Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[dmp]

I've worked in the field for quite a while and I can tell you the car makers always say the regulations are too strict. They said this about the emissions regulations from the 1990s, 2000s, etc.  The status quo always has less risk.
In this case, the IC engine is pretty efficient and the only significant way to make gas cars significantly better for mpg is to make them lighter. Getting 50 mpg out of a conventional fullsize pickup is not in the cards.

Putting the regulation on the automakers enables the free market to try to find the best solution. I would think this would be a conservative's choice. The government could just say you pay a graduated tax the lower the fuel economy or the higher the emissions. So you want to buy a 8 mpg truck? Fine - but pay a $30k luxury sales tax. Or a high gas tax, but this is regressive and would be hard on low income folks.

The current regulation was going to put a lot of R&D $ into electric cars, with estimates that a significant percentage of vehicles sold would soon be electric. My perception was they saw this as the viable path to compliance. There would still be IC engines with the majority being highly downsized gasoline direct injection (gdi) in the near term and probably dual fuel in the long term (combination of gas and Diesel).

We need good gas mileage but need to be realistic, since the consumer gets a vote in what cars/trucks they will buy.

The only significant driver in the improvement of technology for emissions and efficiency has come from gov. regulation. The consumer is very cost conscious and other than a minority of 'green' minded shoppers, do not pay more for cleaner, more efficient cars. 

As I have shared before Detroit must build the small cars in mexico to be cheap enough that consumers will buy them

It doesn't matter how much they cost - you just need to borrow more and you're fine    ;D

Once again the Trump administration is reading my mind...

Do you also think your microwave can be turned into a camera?  ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

I've worked in the field for quite a while and I can tell you the car makers always say the regulations are too strict. They said this about the emissions regulations from the 1990s, 2000s, etc.  The status quo always has less risk.
In this case, the IC engine is pretty efficient and the only significant way to make gas cars significantly better for mpg is to make them lighter. Getting 50 mpg out of a conventional fullsize pickup is not in the cards.

That would be why ford is making aluminum pick-up trucks.

Putting the regulation on the automakers enables the free market to try to find the best solution. I would think this would be a conservative's choice. The government could just say you pay a graduated tax the lower the fuel economy or the higher the emissions. So you want to buy a 8 mpg truck? Fine - but pay a $30k luxury sales tax. Or a high gas tax, but this is regressive and would be hard on low income folks.

The current regulation was going to put a lot of R&D $ into electric cars, with estimates that a significant percentage of vehicles sold would soon be electric. My perception was they saw this as the viable path to compliance. There would still be IC engines with the majority being highly downsized gasoline direct injection (gdi) in the near term and probably dual fuel in the long term (combination of gas and Diesel).
The only significant driver in the improvement of technology for emissions and efficiency has come from gov. regulation. The consumer is very cost conscious and other than a minority of 'green' minded shoppers, do not pay more for cleaner, more efficient cars. 

The 2018 mid term review was in the original 2012 legislation. Back then gas prices were expected to be near 2x what they now are. Gas prices strongly influence consumer decisions...both to dump their hummers when prices went up, and buy more pickup trucks as the prices receded.

There has been a huge policy shift from "we need better gas mileage because we are running out of oil", to "we need better gas mileage to keep the ice cap from melting" .  They were wrong before about running out of oil and very likely wrong again that gas mileage will make a significant difference.

It doesn't matter how much they cost - you just need to borrow more and you're fine    ;D

nah... unfortunately we might not be able to ever make the small cars cheap enough to sell... kids today don't even want to drive.

Do you also think your microwave can be turned into a camera?  ;D

I try not to engage in all the small ball political noise.  I am a little surprised at how much people tolerate being exposed to web connected microphones and cameras. What could possibly go wrong with that?  8)

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I try not to engage in all the small ball political noise.

Yeah, the new president accusing his predecessor of having wiretapped him during the campaign is surely "small ball political noise".

Seems the only non-small-ball noise is tied to making money.

I guess it's about priorities ultimately.

