What winning in NK looks like

[hodad]

From the NY Times:

Advisers to Mr. Pompeo, both outside the government and inside the C.I.A., which he used to direct, have cautioned him that North Korea will not give up its arsenal of 20 to 60 weapons until the last stages of any disarmament plan — if it gives them up at all. Many of the plans they have given him call for the North to halt production of nuclear fuel — at a moment that there are signs of increased production

So not only is NK unlikely to give up its weapons for years, it's increasing its production capabilities.  All of which does not necessarily mean things aren't headed in the right direction. 

But President CB said it's a done deal, right?  He had  one meeting and that fixed it all.  But, ummm, it ain't even close--and that's what his own people are saying.  He declared victory upon taking the first step--sad!!!

 

[JohnRoberts]

I will allow this thread to continue IF future posts are thoughtful (unlike this one). 

If we get more baseless political trolling it will be locked.
======

From the NY Times:

Advisers to Mr. Pompeo, both outside the government and inside the C.I.A., which he used to direct, have cautioned him that North Korea will not give up its arsenal of 20 to 60 weapons until the last stages of any disarmament plan — if it gives them up at all. Many of the plans they have given him call for the North to halt production of nuclear fuel — at a moment that there are signs of increased production

The new nuclear program activity in NK was observed in satellite images.  This is not news to anyone paying attention.

NK is playing the same long game as they have for decades, but now after politicians from both parties have kicked the can down the road for decades we have allowed them to develop nuclear weapons.  So same as before but way harder.

So not only is NK unlikely to give up its weapons for years, it's increasing its production capabilities.  All of which does not necessarily mean things aren't headed in the right direction. 

true

But President CB said it's a done deal, right?

Is President CB some new pejorative? Stop that.  (I was chastised for calling ACA Obamacare, so I stopped, even though democrats called it that).

No, President Trump has not claimed a done deal for anything but the first meeting, and future discussion.

He had  one meeting and that fixed it all.

no

But, ummm, it ain't even close--and that's what his own people are saying.  He declared victory upon taking the first step--sad!!!

This is what we affectionately call a "straw man" fallacy, attacking your own made up argument that is easy to refute.

In actuality President Trump has said multiple times, "we'll see what happens" and that sanctions are 1- still on, and 2- can be ramped up harder based on what NK does from here.  Right now he is trying the carrot (economic expansion) rather than stick (shows of military force). The future kind of depends on how much pressure China puts on NK and that is interweaved with trade negotiations. 

Nobody expects this to be easy. I would be surprised if Un ever gives up his weapons, based on what happened to other world dictators who did (see Libya).  The best we can hope for is getting NK a legal source of sustainable income and some quality of life improvement for the tens of millions living there under harsh conditions.

The NYT is not without bias, and your parenthetic comments are worse (IMO).

JR

 

[hodad]

CB on the Twitter:  "Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. "

So, sure.  Pick your quotes carefully and many different arguments can be supported.  On the family separation issue there were at least a dozen varying and/or contradictory pronouncements from President Cry Baby and his staff. 

Yes, I am aware the Times is biased.  Judith Miller helped lie us into war in Iraq.  As far back as the 1950s, Times reporters were stenographers for the CIA in their quest to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala.  So, yeah, I too view many of their stories with a bit of suspicion.  Still better than Fox News. Or CNN.

 

[Banzai]

I will allow this thread to continue IF future posts are thoughtful (unlike this one). 

If we get more baseless political trolling it will be locked.

Moderators are supposed to be neutral – someone who gets personally offended every time anyone insults or criticises Trump, shouldn't be moderating political threads.

 

[scott2000]

So  there is some shared/common belief that NK has nuclear ambitions that might affect ours or others safety.....????

What's going to happen if we have to act????

Then the increased production will have been made up??

 

[pucho812]

Moderators are supposed to be neutral – someone who gets personally offended every time anyone insults or criticises Trump, shouldn't be moderating political threads.

who says it's jr that is offended?

 

[JohnRoberts]

CB on the Twitter:  "Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. "

Still have no idea what CB means (besides citizen band radio).

