Slashdot Mirror


In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice. (nytimes.com)

Anonymous readers share a report: As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.

"You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. "You can be sure the other side will have that." The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy. There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.

711 comments

  1. I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That expire in 6 hours, time to use them!

    1. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump kicked my dog! That NAZI bastard!

      Trump, Trump, Trumpity Trump Trump TRUMP! Reeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

    2. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When looking at it from the outside it is clear that Hillary wasn't a good alternative either.

      If a female president is to be elected it has to be a new Iron Lady.

      And if someone shall be able to challenge Trump in the next election it has to be a strong fast-paced person with light luggage able to shake up a movement as strong as Sanders had.

      At least Trump has made politics unpredictable.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by cob666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And if someone shall be able to challenge Trump in the next election it has to be a strong fast-paced person with light luggage able to shake up a movement as strong as Sanders had.

      I believe that if Hillary had picked Sanders as her running mate, Trump would have lost by a considerable amount...

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    4. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the best president we had in decades. He actually gets things done. Your brain is just too small to understand his tactics. I supposed stormy Daniels is a perfect representative of intellectual thinking such as yours. Go stormy!

      He was elected fair and square, get over it. You are killing our democracy. We are soooooo lucky to have him lead our country, and Iâ(TM)m sooooooooo happy that Clinton was schooled big time.

    5. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      Sure. A "proud communist" is all the Democrats needed on their ticket. That's all the rest of the country needed to get over it's dislike of Trump. Hillary was already the "Palin" moment for the DNC. Adding Bernie to the ticket would have been a "Palin on steroids" moment.

      Both parties seem to have this strange delusion that they can foist their biggest nut bags on the rest of us and that's somehow going to go over.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Trump has made politics unpredictable.

      What are you talking about? Hes the most predictable person ever to hold office. He will always do the thing that most benefits him personally.

    7. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bernie is not a communist nor was he ever. The delusion seems to be with people like you that cannot hear democratric socialism without it being communism. It has to be black or white. While a lot of Bernie's rhetoric sounded pretty extreme if you knew anything about his history you would know he was quite willing to take small steps towards his goals and be more strategic. That is why you have a lot of the black vote that wrote him off before acknowledging his rapid progress.

      I would argue that Bernie did his job for the Democratic party forcing them to rethink their position as they became more and more conservative which was making them less and less electable. Trump on the other hand just did the classic Republican better by using fear tactics that clearly still work.

    8. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if Hillary had just made the case that she needed Sanders to lead in the senate when the Democrats took the majority back, it would have been something.

    9. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vladimir donâ(TM)t you have a country to invade or something?

    10. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least Trump has made politics unpredictable.

      Yes, and everyone knows unpredictability is GREAT for the economy and foreign relations!

    11. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotted the Trump nut hugger.

    12. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Both parties seem to have this strange delusion that they can foist their biggest nut bags on the rest of us and that's somehow going to go over.

      Hilary was unlikable, an insider, and an elitist that probably skirted the law with her personal finances. Nut bag? She seemed pretty status-quo for politics. I am not trolling here. I'm asking an honest question.

    13. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      the running mate is nearly irrelevant after election. He would have been essentially sacked.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    14. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary is too much of a pompous ego-maniac to have picked Bernie and Bernie is too principled to have accepted, even if it was offered.

    15. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by mixed_signal · · Score: 1

      If you call putting anti-government, industry elites in charge of key agencies "getting things done," then I guess you're correct. Some of us would like a transparent government that works for the common good, instead of for corporations and for allowing the wealthy to get richer while the lower 90% of the "wealth" holders just tread water. It's easier to make money investing than it is to create a useful company that makes things in the U.S. and nothing being done by this Admin. or Congress is changing any of that. It doesn't bode well for the future competitiveness of the nation.

    16. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both parties seem to have this strange delusion that they can foist their biggest nut bags on the rest of us and that's somehow going to go over.

      It seems to have worked out for the republicans.

    17. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that if Sanders had picked Hillary as his running mate, President Sanders would have committed suicide.

    18. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Maybe? Hard to say, and this is coming from a "Bernie is our savior!" guy.

      America rejected Clinton for a vast number of reasons, any one of which could spell defeat for a candidate. America embraced Bernie for a vast number of reasons, many of which were used by Trump to win.

      I am still convinced that Bernie would have won against Trump. His rhetorical skills are vastly superior to Clinton. His ability to be consistent and stay on message has endured for over 30 years. His demonstrated knowledge of political boondoggles and how to avoid them is evident from the voting record. He knows the struggles of the common person, or at least talks like he does, and isn't afraid to take on corporate dominance.

      By contrast, Clinton still didn't have a fully voiced and persuasively stumped platform on election day. She appeared aloof, lackadaisical, and disconnected from the populist issues that both Trump and Bernie campaigned on. Her record was peppered with either (choose your own interpretation) a severe lack of foresight that led her continually into scandal or a diabolical prescience used to skirt the law and escape unscathed each time. Her record also revealed a tendency to reformat her platform based not on her own character, but the winds of political ascendancy. She was so tied to moneyed interests it is almost impossible to differentiate her from a Republican.

      I could see Bernie irreparably damaged by them running together. I don't see Bernie as the band-aid to fix the boo-boo that was the most recent Clinton presidential run.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    19. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I believe that if Hillary had picked Sanders as her running mate, Trump would have lost by a considerable amount

      The problem is that Sanders goes by the "socialist" label, and that gets middle-America's panties in a bunch. He's not really a socialist, but rather for a mixed system--capitalism and socialism. However, certain key-words just don't fly in the USA. It would be like a Republican candidate outright saying "heavy inequality is good". (Some might think that privately, but stating it out loud would sink them in a general election.)

      That election had a low turnout because both candidates were unpopular. However, the "s" word would bring the opposition to the polls. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Sanders, only commenting on how politics works in the USA. I don't know why he uses that word; it doesn't help his general electability.

    20. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Bernie took his wife to Lenin's tomb for their fucking honeymoon. Ask a Rusky the significance.

      Bernie will make the Ds pivot left, handing the next election to Trump.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      True for all politicians. The problem is knowing what her buddy wants done and how much she will collect for various favors.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:I've got 15 Mod Points by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Chickens, roosts, sown wind, and wirlwind. ;)

      I know I know... you've counted your eggs before they've hatched and gone after the birds in the bush rather than the bird in hand.

      Some people just want to live in interesting times.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    23. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "suicide". Perhaps by 5-6 shots to the back of the head. Maybe a robbery where they would forget to take anything. Don't want to get too close to that lady, whether friend or foe.

    24. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie took his wife to Lenin's tomb for their fucking honeymoon. Ask a Rusky the significance.

      Very little in terms of the absurd argument the person before was trying to make for Bernie somehow being a communist.

      First of all, Lenin was an actual communist, with almost nothing in common philosophically with Stalin or anyone who came after him in Russia. What communism was twisted into after his passing is not true communism but a fascist state that reflects on communism as accurately as Trump reflects on evangelical beliefs.

      Second, Lenin's tomb is a very popular site to visit in Moscow. Just because someone visits it does not mean someone is a protege of Lenin. Does every visitor of Graceland want to be Elvis? Does everyone who visits the Washington Monument want to own slaves?

    25. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I believe that if Hillary had picked Sanders as her running mate, Trump would have lost by a considerable amount...

      That still wouldn't have made her a good choice.

    26. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From people I have spoken with I would argue that Hillary did more to help Trump than Trump did to help himself. She didn't make any great mistakes as a candidate, or even have a series of small ones as a candidate that added up to something that mattered.

      Her biggest fault was just being Hillary Clinton. The name Clinton is itself a dog whistle for an army of angry conservatives. They didn't care that Trump is a pathological liar, a blithering idiot, and seemingly on a quest to see how many of the deadly sins he can pull off in a week; they voted for him to vote against Clinton. There are countless republicans who would have voted for Osama bin Laden if it meant it would keep Clinton out of the White House. I knew republicans who were otherwise very intelligent and logical people who honestly bought into a nutjob conspiracy that Hillary was going to run, win, then somehow pull an unconstitutional move to resign and place Bill back in the White House.

      There was nothing that could be done for those people. That was a mountain that could not be overcome, and Hillary did not excite the democratic voters enough to counter that population. As much as there were thousands - if not millions - of democrats who voted Hillary just because they didn't want Trump in the White House there were vastly more republicans jettisonning their own principles just to keep Hillary out.

    27. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Yes, and everyone knows unpredictability is GREAT for the economy and foreign relations!

      Seems to be working so far.

    28. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Dog whistles" don't exist. Using that phrase reveals you as a shill or a ultra-partisan activist. You are therefore completely compromised and potentially dangerous to yourself and others.

      Do you have some rope and a sturdy overhanging beam?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    29. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, Hillary won by 2.86 million MORE votes

    30. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      LIAR!!
      STOP spreading this lie!
      The American people picked HILLARY by 2.86 million votes
      Fucking STOP pretending America chose anyone else!!

    31. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No.,
      As of right now, job growth is less than 3/4 what it was under Obama's last 2 years!

    32. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Jesus, another paid shill or mindfucked partisan zombie? How many of you are there?

      Look bimbo, the rules for the game were set. Everyone knew them. Everyone agreed to play by those rules. Now you're using the results of a very specific political question as the answer for an entirely different question, namely who America really wanted in a popular election, without the electoral college.

      That wasn't the question asked, so the answer given is not relevant to that question. See? Simple, straightforward, logical, and lo and behold, it's the truth as well. Imagine that.

      I get the feeling you will go to your grave cradling and lamenting this false assumption you crafted in your deranged mind. Against my better judgement I will elaborate with some logic. Question: Can you think of any person who didn't vote in the last presidential election who would have voted if the presidential election were a simple popular election without the electoral college? If the answer to that question is yes (and it is) then your ridiculous assertion that "America" picked Hillary is wrong.

      You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. I would ask you to stop, to consider what you are doing to yourself, but you obviously either need that check or you're too far gone down the partisan path to ever make it back to any semblance of sanity.

      If you're not a paid shill I recommend you see someone about your mental health. I am disturbed by your utter inability to participate in consensus reality, to use logic and reason, and to refrain from attacking others based entirely on the delusions in your own head. You are sick. You need help. No, I am not joking. This isn't some rhetorical method of gaining control of an argument. It's not an insult. I am dead serious. Get help from a professional mental health facility before you get hurt or hurt someone else.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    33. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      The key here is your claim that the PEOPLE, voted for tRUMP.
      THAT IS THE LIE and no amount of appeals to the EC will change that
      STOP the lie!

    34. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Just because you need a good mindfuck of facts to remind you that DIRT doesn't get a VOTE but people do....

    35. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      What is your malfunction? The people, under the rules of the Constitution, did, in fact, elect the president. The vote tally is not in question. The electoral college votes are not in question. The results are not in question. All that is in question is your ability to accept the truth, see the facts, and realize that you have so emotionally attached yourself to an ideology that your emotions are overruling your ability to think correctly.

      What is at issue, based on your ridiculous conjecture, is the popular vote. My response is simple, factual, and correct. The voting results of an election predicated on the electoral college are not an accurate vote tally of how the American people would vote if the popular vote was the only metric for winning. The results we have are an accurate vote tally of what happens when you have an electoral college vote, nothing more. Any additional meaning you impart to them based on what you wanted to happen, or what the vote means outside of the parameters under which the votes were cast, is merely fantasy.

      Easy proof: If even one Trump voter in California, or even one Hillary voter in Texas, stayed home and didn't vote because of the winner-takes-all system of the electoral college, then the results cannot be used as an honest metric of a popular vote question posed to the American people.

      Now, if we had 100% voter participation in the last election I would back you up completely and you wouldn't be dead wrong. However, since roughly 40% of the electorate didn't vote, your claim that the PEOPLE elected Clinton is false. SOME PEOPLE voted for Clinton. SOME PEOPLE voted for Trump. SOME PEOPLE did't vote at all. SOME PEOPLE is fundamentally different from THE PEOPLE.

      The people, as in "We the people", weren't asked the question you are saying the vote tallies answer. I guarantee you, without any question in my mind, that if the win condition for the presidential race was the popular vote and nothing more, the results would have been very different. If you can agree that this is a true statement you need to drop your insistence that "the people chose Clinton." You won't, but at least I was that guy that told you the truth when no one else would. You're welcome.

      Do you go to the bank and ask them why your balance doesn't reflect the total of all of your deposits? Do you then yell at them that you deposited all that money, it should all be there? Do you freak out and call them liars when they show you the withdrawals you made? No? Then stop doing that to me and yourself. Rules are rules, and they shape the way reality is reflected in numbers. Denying it, shouting, stamping your feet, accusing others, and raging at the facts won't change it. You can't take the answer to one equation and use it for an entirely different equation and expect to get the correct answer. Chances are you will be wrong more than you are right, and this is one of those times you are wrong: factually, mathematically, and logically.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    36. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      YOUR lie is that the American PEOPLE elected tRUMP.
      THIS IS A LIE.
      There is no interpretation where three percent LESS votes equals elected by the PEOPLE.
      I remind you, dirt doesn't vote!

    37. Re: I've got 15 Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dog whisÂtle
      noun
      a high-pitched whistle used to train dogs, typically having a sound inaudible to humans.
      a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group.

      In dog training and republican training, a dog whistle is a real thing.

  2. Advice by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The people giving advice on Korea have been fucking it up for 60-ish years, and REALLY fucking it up for 25 resulting in a viable nuclear program. So I wouldn't listen to them either.

    1. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep... This shit should've been dealt with many years ago, but the puppets in office then had less important things to do.

    2. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you have any examples (specific quotations would be awesome but I think that might be asking too much) of bad science advice people have given with regards to Korea?

      I'm imagining something like "Mr. President, they'll never get an atomic bomb, because according to my phrenology charts, Koreans just aren't smart enough to be able to accomplish it" but I'm just making it up and haven't actually heard such an anecdote. But you have obviously heard some things like that offered to prior presidents, so please, please share!

    3. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should we have preemptively struck N Korea and violated international laws? To hell with the law you say? Im not sure what could be done with Russia/China supplying them all the material to make this happen. Truely, there was no legal way to stop it.

    4. Re:Advice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people giving advice on Korea have been fucking it up for 60-ish years, and REALLY fucking it up for 25 resulting in a viable nuclear program. So I wouldn't listen to them either.

      Well, at least they haven't started WWIII over the issue up until now.

      Maybe without all those advisers, Trump will be able to change that.

    5. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since when has the US given a hoot about international laws?

    6. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.

      Trump may possibly be a moron. But trying to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons does not require expert knowledge in nuclear physics. In this case, the criticism makes no sense.

    7. Re: Advice by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      golf? really.. you're going to bring up golf...? Conservatives were never really blessed with self introspection....

    8. Re:Advice by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people giving advice for the last 60ish years have managed to not have a cold war go hot and have avoided the massive destabilizing catastrophe that a DPRK collapse would entail.

    9. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is criticism. That alone is enough for the critics.

    10. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the people giving advice on gun control, education, the economy, international affairs, you name it. they've been batshit crazy for 50+ years.

      I sure wouldn't listen to them.

    11. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trumps "negotiating" style is basically that if he receives sufficient flattery, he will drop his pants and bend over.

      I suspect that it is likely that NK will offer things that they have no intention of actually doing. So you need some way of doing verification, but Trump doesn't know that. So what I think will happen is that we will give up something in exchange for nothing, and Trump will declare victory and all of the MAGATs will go on and on about what a genius he is.

    12. Re: Advice by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is criticism. That alone is enough for the critics.

