Support NeoGAF

[Autodidact]

NK tested an ICBM.

Can't wait to see how Trump handles. Like I legitimately can't wait.

He folded like a paper tiger last time.

I worry about North Korea, though. Eventually something has to give, if not under Trump then under some president. China can't be happy about this constant tension on its doorstep, either. Someone more internationally minded tell me, would a Chinese coup with US/South Korean/Japanese backing be feasible? Being a Chinese puppet state seems far better for North Koreans than their current situation, and we might finally achieve some relative stability in the region. However, I can't imagine that South Korea - and the US, by extension - would want China on its border.

Spoiler

I want to work in the Dept. of Education, not the State Department.

 

[Zolo]

The biggest problem is that any type of invasion would basically lead to Seoul getting leveled by artillery.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Was the test even successful?

 

[aspiegamer]

The NK state news lady is always so painfully enthusiastic. It look exaggerated--and I know that unfortunately her well being depends on her performance--But it looks so extreme that I can't help but think she's sincere about it. Well, someone pull out the missile range maps and start the thatsapenis.gif weapon name memes. I'm not really sure what Trump thinks China is going to do. Like seriously. Trump has zero leverage on China as President and they have no reason to appease him in any way whatsoever.

*slowly turns to camera*

ButterEmails.png

Was the test even successful?

By NK standards? Uh, yes? It went up 2500km and out 1000km, in the air for 40min.

 

[B-Dubs]

He folded like a paper tiger last time.

I worry about North Korea, though. Eventually something has to give, if not under Trump then under some president. China can't be happy about this constant tension on its doorstep, either. Someone more internationally minded tell me, would a Chinese coup with US/South Korean/Japanese backing be feasible? Being a Chinese puppet state seems far better for North Koreans than their current situation, and we might finally achieve some relative stability in the region. However, I can't imagine that South Korea - and the US, by extension - would want China on its border.

Spoiler

I want to work in the Dept. of Education, not the State Department.

I think the way the Kims run things make this impossible. I read something at some point about how none of the generals know who they can trust not to go to the Kims if they wanted to do such a thing. So even if China wanted to do engineer a military coup, how would they know who to turn to if the generals don't even trust each other enough to smack talk Un behind his back.

The NK state news lady is always so painfully enthusiastic. It look exaggerated--and I know that unfortunately her well being depends on her performance--But it looks so extreme that I can't help but think she's sincere about it. Well, someone pull out the missile range maps and start the thatsapenis.gif weapon name memes. I'm not really sure what Trump thinks China is going to do. Like seriously. Trump has zero leverage on China as President and they have no reason to appease him in any way whatsoever.

It makes me think of that 30 Rock gag.

 

[Autodidact]

Pleasantly surprised that no one has used the phrase "literally World War III" yet. They probably went to bed hours ago.

 

[chadskin]

 

[aspiegamer]

China expressing "serious concern" about North Korea's weapons tests is pretty much exactly the same as GOP congressmen expressing "serious concern" about Trump tweets or health care coverage losses.

 

[Hubbl3]

The leader of our country... on THE national holiday... calling his fellow countrymen losers. What a piece of shit.

 

[Wanda/Wander]

The leader of our country... on THE national holiday... calling his fellow countrymen losers. What a piece of shit.

To be fair that was 3 years ago. He was just an immature kid back then.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I think the way the Kims run things make this impossible. I read something at some point about how none of the generals know who they can trust not to go to the Kims if they wanted to do such a thing. So even if China wanted to do engineer a military coup, how would they know who to turn to if the generals don't even trust each other enough to smack talk Un behind his back.



It makes me think of that 30 Rock gag.

More importantly, China is ideologically and strategically invested in having a stable, statist, authoritarian government on the Korean peninsula.

 

[Pixieking]

He folded like a paper tiger last time.

I worry about North Korea, though. Eventually something has to give, if not under Trump then under some president. China can't be happy about this constant tension on its doorstep, either. Someone more internationally minded tell me, would a Chinese coup with US/South Korean/Japanese backing be feasible? Being a Chinese puppet state seems far better for North Koreans than their current situation, and we might finally achieve some relative stability in the region. However, I can't imagine that South Korea - and the US, by extension - would want China on its border.