I don't follow twitter, and have repeatedly suggesting not dwelling on what any politician says, look at what they do.

So, sure.  Pick your quotes carefully and many different arguments can be supported.  On the family separation issue there were at least a dozen varying and/or contradictory pronouncements from President Cry Baby and his staff. 

oops I think I just figured out what you pejorative means ("cry baby") do i win something?

Yes, I am aware the Times is biased.  Judith Miller helped lie us into war in Iraq.  As far back as the 1950s, Times reporters were stenographers for the CIA in their quest to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala.  So, yeah, I too view many of their stories with a bit of suspicion.  Still better than Fox News. Or CNN.

sorry I doubt I can satisfy your high standards/

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Moderators are supposed to be neutral – someone who gets personally offended every time anyone insults or criticises Trump, shouldn't be moderating political threads.

NO...  Moderators are supposed to enforce the rules.

If you think I am breaking any rules, file a moderation complaint and be specific.

I am losing patience . I tried a lighter touch by ignoring some some serial trolls  and their behavior got worse. (We received moderation complaints, so I had to read their posts anyhow  ).

Many forums prohibit all political discussion because of the difficulty to keep it civil.  I would love to preserve the good community exchange of ideas we enjoy here (with a few exceptions), but it is becoming more difficult. I perceive a definite temperature increase in political discussion.

We'll see what happens.  8)

JR

 

[hodad]

I don't follow twitter, and have repeatedly suggesting not dwelling on what any politician says, look at what they do.

With Trump, I think you're doing that at your peril.  I think his actions have all too often mirrored his inflammatory speech.  I see no reason to pay attention to Trump's scripted words (eg, his paean to the press the other day) when they directly contradict years of unscripted pronouncements.  Even in cases where his inflammatory speech is simply to gin up support or sow confusion, it's worth paying attention to.  Other Trump supporters are buying into every word. 

oops I think I just figured out what you pejorative means ("cry baby") do i win something? sorry I doubt I can satisfy your high standards/
JR

That was a gimme, John. 

As to my high standards--it's not I who disqualify all presidential pronouncements made on Twitter (even though it is his primary means of communication).  From what I've seen here, you're far more dismissive of those you perceive as "biased" (eg, New York Times, all climate scientists not on an oil company's payroll) than almost anyone on the other side of the argument.  I don't know that your standards are high, but I'm pretty sure I'll never satisfy them.

 

[JohnRoberts]

With Trump, I think you're doing that at your peril.  I think his actions have all too often mirrored his inflammatory speech.  I see no reason to pay attention to Trump's scripted words (eg, his paean to the press the other day) when they directly contradict years of unscripted pronouncements.  Even in cases where his inflammatory speech is simply to gin up support or sow confusion, it's worth paying attention to.  Other Trump supporters are buying into every word. 


That was a gimme, John. 

As to my high standards--it's not I who disqualify all presidential pronouncements made on Twitter (even though it is his primary means of communication).  From what I've seen here, you're far more dismissive of those you perceive as "biased" (eg, New York Times, all climate scientists not on an oil company's payroll) than almost anyone on the other side of the argument.  I don't know that your standards are high, but I'm pretty sure I'll never satisfy them.

Pass... I have better things to do.

JR

 

[hodad]

Put one more way & then I'll shut up. 
You attack my argument as a straw man, and then I post a quote to back it up.  You dismiss this because it is from Twitter, an exclusion that suits your argument but little else.  That's the sort of standard I don't expect ever to meet--arbitrary and self-serving. 

 

[scott2000]

So not only is NK unlikely to give up its weapons for years, it's increasing its production capabilities.  All of which does not necessarily mean things aren't headed in the right direction. 

Any thoughts on this?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Any thoughts on this?

What I said already....  True.

NK is unlikely to give up their weapons.

Talking to them is better than not talking with them...

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Put one more way & then I'll shut up. 
You attack my argument as a straw man, and then I post a quote to back it up.  You dismiss this because it is from Twitter, an exclusion that suits your argument but little else.  That's the sort of standard I don't expect ever to meet--arbitrary and self-serving.

