If it was only "us guys," North Korea would have ceased to exist a long, long time ago. This is a complex problem with a lot of stakeholders.
Of course refugees will go south, if there's much of a South Korea left.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Status
If it was only "us guys," North Korea would have ceased to exist a long, long time ago. This is a complex problem with a lot of stakeholders.
Of course refugees will go south, if there's much of a South Korea left.
The "you guys" was in response to you saying you'll be expected to provide everything. I agree there are a lot of parties.
Florida173
SOF Support
This was kind of the point. Leveraging China to start bringing NK back in line. But this is a way more complex issue. People often underestimate the accesses of NK. They have an incredibly active grey market throughout that is left unchecked by the regime to maintain social order, they have free economic zones with the border with china, they have a tourism industry (albeit Americans are stupid enough to entertain at times), and populations with free and continuous access across the border (Chosen Soren and North Koreans in the Yanbian prefecture of China) The entirety of their cyber offense is provided/enabled by the Chinese.
The real enemy is China. They are the only ones that have actually subverted our economic interests worldwide. NK has saber rattled as a distraction. If they do it enough, we always end up paying them, so why do we believe they are not looking for another payout this time? Because they are getting more advanced? Looks like they are just looking for a bigger payout. Only reason it would backfire is because of the Chinese.
Thought the temporary debt deal was interesting, and surprising: Trump Bypasses Republicans to Strike Deal on Debt Limit and Harvey Aid
It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things - just pushing a fight off 3 months, at a time when a brutal fight would have been damaging to Republicans - but I'd still maintain it's a surprising move by the President. I think this type of isle-crossing was the most powerful weapon President Trump had in his arsenal for pressuring both sides when he was first elected. However, I would think it's power has diminished as his support has shrunk further and further to a highly partisan and conservative minority. Will be interesting to see if this is a trend or a one-off.
I do think from a tactical perspective - irrespective of effective government - it's a trap for Democrats. It shifts the narrative on the DACA decision and gives the President ammunition to blame the end of DACA on congress's inability to reach a deal vs his administration's decision. But, if you're the minority party you've got to jump at wins like this when they are offered. If the President really had smart advisors and a good gameplan he could really get some shit done with deals like this - they would frighten Republicans into line much more than blasting them on Twitter. But, strategy/discipline/long-game have not been the President's strengths so far IMO. Of course, if you fast forward a year and there's an immigration deal, tax reform, and some ACA fixes in the works you have to either say I'm wrong and the President did have all those things.
It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things - just pushing a fight off 3 months, at a time when a brutal fight would have been damaging to Republicans - but I'd still maintain it's a surprising move by the President. I think this type of isle-crossing was the most powerful weapon President Trump had in his arsenal for pressuring both sides when he was first elected. However, I would think it's power has diminished as his support has shrunk further and further to a highly partisan and conservative minority. Will be interesting to see if this is a trend or a one-off.
I do think from a tactical perspective - irrespective of effective government - it's a trap for Democrats. It shifts the narrative on the DACA decision and gives the President ammunition to blame the end of DACA on congress's inability to reach a deal vs his administration's decision. But, if you're the minority party you've got to jump at wins like this when they are offered. If the President really had smart advisors and a good gameplan he could really get some shit done with deals like this - they would frighten Republicans into line much more than blasting them on Twitter. But, strategy/discipline/long-game have not been the President's strengths so far IMO. Of course, if you fast forward a year and there's an immigration deal, tax reform, and some ACA fixes in the works you have to either say I'm wrong and the President did have all those things.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I hope whomever is in charge of this guy has a pow wow and puts him in timeout Democrat calls Gen. John Kelly 'a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear'
A trap eh, can't we just get good governance?
A trap eh, can't we just get good governance?
I believe there are two other countries enabling NK; Iran and Russia. It's not like it has been some giant secret that we are not a fan of the NK regime. Russia has been increasing exports to NK and Iran has been building ties with NK as of late. There's even speculation they are working on a long range missile together.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,674
Let's be honest. No one cared about DACA a few days ago and no one will care a few days from now (very few seeming do even now). Is this the latest thing we're supposed to be outraged about?! The narrative is being pushed hard.
Frankly, this was one of the very few decisions by the President that I agree with. I don't really know much about DACA - most people don't - nor do I really care. What I do know is that it was implemented by Obama a few years ago via executive order, just like his Title IX guidelines (which are also being tossed aside). Our system is not supposed to be governed via executive orders. Laws need to move through the legislative branch. It's for this reason I agree with Trump (even if that's not the true driver behind his actions). The more executive orders we get rid of, the better.
If some deals are made through the proper channels to get shit done, then great. That's how it's supposed to work. Unlike other politicians, I'm not sure Trumps goal is to be on everyone's Christmas card list.
Last edited:
I don't agree, I think the 800,000 people registered as 'dreamers' care, as do their families and co-workers. I think most folks who care about immigration in general - which is a sizable minority of folks in the US with family/friends affected by immigration, and a significant minority of businesses (including for-profit colleges/universities) care about immigration policy and the message sent to possible immigrants abroad because it affects their lives and/or revue streams in the case of business.
I take your point that it doesn't dominate the political landscape the way healthcare, tax reform, and the environment do but I think for the people that care about that stuff it's a powerful issue and there are enough people in the US who care to make it a significant political issue. I also hear what you're saying on executive action vs legislative solutions but I wonder how much of that is the nature of partisanship - though I think you're correct that President Obama embraced unilateral executive action late in his Presidency and we've unleashed Pandora's box with it.
I think for President Trump it was a smart maneuver politically - though I don't agree it was the right decision from a policy perspective. If congress fails to come up with a deal to extend or make permanent DACA the President has pleased his base and can say on immigration 'I left the decision to congress, I didn't force anyone to leave.' If congress does come to some sort of compromise he can say 'look at my awesome art of the deal skills - I forced congress to work by the application of pressure.' Still, I think at this point those types of arguments only provide cover for those ideologically inclined to support him. He's not getting much benefit of the doubt from anyone else.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,674
Less than 1%. While it pertains to immigration, DACA was relatively new and it wasn't a law. I just don't see many people really caring.
Our system is not supposed to move at breakneck speed, much to our frustrations sometimes. Our forefathers knew what they were doing. If an issue is bogged down in the process, then that's probably the way it should be. Politicians (on all sides) will have to learn the art of compromise at some point or become comfortable with the stalemate. Using executive order to circumvent the process is unsat.
Agree, there wasn't much to lose from Trump's perspective. Get rid of things that aren't really laws, especially when they add layers of bureaucracy. Force these issues back to the legislative branch for the peoples's representatives to take action. If they feel strongly about it, they can move something forward - they way it should be done.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Removing DACA was the RIGHT thing to do. It should never have been put in place.
They did not and could not conceive of hand held devices opening the world via liquid crystal displays powered by tiny weaponized cat farts, effectively moving the rule of public opinion to a challenging status against the rule of law, proving the absolute truth of the law of the lowest common denominator.
Not what mathematics intended, surely.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
So what's your point? Every other country in the world controls its immigration.
If that's me you're asking, I have to say sure, every country controls its immigration or attempts to. And on the issue of DACA, I disagree with the President. But immigration as a topic deserves its own thread, if not its own website so I'll leave it there.
My point had to do with the fact that while our system, as Blizzard pointed out is not designed to move at breakneck speed, technology is changing that. Now, as to whether that's a good thing or not, that depends in part of the importance one attaches to checks and balances.
Florida173
SOF Support
You disagree with the President that something as significant as immigration should be congressionally mandated? I'd like to think that the President shouldn't be making legislation, or at least limiting it to extreme situations.
I love this thread.
When Frank said, "I disagree with the president on DACA", did you take that to mean, "Immigration is extremely significant. I don't think it should be congressionally mandated."
Or do you think Frank could have been talking specifically about this current DACA discussion? Just the 800k dreamers and President Trump's actions concerning that issue?
For the record, it's the latter.
Devildoc
Verified Military
DACA was signed via EO, which was unconstitutional (as it pertains to immigration). It de facto made law, and only Congress can make law.
I am not sure what the issue is.
You can question the morality/ethics of POTUS's decision, but not the legality. It is right to send to Congress to fix.
Edited to add: If POTUS should have the authority to change immigration by EO, then have Congress make it so.
I am not sure what the issue is.
You can question the morality/ethics of POTUS's decision, but not the legality. It is right to send to Congress to fix.
Edited to add: If POTUS should have the authority to change immigration by EO, then have Congress make it so.
Florida173
SOF Support
It's the same thing though, not just an over simplification of the issue. Forcing Congress to act on this issue; while taking the morality hit from the people that already despise him. I feel it's better for the country to get the body of government responsible of legislation to legislate. His actions make sense of you are bit objective. He's also supporting his base by doing something on immigration.
No. I disagree with you that his position on DACA is driven by a desire to give control back to Congress over immigration legislation.
Devildoc said:
I have no horse in this, there is nothing to beat. After that, here is only my opinion, not statement of fact:
any man/politician who utters expressions like "believe me" as often as the president does is being a poor liar.
Any man who talks of building a "beautiful wall" just makes me wonder what the comrades were selling in Berlin in '63.
I remember them and walls.
Certainly, it is legal. This isn't Facebook/Twitter/Snapchat and I will remember seven years from now, every bit. Feeling the way I do about it doesn't mean I care and neither should you. This'll be over soon enough, it's true.
Devildoc
Verified Military
My comment wasn't directed to anyone; certainly, not at you. My take re: EO is they need to do away will all of the illegal/unconstitutional* EOs, R or D, doesn't matter. For me the topic right now happens to be DACA. I am under no illusion Trump did this for that reason and not for his own politics' sake. But regarding EOs, any president that does this is administering by fiat; congress won't give you what you want? Fine, I'll take my ball and go home.
But here's what's funny: the same people clamoring that POTUS does not have the right to suspend the program are the same who said POTUS can't determine what refugees enter the country from the ME. They are using their argument against themselves.
*Right now legal people debate the legality of it. That's fine. Presidents have had the authority to allow in certain classes of immigrants (on a temporary basis), so that's fine (though I disagree with it). But DACA so far as I know wasn't designed to be temporary, which is the linchpin of its legality.
Last edited:
- Status
