S.Korea’s Moon says Trump deserves ‘big’ credit for North Korea talks

Absentglare said:

This is just Moon manipulating our president. NK has "entered" peace talks before, let's see if they actually exit the talks with a deal before celebrating.

Click to expand...

Finally, something I can agree with you on. North Korea has played past presidents like a fiddle, even making deals in return for something and then turning around and renigging on the deal. But, Trump has more balls than past presidents.

Kal'Stang said:

Actually the Republicans do not have complete control of Congress. In the Senate the Republicans need 60 votes to pass a bill. They have 51 if they vote along party line. That is not "complete control" by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Republicans have a majority, but having a majority, and being in complete control are two very different things.

Click to expand...

And what you decided not to mention was the fact that 51 was all that was required to repeal Obamacare...which they failed to do so three straight times. Why did they need only 51 votes? Reconciliation. The sixty votes would have been needed for any legislation for which reconciliation was not an option.

Blkdirt Farmer said:

Demanding anything like that will never get anything done, but form a stalemate, just as has been done the entire time the NK's developed the nukes and the rockets to transport them... Like that has been working... :roll:

Your just ass hurt because Trump is lining up yet another "win" over the liberal/progressive mental midgets. :lamo

Click to expand...

You have no idea how my ass is doing. I'm just pointing out that our coward of a president isn't exactly a supergenius for caving on NK becoming a nuclear power while torching the credibility of the United States with empty threats.

Absentglare said:

You have no idea how my ass is doing. I'm just pointing out that our coward of a president isn't exactly a supergenius for caving on NK becoming a nuclear power while torching the credibility of the United States with empty threats.

Click to expand...

Wow who said that NK becoming a nuclear power had anything to do with Trump? What nobody? :roll: You need to stop dreaming this **** up. NK did nearly all of this under Obama's term, with China's help. Weak ass Obama no other nation would think twice about rolling over that ****ing failure of a POTUS.

Liberals were to ****in busy importing kids from south of the border or Muslims who will become terrorists to even stop to consider NK was becoming a nuclear power. Dumb assed Obama did not have a clue.:2wave:

Absentglare said:

He's pushed NK into talks without demanding nuclear disarmament like his predecessors, President Obama included, did. He seems fine with the fact that NK has nukes that can reach our soil.

Click to expand...

And how much good did it do?

What's it called when you repeat the same action expecting a different result?

Blkdirt Farmer said:

Wow who said that NK becoming a nuclear power had anything to do with Trump? What nobody? :roll: You need to stop dreaming this **** up. NK did nearly all of this under Obama's term, with China's help. Weak ass Obama no other nation would think twice about rolling over that ****ing failure of a POTUS.

Liberals were to ****in busy importing kids from south of the border or Muslims who will become terrorists to even stop to consider NK was becoming a nuclear power. Dumb assed Obama did not have a clue.:2wave:

Click to expand...

President Obama shot down the idea of talks without nuclear disarmament being on the table.

President Trump caved on nuclear disarmament like wet toilet paper.

apdst said:

And how much good did it do?

What's it called when you repeat the same action expecting a different result?

Click to expand...

That's called persistence, and we already knew that President Trump didn't have any of it.

Moon is pacifying Trump while buttering up NK so they can get the Winter Olympics out of the way before anybody nukes somebody.

Absentglare said:

That's called persistence, and we already knew that President Trump didn't have any of it.

Click to expand...

No, it's called insanity.

Glen Contrarian said:

And what you decided not to mention was the fact that 51 was all that was required to repeal Obamacare...which they failed to do so three straight times. Why did they need only 51 votes? Reconciliation. The sixty votes would have been needed for any legislation for which reconciliation was not an option.

Click to expand...

So all that you just proved is that they are getting things done with in the limits that they have. :shrug:

Kal'Stang said:

So all that you just proved is that they are getting things done with in the limits that they have. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Um, 'scuse you, but Trump had enough of a majority in both the House and the Senate to pass Obamacare repeal with only Republican votes...and he failed. All. three. times.

Obama, on the other hand, had to work with an even thinner margin - especially after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. Yes, the Dems had more votes...but they had to overcome a filibuster several times, and barely did so, each time. The GOP under Trump didn't have to worry about a filibuster since they were working with reconciliation.