Actually, the way I read his post,  he did not dismiss it because it was from Twitter per se. He said he judges politicians by what they do rather than by what they say.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Put one more way & then I'll shut up. 
You attack my argument as a straw man, and then I post a quote to back it up.  You dismiss this because it is from Twitter, an exclusion that suits your argument but little else.  That's the sort of standard I don't expect ever to meet--arbitrary and self-serving.

Sorry, but I hope I have been consistent. I repeat my well worn basketball analogy. Ignore the head fakes and watch their feet to see where they are going.

There is some truth to your statements and some truth to my claims of exaggeration.  It will be a long several years if me micro inspect every tweet for literal accuracy.

To offer a veer to discuss something more substantive, in the opinions written by SCOTUS (minority) about the travel ban, one justice wanted to include Presidential tweets and campaign comments as basis for declaring the ban religious, and so unconstitutional. The rest of the justices replied upon the actual text of the travel ban. I find this new consideration interesting, and potentially not productive (but I am a textualist).

I have long argued (only half in jest) that all political candidates should swear an oath to speak truthfully and be subject to perjury for ever lying to the public.  Now that would be a game changer (and pretty much impossible to  manage).  The court of public opinion now prosecuting this "truthfulness" is not very blind.

JR

 

[dmp]

To offer a veer to discuss something more substantive, in the opinions written by SCOTUS (minority) about the travel ban, one justice wanted to include Presidential tweets and campaign comments as basis for declaring the ban religious, and so unconstitutional. The rest of the justices replied upon the actual text of the travel ban. I find this new consideration interesting, and potentially not productive (but I am a textualist).

In the Masterpiece cake decision the court did look at the statements by the Government (CO civil rights commision) while in the travel ban the majority ignored Gov statements (Trump's statements would have showed a clear religious intention behind the ban.)
Judicial activism? Or is there a reason to apply different standards to these two decisions?  Wasn't there clear evidence in the travel ban case that the Government actions were not religiously neutral? (Trump's statements of a 'muslim' ban.)


From the NYT:
"Writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, he said the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been infected by religious animus. He cited what he said were “inappropriate and dismissive comments” from one commissioner in saying that the panel had acted inappropriately and that its decision should be overturned.

“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

From the actual SCOTUS decision:
"Whatever  the  confluence  of  speech  and  free  exercise 
principles  might  be  in  some  cases,  the  Colorado  Civil 
Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was incon-
sistent  with  the  State’s  obligation  of  religious  neutrality."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

 

[scott2000]

From the actual SCOTUS decision:
"Whatever  the  confluence  of  speech  and  free  exercise 
principles  might  be  in  some  cases,  the  Colorado  Civil 
Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was incon-
sistent  with  the  State’s  obligation  of  religious  neutrality."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

I agree that the laws shouldn't be determined on how nice we are or aren't ..... This was silly to rule based on what people say or how they act. It will be tried again under different circumstances if it hasn't started already...

One interesting concept I heard was ...

Say that I'm wanting to contract a gay film maker to make a film about how homosexuality is discussed in the Bible .  Not saying anyone would intentionally test that because it is just looking for trouble but, I think some would feel better not participating. 

The cake guy only had a problem with the final topping on the cake....He didn't have an issue with baking the cake from what I understood.....

No shoes no shirt no service is next....lol

 

[JohnRoberts]

now this is more interesting.

In the Masterpiece cake decision the court did look at the statements by the Government (CO civil rights commision) while in the travel ban the majority ignored Gov statements (Trump's statements would have showed a clear religious intention behind the ban.)

If we get the supreme court vetting President Trumps tweets, that will keep them distracted and occupied for years.

I find it hard to be so certain about a religious (anti-muslim) intent, when the facts of the ban suggest otherwise.  A couple non-muslim countries were on the list, and the vast majority of muslim populations were not covered by the list. What were covered were mostly failed states with inadequate internal security to know about who they were sending. One banned country was removed from the list after they cleaned up their internal security practices. 

