One of the bigger issues with capital taxation is that corporations can pass-on the tax costs imposed by the government to consumers instead. Pass-through taxation has been one of the biggest questions in public finance research.
Regarding the (likely illegally) detained journalist, all the articles I have seen so far say she is American born, but don't actually specify her being a citizen. It sure sounds like she is a citizen, and it 100% shouldn't matter whether she is or not as if she is arrested she should be charged with a crime, and if she isn't arrested she should never have been detained, but it's just weird. And I know there is a certain segment of our population that would be a lot more upset over a citizen being treated in this manner than a non-citizen. Anybody know her citizenship status?
Regarding the (likely illegally) detained journalist, all the articles I have seen so far say she is American born, but don't actually specify her being a citizen. It sure sounds like she is a citizen, and it 100% shouldn't matter whether she is or not as if she is arrested she should be charged with a crime, and if she isn't arrested she should never have been detained, but it's just weird. And I know there is a certain segment of our population that would be a lot more upset over a citizen being treated in this manner than a non-citizen. Anybody know her citizenship status?
If she was born here then she is a citizen by birth. Jus Soli.
Regarding the (likely illegally) detained journalist, all the articles I have seen so far say she is American born, but don't actually specify her being a citizen. It sure sounds like she is a citizen, and it 100% shouldn't matter whether she is or not as if she is arrested she should be charged with a crime, and if she isn't arrested she should never have been detained, but it's just weird. And I know there is a certain segment of our population that would be a lot more upset over a citizen being treated in this manner than a non-citizen. Anybody know her citizenship status?
If she was born here then she is a citizen by birth. Jus Soli.
Unless she explicitly gave it up, she has citizenship via the constitution. She probably also got it from her parents since there are statutes for jus sanguini as well.
Regarding the (likely illegally) detained journalist, all the articles I have seen so far say she is American born, but don't actually specify her being a citizen. It sure sounds like she is a citizen, and it 100% shouldn't matter whether she is or not as if she is arrested she should be charged with a crime, and if she isn't arrested she should never have been detained, but it's just weird. And I know there is a certain segment of our population that would be a lot more upset over a citizen being treated in this manner than a non-citizen. Anybody know her citizenship status?
If she was born here then she is a citizen by birth. Jus Soli.
Unless she explicitly gave it up, she has citizenship via the constitution. She probably also got it from her parents since there are statutes for jus sanguini as well.
There are several situations which could result in her not being a US Citizen, even though she almost certainly was one at birth. It says she is married to an Iranian I believe, so she could be an Iranian citizen by marriage, and I don't know if Iran is a country that allows dual citizenship with the USA.
To be clear, I don't care if she is a citizen or not, her treatment is absolutely unacceptable because she is a person. I know that there is a segment of the population to whom the answer does matter, and since none of the articles I have read on it have been clear on the question it's really easy for them to assume that she is not a citizen. It's just a sad fact that right now "US citizen detained illegally" is a much more impactful statement than "Iranian Muslim detained illegally."
One of the bigger issues with capital taxation is that corporations can pass-on the tax costs imposed by the government to consumers instead. Pass-through taxation has been one of the biggest questions in public finance research.
Unlikely in competitive markets as there's always someone without the stack of cash. It's about getting the outliers (apple, Google, certain hedge funders etc.) to have more incentive to use the capital, even if it's slightly risky.
The citizenship question's moot because constitutional rights are not tied to citizenship in the United States.
While that is certainly how I feel, I guarantee a depressingly large segment of this country does not care a bit when bad things happen to non-citizens, and sometimes actually cheer for it. I don't like the articles I have seen not making it clear that she is a citizen (because she probably is!) but that's the way they have chosen to present it.
Whether it makes a difference to you or me, it definitely makes a difference to some others. If these stories were about mistreatment of a citizen it would probably gain more traction, as depressing as that is.
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The citizenship question's moot because constitutional rights are not tied to citizenship in the United States.
While that is certainly how I feel, I guarantee a depressingly large segment of this country does not care a bit when bad things happen to non-citizens, and sometimes actually cheer for it. I don't like the articles I have seen not making it clear that she is a citizen (because she probably is!) but that's the way they have chosen to present it.
Whether it makes a difference to you or me, it definitely makes a difference to some others. If these stories were about mistreatment of a citizen it would probably gain more traction, as depressing as that is.
