KCRag Forum

Highlander wrote:

earthling wrote:Trump approval rating (aggregation of many polls) at an all time low...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

It will go up after we destroy North Korea in a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Sadly, it probably really would.

I've always wondered whether there was any limit to the rally around the flag effect and if there is I think we will see it under Trump. Bush, for instance, was working with a much higher approval rating in the first place and then his approval shot up after America was attacked (and steadily ground down to essentially nothing over the next seven years). It seems not unreasonable to me that a guy who's as unpopular as Trump is to begin with would hurt rather than help his approval ratings by starting a war (especially one that is likely to result almost immediately in millions of casualties, turn America into an international pariah, and tank the global economy, and all that's just the optimistic scenario in which China doesn't intervene in some way to try to preserve its buffer/vassal state). But I'm not sure if there are any good examples of that actually happening, so who knows, maybe his approval rating really will rise. It increasingly sounds like we might find out.

Seems to be a matter of who strikes first at this point. Other Asian countries would probably rather have N Korea's attention on the US but the escalation Trump is brewing ultimately makes things worse for everyone. Kim Jun-on may realize his fate and release all rockets in all directions. Lives at risk is of course the major concern but also not a good time to be in an already emotional stock market, am pulled out and focused in private world.

On other topic... If pressure builds for Trump to point of being ousted or resigning, would moderates to lefties rather have Pence more successful with his harder right demeanor (in many aspects) or a Trump regime in disarray. I hear from lefties... would've rather had Romney.

I think Trump doesn't want to launch, he's trying to goad North Korea on so China has to go in and de-escalate the situation.

He's tried to push China directly and it didn't work.

The ultimate end result should be to get China to support a coup. A pro-China government that's stable and goes for a Glasnost-style opening and would be a huge step forward for the region.

Making serious threats is dangerous if Trump doesn't really want to launch. The seemingly flippant threats alone could cause N Korea to let loose of all they have. Kim Jong-un is clearly paranoid according to various global factions who follow him and 'experts' think he'd easily take the suicidal option, plausibly releasing everything he has. With something this sensitive a wise President would consult experts and agree to thoughtfully stated stances, not tweets and off-the-cuff remarks while on vacation.

We don't have that. We have Trump.

Remember President Teddy's saying? Speak softly but carry a big stick. Trump sure doesn't remember it. Of course that assumes he even heard it in the first place. His tweets so far are directed to his base, not others. Of course now the talk is much of his tweet base are phony accounts.

earthling wrote:Making serious threats is dangerous if Trump doesn't really want to launch. The seemingly flippant threats alone could cause N Korea to let loose of all they have. Kim Jong-un is clearly paranoid according to various global factions who follow him and 'experts' think he'd easily take the suicidal option, plausibly releasing everything he has. With something this sensitive a wise President would consult experts and agree to thoughtfully stated stances, not tweets and off-the-cuff remarks while on vacation.

It's dangerous If? It's just dangerous. Both sides remind of drunk idiots in a bar that start threatening each other and end up fighting because there's no way to back down. My temporary abode in Anchorage is the only large-ish US city reputedly in N. Korea's range so its a particular concern to the folks up here. Of course, the big losers would be South Korea and Japan who I am sure Jong would target out of spite (and because he can, kind of like V2 bombs at the end of WWII falling on London) not to mention the wretched people of North Korea who have had to live in that weird parallel universe since the end of world war II. Of course, if China felt threatened by the US actions - absolutely all hell could break loose.

Yeah even if NK nuke capability and distance is overstated (some claim 60 nuke missiles), they can still target Seoul and Tokyo and wreak havoc with traditional bombs (10K tubes and 5K tons of chemical weapons reported), which they are more clearly capable of. This is an example where Trump's reckless threats with 'America First' provincial attitude is dangerous to the rest of the world.

So far so good on the Trump presidency

^Good times for White Supremacists who have been empowered by Trump. Yeah, so far so good. &&&

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump invites them to the White House like Obama invited BLM.

In any event, while white supremacists are protesting in Virginia, Missouri remains the only state on the NAACP's travel warning list.

AllThingsKC wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if Trump invites them to the White House like Obama invited BLM.

