Tom Brokaw rips Trump for calling Chuck Todd a 'son of a bitch': 'Really classy'

[Polly Ticks]

 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

@Once-Ler
So you are criticizing him for things he hasn't done next November????     ok I'm done bye

I will praise him if he does anything of the 4 things I heard him promise by Nov. 
1. Build a Wall.  Don't think I need to apologize for assuming that ain't happening but I will if I'm wrong.
2. Lock up Hillary.  Don't think I need to apologize for assuming that ain't happening but I will if I'm wrong.
3. Drain the Swamp.  Don't think I need to apologize for assuming that ain't happening but I will if I'm wrong.
4. Fix Obamacare 1/2 credit.  It's probably doomed.

I'm grading Trump as an "F" so far.     

[musiclady]

That Pence - who given the several distinct varieties of conservatives probably comes closest as anyone in Washington to reasonably satisfying all of them - is but a heartbeat away from the Presidency is a tribute to Trump's good judgment.  He knew he needed someone who had both governing experience and solid credentials as a conservative,  and his pick strikes me as brilliant. 

You say brilliant, I say opportunistic.   Pence's pick got a lot of (naïve, IMO) Republicans to vote for Trump when their better sense said not to.  It's part of how he got elected.

No, we didn't know he was unteachable.  We knew that he was a neophyte, but we didn't know he was unteachable.  Indeed, to be fair,  he HAS by many of his Cabinet and staff picks demonstrated both a committment to conservatism (e.g, DeVos) and the humility to recognize that he needed folks with genuine executive competence (e.g., Kelly,  Tillerson, Mnuchin).

Trump's problem is,  I think, his odd combination of ego and insecurity.   He plays to his base because he believes he needs them in the face of the unrelenting assault from the mainstream media,  and does so by picking at the scabs they love while preventing the nation's wounds from healing.

I disagree.  People who have observed him over the years, who listened to him, all knew he was unteachable.  Enormous egotists are never, ever teachable.

But he definitely is picking scabs.  Not, I think, because of his 'base,' but because of his narcissism.  He can't tolerate criticism from anyone.

Thus, we will have to endure his childish name-calling and taunts for the duration.

He can't help himself.

[Cyber Liberty]

I hear ya, and I can understand that thinking if (and it's a big if) you have confidence in Trump's ability to interact and negotiate with another world leader.  I just don't.  I know Trump has branded himself as this great deal-maker, but frankly, I don't think we've seen any evidence of that since becoming President.  He's had lots of opportunities:  repeal and replace, DACA, gun control, etc.  Instead, what he tends to do (IMO) is to say to whomever he's meeting with what they want to hear (e.g., DACA and gun control meetings) or alienate other world leaders (e.g., phone calls with Mexico and Australia). 

I just can't see North Korea denuking, but by deviating from the script, I CAN see Trump potentially alienating North Korea and potentially provoking them into something we all regret.  Even though I didn't vote for him, one of the things I really had hoped (and thought) Trump would do is get divergent parties together and broker deals no one else could have brokered.  Given that he's not particularly ideological, I really thought he could pull that off.  Sadly, he apparently just doesn't have the attention span or inclination to spend the time do that.  That requires homework, preparation, and at times, sticking to the script.  I really looked forward to his deal-making ability, but I've now just accepted that it was all marketing and branding not real.

I don't think that will happen, because they are not 100% ready with their nuclear program, just yet. What they need is resources and time. IMO, they are trying to figure out the bare minimum they need to do, so they can get a deal similar to Iran. After that, they will lie and continue on doing what they've been doing until they are at full capability.

Thank all 'y'all for answering my post.  It wasn't easy to see in all this attack/counter attack stuff.  I had to sift a bit to find your replies....

@edpc I don't think they're ready, and that's why maybe we should go ahead and let Donald Trump swing for the fences on this.  He may connect and hit it into the backfield bleachers.  We've dicked around with this bunch for over 65 years, so why not?

@Concerned you highlight one of the core problems with the entire Trump presidency:  It's one loose cannon disaster after another, it seems.  If he goes to Nork and just chews the fat with Un, we have no control at all over what happens.  None.  Good God, what can happen then?  I'm in mind of a line from Ren and Stimpy:  "What's going to happen?  Cooould be something good, cooould be something bad, but we'll never know!"  We would probably have better luck predicting the outcome of a Dennis Rodman visit, which might just be why Obastard decided to send him.