I think you're overstating the impact that citizenship has on the beliefs of the people you're talking about when it comes to people with different skin.
if she does have citizenship they'll just see it as yet another example of the undeserving stealing rights that should be theirs alone.
Yeah, "this person isn't a citizen, or if they are they shouldn't be" is a super common mindset. There's a reason the right keeps screaming about birthright citizenship, anchor babies, and birth tourism; there's a reason a million Canadians recently spent about three years legislated into second-class citizenship.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
The issue with these meetings is that it gives greater legitimacy to NK and it's positions, awards them concessions and due to the Ego of trump prevents them from being penalized for violating their agreements.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
The issue with these meetings is that it gives greater legitimacy to NK and it's positions, awards them concessions and due to the Ego of trump prevents them from being penalized for violating their agreements.
As opposed to signalling that we won't speak to them until regime change (that's how they are going to characterize it)? If what I've been told and read about their domestic economy is true it's likely KJU is looking to enter the international system. I think it's important to keep in mind KJU is not his father, KJU grew up and was educated in the west until he went through the officer school in DPRK a few years before his father's death. Compared to KJI who was educated in Pyongyang and very likely in the PRC until he got involved in politics in DPRK. I think KJU is more open to the liberal international order (to the extent a dictator can be, and I think his focus is wholly economic) but he's working within the constraints (the other military/political elites who are worried about holding onto their relative power) of the politics of North Korea.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
I’m fine with another round of talks. I think it’s fair to say that the worst thing that happened because of the last summit was nothing. There were no delitirious effects to anything I consider worthwhile, no allies were harmed or even offended by it, and basically nothing happened. It also was not a much of a success, but I’m ok with more of the same if the likely worst case scenario is that nothing happens, and it’s supporting a worthwhile South Korean effort.
One of the bigger issues with capital taxation is that corporations can pass-on the tax costs imposed by the government to consumers instead. Pass-through taxation has been one of the biggest questions in public finance research.
Unlikely in competitive markets as there's always someone without the stack of cash. It's about getting the outliers (apple, Google, certain hedge funders etc.) to have more incentive to use the capital, even if it's slightly risky.
Trying to figure out what you're implying is unlikely. Pass-through taxation is unlikely, or what?
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
The issue with these meetings is that it gives greater legitimacy to NK and it's positions, awards them concessions and due to the Ego of trump prevents them from being penalized for violating their agreements.
As opposed to signalling that we won't speak to them until regime change (that's how they are going to characterize it)? If what I've been told and read about their domestic economy is true it's likely KJU is looking to enter the international system. I think it's important to keep in mind KJU is not his father, KJU grew up and was educated in the west until he went through the officer school in DPRK a few years before his father's death. Compared to KJI who was educated in Pyongyang and very likely in the PRC until he got involved in politics in DPRK. I think KJU is more open to the liberal international order (to the extent a dictator can be, and I think his focus is wholly economic) but he's working within the constraints (the other military/political elites who are worried about holding onto their relative power) of the politics of North Korea.
I'd settle for genuine signs that Kim is drawing down military forces from his border, permanently ending his nuclear program and/or releasing the various foreign nationals that have been held prisoner for spurious reasons (I.E. kidnapped).
Because yeah: so far the negotiations with NK have consistently been in bad faith on their part.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
The issue with these meetings is that it gives greater legitimacy to NK and it's positions, awards them concessions and due to the Ego of trump prevents them from being penalized for violating their agreements.
As opposed to signalling that we won't speak to them until regime change (that's how they are going to characterize it)? If what I've been told and read about their domestic economy is true it's likely KJU is looking to enter the international system. I think it's important to keep in mind KJU is not his father, KJU grew up and was educated in the west until he went through the officer school in DPRK a few years before his father's death. Compared to KJI who was educated in Pyongyang and very likely in the PRC until he got involved in politics in DPRK. I think KJU is more open to the liberal international order (to the extent a dictator can be, and I think his focus is wholly economic) but he's working within the constraints (the other military/political elites who are worried about holding onto their relative power) of the politics of North Korea.
I'd settle for genuine signs that Kim is drawing down military forces from his border, permanently ending his nuclear program and/or releasing the various foreign nationals that have been held prisoner for spurious reasons (I.E. kidnapped).
Because yeah: so far the negotiations with NK have consistently been in bad faith on their part.