 

[micaddict]

Short European update FWIW.

Elections in The Netherlands yesterday.

First in a row in Europe this year.

No Blondie.

No Nexit.

Carry on.

 

[dmp]

That would be why ford is making aluminum pick-up trucks. The 2018 mid term review was in the original 2012 legislation. Back then gas prices were expected to be near 2x what they now are. Gas prices strongly influence consumer decisions...both to dump their hummers when prices went up, and buy more pickup trucks as the prices receded.

Car makers have been reducing weight for decades. Aluminum is lighter than steel. Unibody construction reduced weight over full frame.  Engine downsizing got the same power from a lighter 4 cyl as an older v6. It's an inverse linear relationship between mpg and vehicle weight.

There has been a huge policy shift from "we need better gas mileage because we are running out of oil", to "we need better gas mileage to keep the ice cap from melting" .  They were wrong before about running out of oil and very likely wrong again that gas mileage will make a significant difference. nah... unfortunately we might not be able to ever make the small cars cheap enough to sell... kids today don't even want to drive.

I would say it's the same policy and the same high level observations. Predicting when we hit peak oil or when oil extraction costs rise significantly is like forecasting the weather - but we do know oil isn't a sustainable resource. There's a lot of ambiguity to the extractable reserves throughout the world but they are definitely finite.  Likewise we know that CO2 in the atmosphere increases the insulating effect, causing higher energy retention in the atmosphere, and forcing the earth towards higher temps. And we know global temperature change is way beyond the geological 'normal' range.  We don't know exactly what increase in CO2 will cause the earth to become completely un-inhabitable, and we don't know exactly the balance with other forcing effects, but we do know the big picture.
So it's a logical fallacy to say that "they" were wrong about either and that the reasonable path forward should not be to reduce fossil fuel use, among other things. It is just anti-science, anti-intellectual propaganda to try to keep the status quo that is working (financially) for a minority of people. 
Transitioning from the fossil fuel energy to sustainable energy is the great challenge of the next century. All of the changes in human life between the 1800s and now were fundamentally based on cheap and available energy from fossil fuels. 

Increasing mpg is the same as increasing home insulation. It reduces energy use, consumer cost, and is a win-win all around.
Small cars will be cheap enough to sell if they are discounted enough. Car makers already have done this - trucks are more expensive, small cars are discounted. It's a market solution.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Increasing mpg is the same as increasing home insulation. It reduces energy use, consumer cost, and is a win-win all around.
Small cars will be cheap enough to sell if they are discounted enough. Car makers already have done this - trucks are more expensive, small cars are discounted. It's a market solution.

Increasing mileage is only a win-win if you ignore the cost to do so.  Detroit has already been losing money on small cars discounting them to sell enough to help meet fleet mileage standards.  The decision to move small car manufacturing to Mexico was driven by price needed to meet market demands.

Near the end of his term the Obama administration wrote an EO to forgo the 2018 fleet mileage review and lock in the existing 2025 standards (>50mpg). It seems logical to review this in light of lower oil prices and consumer preferences for bigger (heavier) cars.  Trump has already reversed that EO which merely reverts to the original legislation review in 2018 as originally written.

JR

 

[tands]

For so long, Democrats demonized and smeared anyone trying to inject basic reason, rationality, and skepticism into this Trump/Russia discourse by labeling them all Kremlin agents and Putin lovers. Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a “Fifth Column” in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivan’s notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American “Fifth Column”), while John McCain listened to Rand Paul express doubts about the wisdom of NATO further expanding to include Montenegro and then promptly announced: “Paul is working for Vladimir Putin.”

But with serious doubts — and fears — now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believe by self-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.

A formal, credible investigation into all these questions, where the evidence is publicly disclosed, is still urgently needed. That’s true primarily so that conspiracies no longer linger and these questions are resolved by facts rather than agenda-driven anonymous leaks from the CIA and cable news hosts required to feed a partisan mob.

