[Tom Bishop]

because china's number one priority for that region is stability.  they're not into millions of north korean refugees crossing their border.

I'm pretty sure that allowing North Korea to build hydrogen bombs and long range missiles while constantly threatening to start wars isn't very stable to the region. I will take a guess that the most important politician in China probably knows more than you, Congress, or anyone at the US State department, on China's real reasons for supporting North Korea.

[garygreen]

I will take a guess that the most important politician in China probably knows more than you, Congress, or anyone at the US State department, on China's real reasons for supporting North Korea.

no shit.  probably a lot more.

[Lord Dave]

Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”

Oh lordy.

You do realize that Congress, past presidents, and many foreign countries have all been calling on China to rein in North Korea for a long time now, right?

North Korea's existence relies on the massive support given to it by China, and it would be interesting to know why China cannot stop giving that support.

I believe his "oh lordy" was mostly about Trump's ignorance about the history of the two nations when any leader would have done research prior to the discussion.  Even a successful business man would research his clients before engaging in negotiations but clearly Trump did not and was shocked by the history lesson.  Kinda like how he suddenly said "Wow... health insurance is really complicated.  Who knew?"

As for China's support: Yes they could stop all support (they stopped buying coal) but NK has other sources of money and frankly, if my neighbor had nukes and is itching to launch them, I would not be so quick to piss them off.

[Tom Bishop]

The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?

[Lord Dave]

The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?

That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

It's like the health care law.  Trump was so amazed at how complex it was WHILE he was trying to get something through.  He didn't read up, he didn't do research, he didn't have a plan ready, nothing.  He tried to sell a product he didn't understand and wasn't even made yet.

[trekky0623]

The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?

Not in 10 minutes, he didn't do that. And given Trump's previous position, of China just "going in" to North Korea, as he said in the first debate and which apparently continued up to that discussion with Xi Jinping, I highly doubt any analyst has sat down with him to discuss the North Korea situation.

[Tom Bishop]

That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

There is literally no one better to ask about China's reasoning for supporting North Korea than the Chinese president himself. Your criticism of Trump for asking him about it reeks of a desperate smear attempt.

Not in 10 minutes, he didn't do that. And given Trump's previous position, of China just "going in" to North Korea, as he said in the first debate and which apparently continued up to that discussion with Xi Jinping, I highly doubt any analyst has sat down with him to discuss the North Korea situation.

Hiding in the White House and asking an analyst about China's relationship with North Korea is inferior to asking the Chinese president about it. Trump should be commended for going out and getting real answers, not theoretical ones.

[Lord Dave]

That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

There is literally no one better to ask about China's reasoning for supporting North Korea than the Chinese president himself. Your criticism of Trump for asking him about it reeks of a desperate smear attempt.

You are correct, there IS no one better.
Unless you think they'll give you select information to make themselves seem like they have less power than they actually do.

However, again, not my point.
My point is, Trump knew NOTHING!  Literally, nothing.  Not even a god damn refresher course on Asian history.  It's one thing to go in armed with some facts then ask for personal information.  It's another to go in totally ignorant then get a history lesson you didn't ask for.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, just because he's the president does not mean he's an expert on the history.  Would you ask Trump about the US's historical relations with Canada?  I wouldn't.  I doubt he'd know.  Do you think he would know?

[Pete Svarrior]

And given Trump's previous position, of China just "going in" to North Korea, as he said in the first debate and which apparently continued up to that discussion with Xi Jinping, I highly doubt any analyst has sat down with him to discuss the North Korea situation.

It's like the health care law.  Trump was so amazed at how complex it was WHILE he was trying to get something through.  He didn't read up, he didn't do research, he didn't have a plan ready, nothing.  He tried to sell a product he didn't understand and wasn't even made yet.

Why do you keep doing this? Surely everyone understands by now that Trump deliberately oversimplifies matters when he talks. He's speaking to an audience of ordinary people, and chooses his words accordingly.

Surely beating the dead horse of "durrr Trump said this is simple but it's not simple" has to eventually bore you? Yeah, he communicates in a very... uh, unique way. I completely agree with criticising that, but you're dangerously blurring the line between criticising his communication and taking every single word literally and believing that that's what's actually happening.

