There are 129 comments.

1. Inactive
   blood thirsty neocon

   @bloodthirstyneocon

   5:55 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2018

   Kozak (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):
   Then there’s this, which nobody talks about: The president said that he eventually wants to bring all of our troops home. What would stop Kim from biding his time, waiting for that to happen, invade the South, and turn it into a giant concentration camp, like the North is?

   Once again.

   South Korea has 51 million people. Norks 26 million.

   South Korean GDP is 1.4 Trillion, Norks 12.3 billion.

   I think South Korea is more then able to defend itself.

   or do we keep US troops there in perpetuity ?

   If Trump pulls our troops out of South Korea then I will be voting against him in 2020. Sorry, I have a limit. I’m cautiously optimistic that Trump was playing 3-d chess with Japan and South Korea when he said that. 

2. Inactive
   blood thirsty neocon

   @bloodthirstyneocon

   6:11 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2018

   Both the Agreed Framework and the Six Party agreements included language on verification. The current agreement doesn’t mention it. Why? I am a Trump supporter. Trump supporters do our President no favors by failing to hold him accountable on this issue. Without verification, any agreement we sign is a joke.

3. Inactive
   George Townsend

   @GeorgeTownsend

   6:12 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2018

   Annefy (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):

   Annefy (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   rgbact (View Comment):

    

   My takeaway is going to be different for all four.

   For Heaven’s sake, just being contrary is not going to work. We are not talking about speeches. We are talking about agreements about peace. Involving an evil regime: NK. I am asking that we forget who the president is, and read the text, and then decide, by those words, and any others words, written or said, if they make sense. If we thought the same treaty is bad under Obama, we should think it bad under Trump.

   First, I am not being contrary.

   Second, you mentioned “press confidence” (I assume you meant “press conference) in the comment I responded to

   In your response to me, now you’re talking about agreements and treaties.

   Regardless, my reaction to any statement, written or apoken, is going change depending on the person.

   Which I don’t find extraordinary or unreasonable

   Thank you for correcting my error.

   While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this being America, I am entitled to observe that you are wrong. In mentioning a press conference, I was referring to what happened with the president, not some speech to which you eluded, in trying to draw a wrong-headed analogy. This agreement was a page long, and vague. So the press conference is relevant. And if Obama had said the things that Trump did (like what a really smart and good guy this evil murderer is) we would be in an uproar. But since Trump said them, we are supposed to praise him. I think that is wrong, and i was trying to get people to see that words matter, not so much who is saying them.

4. Member
   Annefy

   @Annefy

   6:27 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2018

   George Townsend (View Comment):

   Annefy (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):

   Annefy (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Cato Rand (View Comment):

   rgbact (View Comment):

   My takeaway is going to be different for all four.

   For Heaven’s sake, just being contrary is not going to work. We are not talking about speeches. We are talking about agreements about peace. Involving an evil regime: NK. I am asking that we forget who the president is, and read the text, and then decide, by those words, and any others words, written or said, if they make sense. If we thought the same treaty is bad under Obama, we should think it bad under Trump.

   First, I am not being contrary.

   Second, you mentioned “press confidence” (I assume you meant “press conference) in the comment I responded to

   In your response to me, now you’re talking about agreements and treaties.

   Regardless, my reaction to any statement, written or apoken, is going change depending on the person.

   Which I don’t find extraordinary or unreasonable

   Thank you for correcting my error.

   While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this being America, I am entitled to observe that you are wrong. In mentioning a press conference, I was referring to what happened with the president, not some speech to which you eluded, in trying to draw a wrong-headed analogy. This agreement was a page long, and vague. So the press conference is relevant. And if Obama had said the things that Trump did (like what a really smart and good guy this evil murderer is) we would be in an uproar. But since Trump said them, we are supposed to praise him. I think that is wrong, and i was trying to get people to see that words matter, not so much who is saying them.

   What would we do without you?

   My point is if son#1 say “ lend me 10 Bucks and I’ll pay you back next Tuesday”, it means something different than when son #3 says the exact same words.

   Similarly when daughter says “that guy is a jerk and always has been” it means something different when son #1 says the exact same thing

   Relating to your comment that I’ve helpfully bolded, you’re not supposed to do anything. What are you talking about ?

5. Inactive
   George Townsend

   @GeorgeTownsend

   6:50 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2018

   Moderator Note:

   This is rude and unhelpful

   Annefy (View Comment):

   What would we do without you?

   My point is if son#1 say “ lend me 10 Bucks and I’ll pay you back next Tuesday”, it means something different than when son #3 says the exact same words.

   Similarly when daughter says “that guy is a jerk and always has been” it means something different when son #1 says the exact same thing

   Relating to your comment that I’ve helpfully bolded, you’re not supposed to do anything. What are you talking about ?

   Once again you analogize this with your children, which is silly. Some analogies are good, and get us to think. This one is silly, to say the mildest about it. We are talking about verbiage dealing with life and death.

   Regarding your being helpful in putting my sentence in bold, well, I guess it is your night to be silly. All I meant was that some people are praising a man who says outrageous things, and I am appalled by it.

   I think we are done here.

    

    

6. Member
   Clifford A. Brown

   @CliffordBrown

   9:35 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2018

   Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

   The White House communications team is running a masterful information campaign. See my assessment in the members section — not subscribed? Now’s the time.

   Update: promoted to Main Feed.

   Winning the Information Campaign in Singapore

7. Member
   Valiuth

   @Valiuth

   5:47 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2018

   Well apparently there is “No longer a nuclear threat from North Korea”… so yah. 

8. Member
   Frank Soto

   @FrankSoto

   7:20 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2018

   Kozak (View Comment):

   Frank Soto (View Comment):

   Kozak (View Comment):

   Frank Soto (View Comment):

   Kozak (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Kozak (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):
   Then there’s this, which nobody talks about: The president said that he eventually wants to bring all of our troops home. What would stop Kim from biding his time, waiting for that to happen, invade the South, and turn it into a giant concentration camp, like the North is?

   Once again.

   South Korea has 51 million people. Norks 26 million.

   South Korean GDP is 1.4 Trillion, Norks 12.3 billion.

   I think South Korea is more then able to defend itself.

   or do we keep US troops there in perpetuity ?

   China has 1.4 Billion people and a GDP of 11.2 Trillion.

   You think China really wants to destroy their economy over Korea? Seriously?

   If the US has backed out of protecting the south, it would need do no such thing. It is important that Trump not give away the US protection of South Korea.

   We have treaty obligations to defend the South. China is well aware of that.

   We had treaty obligations to protect South Vietnam after our troops left as well.

   China is well aware of that.

   Well in that case, what does any of this matter? If the South won’t protect itself, and we won’t honor our treaty obligations, why leave 30k US troops as sitting ducks for the Chicoms?

   This is so overwrought now as to be ludicrous.

    

   The south will protect itself.  China was brought up to show how ridiculous your claim is that the South can easily repel the North.  You leave the 30k US troops there precisely because China won’t help if they are there.

   Your insistence that the only good option is to remove our troops is so overwrought now as to be ludicrous.

9. Inactive
   blood thirsty neocon

   @bloodthirstyneocon

   10:06 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2018

   Kozak (View Comment):

   Frank Soto (View Comment):

   Kozak (View Comment):

   Frank Soto (View Comment):

   Kozak (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Kozak (View Comment):

   George Townsend (View Comment):
   Then there’s this, which nobody talks about: The president said that he eventually wants to bring all of our troops home. What would stop Kim from biding his time, waiting for that to happen, invade the South, and turn it into a giant concentration camp, like the North is?

   Once again.

   South Korea has 51 million people. Norks 26 million.

   South Korean GDP is 1.4 Trillion, Norks 12.3 billion.

   I think South Korea is more then able to defend itself.

   or do we keep US troops there in perpetuity ?

   China has 1.4 Billion people and a GDP of 11.2 Trillion.

   You think China really wants to destroy their economy over Korea? Seriously?

   If the US has backed out of protecting the south, it would need do no such thing. It is important that Trump not give away the US protection of South Korea.

   We have treaty obligations to defend the South. China is well aware of that.

   We had treaty obligations to protect South Vietnam after our troops left as well.

   China is well aware of that.

   Well in that case, what does any of this matter? If the South won’t protect itself, and we won’t honor our treaty obligations, why leave 30k US troops as sitting ducks for the Chicoms?

   This is so overwrought now as to be ludicrous.

   A few thousand years of history tell us that power imbalances lead to war. Pulling all troops out of South Korea would lead to a power imbalance, which creates the risk of war. War in East Asia means bad things for our security and prosperity. Count me out.