Whatever happens with North Korea, it won't involve the Japanese. Japan "invaded" and controlled Korea in the late 19th/early 20th century, and were extremely authoritarian. Killed dissidents, squashed Korean culture, massively racist, and treated the Koreans as literal barbarians. I'm not entirely certain if they ever apologised for their actions during that period, but it seems very unlikely that any vaguely military action by Japan in the region would go down well. Even diplomatic efforts by the Japanese would be dubious, considering how nationalistic the country has become in the last 10/15 years. Every year the ruling party/government pushes-back against apologising for war crimes.

It also seems unlikely that anything would happen with US involvement, unless it were diplomatic and after whatever coup may have occurred. I think the Iraq war has shown the international community how pointless and destructive American and British involvement in such things is.

Far more likely I think is some form of "Iran Deal", brokered initially by the Chinese and, maybe, Germany, which sees North Korea gaining acceptance from the international community and a relaxation of trade and diplomatic embargoes which eventually lead to a slow dismantling of the state and a move towards the Chinese model of capitalism. Unfortunately, Trump is currently needling the North Korean government, and they won't be willing to settle for talks as long as Trump continues to antagonise. North Korea needs its military might to be accepted unconditionally at least at first, or for them to lose everything à la Stuxnet.

 

[shinra-bansho]

We need to pick a side

Either figure out messaging to rust belt workers that blame trade for their economic downturns that it's really automation that hit those parts of the country or keep riding the anti trade train.

Selling an alternative will be difficult. Sunbelt states aren't reliable to flip yet

So we need to hang on to the rust belt for dear life. Anti-trade is probably the only way to do it.

The Democrats should just run Trump. Since he won.

I mean you acknowledge it's bullshit and yet want to perpetuate said bullshit.

Even though...

The majority of people don't buy into the bunk anyway.

 

[Hubbl3]

To be fair that was 3 years ago. He was just an immature kid back then.

Ah shit, I didn't even notice the year. Although, I don't expect his "official" statement to be much different :/

 

[neurosisxeno]

The biggest problem is that any type of invasion would basically lead to Seoul getting leveled by artillery.

The only way Seoul gets leveled is if DPRK strikes first. Otherwise we likely have a list of positions to attack before DPRK can get ready, and once they lose the ability to strike first what are they going to do? Chase us in their 1-2 Korean War Era Submarines? If they even start hitting Seoul we would turn Pyongyang into a parking lot.

 

[Pixieking]

The only way Seoul gets leveled is if DPRK strikes first. Otherwise we likely have a list of positions to attack before DPRK can get ready, and once they lose the ability to strike first what are they going to do? Chase us in their 1-2 Korean War Era Submarines? If they even start hitting Seoul we would turn Pyongyang into a parking lot.

If they hit Seoul even once, it would be devastating, both in terms of loss of human life and economic loss. The optimum way (and, really, the only way) to do something like this would be to launch a cyber-attack against the North Korean military systems, and trust that you can mobilise before they recover. End the war before it even begins.

Though that's assuming someone sensible is in charge, not Trump, so...

 

[neurosisxeno]

If they hit Seoul even once, it would be devastating, both in terms of loss of human life and economic loss. The optimum way (and, really, the only way) to do something like this would be to launch a cyber-attack against the North Korean military systems, and trust that you can mobilise before they recover. End the war before it even begins.

Though that's assuming someone sensible is in charge, not Trump, so...

I have no doubt if war with North Korea were imminent, we would strike first and take out any artillery locations that could hit Seoul before North Korea even knew what hit them. If they managed to strike first we would know the second a shell was fired and immediately be scrambling jets out of bases in SK, Japan, and several other locations in South East Asia. We would hit them so hard their military would be in shambles within hours.

 

[VendettaRed07]

The Democrats should just run Trump. Since he won.

I mean you acknowledge it's bullshit and yet want to perpetuate said bullshit.