It’s certainly possible to envision an indictment of a low-level operative like Carter Page, or the prosecution of someone like Paul Manafort on matters unrelated to hacking, but the silver bullet that Democrats have been led to expect will sink Trump appears further away than ever.

But given the way these Russia conspiracies have drowned out other critical issues being virtually ignored under the Trump presidency, it’s vital that everything be done now to make clear what is based in evidence and what is based in partisan delusions. And most of what the Democratic base has been fed for the last six months by their unhinged stable of media, online, and party leaders has decisively fallen into the latter category, as even their own officials are now desperately trying to warn.{/quote]

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

 

[DaveP]

You can't look at car production in other countries in isolation, everything is inter-linked.

The export of jobs to Mexico is tied in with unemployment, marriage breakdown, delinquency,  benefit payments, alcoholism and physical and mental health.

I am surprised that economists have not produced the computer model with the social scientists that ties it all together.

Just as the Earth has an equilibrium and ecological balance, so does social engineering, tinker with one issue and all the related issues respond.

There are smarter people out there than me who need to do some important work on this subject.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

You can't look at car production in other countries in isolation, everything is inter-linked.

The export of jobs to Mexico is tied in with unemployment, marriage breakdown, delinquency,  benefit payments, alcoholism and physical and mental health.

and USDeso exchange rate

I am surprised that economists have not produced the computer model with the social scientists that ties it all together.

economics is fuzzy enough without getting social scientists (oxymoron?) involved.

Just as the Earth has an equilibrium and ecological balance, so does social engineering, tinker with one issue and all the related issues respond.

ommmmm

The wealth of nations by Adam Smith (published 1776) had already identified win-win benefits from trade. The international economy is not a zero sum game.

There are smarter people out there than me who need to do some important work on this subject.

DaveP

I don't know you seem pretty smart.

JR

PS: I guess I need to find a video of the book for the kids.  8)

 

[Matador]

Once again the Trump administration is reading my mind...  They are planning to review the extreme CAFE fleet mileage standards written based on more expensive  fuel, driving more consumers to buy small cars instead of big trucks and SUVs.  We need good gas mileage but need to be realistic, since the consumer gets a vote in what cars/trucks they will buy. 

I'm curious John: what do you think about the requirement that every automobile provide a seat belt for every passenger?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm curious John: what do you think about the requirement that every automobile provide a seat belt for every passenger?

I put seat belts in my car way before it was mandated and wore a helmet riding my motorcycle even when not mandated because it was common sense.

I appreciate that mandated safety features help save lives and avoid accidents. ABS braking in my 20 year old car, allowed me to steer my car while full braking, to avoid a dumbass who ran a red light into my path.  Without ABS I would have skidded into the intersection and traded paint and sheet metal with his pick-up truck  (he never even slowed down, just kept going  ) .

There is some argument that air bags cause people to drive less carefully thinking they can't be hurt. I got to experience an airbag up close and personal when I totalled my '93 (hydroplaned during heavy rain into a guard rail).. but I was wearing my shoulder harness so the  airbag was mostly an extraneous explosive sound effect to disorient me. 

I am libertarian about protecting people from themselves since it interferes with natural selection.

If you are worried about car accidents make it so the idiots can't text while driving. 

JR

 

[lassoharp]

Food for thought:

The American Psychiatry Association has a nine-point checklist for narcissism - if someone displays just five of the traits, they have Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

    Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements).

    Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

    Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

    Requires excessive admiration.

    Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

    Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

    Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognise or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

    Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

    Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes.


http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

So which five would you propose?  Honestly, I'd say many of these don't actually apply to him

 

[mattiasNYC]

So which five would you propose?  Honestly, I'd say many of these don't actually apply to him

How about the first five? There are videos out there that actually quite well illustrates those traits. In my opinion.

However, most Trump supporters either diminish the significance of whatever would normally be considered significant (i.e. if Trump lies lying isn't that significant (eg "everyone lies)) or they deny that whatever is proposed occurred in the first place (eg "it's not a 'lie', it's an alternate fact").....

