|
Post by Rob Allen on Sept 21, 2017 11:47:39 GMT -5
My favorite Republican, Chris Ladd, has some cogent comments about Graham-Cassidy: politicalorphans.com/i-hope-republicans-pass-graham-cassidy/"Their health care “reform” bill, Graham-Cassidy, is a clusterf*** on a scale that only Trump Era Republicans could possibly engineer. [...] If someone set out to destroy America’s health care system they would probably design something like Graham-Cassidy. [...] Although the bill would begin to cripple the exchanges from day one, the bulk of its most outlandish features would be deferred until after the 2018 election. At the state level, this will create an enormous tail-wind for legislative candidates promising to build state-level universal health insurance. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans would find themselves strapped to the dead weight of this terrible bill going into the election cycle. By passing this bill, Republicans would face the consequences at the ballot box before anyone gets killed by their stupidity."
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Sept 21, 2017 17:46:33 GMT -5
I don't get why Republicans don't just push for something akin to the Swiss healthcare system. It still upholds the individual mandate, which liberals/progressives would love, and removes government insurance and stops employers from providing insurance to employees, which conservatives would love. Obamacare was basically Swisscare-lite and could probably give both sides something they want.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,388
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 21, 2017 21:31:56 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to say it.
I hate Trump. I HATE Trump, and I hate all that he represents...but I think he might be right about how to handle North Korea.
We've tried diplomacy, we've tried red lines, we've tried sanctions and more sanctions. But when a country just keeps threatening and threatening to nuke us, and their ability to do so becomes more imminent each day, maybe you have to take them out before they can take you out. No one wants a nuclear war, and no sane president wants to be the one who engages his or her nation in one, but I'm not sure Trump is sane. This is likely going to get ugly, and I doubt history will remember him well for his role here, but I truly worry that things will be a lot worse if Trump doesn't stand up to the threat and bully the bully.
I expect to get a lot of flack for this, but convince me I'm wrong. What other approach has any chance of working at this point? Wait and see definitely isn't an option any longer.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 21, 2017 21:48:35 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to say it. I hate Trump. I HATE Trump, and I hate all that he represents...but I think he might be right about how to handle North Korea. We've tried diplomacy, we've tried red lines, we've tried sanctions and more sanctions. But when a country just keeps threatening and threatening to nuke us, and their ability to do so becomes more imminent each day, maybe you have to take them out before they can take you out. No one wants a nuclear war, and no sane president wants to be the one who engages his or her nation in one, but I'm not sure Trump is sane. This is likely going to get ugly, and I doubt history will remember him well for his role here, but I truly worry that things will be a lot worse if Trump doesn't stand up to the threat and bully the bully. I expect to get a lot of flack for this, but convince me I'm wrong. What other approach has any chance of working at this point? Wait and see definitely isn't an option any longer. I think it depends on how unstable you actually think North Korea is. Sure, they're being provocative by doing nuclear tests and flexing their "might" with long range missile tests...but would they actually nuke anyone? Personally, I think MAD still applies here and that even if they get the hang of fully functional, long range, nuclear weapons the odds of them actually setting one off are pretty slim which doesn't justify a war to stop them from achieving that goal as the war would in all likely hood kill more people than a nuclear North Korea would. I guess a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons could increase the chances of some terrorist cell getting their hands on one and setting it off in the middle of some unsuspecting city, but honestly that seems more like a plot to 24 than a real life event. We've had nuclear weapons, and the knowledge of how to make them for a long time now so you'd think if a terrorist was going to go for it then it would have happened already so I'm not really frightened of the possibility.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 21, 2017 21:51:32 GMT -5
The idea that North Korea is or ever could be a threat to the US is beyond ridiculous. The idea that any country would ever launch an unprovoked first-strike against the US, knowing the overwhelming retaliation that would inevitably follow, is beyond ridiculous.
In fact, knowing the retaliation that would follow, the only believable scenario in which a country might launch a first strike is if they thought the US was already planning to attack them, which is why Trump's rhetoric is escalating the danger of nuclear war.