      Agreed. And not only that, one guy's opinion about what Trump should or should not be doing becomes this headline: "In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice." Talk about hyperbole.

    13. Re:Advice by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      Kim's strategy here is obvious. Start by offering to give up North Korea's supply of depleted uranium, and see where it goes from there.

    14. Re:Advice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems to me we've had 60 years of cold war and appeasement with North Korea. Now that there's a different approach in place, we're actually negotiating, and the North and South are having talks. What is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    15. Re:Advice by golodh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Getting North Korea to discontinue its nuclear program was never within the capabilities of the US, short of starting WW-III. Which definitely isn't worth it.

      The US have been unable to stop the Sovjets from obtaining nuclear weapons. And the Chinese. And the Indians. And the Pakistani. And Israel.

      Where do people suddenly get there idea that the US could have stopped North Korea? I think they're wrong.

      I can understand that people might be a bit upset about that, but there it is.

      China, the provider of North Korea's military umbrella, has fought the US to a stalemate in Korea before. And it has only gotten stronger since then. Much stronger. It has kept North Korea in the saddle militarily, politically, and economically ... and there's nothing the US could have done about that.

      The only way North Korea will let of of its nukes is if it wants to. Dangling the view of South Korea has an appeal. Except for the one person in charge. Unfortunately Dirty Donald and his adminstration have made it abundantly clear to North Korea's dictator that he'll be signing his own death warrant if he lets go of his nukes. Do Mr. Bolton's helpful comments on Khadaffi's example ring a bell? Gods, what a fiasco.

      Granted, some arm-twisting can sometimes go a long way. But only competent arm-twisting. Not the incoherent verbiage coming out of the WH now.

      If there's any message that Dirty Donald is managing to convey, that's: if you're enough of a criminal (Putin, Xi, Duterte) you can be his best pal. At least he'll respect you. If you're an honest, decent type of politician then he'll squeeze you like the sucker you are until you drop dead or put up a real fight. Whichever comes first.

      Let's not forget that Mr. Trump has proudly bankrupted several of the companies he ran, and his most impressive accomplishment so far has been to weather those bankruptcies wile avoiding jail time.

      It's fascinating how he seems to be repeating that accomplishment with the US Inc. amidst acclaim from political flat earthers who feel disgruntled about something, hear Dirty Donald's incoherent rants, and decide well ... at least it's different from the usual ... let's give it a try.

    16. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trump didn't do anything, it's just that NK finally got nukes, and now want to be treated as part of the nuclear nations club. NK is not going to give up nukes.
      To be fair, I don't blame Trump for that failure, nor Obama, there just wasn't any good solutions.
      But Trump is going to fuck that up more, he only cares about spinning it as a win.

    17. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol

    18. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In case you forgot, there have been negotiations between the Koreas for sixty years. Pnmunjon. Ghent. Helsinki. More. Trump has achieved nothing except a bill for more useless negotiations.

      Given his track record of empty bombast, we'll be lucky if Trump does not hand over the Pacific Fleet.

    19. Re:Advice by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha. Yea, because nuclear war with China in the 60s and 70s would have been so great.

      We truly have a bunch of ignorant ill informed children playing with nuclear hand grenades now.

      We are historically close to a nuclear attack on a u.s. coastal city.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    20. Re:Advice by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      I don't think anything is obvious when you get two human brains that were spoiled their entire existence into negotiations.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    21. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the earth shattering solution is he is going to be bribed err subsidised to build a Trump hotel and half his closefamily given paid swamp draining consultant sinecures there so he won't invade .

    22. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. The sixty years where we haven't been losing or killing hundreds of people a day in open hot war with them has been a total waste.

      Clearly we should have just nuked the entire country. There is no possible unforeseen consequences to that sort of behavior that could have blown back at us.

      #maga
      #Coal-Is-A-Vegetable

    23. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      North Korea has been demanding 1 v 1 talks with the USA for 60 years. In all that time the US has counter-demanded that NK must make peace with all interested parties whilst seated at the same table. Suddenly everything has changed.

      Now the North has nukes the US gives in and rushes to a face saving meeting, whilst passing it off as a victory of some kind. The best part is that NK has forced the US to offer a complete removal of trade restrictions and give guarantees of regime stability as well as peace (including withdrawal of troops probably) . All because the North Koreans finally realised that in the past they had nothing to bargain with and decided to do something about it. Trump will have to pass this off as a major win. Nixon declared a huge win in Vietnam as he ran away from the loss. This will be bigger.

      In the meantime, Trump has removed the only barrier that stood in the way of Iran following the same path. They can simply trade with NK now for all the tech and materials they desire. Oil for bombs? No problem. The US has shown that it will surrender immediately you have a bomb and it will bully you mercilessly until you do have one.

      This opens up a path to a brighter future for the world. If the answer to halting gun violence is all the good people having a gun then surely the answer to bomb threat is all the good countries having a bomb. One step toward every nation guaranteeing lasting peace through the acquisition of "family atomics".

    24. Re:Advice by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Well said sir...indeed!

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    25. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he demonstrates such.

      So there's that.

    26. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It is literally insane that you people think Trump is more competent than Obama.

    27. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to ask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Iraq, in general. about that.

    28. Re: Advice by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Should we have preemptively struck N Korea and violated international laws?

      What you're hopefully calling 'international law' in this case is a series of multinational conventions adhered to by the hopeful. And when applied to North Korea, they have been a total failure.

    29. Re: Advice by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Funny

      We of the dark side freely admit that Obama was a better golfer than Trump. He had more practice.

    30. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much better president than Obama. Proud supporter of Trump. Obama was a peon compared to Trump. Hell Trump just undid in a year what took Obama 8 years to implement. He's effectively wiped his legacy away. Thank god!

    31. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we have an armada of warships pointing at North Koreas ball sacks. If the Kim fucktard does anything. God help them all. That's how you negotiate.

    32. Re:Advice by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The people giving advice on Korea have been fucking it up for 60-ish years, and REALLY fucking it up for 25 resulting in a viable nuclear program. So I wouldn't listen to them either.

      What exactly has been "fucked up"? There's been a ceasefire for 60 years, the two Koreas still exist and are habitable, one of them has become one of the richest, most prosperous countries on earth. That's not ideal, but it's more than could reasonably expected in 1953.

    33. Re:Advice by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha. Yea, because nuclear war with China in the 60s and 70s would have been so great.

      We truly have a bunch of ignorant ill informed children playing with nuclear hand grenades now.

      We are historically close to a nuclear attack on a u.s. coastal city.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    34. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Competence has nothing to do with it. Obama was a remarkable speaker. The man knew how to deliver a speech and his intelligence was there for all to see. But like his previous 4 predecessors he was unable to disturb the status quo in both domestic and international politics. Trump cannot give a speech without contradicting himself several times in a statement that is only 140 characters long.

      His atrocious public speaking is drowning out some of the positive or potentially positive things he has done. The US economy has surpassed the estimated forecasts and unemployment numbers have decreased. And despite all the rhetoric there have been no tariffs enacted on any imports. Yet. He is giving the US allies a chance to do the right thing before he forces them to. And make no mistake. Despite all the BS the US can survive a trade war more than Europe or China can. Canada doesn't count since 80% of their trade is with the US so they have no power to effect the situation one way or another. Canada already slaps a 300% tariff on milk and lumber imports from the US and they import no US goods tariff free. Not one!

      Trumps course public comments about unfair trade practices by both US adversaries and US allies has drowned out the simple fact that current policies are fair to everyone except the US. The US is stronger and wealthier and has always been expected to give more concessions than they ever receive so the smaller and poorer countries can compete. It's time to rebalance the trade policies and not just build on ones that have no bearing on current day conditions.

      Trump is just the first President who doesn't mind calling countries out in public. He is challenging the status quo across the board but he will be gone in a few years and the next President should take office in a different political and economic era. The G7 countries are not upset because they think the current trade policies are fair they are upset because the trade policies are unfair and Trump is throwing a spotlight on the lopsided agreements that leave the US holding the shitty end of the stick. The economic well being of the US comes before the economic well being on any other country. The US doesn't have to bury or set out to harm another countries economy but the US shouldn't have to make any undue sacrifices either.

      Trump called the NATO countries out as well about their penchant for never meeting their financial responsibilities to NATO. And the G7 countries better come up with a way to address the trade policies or they may find themselves trying to figure out how to protect themselves when the US stops bankrolling their collective security needs.

      China started out with favorable trade policies with the US to help drag them from a destitute communist country to a world economic power. But China insists on negotiating trade deals as if they were an economic pigmy. China manipulates it's currency instead of letting it float. and their government heavily subsidizes it's industries to create cheaper exports. That way they can dump all the steel and solar panels on the world market for pennies on the dollar.

      The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US. The Europeans, Russia, and China gained access to the Iranian market and were making billion dollar deals before the ink was dried. Iran got 50 billion in cash and assets that were frozen in US and other countries banks and they gained access to the international markets. The US got a pinky promise that Iran was done with developing nuclear weapons. Judging by the published Iranian nuclear program document library Iran just needed some more cash to continue their nuclear "research". Iran's windfall has financed their activities across the ME although the Iranians should really take a big step back before Israel solve the mad mullah problem for the rest of the world.

    35. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you've got to be a dedicated partisan to parse events that way.

      1. NORK has been pusuing nukes for decades under multiple US admins. all of whom have appeased ut.

      2. It was Hillary Clinton who cast the mold of the US destrying a nation AFTER they were talked out of their nuclear program when she toppled Khadaffi in Libya. In fact this is exactly what Un is afraid of.

      3. Obama was appeasing Iran with literal palletes of US cash and an inspection regime which was full of holes. Many people feel confirmed with the left's increasingly insane rhetoric towards Israel and Jews generally that Obama did this to hasten not deter the Iranians getting the bomb because in the left's view, Israel is the sorceof the problems in the Middle East.

      When Trump takes KJU out after KJU gets caught cheating ( I'm from the future) on the Singapore agreement, the world's communist/ Islamo-facist nuclear aspirants will shit their collective(ist) pants andunderstand that while Trump is in office, Americameans business.

    36. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you're talking about. You're as deranged as your master Trump.

    37. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not WWIII it's just the end of Seoul. Better Seoul than Seattle.....mostly.

      MacArthur wanted to nuke them and that is exactly what we should have done.

      Liberals think that there's never a better time to kick the can down the road than right now.

    38. Re: Advice by gmack · · Score: 2

      To be fair, it's been a total failure for the same reason the war ended up as a stalemate: North Korea had a country with a very large army backing them.

    39. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trump has already spent more time on the links -- his links, at taxpayer expense -- than Obama did in 8 years.

      Any other "alternative facts" for us today?

    40. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of people trapped in a "stable" slave state. Wouldn't want to "destabilize" something like that.

    41. Re: Advice by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      A country which since ditching Mao has become tired of North Korea's shenanigans.

    42. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually? He did not. Trump golfed over 4x more in office than Obama. You faggots lie so much you forget you're doing it, traitors.

    43. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Trump is just the first President who doesn't mind calling countries out in public. He is challenging the status quo across the board but he will be gone in a few years and the next President should take office in a different political and economic era. The G7 countries are not upset because they think the current trade policies are fair they are upset because the trade policies are unfair and Trump is throwing a spotlight on the lopsided agreements that leave the US holding the shitty end of the stick. The economic well being of the US comes before the economic well being on any other country. The US doesn't have to bury or set out to harm another countries economy but the US shouldn't have to make any undue sacrifices either.

      Oh please. The problem with Trump "calling out" other countries, is that he typically doesn't actually have a leg to stand on because he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Take the Canadian Diary complaint. No-one seems to know where Trump pulled the 300% tariff untruth (do you call it a lie? A misunderstanding? It's so hard to tell with that idiot whether he's lying or actually believes the idiotic things he's saying). The fact is, Canada does have a protected market for dairy that keeps its dairy farmers in business. It appears to be set up that way mostly for domestic reasons rather than to prevent foreign trade. The US does not have a protected market for dairy. Instead, the US tries to keep dairy farmers in business with direct subsidies to the farmers. The US policy seems to result in dairy farmers failing left and right anyway, and also vastly overproducing milk. Trump is upset because Canada won't buy all the surplus milk instead of buying milk from their own dairy farmers. Now, the interesting thing here is that, when China subsidizes steel production and then Chinese steel producers sell steel to the US, the US government complains that it's product dumping and Trump implements tariffs. For some reason, when the US is trying to do the same thing to Canada with dairy, all of a sudden Trump takes the opposite position, and market protections are horrific abuse.

      Also, consider this. Canada still imports 10% of its dairy from the US. The US, in contrast, caps imports of foreign dairy at 3%. So, who's abusing who here on dairy trade? The disturbing thing is that Trump supporters seem to have this absurd belief that Trump is a "plain speaker" who "cuts through the crap". Well, the reality is that the "crap" he cuts through is every bit of nuance involved in the situation. He focuses on one detail that, in isolation, seems like it should provoke outrage, but he ignores (by being a barely literate simpleton by all appearances) all of the other extenuating details.

      As for NATO countries not meeting their financial responsibilities to NATO, what are you even talking about? Are you talking about the 2% on GDP? The actual NATO treaty never demanded that. NATO was mostly about letting the US have free reign militarily over most of Europe so that they could oppose the Soviet Union and other communist countries. Up until Trump, it has never seemed to be the desire of the US for the countries of Europe to be particularly strong militarily. Trumps claims about the other NATO members are pretty much garbage.

      Trumps claims about most things are uninformed garbage. Look at his complaints about US troops stationed in South Korea. The fact is, South Korea pays for the bases and pays half of the costs for the soldiers. If they left South Korea, unless Trump was planning to fire all those soldiers, the cost to the US would actually increase rather than go down.

      If Trump wants to close down US military bases around the world to stop other countries from supposedly sponging off the US for defence, why doesn't he pull out of Okinawa? Quite a few Okinawans would be very happy for that to happen. Or how about Guantanamo Bay? The US is outright illegally occupying the land in that case, paying a ridiculous ~$4000 per year in rent (paid by check,

    44. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha. Yea, because nuclear war with China in the 60s and 70s would have been so great.

      We truly have a bunch of ignorant ill informed children playing with nuclear hand grenades now.

      We are historically close to a nuclear attack on a u.s. coastal city.

      --

      I hate being the last one

    45. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Trump tweets, those can be covered and if you criticize political analysists for completely failing because they're solely focused on his tweets, well then they'll respond "aren't the President's communications worth covering?" Has it ever been easier to own the mainstream media? He'll go down in history for none of the reasons they think.

    46. Re:Advice by Aereus · · Score: 1

      I agree. I have a very unfavorable view of Trump, but if it takes a Wildcard to deal with a Wildcard, so be it. If Trump can get it done with North Korea so their people can stop suffering, I would gladly welcome it.

    47. Re: Advice by tsa · · Score: 1

      Given hos track redord of insulting people and being insulted there's a good chance we have a nuclear war next week.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    48. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You anyone-but-Trump folks are the true enemy

    49. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go with your Western White Privilege assuming you know what's best, assuming modern North Koreans starving is any of your business, or not your fault!

    50. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And despite all the rhetoric there have been no tariffs enacted on any imports.

      They've already gone live against Europe. That happened about 10 days ago.

    51. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. There is zero Juche in the Democrat party. Democrats fall all over themselves in their rush to sell out America to the Chinese, in exchange for pitifully modest bribes.

    52. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that this directly resulted in the rise of ISIS, well, congratulations, motherfuckers.

    53. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MacArthur wanted to nuke them and that is exactly what we should have done.

      Given the civilian casualties that would have resulted, that would have been a war crime just after Nuremberg. That's why it wasn't going to happen.