So, if you're a Trump supporter I'm guessing that any and all evidence I collect and present you with will be inadequate.

A Trump supporter is ok with anything Trump does, ultimately. He can threaten to incarcerate his political opponents, he can claim the election would be rigged if he loses, he can claim it was rigged if he didn't win the popular vote, he can claim his inauguration was attended by the most people, or that he got the most electoral votes in X years, that his predecessor wiretapped him, etc etc. And not only does he not have to have evidence, to Trump supporters him being proven wrong (i.e. a liar) is irrelevant and makes no difference.

So, if you really care about this, what would you accept as evidence? Video evidence of him talking?

 

[bernbrue]

Bravo! Very precise description of the dilemma! I wonder how Angela will deal with this!
Bernd

 

[lassoharp]

@ Mattias - I see you've no doubt had run ins with hard core Trumpies or Trump Junkies? but I'm not one of them.  I'm not really beholden to  any side and am continually fascinated with the ongoing partisan wars.  I'd probably be considered more Left leaning if it came down to it but I try to stay away from the gang mentality of the Liberal/Conservative wars.

So for the first five:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements).

Maybe this is a matter of semantics and definitions but the chosen words here, to me, imply someone who is out of touch with reality.  He's amassed a fortune in personal wealth and won the presidency when he arguably did not deserve it, and arguably had no business even running for office.  Those are all real achievements.  I've never heard him talk much at all about how he built his personal wealth.  Now, I'm not making excuses for his bombastic and often tactless rhetoric during the election campaign, but I see much of his over the top behavior was fueled by circumstance.  He was certainly not the same person we saw on numerous TV appearances in the past (Letterman, Oprah).  He appeared pretty low key and not a braggart during those appearances.  In fact, if you will go to you tube and watch the very first Letterman appearance from back in 1997 you will see man who actually doesn't seem to really know who the hell he is.  Letterman asks him (around 2:54) how he would describe himself - which already tells you that his public  image is somewhat obscure.  Trump hesitates and sort of hops on Letterman's suggestion saying that he's primarily in the real estate and casino business.  Not exactly the answer and mannerisms of someone who thinks he's King of the World and wants everybody to know it.  My guess is that he couldn't say "I'm a real estate mogul" with any pride and firmness because that's what his father was and he is apparently trying to carve out his own identity.  Becoming POTUS would seem to qualify. . . . .
   

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

IMO you missed it on this by one word - "Fantasies".    To have said "preoccupied with unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, ideal love" would have been pretty much on point.  But fantasy implies the never never land of a dreamer and regardless of his numerous other shortcomings Trump is clearly much more of a "Doer" than a "Dreamer".  He's attained plenty of power and material success (spiritual . . hmm).

On the terms "beauty" and "ideal love" . . . . . . well, he did buy several beauty pageants but I won't hazard a guess as to what he may have been fantasizing about.  They did earn him a lot of money.  "Ideal Love" has me stumped.  His view towards women seems to border on the stone age but that's another topic.  Some couples like the old fashioned arrangements of whose place is where.

Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

I'm curious as to how you are evaluating this point.  It rings true to the type of descriptions given to those who have clinical diagnosis of things like NPD, FPD, or things associated with having delusions of grandeur.  I don't think those are the same as being on the pompous, arrogant and haughty side of things.  And even those terms like arrogant imply a person who is covering up for some other lack (back to dreamers vs doers).  Again, the definition alludes to a condition of mental illness and the distinguishing factor there seems to be whether those beliefs have any basis in reality.  If I keep telling you that I'm going to be the next POTUS when clearly I'm not then you've got a case for the "special" and "exaggerations" etc.    I did think of him boycotting one of the debates where he decided to stage his own.  So the question becomes did he think he was too special to do it like everyone else ?  Or was it an intentional strategy aimed at a demographic he already knew wanted to be special themselves?  Probably a mix of both which brings up the question of where we draw the line on what's acceptable and what isn't. 

  Requires excessive admiration.