Even though...

The majority of people don't buy into the bunk anyway.

Or maybe we should run Obama. Since he was the last Democrat that won

If Democrats are so pro free trade then why did Obama go after Hillary over NAFTA to the point where it got so heated it ended with her "Shame on you Barack Obama", moment. Why did being tied to the deal by Obama bother her so much?

Why did Hillary, who was trying to position herself as Obama's successor run away from the administration's trade deal despite calling it the "gold standard" herself.

There's like, a reason for this...Them trying everything they could to distance themselves from those deals wasn't an accident. They obviously thought opposing those deals would help them win. The difference between Hillary and Obama though was Obama did not have a history or plethora of comments supporting deals like Hillary did that she couldn't walk back.

The overall majority doesn't matter as there are specific voters they were targeting or afraid of losing if they were pro trade. Rust belt voters. With union's destroyed, wages going down, factories going away, it is an easy target or thing to communicate to voters to get them on your side. It was successful for Obama vs Hillary, McCain, and Romney.

So it's not really "bullshit", or some sort of new crazy idea. It is literally, the exact thing we have already been doing.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I have no doubt if war with North Korea were imminent, we would strike first and take out any artillery locations that could hit Seoul before North Korea even knew what hit them. If they managed to strike first we would know the second a shell was fired and immediately be scrambling jets out of bases in SK, Japan, and several other locations in South East Asia. We would hit them so hard their military would be in shambles within hours.

I don't know why you're so certain because you're dead wrong. A war with North Korea would have massive casualties. Their military is huge and we can't stop their missiles.

Also, artillery isn't even an issue.

 

[aspiegamer]

Trump asking China to "put a heavy move" on NK sounds... lewd. Grab 'em by the thrusters?

 

[neurosisxeno]

I don't know why you're so certain because you're dead wrong. A war with North Korea would have massive casualties. Their military is huge and we can't stop their missiles.

Also, artillery isn't even an issue.

All of what I posted hindered on us striking first. If they started firing on South Korea It changes things. Obviously there would be massive casualties, Seoul is densely populated, and it's a war. Taken from the article you posted;

"Artillery is not that lethal," says Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and is a national security analyst for ABC News. "It takes a long time for it to produce the densities of fire to go beyond terrorism and harassment." Even in a worst-case scenario, where both U.S. and South Korean forces are somehow paralyzed or otherwise engaged, and North Korea fires its 170mm artillery batteries and 240mm rocket launchers with total impunity, the grim reality wouldn't live up to the hype. Buildings would be perforated, fires would inevitably rage and an unknown number of people would die. Seoul would be under siege—but it wouldn't be flattened, destroyed or leveled.

He outright says artillery fire wouldn't do much, and he's not wrong, especially considering how quickly the US and South Korean allies would respond. The only real chance they would have is--god forbid--a preemptive nuclear strike. If they did that it's pretty likely we would have to respond with a nuclear strike as well, and there go what, a few million lives in a few hours? As for the size of their army, NK has a ton of troops (conscription has that effect), but they also are poorly fed and pretty poorly equipped. I imagine they don't exactly want to charge over the minefield that is the DMZ any time soon.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Trump asking China to "put a heavy move" on NK sounds... lewd. Grab 'em by the thrusters?

Is he doing that AGAIN after he admitted that he didnt know what he was talking about???

 

[Siegcram]

Is he doing that AGAIN after he admitted that he didnt know what he was talking about???

Are you suggesting he's capable of learning?

 

[Diablos]

Obama should run for House Speaker in '18

You do not need to be a member of Congress to be Speaker.

 

[Y2Kev]

Or maybe we should run Obama. Since he was the last Democrat that won

If Democrats are so pro free trade then why did Obama go after Hillary over NAFTA to the point where it got so heated it ended with her "Shame on you Barack Obama", moment. Why did being tied to the deal by Obama bother her so much?

Why did Hillary, who was trying to position herself as Obama's successor run away from the administration's trade deal despite calling it the "gold standard" herself.