    54. Re: Advice by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      AC is proud.

    55. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do people suddenly get there idea that the US could have stopped North Korea?

      Perhaps because the President of the US (one after the other) keep saying they were going to stop it?

      Any mismatch between the perception of the general US populace and reality in the area of foreign affairs is entirely self-inflicted.

      For example, is the general public in the US surprised at the flip-flopping of Trump about peace talks with Kim? In Asia, nearly every newspaper columns about politics predicted that on the day Kim and Trump agreed to have peace talks, and cautioned their readers to get ready for a few flip-flops from either Trump or Kim or both.

      Not lost among Asians is the fact that a peaceful, united, Korea offers NO advantages to the US, so we all expected Trump to keep Korea divided, most easily by maintaining tension with NK. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump (pretended to) throw some tantrums and insult Kim during the peace talk to stop any hope of reaching any peaceful result.

    56. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democratic freedom in South Korea is pretty new.

    57. Re:Advice by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I won't be getting my hopes up (it's a long-standing issue), but if he breaks the deadlock, all credit to him (and others like Moon and Xi) who managed it.

    58. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are delusional. NK has nuclear bombs and missiles to deliver them now. That is why they are at the table. Not because of your retarded president.

    59. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you completely mad? Of course it requires expert knowledge in nuclear physics.

      You people are not only dumb, you fucking revel in your pig shit ignorance. You are genuinely a disgrace to humanity.

    60. Re: Advice by multi+io · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the leftists out there that's called capitalism. North Korea communist socialist shithole. South Korea a shining beacon of capitalist freedom. You get North Korea when you vote Democrats or the left.

      Well, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is the more pro-business one these days as Republicans are regressing into protectionist alt-right populism, destroying stability, amassing debt, eroding the rule of law and damaging trade relations with the the world. Also blue states, on average, produce more private sector jobs and have more GDP per capita.

    61. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, Kim's strategy is to start with "offering" to dismantle the testing facility he already blew up, and seeing if Trump is dumb enough to go for it.

    62. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No different than many other countries when it suits them.....Russia, China, NK, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, The list is long and not surprising. You did know that right?

      Geekpoet

    63. Re: Advice by kenh · · Score: 3

      The fact is, Canada does have a protected market for dairy that keeps its dairy farmers in business.

      And somehow the US protecting it's steel industries for the same reason (to keep US steel mills in business) is somehow an insult to Canadian soldiers that have fought alongside American soldiers?

      Puh-leeze!

      --
      Ken
    64. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also, consider this. Canada still imports 10% of its dairy from the US. The US, in contrast, caps imports of foreign dairy at 3%".

      I trust you understand that Canada has one tenth the population of the US. So given your numbers, if canada sells 10 million liters of milk, 1 million comes from the US. The US, in this scenario, would sell 100 million liters of milk and 3% off that translates into 3 million liters of imported milk. Using absolute numbers instead of relative would indicate a trade deficit (1 million != 3 million)

    65. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Haha that's so funny. California is turning into a shithole. Run by Democrats. Detroit ran by Democrats last 50 years = shithole. The Republican owned businesses in those states you mean are doing good.

    66. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we aren't "actually negotiating,"

      The thing that makes current peace talks different from previous is that Xi Jinping have solidified his position.
      Whatever will come out of this meeting is what was decided between China and North Korea in the meeting they had before the peace talks started.
      Maybe Jinping thinks that he can use Trumps isolationist tendencies to make him pull out US forces from the Korean peninsula.
      The US forces are already unpopular among the SK population. If North Korea were to calm down considerably and Trump keeps acting like a buffoon then they might no longer be welcome there.
      If sanctions on NK are lifted then there is a new source of cheap labor and natural resources in that area and China would rather have it under its own control than something under US/SK supervision.

    67. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama had not much talent outside of being a 'likeable guy'.

      Trump, billionaire, wrote art of deal, tv star, beat politically experienced scumbags to become president.

      HAS BEEN FULFILLING CAMPAIGN PROMISES AT A STARTLING RATE.

      Bringing back money to the US, lowering taxes, actually doing something useful on North Korea, fixing trade imbalanced.

      You just have trump derangement syndrome. If he cured cancer, you'd be screaming he's just out to put doctors out of a job. That is insane.

    68. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got 60 years of no hot war. What did you want, a hot war? Are you nuts?

    69. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just to prove what a good negotiator he is, he's going to do it with one hand tied behind his back...

    70. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Trump can make something different work with North Korea, I'm all for it. I just wish he'd resist the compulsion to undo everything Obama did, like improving relations with Cuba, which were similarly fucked up for decades.

    71. Re: Advice by terrycarlino · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.

    72. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not. We should have done what Trump did. Strangle their economy until they came to the table, and negotiate a peace treaty that includes market reforms and possible reunification.

    73. Re: Advice by RedK · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem with Trump "calling out" other countries, is that he typically doesn't actually have a leg to stand on because he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Take the Canadian Diary complaint. No-one seems to know where Trump pulled the 300% tariff untruth

      https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2018/01-99/ch04-2018-eng.pdf

      You're welcome.

      Source: Am Canadian. We do tariff dairy, not just from the US, but from everywhere (France cheeses please!) so protect our own dairy farmer through a supply management scheme meant to garantee them to revenue. Welcome to Protectionism, it's ok when we do it, but somehow not when Trump does it. It's hypocritical. Trump is right as far as Dairy is concerned.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    74. Re:Advice by halivar · · Score: 1

      Hold on, is it my fault, or none of my business? It can't be both.

    75. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAS BEEN FULFILLING CAMPAIGN PROMISES AT A STARTLING RATE.

      Could you please provide some proof for this because it is simply NOT true..

    76. Re: Advice by cob666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.

      I believe that THIS STATEMENT in and of itself is part of the problem. The constant bickering between people that define themselves as being either 'Left' or 'Right', or 'Conservative' or 'Liberal'. I tell people that I'm a old school Republican, I believe in more power at the State level with a lean and efficient Federal Government. With that said, Trump is a fucking IDIOT who constantly and consistently contradicts himself, lies about everything, refuses to admit that he is or was wrong about anything and believes himself to be the smartest person in the room, on every subject. He holds himself above people that are experts in their field and he has no tact or grace. Trump would NEVER be able to accomplish any of the things you mentioned because he is not able to keep qualified people on his staff.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    77. Re: Advice by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      Trump may be factually correct but I am not sure that's the point. We do outnumber you 10:1 and I can understand why you would want to preserve your own industries. The rationale would be the same that Trump himself uses. It's all about looking out for yourself (and your own people) first.

      Although taxing your own people has it's own problems.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    78. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He did not write 'art of the deal'
      You know that right?
      https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

    79. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you miss is that USA too subsidize massively the dairy product BUT it is hidden in a lot of bills (commodity, crop insurance, disaster programs, ...) and levels (federal, state, ...). It is a mess to better hide the reality from the citizens, otherwise I think that people will disapprove. You can check it on this website (Don't forget to count what cow eat). What Trump asks is just a one-way ticket! When a country with a population 10 times higher is massively subsidize something, you are forced to protect yourself.

      (and let's discuss the logic, Canadian are taxing dairy, then I will tax European cars).

      Let's talk about dishonesty.

    80. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But trying to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons

      Too late, this is already done with transfer from Pakistan... US Friend with very ambiguous role in many conflicts...

    81. Re:Advice by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And lets not forget the last time we negotiated with them they broke every single promise they made. They took the money, kept the nuclear program and continued on their merry path. The reason people didn't negotiate with NK is they can't be trusted.

      Instead Trump will do what Clinton did, he'll get promises, he'll provide sanctions relief and the NKians with violate the agreement left, right and center without repercussion. He doesn't know the history so he'll repeat it, he's a fool.

    82. Re: Advice by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, so treaties aren't worth anything, international law is impotent, and nuclear non-proliferation is a fantasy.

      What is the solution again? Unilateral action?

      Or should we reconsider the NNPT entirely? Why not, since we have so far ignored the other weapons of mass destruction that are coming to the fore.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    83. Re:Advice by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      More information is bad, less information is good, just fly by the seat of your pants!

      That's essentially what you're saying. The fact that you've been modded up just means that the Trump supporters and/or trolls that infest Slashdot as much as they do anywhere else on the Internets just happen to have mod points to spend today.

    84. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that it was Obama that imposed much tougher sanctions on North Korea right?

    85. Re: Advice by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Canada isn't claiming its supply system for Dairy is for national security reasons (the rationale that Trump is using to justify the steel and aluminum tariffs)

    86. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, additionally, Obama had the same complaints.

      Poorly crafted propaganda will ensure he wins a second term.

    87. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that under three different previous administrations over both parties we've had deals similar to this right? Each time North Korea reneged on the deal. Of course this is the first time with their current leader.

    88. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is determined to catch up, however. He will not let this Golf Divide stand! It must be an American citizen to be the best golf president.

    89. Re: Advice by greythax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know I am supposed to reward rather than punish with mod points, but I really do wish /. would add a mod category "-1 Without a basis in fact." Times like these it would come in handy.

    90. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, no as a non-physicist how are you going to verify the decommissioning of the nuclear program? Quite frankly your post is idiotic.

      There is a reason the energy department always had a phd heading it until now and its not just for funsies.

      How many centrifuges can be maintained before you have enough to enrich uranium for a bomb? Can any be repurposed for non-military purposes? What happens with existing stockpiles of nuclear material? All things you would want someone with a background in nuclear physics to review before agreeing to anything.

      Put it this way, do you want a neurologist reviewing your tests before agreeing to neurosurgery? Or just accept some bartenders judgement that your headaches will be cured if you just cut into your frontal lobe?

    91. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize that Korea is still a declared war zone?

    92. Re: Advice by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Trump could start WWIII, murder Malala Yousafzai on national TV and sell national secrets on Ebay and the right would still support him. There is literally no way for him to be a failure in their eyes

    93. Re:Advice by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Yep... This shit should've been dealt with many years ago, but the puppets in office then had less important things to do.

      Remember the Korean war? That was an attempt to "deal with it". So you are suggesting we should have re-started the Korean war?

      A lot of countries are going to have the tech to go Nuclear in the next 50 years. Bombing the shit out of them all isn't going to be an option.

    94. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Protectionism

      Better supply-side management than the badly failing subsidy system in the US. Those Wisconsin dairy farmers that havent gone bust yet are crying out to adopt the Canadian system.

    95. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just name calling is not a coherent argument. Antifa is only good for name calling. Come up with some solutions, or thought out advice. Your incoherent rant is just one more flat earther calling the kettle black.

    96. Re: Advice by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "(do you call it a lie? A misunderstanding? It's so hard to tell with that idiot whether he's lying or actually believes the idiotic things he's saying"

      When is everyone going to get it? This is how he keeps people on their back foot. The Canadian Prime Minnister made an absolute fucking fool of himself on the world stage the other day. He doesn't know it yet...or perhaps the realization has just hit him.

      Here is the process...

      1) trump spouts a bunch of shit that makes him sound totally crazy and uninformed
      2) works behind the scenes on the real issues using sensible measures and policies
      3) dumbasses react as though Trump really believes the stuff he just said, while he is working they are distracted and flailing about
      4) everything hashes out, the dumbasses who reacted end up with lawyers, media, officials on their ass to resign

      Even if you assume he is following the above MO he still gives you nothing to work with.

      These people in Washington and the media were educated at elite schools and are supposedly smart but they keep getting beaten (fucking owned more like it) by a buffoon!!

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    97. Re: Advice by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Or "-1 Demonstrably False"

    98. Re:Advice by hey! · · Score: 1

      There's really no way to stop a country of twenty five million people with its own uranium reserves from developing nuclear weapons, if they're patient and willing to inflict enough economic pain on their own people.

      You can keep nuclear fuel out of a country like Iraq, but countries like North Korea and Iran can dig uranium out of their own soil. North Korea has millions ot tons of high grade uranium reserves, and in in the 70s-90s it received key technology and equipment from Pakistan and Russia. This technology enabled them to pursue both the uranium and plutonium routes: centrifuge enrichment and production of chemically separable plutonium from natural uranium.

      Access to uranium and fuel-processing know-how: once a rogue state has passed those two milestones there's no attractive options left for keeping them out of the nuclear club. There's really only one thing you can do: put international inspectors on the ground. Any "agreement" with a regime like the DPRK that doesn't include inspections is worthless.

      Getting inspectors on the ground puts us in the old "pick any two" scenario. Military force would be effective and quick, but the cost is astronomical, especially given Seoul's proximity to the DMZ. All the cheaper effective options are much slower. They take patience, diplomacy, and coordination with allies -- presuming we have any left.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    99. Re: Advice by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I tell people that I'm a old school Republican, I believe in more power at the State level with a lean and efficient Federal Government. With that said, Trump is a fucking IDIOT

      You sir are a hero. No sarcasm. We need more conservatives / republicans to stop mindlessly lining up along party lines. As a liberal, I promise to vote republican in 2020 if you oust Trump from your ticket. Run Pence, whoever you want.

      Trump would NEVER be able to accomplish any of the things you mentioned because he is not able to keep qualified people on his staff.

      Exactly. Being a successful leader isn't about being the smartest person in the room. It's about being smart enough to listen to the smartest people in the room (and knowing enough to invite them into the room in the first place).

    100. Re: Advice by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US.

      The only reason the Iran deal didn't open the Iranian market to the US is that the US refuses to participate in it. As for that "pinky promise", it was a lot more than a promise. It was a very intrusive and nearly impossible to game inspection regime that ensured that Iran remained within the terms of the deal - which they have.

    101. Re: Advice by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      Trump could cure cancer,

      I doubt it.

      elevate world hunger,

      That one I could believe.

      and invent weather control

      Which he would use to ensure that his golf courses were always sunny, and the competition's would always have thunderstorms over them.

    102. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Since when has the US given a hoot about international laws?

      International law is something you accuse others of breaking, so you can play the moral superiority game.
      It's not something you particularly care about yourself, because sovereignty is more important.

    103. Re: Advice by hey! · · Score: 1

      Not "Russia and China" -- the Soviet Union and Pakistan. So far as I know there is no evidence that the Russian Federation or PRC have transferred nuclear technology to the DPRK.

      Americans tend to view the world in bilateral terms: either you're with us or against us. But that model doesn't fit many conflicts, such as Syria, Yemen, or North Korea. Since China and the US don't agree on Korea policy, we assume that the DPRK has good relations with China. In fact the DPRK has bad relations with both the US and the PRC.

      China is believed to have broached the possibility of replacing Kim Jong-Un with Kim Jong-nam with Kim's uncle Jang Song-thaek. That's why Jang was executed and Jong-nam assasinated. DPRK did once have friendly relations with the PRC, but they've been a PITA for China's leadership for many years now.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    104. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds oddly like how Obama was treated doesn't it? Shoe is on their foot now and suddenly they're whining about fair treatment. Amazing...

    105. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, a simple policy -- "start something and you are toast" -- has kept them contained. Trump is close to convincing them of the opposite "unless we start something, we're toast", which is hardly brilliant.

    106. Re: Advice by hey! · · Score: 1

      International law is just a more efficient and less barbaric way for the strong to enforce their will on the weak. International laws and norms matter insofar as the strong have a political interest in enforcing them.

      Take Iraq vs. North Korea. Iraq tested the waters of defiance by pushing back on nuclear inspections, but North Korea outright flouted its NNPT obligations and withdrew when it was caught. But even though North Korea's violation of the treaty was well-documented, and its weapons program known to be much closer to fruition, an international coalition invaded Iraq because a US president wanted that country invaded.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    107. Re:Advice by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      This is a disingenuous NYT piece we are talking about. This is literally them trying to start shit...gives their readers something to talk about....unless you read it...then you realize there is nothing to talk about.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    108. Re:Advice by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, Trump has removed the only barrier that stood in the way of Iran following the same path.