I could see a non-state enemy like ISIL or Al-Qaida launching a nuclear strike against the US if they ever got hold of the technology, but not a nation-state. Not North Korea, not Iran, not even Russia or China. UNLESS they thought they had nothing to lose, i.e. they thought the US was going to attack them anyway so they might as well get one shot in before their inevitable destruction. That is why Trump's threats are both stupid and dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 21, 2017 22:03:30 GMT -5
North Korea obviously has some strike capability, but, they know we would wipe them off the face of the world.
That's a given.
I too hate Trump, though I still think this is more bluster than substance.
If anything does happen, I think Trump has one of the North Korean weapons sites snuffed by missiles or lasers or something as a stiff warning.
NK is pushing the boundaries, and yet, they're still contained. I don't think anything will happen.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 22, 2017 2:14:06 GMT -5
Almost every in-depth piece I have seen about North Korea has talked about how most of the posturing is aimed within, rather than without. the saber rattling and such is more to make those within the country feel like they are a major power and a strong government, to keep the masses from realizing that their lives are s@#^ and always have been under the Communist rule, and chucking the whole thing. A lot of energy is spent trying to hide how poor the country is, relative to the rest of the world. The other part is directed at South Korea and Japan, to keep them from pressing their economic advantages against NK. More than likely, China wouldn't sit still for NK to actually use a nuke, as it would bring too much heat into their sphere of influence. NK desperately needs China and they have been propping them up since the split.
Trump, meanwhile, is using it as a distraction from domestic issues and the Russian election tampering. His MO is to misdirect and go on the attack whenever more dirt is kicked up. It's been his MO for decades; especially when someone looks into his shady business dealings. The man is lower than the vilest pond scum; a racist, misogynist, money-grubbing, filandering, tacky, arrogant, insecure, waste of human tissue and oxygen as you are likely to find. Trevor Noah, on the Daily Show, back during the election, compared Trump to several African dictators and corrupt politicians, like Mugabe, and boy did it really fit.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 22, 2017 4:59:03 GMT -5
The idea that North Korea is or ever could be a threat to the US is beyond ridiculous. The idea that any country would ever launch an unprovoked first-strike against the US, knowing the overwhelming retaliation that would inevitably follow, is beyond ridiculous. In fact, knowing the retaliation that would follow, the only believable scenario in which a country might launch a first strike is if they thought the US was already planning to attack them, which is why Trump's rhetoric is escalating the danger of nuclear war. I could see a non-state enemy like ISIL or Al-Qaida launching a nuclear strike against the US if they ever got hold of the technology, but not a nation-state. Not North Korea, not Iran, not even Russia or China. UNLESS they thought they had nothing to lose, i.e. they thought the US was going to attack them anyway so they might as well get one shot in before their inevitable destruction. That is why Trump's threats are both stupid and dangerous. Agreed 100%. All Trump's grotesque posturing is doing is convincing states that do not currently have nukes that it would be a very good idea to get them. North Korea, for all that it is probably the most horrible regime on Earth, is getting missiles to protect itself from the fate of Iraq or Lybia or Syria (regime change imposed by the USA). Talks of a first strike shows Kim Jong Un that he is right to adopt such a strategy. Iran, which comes close to North Korea in terms of regime unpalability, is in the same position. The ink on an accord limiting their development of nukes is not yet dry that Trump threatens to tear it up and makes aggressive noises. Were I an ayatollah, I'd definitely say "fine, tear up the accord; we'll get our nukes sooner rather than later and then we'll be safe from your bullying". The only way to deal with North Korea is by retaining the capacity to respond devastatatingly to any actual attack (that's the easy part) and slowly, ever so slowly, bring it into the community of nations as we did with the countries of the ex-USSR (that's the difficult part). Behaving like a petulant schoolyard bully is exactly the wrong thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 7:25:13 GMT -5
The idea that North Korea is or ever could be a threat to the US is beyond ridiculous. The idea that any country would ever launch an unprovoked first-strike against the US, knowing the overwhelming retaliation that would inevitably follow, is beyond ridiculous. The trouble with this argument is that is assumes the leaders of the nation state in question are rational. I'm not convinced that applies to Trump, let alone Kim. They've both got really poor impulse control, they've both got unjustified visions of themselves as giant historical figures - but Trump at least has some elements of the US government and constituition holding him somewhat in check, whereas Kim has got absolutely nothingIt's hard to see any scenario where lighting up a nuke and inviting massive nation-ending retaliation is a winning one, but Kim's actions aren't in line with what nation-states usually do - he's acting like a capricious, never-restrained schoolboy, with a big box of toys to play with. He seems to be trying to bootstrap NK up to being a major player on the world stage - he can't do it with industry or agriculture or through any other normal means, because they haven't got anything the rest of the world wants - but he can rub shoulders with the rest by becoming a nuclear power.