RE military deployment on the border: It's something KJU could do and it's something we can propose as a signal (and something that I'm sure he's thinking about as a signal) but it's not really something we can require because DPRK has sovereignty and they can deploy their military within their borders how they like. Edit: Also after thinking about it, it might be an issue of domestic political signalling as well. In fact, each of these are going to have their own domestic political issues and hurdles and even with that I think number three is the leverage point.
RE nuclear program: the cat's already out of the bag unfortunately. Looking at it from KJU's perspective he has nothing to gain from scuttling DPRK's nuclear program and it's difficult to make an effective (as in one they will listen to) moral argument when the US, UK, France, PRC, Russia, India, Pakistan, and very likely Israel are nuclear states and I don't see any realistic path to any of these states (nor do I think it's inherently positive for us to scuttle our nuclear program) ending modernization, maintenance, and disarming. And given the Libya and Iran cases I think KJU sees the down sides to disarmament as much more important.
RE abducting foreign nationals: I agree, and I think this is where we likely have the most leverage considering the nature of the action and why North Korea kidnaps foreign nationals (primarily for expertise). "Opening up" North Korea the same way China did under and following Deng would lead to more expertise in various industries voluntarily traveling to and doing business in North Korea (something Deng specifically acknowledged in his policy writing and speeches that he was doing on purpose).
I'm not sure I would characterize North Korea's position as "bad faith", but more that we either don't have or have not used correctly the leverage we do have. I think the FP establishment and the administration are treating KJU's North Korea the same as KIS's and KJI's North Korean hermit kingdom and are holding the same assumptions when approaching policy towards DPRK.
One of the bigger issues with capital taxation is that corporations can pass-on the tax costs imposed by the government to consumers instead. Pass-through taxation has been one of the biggest questions in public finance research.
Unlikely in competitive markets as there's always someone without the stack of cash. It's about getting the outliers (apple, Google, certain hedge funders etc.) to have more incentive to use the capital, even if it's slightly risky.
Trying to figure out what you're implying is unlikely. Pass-through taxation is unlikely, or what?
It is unlikely that it would pass through if it's only on companies that hoard capital, as their competition that doesn't hoard it won't be paying those taxes.
It will be hard to figure out, but I feel it's necessary to move modern economies forward and keep growth going.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
I’m fine with another round of talks. I think it’s fair to say that the worst thing that happened because of the last summit was nothing. There were no delitirious effects to anything I consider worthwhile, no allies were harmed or even offended by it, and basically nothing happened. It also was not a much of a success, but I’m ok with more of the same if the likely worst case scenario is that nothing happens, and it’s supporting a worthwhile South Korean effort.
While Trump has been in office he's been throwing SK under the bus every chance he can get, because he likes dictators. If you didn't know the history between the three countries an outsider would think NK was our ally rather than SK by how Trump reacts to them both. It's more than simply the peace talks Trump has been threatening to hurt SK multiple times during his presidency for absolutely nothing while slobbering over NK for being Hard Men that make Hard Decisions. And for what?
edit: Worse case scenario is Trump starts threatening NK with nukes over twitter again. His actions with NK is severely bipolar, it's either being the nearest thing America's had to a hot war with NK in our life times or being Kim Jong Un's new BFF. It's insane.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
I’m fine with another round of talks. I think it’s fair to say that the worst thing that happened because of the last summit was nothing. There were no delitirious effects to anything I consider worthwhile, no allies were harmed or even offended by it, and basically nothing happened. It also was not a much of a success, but I’m ok with more of the same if the likely worst case scenario is that nothing happens, and it’s supporting a worthwhile South Korean effort.
While Trump has been in office he's been throwing SK under the bus every chance he can get, because he likes dictators. If you didn't know the history between the three countries an outsider would think NK was our ally rather than SK by how Trump reacts to them both. It's more than simply the peace talks Trump has been threatening to hurt SK multiple times during his presidency for absolutely nothing while slobbering over NK for being Hard Men that make Hard Decisions. And for what?
edit: Worse case scenario is Trump starts threatening NK with nukes over twitter again. His actions with NK is severely bipolar, it's either being the nearest thing America's had to a hot war with NK in our life times or being Kim Jong Un's new BFF. It's insane.