There's like, a reason for this...Them trying everything they could to distance themselves from those deals wasn't an accident. They obviously thought opposing those deals would help them win. The difference between Hillary and Obama though was Obama did not have a history or plethora of comments supporting deals like Hillary did that she couldn't walk back.

The overall majority doesn't matter as there are specific voters they were targeting or afraid of losing if they were pro trade. Rust belt voters. With union's destroyed, wages going down, factories going away, it is an easy target or thing to communicate to voters to get them on your side. It was successful for Obama vs Hillary, McCain, and Romney.

So it's not really "bullshit", or some sort of new crazy idea. It is literally, the exact thing we have already been doing.

Because some issues are more meaningful in certain localities than in others (that is, Ohio) and because Clinton was dealing with an unusual challenger on the left and on the right.

You had people shouting no TPP and not knowing what TPP is or does (true of the pro side too of course). It was just the national mood her campaign was sensing at the time, and like everything the campaign did it was "data driven" and wishy washy. It's still, I think, somewhat murky and polling doesn't actually show it being that unpopular.

I think it's more like people go for the surface, easy win ("MOAR JOBS!") and mask it in something like TPP so it's not so transparently racist. I would expect TPP to poll really poorly and free trade agreements to poll really well, like ACA vs. Obamacare.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Or maybe we should run Obama. Since he was the last Democrat that won

If Democrats are so pro free trade then why did Obama go after Hillary over NAFTA to the point where it got so heated it ended with her "Shame on you Barack Obama", moment. Why did being tied to the deal by Obama bother her so much?

Why did Hillary, who was trying to position herself as Obama's successor run away from the administration's trade deal despite calling it the "gold standard" herself.

There's like, a reason for this...Them trying everything they could to distance themselves from those deals wasn't an accident. They obviously thought opposing those deals would help them win. The difference between Hillary and Obama though was Obama did not have a history or plethora of comments supporting deals like Hillary did that she couldn't walk back.

The overall majority doesn't matter as there are specific voters they were targeting or afraid of losing if they were pro trade. Rust belt voters. With union's destroyed, wages going down, factories going away, it is an easy target or thing to communicate to voters to get them on your side. It was successful for Obama vs Hillary, McCain, and Romney.

So it's not really "bullshit", or some sort of new crazy idea. It is literally, the exact thing we have already been doing.

Well, I mean people seem more than happy to take general polls and use them to support other agendas, like how much slim majorities want a single payer system.

I'm not sure why you're comparing what gets played up in the primary to what actually swung the election. Kooks and loons that yelled at Obama at the convention and stood around with tape on their mouths did not decide the outcome.

President Obama signed a whole bunch of FTAs during his first term, and President Obama won a second term. Maybe in the magical alternate universe you should have run Barack TPP Drone Strike Wall St Obama again, because he probably would have won, even being Barack TPP Drone Strike Wall St Obama.

Specific voters also hate immigration, and black lives matter, and feminism, and think all of that is taking their jobs too. And no one is suggesting to feed that idiocy, so I'm not sure why you want to feed a protectionist agenda based on again by your own assertion nonsense, since it is automation that's the cause of the majority of manufacturing job losses.

Especially when Trump sells protectionism better, because it marries well with his xenophobia and nostalgia and just general racism.

 

[Pyrokai]

Ugh, this popped up in my feed and gave me heart attacks again.

He's going to retire after this term, isn't he?

I can't imagine a world in which Trump replaces both Kennedy and Ginsburg. Holy shit.

 

[SpaceCadetKeon]

Ugh, this popped up in my feed and gave me heart attacks again.

He's going to retire after this term, isn't he?

I can't imagine a world in which Trump replaces both Kennedy and Ginsburg. Holy shit.

This is why I'm on board with Dems stacking the Supreme Court next time they're in control, norms and the possibility of back and forth court-stacking whenever the other party comes into power be damned. This country will only continue to go backwards otherwise.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Threads like these remind me why I still bother with Twitter

 

[Poodlestrike]

I know we're not huge on norms right now but stacking the court would be a pretty devastating blow to the balance of powers and honestly I don't think going there is a great idea?

