Another part falls off the "finely tuned machine".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think so. 

This is the very issue I predicted to be the reason for Trumps impeachment - not collusion - as DKW insists I said.  And I also predicted the trade conflict (tariffs) dwith Republicans as the reason he loses their support. 

Can't wait until the mid-terms though. 

Ok. So just another one of your conjectures about Trump and his presidency.

Got it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

First question answered is that I feel no need to to offer anything. Just threw it out to Alex. Cohn will will never say why he is leaving and that is his right and fine by me. 

Other than my first job out of college for 15 years have been been my own employer. Never lied about leaving. 

Good point Salty. Good point Brad. Opinions are all we have at this point. 

Unless your name is H..... nevermind. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

On 3/4/2018 at 4:28 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Cute. Obama still living in your head while your current POTUS is being sued by a porn star and has sent the stock market on a downward spiral with trade war threats. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Cute. Obama still living in your head while your current POTUS is being sued by a porn star and has sent the stock market on a downward spiral with trade war threats. 

Thanks.

Actually, he popped into my mind when you mentioned a slogan closely associated with him ("hope"). Lots of people would love to sue Trump. Suing doesn't entail anything. Get back to me on the stock market in another year... lets see what happens. Same with lawsuit, assuming its even justiciable. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thanks.

Actually, he popped into my mind when you mentioned a slogan closely associated with him ("hope"). Lots of people would love to sue Trump. Suing doesn't entail anything. Get back to me on the stock market in another year... lets see what happens. Same with lawsuit, assuming its even justiciable. 

Why wait another year? Trump took credit for the stock market immediately.  It’s plunged twice thanks to his Twitter tantrums. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Why wait another year? Trump took credit for the stock market immediately.  It’s plunged twice thanks to his Twitter tantrums. 

Well yeah - it was still booming a year later. Had that not been the case, he would've looked like a fool. Besides, investors are dialing back because re inflation concerns and WS is on edge about tariffs. Gotta give it time. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well yeah - it was still booming a year later. Had that not been the case, he would've looked like a fool. Besides, investors are dialing back because re inflation concerns and WS is on edge about tariffs. Gotta give it time. 

He is a fool. 

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok. So just another one of your conjectures about Trump and his presidency.

Got it.

A well-founded and well-supported conjecture.  Would you like to make a wager against it?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A well-founded and well-supported conjecture.  Would you like to make a wager against it?

Not well-founded and well-supported enough for impeachment or a conviction. 

Sure, I'll make a wager against it. Lay a foundation and I'll rebut. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

He is a fool. 

In the eye of the beholder 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

32 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Why wait another year? Trump took credit for the stock market immediately.  It’s plunged twice thanks to his Twitter tantrums. 

I betcha he sold right before the twitter tantrums, bought back low after the plunge.......brilliant, agree Elle?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

I betcha he sold right before the twitter tantrums, bought back low after the plunge.......brilliant, agree Elle?

Careful, they may take you serious. Remember, they're not good at noticing fake news. 

Instead of collusion, they're going to yell "market manipulation!"

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

On 3/7/2018 at 10:04 AM, SaltyTiger said:

I betcha he sold right before the twitter tantrums, bought back low after the plunge.......brilliant, agree Elle?

He does see Profit as a natural spoil of the office. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

He does see Profit as a natural spoil of the office. 

Also going to meet with North Korea Kim. The man knows how to negotiate. C'mon Elle. Give credit where due. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

51 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Also going to meet with North Korea Kim. The man knows how to negotiate. C'mon Elle. Give credit where due. 

So honest question on this:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical that conservatives aren't calling out Trump for meeting with Kim without conditions attached that we know of?  That's exactly what brought an uproar from the right when Obama said he'd do the same with Iran.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

49 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So honest question on this:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical that conservatives aren't calling out Trump for meeting with Kim without conditions attached that we know of?  That's exactly what brought an uproar from the right when Obama said he'd do the same with Iran.

What sort of conditions are you referencing? Per my understanding, conditions are attached. At least the vague coverage I heard yesterday appeared that they were. I could be wrong. Did conservatives call out Obama before the meeting or after ( I have no clue)? It seems that in these sorts of meetings, the public probably can't know all of the conditions for obvious reasons.

Also, he hasn't met with him yet. I would assume a possibility that all of the conditions are not attached, nor of public knowledge yet. (Whether they're still discussing conditions, I also have no clue).

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What sort of conditions are you referencing? Per my understanding, conditions are attached. At least the vague coverage I heard yesterday appeared that they were. I could be wrong. Did conservatives call out Obama before the meeting or after ( I have no clue)? It seems that in these sorts of meetings, the public probably can't know all of the conditions for obvious reasons.

Also, he hasn't met with him yet. I would assume a possibility that all of the conditions are not attached, nor of public knowledge yet. (Whether they're still discussing conditions, I also have no clue).

 

From everything I've seen, there have be no concessions made by North Korea, which has been what Trump himself said would need to happen before talks.  That's actually been standard procedure for the U.S. with regards to North Korea for years, yet it appears a 180 has been done without counseling from advisors (reports say the announcement caught many in the White House off guard).