In any event, while white supremacists are protesting in Virginia, Missouri remains the only state on the NAACP's travel warning list.

I assume you are trying to equate the two? The Alt right and BLM?

You know if you really think about it, people who think black people shouldn't be murdered and people who think black people should be murdered are actually just two sides of the same coin, right???

Are you reading my facebook feed?

shinatoo wrote:I assume you are trying to equate the two? The Alt right and BLM?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense they're both groups founded on a particular race and they both can use violence/scare tactics to make their points and neither seem to believe in an "all lives matter" society.

No, in the sense they were founded for completely different reasons and have different goals and usually have different tactics.

Why do you feel that BLM doesn't feel that all lives matter?

Well, I am sure many in that group do. But, as a group, their actions (or inactions) would indicate otherwise.

Go to a BLM rally holding a sign that says, "All lives matter" and see how you're treated. If the videos on YouTube are any indication, they probably won't like that.

I guess I'm not aware of the actions or inaction of which you speak. I do know that there is a knee jerk reaction to BLM to feel as that they are saying that black lives matter more, or to the exclusion of, other lives. I had that reaction at first. But if you look at it from their point of view they are saying that the society they live in does not value black lives, evident from a long past history where blacks were killed with impunity and no serious prosecution followed (slavery, lynchings, KKK). And not rarely up through the 1960s. Followed by killings by corrupt police officers up through our current times, as has been evidenced by social media and the revelation of secret holding pens in Chicago.

They would have been better off naming the movement Black Lives Matter Too.

Of course with any cause that involves millions of people there with be militants, radicals and violence. But the BLM movement is realy about saying "we have value, please help us, we are being murdered".

So I would say it's a mistake to equate people who want to be treated as equals, and not be murdered, to those that think they are superior and march under the flags of nations that sought our destruction.

All very excellent points, shinatoo. Very well said, too. I appreciate that. Thanks.

While I can't think of any good reason why a white supremacist group would be founded, I do think BLM was founded with the best of intentions to fix a racial injustice. I can fully support that cause! However, sadly, it seems BLM has largely become about "black power" and even "kill all non-blacks."

Here's an example of BLM's lack of actions:
If a black person is murdered by a black person, nobody chants "black lives matter." But if a black person is murdered by white cop, then they chant "black lives matter!" So it would seem a black person's life only matters if they're killed by a while police officer.

If BLM really did feel that all lives matter, wouldn't they march for black people killed by other black people or people of other races? Has BLM ever stood up for a person of any other race? Have they ever stood up for black person killed by another black person? Not that I'm aware of. So, this is where BLM's lack of actions speaks volumes as to what their message really is.

Here's an example of BLM's actions:
There are no shortage of videos of BLM members saying very racist things about people of other races and acting violently about the message "All Lives Matter." This seems to happen at the majority of BLM rallies (if we assume the videos are an accurate portrayal of BLM rallies).

Of course you're going to have the nut jobs in every movement. And it could be the media is highlighting those nut jobs to make it look like the whole movement thinks that way. But their message of "we have value, please help us, we are being murdered" is still lost by both their actions and inactions, as a group, which is sad.

I believe the original message of BLM is a positive one. It's one that seeks to fix racial injustices. I cannot think of anything positive about any white supremacist group. So, in this sense, I would not say BLM is the same as the alt-right or whomever. There's no positive/harmless message from the white supremacists groups. Their messages have not been hi-jacked. I do think people are hi-jacking the BLM message. Perhaps they're just the vocal minority, but they are the ones I would equate to people who think their race is the superior race and seeks the destruction of other races.

Back to North Korea, looks like Kim J is holding off on more testing (towards Guam) for now. But with two hot heads in the picture, obviously it wouldn't take much to escalate again sooner than later. It seems there is no scenario for NK to get rid of its nuke program and eventually will be able to reach anywhere in US. Wouldn't be surprising that when US feels NK is a true threat to continental US, US eventually acts in some serious form (like invasion/bombing/assassination) and NK releases everything they have, which is clearly enough to create major global havoc on many layers.

It's like a game of hostage at this point, with no sign of any situation for NK to fully back out.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -after-all