[DB]

I will praise him if he does anything of the 4 things I heard him promise by Nov. 
1. Build a Wall.  Don't think I need to apologize for assuming that ain't happening but I will if I'm wrong.
2. Lock up Hillary.  Don't think I need to apologize for assuming that ain't happening but I will if I'm wrong.
3. Drain the Swamp.  Don't think I need to apologize for assuming that ain't happening but I will if I'm wrong.
4. Fix Obamacare 1/2 credit.  It's probably doomed.

I'm grading Trump as an "F" so far.   

How about balancing the budget thing... Cutting taxes while spending more is all smoke and mirrors as far as the economy goes. It's easy to make the economy buzz when you print more money and take less of it out in taxes. But it isn't real while having very real consequences later on. Destroying our currency and putting us all in unrecoverable debt is the single most destructive thing being done to us long term. It guarantees our failure no matter what else is done.

[Jazzhead]

That seems to me to be the best case scenario and if that's truly best case, the prospects for this meeting are rather sobering IMO.  Regardless, I can still envision things deteriorating if Trump doesn't get what he wants and something could be said that is later regreted especially once off script.  I genuinely wish I had more reason to be confident in our country's leader to conduct such high-stakes negotiations on the world stage.

The best case scenario is that all three participants (the leaders of North Korea,  South Korea and the United States) are rational actors.  Do not underestimate the influence of South Korea,  which has the most to lose if there is a war.   To the disinterested observer,  there is the outline of a grand bargain here -  a peace treaty and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for verifiable de-nuclearisation.   That, ironically, is more possible now that Kim has his bomb and can afford to give it up in exchange for peace and security without losing face.   

[edpc]

How about balancing the budget thing... Cutting taxes while spending more is all smoke and mirrors as far as the economy goes. It's easy to make the economy buzz when you print more money and take less of it out in taxes. But it isn't real while having very real consequences later on. Destroying our currency and putting us all in unrecoverable debt is the single most destructive thing being done to us long term. It guarantees our failure no matter what else is done.

That's OK.  Wait until he pays debt with more printed debt money.  From May 2016.....


Donald Trump said Monday he wouldn’t seek to renegotiate the national debt but suggested the government could buy back Treasury notes when interest rates are high to reduce the overall debt burden.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-he-wouldnt-seek-to-renegotiate-u-s-debt-1462828948

[DB]

Thank all 'y'all for answering my post.  It wasn't easy to see in all this attack/counter attack stuff.  I had to sift a bit to find your replies....

@edpc I don't think they're ready, and that's why maybe we should go ahead and let Donald Trump swing for the fences on this.  He may connect and hit it into the backfield bleachers.  We've dicked around with this bunch for over 65 years, so why not?

@Concerned you highlight one of the core problems with the entire Trump presidency:  It's one loose cannon disaster after another, it seems.  If he goes to Nork and just chews the fat with Un, we have no control at all over what happens.  None.  Good God, what can happen then?  I'm in mind of a line from Ren and Stimpy:  "What's going to happen?  Cooould be something good, cooould be something bad, but we'll never know!"  We would probably have better luck predicting the outcome of a Dennis Rodman visit, which might just be why Obastard decided to send him.

I'm of the general opinion Trump can do no worse than what's already been done on this front. The time to do something was when Clinton and Carter made deals to head off the development of nuclear weapons. We paid the ransom but never got the goods. It was obvious at the time that was going to happen but we did it anyway and Clinton and Carter were praised for saving the day just like Obama was with Iran. Iran will be the same outcome only with the weapons much more likely to be used on an innocent city somewhere. But that was better than war before they got them we're told.

[DB]

That's OK.  Wait until he pays debt with more printed debt money.  From May 2016.....


Donald Trump said Monday he wouldn’t seek to renegotiate the national debt but suggested the government could buy back Treasury notes when interest rates are high to reduce the overall debt burden.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-he-wouldnt-seek-to-renegotiate-u-s-debt-1462828948

"Buy back"...

Circular debt via circular logic...

[Cyber Liberty]

The best case scenario is that all three participants (the leaders of North Korea,  South Korea and the United States) are rational actors.  Do not underestimate the influence of South Korea,  which has the most to lose if there is a war.   To the disinterested observer,  there is the outline of a grand bargain here -  a peace treaty and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for verifiable de-nuclearisation.   That, ironically, is more possible now that Kim has his bomb and can afford to give it up in exchange for peace and security without losing face.   

I heard somebody say over the weekend that Trump wants Nork's nuclear program sitting next to Libya's nukes...in Oak Ridge TN.  I think South Africa's is there too.  He just might get it.

[edpc]

I'm of the general opinion Trump can do no worse than what's already been done on this front. The time to do something was when Clinton and Carter made deals to head off the development of nuclear weapons. We paid the ransom but never got the goods. It was obvious at the time that was going to happen but we did it anyway and Clinton and Carter were praised for saving the day just like Obama was with Iran. Iran will be the same outcome only with the weapons much more likely to be used on an innocent city somewhere. But that was better than war before they got them we're told.

The blame for this falls squarely on Clinton.  He gave Iran the warhead plans and gave NK the ability to make the plutonium.  Bush and Obama have their own responsibility, since they knew this and did nothing.

[DB]

The blame for this falls squarely on Clinton.  He gave Iran the warhead plans and gave NK the ability to make the plutonium.  Bush and Obama have their own responsibility, since they knew this and did nothing.

Yes, wasn't Carter the negotiator for Clinton?

[Concerned]

The best case scenario is that all three participants (the leaders of North Korea,  South Korea and the United States) are rational actors.  Do not underestimate the influence of South Korea,  which has the most to lose if there is a war.   To the disinterested observer,  there is the outline of a grand bargain here -  a peace treaty and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for verifiable de-nuclearisation.   That, ironically, is more possible now that Kim has his bomb and can afford to give it up in exchange for peace and security without losing face.   

If I look at this situation from the perspective of Kim Jung Un (which is important IMO to really understand what motivates him), I think it is entirely rational for him to want nuclear weapons.  This is particularly true when one looks at the current regimes of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.  As such, I just can't see him giving up his nuclear program.  To do so would, in fact, be irrational IMO especially with someone as unpredictable as Trump in the White House.

It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens, but I just think meeting with the US President is a huge propaganda boost for Kim Jung Un.  If Kim agrees to something, I have no confidence they'll honor the agreement (just ask Bill Clinton).  Simply lifting the sanctions does nothing to protect Kim's regime from overthrow (like Hussein and Gaddafi).  I think that's what Kim really needs -- some guarantee he'll remain in power for decades.  I just think a nuclear program is the best defense he has to remain in power.  Giving that up would be counterproductive for him I'm afraid.  JMO.

[edpc]

Yes, wasn't Carter the negotiator for Clinton?

Yes, he was the architect of the agreed framework. That was in the mid-90s. In 2000, they executed the brilliant plan to have an ex Soviet scientist give Iran a phony nuclear weapon design.  Problem was, he identified the errors and corrected them. That gave Iran a 20-year head start on a deployable nuke.  By that time, NK had been working on fuel rod reprocessing to acquire fissile material.  Clinton is best known for impeachment, of course, but this is his real legacy.

[Jazzhead]

If I look at this situation from the perspective of Kim Jung Un (which is important IMO to really understand what motivates him), I think it is entirely rational for him to want nuclear weapons.  This is particularly true when one looks at the current regimes of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.  As such, I just can't see him giving up his nuclear program.  To do so would, in fact, be irrational IMO especially with someone as unpredictable as Trump in the White House.

It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens, but I just think meeting with the US President is a huge propaganda boost for Kim Jung Un.  If Kim agrees to something, I have no confidence they'll honor the agreement (just ask Bill Clinton).  Simply lifting the sanctions does nothing to protect Kim's regime from overthrow (like Hussein and Gaddafi).  I think that's what Kim really needs -- some guarantee he'll remain in power for decades.  I just think a nuclear program is the best defense he has to remain in power.  Giving that up would be counterproductive for him I'm afraid.  JMO.

I agree that his number one priority is staying in power.   But would he prefer staying in power without also being an international pariah?    Here is where the influence of South Korea,  recently the successful host of the Winter Olympics,  can be so important.   A taste of what true peace and security can bring can be intoxicating.   We know so little about Kim and his motivations,  but he does represent a new generation.   

[Concerned]

I agree that his number one priority is staying in power.   But would he prefer staying in power without also being an international pariah?    Here is where the influence of South Korea,  recently the successful host of the Winter Olympics,  can be so important.   A taste of what true peace and security can bring can be intoxicating.   We know so little about Kim and his motivations,  but he does represent a new generation.