If we can manage to establish a constitutional amendment majority (pipe dream, I know), then fixing the number of justices at a higher one than we have now so we can do a one-time stack would be great. Otherwise... nah.

 

[Ernest]

This is why I'm on board with Dems stacking the Supreme Court next time they're in control, norms and the possibility of back and forth court-stacking whenever the other party comes into power be damned. This country will only continue to go backwards otherwise.

But if Trump gets to replace both Kennedy and Ginsburg, it's very conceivable that the next president, be it a Democrat or not, won't get a chance to choose another justice as who's on there when they take term could stay on for over eight years.

 

[sphagnum]

NJ budget deal reached.

State parks in New Jersey will be open for the Fourth of July. Governor Christie and the the Democratic leaders in the Legislature have reached a compromise that will allow the 2018 Fiscal Year budget to be approved ending a three-day government shutdown.

The impasse was the result not of the budget itself but over Christie's insistence that excess revenues from Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield should be used for public benefit, such as helping stem the opioid crisis.

At a news conference Monday night at the capitol Senate President Steven Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto said the compromise deal means Horizon will face annual audits of its financial reserves and any excess profits to be used for the benefit of the its policy holders.

Prieto opposed Christie's demand that Horizon give the state $300 million for opioid prevention efforts saying it was unfair to Horizon. "This agreement protects Horizon’s ratepayers from unreasonable last-insurer-of-resort demands and ensures excess reserves go to either ratepayers or to reduced premiums. Horizon ratepayers – a significant part of our state’s population – will not be unfairly taxed, as previous plans allowed," said Prieto.

Without a budget, state parks were shut down along with other nonessential state services, including state courts and the motor vehicle offices where people go to get driver's licenses. Tens of thousands of state workers are furloughed.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...rks-to-reopen-for-the-fourth-ofjuly?_topstory

 

[nature boy]

Hallie Jackson‏Verified account @HallieJackson 2h2 hours ago

That highly-anticipated @POTUS / Putin meeting will happen FRIDAY in Germany, per Trump administration official. #nbcwhu

New BFFs?

 

[dramatis]

This article is godlike and worth your time: Primary Colors: On Democratic Presidential Politics, Neoliberalism, and the White Working Class

The section on Jesse Jackson was quite enlightening.

 

[Pyrokai]

Responding to myself, but this CNN article makes me feel a little better. Maybe Kennedy will want to keep doing it for the next term, too. I dunno. He's gotta realize his impact and what retiring would do.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/01/politics/anthony-kennedy-loves-his-job/index.html

Also, maybe Thomas will croak with a Dem president and Senate. That could readjust things....or rather keep the status quo for a while.

Fuck I hate Gorsuch.

The next Dem nominee better make campaign finance a center piece of his or her's platform and push for a Constitutional amendment that will overturn Citizens United, the SCOTUS case ruling that ruined America.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The next Dem president (2020) will probably replace Ginsburg, Breyer and Thomas. Maybe Roberts (probably not).

Trump gets Scalia and Kennedy

I mean, it's bad and whatever, but it's not THE END OF THE WORLD FOR THE NEXT 80 YEARS OMG OMG OMG OMG that everyone likes to panic about.

2028 will be fun, because that's when Roberts starts considering retiring, and getting the chief justice is winning the lottery. But it'll be a race with no incumbent, probably, and so the pendulum must swing back to the GOP because voters are dumb and want "balance"

 

[Basileus777]

getting the chief justice is winning the lottery.

It's not really much different than any other supreme court seat. Chief Justices don't really have that much special authority.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Joy Reid is too good for MSNBC

 

[Ogodei]

The next Dem president (2020) will probably replace Ginsburg, Breyer and Thomas. Maybe Roberts (probably not).

Trump gets Scalia and Kennedy

I mean, it's bad and whatever, but it's not THE END OF THE WORLD FOR THE NEXT 80 YEARS OMG OMG OMG OMG that everyone likes to panic about.

