Trump II

[Alan Klein]

This argument is and always has been utterly bizarre.    Hillary and Obama are in the tank for Wall St. because they accept speaking fees either before or after their times in office, but Trump is an innocent despite the fact that he selected the very same Wall St. guys to *run the government* and has been actively trying to hinder media oversight at every turn.   Makes my head explode :/

The Clintons and Obama personally profited from Wall Street.  When he was President, Bill Clinton did away with Glass-Stiegel Act which caused a good part of the collapse of the financial industry in 2008.  After it was removed from the law, corporate banks could act as investment banks and vice versa.  Wall Street was behind getting rid of the Act.  Wall Street continued to pay the Clintons with all those speaking engagements for millions and millions.  It was a pay off!!!!  A quid pro quo. Do you really think she was giving them investment advice with those speeches or what?   When didn't she release the transcripts if they were so innocent.  And then during the recession after 2008, not only did none of the wall street crooks go to jail, Obama got them their money back plus billions of extra dollars.  Meanwhile the Clintons were collecting more money under the guise of the Clinton Foundation.  Not only wall street, but hoards of foreigners, sovereigns, and other contributed to make them hundred millionaires.  It was all for political favors.  Meanwhile, the average schnook American lost their jobs and had to accept part time or lower paying jobs if they got a job at all.   Bernie Sanders said the same thing.  Is he lying too? 

Trump ran to clean up the swamp where politicians and business and wall street types like the Clintons and Obamas slime together.  Sure Trump hired smart financial people to implement his plans to help the country and the average worker.  But you're denigrating them ahead of time instead of seeing what they and Trump do.  You've already tried and convicted them before they even did anything.

[LesPalenik]

I don't understand what point you're making?  Airbus and Boeing are both fine aircraft companies.  I think Boeing sold $7 billion to the Chinese but did better overall than Airbus recently at the Paris Air show.   Boeing did better but that changes from time to time. Boeing is leaving the show with orders and commitments for more than 571 new aircraft worth $74.8 billion at list prices. Airbus secured 346 new orders worth $42.2 billion.

What does Volvo wanting to make only electric or hybrids have to do with Trump?  What does Trump have to do with Tesla?

No point getting upset. The Airbus deal shows that there is a plenty of business, especially in the BRICS countries, specifically in India and China, and that's where the European companies will concentrate their efforts.
When it comes to Volvo announcement about their electric and hybrid cars, it is very likely that a few more European manufacturers will follow the suite, which will make it more difficult for US car makers. Maybe it doesn't faze you, but the 7% drop in Tesla stock value in one day shows the concerns of its investors.
And these are just two examples in one day. I'm afraid we will hear more such news if Trump doesn't turn around. You might remember that Trump promised last year that he will keep the automotive jobs in USA, but right now, it doesn't seems to be the case, and many US car manufactures are planning workforce reductions.

There is one thing you don't seem to be aware of. As Alan Goldhammer mentioned in his recent post, most Europeans are not exactly enamored with Trump (and consequently and unfortunately also with USA), and that will be reflected also in tourism numbers to US and in purchasing US goods. Although Trump had surely good intentions to protect US manufacturers and employees, such isolationist approach may backfire and cause the exact opposite. This is a stark contrast to our own Justin Trudeau who just recently met with his Irish counterpart Leo Varadkar and pledged to push the free-trade agenda forward as both countries deal with increasingly isolationist neighbours.

Now, don't take me wrong. I wish for the growth of the US economy, not the least from the selfish reason that if USA does well, Canada benefits from increased trade with US, too.
But I think, the answer is in lowering the trade barriers, not in the isolationism.

[Alan Klein]

No point getting upset. The Airbus deal shows that there is a plenty of business, especially in the BRICS countries, specifically in India and China, and that's where the European companies will concentrate their efforts.
When it comes to Volvo announcement about their electric and hybrid cars, it is very likely that a few more European manufacturers will follow the suite, which will make it more difficult for US car makers. Maybe it doesn't faze you, but the 7% drop in Tesla stock value in one day shows the concerns of its investors.
And these are just two examples in one day. I'm afraid we will hear more such news if Trump doesn't turn around. You might remember that Trump promised last year that he will keep the automotive jobs in USA, but right now, it doesn't seems to be the case, and many US car manufactures are planning workforce reductions.

