Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.
keep misconstruing my argument if you like. you are manufacturing some good zingers. my argument was that the opportunity-cost to abandoning the korean peninsula is probably greater than saving 0.06% of yearly spending. i know you're smart enough to understand fractions.
"seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us. guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer. there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true."
i don't really give a shit that he wants to change our foreign policy toward south korea. i care that he has any clue at all what our foreign policy toward south korea
currently is, and i care that he's completely willing to pretend that he does without any apparent self-motivation to fill those gaps in his knowledge. he just says a bunch of shit that isn't true, gets corrected, says a bunch of new shit that isn't true, gets corrected again, and on and on and on. but whatever as long as it's super populist and angry then that's cool.
Also, you might want to further explain your points. If you want just quote me and say "ruminate on this" I'm going to assume you have no worthwhile argument.
you started by saying that north korea is a joke, and no one could support the argument that we stay because north korea is a threat, and then ended by saying that north korea is an existential threat to seoul. i dunno how to reconcile those two things.