I won't lie, there's a part of me that enjoys the show of NK actually having to deal with an even more dishonest and unreliable actor than themselves for once.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
I’m fine with another round of talks. I think it’s fair to say that the worst thing that happened because of the last summit was nothing. There were no delitirious effects to anything I consider worthwhile, no allies were harmed or even offended by it, and basically nothing happened. It also was not a much of a success, but I’m ok with more of the same if the likely worst case scenario is that nothing happens, and it’s supporting a worthwhile South Korean effort.
While Trump has been in office he's been throwing SK under the bus every chance he can get, because he likes dictators. If you didn't know the history between the three countries an outsider would think NK was our ally rather than SK by how Trump reacts to them both. It's more than simply the peace talks Trump has been threatening to hurt SK multiple times during his presidency for absolutely nothing while slobbering over NK for being Hard Men that make Hard Decisions. And for what?
edit: Worse case scenario is Trump starts threatening NK with nukes over twitter again. His actions with NK is severely bipolar, it's either being the nearest thing America's had to a hot war with NK in our life times or being Kim Jong Un's new BFF. It's insane.
I won't lie, there's a part of me that enjoys the show of NK actually having to deal with an even more dishonest and unreliable actor than themselves for once.
I think they prefer it that way. Trump talks to them as one asshole to another, not the “disappointed teacher” mode of previous administrations. They know his type: they have lots of them.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
The only thing similar about them is Trump wants to do both. He already tried to unilaterally signal a troop draw-down and was overwritten by Mattis and co, and has complained on the record several times about Korea's failure to pay us for protection.
Like seriously the realities on the ground matter zero considering who is making the decisions here.
Trump has given DPRK in the last year the unique opportunity to look professional and sane in comparison. Kim seems to be taking advantage of that, to their benefit.
Looks like our Dotard and Chief is planning part two of talks with Great Leader again next month. So, that’ll be a thing that happens to make Trump look foolish once more.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
I don't see why one withdrawal would necessitate the other; the US presence in South Korea and that in Syria are not all that similar. SK is much larger, has been there for decades, and is there with the government's consent, whereas Syria is a small, recent force deployed against the Syrian government's will (and in contravention of international law, for that matter).
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
I’m fine with another round of talks. I think it’s fair to say that the worst thing that happened because of the last summit was nothing. There were no delitirious effects to anything I consider worthwhile, no allies were harmed or even offended by it, and basically nothing happened. It also was not a much of a success, but I’m ok with more of the same if the likely worst case scenario is that nothing happens, and it’s supporting a worthwhile South Korean effort.
While Trump has been in office he's been throwing SK under the bus every chance he can get, because he likes dictators. If you didn't know the history between the three countries an outsider would think NK was our ally rather than SK by how Trump reacts to them both. It's more than simply the peace talks Trump has been threatening to hurt SK multiple times during his presidency for absolutely nothing while slobbering over NK for being Hard Men that make Hard Decisions. And for what?
edit: Worse case scenario is Trump starts threatening NK with nukes over twitter again. His actions with NK is severely bipolar, it's either being the nearest thing America's had to a hot war with NK in our life times or being Kim Jong Un's new BFF. It's insane.
This is part of why I'm not really down for the criticism of Trump's clumsy detente. It is so much better than threatening nuclear armageddon on twitter. Yes, the administration is incompetent, but I'd rather they incompetently try to deescalate than incompetently play the atomic brinksmanship game.
This is part of why I'm not really down for the criticism of Trump's clumsy detente. It is so much better than threatening nuclear armageddon on twitter. Yes, the administration is incompetent, but I'd rather they incompetently try to deescalate than incompetently play the atomic brinksmanship game.
Trump's heading toward the nukes on twitter again in this part of our story.
His "truce" with NK is on a clock, and the both know it. Trump's admin didn't deescalate with NK, they surrender and get taken to the cleaners by Kim. With Trump we don't have the luxury to ignore his nuke on twitter actions, they come with the full package.
This is part of why I'm not really down for the criticism of Trump's clumsy detente. It is so much better than threatening nuclear armageddon on twitter. Yes, the administration is incompetent, but I'd rather they incompetently try to deescalate than incompetently play the atomic brinksmanship game.
Trump's heading toward the nukes on twitter again in this part of our story.
His "truce" with NK is on a clock, and the both know it. Trump's admin didn't deescalate with NK, they surrender and get taken to the cleaners by Kim. With Trump we don't have the luxury to ignore his nuke on twitter actions, they come with the full package.