Agreed.  But, this one point does not a valid case make. One thing often true of those with NPD and BPD is they leave a trail of total destruction in their personal relationships, and it is their partner who usually receives the brunt of it.  Relatively speaking he seems to have a pretty stable and living family.  NPD and BPD people generally do not from what I've read.  They are characterized by a marked inability to have healthy relationships.    His need for the admiration seems to be driven more by insecurity, but he does not IMO, have the destructive tendencies seen in NPD and BPD type conditions.

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

Just like the previous point, I'm curious of the examples you based this point on.  One thing that came to mind when reading this point was of an incident during the campaign where the audio feed for his mic fizzed out and got irate about it.  He made sure the sound guy got beheaded in front of everybody.  He was on the rude side and very blunt and not showing great tact.  Was he justified in being pissed?  I'd say so.  Did that make him someone with unreasonable expectations to pitch a fuss like that?  I'm not defending him or denying him when I say that I understood the basis of his anger in terms of paying the audio people "good money" to do a job and then have them botch it at such a critical time.  I think a lot of people in that situation would at least have been thinking "well, I'm not paying you full price for that screw up!"  So on that point I didn't think it was unreasonable to expect the audio should have functioned right.

ps - as audio guys we know the rest of the non audio world is clueless as to the technical difficulties of producing 100% flawless audio 24/7 .  He would've been my worst FOH nightmare.    And I probably would have thought him and anyone else who would have complained an entitled idiot for not understanding, but that's only true in the realm of audio folks. 


#6 and #9  I would agree with.  #6 is the classic 'psychopathic businessman.'  #9 is similar to some of the above.  He's certainly combative and sometimes cocky but again, I don't think that one point is sufficient.  And there's also the lack of negative destruction in his personal relationships (meaning mostly his family) which I think is the overall hallmark of these clinical disorders like NPD and others.



Have his decisions in office so far been a partisan nightmare?  Biggest "yes" I can muster.  But notice i did say "partisan nightmare"  just as Obama, Bernie and Hillary were partisan nightmares.  The further we divide the further POTUS polarity will swing.  Somewhere in the middle of all that smoke and gunfire sits objectivity.  Is Trump objective in many of his views?  Nope.  Back to that question of whether he truly believes them or still just conservatively sticking to the formula that got him in office -which is a deliberate strategy of playing to a sector of the public that wants to believe they are special - as in they think he's doing it all for them and only them.  It's strange and kind of disturbing at times. 

But we are also a country that is facing a dilemma of what's acceptable and what isn't.  It's become a popular thing to hang pop psych labels on celebrities and CEOs and we walk a fine line sometimes on praising some for it and condemning others (our loveable psychopaths and super divas).  IMO the APA designations deal largely with persons whose behaviors are destructive in such manner as to cause themselves and others in their lives (who are often victims) a similar level of destruction such that it impedes their growth and creates significant dysfunction.  If Trump were that type of Disorder Case I would expect to see it reflected in his family - and he likely wouldn't even have a functional one if he was.(look at Charlie Sheen)  His daughters seem pretty healthy (mentally) and have been extremely successful.  His wife seems fine and not the type of woman who would put up with the type of manipulations and other destructive behavior you see in BPD/NPD and other similar disorders.  Maybe its a matter of degree, I don't know.  Trump has issues, I just don't think it's at the level intended for these APA designations.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I wonder how Angela will deal with this!
Bernd

Probably depends on if he grabs her pussy or not.....

 

[mattiasNYC]

@ Mattias

Since you put so much effort into your reply (which I haven't read) I think it's only fair that I don't reply until I've read it and have time to respond properly. Hopefully not to much verbiage, but I typically fail on that latter point....

 

[ramshackles]

Why is it that the white house/trump is now constantly regurgitating stuff they have happened to see on Fox as both truth *and* current?
We've had a non-existent massacre, an 'incident' in sweden (that one was particularly amusing) and now wiretapping by GCHQ.
Is no-one validating info before Mr Spicer steps behind the mic?
Has Trump lost a few cogs in his old age - not only does he seem to take fox news as his gospel (surely there are plenty of people within the white house that can feed him more reliable info), but he seems to think anything he watches on that channel just happened, regardless as to whether it is news, documentary etc...