      You can also be sure Kim is quite aware of what happened to the deal with Iran and consequently what America's word on anything is actually worth.

      Most all of America's allies and trading partners have recently seen first hand just how unstable Trump is. It is funny watching Iran saying to them, to paraphase, "See? Now you all know how we feel too". At one time, if you had asked who is more trustworthy, Iran or America, it would not have required so much thought.

      Trump certainly has turned the US into a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

    109. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop using FACTS in your arguments.

      Don't you know you are just supposed to point and scream "LIBERAL!" and let the Pavlovian-Response take care of any thought processes that might get in the way?

      Have you learned nothing in the last 2 years? You are not supposed to "discuss" things, just fling poo at each other while the rest of the jabbering monkeys take sides and scream and jump up and down in response.

    110. Re:Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but the OP has to do with the lack of input from physics science advisors. They didn't make the prosperous South Korea nor have they stopped or limited nuclear proliferation. Is there any value in listening to them? Let's not forget that when South Africa gave up its nuclear program, those same scientists were completely unaware of the program - good job Science!

    111. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      HAS BEEN FULFILLING CAMPAIGN PROMISES AT A STARTLING RATE.

      Could you please provide some proof for this because it is simply NOT true..

      It's mostly behind the scenes. Not the huge flashy stuff like banning Muslims or building the wall, but with the sort of social culture wars he has been fighting for. I suggest reading/listening to this interview from reporter Dan Diamond, about Trump's appointments at the Dept. of Health and Human Services. We're talking about abortion rights, "conscience protections" for doctors and pharmacists, reductions or eliminations for any protections for gay people, etc. He mentions interviewing Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, who says that "from a policy standpoint, [Donald Trump] has delivered more than any other president in my lifetime." As in, Trump has done more for Christian conservatives than Nixon did, than Reagan, than both Bushes. That is why Christian Conservatives flocked to Trump during the election, because they feared the sort of judges that Hillary might appoint.

      That is why they overlooked his rather un-Christian temperament, his corrupt (professionally and personally) past, and that is why they are still on board the Donald Trump Express.

    112. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or considered a success, by the other side.

    113. Re: Advice by RedK · · Score: 1

      What you miss is that USA too subsidize massively the dairy product

      So does Canada, on top of supply management. Most provinces have massive subsidies allocated to any farm entreprise, such as paid for protections in case of harmful disease of cattle and weather phenomenoms.

      And then have supply management thrown on top. Let's face, this is "Never Trump" syndrome when the media fail to report on it properly. Before Trump, Canadian media had no qualm pointing out the double protection of Subsidies AND supply management :

      https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/taxpayers-oblivious-to-the-cost-of-farm-subsidies/article13055078/

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    114. Re: Advice by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      As a Republican I long to disagree with you on the protectionist thing.

      But I can't !!

      >8(

      That being said Trumps 5% growth crush's Obama's 2%.

      That is tax cuts and de-regulation all the way.

    115. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More trustworthy too.

    116. Re: Advice by kenh · · Score: 1

      So what? Steel is a vital part of our national defense, so protecting that industry is in the national interest - if we go to war, should we have to rely on imported steel?

      Canada buys 10% of it's dairy from the us, and uses protections (tariffs) to keep 90% of dairy needsmet by Canadian dairies - what if Trump said "we want to put a tariff on all foreign steel to ensure we retain the ability to meet 90% of our steel needs domestically, and like Canada with dairy, we'll commit to buying 10% of our steel from foreign producers"?

      --
      Ken
    117. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bu..bu..but he's Donald Trump! Surely you misunderstand. It's Trump! He's always wrong by that virtue alone! And everyone who voted for him is a racist, misogynist, David Duke loving Klansman who will soon be shone to be on the wrong side of history. The future is female, asshole!

    118. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is a valid rationale for any large food or fabrication industry. Dairy and Steel included.

    119. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.

      Yes, I know, you've cut and pasted this nonsense over and over again. We're definitely familiar with your message here.

    120. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      tell people that I'm a old school Republican, I believe in more power at the State level with a lean and efficient Federal Government. With that said, Trump is a fucking IDIOT

      You don't like Trump because he's a liar and idiot and takes credit for things he didn't do? Did you not get the memo that because Trump won, you're not only supposed to abandon all your principles, but pretend that you never had them and follow the leader no matter how immoral you might think he is?

    121. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Play chicken with them when it's our allies who will take the worst fallout.

    122. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      MacArthur wanted to nuke them and that is exactly what we should have done.

      MacArthur insisted that we invade China, who would have declared war on the US, and the Soviet Union would have as well, since they had a defensive pact.

    123. Re: Advice by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      3. Obama was appeasing Iran with literal palletes of US cash and an inspection regime which was full of holes. Many people feel confirmed with the left's increasingly insane rhetoric towards Israel and Jews generally that Obama did this to hasten not deter the Iranians getting the bomb because in the left's view, Israel is the sorceof the problems in the Middle East.

      That cash was Iran's not the US's. It was the release of Iranian assets that the US had seized.
      Israel is not "the source of problems in the Middle East," but its creation was a vast miscalculation. But, well, that was done long ago, so no use crying about it now. But to frame "all Israel = good, everyone else = evil" is pretty nuts.

    124. Re:Advice by jythie · · Score: 1

      When you have an ally on one border and two quasi-superpowers on the other, yeah, you worry about destabilizing.

    125. Re:Advice by jythie · · Score: 1

      On the other side of it, the US also broke its word during the Bush Jr years. Both the US and DPRK have shown themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to treaties, both will violate whatever they like when it serves a domestic agenda.

    126. Re: Advice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Stalemated war between sunni and shia...actually is good work!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    127. Re: Advice by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      As both a Canadian and a free-market enthusiast (who has studied the dairy supply control/tariffs in depth before), I have to say it is actually a case I have struggled to know what the right answer is.

      See, it looks as simple as protecting a share of profits from some group of your voters, but the real reason is self-preservation. Imagine the case where large US dairy farms (who are noted to produce too much product) continually dump cheap dairy onto the Canadian market. The real issue is that Canadian producers eventually go bankrupt, or those that are left cannot serve the entire Canadian market. For something as critical as dairy, it seems an unacceptable risk to rely on a foreign country to meet your quota. What if there was some sort of depression or natural disaster.. do you not think the US would limit dairy exports to provide for their own people first?

      This was actually the first instance where tariffs, something I vehemently oppose normally, can be used for good measure.

    128. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada isn't claiming its supply system for Dairy is for national security reasons (the rationale that Trump is using to justify the steel and aluminum tariffs)

      And the reason he is claiming national security reasons is that it allows him to impose these tarifs without asking congress. Any other reason, and he would have to ask for approval. I call that 'presidential overreach' but what do I know.

    129. Re: Advice by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Or "-1 Batshit crazy"?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    130. Re: Advice by tbannist · · Score: 1

      "Also, consider this. Canada still imports 10% of its dairy from the US. The US, in contrast, caps imports of foreign dairy at 3%".

      I trust you understand that Canada has one tenth the population of the US. So given your numbers, if canada sells 10 million liters of milk, 1 million comes from the US. The US, in this scenario, would sell 100 million liters of milk and 3% off that translates into 3 million liters of imported milk. Using absolute numbers instead of relative would indicate a trade deficit (1 million != 3 million)

      Or, you could use actual numbers from the USDA. Total imports from Canada (not including dried milk) in 2017 were 598kg out of the 15,673,738kg of dairy imports. So using your methodology above, that would actually mean that Canada would buy 1 million kg of dairy products from the U.S. and in return the U.S. would buy 3815 kg of dairy products from Canada. When we look at the actual numbers, it does seem a little bit imbalanced doesn't it?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    131. Re: Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      For something as critical as dairy, it seems an unacceptable risk to rely on a foreign country to meet your quota. What if there was some sort of depression or natural disaster.. do you not think the US would limit dairy exports to provide for their own people first?

      The same can be said for a vast array of commodities that a modern nation depends on. Trump started this trade war with steel tariffs to keep the US steel industry alive. And why stop there? US manufacturing has been decimated, with virtually anything you can buy being produced overseas. It's benefited the US consumer in the short-term, but how long can this continue?

    132. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      China, the provider of North Korea's military umbrella, has fought the US to a stalemate in Korea before. And it has only gotten stronger since then. Much stronger. It has kept North Korea in the saddle militarily, politically, and economically ... and there's nothing the US could have done about that.

      That's a flat-out lie, because as Trump showed, the US had leverage with China that it was too afraid to use. It was Trump that succeeded in getting China to get tough on sanctions.

      Granted, some arm-twisting can sometimes go a long way. But only competent arm-twisting. Not the incoherent verbiage coming out of the WH now.

      Funny, because here you realize Trump actually succeeded with arm-twisting, but then seek to immediately discredit it. Let's get real: Obama was a doormat when it came to foreign affairs.

    133. Re: Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That cash was Iran's not the US's. It was the release of Iranian assets that the US had seized.

      Well that's a one-sided summary. Here are some more details:

      "Obama's administration came under scrutiny last week after details emerged about a $400 million cash payment made to Iran on the same day the country released a handful of American hostages. The administration insists the payment -- part of a separate decades-old settlement for an arms deal -- was negotiated separately from the talks on releasing the prisoners.

      The payment was acknowledged by the President and reported upon in January, but new information about the manner of delivery -- including wooden palettes of cash being unloaded from a military plane in Tehran -- triggered accusations the US had paid ransom money for captive Americans."

    134. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Trump certainly has turned the US into a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

      Right. That's why China went along with Trump and enacted meaningful sanctions on North Korea.

      What a laughing stock, he didn't let the rest of the world walk all over the US in a futile climate agreement.

      What a laughing stock, he doesn't think the US should be a dumping ground for shithole migrants. Proud Europe, and honorary European nation Canada, instead will be the dumping ground! Humanitarian superpowers! So much enrichment!

    135. Re: Advice by Raenex · · Score: 0

      Also blue states, on average, produce more private sector jobs and have more GDP per capita.

      You're mixing up the cart with the horse. Look at how "blue" California is being run into the ground, and Californians are fleeing to places like Texas. Of course, they still vote "blue", so they're going to ruin Texas just like they did California.

    136. Re: Advice by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      You sound right, but you're not. You are assuming that the facts being fed to you are correct. In reality the US has always used it's position of strength in trading power to screw over almost all of it's partners, with possibly the exception of China. You'll note in the news, there has been lots of talk about trade imbalances with other smaller trading partners, but while China is mentioned Trump has gone out of his way to also appease them.

      Case in point softwood lumber and Canada. It has been a sore point since the start of NAFTA. The US has maintained that Canada subsidies it's lumber industry, and dumps cheap lumber on the US which hurts US interests. This is BS. It has been said by at least the last 3 presidents. It has gone to an independent tribunal twice already, and both times Canada has won because there is no substance to the claims. The claims are purely political to the US forest industry, who themselves know that this is BS. but do not care so long as their political leaders make them more money. In both instances there were levies attached to Canadian lumber in the middle of so called free trade to the tune of 5 or 6 Billion each time (which the US government gets, not producers, they just get to be more falsely competitive). In both times after "winning" the trade dispute do you think Canada ever saw any of that? Nope, because the US would basically just ignore it because due to their strong trading position they can. This is why when Trudeau calls out Trumps accusations as being insulting, they are, because they are baseless and made up, and is just an excuse to push around trading partners. As much as Trump has said NAFTA has hurt the US the opposite is true, as on the Canadian side of things (as you pointed out), it has ended up making Canada *much* more dependent on the US for trade where before it was more diversified. The end result is that the US is in an even more stronger trading position than ever before, allowing it to more less dictate terms. While this has always happened really, the extent to which Trump is dealing with it is insulting. At least the previous US governments might at least buy you dinner first before screwing you.

      Anyway we'll see what happens, but it would be good for Canada long term to disentangle itself at least a little bit and diversify their trade so as not to be so beholden to our US masters. No doubt if only because of geography it will probably always be our largest trading partner, but if Canada ever wants to have a chance at an even trade partnership it needs to become less reliant on US trade.

    137. Re: Advice by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Not new, but never as overt, which is where the insulting component comes in.

      Take softwood lumber. The US has charged tariffs on Canadian lumber almost since the inception of so called "free trade" under the auspices that Canada subsidies it's industry. This is at least the 3rd US president that has done this. It has gone to an independent tribunal at least twice before, and Canada "won" both times, though with little actual result because the US continues to do whatever it wants anyway because of their strong trading position. I expect this to more less continue.

      So while this sort of thing has been going on for a long time, and Trump is merely the latest, at least the previous instances they at least had the good graces to do it on the down low, or give some meaningless token win for the PM to use politically. Trump is just publicly throwing BS into the faces of trading partners who know full well it is BS, who are rightly calling it insulting because it is. It remains to be scene if any of the US trading partners have the spine to stand up to it, but it is pretty difficult to do when the US has such a strong trading position because they are so dependent on US trade.

    138. Re:Advice by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think what they really need to look at are countries that have nuclear ability, but posses no current nuclear weapons. Could they make some? Sure, but it would take a bit of time. I think that is not only a deterrent, but also a nice safety, in that it offers a "cooling down" period in that it would take a little bit of time to produce any. Look at who those countries are, and why they are the way they are, and what can be done to make NK more like that. Certainly peace with SK and withdrawal of US troops would be a good first step I think obviously.

      Unlike places like Iran ruled by religious nutjobs, NK is a bit more straight forward. Kim would likely like more wealth, power, influence, and at the same time ensure that his domestic position is secure. A lot of those things can be done pretty symbolically without much effort. Peace with SK, lift sanctions, give him a seat at the big boy table politically. That would also help modernize NK a bit, keep people fed, increase wealth (to which I'm sure he and his cronies can amass the lions share), all of which are positives for him as his forced domestic popularity would probably become real. If the cost of that is his small largely ineffective nuclear arsenal, I think he'd do it, he just needs a number of concessions, the singular probably most important being zero threat to his rule, and for largely the legitimatizing of it.

    139. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump could cure cancer,

      I doubt it.

      elevate world hunger,

      That one I could believe.

      and invent weather control

      Which he would use to ensure that his golf courses were always sunny, and the competition's would always have thunderstorms over them.

      +10

    140. Re: Advice by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      So you don't care if the country will be doing well after Trump's term, you don't care who it is on the ticket, as long as it is not Trump?

      It is fair to say that you don't want Trump because you can't stand him regardless of how things turn out to be. As an intellectual though you would do well to consider, what is it in Trump that creates such a reaction in you.

    141. Re: Advice by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So you don't care if the country will be doing well after Trump's term, you don't care who it is on the ticket, as long as it is not Trump?

      If the country is doing well it'll be in spite of him not because of him. The US was doing fine before him and it'll do fine without him. It'll be something that Pence or whoever can easily carry on, without the moronic antics on Twitter, without installing their retard children into positions of power where they don't belong, without dismantling our institutions, without the kowtowing to Russia, etc. etc. etc.

      what is it in Trump that creates such a reaction in you

      Gee let's see if I can think of anything. Oh I can't. He's just a peach of a human and I can't do anything but love and want to be just like him.

    142. Re:Advice by golodh · · Score: 1

      China, the provider of North Korea's military umbrella, has fought the US to a stalemate in Korea before. And it has only gotten stronger since then. Much stronger. It has kept North Korea in the saddle militarily, politically, and economically ... and there's nothing the US could have done about that.