And even with the hundreds of proposals the GOP got added into the ACA, they still all voted against it...even though the Dems had allowed many public meetings to discuss the ACA and how it would take form and eventually work. How's that different from the GOP's effort to repeal the ACA? The Republicans allowed very little discussion (and unlike with the ACA, did almost everything behind closed doors with no Dems allowed), and allowed no proposals by the Dems to be considered.

But perhaps the biggest difference is that with the ACA, Obama was front-and-center with the debate and discussions and knew most of the bill in-and-out...whereas Trump couldn't have cared less what happened, as long as the Obamacare he hated so much (if only because of the name) got repealed.

Huh. Looks like Trump is doing something right after a while of nonsense.

Glen Contrarian said:

Um, 'scuse you, but Trump had enough of a majority in both the House and the Senate to pass Obamacare repeal with only Republican votes...and he failed. All. three. times.

Obama, on the other hand, had to work with an even thinner margin - especially after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. Yes, the Dems had more votes...but they had to overcome a filibuster several times, and barely did so, each time. The GOP under Trump didn't have to worry about a filibuster since they were working with reconciliation.

And even with the hundreds of proposals the GOP got added into the ACA, they still all voted against it...even though the Dems had allowed many public meetings to discuss the ACA and how it would take form and eventually work. How's that different from the GOP's effort to repeal the ACA? The Republicans allowed very little discussion (and unlike with the ACA, did almost everything behind closed doors with no Dems allowed), and allowed no proposals by the Dems to be considered.

But perhaps the biggest difference is that with the ACA, Obama was front-and-center with the debate and discussions and knew most of the bill in-and-out...whereas Trump couldn't have cared less what happened, as long as the Obamacare he hated so much (if only because of the name) got repealed.

Click to expand...

Gutierrez says 'hundreds of Republican amendments' were a part of Obamacare

Your story is half true. At least as far as what was in Obamacare.

As for Obama having to work with an even thinner margin? Get real. Obamacare was passed in two parts. The first part, the meat of it (mandate) was the part that was passed first. The only viable opposition to Obamacare was Democrats. Specifically Joe Lieberman who was an Independent but caucused with Democrats and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, though many considered him a Conservative Democrat. Lieberman demanded that the public option not be allowed, and got it. Nelson got two concessions, although one of them was later repealed during a reconciliation amendment bill. Anyways, it is well known that Obamacare was passed along party line votes and that not one single Republican voted for it. It was passed 60 to 39 in December. If not one single Republican voted for it that means that all other votes were done by Democrats and Independents. Which just goes to show that Democrats did not have an "even thinner margin". Did they have troubles with filibuster attempts? Yes they did. But mainly due to the fact that certain Democrats saw a chance to score some points for their particular states. Not due to any actual problem circumventing Republicans.

It wasn't until January that Brown was put into office. Which is after the main ACA bill was passed in December the Democrats focused their efforts into the funding of it, specifically called "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act". And as such it was budgetary. Which means no filibusters allowed. It was also the bill that nixed one of Nelsons demands. (Isn't that gratitude for ya? :roll

Blkdirt Farmer said:

Demanding anything like that will never get anything done, but form a stalemate, just as has been done the entire time the NK's developed the nukes and the rockets to transport them... Like that has been working... :roll:

Your just ass hurt because Trump is lining up yet another "win" over the liberal/progressive mental midgets. :lamo

Click to expand...

He is sure enough gonna have to build a larger trophy case.....

Manc Skipper said:

Moon is pacifying Trump while buttering up NK so they can get the Winter Olympics out of the way before anybody nukes somebody.

Click to expand...

:yt ......

Absentglare said:

President Obama shot down the idea of talks without nuclear disarmament being on the table.

President Trump caved on nuclear disarmament like wet toilet paper.

Click to expand...

Obama was totally ineffective, and the NK developed what they now have because he was and still is an idiot of major proportions. Why did he let them develop long range delivery capability?
Because he did not do a ****ing thing to stop them.... This is how an idiot works. Please stop defending him, and not accepting the truth about who let this happen, with his failed strategy. :roll:

Glen Contrarian said:

Um, 'scuse you, but Trump had enough of a majority in both the House and the Senate to pass Obamacare repeal with only Republican votes...and he failed. All. three. times.

Click to expand...

Obama care has cost your party so much, you have no idea. Republicans will not lock step to cause harm like the stupid Dems do.. People who can actually pay for their own insurance, hate the ACA and all that goes with it. I suppose since mostly Republicans with jobs, and who pay taxes were hurt the most by this tax, this wealth redistribution scheme.... We will fight this, and the left till the bitter end.