I've seen no reason to believe that Kim cares one wit about being an international pariah or not.  I know that denuking helps South Korea, but denuking doesn't help Kim stay in power.  In fact, it further jeopardizes his regime IMO.  He obviously knows that.  It'll be fascinating to see what happens if this meeting does occur.  Of course, Trump said the North had to denuke before any meeting with the US, and he seems to be moving away from that precondition so who knows what success would really look like to the President.  No matter what, I suspect Trump will proclaim success regardless of the actual outcome of the meeting. 

Certainly nothing the US has done in the past 60+ years has been particularly effective in reigning in North Korea.  Maybe talks will work.  I just wish we had a leader on our side I trusted more.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, he was the architect of the agreed framework. That was in the mid-90s. In 2000, they executed the brilliant plan to have an ex Soviet scientist give Iran a phony nuclear weapon design.  Problem was, he identified the errors and corrected them. That gave Iran a 20-year head start on a deployable nuke.  By that time, NK had been working on fuel rod reprocessing to acquire fissile material.  Clinton is best known for impeachment, of course, but this is his real legacy.

Is there anything Carter didn't cack up and leave worse?  De-regulating airlines maybe?  Internationally he was not a lot of good for us.  And leftists still love him...

[edpc]

Is there anything Carter didn't cack up and leave worse?  De-regulating airlines maybe?  Internationally he was not a lot of good for us.  And leftists still love him...

 


There was only one good thing that comes to mind and that was kicking off a pet project of his - the era's nuclear sub fleet.  The Have Blue project was also nice, since it eventually became the F-117.  Mostly, though he was a disaster in his one term.

[musiclady]

I'm going to interrupt this serious, intelligent and fascinating discussion on North Korea with one last post to @driftdiver .

Of all the cruel insults you have lambasted me with on this thread, I must defend against the worst.......

I AM NOT OLD!!!!

I may be 68, but I guarantee that I am in better shape than the vast majority of Americans, and most likely the majority on this forum.

So you can tell tall tales about who you think I am, and smear my character and falsely accuse me until the cows come home, while refusing to reconcile because I am so "mean," but do NOT call me "OLD."



That is all. 

Ahhhhh................ now I feel better!

Hijack over. 

[INVAR]

I'm going to interrupt this serious, intelligent and fascinating discussion on North Korea...
Hijack over.

I'm still trying to figure out how a thread about Trump calling Chuck Todd a Son-of-a-bitch got hijacked into a serious discussion about nukes in North Korea.

Talk about the audacity of derailing the review of the circus sideshow into the realm of geopolitical seriousness!

[musiclady]

I'm still trying to figure out how a thread about Trump calling Chuck Todd a Son-of-a-bitch got hijacked into a serious discussion about nukes in North Korea.

Talk about the audacity of derailing the review of the circus sideshow into the realm of geopolitical seriousness!

Threads take on lives of their own, do they not?

In this case, the NK hijack was a good one.  ^-^

(My apologies for all the personal stuff I posted.  I was born defending myself, and really, really hate being falsely accused.  It's nearly a tragic flaw......   Others seem to be able to brush off nasty insults, but I want to correct things.  My bad.  Cept I'm really not old!  :dx1:)

[GtHawk]

Thanks for thinking of me. @GtHawk

@Right_in_Virginia
I thought it only right to recognize you for being so special to speak for all, or should I say more correctly a large number of forum members. How Trumpian

[musiclady]

On topic post..........

Tom Brokaw says his "L's" funny.  He swallows them.

Anybody know why?

Speech impediment, or Western PA origins?   ^-^

[Cyber Liberty]

On topic post..........

Tom Brokaw says his "L's" funny.  He swallows them.

Anybody know why?

Speech impediment, or Western PA origins?   ^-^

I heard about this many years ago.  It's a speech impediment, and he always had a special editor go over the copy to make sure the words didn't hit it.

(And thanks for the kind mention of the thread hijack.  That was me.)

[musiclady]

I heard about this many years ago.  It's a speech impediment, and he always had a special editor go over the copy to make sure the words didn't hit it.

(And thanks for the kind mention of the thread hijack.  That was me.)

I enjoyed it, so I thought it deserved to be mentioned.  ^-^

Thanks for the info on old Tom.   The editor didn't actually succeed, but I'm sure we would have heard more of it had someone not been looking out for him.