However, During the 2008 campaign, Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders from Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without concessions or pre-conditions.  Conservatives and even some Dems crushed him for it.  My basic question then becomes: what changed to where it's ok now?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

From everything I've seen, there have be no concessions made by North Korea, which has been what Trump himself said would need to happen before talks.  That's actually been standard procedure for the U.S. with regards to North Korea for years, yet it appears a 180 has been done without counseling from advisors (reports say the announcement caught many in the White House off guard).

However, During the 2008 campaign, Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders from Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without concessions or pre-conditions.  Conservatives and even some Dems crushed him for it.  My basic question then becomes: what changed to where it's ok now?

Did Trump say that there will be no concessions within the next two months? Who initiated the meeting?

And I don't doubt the hypocrite thing. It's on both sides. Just watch Fox or CNN when they "cover one of their own vs. covering the other wise." I don't recall bashing Obama for the referred to meetings, but I am not denying that conservatives did. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

From everything I've seen, there have be no concessions made by North Korea, which has been what Trump himself said would need to happen before talks.  That's actually been standard procedure for the U.S. with regards to North Korea for years, yet it appears a 180 has been done without counseling from advisors (reports say the announcement caught many in the White House off guard).

However, During the 2008 campaign, Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders from Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without concessions or pre-conditions.  Conservatives and even some Dems crushed him for it.  My basic question then becomes: what changed to where it's ok now?

 

While I do not expect it to be openly stated, I think the actual answer is that several decades of bad policy toward North Korea has resulted in them turning from a hostile nation with a potential nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip into a hostile nation with an actual nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip.  Previously, the United States could snub them at will, and walk away from any negotiations, secure with the knowledge that they would either try to resume negotiations or the country would collapse before they had nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Now, the unthinkable has occurred.  North Korea has nuclear weapons, systems to deliver them, and they have not collapsed.  North Korea can now negotiate a deal, and expect the United States to actually put forth an effort to adhere to it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, Strychnine said:

 

While I do not expect it to be openly stated, I think the actual answer is that several decades of bad policy toward North Korea has resulted in them turning from a hostile nation with a potential nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip into a hostile nation with an actual nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip.  Previously, the United States could snub them at will, and walk away from any negotiations, secure with the knowledge that they would either try to resume negotiations or the country would collapse before they had nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Now, the unthinkable has occurred.  North Korea has nuclear weapons, systems to deliver them, and they have not collapsed.  North Korea can now negotiate a deal, and expect the United States to actually put forth an effort to adhere to it.

And that comes after several past administrations saying NK would not be allowed to get to the point of having a nuclear bomb. So much for hollow rhetoric.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

32 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

From everything I've seen, there have be no concessions made by North Korea, which has been what Trump himself said would need to happen before talks.  That's actually been standard procedure for the U.S. with regards to North Korea for years, yet it appears a 180 has been done without counseling from advisors (reports say the announcement caught many in the White House off guard).

However, During the 2008 campaign, Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders from Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without concessions or pre-conditions.  Conservatives and even some Dems crushed him for it.  My basic question then becomes: what changed to where it's ok now?

Well Brad President Trump is so advanced versus Obama in talks and negotiations. Even you guys say anyone he ever negotiated with got screwed. He will tear little " rocket man" out of the frame.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Well Brad President Trump is so advanced versus Obama in talks and negotiations. Even you guys say anyone he ever negotiated with got screwed. He will tear little " rocket man" out of the frame.

See, there was actually a good discussion being had and then you chime in with this nonsense.  This is why we can't have nice things.

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

And that comes after several past administrations saying NK would not be allowed to get to the point of having a nuclear bomb. So much for hollow rhetoric.

 

The reality is that it was less hollow rhetoric than it was political failure.  North Korea has been keenly interested in reaching an agreement with the United States, on more than one occasion, yet hawks tend to view any concessions to North Korea as appeasement.  Unfortunately, concessions are required if you intend to successfully do something like convince a hostile nation to give up the only real bargaining chip it has.  North Korea already knows that hawks in the United States will still oppose any concessions as appeasement, and that we will drag our feet as much as possible on the terms of any agreement made, but we will also demand full and immediate compliance on their end.  They know our shtick, as they have seen it before.  North Korea also knows that they are in a better position than ever to point that out, and walk away.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

41 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Did Trump say that there will be no concessions within the next two months? Who initiated the meeting?

Within the next two months?  Who knows as Trump has shown a proclivity to change his mind quickly on things.  As for initiation of the meeting, that's been unclear from what I can tell.

35 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

While I do not expect it to be openly stated, I think the actual answer is that several decades of bad policy toward North Korea has resulted in them turning from a hostile nation with a potential nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip into a hostile nation with an actual nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip.  Previously, the United States could snub them at will, and walk away from any negotiations, secure with the knowledge that they would either try to resume negotiations or the country would collapse before they had nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Now, the unthinkable has occurred.  North Korea has nuclear weapons, systems to deliver them, and they have not collapsed.  North Korea can now negotiate a deal, and expect the United States to actually put forth an effort to adhere to it.

Good, reasonable take and it makes perfect sense.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

34 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

See, there was actually a good discussion being had and then you chime in with this nonsense.  This is why we can't have nice things.

Sorry Brad....just picking at you. Think I will go catch the basketball game. Think we are playing now