There is one thing you don't seem to be aware of. As Alan Goldhammer mentioned in his recent post, most Europeans are not exactly enamored with Trump (and consequently and unfortunately also with USA), and that will be reflected also in tourism numbers to US and in purchasing US goods. Although Trump had surely good intentions to protect US manufacturers and employees, such isolationist approach may backfire and cause the exact opposite. This is a stark contrast to our own Justin Trudeau who just recently met with his Irish counterpart Leo Varadkar and pledged to push the free-trade agenda forward as both countries deal with increasingly isolationist neighbours.

Now, don't take me wrong. I wish for the growth of the US economy, not the least from the selfish reason that if USA does well, Canada benefits from increased trade with US, too.
But I think, the answer is in lowering the trade barriers, not in the isolationism.

I'm not upset.  At least not until I lost tonight in my poker game.  But seriously, I don't think what you see happening is really happening.  If Modi hugged Trump any harder at their recent meeting, Melania would have been jealous.  Countries see the US as a huge market for their products.  They're not going to cut their noses off to spite their faces.  Even Xi is not stupid.  If America put up barriers to China trade, the Chinese people might overthrow the Communists. 

Regarding Volvo, I don't think their decision about producing electric cars had anything to do with Trump.  It's a business decision.  Maybe they feel Tesla is the prophet.  They may be right.  Or wrong.  Time will tell.

The truth is Trump can only do certain things.  The rest is up to businesses.  What Americans want to see Trump do is create a level playing field internationally so we can have free but fair trade.  But, he's not supporting isolationism.  Where are you getting that wrong info from?  He'll make a deal with anyone, even North Korea, if it's not unfair and we can sell stuff. 

Also, I doubt if Europeans and others will stop coming to America to visit.  At least photographers will keep coming so they can buy cheaper camera stuff at B and H Photo.    Americans will keep going to Europe especially now that the EU is depressed.  On the other hand, my wife is concerned about terrorism there because Europe doesn't seem to know what's good for them.  They have allowed terrorists to become rampant there what with the Middle East refugees and all.  So,  many Americans are vacationing instead in America.  Or Canada.  It's still safe up there. 

[Schewe]

I'm sure she had Americans in mind when she sold 20% of America's uranium to who was it?  Oh yes.  It was the Russians.

I won't bother to fact check each of your over the top allegations but this one I had to track down...guess what? Much like I suspect the rest of your allegations, this one is false...

Russian to Judgment

Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

CLAIM:
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. See example(s)

RATING:  False!

ORIGIN:
In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.

May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.

A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.

During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”: TV ad

An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?”

Problem is, it's false....and you've been duped Alan.

From the article above:

The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
 
Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

The timing of most of the donations does not match
 
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman: His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

So, should I bother to research the rest of your other allegations?

If I do, will I find them so lacking in facts?

BTW, if you want to read a bit of dirt on the book Clinton Cash that was responsible for launching the allegation, this article from Bloomberg is enlightening...

‘Clinton Cash’ Book Got Most of Its Funding From One Hedge Fund Star

The nonprofit group behind the bestseller “Clinton Cash,” whose investigation of dealings by Hillary Clinton and her family furnished ammunition for Donald Trump in last year’s presidential campaign, got two-thirds of its funding from a single hedge-fund manager.

Robert Mercer provided $1.7 million of the group’s $2.6 million of revenue in 2015, according to Internal Revenue Service documents obtained by Bloomberg News. The group, the Government Accountability Institute, was co-founded by populist firebrand Stephen Bannon, now the president-elect’s chief strategist.

As co-chief executive officer of Long Island-based Renaissance Technologies, Mercer helps run one of the world’s most profitable hedge funds. The information about the contributions comes from a tax return filed by the Mercer Family Foundation late last year, which reported total grants of $24.5 million in 2015. Mercer declined to comment through a spokesman, and representatives of GAI didn’t respond to inquiries.

“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer is president of Tallahassee, Florida-based GAI, which also helped him research and promote the book. It was published in 2015 by HarperCollins Publishers.

The book debuted at No. 2 on the New York Times bestseller list as Clinton’s presidential campaign was getting underway. It scrutinized the speaking fees and charitable contributions she and her family collected from corporations and wealthy individuals around the world, many of whom stood to gain or lose by decisions she made as secretary of state.

Weaponizing Stories

While some of Mercer’s links to GAI were previously known, the new documents show an increasing reliance on his support. His foundation provided $1 million to the nonprofit group in 2013 and again in 2014. It didn’t report any contributions to GAI in 2012, the year the group was created. Mercer’s daughter Rebekah served on the GAI board for its first three years but wasn’t listed as a director in 2015.

Bannon, who was also executive chairman of Breitbart News, has described GAI as part of his strategy to “weaponize” stories by investigating them, then handing them off to members of the mainstream media such as the Times and “60 Minutes” to maximize their impact.

A close adviser to the Mercers, Bannon produced a film version of “Clinton Cash” last year before joining the Trump campaign. Rebekah Mercer is a member of the executive committee of the president-elect’s transition team. During the election, the Mercers spent more than $2 million on pro-Trump advertising through a super-PAC they controlled.

Ok then...it seems that Clinton Cash book might not be the bastion of honest hard hitting journalism that Trump and his Minions™ seemed to make it out to be. I suspect a lot of Alan's other allegations probably fall under a similar dubious pedigree...

Maybe that's where Trump/Bannon came up with the concept of fake news? Weaponize stories and feed them to main stream media in the hopes they take the bait? If nothing else, the Minions take it as gospel and speed the news in their own echo chambers to the point where the Minions believe it's the truth...

[Jim Pascoe]

Also, I doubt if Europeans and others will stop coming to America to visit.  At least photographers will keep coming so they can buy cheaper camera stuff at B and H Photo.    Americans will keep going to Europe especially now that the EU is depressed.  On the other hand, my wife is concerned about terrorism there because Europe doesn't seem to know what's good for them.  They have allowed terrorists to become rampant there what with the Middle East refugees and all.  So,  many Americans are vacationing instead in America.  Or Canada.  It's still safe up there. 

Hi Alan - tell your wife no to worry too much about coming to Europe.  I just checked and the murder rate in the US is three times that of the European Union.  Sad though terrorism is - here in the UK you are highly unlikely to be shot by your neighbour at least.

Jim

[LesPalenik]

Also, I doubt if Europeans and others will stop coming to America to visit.  At least photographers will keep coming so they can buy cheaper camera stuff at B and H Photo.    Americans will keep going to Europe especially now that the EU is depressed.  On the other hand, my wife is concerned about terrorism there because Europe doesn't seem to know what's good for them.  They have allowed terrorists to become rampant there what with the Middle East refugees and all.  So,  many Americans are vacationing instead in America.  Or Canada.  It's still safe up there. 

Of course, the international tourism won't stop altogether, but very likely, there will be a reduction in both directions.
I know there are some Canadian snowbirds who used to overwinter in southern USA, but now they go to Cuba, Mexico or other countries. For some of them it is the antipathy for Trump, but also the high cost of travel medical insurance, especially for seniors. I have a rather active photographer friend who had several surgeries in the past, and now the Canadian insurance companies won't even insure him for international travel, because of his pre-existing conditions and exceedingly high US hospital costs and drug prices. So now, he travels exclusively in Canada.

Yeah, Canada is relatively safe, although about ten years ago, there was a tragic case in Newfoundland when Mark Harshbarger, an American hunter from Pennsylvania was shot by his wife. She thought it was a bear. Fortunately, the couple had increased their life insurance just before the hunting trip and Mary Beth Harshbarger collected $550,000US on life insurance policies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/u-s-hunter-not-guilty-in-husband-s-shooting-death-1.887645

[kers]

Seeing Trumps behaviour up until now i wonder what his response will be when North Korea continues its missile tests.

According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40518287);
“US President Donald Trump has warned North Korea that he is considering a "pretty severe" response following the country's long-range missile test.”

I am afraid that at some point he will feel personally insulted by North Korea’s response and i can imagine that losing face for him is worse than starting a war in North Korea.
Hope this will not happen of course, but with this president i can imagine it is possible without any serious need.
It would be a human disaster for North Korea and its neighboring countries.

[LesPalenik]

The Atlantic magazine had a good article on the possible solutions with North Korea:

U.S. has four broad strategic options for dealing with North Korea and its burgeoning nuclear program.

1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.

2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.

3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.

4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.

There is a comprehensive analysis for each of the above options, but the conclusion is that all of them are bad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

[scyth]

The Atlantic magazine had a good article on the possible solutions with North Korea

living in a world with the certain country that nuked civilians twice and meddled for centuries in other countries internal affairs sometimes just to get cheap bananas means that every other country, including NK, has the right to develop nuclear weapons

[Otto Phocus]

living in a world with the certain country that nuked civilians twice and meddled for centuries in other countries internal affairs sometimes just to get cheap bananas means that every other country, including NK, has the right to develop nuclear weapons

Yeah, despite all our bloviating about the risks of other nations having nuclear weapons, we are still the only country that used them.... twice.

But we can be trusted with nuclear weapons but no one else can be trusted. After all, they may use them. 

[James Clark]

The Clintons and Obama personally profited from Wall Street.  When he was President, Bill Clinton did away with Glass-Stiegel Act which caused a good part of the collapse of the financial industry in 2008.  After it was removed from the law, corporate banks could act as investment banks and vice versa.  Wall Street was behind getting rid of the Act.  Wall Street continued to pay the Clintons with all those speaking engagements for millions and millions.  It was a pay off!!!!  A quid pro quo. Do you really think she was giving them investment advice with those speeches or what?   When didn't she release the transcripts if they were so innocent.  And then during the recession after 2008, not only did none of the wall street crooks go to jail, Obama got them their money back plus billions of extra dollars.  Meanwhile the Clintons were collecting more money under the guise of the Clinton Foundation.  Not only wall street, but hoards of foreigners, sovereigns, and other contributed to make them hundred millionaires.  It was all for political favors.  Meanwhile, the average schnook American lost their jobs and had to accept part time or lower paying jobs if they got a job at all.   Bernie Sanders said the same thing.  Is he lying too? 

Trump ran to clean up the swamp where politicians and business and wall street types like the Clintons and Obamas slime together.  Sure Trump hired smart financial people to implement his plans to help the country and the average worker.  But you're denigrating them ahead of time instead of seeing what they and Trump do.  You've already tried and convicted them before they even did anything.

Hold on... so your contention is that the Clintons (and Obama) were essentially being bribed by Wall Street.  I assume that's so that the evil bank guys could bend them to their will and get favorable legislation or executive action.  I assume you think that's bad.

But at the same time, you're ok with putting *those very same people* DIRECTLY in positions of power in the Trump administration, where they need not influence legislation or executive action, *because they can now do it themselves*??

Seriously, that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

[Alan Klein]

Hold on... so your contention is that the Clintons (and Obama) were essentially being bribed by Wall Street.  I assume that's so that the evil bank guys could bend them to their will and get favorable legislation or executive action.  I assume you think that's bad.

But at the same time, you're ok with putting *those very same people* DIRECTLY in positions of power in the Trump administration, where they need not influence legislation or executive action, *because they can now do it themselves*??

Seriously, that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

They were put there to institute actions and help create legislation that Trump proposed in his campaign platform.  They weren't put there to institute their own policies to enrich themselves.   If they pad their pockets, Trump will fire them and/or he will be voted out of office.  If they institute his policies, and things get better economically for the country, then he will be re-elected.  That's how it works.   You're creating a straw man with Trump that doesn't exist.

But that's a lot different when legislation is instituted by contributions to the elected officials like what happened with Hillary.  Isn't that what the liberals were complaining about all these years?  Isn't that one of the reasons corrupt Hillary was defeated?  Hillary and Bill lined their pockets with hundreds of millions of "pay-to-play" dollars because they controlled levers of political power.  They sold influence. 

[Alan Klein]

I won't bother to fact check each of your over the top allegations but this one I had to track down...guess what? Much like I suspect the rest of your allegations, this one is false...

Russian to Judgment

Problem is, it's false....and you've been duped Alan.

From the article above:
So, should I bother to research the rest of your other allegations?

If I do, will I find them so lacking in facts?

BTW, if you want to read a bit of dirt on the book Clinton Cash that was responsible for launching the allegation, this article from Bloomberg is enlightening...

