Trump best strategy with NK? Name calling.

[Aldebaran]

What was Japan's reaction to having a missile fired at them?

They were furious about it: Japanese react furiously to North Korean missile launch | Asia | DW | 30.08.2017

 

[PeachyKeane]

They were furious about it: Japanese react furiously to North Korean missile launch | Asia | DW | 30.08.2017

Did they threaten destroy the nation of North Korea?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

They were furious about it: Japanese react furiously to North Korean missile launch | Asia | DW | 30.08.2017

Understandably so.

Did they resort to name calling?

 

[Aldebaran]

Understandably so.

Did they resort to name calling?

Is that seriously what is most important to you? Is that what national security is based on? But if that's really the part of all this that is most important, then I guess NK just let its guard down: Kim Jong Un calls President Trump a 'frightened dog' and 'dotard'

Either way, who called the other person the worst names will hardly matter if either side makes good on their threats to the other. Maybe that's what should be seen as most important.

 

[Aldebaran]

The agenda is reporting facts. Again that called reporting. Now I know you are all upset cause it doesn't fit your opinions all the time but you're a big kid now.

They are too often reporting only selected facts while ignoring the ones that don't support their true agenda. A good example of that is what I saw last night on ABC News. The Republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare, so they have a reporter do a story about it in a way that makes it sound like Obamacare is all good and nothing wrong with it. They tried to appeal to the emotions of their audience by going to the home of a single mother with a special needs kid that would lose their healthcare if Obamacare was repealed.

Those are the facts they selected to put forward in their story because it fit with the Liberal agenda they push for. Here's a different story they could have put out that would also report the facts:

How about a story where they interview a hard-working guy trying to support his family who had health insurance before Obamacare? He liked his doctor and his health plan, but lost both due to Obamacare. He and his wife have seen their premiums double, and then triple as their "affordable" health coverage skyrocketed, and now they have to decide whether to give up their coverage in order to have money for food and clothing for their children.

But we won't see stories like that. It doesn't fit with their Liberal agenda.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I don't see Trump's comments toward NK to be as much a provocation than a stern warning.

There are stern warnings delivered like an adult and then there's Dear Leader Trump's over-the-top bluster which he specializes in.

I'm A-OK with countries telling NK they are out in left field, but it shouldn't sound indifferentiable from the nutjob rhetoric the Kims have relied on for decades.

It seems that China has made it's position clear, and I hope that it doesn't mean a war between China and the USA if the USA defends itself against NK. Beijing warns Pyongyang: You’re on your own if you go after the United States

And that's not a bad thing. If NK does some sort of first strike we are in the right to defend ourselves without having to worry about some third party taking part. I just don't want Donald "Tiny Hands" Trump to work himself all up in a lather and push the button first. But if he wants to goad Kim into pushing the button first it doesn't seem like a healthy option either. That means someone someone where is going to be hit by NK.

I honestly don't think Kim would do anything quite that rash anyway. IF he isn't completely deranged he has to know it will be the end of the Kim regime.

I think the worst-case scenario is that Kim launches something on Guam, the US responds with destruction of NK and while the Cruise missles are inflight toward Pyongyang Kim fires his entire load on Seoul.

Kim is wiped out but so are millions of innocent South Koreans.

 

[Obliquinaut]

They are too often reporting only selected facts while ignoring the ones that don't support their true agenda. A good example of that is what I saw last night on ABC News. The Republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare, so they have a reporter do a story about it in a way that makes it sound like Obamacare is all good and nothing wrong with it. They tried to appeal to the emotions of their audience by going to the home of a single mother with a special needs kid that would lose their healthcare if Obamacare was repealed.

Those are the facts they selected to put forward in their story because it fit with the Liberal agenda they push for. Here's a different story they could have put out that would also report the facts:

How about a story where they interview a hard-working guy trying to support his family who had health insurance before Obamacare? He liked his doctor and his health plan, but lost both due to Obamacare. He and his wife have seen their premiums double, and then triple as their "affordable" health coverage skyrocketed, and now they have to decide whether to give up their coverage in order to have money for food and clothing for their children.

But we won't see stories like that. It doesn't fit with their Liberal agenda.

I have yet to see an honest statement about healthcare reform from the GOP. What I DO hear is this fantasy they have that they can keep the insurance companies in the mix and force the insurance companies to NOT use pre-existing conditions and lifetime coverage caps without an individual mandate. That isn't how insurance works. It just isn't.

I also hear the GOP talk non-stop about insurance across state lines. That sounds nice but it isn't really a fix. ALready it's legal in many states and the reason that it won't work overall is that insurance companies will go with states with the minimum coverage requirements meaning the insurance people can "afford" will invariably be less than useful. (The Problem With G.O.P. Plans to Sell Health Insurance Across State Lines)

Instead what we heard was 7 years of show-votes to repeal the ACA to make political points. The reason the GOP hasn't actively voted to repeal the ACA is that they know it would be a short term disaster followed by a rush to "fix" the system taking it back to exactly what it was before the ACA complete with caps and pre-existing conditions and run-away increases in premiums.

The GOP voters were played. And played hard. There was never any intention to actually "fix" the healthcare system over what the ACA did... and the voters who voted for Trump were led astray.

Maybe if they had learned how insurance works and could see what the GOP were doing it would be a different story.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Cause the western world doesn't want a buffer state for China perhaps? China, trade ties notwithstanding is not exactly a partner that the West exactly wants to keep empowered

It shouldn't matter what WE want...it should matter what a workable situation is that ensures everyone gets at least a little bit of what they want.

China doesn't want a completely US-backed country on their doorstep. But by the same token they don't want a buffer state that is threatening the US, especially when it looks like it will get itself destroyed by doing so.

There is a middle path here. CHina could set up a regime in NK that could still be to their liking but not a radical nuthouse.

 

[USincognito]

Taken in full from the Daily Wire:

You’ve seen the word “globalist” popping up around Trump fan sites all over the internet. It seems like some sort of slur, but you’re not sure what it means. Good news: you’re not the only one. Many of the people using the word “globalist” seem to be under the misimpression that opposing “globalism” involves reviving American authority, rejecting international institutions that remove American sovereignty.

That’s not what Trump fans mean by “globalism.”

They mean something else: empowering the American government to infringe on your freedom to participate in free economic exchange.

Take, for example, Matt Drudge’s top headline today: “GLOBALIST PANIC: OBAMA WARNS DUMP TRUMP.” President Obama, like the non-self-aware tool that he is, explained to an audience that Trump was unfit for office. What did that have to do with globalism per se? According to the RealClearPolitics.com story linked, nothing of importance. “Globalist” was merely a slur.

But Drudge’s use of “globalist” gives us a hint. Here are a few of his other headlines using that word: “Speaker is Globalist ‘Grown in Petri Dish in DC,” “OBAMA FINAL GLOBALIST PUSH,” “Trump Takes Aim At Globalist Hillary,” “MAG: Why Dems Becoming Party of 1%...Only place for globalist-minded elites,” “FALSE SONG OF GLOBALISM,” “Trump targets ‘globalism’ as job-killer.”

What would supposedly put President Obama and Paul Ryan and Democrats all in the category of “globalists”? Only two elements: free trade and immigration.

Let’s begin with free trade.

It is an absolute misnomer, as I’ve written at National Review, to call free trade “globalism.” It’s the equivalent of calling you buying some paper plates from Ralph’s “globalism.” Free trade is merely the absence of governmental restrictions on free exchange of goods and services. Globalism would require international rules to govern how we do business here at home. No true free trader supports that. And Trump’s anti-globalist alternative, tariffs, is far more controlling than any international free trade agreement. Trump would jack up indirect taxation on American consumers to massive levels and then call it freedom from “globalism.” It’s actually just tyranny by way of the American government.

It's worth noting here that Obama's brand of free trade could be globalist if he insists on cramming down regulations from abroad. That's why many free traders opposed giving Obama trade promotion authority.

How about immigration?

Here we run into a sticky wicket for conservatives. Anti-free traders like Donald Trump oppose immigration not first and foremost thanks to failures of cultural assimilation. They oppose immigration on the grounds that new immigrants “take” American jobs. In other words, a perfectly capable immigrant who comes to the United States to work a job would be welcomed by most conservatives; Trump says, however, that to allow that person in would be “globalism,” undermining the American worker.

Again, this is economic idiocy. Hampering the free exchange of goods and services in order to indirectly tax companies for the benefit of people born in America raises the cost of doing business and harms the consumer. Of course. What Trump decries as “globalism” is actually freedom in the national interest.

Now, again, Obama stands in favor of illegal immigration and doesn't care whether those entering the country have jobs at all. But that doesn't mean that pro-legal immigration conservatives are "globalists."

In truth, “globalism” has been emptied of most meaning since Trump began using it. Trump laments globalism, but says that Russia should take care of the situation in Syria; Trump laments globalism, but has outsourced much of his business for the length of his career. “Globalism” has become just a slur for Trump’s opponents, just as “neocon” was disconnected by the left from its roots in the left-to-right transitional figures like Irving Kristol and used as a club against anyone who supported the Iraq war (somehow George W. Bush, a lifelong Republican, became a “neo” – new – conservative). If you oppose Trump's agenda, you must disagree with his premise that America's interests come first -- you must be part of some sort of global conspiracy to overthrow American power.

That's ridiculous.

These slurs do nobody any good. They’re not only inexact, they’re meant to quash debate. But that’s what the most ardent Trumpkins are all about these days: shouting “****” and “globalist” at anybody who dares disagree with the Great Leader.

Source: Why Trump Fans Keep Using The Slur 'Globalist'

That is spot on. Every time I see it being used by Trump fans, that's exactly the context.

 

[rambot]

They were furious about it: Japanese react furiously to North Korean missile launch | Asia | DW | 30.08.2017

How was that reaction different from the last dozen or so times it has happenned?

 

[rambot]

My idea:
I think they should slap some good ol' fashioned oil embargoes on North Korea. As their populace is primarily heated by coal, and only the "leadership", party favorites and the Kims themselves are going to be able to afford cars and/or other luxuries (to say nothing of the impact on the military), that is going to hit them where it hurts. EVery time they pull these stupid nonsense tests; embargo for 4 months.

Boom.

Roasted.

 

[Aldebaran]

How was that reaction different from the last dozen or so times it has happenned?

Beats me! I don't keep track of how each individual country reacts to what NK does. I'm not sure what the point of your question was. I was simply answering the question about how they reacted. Clearly, they aren't happy about what NK is doing either. What exact words they use isn't as relevant as their attitude about it and what actions they could take in response.

 

[USincognito]

So enters the leader to unify the world under self-reliance, mutual respect, and national sovereignty. No nation wants other nations to dictate control over them.

"We're going to build a wall and Mexico is gonna pay for it!"

I love it when maniacal dictators that want to annihilate my country are right and Trump is wrong! Just gets me right in my tender spots.

You seriously think North Korea wants to annihilate the U.S.?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is that seriously what is most important to you? Is that what national security is based on?

It should be based more in childish insults and chest-thumping.

Either way, who called the other person the worst names will hardly matter if either side makes good on their threats to the other. Maybe that's what should be seen as most important.

Well, we already know that Donald's threats are empty -- he huffs and puffs and whines on twitter, but in the end, he flts off to the next outrage. Kim Jong Un, however, bears watching.

 

[Targaryen]

They are too often reporting only selected facts while ignoring the ones that don't support their true agenda. A good example of that is what I saw last night on ABC News. The Republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare, so they have a reporter do a story about it in a way that makes it sound like Obamacare is all good and nothing wrong with it. They tried to appeal to the emotions of their audience by going to the home of a single mother with a special needs kid that would lose their healthcare if Obamacare was repealed.

Every time I hear this lazy line, based with no actual report or evidence to it I think of this town forum that went viral for a reason:

Those are the facts they selected to put forward in their story because it fit with the Liberal agenda they push for. Here's a different story they could have put out that would also report the facts.

Right, that's why news about Clinton's own shady dealings keeps rolling out too, cause there is a "liberal" bias in reporting facts. Uh huh. And then you go right back to the "Obamacare" situation, cause you don't have a point already. BTW, it's called the Affordable Care Act.

How about a story where they interview a hard-working guy trying to support his family who had health insurance before Obamacare? He liked his doctor and his health plan, but lost both due to Obamacare. He and his wife have seen their premiums double, and then triple as their "affordable" health coverage skyrocketed, and now they have to decide whether to give up their coverage in order to have money for food and clothing for their children.

But we won't see stories like that. It doesn't fit with their Liberal agenda.

It's hilarious and been debunked more then a few ties, even a conservative publication like Forbes brings your not evidence story into question, and this was back in 2014!:

After years of negative speculation on the part of the opponents of Obamacare, hard data is finally coming in with respect to the anticipated negative side-effects of the law.

The results are guaranteed to both surprise and depress those who have built their narrative around the effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Let’s begin with the meme threatening that healthcare reform will lead to a serious decline in full-time employment as employers reduce workforce hours to below 30 per week in the effort to avoid their responsibility to provide health benefits to their employees.

It turns out that there has, in fact, been no such rush to reduce work hours. Indeed, numbers released last week reveal that precisely the opposite is taking place.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of part-time workers in the United States has fallen by 300,000 since March of 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. What's more, in the past year alone—the time period in which the nation was approaching the start date for Obamacare—full-time employment grew by over 2 million while part-time employment declined by 230,000.

And it gets even more interesting.

Despite the cries of anguish over the coming destruction of private sector work opportunities at the hands of Obamacare, it turns out that the only significant 'cutter' of work hours turns out to be in the public sector where cops, teachers, prison guards and the like are experiencing cuts in work time as cities, states and universities seek to avoid the obligations of the health reform law.



Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the very same folks who strenuously oppose Obamacare who are constantly screaming for smaller government? Are these not the same people who have, for as many years as I can recall, been carping about swollen government payrolls?

But the false narrative that has been peddled to make us believe that the private sector can't wait to lower our hours of employment turns out not to be the only false note being played by anti-Obamacare forces.

For months now, we have been pounded with the story of the millions of Americans who have lost their non-group, individual health insurance policy due to cancellations forced by Obamacare.

Yet, a new study just out by Lisa Clemans-Cope and Nathaniel Anderson of the Urban Institute tells a very different story.

How many times have readers, along with television and radio audiences, read or heard me point out that few ever expected to hang onto their individual insurance policy for longer than a year or two following date of purchase? Long before there was Obamacare, it was always clear that when someone purchased an individual health instance policy, it was pretty much a given that they would either be moving on to an employer provided group plan when they get a job or that their policy would respond to the ordinary, pre-Obamacare changes that occurred from year to year and result in the consumer having to purchasing a new plan after a short period of time.

Indeed, it was this very reality that made it clear to those who follow the health insurance industry that Obama’s “If you like your policy you can keep your policy” proclamation was a near impossibility for those participating in the individual marketplace. This simply wasn't the way the individual market worked.

The Urban Institute study bears this out, noting that “the non-group market has historically been highly volatile, with just 17 percent retaining coverage for more than two years.”

While Obamacare foes have been quick to jump on this statistic when it comes to condemning the President for uttering his promise that you could keep your insurance if you are happy with your policy, the same people have somehow managed to miss the reality that a huge percentage of those who received cancellation notices last year were going to get that notice even if the Affordable Care Act had never existed.

But that is not all that critics have been missing as they’ve sought to exploit the supposed high number of cancellations they claim are due to Obamacare.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...n-now-let-the-crow-eating-begin/#73bca156614a

It has gone beyond a joke that reporting is used by you types to claim we are trying to squash debate but yet, the constant and similar tactics by you Trump-ites, uses the same, easily torn apart, lacking evidence type responses to ACTUALLY quash dissenting opinions.

 

[dgiharris]

I think a lot of Trump supporters are missing the forest for the trees here in regards to NK.

Politics is a form of War, War is a form of politics. We keep trying to push this situation towards "war" because we have a superior military to NK. However, NK knows this and they will NEVER allow the situation to come to actual war.

However, they are more than happy to engage us in political combat and so far, they are kicking are bleeps up and down the street and quite frankly it is embarrassing.

In case you haven't been keeping score, every single time Trump has threatened them, they retaliate with action that throws egg on Trump's face.

Spoiler

reminds me of two dogs that hated each other but there was a six foot high chain linked fence separating them. One dog was a big mutt, the other dog was a ballsy tiny chihuahua. They would bark at each other but the chihuahua just knew how to enrage the other bigger dog. The big dog would poke its maw through the chain link fence snarling and growling and barking and the chihuahua would literally be one millimeter away just goading the big dog on which would enrage the big dog even more. Then, the chihuahua would bite the big dog on the nose and the big dog would yelp and retreat...

The big dog dreamed of one day getting on the other side of that fence and showing the chihuahua who was boss, but the chihuahua knew the environment, knew the fence was six feet tall and the other dog could never jump it. So the chihuahua knew it was safe as long as it stayed within certain parameters...

Well, the US is the big mutt, and NK is the chihuahua. NK knows exactly what the parameters are, it knows exactly how far they can push things and they aren't going to go beyond that.

I anticipate that NK will do a nuclear test in the Pacific Ocean, they have the precedent for it, all the other major countries have done it. And the ocean is international waters. It will be a giant egg on our face and bite to our nose.

And every time we get egg on our face, it diminishes our power just that much more.

GOP would always claim that no one respected Obama...
Well, now you have a President who is losing respect every single time he opens his mouth. It is so embarrassing it's all I can do to not wear a paper bag over my head...

spoiler is an anecdote story of two dogs representing US and NK that just illustrates my above point...

 

[Aldebaran]

It should be based more in childish insults and chest-thumping.


Well, we already know that Donald's threats are empty -- he huffs and puffs and whines on twitter, but in the end, he flts off to the next outrage. Kim Jong Un, however, bears watching.

You seem to have quite an admiration for the guy....

 

[Aldebaran]

Right, that's why news about Clinton's own shady dealings keeps rolling out too, cause there is a "liberal" bias in reporting facts. Uh huh. And then you go right back to the "Obamacare" situation, cause you don't have a point already. BTW, it's called the Affordable Care Act.

You guys would be better off referring to it as Obamacare. It's been proven to be anything but affordable.

 

[Targaryen]

You guys would be better off referring to it as Obamacare. It's been proven to be anything but affordable.

It's called the Affordable Care Act, which you attempt of skewing the point with no actual evidence, was proven false.

Also considering that the latest attempt to kill the ACA is likely to fail again, it's pretty funny how some can't let it go.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's called the Affordable Care Act, which you attempt of skewing the point with no actual evidence, was proven false.

Here you go, from a trusted source: https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Or maybe you'd prefer a more liberal one: Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class.

There are plenty more. You could simply google it yourself if you want to see the truth by doing your own research.