Blkdirt Farmer said:

Obama was totally ineffective, and the NK developed what they now have because he was and still is an idiot of major proportions. Why did he let them develop long range delivery capability?
Because he did not do a ****ing thing to stop them.... This is how an idiot works. Please stop defending him, and not accepting the truth about who let this happen, with his failed strategy. :roll:

Click to expand...

NK's tech got noticeably more sophisticated recently. The rumor is that the US had been secretly sabotaging their own designs, but NK got a new architecture from Russia that has allowed them to progress. Unfortunately, a pro-Russia president is as dangerous as it gets for us.

Blkdirt Farmer said:

Obama care has cost your party so much, you have no idea. Republicans will not lock step to cause harm like the stupid Dems do.. People who can actually pay for their own insurance, hate the ACA and all that goes with it. I suppose since mostly Republicans with jobs, and who pay taxes were hurt the most by this tax, this wealth redistribution scheme.... We will fight this, and the left till the bitter end.

Click to expand...

Really? California embraced Obamacare and made it work...and Alabama did not. According to your claim, then, California should be a hellhole for health insurance costs.

But in reality, Alabamians pay more for health insurance than Californians do - the politicians of the Deep South hated the ACA so much they refused to accept the Medicaid expansion, and so they wound up screwing over ALL their constituents just so they wouldn't have to accept something that had Obama's name on it. In fact, that makes me wonder - since there's a "black dirt" region of Alabama - if that's where you're from, and if so, that might be a big part of why you're paying more.

And before you think I'm just blowing smoke here, my brother in MS - who had worked all his life and NEVER needed to accept unemployment checks (yes, he was every bit as conservative as you, if not more so), was still not able to afford health insurance even though he was making a bit more than minimum wage...and he absolutely refused to sign up for Obamacare. Why? He was SO sure that his personal information would be leaked...so he didn't sign up. Then one day he had a major stroke, was "medivaced" by helicopter to Jackson (at a cost of $50K), and died a few days later. With Obamacare, he could easily have afforded regular doctor's supervision and medication...but he hated anything having to do with Obama so much that he (like you) simply could not conceive, could not even allow himself to consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe it was a very good deal for most people. So he died, and we lost our childhood home since the state had to take it to pay for the helicopter medivac.

But having grown up there, I well understood what had really led to that point. He - like most in the Deep South - lived on a steady diet of Fox News and/or other right-wing media sources, and so had been told for the past quarter-century that everything, absolutely everything that liberals did was wrong or evil or terrible...and so it's simply inconceivable to them that we could ever do anything right. It doesn't matter how many times they are shown the hard numbers, how many times they are shown that something liberals support might be VERY good for the American people as a whole, they will refuse to believe it. Look at the senatorial election in Alabama - your people were more willing to vote for an accused child molester just to keep from having a liberal senator.

It really is like the old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. The ACA works, and works very well indeed for those states that took the Medicaid expansion (just ask Kentucky)...but the success stories of the states that took the Medicaid expansion means nothing to those in states where the people had convinced themselves that it could never work because liberals and Obama and socialism. And so y'all are trying your damnedest to destroy Obamacare. But you know what? I think you'll be "successful" at destroying Obamacare - no matter how many people die or are financially ruined by health care costs (just like before the ACA)...and it's going to bite y'all in the nether regions in the long run, since by 2020 we (and not you) will have the WH and Congress...and this time, we won't go with what really was the brainchild of the strongly-conservative Heritage Foundation. Instead, we'll go with single-payer or universal health care, just like all the other first-world democracies. Will it be perfect? Of course not - nothing done by humans ever is - but it will be FAR superior to the frankenstein's monster of coverage we had before the ACA was passed.

Kal'Stang said:

Gutierrez says 'hundreds of Republican amendments' were a part of Obamacare

Your story is half true. At least as far as what was in Obamacare.