2028 will be fun, because that's when Roberts starts considering retiring, and getting the chief justice is winning the lottery. But it'll be a race with no incumbent, probably, and so the pendulum must swing back to the GOP because voters are dumb and want "balance"

2028 is 12 years further down the demographic rabbit-hole, though, after 2016 that Trump won by the skin of his teeth.

I think we'll see a realignment in the 2030s, but the GOP will have to go through a handful of Roosevelt/Landon or Reagan/Mondale style thrashings before they stop letting pissed-off white people guide the basis of the party.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The next Dem president (2020) will probably replace Ginsburg, Breyer and Thomas. Maybe Roberts (probably not).

Trump gets Scalia and Kennedy

I mean, it's bad and whatever, but it's not THE END OF THE WORLD FOR THE NEXT 80 YEARS OMG OMG OMG OMG that everyone likes to panic about.

2028 will be fun, because that's when Roberts starts considering retiring, and getting the chief justice is winning the lottery. But it'll be a race with no incumbent, probably, and so the pendulum must swing back to the GOP because voters are dumb and want "balance"

It's not really much different than any other supreme court seat. Chief Justices don't really have that much special authority.

Truman was the last Democrat to appoint a Chief Justice. Roberts, Rehnquist, Burger, Warren were Republican appointed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Responding to myself, but this CNN article makes me feel a little better. Maybe Kennedy will want to keep doing it for the next term, too. I dunno. He's gotta realize his impact and what retiring would do.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/01/politics/anthony-kennedy-loves-his-job/index.html

Also, maybe Thomas will croak with a Dem president and Senate. That could readjust things....or rather keep the status quo for a while.

Fuck I hate Gorsuch.

The next Dem nominee better make campaign finance a center piece of his or her's platform and push for a Constitutional amendment that will overturn Citizens United, the SCOTUS case ruling that ruined America.

tbh I don't think any of the justices want to retire with trump

there's a real chance they will face some fundamental questions of executive power with him in office. even conservatives want that to reign in some future liberal presidents

 

[Dangansona]

Hey guys, as someone who is moving to Germany in 2 months and have heard mixed things on both the EU and Germany (though mostly positive), I was wondering if there was a primer I could read about how both operate (particularly the EU). I've heard a good bit from my German gf, but I was thinking an overview from a slightly less biased source would be good.

P.S. Just subscribed to the NY Times. Getting the printed editions sent to me just for the weekend since that felt a little bit more affordable. Thanks for the recommendation Donnie!

 

[Wilsongt]

So with N. Korea testing that ICBM... Congress might want to get on passing that resolution to strip Trump of some powers when it comes to war-time actions.

 

[Ether_Snake]

China doesn't want competition from NK, and they don't actually worry about them. NK could nuke JP or SK, neither would be a loss for China.

They just don't want JP and the US to have excuses to increase their military presence in the region.

 

[Zolo]

So with N. Korea testing that ICBM... Congress might want to get on passing that resolution to strip Trump of some powers when it comes to war-time actions.

That would still take 240 days to take effect unless they amend that part.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Watching the Comedians of Comedy movie right now.

Man it is so surreal watching Patton Oswalt be all like "George W Bush is going to bring about the apocalypse for sure."

Hahahaha......

 

[Slayven]

Joy Reid is too good for MSNBC

Damn so much truth

 

[royalan]

Joy Reid is too good for MSNBC

Can't find the lie...💅

 

[TheLaughingStock]

There's a reason why Hillary didn't.

She came out against TPP and tried to distance herself from other trade deals for a reason. Only problem is that it didn't work because no one believed she was actually against them.

If they did maybe she would have won

Probably not. But I mean if she was indeed a "policy wonk", then she wouldn't have been for the protectionism featured in the TPP which was for the most part not even about trade.

 

[whyamihere]

Ugh, this popped up in my feed and gave me heart attacks again.

He's going to retire after this term, isn't he?

I can't imagine a world in which Trump replaces both Kennedy and Ginsburg. Holy shit.

Stevens told his potential clerks in the 90s he may retire.

He did. In 2010.

(Kennedy could retire but this isn't quite news)