Trump II

[Alan Klein]

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

No.

[Farmer]

So you are using the UN as an authority when it suits you only?

[Alan Klein]

So you are using the UN as an authority when it suits you only?

Yes and no.  The UN charter grants every country the right to defend itself.  It's nice to have the UN support.  But beyond that if we need to do something, we will do it.  The president and all members of Congress are beholden to our Constitution only.   In fairness, that goes for NK also.  But beyond that, the world isn't fair, never has been.  It operates on power politics.  To think otherwise is dangerous and suicidal. 

[Farmer]

Yes, but it was you who called on the authority of the UN with regard to NK.

[Otto Phocus]

First off, The United Nations made up of countries around the world has outlawed nuclear weapons in North Korea

First of all, it was not the UN but the UNSC which is a small representation of the world's countries and, through the veto rule, dominated by the nations that already have nuclear weapons. 

Secondly, do we allow the United Nations to dictate what the United States can or can not do?

No.  We maintain our sovereignty rights.  Why is our sovereignty better than another country's sovereignty?  Well, because it is OUR sovereignty of course. Well other countries value their sovereignty also.

In effect, we want the UN to have power over countries we don't like but at the same time we don't want the UN to have power over countries we do like (including our country).  Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Do you not remember the crap storm in this country about the UNODA Arms Trade Treaty?  How dare the UN tell the US what it can and can't do!  The UN is gonna take away our guns!

[Alan Klein]

Yes, but it was you who called on the authority of the UN with regard to NK.

The purpose of the UN is to pressure countries to comply or work out international deals so the world can avoid war.  Sanctions are imposed, etc.  It often doesn't work.  That leads to war.  Or nothing happens.  China lost the international law suit regarding the islands in the South China Sea that they claimed were theirs.  They ignored the court and the world and militarized them. 

Many Americans don't like the UN.  It limits our sovereignty.  It gets us involved with other countries and may push us into wars or international agreements we have no business being involved in.  The Constitutional requirement for the Senate to approve treaties is skirted.  This gives even more unilateral power to a president for overseas adventures.  The Congress approved American involvement in the Korean war in the 1950's after a UN Security Counsel vote.    It was called a "UN police action" by many to avoid arguments hat we got into a war through the back door.  That's why many Americans oppose our involvement in the UN. 

Over the years, we've tended to learn how to use the UN and ignore it when its not in our interest.  Most countries do that as well.  That's why the UN and world courts are limited in their power to resolve major issues.   Sovereignty rules.

[Alan Klein]

First of all, it was not the UN but the UNSC which is a small representation of the world's countries and, through the veto rule, dominated by the nations that already have nuclear weapons. 

Secondly, do we allow the United Nations to dictate what the United States can or can not do?

No.  We maintain our sovereignty rights.  Why is our sovereignty better than another country's sovereignty?  Well, because it is OUR sovereignty of course. Well other countries value their sovereignty also.

In effect, we want the UN to have power over countries we don't like but at the same time we don't want the UN to have power over countries we do like (including our country).  Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

Do you not remember the crap storm in this country about the UNODA Arms Trade Treaty?  How dare the UN tell the US what it can and can't do!  The UN is gonna take away our guns!

I already agreed with your points in my post #4212.  Every nation can ignore the UN based on its power to do so.  All nations are sovereign. 

[LesPalenik]

Forgotten workers. The job losses in the retail industry are indeed staggering, and ignored by Trump.

Retailers have announced over 60,000 job cuts in the first half of this year, according to consultant Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
But President Donald Trump hasn’t had much to say about the retail job losses, even though its labor force cuts just this year alone surpass the total number people employed in the entire coal industry, which Trump has pledged to save and grow.
The coal industry, which employs about 50,000, has received large support from Trump, including an executive order unwinding climate policies from the Obama administration and a decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Almost 500,000 layoffs have hit retailers since 2009, according to Challenger, with many of the layoffs due to fundamental industry shifts in the way consumers shop, particularly in the “e-commerce era” of Amazon (AMZN) where online spending is taking a larger share of consumer wallets, currently making up 8% of total US retail sales versus close to 3% a decade ago. “We’ve tracked over 5,000 announced store closings this year, as retailers continue to focus operations online. It is likely we’ll continue to see cuts in the retail sector going forward,” according to the Challenger report.

And the stakes may be higher for retail than coal. Retail salespeople and cashiers represented the two largest job categories in the country as of 2016, with 4.5 million and 3.5 million workers.