As for Obama having to work with an even thinner margin? Get real. Obamacare was passed in two parts. The first part, the meat of it (mandate) was the part that was passed first. The only viable opposition to Obamacare was Democrats. Specifically Joe Lieberman who was an Independent but caucused with Democrats and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, though many considered him a Conservative Democrat. Lieberman demanded that the public option not be allowed, and got it. Nelson got two concessions, although one of them was later repealed during a reconciliation amendment bill. Anyways, it is well known that Obamacare was passed along party line votes and that not one single Republican voted for it. It was passed 60 to 39 in December. If not one single Republican voted for it that means that all other votes were done by Democrats and Independents. Which just goes to show that Democrats did not have an "even thinner margin". Did they have troubles with filibuster attempts? Yes they did. But mainly due to the fact that certain Democrats saw a chance to score some points for their particular states. Not due to any actual problem circumventing Republicans.

It wasn't until January that Brown was put into office. Which is after the main ACA bill was passed in December the Democrats focused their efforts into the funding of it, specifically called "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act". And as such it was budgetary. Which means no filibusters allowed. It was also the bill that nixed one of Nelsons demands. (Isn't that gratitude for ya? :roll

Click to expand...

Really? You're trying to paint Lieberman as caucusing with the Democrats, thus inferring that he was at all supportive of the Democrats? If you didn't remember how strongly Lieberman opposed Obama, then perhaps you should have at least checked the Wiki:

The most well-known Democratic Party member to support McCain was Senator Joe Lieberman, who had run for vice-president as a Democrat in 2000. On December 17, 2007, Lieberman endorsed McCain, contradicting his stance in July 2006 where he stated, "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008." Lieberman cited his agreement with McCain's stance on the War on Terrorism as the primary reason for the endorsement.

On June 5, Lieberman launched "Citizens for McCain," hosted on the McCain campaign website, to recruit Democratic support for John McCain's candidacy. He emphasized the group's outreach to supporters of Hillary Clinton, who was at that time broadly expected to lose the Democratic Presidential nomination to Barack Obama. Citizens for McCain was prominently featured in McCain team efforts to attract disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters such as Debra Bartoshevich.

Lieberman spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention on behalf of McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Lieberman was alongside McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham during a visit to French president Nicolas Sarkozy on March 21, 2008.

I tried to edit my previous post in time to add more content, but it didn't work out - the rest follows below your quote.

Kal'Stang said:

Gutierrez says 'hundreds of Republican amendments' were a part of Obamacare

Your story is half true. At least as far as what was in Obamacare.

Click to expand...

And when it comes to the GOP, it was their party's (unpublished) policy to oppose everything Obama supported. No matter what, the Republicans in Congress were required by their leadership to oppose it...even if they'd supported it before. That's something that hasn't been seen since before the Civil War. That, btw, is why the GOP so virulently opposes the ACA, even though it was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation and was first implemented at the state level by the guy who had the GOP nomination in 2012. Since Obama supported it, they had to reject it and fight like hell against it, no matter how it had been supported by the GOP before.

And yes, that's why the GOP hates Obamacare so much today - if it was supported by the Dems or liberals, then it MUST be bad/wrong/evil/sociaist/etc. This has become conservative dogma. Unfortunately, this also means that if the liberals support something good and right, then the conservatives are requiring themselves to oppose what's good and right, and instead are forcing themselves to support what's bad and wrong...like climate denialism, white nationalism, an accused child molester for the Senate...you get the point. In fact, there was a poll in 2010 that found:

•Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to say it's more important for political leaders to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done. Forty-one percent of Republicans put themselves at four or five on a scale in which five is the most unyielding. Only 18% of Democrats feel that way.

•Democrats are almost twice as likely as Republicans to say it's more important for political leaders to compromise in order to get things done. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats rate themselves at one or two on the five-point scale compared with 31% of Republicans.

That was in 2010. If I were a betting man, I'd bet the ranch that today, Republicans are even more hidebound to the "no compromise" with Democrats line...never mind that "compromise" is how our government was designed during the Constitutional Convention.

Funny how you bold certain parts while ignoring others. Here, let me rebold and underline some of that to highlight what you're ignoring....

Glen Contrarian said:

Really? You're trying to paint Lieberman as caucusing with the Democrats, thus inferring that he was at all supportive of the Democrats? If you didn't remember how strongly Lieberman opposed Obama, then perhaps you should have at least checked the Wiki:

The most well-known Democratic Party member to support McCain was Senator Joe Lieberman, who had run for vice-president as a Democrat in 2000. On December 17, 2007, Lieberman endorsed McCain, contradicting his stance in July 2006 where he stated, "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008." Lieberman cited his agreement with McCain's stance on the War on Terrorism as the primary reason for the endorsement.