      That's a flat-out lie, because as Trump showed, the US had leverage with China that it was too afraid to use. It was Trump that succeeded in getting China to get tough on sanctions.

      There, there. Don't strain yourself now. By checking up on facts for example.

      (1) Take Wikipedia for example: North Korea's missile program and the start of its nuclear programme dates from 1962. Good idea to blame those failings on President Obama, but that won't wash. Except perhaps with the Trump base.

      (2) Much as I'd like to hear that Dirty Donald had actually scored a major win against North Korea, I'm skeptical about the extent to which North Korea will actually, well, get rid of its nukes. I surely hope so, and if it does I'll be happy to accord Dirty Donald due credit. Only, so far it looks as if Little Rocket Man has scored a major PR win without actually doing any concessions. The phrase "Work towards de-nuclearisation" doesn't have a firm end date, does it? And it doesn't promise any actual deliverables or other concrete results does it?

      It might go either way, but as I see it, an over-eager greenhorn politician just got suckered into granting a major PR coup to a dictator who has zero intention of making good on the suggestions he used as bait.

      And you might also note that China hasn't given an inch on the North Korea issue before it was made to lose face when North Korea actually exploded a nuke.

      I know, I know, never pester someone from the Trump base with facts ... it upsets them. But here we're among grown-ups, yes?

      Granted, some arm-twisting can sometimes go a long way. But only competent arm-twisting. Not the incoherent verbiage coming out of the WH now.

      Funny, because here you realize Trump actually succeeded with arm-twisting, but then seek to immediately discredit it. Let's get real: Obama was a doormat when it came to foreign affairs.

      Yes, very funny, because I happen to think he failed in achieving any results at all on North Korea. Like Pres. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr., and Obama before him. Except for putting his face in yet another a photo op. That's why I made that remark. Twisting arms is something Dirty Donald might be able to do against small building contractors, but it doesn't seem to be getting him (and more importantly: the US) any results on the world stage.

    143. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      There, there. Don't strain yourself now. By checking up on facts for example.

      You obviously didn't strain yourself in your "fact" checking, because you haven't refuted my main point: that Trump got China, North Korea's "umbrella", to enact meaningful sanctions. You can point to the distant past all you want, but we're talking about the difference between this President and the last.

      Much as I'd like to hear that Dirty Donald had actually scored a major win against North Korea, I'm skeptical about the extent to which North Korea will actually, well, get rid of its nukes.

      Yes, so am I. But the current position is better than North Korea blatantly testing long range missiles designed to strike the US along with continued nuclear testing.

      And you might also note that China hasn't given an inch on the North Korea issue before it was made to lose face when North Korea actually exploded a nuke.

      Perhaps you can "fact check" if North Korea had exploded nukes before.

      Twisting arms is something Dirty Donald might be able to do against small building contractors, but it doesn't seem to be getting him (and more importantly: the US) any results on the world stage.

      Oh really?

    144. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.

      The ONLY way any of those things could happen would be despite Trump, though he would immediately credit. Trump the person is incapable of doing any of those things himself. He's proven again and again to be a complete idiot, truly among the stupidest people I've ever seen. Trump the president has shown nothing but incompetence throughout his entire term screwing up everything he touches. So yeah, if all those things were to happen it would be AMAZING but it would in absolutely no way make Trump successful. This isn't about partisanship, it's simple logic and intelligence. Trump has long passed the point of no return. He will be remembered for NOTHING but being the worst US president most people have ever experienced. That is his legacy and it cannot be changed at this point no matter what happens.

    145. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.

      I believe that THIS STATEMENT in and of itself is part of the problem. The constant bickering between people that define themselves as being either 'Left' or 'Right', or 'Conservative' or 'Liberal'. I tell people that I'm a old school Republican, I believe in more power at the State level with a lean and efficient Federal Government. With that said, Trump is a fucking IDIOT who constantly and consistently contradicts himself, lies about everything, refuses to admit that he is or was wrong about anything and believes himself to be the smartest person in the room, on every subject. He holds himself above people that are experts in their field and he has no tact or grace. Trump would NEVER be able to accomplish any of the things you mentioned because he is not able to keep qualified people on his staff.

      You're both essentially right, though. It has nothing to do with right or left but there is quite literally nothing Trump can do to not be a failure now. He's just been too horrific for too long.

    146. Re: Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the leftists out there that's called capitalism. North Korea communist socialist shithole. South Korea a shining beacon of capitalist freedom. You get North Korea when you vote Democrats or the left.

      Well, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is the more pro-business one these days as Republicans are regressing into protectionist alt-right populism, destroying stability, amassing debt, eroding the rule of law and damaging trade relations with the the world. Also blue states, on average, produce more private sector jobs and have more GDP per capita.

      Pssh, Trump supporters don't understand facts, logic or reason. That's not sarcasm or snark. They truly don't understand what those three things are, what they mean or how they work so using them in an argument is unfortunately futile.

    147. Re:Advice by golodh · · Score: 1

      Twisting arms is something Dirty Donald might be able to do against small building contractors, but it doesn't seem to be getting him (and more importantly: the US) any results on the world stage.

      Oh really?

      Yes, really.

      The fundamental trade issue between the US and China on is _not_ tariffs.

      Instead it's China's routine use of state interference (subsidies, dumping, wholesale IP theft, espionage targeted at overseas military projects, tarif barriers, non-tarif barriers, requirements to deposit IP and source code for those wishing to open a plant in China, installation of a Chinese "partner", etc.) to ensure that China grows firms that suck in global state-of-the-art knowhow, build a local logistics chain, and as a result are globally competitive. Followed by said firms wiping the floor with overseas competitors.

      See e.g. here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

      Of course it all depends on your negotiation objective. If your negotiation objective is to ensure a level playing field, then Dirty Donald's antics so far have failed miserably.

      If your objective is to engage in some political window-dressing (like opening up the Chinese car market a little bit so that Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi and, yes, Ford and GM too, can duke it out there) in order to sucker voters into misinterpreting the meaning of what the results achieved so far, then his antics are a thundering success of course.

      So: 10/10 for political window dressing and 1/8 for actual achievement. Yup, Sounds like a certain real-estate dealer we all know.

    148. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The fundamental trade issue between the US and China on is _not_ tariffs.

      It's part of it, and only in your Land of Denial do you think getting tariffs on cars reduced from 25% to 15% isn't a positive result.

      Instead it's China's routine use of state interference

      Then you should be glad to know that Trump is concerned with the overall balance of trade, and not just tariffs, and has complained about those other things too.

      But who are we kidding? You have Trump Derangement Syndrome, and aren't interested in giving Trump credit for anything.

    149. Re:Advice by golodh · · Score: 1
      Dirty Donald's touting a reduction in car import tariffs is an optical result only when the real issues are untouched. Reducing car tariffs somewhat is such a small result that it can only be called optical. In the mean time he has spent his powder, and this is all he got for it in return. Surely you understand that?

      Those big underlying issues are something you can only change if you're able to isolate China by building trade blocks around it. Like TPP (and TTIP). And guess what? That was the first thing Dirty Donald destroyed.

      Preferring instead to try his off-the-cuff macho man approach. Which yielded only optical results, embroiled the US in two major trade wars, and totally blew away any chance of isolating China. Both Putin and Xi couldn't have believed their luck.

      Some people are happy to go along with his continuous fake-it-until-you-make-it approach. They're known as his Fan Base.

      Other people (like me) insist on him actually earning some of the credits he doesn't tire of claiming. Anyone who does that has a claim to being fact-based and a realist. Except to his Fan Base, who knows us as "Trump Haters".

    150. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In the mean time he has spent his powder, and this is all he got for it in return. Surely you understand that?

      Surely you understand trade issue with China is still in play? No, you do not, because you are in Denial Land.

      Like TPP

      The devil is in the details. Signing a bad deal to try and get a better deal with China doesn't make sense.

    151. Re: Advice by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Part of the supply system is also to protect the Canadian industry from the ~$40 billion in dairy subsidies that US producers receive. In fact the US dairy market is so distorted that they over produce and end up dumping vast quantities of milk. Canada dropping its tariffs would open the flood gates to cheap, low quality (Canada's has much higher dairy standards), subsidized dairy products that would destroy the industry. Get rid of the subsidies and we can talk. The reason that the "national security" angle is bogus is that you're looking at a country that the US shares the worlds longest undefended border, has an integrated continental defense system (NORAD), has a joint intelligence sharing agreement (5 Eyes) and have been close allies for 150 years. A decent chunk of the Uranium in the US nuclear arsenal was mined in Canada. Canadian military officers walk the halls of the Pentagon and sit at the consoles of the infamous "War Room". Can you, with a straight face seriously consider Canada a national security threat?

    152. Re:Advice by golodh · · Score: 1

      Surely you understand trade issue with China is still in play? No, you do not, because you are in Denial Land.

      In play? You mean the trade war against China that Dirty Donald has just kicked off? Which is probably going to cost a few thousand soy-bean farmers their farms? After a humiliating display of inane backslapping, rudderless posturing in return for "concessions" that will benefit Japan, South Korea, and Germany more than the US? You call that a success? Who's in denial here?

      The devil is in the details. Signing a bad deal to try and get a better deal with China doesn't make sense.

      TTP wasn't "bad" in any sense of the word. Business was (and is) strongly in favour of it. That means there's money in in. If you're afraid that US workers aren't going to benefit from that, that's a totally different problem.

      Plus it was still not quite settled when Dirty Donald withdrew. It would have ensured that US norms and values governed trade in the Pacific, if not world-wide. Not Chinese ones. And with one populist stroke of the pen Dirty Donald threw all that away. Wow, what a huuuge success, right?

      And now he's (a) alienated and atagonised US allies in the Pacific by showing them that there is little advantage for them in dealing with a fickle US instead of with consistent Chinese (b) proven to them that the US is stupid enough to abandon long-term objectives in favour of chasing a limited, short-term objective, (c) driven home the fact that they had better be very polite to Chine and make sure their own long-term strategy is aligned with China's.

      That's what doesn't make sense.

      In the mean time Dirty Donald has adroitly manouvered the US to the sidelines so that developments in the Pacific will more or less run their course without the US being in the lead. Well, hoo-rah! Let's sell that to the fan-base, shall we?

    153. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In play? You mean the trade war against China that Dirty Donald has just kicked off?

      You mean the trade war that had already begun with steel tariffs?

      Business was (and is) strongly in favour of it.

      "Business" is always in favor of making money, no matter the cost to somebody else or the longterm future of the nation.

    154. Re:Advice by golodh · · Score: 1

      In play? You mean the trade war against China that Dirty Donald has just kicked off?

      You mean the trade war that had already begun with steel tariffs?

      No, I mean the trade conflict that Dirty Donald has grown into a trade war by promising tariffs on 200 bln. worth of trade.

      Business was (and is) strongly in favour of it.

      "Business" is always in favor of making money, no matter the cost to somebody else or the longterm future of the nation.

      You mean mainstream business ethics that has for the past century or so consistently made our firms No.1 in the world and is the cork upon which our collective prosperity floats?

      You can either put in place conditions that take care of the needs of business (such as the rule of law, free trade, and fair shot at getting a level playing field), or you can sacrifice all that for a short-term BS publicity stunt trade war, and end up with a big recession in a world where the rule of law is absent and success is determined by whoever has the best collusion between state and business.

      Take your pick. Oh wait ... you already have. Silly of me.

    155. Re:Advice by Raenex · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the trade conflict that Dirty Donald has grown into a trade war by promising tariffs on 200 bln. worth of trade.

      It's just a continuation of what was already in play, after you foolishly said he had "spent his powder".

      You can either put in place conditions that take care of the needs of business (such as the rule of law, free trade, and fair shot at getting a level playing field)

      Go wave your magic wand and make it happen then.

  3. Who needs science by sit1963nz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only thing Trump believes in is money, and money has "In god we trust", so who the hell needs science. And the problem with science advisors, they know WAY too much that Trump does not understand. And as for all the GREAT PEOPLE that Trump knows....he'll probably end up pardoning most of them, including himself.

    1. Re: Who needs science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed..political bashing isn't insight. If we want that we can watch Robert De Niro saying F Trump on the Tony Awards. I for one am done with buying tickets for anything him and his ilk.

      Here's the thing. Trump has very knowledgeable generals on his team. He has experienced foreign policy advisors. He has a big fleet off their coast. A bad ass TAO. He has intel insights and leverage we don't even know about. The fact that NK rolled over already confirms that. Prepare for de-nuking of NK.

      For those that bash Trump now, will you reconsider if that comes to pass? If yes, respect. If no, then you didn't care about the NK situation in the first place.

    2. Re:Who needs science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump doesn't believe in money - he's a shitty businessman. If he'd taken the millions his daddy gave him and just put it in the bank he would have made more money in interest than he made through his business dealings.

      Trump believe in DOMINANCE. Money is an abstraction, but DOMINATING your opponent is real.

      To Trump winning is making you lose. In fact, it's not winning UNLESS you lose. If everyone comes away feeling satisfied (which is the aim of politics), to Trump that's not winning.

    3. Re: Who needs science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of his advisers told him that pissing off the rest of the G7 was a good idea?

    4. Re: Who needs science by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

      Trump assumes that the science is known and that what remains is politics, or in his case, tantrums.

    5. Re: Who needs science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of his advisers...

      His constituency. Remember, he ran on scrapping these deals and renegotiating them. Of course that will piss off everyone who is in love with the status quo. The USA throwing its economic weight around is exactly what his voters want.

    6. Re: Who needs science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is also working to "fulfil" the prophesies in the Bible for the "End of days"

      Why do you think he shifted the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem ...?
      To help make sure th second coming happens and Jesus will be an American....

  4. The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.

    Why would you need EITHER of those people to meet with someone like Kim Jong-un?

    They are not going to meet about science. They are not going to talk about how nuclear weapons are constructed.

    They are going to meet for the purpose of North Korea *giving up* nuclear weapons and rejoining with the south.

    What kind of "experts" can really help you here? Kim Jong-un is not exactly well balanced. What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.

    Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.

    Trump also has the experience in handling unbalanced megalomaniacs in spades, thanks to his working with real-estate construction all around the world, but most especially New York City. I defy anyone to claim that Kim Jong-un is harder to work with than the upper echelons of the Teamsters.

    One last point - the very LAST person you want to bring to a nuclear disarmament party is a nuclear weapons expert, that just screams you are not truly serious about them getting rid of nuclear weapons and they would act accordingly.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.

      This is exactly the discussion the leaders of the G7 are having today about Donald Trump.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously? I don't about you, but I would like a nuclear physicist to tell me if Un is bullshitting me.

      You admire speaking plainly? OK. I find your ignorance baffling. I cannot believe people are still supporting Trump considering everything he's fucking up.

      He's rolled back Obama's ban on coal miners dumping their waste into rivers and stream - which poisoning the water; DRINKING water for people. And god forbid if you like to fish or enjoy the water - it's fucked.
      He's neutered the CFPB - the best thing our government has done for us little people in decades. Banks are now free to steal from us again.
      He's totaling screwing up trade deals that took years to negotiate because of his childish and ignorant beliefs on trade.
      His real estate and deal making acumen was all a creation of his publicist.
      He's stirring up more trouble in the Middle East which damage this country for many many years to come.

      Unless one is an Evangelical Christian Kook who thinks he's some of messenger from your skydaddy, this guy is just fucking all of us over.

    3. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by beheaderaswp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only way North Korea will rejoin with the south is if Kim Jong-un is allowed to rule it. Will you consider that a victory? I certainly would not. South Korea is a thriving regulated capitalist economy with it's own advanced industry and government. Would you turn the south over to a deranged socialist dictator?