The less known fact is that beside Amazon, many online sellers come and ship directly from China. They have a direct access to cheap (and often counterfeit) goods made in China, and subsidized shipping costs by Chinese postal system, thus facilitating export of many importer and retail jobs from USA and many other countries to China. For example, you can buy a lens cap for a 52mm Nikon or Canon lens on eBay for 77 cents, including international shipping (compared with $6.95, plus shipping fee from B&H Photo). Sadly, many US or Canadian based sellers have to pay high shipping costs by unionized postal systems, and even if they buy the goods from China, there is no way they can offer low or free shipping as the Chinese sellers.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-dwarfs-coal-yet-trump-said-little-massive-job-losses-103253089.html

[Alan Klein]

Forgotten workers. The job losses in the retail industry are indeed staggering, and ignored by Trump.

The less known fact is that beside Amazon, many online sellers come and ship directly from China. They have a direct access to cheap (and often counterfeit) goods made in China, and subsidized shipping costs by Chinese postal system, thus facilitating export of many importer and retail jobs from USA and many other countries to China. For example, you can buy a lens cap for a 52mm Nikon or Canon lens on eBay for 77 cents, including international shipping (compared with $6.95, plus shipping fee from B&H Photo). Sadly, many US or Canadian based sellers have to pay high shipping costs by unionized postal systems, and even if they buy the goods from China, there is no way they can offer low or free shipping as the Chinese sellers.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-dwarfs-coal-yet-trump-said-little-massive-job-losses-103253089.html

This is all part of the free and "fair" trade that Trump is complaining about.  On the other hand, it gives purchasers cheaper goods raising their standard of living.  He said he intends to correct the unfairness part.  We'll see.  It's a complicated economic situation.  If you have a job, cheaper imports raises your standard of living.  Of course if cheaper imports causes you to lose your job, well, then it's considered unfair trade practices.  The trick is to let cheaper goods enter the country while providing better jobs to those who have been displaced by cheaper production overseas.  It's a conundrum that has political and economic considerations. 

[Alan Klein]

Oh, another issue is minimum wages going up.  That has eliminated some of the jobs as well. I was in a Burger King in NYS the other day.  I was surprised to see three machines taking orders.  Only one human was assisting.  Before there would be two or three humans taking orders.  I've seem similar "robots" in Panera Bread stores.  I  use to tip more with the people so I save with robots too.

[scyth]

However I don't think it will end well if NK gets the bomb. 

it will end well - US will just have to learn to live deterred by one more country  ... just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver.

If we end getting another feckless president, the North might very well test him/her with a small scale attack on the South. 

What a stupid fantasy  ! Did US military left SK territory already ? Why in the world Kim will decide to attack first w/o US provocation with conventional forces ?

[scyth]

If America and others reach the point that a nuclear armed NK is unacceptable to them, war could happen. 

more reasons for sovereign nations like NK or Iran to have n-tipped IBCMs as soon as possible...

[scyth]

You need to brush up on your history my friend.  It is commonly accepted that the North invaded the South and started the Korean War.

and you need to understand that calculus is different today that it was back then - there are no uncles or chairmans behind Kim's back ...

Not to mention the North has engaged in single missile attacks on Southern locations, killing South Koreans, and also has kidnapped its fair share of South Koreans too, without provocation I might add. 

so ? it seems you lack the understanding of the difference between the war and such behavior ...

They would invade because they want to control the entire peninsula, not just the North, that's why. 

I want to have extra $1m ... am I going to rob the bank or so ?

If you don't agree, ask yourself why has the North refused to sign a pease treaty.

I 'd not sign it myself - just like USSR/Russia still does not have a peace treaty w/ Japan ... because of the opposing parties pre-conditions on both sides ... tell us what is the other side offering to NK in the peace treaty as of today ?

Are they just lazy?  Or maybe they want an excuse for the invasion, because they are technically still at war.

USSR/Russia (with thousands of nukes) is technically still at war with Japan ... watch out 

[Raul_82]

Oh, another issue is minimum wages going up.  That has eliminated some of the jobs as well. I was in a Burger King in NYS the other day.  I was surprised to see three machines taking orders.  Only one human was assisting.  Before there would be two or three humans taking orders.  I've seem similar "robots" in Panera Bread stores.  I  use to tip more with the people so I save with robots too.

That's nothing. At least 2 of the most abundant jobs in the US, cashiers and heavy truck drivers, are doomed to be replaced by robots sooner rather than later. More jobs to follow. It's not realistic to think that all those people can shift towards another industry so easily.
Look at all those coal towns, how many of those workers have found something as good as what they had? if they actually found anything at all. And those jobs are not coming back, no matter what Trump says. Even if coal were somehow to be fashionable again, the coal companies are the first ones using new technologies that require less and less workers each time, from what I hear they can pulverize half a mountain with 5 guys. No need to dig anymore.

On another country one could hope to get some sort of subsidy from the government, but here they called that socialism so if your industry dies, most likely you die too.