‘Clinton Cash’ Book Got Most of Its Funding From One Hedge Fund Star


Ok then...it seems that Clinton Cash book might not be the bastion of honest hard hitting journalism that Trump and his Minions™ seemed to make it out to be. I suspect a lot of Alan's other allegations probably fall under a similar dubious pedigree...

Maybe that's where Trump/Bannon came up with the concept of fake news? Weaponize stories and feed them to main stream media in the hopes they take the bait? If nothing else, the Minions take it as gospel and speed the news in their own echo chambers to the point where the Minions believe it's the truth...

You're the only person in the world who thinks Hillary wasn't corrupt.  That some Russian gave her $145 million dollars for charity.  Give me a break. 

[Schewe]

That some Russian gave her $145 million dollars for charity.  Give me a break.

Well, that alleged $145 million was to the Clinton Foundation which even Trump viewed as doing good works because even he gave it $100K (and we all know Trump is a cheapskate). If one compares what the Clinton Foundation has done vs what the Trump Foundation has done I don't think even you would claim that Trump's Foundation did much good for anybody other than Trump.

And of that $145 million allegedly given to the foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

So, what sort of quid pro quo are you alleging?

By the way, Frank Giustra is Canadian not Russian...another little factoid you seem to have wrong.

[scyth]

I take issue with the USA being judged for using nuclear weapons in Japan, especially with 70+ years of hindsight. 

what a nice position for perpetrators - so let us wait 70 years and then judge Assad too, with a hindsight ...

[scyth]

in comparison to a dictator that bombed his own people. 

you nuked civilians ... it does not matter whether they were your people or not... and then you spend 70 years inventing reasons why Unites Fruit of Marines was moved by some noble intentions 

[Otto Phocus]

The point is that if it is/was acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons, then it stands to reason that it is acceptable for other countries to have the same capability.

It is the position that we can have nukes but other countries can't that I find indefensible.

Especially when it is pretty difficult to prevent a nation from developing or purchasing them.

[Alan Klein]

The point is that if it is/was acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons, then it stands to reason that it is acceptable for other countries to have the same capability.

It is the position that we can have nukes but other countries can't that I find indefensible.

Especially when it is pretty difficult to prevent a nation from developing or purchasing them.

First off, The United Nations made up of countries around the world has outlawed nuclear weapons in North Korea and imposed sanction against them because they have been developing them.  So there is a world moral imperative that they don't have them.  Same with other countries.  Also, most nations are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that precludes them from having nuclear weapons.  NK signed and then withdraw, 

But leaving aside the legal arguments, is the fact that the world does not operate only legally but through strength and force by it's individual nations.  You may not approve of it.  But that's the way it is.  Regarding America's ownership of nuclear weapons, would you prefer that America wasn't around and the world had to deal with a nuclear armed North Korea or Soviet Union?  I'm sure you understand that it's been America's nuclear and conventional armed military that has protected western democracy since the end of WWII. 

Regarding the "fairness" point, I can agree with that intellectually.  But America and others don't care about fairness but rather what is good for them.  A lot of countries don't want a nuclear armed North Korea.  They didn't want one in Iran either and have would up with  a sort of agreement with them.  Maybe the same will happen with NK with the help of China or not.     But my point is that a nation can defend itself if it has the power to do so.  The world isn't a democracy but is based on power politics.  If America and others reach the point that a nuclear armed NK is unacceptable to them, war could happen.  Then Kim would get what he hoped nuclear weapons in his country would avoid.  I sure hope it doesn't come to that.

[Alan Klein]

Western values increasingly endangered by terrorism and extremism, Trump warns Europe in speech in Poland.  Trump’s speech here was also notable for its explicit commitment to Article 5, the collective security provision of the NATO treaty: “The United States has demonstrated not merely with words, but with its actions, that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment,” Trump said.

Central and Eastern European nations, which are particularly concerned about the threat of growing Russian influence in the region, view Trump's presence here as a reassuring sign that the United States remains committed to the security of the region."

He also reminded Europe about their need for the 2% defense expenditure to help protect themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/06/in-poland-trump-reaffirms-commitment-to-nato-chides-russia/

[Farmer]

So, Alan, if the UN ruled that the US had to adhere to Paris, you'd support it?