      Kim Jong-un isn't going to give up control of the North. Reunification would require bringing the north under control of the south.

      Trump might, however, create some kind of deal. The only leverage he has is lifting economic sanctions or war. There's no guarantee that the North would either negotiate in good faith or adhere to the "new rules". They have never honored their agreements before.

      The problem isn't the intelligence, prior attempts, or the people who worked on the problem before...

      The problem is the North Korean regime. Sadly, Trump is over his head. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the character of the man.

      All politicians are sociopaths. That doesn't guarantee intelligence or good decision making.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    4. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they are busy arguing about what sort of elitist symbol one needs attached to their name from an academic field in a position instead of appointing people capable of practical achievement within that position.

      That is why they (and you), fail to convince their adversaries and will continue to do so.

    5. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So NK will propose to disarm their nuclear weapons with a software update and Trump will shake hands and sign because the deal has the word "disarm" in it. How can you expect any kind of competency without a nuclear weapons expert?

    6. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I defy anyone to claim that Kim Jong-un is harder to work with than the upper echelons of the Teamsters.

      One last point - the very LAST person you want to bring to a nuclear disarmament party is a nuclear weapons expert, that just screams you are not truly serious about them getting rid of nuclear weapons and they would act accordingly.

      Um your comparing Kim Jong-un to a labor union leader? Really? They don't have labor unions in north korea. If you don't do what the party wants, you go to prison, and likely your family too.

      A nuclear weapons expert could explain what proposals would _really_ mean, making it less likely to have a bad proposal ratified. Not bringing one, just means you don't care about substance, and are just in this for a publicity stunt. Hell Trump may even know and expect that Kim-Jong-un is going to agree to some wonderful treaty to get sanctions lifted. It will likely be on the surface and they will keep going quietly in the background, just like they did before. A nuclear weapons expert could help you structure treaty terms to make it easier to detect fraud, much like the Iran deal did, that Trump blasted like an idiot. Hell they blasted Clinton for decades after the North went back on its words about the Agreed Framework.

      Don't get me wrong I hope it works, but most likely the North isn't going to keep their word. There is far too much experience in the past to expect them to. Of course Trump might use the result to help him win reelection, and might even actively try to hide any intelligence to the contrary right along with his tax returns and all the rest. As long as the lie is discovered too late to matter. He doesn't care.

      Even if I bought your crazy argument, it would make no sense not to have someone employed in that position, and for Trump not to have spent a lot of time getting up to speed on the details of the technology. Only a complete fucking idiot negotiates without some understanding of the actual practical details, lest they get totally screwed.

      As far as I'm concerned Donald J. Trump is effectively an actual agent of the Russian government. Trump tries to destroy the west. His actions really only make sense if you assume that. You don't do your best to destroy the alliances you need in a nuclear armed world if you actually care about your country, but it is quite clear that Donald J. Trump does not do so.

      Now his people just said their is a special place in hell for the leader of Canada. It is insane. Do we need a wall there too? Hell if this keeps up Canada may build one. Trump asked, "What do you have to lose?" Well you have your answers.

      1. ) A nuclear war, once we have no allies to help us. If there is a threat bigger than North Korea/Russia and all the rest it is America Alone, or worse much of the world together against us. That is the path we are on.
      2.) Our children's future, once the planet heats up and becomes too toxic. Thank you Scott Pruitt.
      3.) Our children's future, once the bills become due.
      4.) Truth itself. Seriously, what happened to a country we could be proud of. Can you see a new superman movie where superman proclaims that he is proud to defend truth, justice, and the American way? The current American way is lie, obscure, distract, use the system to protect your friends while also using it to hurt your enemies.

    7. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by shess · · Score: 1

      What kind of "experts" can really help you here? Kim Jong-un is not exactly well balanced. What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.

      Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.

      And his record of keeping his word will certainly help a lot in such negotiations!

    8. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we all hope that you are right (in all seriousness). However, we have not seen evidence to expect this to be the case.

      Exhibit A: Trump had so much winning at the G7 Summit I am sure that everything will go great. Trump will get a hotel (or golf course) in Pyongyang and then declare victory. Kim might destroy a few weapons for show (e.g., like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/27/korea.japan). I think this is the best that we can hope for. More frighteningly, Trump may decide to blow up at Kim like he blew up at Trudeau.

      Exhibit B: Where is the better plan to replace the Iran nuclear deal?

    9. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Rob+Y. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nonsense. Trump will probably nod his head and agree to something Kim says that sounds good (like he did in the DACA 'negotiations' at the White House), and then when he gets home and his advisers tell him he can't agree to that, he'll reverse himself, and launch a Twitter attack on Kim to shift the blame and insist he didn't say what he plainly said.

      The reason to have scientists and Korea experts in the room is to make sure Trump doesn't go off half-cocked and make a fool of himself. Of course, he's incapable of either seeing or acknowledging when he has made a fool of himself, so the whole thing's probably just a photo-op for him at this point.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    10. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by GrimSavant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sort of sad that reckless braggadocio is what passes for "insightful" nowadays, and I really don't get why people are conned into thinking that large and intractable security problems with set and firm interests can be resolved with the swagger of a used car salesman who was born into a real estate empire.

      If you focus on Kim Jong-Un, his interests are pretty straightforward even if his methods and rule are extreme. He wants to stay alive and stay in power, and balance the internal threats from a horribly subjugated population and potentially ambitions rivals in the military and his family with the external threats of the US, South Korea, Japan, and yes, even China. So what sort of uninformed bullshit will baffle Kim into losing grip on his primary interests and capitulating? And why in the world would he believe the promises of the highest profile pathological liar in the world, the one who just reneged on a similar sort of deal with Iranians, proving that the US very much is not a reliable dealmaker right now.

      And you need the nuclear weapons experts to prove that any program to dismantle the weapons program works, as if you walk in blind on the basic scientific and engineering details of the nuclear programs then you will end up blind as to the effectiveness of any disarmament measures. Not really hard for the North Koreans to cheat (which they've done before) if you don't even have the basic competence and mechanisms to verify compliance with a potential disarmament pledge.

      Perhaps you don't what to have everyone working on the nitty gritty details coming in and chatting it up with Kim in the summit, but that brings forth the lie to how this summit is supposed to be a magical way to solve the problem. Normally these high profile summits with leaders just confirm the lower level detailed negotiations and diplomacy that lead up to them and provide a bunch of nice photo ops, and last I checked the prep work to actually draft out then cement a deal has not been done yet, likely intentionally.

      I could get more sardonic and sarcastic, but if you've glanced at least a bit at Trump's business history like I have then you should probably be even more pessimistic about relying on the mythological art of the deal. The multiple bankruptcies are just the tip of the iceberg.

    11. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...he will speak plainly,"

      One thing Trump is not known for is "speaking plainly". He's known for Rampling incoherent and contradictory tirades.

    12. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The guy just had a toddler temper tantrum with Canada and now he's supposed to be talking to the most crazy dictator out there and we think he can accomplish something? Sure, we *should* be talking. But we should be prepared too, get the facts too before negotiating. He should know how many nukes we have, should know the history of the Korean war, know why the North and South don't trust each other, know why North Korea distrusts America, know the history of other negotiations in the past, and so forth.

      Trump was good at deal making in the early days. Later on though, when word got around that his deals resulted in you getting shafted, he had much more problems making the deals. He's got a massive ego that makes him erroneously think that he's a good negotiator, and an ego big enough to seriously screw up the talks. Just look at how he had a toddler tantrum at Canada, does you honestly think that North Korea will be easier for him to deal with than Canada?

    13. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      That is why they (and you), fail to convince their adversaries and will continue to do so.

      You can't be an adversary until you can form a coherent position. Indeed, all Donald Trump has to do is change position for you to change position and pretend that it was genius all along. The only coherence coming from the pro-Trump camp is racism and hatred. Everything else is day-to-day, depending on the particular dog-whistle coming from the Leader in the form of a misspelled tweet.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are going to meet for the purpose of North Korea *giving up* nuclear weapons and rejoining with the south.

      Maybe the end of Korean war would be a sufficient first step? Now that Kim has nuclear weapons, he can come to the negotiation table for the first time. There would be no basis for the negotiations without the weapons creating it.

    15. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do

      And with Trump, you get the man who really has insight into that psychology.

    16. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      How do you verify that a country has actually disarmed without experts in technical means of verification?

    17. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you insane? If you go into a negotiation not knowing what the hell you are talking about, you'll come out with an agreement that you're very happy with, because you have no idea what's it means.

      He could commit to huge subsidies to industrialise North Korea and bring it back into the international community in exchange for converting all their "potentially dangerous" U-238 into U-235. Because U-238 is the dangerous one, right? That's what Kim Jong Un told him, and he doesn't want to look stupid by asking some know-it-all "scientist" if it was right. After all, he's a very stable genius, versed in the Art of the Deal, who can immediately tell when he is being lied to...

      Nobody is expecting them to thrash out exactly how to implement something like ensuring that NK's enrichment centrifuges are permanently and definitively decommissioned, but he needs to know what the heck a centrifuge has to do with making atom bombs. What does "giving up nuclear weapons" look like? Are we expecting them to ship them to us, dismantle them, destroy them, put them beyond use? How could we ensure that their efforts are genuine? How have we done so with other countries in the past? These are all vital high-level questions that will need to be answered for any meaningful agreement, and an expert on nuclear weapons would have immediate answers to them. At best, by not including such a person the President has made it more difficult to quickly get those answers; at worst he will be working with incomplete or incorrect information.

      Refusing to seek advice when operating outside your field of expertise isn't a common quality of good negotiators, but it is a common failing of bad ones. Just because someone has a firm handshake and says complimentary things about you at a press conference doesn't mean that they will go out of their way to negotiate a deal that favours your interests over their own.

    18. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades,

      Because of some unique skillset he has?

      he will speak plainly,

      Trump has no credibility whatsoever. He speaks, but the stuff that comes out of his mouth could be 100% opposite an hour later as we saw at the G7 summit. What he says doesn't mean a goddamn thing, and half the time it's entirely inaccurate and at odds with something else he said.

      and as a result he actually will be more trusted

      HA!

      and respected

      It is sad that you don't realize how much the world views the current US administration as a bad joke.

    19. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the old "everybody who supports Trump is a racist" angle. Straight out of the K-6 elementary school arguing textbook. Comes right between "I know you are, but what am I?" and "lalalala, I can't hear you."

    20. Re: The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is literally not what he said. He said âcampâ(TM), not âsupportersâ(TM).

      He's not wrong about the messaging. Whether all Trump supporters take it up is up to you, er, them.

    21. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be an adversary until you can form a coherent position.

      Donald Trump has a coherent position or you are not against him.

      For a liberal arts guy you really are bad at argumentation. Now you are facing down the bull horns of a dilemma.

    22. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off.

      Clinton was really good at this kind of thing too, the work he did in the Balkans was really impressive.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by fred911 · · Score: 0

      "He's stirring up more trouble in the Middle East which damage this country for many many years to come."

      You can look directly at Obama for the current political situation in Iran / Iraq. His denying Iraq's request for military aid to fight ISIS has helped Iran's influence over Iraq. That one was all Obama.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    24. Re: The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy just had a toddler temper tantrum with Canada and now he's supposed to be talking to the most crazy dictator out there and we think he can accomplish something?

      Did I miss a news cycle? It is hard to keep up with that megalomaniacal narcissist with delusions of godhood have? I mean NK isnt even part of the G7, so why would Un throw a tantrum at them? I get why the mentally unstable Trump would but, oh, you thought Un was the lunatic.

    25. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you mean "rambling" rather than "Rampling". But I've never rampled, so I don't know.

    26. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you need EITHER of those people to meet with someone like Kim Jong-un?

      Because REEE ORANGE HITLER DRUMPF HUR TURN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111eleven

      No other reason for this bullshit. None at all.

    27. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      George Bush invaded the wrong country. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Pre-Trump, that was the biggest lie a President and Administration sold to the American public.

      Bashing Obama and ignoring Bush is means you are either suffering from an organic brain disorder that has wrecked your memory or you are delusional and should be involuntarily committed. There is a third option that applies in your case: you are a white supremacist and overt fascist.

      Get the fuck out of my country and go to Russia where you can lick Putin's ass directly, rather then let Trump do it for you.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    28. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are supremely clueless because just about every point you raised is factually incorrect.

      I cant even be bothered to debate it with you because you wont believe anything factual and you obviously get your information from biased sources.

    29. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.

      Lol.

        I expect to see either:
          A) Kim suddenly giggling and possibly laughing hysterically
              or
          B) Kim suddenly going beet red and rushing for his big red button

        Why?
        Because the translator is struggling with the incoherent, rambling, nonsense, mistaken as English, that passes Trump's lips.

        No advisers required for this!

    30. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      What kind of "experts" can really help you here?

      How do you think these things happen? Donald says no more Nukes, and Kim says yeah ok and then there's no more nukes and everyone goes home? I'm pretty sure there's more detail to it than that. And if there's one thing about negotiations I do know, it's usually the person/team who are across the most detail that get the most out of any deal.
      I wouldn't be surprised if the strategy is simply to stroke his giant ego knowing that in 6.5 years he'll be gone. NK and China will simply consume all the oxygen out of a sitting POTUS's power for 8 years putting the Western Alliance at a massive disadvantage long term. We are witnessing our leader get played like the monkey that he is. And we'll all be worse off because of it.

    31. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by tsa · · Score: 1

      So you think an unbalanced megalomaniac is the best person to handle his own kind. Interesting.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    32. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.

      You're funny, SuperKendall! I laughed until I nearly choked to death. I can't work out how you put so many bullshit things together in such a funny way. It's genius!

    33. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Trump was good at deal making in the early days.

      When? What good deals are you talking about?

      Later on though, when word got around that his deals resulted in you getting shafted

      Oh, you mean its a good deal when you don't live up to your half? Yeah, not paying is usually a "good deal".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    34. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The only way North Korea will rejoin with the south is if Kim Jong-un is allowed to rule it

      How on earth could you possibly know that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet at the end of the day you're a nobody posting armchair expert advice on Slashdot, while Trump is the elected leader of the most powerful nation the world has ever known and got there despite being a political novice up against a whole host of seasoned political operatives with much greater resources (money and footsoldiers)

      In case you haven't yet realised it, an old adage of politics is that "perception is reality". Trump creates reality because he controls the narrative by playing the media like a fiddle.

    36. Re: The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because he criticized Obamaâ(TM)s actions doesnâ(TM)t mean he was giving Bush jr a pass, those are independant things, and one personâ(TM)s mistakes do not erase the other personâ(TM)s.

    37. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.

      Slight correction: you need two of them.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by ZorroXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump ..., he will speak plainly

      Except, he does not. When he speeks the sentences are so split up and often mixes in lots of unrelated things, and has a (lack of) flow that makes it is really hard to follow. In fact this is the one thing that is easy to make parody of Donald Trump, to mimic his form of speaking. To parody the actual content of what he is say is on the other hand very hard because of the crazy things he say. For instance "My nuclear button is bigger than his" would be a natural thing to try to parody him on except he acutally manager to say that himself for real...

      For an excample of how he does not speaks plainly, consider this:

      “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

      While this is probably a cherry-picked example of worst cases there is, it is not exceptional and far of his average.

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
    39. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They claimed it was supporting terrorism. Since it was paying money to the families of suicide terrorists who attacked civilians in Israel it was supporting terrorism.

      Iraq was providing shelter for the PLF terrorist who killed and American Leon Klinghoffer during the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. That is supporting terrorism.

