[Rushy]

Not a good move by the Don. Probably the first real blunder in his campaign.

Nearly everything he does is a theoretical political blunder. Somehow it ends up working in his favor. We'll see if this goes the same way.

[Blanko]

Gotta love how Berniebots are taking this though. The debate would have been an unprecedented event in US political history and yet they act like they were entitled to it. So Trump is respectful if he extends an olive branch, but a coward if he doesn't? They're so disingenuous it's unreal.

[Lord Dave]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/north-korean-newspaper-endorses-wise-donald-trump-dull/story?id=39500755

It's only an editorial so take that as you will, but it IS on the state run newspaper so it must have been allowed.

But it makes sense.  Trump apparently feels that South Korea should pay the US more protection money and North Korea feels that's a great idea.  Mostly because it might mean the US will stop protecting the South Koreans.

If that happens, President Trump would be a hero to all of North Korea!

[Rushy]

Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.

[Lord Dave]

Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.

Maybe!

Maybe that's trump's economic plan: protection racket?

[garygreen]

trump: "south korea pays us nothing for our troops presence."

not-retarded people: "um, they pick up about 30% of the tab, to the tune of ~$800 million dollars, and that percentage has been increasing over time."

trump: "whoops, i meant to say that we don't get any benefit from the money we spend."

nrp: "protecting our national security interests, as well as those of our allies, is a direct benefit to the us."

trump: "whoops, i meant to say that we don't get very much benefit from the money we spend."

nrp: "um...ok...hit us up when you have something of substance to say about anything at all."

[Rushy]

Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

[Rama Set]

Of course ignoring that the USA should bear some of the cost since they hold an interest in keeping North Korea in check, this is nothing more than capitalism at work.  If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.

[Pete Svarrior]

If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.

Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

[Rama Set]

If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.

Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea?  If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.

[garygreen]

Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us

[Rushy]

If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.

Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea?  If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.

There are many reasons to pull the installations from South Korea. One being that they're an absolute mess to begin with and can't protect South Korea from a North Korean invasion even if they wanted to. The facilities there are atrocious and a waste of human resources.

Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us

Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.

[Rushy]

In other news, merely attempting to speak about Trump causes the gears in President Obama's head to seize up entirely:

[Blanko]

Obama can't talk at all without a teleprompter. Sad!

[garygreen]

Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.

lol "leftist."  adorable.

forgive me if i'm unwilling to take your word for it that north korea is no threat to seoul.  honestly, you can't possibly be claiming to know what north korea is capable of, or possibly think you can predict the future of relations on the peninsula for the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years, etc.

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.

[Rushy]

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

The installation is for China, not Korea, and you told me China isn't a US enemy, so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

[garygreen]

North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

ruminate on this one for a bit.

so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal.  at best we recoup maybe $2 billion.  the us spends like $3,000 billion/year.  also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'?  what if they say no?  we bail?

[Rushy]

North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

ruminate on this one for a bit.

so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal.  at best we recoup maybe $2 billion.  the us spends like $3,000 billion/year.  also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'?  what if they say no?  we bail?

Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.

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.

[Lord Dave]

Thinking about it, I think its brilliant.

We pull funding.  NK invades.  We claim protection and attack NK, wiping them out and claiming the land as New America.  Tons of cheap labor.

[garygreen]

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.