[Lord Dave]

Oversimplifying his words is one thing and I can't fault him for that.(though it would be nice for more details sometimes)  It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

You can simplify your words but if those simple words are all you actually know, then you shouldn't be trying to solve it.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

I disagree with that assessment. He tells us nothing about what he does or doesn't know, and the assumption that he therefore must know nothing simply doesn't follow.

[Lord Dave]

It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

I disagree with that assessment. He tells us nothing about what he does or doesn't know, and the assumption that he therefore must know nothing simply doesn't follow.

He doesn't say anything directly, true, but he often reverses his position and says how complicated it is or how difficult it is.  Words he never used before.  It's a very sudden about face.  Much like when Rick Perry went from "Abolish the EPA" to "Wow... I didn't know they did all that..." when he was in the running to be nominated to run it.

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody knew, that includes him.  This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew.  But my point is when you see him say that, it really does sound like he had no idea.  That every time he spoke about how great his plan would be (which he never delivered), that he really did think it would be a simple as "Make sure everyone has health care and it's cheap."

[Pete Svarrior]

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

And this is where you taking things so literally gets in the way. He's blatantly exaggerating - you know that, and you point it out yourself in your post ("This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew."). You want to think he knows literally nothing, rather than accept that he's just doing politics and covering it up with his showbusiness skills. His positions change because that's how staying in power works - he has to balance policies that he promised with policies that will allow him to stay in power.

[Lord Dave]

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

And this is where you taking things so literally gets in the way. He's blatantly exaggerating - you know that, and you point it out yourself in your post ("This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew."). You want to think he knows literally nothing, rather than accept that he's just doing politics and covering it up with his showbusiness skills. His positions change because that's how staying in power works - he has to balance policies that he promised with policies that will allow him to stay in power.

Perhaps.
But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

[Pete Svarrior]

But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

The opposite is the case. We have no evidence that he (and his team) know nothing about healthcare or global politics. All we know about healthcare is that he failed to simultaneously manage the expectation of the more extreme Republicans and the Democrats (he needed support of one or the other, he bet on the latter, this failed. A mistake I'm sure he'll learn not to repeat). The Scotland gaffe was a lapse in judgement, but he was merely parroting the British government who insists over and over that "the British people have spoken", despite many issues with that claim.

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence to the contrary (huge electoral successes, nationwide and international praise after Syria bombing, Democrats left with no choice but to oppose any legislative progress, which in turn will leave them with even less power over time). Trump's successes, as crude, brutish and unfavourable as they may look, are not leaving us anytime soon.

[Lord Dave]

But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

The opposite is the case. We have no evidence that he (and his team) know nothing about healthcare or global politics. All we know about healthcare is that he failed to simultaneously manage the expectation of the more extreme Republicans and the Democrats (he needed support of one or the other, he bet on the latter, this failed. A mistake I'm sure he'll learn not to repeat). The Scotland gaffe was a lapse in judgement, but he was merely parroting the British government who insists over and over that "the British people have spoken", despite many issues with that claim.

I have little doubt that his team knows a great deal of things and are far more competent than he is.  But we're not talking about them, we're talking about him.

As for Healthcare, this is false.  He didn't make or even suggest the bill.  It was purely Paul Ryan's plan.  Trump's idea, as far as we know, was "Give everyone healthcare and make it cheap".  That is literally his entire plan to the best of our knowledge.  He tried to sell it but he hasn't shown any indication that he had any hand in it's production or language.

A lapse in judgement?  No, it was simply him getting information from a poor source.  Much like his comment about Sweden because he saw a segment on Fox news that turned out to be of questionable integrity anyway.

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence to the contrary (huge electoral successes, nationwide and international praise after Syria bombing, Democrats left with no choice but to oppose any legislative progress, which in turn will leave them with even less power over time). Trump's successes, as crude, brutish and unfavourable as they may look, are not leaving us anytime soon.

Electoral success is irrelevant to knowledge and you know it.  The US elections are a popularity contest, nothing more.  He won by the electoral collage, not the popular vote, AND he won by appealing to voters with simple language and simple solutions to complex problems.  Solutions that amounted to "I'll do what you want without a problem."
The Syrian bombing was done in reaction to an emotional video, not policy or strategic planning.