      It may surprise you but 9-11 was not the only terrorist attack that ever happened against the U.S. or American citizens.

    40. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends what you call winning doesn't it?

      For a globalist, anything that disrupts the (to them) irreversible march toward globalization is a loss. To those of us who haven't drank the elite globalist koolaid anything that puts a barrier to it is winning.

    41. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree that Kim's goals are simple. The point is how realistic are they? At some point most smart dictators realize that the chance of dying in your sleep in old age are pretty slim. Whether called so or not Kim is an absolute monarch (since his position is by the fact he is of the Baekdu bloodline.) His father and grandfather had the privilege of dying a natural death.

      Most dictators and absolute monarchs in the last century or so have not had this luxury, however, smart dictators have often been able to negotiate an exit strategy that leaves them alive in a neutral country without an extradition treaty, making them immune from prosecution of their crimes, with enough money to live a pretty easy life.

    42. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an evangelical christian kook, he is more likely the antichrist than a messenger from Skydaddy.

    43. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      One last point - the very LAST person you want to bring to a nuclear disarmament party is a nuclear weapons expert

      You take the gay wedding cake for #1 retarded post in this thread.

    44. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by farble1670 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They claimed it was supporting terrorism.

      You're right. They just claimed Iraq supported and armed terrorists, and left it to the public to draw the big fat line between Iraq and the terrorists that bombed the trade towers.

      The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    45. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

      The Bush administration talked about it several times as a way to conflate in the publics' minds unrelated connections. Cheney reported several times that Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 field leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. Both the CIA and the FBI said no such meeting took place. Condoleezza Rice received intelligence estimates that there was little to no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda, he felt they were a threat to his power given that they don't respect country governance. Bush continued nonetheless claim that Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with al-Quaeda."

      The administration started debating internally an invasion of Iraq in the days after 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld wrote an internal memo in Nov 2001 to plan out how to sell an Iraq invasion, one of the bullet points reading "US discovers Saddam connection to Sept 11 attack?"

      Bill Moyers correctly predicted that prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War that "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and Al-Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims."

      If the goal was to reduce terrorism, then the 2003 Iraqi Invasion was a pretty big miscalculation.

    46. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I am an evangelical christian kook, he is more likely the antichrist than a messenger from Skydaddy.

      Well, at least you're honest and willing to stick with your moral beliefs. I wish I could say the same of the FRC's chairman who uses amazing mental contorsions to justify his wholehearted support.

    47. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      G7 is obsolete:

      Reality Check
      By George Friedman

      The G-7, Frozen in Time

      It’s a product of an era that no longer exists.

      Last week’s G-7 summit was a mostly drama-free affair. The confrontation between U.S. President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came only after the summit ended. Members of the G-7, including the United States, issued a joint communique in which they agreed on the need for free and fair trade. The U.S. withdrew its support, and a war of words between the heads of state of two staunch allies ensued. Putting their spat in perspective requires an understanding of what the G-7 actually is.

      What we now call the G-7 was meant to be an organization of the leading industrial countries in the world. It originated in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo, which had hit the industrial world hard. It hit back by forming an entity that represented the major industrial powers that were struggling with high energy prices.

      What the group was supposed to do remains unclear. What’s clear is that it accomplished very little. It didn’t speak with one voice, nor did the supply and demand of oil give the group much leverage over OPEC. So the group convened a summit and issued communiques, and what had been a response to a specific event became an annual meeting.

      Without a specific purpose, it has become a meeting of the world’s major economic powers. Except that some of the leading economic powers in 1973 are no longer the leading powers in 2018. Its members – the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and the United Kingdom – are relatively unchanged. But Italy now has the eighth-largest economy. Canada has the 10th-largest economy. Russia, now the 11th-largest economy, was part of a G-8 for a while, but it was banished because of its behavior in Crimea. But most important, China and India boast the second- and seventh-largest economies in the world and yet are not members.

      If the G-7 were constituted by the top seven economies in the world, it would probably hold different meetings with different agendas. Not having China and India at the table, after all, makes any decisions taken on economic matters of limited importance. Their inclusion may not make the G-7 any more viable as anything more than a forum for discussion, but the bigger point is that like many institutions of its ilk, the G-7 is frozen in a time that no longer exists. During the Cold War, its members arguably did represent the bulk of the world’s industrial. But it remains a fundamentally Euro-American creation, consisting of Euro-American agendas that dominate the event out of the sheer number of leaders there.

      That agenda, of course, is provincial. It fails to represent the complexities that a contemporary global power like the United States is concerned with. This year’s summit was a case in point. For the Europeans and Canada, this meeting was an end in itself, a forum to jointly voice their displeasure about tariffs. For Trump, it was merely a pit stop on the way to Singapore and the North Korea talks. That was probably also the case for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, for whom North Korea is not as distant an affair as it is for the Europeans. They have opinions, but they have little skin in that game. Again: Had China and India been invited, North Korea may have been a more prominent item on the agenda.

      Which is not to say that trade tariffs don’t matter. They do. But they matter in different ways to different countries. And this goes to the heart of one of the biggest problems facing the G-7: The consensus, such as it is, sought by its members is getting harder to reach. It’s difficult enough when the group’s purpose is clear and its membership appropriate. But they aren’t. The international order changes, and if institutions like the G-7 are to be useful at all, they have to change with it. And until the G-7 adapts to the times, episodes like this weekend’s between leaders will continue to pop up regardless of who’s in the White House.

    48. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      G7 is obsolete:

      Anyway, Trump's got a new G3, made up of the US, Russia and North Korea.

      We are now officially part of the Axis of Evil.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    49. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      For better or worse, the only group Trump thinks of is G1.

    50. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      For better or worse, the only group Trump thinks of is G1.

      Unfortunately, the "1" is not the USA.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    51. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      The problem with your position, if I may, is it makes it very difficult to reach any consensus. There was an article in WaPo today, no less, how this current madness is coming from people from both sides are unconsciously employing "tit for tat" game strategy. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-country-has-lost-its-mind-its-time-for-some-game-theory/2018/06/12/f8863076-6e77-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?utm_term=.4a7f26394116). In the comments, the article -- and the author -- was reviled for even suggesting that anyone who supports Trump may be a normal person.

      So if you say that Trump has made the US the Axis of Evil, what choice do I have responding? I think that position is ridiculous, and I don't think that Trump is anything like a Savior King. So it leaves me no choice but to assign most of the responsibility for our lack of consensus to the people on your side, at least in these kinds of forums. If you see an error in this reasoning I would like to know about it.

    52. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      The problem with your position, if I may, is it makes it very difficult to reach any consensus.

      I have no desire to reach "consensus" with people who would destroy the country and the rule of law. If you believe it's all just normal for a president to talk about pardoning himself, to accept loans for his business from China while he's a sitting president, to conspire with a hostile country in order to win the election, to support a neo-confederate candidate for congress who has shown support for white supremacy, then there can be no consensus.

      A reckoning is coming for Trump and his supporters.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    53. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Would you allow for a possibility that it is something specifically about Trump that makes things look unacceptable?

      Image that Rand Paul were President and he enacted the exact same policies as Trump and even seemingly "conspired" with the Russians to get an election boost and accepted loans from China and so on. Would you see him with the same level of animosity?

      Conversely imagine Trump boasting that he'll put on tough environmental regulations to preserve American nature and force companies and local governments to export toxic materials out of the country because no nature is greater than American nature. Would he be nearly as unbearable?

      I'll tell you where I'm going with it if you'll indulge me in that thought experiment.

    54. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Image that Rand Paul were President and he enacted the exact same policies as Trump and even seemingly "conspired" with the Russians to get an election boost and accepted loans from China and so on. Would you see him with the same level of animosity?

      Absolutely, yes. Rand Paul is almost as much of a huckster as Trump. They are both unbearable in their own way.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    55. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      And so now you'd be saying, "A reckoning is coming for Rand Paul and his supporters"? Despite the apparent fact that 60+ million of your fellow citizens are quite happy with Rand Paul and his policies and with what they think those policies are doing for their jobs and livelihoods?

      I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe. Because if it were true it would mean you are incredibly intolerant.

    56. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And so now you'd be saying, "A reckoning is coming for Rand Paul and his supporters"? Despite the apparent fact that 60+ million of your fellow citizens are quite happy with Rand Paul and his policies and with what they think those policies are doing for their jobs and livelihoods?

      Where do you get the idea that "60+ million" of my fellow citizens are quite happy with Rand Paul and his policies? He couldn't win a single primary. He couldn't win an election anywhere people wear shoes.

      The only difference between people who stan for Rand Paul and Trump supporters is that Rand Paul supporters are actually delusional enough to believe in what he says, and that Paul's policies would be anything but a disaster.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    57. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      The premise was to imagine -- that was a thought experiment, imagining an alternative reality so you can observe how your mind reacts, thus giving you a clue to what is going in the layers below the conscious.

      In this Gedankenexperiment you imagine a world in which Rand Paul is the President, as someone who won the Republican Primary, seemingly flirted with the Russians, then won the Elections to everyone's surprise, and now is enacting the exact same policies as Trump -- which would not be unrealistic at all -- and is reportedly (by the left media) even receiving loans from China for his family's medical business. Forget Trump, imagine in that world Trump never even ran. When you look from that other world with your mind's eye, are you as angry at President Rand Paul as you are with President Trump in this world? In that imaginary world, you may still believe that President Rand Paul's policies are harmful etc., but would you feel President Rand Paul is bringing the country into the axis of evil, and that the 60+ million people who support President Rand Paul in that world would have reckoning coming for them? If not, what is different?

    58. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The premise was to imagine -- that was a thought experiment, imagining an alternative reality so you can observe how your mind reacts, thus giving you a clue to what is going in the layers below the conscious.

      Can you imagine a thought experiment where your premise is so fundamentally flawed by fallacies to make it completely meaningless?

      are you as angry at President Rand Paul as you are with President Trump

      Rand Paul and Donald Trump are both hot garbage, but they're different flavors of hot garbage. Imagine, if you will, a thought experiment where Trump is a flaming bag of dog shit and Rand Paul is a flaming bag of horse shit. In the world of this thought experment, which one do you stomp out first?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    59. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not I don't mean to denigrate your views. But I don't want to take them at face value either. Rather what I'm seeing seems like a pattern in which certain people who otherwise have a lot to offer act as if the Trump election has opened a great wound in their minds and hearts. And this wound they can't help poking deeper every day and causing more harm -- primarily to themselves. It makes me genuinely sad to see that. This in part because I feel like I have otherwise many values in common with those people but their what seems to me an unceasing rumination on Trump makes communication nearly impossible.

      From your side, is there any truth to this perception?

    60. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Rather what I'm seeing seems like a pattern in which certain people who otherwise have a lot to offer act as if the Trump election has opened a great wound in their minds and hearts. And this wound they can't help poking deeper every day and causing more harm -- primarily to themselves.

      It's that kind of thinking is why Obama won. Twice.

      There is a difference between "opening a wound" and poking the bear, my friend. And the bear is fully awake now. There is a reckoning coming, and it won't be coming from the "wounded". There have already been 43 state congressional seats that have flipped from R to D and there hasn't even been an Election Day yet. The fat, wet, orange genie is going back into the bottle and the bottle's going to be thrown into the sea. Count on it.

      And for your enjoyment on your Dear Leader's birthday, here is the video of Trump saluting the North Korean general, the day before he declared North Korea "no longer a nuclear threat".

      https://www.nbcnews.com/nightl...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    61. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you, but you're the one on the business end of the bear. This is bigger than the next election, indeed, bigger than America.

      I'll point out that Austria, Poland, Austria and now Italy are now under nationalist governments, and in the remainder of Europe that isn't, those parties are gaining in power and popularity.

      I suggest you learn to like Trump, because even you do succeed in voting him out, you'll like what comes next even less.

      In short, the world is sick of your shit, and it's getting ready to do something about it.

      See you in the camps!

    62. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      If you'll forgive me for this, your behavior strikes me as the exact opposite of Stoicism: you place an awful lot of stock on the outcome of events you have almost zero control over -- whether Trump is President or not -- and when things don't go as you hope you wail and bemoan and almost threaten to millions of people. Meanwhile those outcomes -- I will bet! -- have close to ZERO effect on the physical security and safety of either you or your family and again I will bet almost all of your friends. You are not out of work because of Trump, I am guessing, and you are certainly not sent to fight in Syria or Ukraine or Korea over Trump.

      This is all the more surprising coming from someone who practices martial arts. Look at the historical figures you respect: I am sure you will find large number of them acting like Stoics, whether they call it so or not. I for one love that Trump won, but in case he is voted out in 2020 so be it. Vox populi, vox Dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God.

      If my guess above is true, I would ask myself what is the force in me that is so strong it makes me act in contrast with the principles of conduct I respect.

    63. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you'll forgive me for this, your behavior strikes me as the exact opposite of Stoicism:

      Wait, what?

      Look at the historical figures you respect: I am sure you will find large number of them acting like Stoics,

      You seem to have a very poorly-formed understanding of Stoicism. The figures I respect are in harmony with change, not happy in calamity, and certainly not believers in Determinism. That does not mean just lying down when bandits are at the gate. My martial arts heroes are the Daoists, who know the importance of change and also how and when to defeat hooligans.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    64. Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Change yes but not one that comes from the place of an emotional storm. When you say "the day of reckoning will come for Trump supporters" I am all the more determined to vote for Trump again to prevent people who want to institute reckoning to take over.

      At the same time if I saw Trump supporters write "the day of reckoning will come for libtards when we take over completely" I'd be inclined to do exactly the opposite, again to prevent people like that from coming to power.

      To call half the voting population, tens of millions of ordinary living souls struggling at this life like everyone else, bandits, is hardly a hallmark of Stoicism.

  5. Unravel, it will.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When the effects of poor policy start to take effect, like the unwinding of a tightly coiled spring, who will he blame?

  6. Well, that would matter... by OpenSourced · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...if this meeting was something other than a photo-op. I don't think anything of substance will be discussed, and the only question is when exactly will the name-calling start again.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  7. Whos fault is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, yeah.... Thanks Obama!

  8. The good news in all this... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One way or another, I have a sneaking suspicion he'll be the last, "businessman" to be "elected" to be "president" of the "United" States.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:The good news in all this... by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Troll

      One way or another, I have a sneaking suspicion he'll be the last, "businessman" to be "elected" to be "president" of the "United" States.

      He wasn't elected .. he was putin power!

      Ba Dum tsssh!

      ---

      Thank you thank you .. I'll be here all week.

      Try the special and be sure to tip your server!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:The good news in all this... by Required+Snark · · Score: 0

      Not the first appointed president in the 21st century. George 'Shrub' Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court of the Republican Party, not to be confused with the Supreme Court of the United States.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:The good news in all this... by greylion3 · · Score: 0

      I strongly suspect, that after his term is over, he'll be considered the worst president of the United States, ever.
      A few hillbillies may disagree, but for an overwhelming majority of US citizens, I think that'll be his legacy.

      Kinda sets the bar a bit lower for future presidents. They'll be thinking: "At least I can never mess up as bad as Trump did".

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
  9. In the obama administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    science was also unwelcome when it came to facts like sexual dimorphism, the 'wage gap', and 'patriarchy theory.'

    Ideologues hate inconvenient truth.

    1. Re:In the obama administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      science was also unwelcome when it came to facts like sexual dimorphism, the 'wage gap', and 'patriarchy theory.'

      Ideologues hate inconvenient truth.

      Cite?

    2. Re:In the obama administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States of God is now slowly converging towards some sort of The Handmaid’s Tale-esque end of days. Science is not needed. Just as shit-tonne of guns and bibles.

