ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
True....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
True....
About as much as I trust Trump and that's the problem.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Besides it likely not even being true, this is literally meaningless. A launched fission bomb from North Korea is as untenable as a launched hydrogen bomb. It's nuclear war either way. NK saying they have a SUPER BIG BOMB doesn't change the calculus.
BlastProcessing
Member
Yes it does. Trump drew a line in the sand he said that if NK crossed it he would rain down fire and fury on them. Their response is "we have a nuke fuck you". NK is pushing harder then they have in decades because they feel like they have more leverage.
Neither the nuke or the ICBM are the real danger here, it's the artillery pointed at Seoul. It doesn't matter if they are bluffing or not, what matters is how the US and NK respond to the quickly escalating rhetoric. Right now, Trump is handing NK cheap and easy wins.
It's a dangerous situation where a small group of people making a few bad decisions in a stressful stand-off could endanger thousands of lives.
I've been trying to imagine out of the box ideas to end the Korean problem permanently. What does everyone imagine would happen if the U.S. President delivered an ultimatum to North Korea to unconditionally surrender to South Korea within one week or face a U.S. initiated war to end their regime? In exchange the U.S. would offer very generous asylum to members of the North Korean regime who surrendered. No prosecution. Tens of thousands would live out the rest of their lives in comfort in America.
In effect the North Koreans who mattered would be offered a choice between likely death within a short period of time or a generous asylum.
In effect the North Koreans who mattered would be offered a choice between likely death within a short period of time or a generous asylum.
They have a ton of artillery pointed at the South Korean capital. Any threat of war would be seen as a meaningless bluff in the face of all those civilian casualties. Even Trump isn't that insane.
Yeah, but what if the President was just like "I give no fucks about the likely devastation, North Korea has one week to surrender". I wonder what North Korea would choose.
This scenario puts them in a defensive war and china would be brought in to defend them. It's a dumb scenario.
As B-Dubs implies, there's no US initiated military solution. Additionally, a lot of reports out of North Korea suggest that the population have been essentially brainwashed against America (to a greater or lesser degree). This means offering amnesty in America is a nice idea, but a) probably wouldn't be taken up by all that many, and b) would require pretty intense vetting in order to ensure no-one slips through the net with a plan for a terrorist incident. Amnesty in a different region may work better, but God knows where - China or South Korea would be the obvious answer, but whether they would/could take that many is debatable.
I think the only real North Korean solution is a diplomatic one that creates a single-state with the South. Not only would that be "proper" in terms of history (let's remember that it's only been split since 1945, and has a long history of religion and culture as a single country), but it's also the solution that would have most support from the South. In a way, the US doesn't belong anywhere near Korean discussions, either on nuclear disarmament, or on unification, and I think actual discussions on some end-goal would be far better served by having an obviously non-partisan country involved as a facilitator, like Norway and the Oslo Accords for Israel/Palestine.
aspiegamer
Member
I trust NK to not nuke us more than I trust Trump to not start a horrific war at some point. The "please don't do this" policy of the past 5 administrations hasn't worked in the region and they could well have the ability to strike US territory with nukes. We need to admit we screwed up and get on with facing the matter. This is the new and permanent reality of the situation, like it or not. The US-- The whole planet, really-- Has been played hard the past 20 years.
Following up from a month ago, I don't recall any mentions of Trump actually sending additional forces to the area or any back channel hints of it, so until that starts we're an indefinite 6 months from even being able to invade if we wanted to (which would still mean sacrificing South Korea, regardless of when). Someone with actual power needs to confess at some point that diplomacy is necessary. Bannon was spot-on last month in his unofficial exit interview when he said we have no military options.
Following up from a month ago, I don't recall any mentions of Trump actually sending additional forces to the area or any back channel hints of it, so until that starts we're an indefinite 6 months from even being able to invade if we wanted to (which would still mean sacrificing South Korea, regardless of when). Someone with actual power needs to confess at some point that diplomacy is necessary. Bannon was spot-on last month in his unofficial exit interview when he said we have no military options.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
This is true.
Well the ultimatum wouldn't be issued out of the blue, the U.S. would have to issue it after the North makes an actionable mistake, such as firing missiles off Guam's coast or launching another missile over Japan that accidentally malfunctions and falls onto a populated area. That would give China the face-saving reason not to get involved.
In any event I have my doubts China would go to war with the U.S. over North Korea. If China was forced to choose between their long-term plan of becoming a wealthy superpower in 40 years or waging a disastrous conventional war with their largest trading partner it would be an easy decision. A unified Korea under the South isn't the worst L to endure.
From who?
BlastProcessing
Member
What felonies?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
https://mobile.twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/903761835765227520
Pence was in the room when Trump read the draft. That means he knew Trump's real reasons for Comey's firing, and he lied publicly about them. Some are speculating that since he was in the know, that means he'll be just as culpable.
