental showdown between Donald and Obama, or even Dubya, for that matter, please reach out to me first. Seriously.

 R_P wrote: 
Yeah, but at least Trump knows there aren't 57 states ... this doesn't even come close to that.

Donald Trump Invents African Country, Thanks Leaders for Making His Friends Rich

 miamizsun wrote: 
We / Trump have been leaning hard on China.  Trump even went as far (last week) as to suggest stopping all USA trade with any country that does business with NK, which includes China.  That got their attention, but has yet to have any resulting action on China's part other than to call that idea outrageous.  It also got a reaction from our political establishment which was basically Trump is nutz, again.  So while the threat was made, it was deflected immediately as undoable.

No one wants to do the hard thing, except Trump.  That is the problem. Russia and China created this monster by using it as a proxy during and after the Korean Conflict.  It was never officially called a war and it has never ended.  All we have is a truce / cease fire declared in 1953, IIRC. Russia has not been involved since the 50's.  Its all about China and has been since the 50's.  And the SK's are not innocent in this either.  
.
If we stop doing business with China, its economy would collapse overnight.  That result is self explanatory.  China needs us more than we need them,  So while we wait for China to shit or get off the pot, Chubby Cheeks could launch a fully loaded nuclear missile at us, and that result is self explanatory.

Quite frankly, if we did a military attack on NK, it would begin and end there, imo.  It would not lead to a world war, imo.  Yes plenty of people would die in both NK and SK.  But that would be the extent of it.  I also see this as unavoidable regardless of any diplomatic efforts as long as Un is in power.  We have seen him do whatever it takes to maintain his power.  He will not go peacefully.  I fully expect him to do what he says he will do and attack the USA.  There is no endgame where he can win anything.  He has nothing left.  He has painted himself into a corner.  Better to die in a military attack than at the hands of the peasants.

Meanwhile, China has another reason to intervene.  The mountain under which CC is doing all his nuclear testing is about to collapse which would release a tremendous amount of radiation which would have a devastating and lasting impact on adjacent Mainland China.  

So like I said a few weeks ago, all roads to NK go through China.  Unless CC does something really stupid first.  And the longer this current situation exists, the more likely that is.

Sadly, both sides deserve what they will eventually get to resolve this conflict that is the result of their forebears actions.  It is their destiny which was determined over 60 years ago.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Would you like lies with that? No extra charge.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I'm partial to covfeve myself.

 

 miamizsun wrote:
Speaking of hammers...

Bastiat was right about many things, but he was wrong about the pacifying power of trade. France's biggest trading partner before WW1? Germany. Before WW2? Germany. Trade is not magic; it won't turn rivals into allies. It will, however, undermine authoritarian regimes.

Look what it has done for China, Vietnam, Malaysia. Look what it could do for Cuba. Look at what it could do for North Korea.

if you open any political toolbox you'll see a giant hammer

and anyone or anything not in agreement looks like a nail

and political leaders want big ol' hammers

it makes coercion and the threat of violence a lot easier when you have a hammer the size of texas

see that flashing sign kim is holding? it says "look at my hammer"

the best way to keep a political hammer in the political toolbox is through economic trade and peaceful negotiation (economic toolbox)

negotiation is the hard work, but it usually produces long lasting sustainable results

history tells us that peace and prosperity go hand in hand

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” â€•  Frédéric Bastiat

long term economic trade is like kryptonite to war

nk's biggest trade partner? currently i think it is china

there's your leverage, your starting point

either work with their trade partners and/or trade directly

war is for people/politicians too stupid to negotiate

whatever

coffee?

The pigeon thing would be pretty cool, tho. coooooooooooPOW!

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I often disagree with you quite strongly, but I'm with you on your post. 

The USSR was a much greater threat to the US. We and our allies contained the USSR and engaged it in constructive negotiations. The USSR collapsed more or less peacefully, kurtster, so it's not out of the question that NK could as well. 

AFAICT, an EMP is one of the lesser of your worries if you're hit with a nuclear weapon. The radioactive plume, the fireball, the concussive effects of the blast, radiation on the ground and in the water—much more destructive and many of those events longer-lasting. 

As for the imminence of the threat of a nuclear NK—didn't we go through the same issue with Iran? Didn't we and our allies get Iran to slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons and reach binding agreements? 

As you point out, lazy8, our options outside of negotiation and containment are between slim and none. We could point the finger at previous administrations—that seems to be Trump's approach—but that accusation fails to take into account past agreements to slow or limit NK's nuclear technology (Clinton and SoS Albright were temporarily able to limit and monitor Kim Jong Il's efforts—Albright had several friendly face-to-face meetings with KJI)  and secret, successful efforts to damage NK rocket technology and tests. Furthermore, it doesn't seem as if the Trump administration has done much to limit NK's access to and production of UDMH, the fuel its long-range missiles fly on. Do Trump and his subordinates really think NK's missiles are an imminent threat? If so, why haven't they limited its rocket fuel?

kurtster is just repeating Trump's proclamation of a crisis, without considering that 

1. This problem of NK aggressiveness has been going on for decades

2. The US has not been able to solve this problem on its own and will not be able to in the future

3. A full, successful resolution of the problem is not possible in the near future, no matter how many countries are involved

4. There are few if any possible solutions outside of multilateral action, containment and negotiation. War and assassination likely won't work.

It would be great if Trump could do things to help the US today, in ways that help the majority of Americans. But he just wants to distract the US with NK and Venezuela (don't ask me about the rants towards Venezuela. Again, he's just trying to distract, but still. 

Looks to me like kurster's taken Trump's bait. I will not. 

kurtster wrote:
We negotiate when there's something to negotiate over. Not seeing that myself, but then I wasn't calling for negotiations. Or even using the word. So I'm kinda at a loss as to why we're discussing it.


Comparisons to the USSR aren't ludicrous, but they're not completely appropriate either. Kim Jong Un is one man, and as such his regime is quite fragile. He could choke on a chicken bone tonight and it would come to an end. It's not clear if he has even contemplated his own mortality, let alone set up a succession plan. The USSR was a nation with a much more resilient power structure and a lot more firepower.

An EMP is just a high-altitude nuke. Every nation with missile technology and nuclear weapons can build one. I think you're exaggerating the threat they pose but possessing a weapon isn't the same as attacking another country any more than owning a gun is shooting up a post office. Regardless, nine countries (at least) have the capability of using an EMP.

If every nation with nuclear weapons ruled by an unstable leader prone to making rash threats in public is casus belli then we in the US are in deep trouble.

 kcar wrote: 
And what do you think Chubby Cheeks will do when his economy collapses ?  Say, shucks fella's you win, I give up ...  ??
  

That's just as delusional as Trump saying he was wire tapped. 

 kurtster wrote: 
I am really losing interest in your posts, given that so many of them slavishly agree with Trump's uninformed and rash opinions. If you're just trying to pick fights with people and incite arguments, I'm sorry but I have no time for you. If you have good policy ideas based on evidence, logic and reality, then I'm interested in those. The threats to destroy North Korea don't count. Trump's dismissal of global warming as a Chinese hoax to damage our economy doesn't count.

The proposed $1.5 trillion tax cuts and destruction of our current health care system don't count. 

1a. NK at this time would be lucky to hit one of our major cities with a nuclear-tipped missile. The damage to the US, even accounting for nuclear fallout, fireball blast, damage to electronic and electrical systems from an electromagnetic pulse, would pale in comparison to the destruction that NK would suffer. By hitting the US with a nuclear weapon, North Korea would and its leaders would cease to exist. 

1b. NK has been playing a game of aggressive brinksmanship with the US and its allies for years. The game prevents a US-led invasion, creates opportunities for bargaining and concessions, and prevents the global community from slowly squeezing NK's economy to death. 

1c. If anything, nuclear-tipped missiles limit NK's ability to bargain with other countries. It is losing its ability to present itself as a nation that can be relied on to behave with restraint and respect for reasonable limits of action. Nuclear weapons limit the type and severity of threats that NK can make to other countries. 

2. Global warming in contrast threatens to

* destabilize the world's climate,

* drastically increase the size, duration and frequency of damaging storms, 

* raise sea levels so much that major coastal cities such as LA, San Francisco, NYC, Miami, Boston etc. would be inundated or forced to move inland. And that's just in the US. 

*dramatically damage foodstuff production and limit access to potable water

*dramatically decrease the ability of earth to sustain human population at its current level

Honestly, I can't recall Obama saying that global warming is the "greatest immediate threat to our national security." It's quite possible that he did. I would tend to agree with that statement however. 

Global warming is an existential threat to all forms of life on earth, especially our species. We can address and limit global warming; we might with some aggressive geo-engineering halt some of the worst effects. While NK might damage  the US, Japan and/or South Korea, global warming unchecked threatens to devastate all nations. 

North Korea can be dealt with as it has in the past by a community of nations. The country cannot threaten the world with nuclear weapons in order to forge its way to prosperity. If it continues along this path, China will slowly stop supplying NK with oil and coal, and NK's economy will collapse. NK can be contained and bargained with, but not by someone as foolishly dangerous as Trump.