[scyth]

Once again you are either ignoring the point I was making in order to back up some straw man argument or you did not take the time to try and understand the meaning of my post. 

My comment about it not ending well had nothing to do with attacks on USA territory.  The USA had the technology to shoot a falling piece of space debris, moving much faster then a ICBM, with a missile more then 10 years ago.  I am sure the technology has advanced significantly since then, although the military would never admit to it for obvious reasons.  Unless NK releases a plethora of missiles all at once, which I doubt they have, I don't think any will reach the USA before they are shot out of the sky. 

However, it would be a disaster for Seoul if NK decides to nuke the city in an invasion they suddenly realize they can not win.  And I would not put it past Kim to do so.   

did I say anything about attacking __USA territory__ in this text "just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver." ? you have a wild imagination about the situation in the first half of 1950s with USA having technology to shoot down few medium range propeller driven bombers that USSR had (flying one way at best)

[scyth]

Calculus has remained the same since the 1950s in the areas that existed.  However, it has advanced into other fields of study.   

only in paranoid minds of some people... Kim is not - he is just doing his best with cards he was dealt

And what is the difference between war and such behavior as you put it.  Is killing of only a handful of SKs in a single missile strike acceptable because it was just a single missile? 

sure - just like USA does not mind to annihilate more than a handful civilians to achieve certain goals... war is in NK case as you present means invasion and calculus is different, no matter what you try to imagine on Kim's behalf

You seem to be missing the point the point though.  The North was doing these things to test the South's resolve and whether or not we would be there.  Fortunately we were, otherwise the North could have very well decided it was time to invade again. 

US is not "were", US is "are"... US forces are in SK - so no invasion to SK under current circumstances with NK forces ... but of course if Kim decides that US really wants to take him out then by all means he will be right to nuke Seoul first ... he can't afford not to.

Your comment about wanting an extra million dollars is a red herring by the way, another argument that is a fallacy.  Your mental and moral capacity have nothing to do with Kim's. 

how do u know ? do I need anything more than pen and paper to take on a bank ? and I am not more smart in the matters of survival than Kim (neither is you) - I bet we both long 'd be gone in NK, and he rules ...

In order to determine whether to not Kim would invade, we need to look at Kim's actions, not yours. 

sure, I see only reasonable actions to deter the potential agressor 

Insofar as your comments about the USSR and Japan, technically they are not true.  The USSR no longer exist, so therefore it can not be at war with Japan. 

you tried to omit Russia from that ... and USSR was technically at war with Japan till the last day it formally existed

Not to mention, it is pretty obvious that Putin is a rather shrewd leader that makes well thought out decisions, which I accept even if I don't agree with some of them.  Kim I am not so sure about.  He seems either unstable or power hungry; neither are good qualities for a leader of a nuclear nation.

it takes more to rule, survive and deter USA in NK for Kim that for Putin to do the same in Russia ...

[Alan Klein]

So the lower court and appeals court that originally shot down Trumps travel ban have just dealt another blow to the original complainants who the Supreme Court ruled against 9-0.  They're letting stand Trump limiting relatives to only those very close but not including more distant relatives like grandparents.   So they've been burned once and want to defer to the Supreme Court.   It seems Trump knew more about the US Constitution then many people here.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hawaii-judge-travel-ban-20170707-story.html

[Schewe]

It seems Trump knew more about the US Constitution then many people here.

Lol...that's pretty funny...wait, that's a joke right? I mean you don't honestly think Trump has ever even read the US Constitution?

I'll admit I haven't in years, but I have read it for a class once.

But to accuse Trump of knowing the Constitution is simply mean. Clearly even the people around him don't really know it either because Thump and the admin have been trying since the first travel ban was signed Jan 27th...and what, it's now July 7th and the travel ban will be keeping grandparents out of the USA.

Excellent job Trump!

[Alan Klein]

Lol...that's pretty funny...wait, that's a joke right? I mean you don't honestly think Trump has ever even read the US Constitution?

I'll admit I haven't in years, but I have read it for a class once.

But to accuse Trump of knowing the Constitution is simply mean. Clearly even the people around him don't really know it either because Thump and the admin have been trying since the first travel ban was signed Jan 27th...and what, it's now July 7th and the travel ban will be keeping grandparents out of the USA.

Excellent job Trump!

Grandparents and 99.9% of the people who live in those 6 countries, some of who may be terrorists.  Look, you may disagree with the policy.  But he was right and you were wrong about it's constitutionality.   

[Farmer]

the Supreme Court ruled against 9-0.

Alan, it's been explained to you so many times that at this point you can't only be deliberately telling lies.  The SCotUS has not ruled against anyone (or in favour of anyone).