It's old--I've been out for a day.
Pence was in the room when Trump read the draft. That means he knew Trump's real reasons for Comey's firing, and he lied publicly about them. Some are speculating that since he was in the know, that means he'll be just as culpable.
It's old--I've been out for a day.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I don't know if the South would really want reunification. It'd devastate their country because by all accounts they'd get the bill for dragging a medieval fiefdom into the 21st century.
The asylum part for the Kim family and Co is probably non-negotiable too, as much as I loathe it. Without serious protection, they'll all be killed by their own people like Gaddafi. Knowing that, can we guarantee they don't decide to go out guns blazing? I don't think such a guarantee is possible.
Still pushing for this to get dragged past 2018, dems to retake the house, and boom, first woman president Nancy Pelosi, if only for the absolute meltdowns on the right.
Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed today.
As horrible as that would be, still better than Trump or Pence, not to mention the ultimate lame-duck he'd be since he wasn't even on the elected ticket.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I believe Pelosi will be one of the big reasons Democrats will not gain control.
The Trump presidency is where we're finally going to get answered the question of does the president have the ability to withdraw from trade deals Congress authorized? Can see it going all the way to the Supreme Court so this becomes hard law.
Personally don't think the president should have that kind of unilateral ability imo, even if it wasn't Trump. If Congress was involved in the creating it, they should have a hand in undoing it.
Personally don't think the president should have that kind of unilateral ability imo, even if it wasn't Trump. If Congress was involved in the creating it, they should have a hand in undoing it.
Okay guys, the book club thread is ready!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=247746596#post247746596
Hope y'all like the book I chose.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=247746596#post247746596
Hope y'all like the book I chose.
please clap
Entirely true... But unless the North becomes its own country, unification will have to occur at some point. Whilst the North could technically become a separate and distinct country, if it becomes a capitalist democracy then there's no reason for it to be - there'll be no religious or political reasons to remain distinct from the South. More than that, I don't think public opinion would allow for it to be separate for any length of time.
So, if unification is almost-certainly on the cards in the future, then the only question would be the time-table - whether it's short or long. I can see it becoming a separate state for, say, 10 or 15 years during which time the South - and most likely China - enter into agreements to expand infrastructure, medical services, and schedule food imports. Because more than the financial devastation on the South, the real issue would be the North just opening its borders - the chaos that would occur, and the potential loss of life, would be too extreme to ignore.
I can also see the US weighing in to help financially and through food exports, but not more than that.
Yeah, totally agree.
Basileus777
Member
This is a stupid hypothetical, but I'd totally take a President Ryan over a President Pence.
excelsiorlef
Member
Especially since the base hates Ryan. It'd be a super weird presidency.
Reminder: Paul Ryan was one of the few Republicans that actually defended Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comments. He's just as much of a religious nutter as Pence is.
Autodidact
Banned
If we placate
For some reason Pelosi triggers people on both the left and the right. Considering the GOP will probably have shit all to run on in 2018 all they can do is play into cultural anxiety and "San Fran values" or whatever bullshit. However, I'm not convinced that America is that deplorable that most people will give two shits about Pelosi if Trump and crew continue running the country like they have the past 8 months.
As an aside, why don't Democrats run "Paul Ryan is a fuck boi and sleeps with an Aryn Rand body pillow - do you really want him still in control of the House?" ads? Ryan isn't popular. If the GOP is going to run "Fuck Pelosi" ads, we should run "Fuck Ryan" ads!
Autodidact
Banned
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know exactly why.
And I support "Fuck Ryan!" ads because they can be used against Paul and Tim. Bang for the buck.
Autodidact
Banned
What else would you expect from this Moderate Darling - sorry, "Radical Centrist Neoliberal Shill," according to the British crustacean and a few others.
Yeah I guess I know the "real reason". My question (not to you but in general) is who are these voters that by Nov 2018 will think
-Trump is incompetent and needs the Dems to check him
and/or
-House GOP is incompetent and need to be booted for having so much power and doing nothing/nothing good
and/or
-Dem policies and values are appealing and I want them to push their agenda
BUT hate the existence of Nacny Pelosi so much they won't vote/won't vote Dem because of her? Are there a significant number of these people? Wouldn't the people who hate Nancy Pelosi THAT much to not vote Dem because of it be hardcore GOP-for-lifers and not available to us?
Not really, no.
Don't underestimate that it took decades to get Hillary's name as muddy as it is. Republicans push for people to hate Nancy Pelosi is relatively new, and not as far reaching.
