TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Inannawhimsey said:
and just as revsdd predicted

just saw on Fox that top lobstrosity 45 says will be meeting with Rocketman before May of this year
(doing what no sitting POTUS has done)
halle lew yah!!!

He still surprises me

And like America itself, is never boring

Click to expand...
Faster than I was expecting but absolutely no surprise to me. The question is why so fast? It seems to have been at the instigation of North Korea. So, why do they want to go ahead so fast with a meeting with Trump?

Trump supporters (of which I'm NOT one) will say it's because Trump has been so tough on them that North Korea is flinching and he deserves all the credit for an ingenious strategy of intimidation.

I don't buy into that. My opinion?

North Korea figures that they can take advantage of Trump at the table. He's inexperienced in diplomacy and international relations, he fancies himself as the big deal-maker and he wants to be seen making a big deal (or at least making a big splash on the world stage trying to make a deal), he shoots his mouth off without thinking, he's easily influenced, and he has an ego the size of the Empire State Building. North Korea figures they'll be able to get him to agree to something very much to their advantage - and if they can't they'll just smile, take all the nice pictures, look important on the world stage (which is really important to them) and walk away - no loss for them.

I have my doubts that this meeting will happen. I think that a meeting will happen eventually - but it might not be this meeting. Even now I suspect that the State Department is experiencing convulsions, because this doesn't seem to have come through them, but from North Korea through South Korea right to Trump. (Again - to North Korea's advantage; they knew Trump would go for this.) State will try to put up roadblocks to slow this down, and arrange lower level meetings with officials to make sure that everybody knows exactly what's going to be talked about. State won't like this Lone Ranger diplomacy, and I see that Rex Tillerson has already said (from Africa, meaning that he had no chance to bend Trump's ear on this) that the US is "a long way" from direct negotiations with North Korea.

Of course, State may have little influence on a president who doesn't always listen well and who doesn't like being told what to do.
 
Trump is the most easily played president in history. He can be won over by praise and adulation, investment money, or possibly by compromising photos and video. There are so many ways to get to him.
 
chansen said:
Trump is the most easily played president in history. He can be won over by praise and adulation, investment money, or possibly by compromising photos and video. There are so many ways to get to him.
Click to expand...

You left out big tits and an East European accent. Worked for Ivana and Melania, at least. :D
 
What is the alternative to talks? A nuclear war that China and Russia would have to respond to. Why are we all in a tizzy about talks that cannot possibly harm the U.S.? I've noticed that same reaction in the news media. Talk or bomb. That's the choice. I could wish the U.S. would do a lot more talking and a lot less killing.

There's no doubt these are risky And it's not just because Kim Jung is evil and treacherous. There's a lot of evil and treachery on the other side, too. Very powerful groups in the U.S. DON'T want a peaceful settlement with North Korea. They want - and have wanted for a hundred years - the conquest of China for the American business empire.

We need more talking as our chief tool of dealing with problems. Instead, we've had 70 years of mass murder, mostly by the U.S.

The whole world desperately needs to get off it's love of killing, and talk a great deal more. We have monster problems connected with climate change to deal with, and we can't do it with huge armies and monstrous weaponry.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
Why are we all in a tizzy about talks that cannot possibly harm the U.S.?
Click to expand...


I'm not in a tizzy. I think the State Department might be - but I'm not. I'm just watching it all unfold more or less as I predicted it would, except a bit faster than I expected.
 
Yes, There are important people in the U.S. who don't want a peaceful settlement. In their view, South Korea and China are standing in the way of world economic dominance by the U.S., the ultimate American Empire. I'm afraid that makes me skeptical about the talks, too.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
What is the alternative to talks? A nuclear war that China and Russia would have to respond to. Why are we all in a tizzy about talks that cannot possibly harm the U.S.
Click to expand...
I think the response isn't about the concept about talks with North Korea. I think it's more about Donald Trump physically sitting at the table. Couldn't they find someone less moody and prone to outbursts? What is Bobcat Goldthwait doing?
 
Mendalla said:
You left out big tits and an East European accent. Worked for Ivana and Melania, at least. :D
Click to expand...
Uh...easy on describing their female body parts...I have more respect for them than I do for him. (Though Ivana definitely made being a Trump into her own business. And she has a lot to say.) It sounds to me like Melania did not exactly get a fair deal, or what she hoped for, out of her personal investment in Trump - I'm thinking she probably thought his character would improve with her influence. She is in a really unenviable position right now, regardless of money.
 
Last edited:
Yes. This is the real test. Does the U.S. want a peaceful settlement at all? If so, this is a huge change in world priorities? It might have been wiser to let North and South work out their own settlement and, perhaps, reunification. The South has a reason to bring an end to seventy years of hostility. The U.S. doesn't.
 
Does the US want a heavily military presence on the peninsula? Is the benefit worth the cost?
 
It doesn't matter what the U.S. wants. And, no, the benefit is not worth the cost - which could be a world nuclear war. But wars are almost never caused by what a nation wants. They're caused by big, big money. That's what has caused almost all wars for many centuries now. US big business has wanted economic economic control over China, indeed, all of asia, for well over a century. And North Korea is the doorway to an attack on China.

That's what the Korean War was really all about. That's why the U.S. has spent (probably) trillions on maintaining a force in the South and in training and equipping the South for almost seventy years. Never deluded yourself that it did this to save democracy in the South. In fact, the South was NOT democratic in the Korean war or for years after. It was ruled by a dictatorship made up of people who had been collaborators of Japan until 1945.

The Boer War was a capitalist war to plunder South Africa's gold. World Wars 1 and 2 were both capitalist wars on both sides, each striving for trade dominance. (And Soviet Russia had a parallel ambition.) That's what the wars in the middle east have been about.

None of all this was worth it to you and me. It was worth it to capitalists - partly because we pay for the wars. They dodge the taxes.
 
State of chaos is the clue ... in this state the demos don't see the brutes of avarice ... formative control?

Is it not all about control and avarice ...? Bum steer directing us to the great bust out and then we all escape this insanity. (I apologize; only a judge is allowed to determine sanity ... by-law). Something else few know about legalism in control without calm passions ... even the judges bounce ...
 
Pretty much what this guy says. Kim Jong Un wants stature. He wants to sit at the big boy table. Hilariously, that's also what Trump wants. They both want people to adore them and think them important and powerful.
 
chansen said:
Pretty much what this guy says. Kim Jong Un wants stature. He wants to sit at the big boy table. Hilariously, that's also what Trump wants. They both want people to adore them and think them important and powerful.
Click to expand...
Status has real effects; there are real and observable reasons why the top dog wants to stay top dog
I don't think we will ever get rid of Status because I think it isn't a total social construct but rather an integral part of reality itself. Classless societies I don't think have ever existed, there is always some hierarchy happening.
Lots and lots of experiments on status showing how a loss of status can have wide ranging effects...things like immune system compromisation, IQ loss to the lossee...
 
It also produces a ruling class of bad and narrow judgement, typically based on money, and the right to inflict suffering on those who are not of the ruling class.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
It also produces a ruling class of bad and narrow judgement, typically based on money, and the right to inflict suffering on those who are not of the ruling class.
Click to expand...
yes it does
so since we can't have a classless society
we have to figure out how to harness these natural traits?
similar to how wealth inequality doesn't have to be caused by greed etc but rather happens all by itself due to Pareto Distribution (the 80-20 rule), which, apparently, no civilization has yet been able to solve. We so love a challenge lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top