And the Democrats are literally doing what the Republicans did for Obama.  It worked for them, so why not for the Dems?  Heck, it seems to be working for them too.  They forced congress to change the rules for a supreme court nomination, paving the way for democrats to use that same rule in the future.  They helped stop the Republican Health care plan from being passed (though not the main reason).

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.  And when it comes time to make good on what he promises, he not only fails to do so, but shows he didn't even understand what he was trying to sell. 

[Pete Svarrior]

But we're not talking about them, we're talking about him.

I consider the two inseparable. No President presides alone, he's just a figurehead.

That is literally his entire plan to the best of our knowledge.

This is incorrect. He outlined the cornerstones of AHCA during the presidential debates. Not in great detail, of course, but the idea was out there and likely contributed to him winning.

A lapse in judgement?  No, it was simply him getting information from a poor source.

Yes - the British Government.

Electoral success is irrelevant to knowledge and you know it.  The US elections are a popularity contest, nothing more.

I disagree. He started off as an extremely unpopular candidate. He won because of his performance in debates.

He won by the electoral collage, not the popular vote

*yawn*

AND he won by appealing to voters with simple language and simple solutions to complex problems.

Yes... In case you forgot, that's my position. Repeating it to me only makes me think I'm right.

The Syrian bombing was done in reaction to an emotional video, not policy or strategic planning.

McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.

And the Democrats are literally doing what the Republicans did for Obama.  It worked for them, so why not for the Dems?

They're in a very different position from the Republicans during Obama's presidency. They went ham too soon, and they're going in too hard. Moderates are still waiting to see how well Trump will perform in the long term, but all they can see is that the Democrats are trying (and failing) to fuck him up. In Obama's case, a similar error on the Republicans' side secured him a second term in office. One would think the Democrats would learn from this and not hand him a Trump 2020.

Heck, it seems to be working for them too.

For a very specific definition of "working", yes. It's a definition I personally balk at.

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.

Agreed, but only if we accept that it's not him personally who has to produce everything. That's just madness.

And when it comes time to make good on what he promises, he not only fails to do so, but shows he didn't even understand what he was trying to sell.

So far, this has no backing in reality.

[trekky0623]

This is incorrect. He outlined the cornerstones of AHCA during the presidential debates. Not in great detail, of course, but the idea was out there and likely contributed to him winning.

In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA. Aside from vague promises of health care being cheaper and covering pre-existing conditions thanks to the aforementioned competition across the state lines, the only thing he seems to get right is Medicaid block grants, which were not included in the initial draft of the AHCA. To me, this is hardly laying out the cornerstones of the AHCA. Most of the things he promised aren't in there.

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump. Given he has zero experience in governing or politics, it's not very surprising he's not helping to write legislation like this.

[Pete Svarrior]

In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA.

Ah, I was wondering what was missing from this conversation for a few posts. It was Trekky and his "there's one inconsistency therefore IT'S ALL BUNK PACK IT UP GUYS" rhetoric. Welcome back!

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump.

So, I have to ask you again: Do you really think this is how governance works? Do you think the US President sits in his desk 9-5 and writes lengthy bills by himself? Because, y'know, that's not how this works.

Of course, if you tried reading the discussion before posting, we wouldn't have to say it again, but we wouldn't want that to stop you from partisan shilling, would we? An actual discourse would be oh-so-inconvenient for your narrative.

No President presides alone, he's just a figurehead.

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.

Agreed, but only if we accept that it's not him personally who has to produce everything. That's just madness.

[trekky0623]

In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA.

Ah, I was wondering what was missing from this conversation for a few posts. It was Trekky and his "there's one inconsistency therefore IT'S ALL BUNK PACK IT UP GUYS" rhetoric. Welcome back!

This "one inconsistency" is the largest thing by far he talked about in the debates about health care. You said he laid out the cornerstones of the AHCA in the debates. It seems he didn't if the only evidence of that is one sentence about Medicaid block grants.

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump.

So, I have to ask you again: Do you really think this is how governance works? Do you think the US President sits in his desk 9-5 and writes lengthy bills by himself? Because, y'know, that's not how this works.

I didn't say that's how it works bud. What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?