 

[dmp]

Why is it that the white house/trump is now constantly regurgitating stuff they have happened to see on Fox as both truth *and* current?
We've had a non-existent massacre, an 'incident' in sweden (that one was particularly amusing) and now wiretapping by GCHQ.
Is no-one validating info before Mr Spicer steps behind the mic?
Has Trump lost a few cogs in his old age - not only does he seem to take fox news as his gospel (surely there are plenty of people within the white house that can feed him more reliable info), but he seems to think anything he watches on that channel just happened, regardless as to whether it is news, documentary etc...

And now with serious stuff happening with North Korea, I think we might see the consequences of this country electing a person who has poor critical thinking skills and can't distinguish truth from conjecture. The person who's judgment the world depends on posts nonsense to twitter on a daily basis.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Why is it that the white house/trump is now constantly regurgitating stuff they have happened to see on Fox as both truth *and* current?

President Trump has other sources of intelligence , but it is less likely to watch MSNBC over Fox due to the tone of coverage. A lot of the liberal media have abandoned any pretense of objective reportage and just openly attack his administration, for every minor transgression, real or imagined.   

We've had a non-existent massacre, an 'incident' in sweden (that one was particularly amusing) and now wiretapping by GCHQ.

I won't defend every utterance, but the Sweden remark has been explained. It was his inarticulate response to a segment he saw on the Tucker Carlson show the night before, about problems with the recent asylum seekers there not assimilating into the swedish culture, and causing public safety concerns. There does not seem to be a very honest assessment from swedish leaders and news organizations regarding this.

Sweden has very generously accepted more immigrants per capita than most european nations, but immigrants from regions that were fighting each other before moving to sweden have been slow to forget old conflicts. In january Sweden announced plans to expel as many as 80,000 asylum seekers.  I have seen/heard a number of anecdotal reports about people feeling unsafe in their own home neighborhoods.

I'm sure our swedish forum members can correct me if I am wrong (maybe even if I'm not.  ;D ).

Is no-one validating info before Mr Spicer steps behind the mic?

that is the "job" of an honest adversarial media, but they spew so much venom it can be hard to take them seriously.

Has Trump lost a few cogs in his old age - not only does he seem to take fox news as his gospel (surely there are plenty of people within the white house that can feed him more reliable info), but he seems to think anything he watches on that channel just happened, regardless as to whether it is news, documentary etc...

Yes, he has misinterpreted news images/stories before. One of the most striking that I recall was during the campaign when he claimed that muslims were celebrating in the streets (in NJ) after the 9/11 attack. He (or somebody near him) clearly confused TV images of people in the middle east shown openly celebrating the attack in the arab street back then. Somehow that got conflated with events across the river from the WTC in NJ. 

Trump speaks with zero filters on his stream of consciousness...  I wish he was more thoughtful before speaking but he seems unwilling to change dramatically (he has slowed down a little but not enough IMO). He routinely steps on his own messaging with spurious unrelated tweets. He will pay a price for any blatantly wrong claims that he doesn't walk back. Adversarial media would be more effective (and more believable) if they weren't so hyperbolic. They are at risk of turning into the boy who cried wolf, so many times that nobody believes them when the wolf really comes.

Neither side is behaving in their own self interest while in the short term ratings are up for the aggressive anti-trump media attackers, so somebody likes watching the drama.

JR

PS: N Korea is a can of worms. In response to their nuclear missile development tests, we have moved anti-missile batteries to south korea, to protect allies in the region (Japan, So Korea, etc). China is unhappy about the missile defense in their backyard but they have been unwilling or ineffective at keeping N Korea in check. The N Korea issue has been kicked down the road by several past US administrations. At some point we will have to deal with a nuclear capable rogue nation.