On June 5, Lieberman launched "Citizens for McCain," hosted on the McCain campaign website, to recruit Democratic support for John McCain's candidacy. He emphasized the group's outreach to supporters of Hillary Clinton, who was at that time broadly expected to lose the Democratic Presidential nomination to Barack Obama. Citizens for McCain was prominently featured in McCain team efforts to attract disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters such as Debra Bartoshevich.

Lieberman spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention on behalf of McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Lieberman was alongside McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham during a visit to French president Nicolas Sarkozy on March 21, 2008.[/I]

Click to expand...

Being an Independent also does not mean that he cannot support Republicans. Or that he is one. He caucused with the Democrats, which means he was a part of the Democratic Party. Whether you like it or not.

In either case, is that really the best you got for a rebuttal of what I said? Disputing whether ONE politicians was a Democrat or Republican? One out of 21 people that voted for Obamacare above Republicans 39?

pfft.

Kal'Stang said:

Funny how you bold certain parts while ignoring others. Here, let me rebold and underline some of that to highlight what you're ignoring....



Being an Independent also does not mean that he cannot support Republicans. Or that he is one. He caucused with the Democrats, which means he was a part of the Democratic Party. Whether you like it or not.

In either case, is that really the best you got for a rebuttal of what I said? Disputing whether ONE politicians was a Democrat or Republican? One out of 21 people that voted for Obamacare above Republicans 39?

pfft.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you noticed, but an Independent or Democrat who publicly supports the Republican party candidate against the Democrats even to the point of speaking at the Republican Party convention...is not supportive of the Democratic party. The fact that Lieberman voted for the ACA does NOT mean that he was either liberal or a supporter of the Democratic party - his other actions obviate such a notion - but means instead that Obama was able to either make a deal or arm-twist him into doing so. And that goes back to my whole point, that Obama faced a slimmer margin, but through his skill and involvement, was able to make it happen. Trump is not skilled and certainly was not involved...and that is why he failed, even though his party by itself had slightly more than enough Republicans in the Senate to make it happen.

Obama understands that telling people what to do is only a small part of leadership. Trump wouldn't know leadership if it bit him in the ass...because he thinks that telling people what to do is all one needs to know about leadership. That's why, when asked why he hasn't appointed an ambassador for South Korea, Trump replied, "The only one that matters is me".

Glen Contrarian said:

I don't know if you noticed, but an Independent or Democrat who publicly supports the Republican party candidate against the Democrats even to the point of speaking at the Republican Party convention...is not supportive of the Democratic party. The fact that Lieberman voted for the ACA does NOT mean that he was either liberal or a supporter of the Democratic party - his other actions obviate such a notion - but means instead that Obama was able to either make a deal or arm-twist him into doing so. And that goes back to my whole point, that Obama faced a slimmer margin, but through his skill and involvement, was able to make it happen. Trump is not skilled and certainly was not involved...and that is why he failed, even though his party by itself had slightly more than enough Republicans in the Senate to make it happen.

Obama understands that telling people what to do is only a small part of leadership. Trump wouldn't know leadership if it bit him in the ass...because he thinks that telling people what to do is all one needs to know about leadership. That's why, when asked why he hasn't appointed an ambassador for South Korea, Trump replied, "The only one that matters is me".

Click to expand...

And what you continue to fail to acknowledge is that Lieberman caucused as a Democrat. Even your own reference referred to him as Democrat. But you want to ignore that in favor of continuing your spiel.

Whatever. TTFN

Kal'Stang said:

And what you continue to fail to acknowledge is that Lieberman caucused as a Democrat. Even your own reference referred to him as Democrat. But you want to ignore that in favor of continuing your spiel.

Whatever. TTFN

Click to expand...

Hm.

"Lieberman caucused as a Democrat"

compare that to

"Lieberman spoke to the nation at the RNC in support of McCain and Palin"

In other words, it seems to me that you're confusing "caucusing as a Democrat" with "supporting the Democratic Party" - they're not one and the same. Far from it. And how the heck can you claim that he supported the Democratic party when he said that if McCain had offered, he would have accepted being McCain's VP for the 2008 campaign?!?!?!?!?

No, guy, you're effectively cherry-picking when it comes to Lieberman. You try to claim that he supported the ACA because he "caucused with the Dems", but "caucusing with" is NOT the same as "supporting", as his own words and actions clearly show.