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Sept 22, 2017 17:57:32 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to say it. I hate Trump. I HATE Trump, and I hate all that he represents...but I think he might be right about how to handle North Korea. We've tried diplomacy, we've tried red lines, we've tried sanctions and more sanctions. But when a country just keeps threatening and threatening to nuke us, and their ability to do so becomes more imminent each day, maybe you have to take them out before they can take you out. No one wants a nuclear war, and no sane president wants to be the one who engages his or her nation in one, but I'm not sure Trump is sane. This is likely going to get ugly, and I doubt history will remember him well for his role here, but I truly worry that things will be a lot worse if Trump doesn't stand up to the threat and bully the bully. I expect to get a lot of flack for this, but convince me I'm wrong. What other approach has any chance of working at this point? Wait and see definitely isn't an option any longer. When there's a dog in the corner growling and snarling, I'm pretty sure the best approach to dealing with it isn't to poke it with a stick.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 22, 2017 20:14:29 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to say it. I hate Trump. I HATE Trump, and I hate all that he represents...but I think he might be right about how to handle North Korea. We've tried diplomacy, we've tried red lines, we've tried sanctions and more sanctions. But when a country just keeps threatening and threatening to nuke us, and their ability to do so becomes more imminent each day, maybe you have to take them out before they can take you out. No one wants a nuclear war, and no sane president wants to be the one who engages his or her nation in one, but I'm not sure Trump is sane. This is likely going to get ugly, and I doubt history will remember him well for his role here, but I truly worry that things will be a lot worse if Trump doesn't stand up to the threat and bully the bully. I expect to get a lot of flack for this, but convince me I'm wrong. What other approach has any chance of working at this point? Wait and see definitely isn't an option any longer. When there's a dog in the corner growling and snarling, I'm pretty sure the best approach to dealing with it isn't to poke it with a stick. It matters, however, why the dog is growling and snarling. If it's because it has a thorn in its paw, you approach it cautiously and try to help it, as the problem can be remedied and it can be healed and brought back to a good place. If it's because the dog is rabid, you shoot it in the head, stuff the body in a garbage bag, dump it deep in the woods, and move on, because there isn't anything that can be done at that point to improve the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 22, 2017 22:29:41 GMT -5
If you're one of the thousands of American soldiers and civilians living in or near Seoul, I'm not so sure you think threatening to "destroy" North Korea because it's fun to talk tough is a sound foreign policy.
Ditto for the tens of millions of South Koreans.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 22, 2017 23:05:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Sept 23, 2017 3:06:59 GMT -5
When there's a dog in the corner growling and snarling, I'm pretty sure the best approach to dealing with it isn't to poke it with a stick. It matters, however, why the dog is growling and snarling. If it's because it has a thorn in its paw, you approach it cautiously and try to help it, as the problem can be remedied and it can be healed and brought back to a good place. If it's because the dog is rabid, you shoot it in the head, stuff the body in a garbage bag, dump it deep in the woods, and move on, because there isn't anything that can be done at that point to improve the situation. That's cool. So how do we do that to Kim Jong Un without also taking out 25 million innocent North Koreans? (I'm assuming you meant him and not the other growling and snarling rabid dog that can't be reasoned with)
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Sept 23, 2017 3:07:46 GMT -5
I don't get why Republicans don't just push for something akin to the Swiss healthcare system. It still upholds the individual mandate, which liberals/progressives would love, and removes government insurance and stops employers from providing insurance to employees, which conservatives would love. Obamacare was basically Swisscare-lite and could probably give both sides something they want. Because that would help people. Republicans don't want to help people. If they did, they wouldn't be Republicans.
|
|