Occam's razor suggests that the simple answer (the travel ban is about security) is the correct one.

The media story characterizing POTUS as (insert your favorite pejorative) is not made true by repetition.   

Judicial activism? Or is there a reason to apply different standards to these two decisions?  Wasn't there clear evidence in the travel ban case that the Government actions were not religiously neutral? (Trump's statements of a 'muslim' ban.)

I would always defer to factual analysis (like the text and reality of the travel ban).

From the NYT:
"Writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, he said the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been infected by religious animus. He cited what he said were “inappropriate and dismissive comments” from one commissioner in saying that the panel had acted inappropriately and that its decision should be overturned.

It appears there is quite a lot of religious animus around the world. The civil rights commission sounds politically charged so likely to infected with all kinds of animus (as is modern politics). 

“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

From the actual SCOTUS decision:
"Whatever  the  confluence  of  speech  and  free  exercise 
principles  might  be  in  some  cases,  the  Colorado  Civil 
Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was incon-
sistent  with  the  State’s  obligation  of  religious  neutrality."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

I do not see the equivalence between these two opinions. There are many examples of bias within our government, too many to list.

The US has always been a little conflicted about separation of church and state (with "In god we trust" printed on the money), while freedom to practice whatever religion you want is specifically protected by the constitution. 

I am not a fan of the government telling private businesses who we must serve. That includes restaurants who feel like kicking out administration employees. If they want to do that, it seems like a self-destructive business practice, but should be their right. 

JR

PS: I expect discussions about SCOTUS to get more heated and divisive now that Kennedy announced his retirement. If anything I'm surprised it hasn't hit here harder because it is actually significant to the future balance of SCOTUS. Some other interesting SCOTUS decisions were just handed down too but I won't poke that bee hive.

 

[boji]

I have long argued (only half in jest) that all political candidates should swear an oath to speak truthfully and be subject to perjury for ever lying to the public.  Now that would be a game changer (and pretty much impossible to  manage).  The court of public opinion now prosecuting this "truthfulness" is not very blind.

I've been thinking about this too. Perhaps the blockchain can help...to somehow to lend credibility to, and weigh the truthfulness of media and journalism.  Some AI supreme court that webcrawls the internet and evaluates truth statements, and assigns weight to rhetoric, exposition, and moral claims and then can be stacked on media exchange outlets.

Edit:  Kinda like an active bot combination of snopes.com & reddit that measures degrees of separation from vetted scientific white papers.

Edit2: struck some language that was redundant

 

[dmp]

I've been thinking about this too. Perhaps the blockchain can help...to somehow to lend credibility to, and weigh the truthfulness of media and journalism.  Some AI supreme court that webcrawls the internet and evaluates truth statements, and assigns weight to rhetoric, exposition, and moral claims and then can be stacked on media exchange outlets.

Edit:  Kinda like an active bot combination of snopes.com & reddit that autonomously, proactively wraps all html in a hash that both authenticates the author and measures falsity, using cross reference and degrees of separation from vetted scientific white papers.

I'm pessimistic, considering the power of partisan thinking these days.
The attacks on the media (including snopes) by the wingnuts is what you get. Lies are powerful.
The failure of conservatives to acknowledge the frequent and blatant lies of President Trump is disheartening. They seem to acknowledge it is indefensible, so they are choosing to ignore it?
For a group that made such a big deal out of a few statements by Obama that were not fully true or turned out to be wrong, it is especially hypocritical.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

For instance, back on the original thread topic:
Trump 4/22/18
"Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake News NBC just stated that we have given up so much in our negotiations with North Korea, and they have given up nothing. Wow, we haven’t given up anything & they have agreed to denuclearization (so great for World), site closure, & no more testing!"

It was a lie because there is no indication NK had made this agreement, correct? 
And here also is Trump attacking the media as fake news - the only media coverage he doesn't attack and insult is the propaganda stations that kowtow to his agenda. For the President to be behaving this way is unAmerican and embarrassing. But he is being defended and enabled by the Republican party