He will keep claiming success right up until NK starts public missile tests again. And even then maybe.
If we are going to see unprovoked military action anywhere it will be Iran. Trump is constantly asking for military options there.
There doesn’t appear to much written about it outside sweden but there have been talks between North Korean and American officials outside Stockholm during the last week. I guess because details are sparse.
Not entirely unlikely to be related to a new summit though.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Via Politico reporter, the House just voted to block Trump from withdrawing from NATO. No idea who the 22 nays are yet but I'm linking the page here so we can refer back later when it's updated.
Ain’t that a wild-ass fucking thing that needed to happen
+40
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Regardless of the legislative impact of this, I imagine their primary goal was to try to send a strong message to NATO that despite what the temporary leader madman says, the majority of the United states government is still their friend.
+19
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Regardless of the legislative impact of this, I imagine their primary goal was to try to send a strong message to NATO that despite what the temporary leader madman says, the majority of the United states government is still their friend.
Yeah it's definitely pre-emptive damage control. Even the White House saying he was thinking of doing it was damaging enough. I'm glad that the measure had bi-partisan appeal. I would've raised an eyebrow if it was party-split.
Posts
If she was born here then she is a citizen by birth. Jus Soli.
Unless she explicitly gave it up, she has citizenship via the constitution. She probably also got it from her parents since there are statutes for jus sanguini as well.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It said right in the article she’s Muslim.
There are several situations which could result in her not being a US Citizen, even though she almost certainly was one at birth. It says she is married to an Iranian I believe, so she could be an Iranian citizen by marriage, and I don't know if Iran is a country that allows dual citizenship with the USA.
To be clear, I don't care if she is a citizen or not, her treatment is absolutely unacceptable because she is a person. I know that there is a segment of the population to whom the answer does matter, and since none of the articles I have read on it have been clear on the question it's really easy for them to assume that she is not a citizen. It's just a sad fact that right now "US citizen detained illegally" is a much more impactful statement than "Iranian Muslim detained illegally."
Most people don't know that. Some people wish it otherwise.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And some people are trying to legislate it otherwise.
Because the Constitution is both an inviolable text, and just a piece of paper, depending on what these chucklefucs need it to be.
Unlikely in competitive markets as there's always someone without the stack of cash. It's about getting the outliers (apple, Google, certain hedge funders etc.) to have more incentive to use the capital, even if it's slightly risky.
While that is certainly how I feel, I guarantee a depressingly large segment of this country does not care a bit when bad things happen to non-citizens, and sometimes actually cheer for it. I don't like the articles I have seen not making it clear that she is a citizen (because she probably is!) but that's the way they have chosen to present it.
Whether it makes a difference to you or me, it definitely makes a difference to some others. If these stories were about mistreatment of a citizen it would probably gain more traction, as depressing as that is.
I think you're overstating the impact that citizenship has on the beliefs of the people you're talking about when it comes to people with different skin.
if she does have citizenship they'll just see it as yet another example of the undeserving stealing rights that should be theirs alone.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-meets-top-north-korean-official-second-kim-summit-possibility-n960301
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
He will look real Big and Strong once he pulls all the troops out of South Korea.
Given what's happening in Syria now this has to happen at some point.
Talk about your boondoggles. There's definitely no going back if we leave.
We don’t do nicknames in this forum.
Also, I kinda like the Trump admin's strategy of having summits with Kim that don't really go anywhere and otherwise seemingly being diplomatically uninvolved. It has allowed SK's Moon to take leadership of the process and make it a dialogue between the Koreas. I'm also not one of those who thinks that talks between another national leader and the US are somehow a gift to the other nation in and of itself; I always feel like that perspective betrays an overly high opinion of the US.
The issue with these meetings is that it gives greater legitimacy to NK and it's positions, awards them concessions and due to the Ego of trump prevents them from being penalized for violating their agreements.
As opposed to signalling that we won't speak to them until regime change (that's how they are going to characterize it)? If what I've been told and read about their domestic economy is true it's likely KJU is looking to enter the international system. I think it's important to keep in mind KJU is not his father, KJU grew up and was educated in the west until he went through the officer school in DPRK a few years before his father's death. Compared to KJI who was educated in Pyongyang and very likely in the PRC until he got involved in politics in DPRK. I think KJU is more open to the liberal international order (to the extent a dictator can be, and I think his focus is wholly economic) but he's working within the constraints (the other military/political elites who are worried about holding onto their relative power) of the politics of North Korea.