The only reason I'd worry about Pelosi's favorability in a midterm is if there is a non-zero possibility that the Speaker of the House could be the next President through impeachment/resignation.
which, hey, that's not out of the question, though I believe that would require removing both Pence and Trump simultaneously, no? otherwise the VP would assume the Presidency and choose their own congress confirmed VP? I'm not totally clear on how the 25th Amendment works in practice.
which, hey, that's not out of the question, though I believe that would require removing both Pence and Trump simultaneously, no? otherwise the VP would assume the Presidency and choose their own congress confirmed VP? I'm not totally clear on how the 25th Amendment works in practice.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Railing against "San Francisco values" was a huge part of the Republican message in the 2006 midterms, to no avail.
Non chronological post quoting is frowned upon technically. I've never seen it heavily enforced, and I agree it makes reading threads very confusing.
And I say this as someone who frequently reads threads backwards.
I'll only read a thread backwards if it's really big and ongoing, like a conference thread.
300 page pre-conference threads are annoying though when everyone is talking about the latest rumors...without even acknowledging what the rumor even is. Just like "I hope it's true!" or "don't believe Verendus!" but what is it???
That's usually when I will do it too. But sometimes for PoliGAF as well.
Lord_Byron28
Member
I don't see a scenario where Trump is found guilty but Pence is innocent. There is no way that Pence isn't at least complicit with a lot of the illegal activity going down. There's been several times the WH administration has gone out of their way to make sure we know that Pence didn't know anything. Later reporting has confirmed those to all be lies and that Pence was in the know. So I think Pence will go down with Trump.
Ideally, 2018 will be the year for Mueller to bear fruit of his investigation. Even if we find out Mueller's findings it doesn't mean the ensuing aftermath will result in his immediate impeachment. First of all, Trump has been scaring the living shit out of everyone with every passing day. The sooner we stop waking up every day to some new nightmare, the better. The longer he is in office, the longer it will take for us to recover. Regardless of whether Trump gets impeached or not, the republicans are screwed in 2018 elections. If early polling and approval rating is any indication, there should be a strong Democratic wave in 2018. There is no short term way that Republicans can stop that trend mainly due to Trump. In terms of optics and 2020 elections for Democrats, I think a President Ryan from 2018-2020 would be fine. Don't get me wrong he is awful. However, he would be a lame duck President with his hands tied. His base would be in pieces after Trump's impeachment and Democrats should be able to hold enough seats in Congress and Governor seats to have sway. They should have a large enough presence to be able to hamstring Ryan and GOP's agenda. Ryan will likely spend his two years of President cleaning up Trump's mess both in the government, domestic policies, trade deals, and global policies. I could see Ryan at least restore back some faith from Allies and others across the world. Personally, I think if Trump/Pence got impeached and President Pelosi took over that there would be massive backlash. People will paint this as a coup by Democrats to take over the government. Doesn't help of all people it would be Pelosi that would catch the vitriol. I could also see it having a huge effect on the 2020 elections.
Ideally, 2018 will be the year for Mueller to bear fruit of his investigation. Even if we find out Mueller's findings it doesn't mean the ensuing aftermath will result in his immediate impeachment. First of all, Trump has been scaring the living shit out of everyone with every passing day. The sooner we stop waking up every day to some new nightmare, the better. The longer he is in office, the longer it will take for us to recover. Regardless of whether Trump gets impeached or not, the republicans are screwed in 2018 elections. If early polling and approval rating is any indication, there should be a strong Democratic wave in 2018. There is no short term way that Republicans can stop that trend mainly due to Trump. In terms of optics and 2020 elections for Democrats, I think a President Ryan from 2018-2020 would be fine. Don't get me wrong he is awful. However, he would be a lame duck President with his hands tied. His base would be in pieces after Trump's impeachment and Democrats should be able to hold enough seats in Congress and Governor seats to have sway. They should have a large enough presence to be able to hamstring Ryan and GOP's agenda. Ryan will likely spend his two years of President cleaning up Trump's mess both in the government, domestic policies, trade deals, and global policies. I could see Ryan at least restore back some faith from Allies and others across the world. Personally, I think if Trump/Pence got impeached and President Pelosi took over that there would be massive backlash. People will paint this as a coup by Democrats to take over the government. Doesn't help of all people it would be Pelosi that would catch the vitriol. I could also see it having a huge effect on the 2020 elections.
My humble apologies.
neurosisxeno
Member
If Trump is forced out Pence will be gone. We'd likely end up with Paul Ryan taking over and the Republicans putting the most vanilla establishment Republican up for VP confirmation. Or they could turn to "Dirty" Dean Heller.
skullmuffins
Banned
Yeah, which is why I think that if Pence is implicated enough, Congress would try to work something out with him where he'd ascend to the presidency long enough to pick a VP successor that could be confirmed by good margins in both houses, with the understanding that Pence would resign shortly after. I don't think Republicans would vote to impeach Pence if it meant handing the presidency over to Nancy Pelosi and it seems politically dangerous to use impeachment in a way that gives control of government to the other party. (Even though it would be arguably appropriate here given that election meddling is at the core of the investigation.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked