The Donald Secures Key Endorsement

[Drekkan85]

From North Korea. From Politico:

An editorial published Tuesday heaps praise on Trump as a "wise politician" and a "far-sighted presidential candidate," according to a report by NKNews.org, which noted that the article referred to many of the presumptive Republican nominee's statements on foreign policy with respect to North Korea in particular.

Racking up those top notch endorsements.

 

[Vylo]

They have the best Korea, their Korea is great and everyone knows it, so this make sense.

 

[Albion]

Trump said he'd be willing to speak with the leader of NK. That government apparently has shown itself willing.

No wonder you are upset about it.

Shifting course from the favorite Liberal claim that a Trump presidency would immediately cast the world into World War III to its opposite--complaining about the president meeting with our enemies (which Obama promised but then didn't do) must be uncomfortable.

 

[Drekkan85]

Trump said he'd be willing to speak with the leader of NK. That government apparently has shown itself willing.

No wonder you are upset about it.

Shifting course from the favorite Liberal claim that a Trump presidency would immediately cast the world into World War III to its opposite--complaining about the president meeting with our enemies (which Obama promised but then didn't do) must be uncomfortable.

Yes, Obama totally did not meet with Iran. And when he did Conservatives championed his diplomatic efforts in the face of Liberal hawks calling for bombing...

 

[Albion]

Yes, Obama totally did not meet with Iran. And when he did Conservatives championed his diplomatic efforts in the face of Liberal hawks calling for bombing...

You must be remembering some other "Conservatives" than I remember. Most Conservatives were horrified at Obama's appeasement in that case and very outspoken about it. At any rate, the poke at Trump still looks like partisan opportunism, anything in order to be ugly, you know.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

You must be remembering some other "Conservatives" than I remember. Most Conservatives were horrified at Obama's appeasement in that case and very outspoken about it. At any rate, the poke at Trump still looks like partisan opportunism, anything in order to be ugly, you know.

There are at least 3 different definitions for the word Conservative maybe more, especially when used in context with a 4 letter word...

 

[Drekkan85]

You must be remembering some other "Conservatives" than I remember. Most Conservatives were horrified at Obama's appeasement in that case and very outspoken about it. At any rate, the poke at Trump still looks like partisan opportunism, anything in order to be ugly, you know.

Whoosh...

But seriously - what's the conservative line here? Boo on Obama for sitting down with an enemy and extracting sweeping concessions in exchange for relatively minor relief that Iran was going to get anyway as sanctions were about to splinter on their own? Yay for Trump for being willing to sit down with an enemy after giving it everything it wants (withdrawal of US troops and US security guarantees for South Korea) without extracting any concessions whatsoever?

As a foreigner it just looks blatantly partisan.

 

[Albion]

There are at least 3 different definitions for the word Conservative maybe more...

Yes, but we are talking about political philosophy here, so to use the word to describe a preference for black suits and paying with cash, etc. doesn't do much but confuse things.

 

[Albion]

Yay for Trump for being willing to sit down with an enemy after giving it everything it wants (withdrawal of US troops and US security guarantees for South Korea) without extracting any concessions whatsoever?

Where'd you get the idea that Trump was about to make those concessions?

 

[Drekkan85]

Where'd you get the idea that Trump was about to make those concessions?

Trump has made a point that he will end security guarantees and military bases in Europe and Asia. This would involve removing US troops from South Korea and Japan together with the aegis of US protection. This is exactly what North Korea wants.

 

[rambot]

That makes sense. Perhaps he wants tips on how to best treat reporters or anyone else who may question is bloviating wisdom.

What an imbecile this guy.

 

[Oafman]

To be fair to that editorial, it did use the phrase 'Dull Hillary' which amused me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Trump said he'd be willing to speak with the leader of NK. That government apparently has shown itself willing.

I'm sure he'll be as effective a diplomat to NK As Dennis Rodman...

 

[cow451]

Nobody takes an "endorsement" from North Korea seriously, but Mr. Trump knows how to make a deal. He wrote the book on making deals, unlike the liberal, lying Obama and Crooked Hillary that sent jobs overseas like Carrier .... and the PGA had to move a golf tournament from the Trump National Doral Course... that's a really, really great course, by the way.... to Mexico. More American jobs to Mexico- yes we are going to build the wall... bank on it. Mr. Trump is getting so many tweets and calls of support from people you would be amazed at, telling him he has to do something about the PGA. American caddies, ball-washers, groundskeepers... you know Hispanics love Trump and he loves them back... are afraid of losing their good wages by having to go back to Mexico. Lee Trevino was such a great golfer and loved Trump's golf course. You know he won the Doral and the U.S. Open. Lee knows his taco bowls and Trump has the best taco bowls.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nobody takes an "endorsement" from North Korea seriously, but Mr. Trump knows how to make a deal. He wrote the book on making deals, unlike the liberal, lying Obama and Crooked Hillary that sent jobs overseas like Carrier ....

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yay for Trump for being willing to sit down with an enemy after giving it everything it wants (withdrawal of US troops and US security guarantees for South Korea) without extracting any concessions whatsoever?

As a foreigner it just looks blatantly partisan.

Why don't you send your own troops to South Korea to take over for ours if maintaining those security guarantees are so important to you? You want to fight the Second Korean war you're welcome to it. We've been there long enough.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why don't you send your own troops to South Korea to take over for ours if maintaining those security guarantees are so important to you? You want to fight the Second Korean war you're welcome to it. We've been there long enough.

Don't be naive -- if there's ever a Second Korean War, we'll be fighting it no matter whose troops are on the border.

 

[JustOneWay]

Trump gets an endorsement from an enemy of the US, and Trump supporters continue to support.

That is what I expect them to do.

 

[Albion]

Trump has made a point that he will end security guarantees and military bases in Europe and Asia. This would involve removing US troops from South Korea and Japan together with the aegis of US protection. This is exactly what North Korea wants.

Best I can tell, no one is preventing Canada from doing it instead.

 

[Drekkan85]

Best I can tell, no one is preventing Canada from doing it instead.

Here's the goal posts.......................................................................and here's where they end up.

It doesn't matter what Canada would do, or what I want them to do. My basic point was that despite attacking Obama for doing a "bad deal" with Iran (that was actually fairly fantastic given circumstances), Trump's here would be worse. Why? Because he's giving the other side exactly what they want, for free, and without any concessions.

If you were to ask what NK wants, its number one goal is for America to leave SK and abandon its security guarantees. The US, under Trump, would be giving that up without any kind of compensation or concession.

As for the guarantees, the cost to the US is trivial compared to:

a) Maintaining Korea as a trading partner;
b) Offsetting the power of China in the region; and
c) Maintaining global stability.

That last factor is why Trump's ideas are most imbecilic. Global stability is good for those on top. The higher up the food chain you are, the more you should support and maintain international structures and geopolitical stability. Geopolitical chaos gives rise to many new risks, and presents current "have nots" with opportunities they'd otherwise have. There's a reason why Rome and the UK prospered when Pax Romana and Pax Brittania ruled. There's also reasons why those systems collapsed when stability was shaken by outside factors (such as plagues, mis-management, and short-sighted cost savings at the expense of long-term planning), and led to the collapse of those Great Powers.