I’m fine with another round of talks. I think it’s fair to say that the worst thing that happened because of the last summit was nothing. There were no delitirious effects to anything I consider worthwhile, no allies were harmed or even offended by it, and basically nothing happened. It also was not a much of a success, but I’m ok with more of the same if the likely worst case scenario is that nothing happens, and it’s supporting a worthwhile South Korean effort.
Trying to figure out what you're implying is unlikely. Pass-through taxation is unlikely, or what?
I'd settle for genuine signs that Kim is drawing down military forces from his border, permanently ending his nuclear program and/or releasing the various foreign nationals that have been held prisoner for spurious reasons (I.E. kidnapped).
Because yeah: so far the negotiations with NK have consistently been in bad faith on their part.
RE military deployment on the border: It's something KJU could do and it's something we can propose as a signal (and something that I'm sure he's thinking about as a signal) but it's not really something we can require because DPRK has sovereignty and they can deploy their military within their borders how they like. Edit: Also after thinking about it, it might be an issue of domestic political signalling as well. In fact, each of these are going to have their own domestic political issues and hurdles and even with that I think number three is the leverage point.
RE nuclear program: the cat's already out of the bag unfortunately. Looking at it from KJU's perspective he has nothing to gain from scuttling DPRK's nuclear program and it's difficult to make an effective (as in one they will listen to) moral argument when the US, UK, France, PRC, Russia, India, Pakistan, and very likely Israel are nuclear states and I don't see any realistic path to any of these states (nor do I think it's inherently positive for us to scuttle our nuclear program) ending modernization, maintenance, and disarming. And given the Libya and Iran cases I think KJU sees the down sides to disarmament as much more important.
RE abducting foreign nationals: I agree, and I think this is where we likely have the most leverage considering the nature of the action and why North Korea kidnaps foreign nationals (primarily for expertise). "Opening up" North Korea the same way China did under and following Deng would lead to more expertise in various industries voluntarily traveling to and doing business in North Korea (something Deng specifically acknowledged in his policy writing and speeches that he was doing on purpose).
I'm not sure I would characterize North Korea's position as "bad faith", but more that we either don't have or have not used correctly the leverage we do have. I think the FP establishment and the administration are treating KJU's North Korea the same as KIS's and KJI's North Korean hermit kingdom and are holding the same assumptions when approaching policy towards DPRK.
It is unlikely that it would pass through if it's only on companies that hoard capital, as their competition that doesn't hoard it won't be paying those taxes.
It will be hard to figure out, but I feel it's necessary to move modern economies forward and keep growth going.
While Trump has been in office he's been throwing SK under the bus every chance he can get, because he likes dictators. If you didn't know the history between the three countries an outsider would think NK was our ally rather than SK by how Trump reacts to them both. It's more than simply the peace talks Trump has been threatening to hurt SK multiple times during his presidency for absolutely nothing while slobbering over NK for being Hard Men that make Hard Decisions. And for what?
edit: Worse case scenario is Trump starts threatening NK with nukes over twitter again. His actions with NK is severely bipolar, it's either being the nearest thing America's had to a hot war with NK in our life times or being Kim Jong Un's new BFF. It's insane.
I won't lie, there's a part of me that enjoys the show of NK actually having to deal with an even more dishonest and unreliable actor than themselves for once.
I think they prefer it that way. Trump talks to them as one asshole to another, not the “disappointed teacher” mode of previous administrations. They know his type: they have lots of them.
The only thing similar about them is Trump wants to do both. He already tried to unilaterally signal a troop draw-down and was overwritten by Mattis and co, and has complained on the record several times about Korea's failure to pay us for protection.
Like seriously the realities on the ground matter zero considering who is making the decisions here.
Trump's heading toward the nukes on twitter again in this part of our story.
His "truce" with NK is on a clock, and the both know it. Trump's admin didn't deescalate with NK, they surrender and get taken to the cleaners by Kim. With Trump we don't have the luxury to ignore his nuke on twitter actions, they come with the full package.
He will keep claiming success right up until NK starts public missile tests again. And even then maybe.
If we are going to see unprovoked military action anywhere it will be Iran. Trump is constantly asking for military options there.
Not entirely unlikely to be related to a new summit though.