    3. Re:In the obama administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is needed for guns, and slightly less for bibles. Don't worry, our tent is large and our library stocked with many popular fantasy and sci-fi novels. Chapel is voluntary and yummy desserts are served afterwards. Cheers!

  10. Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by brxndxn · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is fucking stupid anti-Trump garbage. The anti-Trump people are calling Trump all sorts of names and 'anti-Science' is just another one of them. The meeting with Kim Jong-Un is 100% politics - and it's something that only exists because of Trump. The previous 2 US presidents failed miserably on any positive relations with North Korea. There is no stance on science being taken in this meeting other than Trump is conducting the negotiations rather than a rainbow team of pseudo-experts working to obfuscate the real issues.

    Maybe instead of criticizing Trump all the time, you should start taking his advice. He's been right; you've been wrong. Trump continues to impress me every day he is in office. I did not start off as a supporter - but he won me over early on after I listened directly to what he said rather than a bunch of lying dishonorable talking heads on TV.

    Get this shit off Slashdot. And, fuck you for posting it.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re: Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trump is anti-science. Science ia the driving force of technology. This article is in the right place. Trump can and does do wrong. Thats reality. Deny it if you want.

    2. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Trump is a fucking moron. Causing problems with our allies that fought and died for us in wars we convinced them to join will sucking up to Putin. You are a moron.

    3. Re: Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Please show evidence that the sky is falling, kthx.

    4. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you actually read the article? Trump and his cabinet have removed science from a whole bunch of science-based parts of the government: EPA, etc. Say what you will about Korea, but the purge of scientists in government is actually happening.

    5. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Informative

      The summit only exists because of Trump because he is the only one reckless enough to agree to it. This is what the North Korea's want, to be at the big boy's table, a respected and legitimate nuclear power, but what does it give us? Other presidents could have easily done if they wanted to, if they thought it would have accomplished anything for us.

      I know we are in a 1984 post truth age and have always been at war with Eurasia, but the relationship with North Korea has always fluctuated up and down because they are duplicitous and skilled at using extortion to extract concessions. Trump's policy towards North Korea has been similarly schizophrenic, talking about "little Rocket man" and threatening with nuclear war, now switching back and forth to the nice nice, but what makes you think that if this doesn't provide the magic results that only those in the cult of personality seem to believe will occur that we won't go back to "fire and fury" on failure. John Bolton seems to have been brought in explicitly for the purpose of fire and fury.

      The gratuitous f-bombs and hostility about posters on this subject suggest to me that the parent may just be a troll and treating it in good faith is a foolish endeavor, but if this what represents a widespread consensus of thought then we are in serious trouble.

    6. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice sentence structure.

    7. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Trump continues to impress me every day he is in office.

      Jesus Christ, there's something seriously wrong with you. Are you employed?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      ..right up there with your red herring...

    9. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, we have marked a troll as +4 informative.

    10. Re: Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The reaction of people like you is an excellent indication that something right is going on. It's probably too late in your life to get a fucking clue, so enjoy your grumbling. Stay outta the road, tho.

    11. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, you're all misunderstanding the point of the summit.

      Trump will meet Kim, and after meeting him, he will announce a "HISTORIC agreement that no other President could get! We got everything we wanted, Kim is very reasonable and just wants to be left alone."

      The base will lap it up. Kim will refrain from setting off any more tests at least until after the mid-terms. Trump will be the great peacemaker in the eyes of his faithful.

      A year or so down the line it will become clear that Kim didn't actually "agree" to anything, not in any way that could be verified. But by then the damage will be done, Trump will have boosted his position, and all he has to do then is change his story to "Kim is GOING BACK on his word, very sad!".

      Short-term effect Trump gets a short-term boost to carry his cronies through the midterms. Long-term effect: basically, nil. Right back where we started. But Trump doesn't care, because by then it'll be someone else's problem. Someone who actually gives a shit about America, with any luck.

    12. Re: Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To call you a fuckwit would be to denigrate fuckwits.

    13. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Required+Snark · · Score: 0

      Which tattoo do you have? Swastika, SS lightning bolts, KKK, Putan's face, or something you came up with yourself?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    14. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Trump continues to impress me every day he is in office.

      Lies and crimes impress you? Have you served jail time or something?

      Do you believe Trump, as he says on twitter, can shoot someone on the street and he is immune from federal prosecution, or alternatively, that he can pardon himself?

      Referring to these statements:
      https://twitter.com/i/moments/691002685949100032?lang=en

    15. Re: Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've proven his point. Lolololelelelols.

    16. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that much like Obama, you don't understand the politics of power, while Trump clearly does like other strong leaders like Putin, Xi, Assad and Erdogan. Trump is the first president to grasp this since Reagan.

      I believe that history will show that Obama did much damage to America's global hegemony and prestige. Look at the belligerence of China and Russia after Obama failed to follow through on his "red line" threat.

      Once Trump got in and Assad pulled some chemical shit with Russian complicity, Trump just turned around thumped the shit of him and Putin in Syria. He didn't warn of it, he just did it and that act together with his statement announcing what he'd done basically said "I dare you to do it again, faggot". Haven't heard of anymore chemical attacks since, have we? It also sent a message to Putin and Xi that he's not all bark and no bite, which has caused them and everyone else to think twice about pulling shit.

      North Korea has always used bellicose and belligerent rhetoric. The only thing they understand is strength. Trump has brought them to heel by talking shit and reminding them who the big dog is while simultaneously ratcheting up pressure on China to comply with sanctions. The Chinese have been flouting them for years, but only Trump had the balls to show the world the evidence, embarrassing the Chinese. Not long after China started behaving, Kim came to the table because he's finally feeling the squeeze.

      I find it amusing that many political "experts" are unable to see the way in which Trump operates. He's very predictable - like it was entirely predictable that he'd basically call Canada's PM a limp-wristed faggot after the G7 meeting.

    17. Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      ?????

      Last I checked we pretty much save their bacon. Twice. Except for those who we beat about the head and shoulders because they decided to conquer Europe, and then helped rebuild.

      Not to mention prevented from having to learn Russian as a native language, at great cost, for a period of something like 40 years.

      Cost we're still primarily baring.

      By and large we can do without those kinds of allies.

  11. should keep quiet... by jmccue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many people like to blame Trump, but he is a symptom of the US Environment. When Education is constantly cut for a period of 40 years and constant hate towards educated people, this is how things end up.

    On TV you see nothing but Reality Shows and shows talking about Ancient Aliens and other such things. You end you with a population that believes Science is fake and thinks Angels and other such things will come and 'save us'.

    More people seem to believe in pseudoscience (wikipedia) than anything else, thus you get a Trump and I do not see that changing

    1. Re:should keep quiet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people like to blame Trump, but he is a symptom of the US Environment. When Education is constantly cut for a period of 40 years and constant hate towards educated people, this is how things end up.

      On TV you see nothing but Reality Shows and shows talking about Ancient Aliens and other such things. You end you with a population that believes Science is fake and thinks Angels and other such things will come and 'save us'.

      More people seem to believe in pseudoscience (wikipedia) than anything else, thus you get a Trump and I do not see that changing

      It's going to get worse. Much worse. Dark Ages worse.

    2. Re:should keep quiet... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is a general feeling that politics doesn't matter and that it makes no difference who you vote for.

      I have heard a few Trump supporters claiming that they voted for him just to piss off "liberals". They clearly think that it doesn't matter if an imbecile is in charge, that their vote has few real consequences.

      In many ways they are not even wrong, at least as far as their own corner of the world goes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:should keep quiet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is due to a decades-long concerted effort by Republicans to demonize higher education and science. They don't even try to hide it. It is part of their electoral strategy. That, and voter suppression, of course.

  12. Re: What if it does not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Trump is correct, but history has been filled with many people like him. Someone who ignores facts, knows very little about the world, perpetually lies, and knows better than anyone else is a recipe for disaster.

  13. Re:Kendall you are a moron by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First comes the actual agreement, then come the steps two get rid of the nuclear weapons in many later steps... as I said, it sends a bad signal to assume and indicate anything about the deal, or to indicate what boundaries of a potential deal you are willing to accept ahead of time.

    You are not thinking about this at all rationally, only peering through a tiny lens of science-religion onto a vastly complex landscape that is negotiation at a country level. You may as well be demanding Trump include a four leaf clover in his underwear.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Science Advse? It makes a REALLY BIG BOOM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all you need to know.

  15. No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... because the Americans are anti-science, anyway.

    The People voted and it's their right to reject science.

    They have the right to want coal and oil jobs, and to prevent nuclear power plant shutdowns.

    They have the right to elect politicians who will deregulate industry so sales will go up.

    Americans want to be an isolationist, nationalistic, under-educated, Evangelical Christian, English-speaking country and that's their right.

    If and when Americans decide to change direction, they will communicate such via the election booth.

    Until then, all's right with the world.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bang on.

      The United States of God is now slowly converging towards some sort of The Handmaid’s Tale-esque end of days. Science is not needed. Just as shit-tonne of guns and bibles.

    2. Re:No scientist is needed ... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Until then, alt's right with the world.

      FTFY

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      Thanks.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bang on.

      The United States of God is now slowly converging towards some sort of The Handmaid’s Tale-esque end of days. Science is not needed. Just as shit-tonne of guns and bibles.

      And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    5. Re:No scientist is needed ... by pots · · Score: 1

      Well sure. I don't think the article is arguing that this is illegal, a violation of anyone's rights, only that this is bad. As in: it might be difficult for someone to negotiate an effective nuclear weapons treaty if he doesn't know how uranium enrichment works, and he rejects anyone who might be able to tell him that.

      The article isn't saying that this isn't what people wanted when they voted for Trump, or that this is violating any campaign promises. In fact, the article points out one instance where this is fulfilling a campaign promise.

    6. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The People voted and it's their right to reject science.

      Are you sure that will work, though? The People voted to reject a certain presidential candidate and he's President anyway, so...

    7. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand the sarcasm in the previous, but it is an interesting question to ask. Do Americans have the right to do all this?

      I'd argue not, since if nothing else actions have consequences. Some are global. Most will impact the next generation, and we have a responsibility to that generation.

      Solving political problems isn't terribly difficult. I could spend a few years with a team and develop solutions to near optimally determine taxes/spending/programs/etc. Note i'm just talking domestic programs and such, not international diplomacy. The solutions would be based on the best obtainable computer models tested with the best available information. They would be continually updated and based on as much hard science and data as was available. You may not be able to prove they were the absolute best choices, but if you find a better one, you would incorporate it.

      The real problem is first to have the political will to weight priorities carefully and correctly. That is extremely hard and most politicians refuse to put values on things, which just makes things worse. Second is most don't have the will to implement such a solution.

      Mostly though, particularly on the republican side such an idea would be anathema. Its ridiculous. We use hard data and data science all over these days to improve results, except in the government? Are we really that stupid? It would appear so. Bullshit and bombast is not a substitute for doing the math.

    8. Re:No scientist is needed ... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      When I read your original post, for a split second I thought you’d actually typed what I posted in my follow-up. But you didn’t, so I did. :-D

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:No scientist is needed ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The People voted and it's their right to reject science.

      The states voted. The people didn't vote for Trump, Trump was elected because of majorities in a majority of states, but most people voted against him across the country as a whole.

      The electoral college is often defended as being a defense against unqualified idiots with no cross country support from being elected. It failed spectacularly in 2016. We need to get rid of it. Whether that's replacement with a simple electoral majority, or a requirement that someone wins both the popular vote and state vote, I don't really care. But it doesn't do what it's supporters justify it as doing, and only does what it really is intended to do but shouldn't - gerrymandering the election to amplify the voices of those in rural areas and southern states.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we don't Ctrl+Alt+Right, it quickly becomes Ctrl+Alt+Del.

    11. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if the left wasn't anti-science too with sex, race and other things the left doesn't even want debate around.

    12. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CBravo · · Score: 1

      And not to forget the use of the Imperial System... They may only be using it because of the catchy name...

      --
      nosig today
    13. Re:No scientist is needed ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      You say "Americans" like they are one homogeneous group. In reality, the majority didn't vote for Trump, didn't want this. All is not right with the world when the loser wins and gets to try to force his policies on the majority who rejected him.

      Democracy isn't "winner takes all" anyway, it's a continual compromise. The tyranny of the majority (or minority in this case) is not democracy. That's why we have elected officials and checks and balances in the system, it's why there is a constitution that is very hard to amend - they are all supposed to stop this kind of thing happening.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:No scientist is needed ... by pots · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't do what it's supporters justify it as doing

      But it does. Gerrymandering the election to amplify the voices of people in rural states is exactly what it does, and what people defend it for doing. They don't phrase it that way, they say "giving people in rural areas a voice" or "ensuring that people in states with lower populations don't get sidelined" or "giving smaller states a greater say, just as the founders intended."

      You're not going to convince anyone by making a "one man, one vote" argument. Those people who defend the electoral collage are already openly turning their backs on that principle.

    15. Re:No scientist is needed ... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Science is that although you reject it, it is still true. Science does not care for right or wrong. Gravity does not stop existing when you do not believe in it or reject it.

      Also: they do not have real options in the election booth. Having two parties means that the majority of the people do not have a voice. 200+ years ago there where some people whop said they wanted to change things and they did. Where are those people now? And I do not mean going back to what they wanted 200 years ago. I mean going forward what we want in the next 200 years.

      There are options out there, but people are afraid to change things to much. Do not rock the boat when you are in a sea of shit.

      Those people of 200 years ago knew that action would need to be taken to change things. That is why there is a second amendement. And that is not there to hunt for rabbits to feed protesters.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ever find myself in the back seat of a car speeding towards the edge of a cliff, I will advise the driver as well as the other occupants that NOT is ..."...all's right with the world".

    17. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By this logic, the injustice is the electoral college. Because that isn't a representation of even the majority of voters.

    18. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Tht's not true by this logic.

      The American voting system does not use the popular vote.

      They use the electoral college and they have been since its inception.

      It's not news.

      Every voter knows the rules and they abide by them.

      If Americans wanted to use the popular vote, they'd vote to change the voting system.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    19. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If you ever find yourself in that situation, then by analogy, you can whip up a majority to vote for deceleration.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You do not know the evolution of the #2A. It wasn't supposed to turn out this way.

      The well-regulated militias are the military and the population could keep and bear arms to help defend against foreign governments.

      Veiled threats to take on our soldiers and sailors is nonsense and bravado.

      Weapon inequity will stifle your treason.

      For reference, see the Civil War.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    21. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your first sentence is your undoing.

      America does not use the popular vote and all voters know that.

      America wants it that way, or they would change it -- by vote.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    22. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Presidents are not selected based on popular vote, so anything you say after that is irrelevant.

      If you have a beef with the system, ramp up support and affect change -- via the vote.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    23. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I wish I had. :)

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    24. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Voters are not bound by any constraints such as making sense or stuff.

      The vote went down and America has spoken.

      That's the way the system works and all voters are aware of their consequences.

      Now, I think we could find some common ground regarding the sumbitches who didn't show up at the polls ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    25. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      The People of the United States, by way of vote, decide what's good or bad.

      Doesn't mean they are right by someone else's measure.

      American voters have chosen a path and only American voters can turn the steering wheel.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    26. Re:No scientist is needed ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how badly triggered the Trump voters are by any discussion of things that might de-legitimize his presidency.

      As we see here at least one of them considers is "flamebait", which is triggered snowflake speak for "the truth hurts".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that you started a post saying how Americans isn't a homogeneous group, but then here you are rambling about "Trump voters" as if they are one homogeneous group, throwing anyone you don't like (like whoever marked you as flamebait) into it.

      It's interesting you claim these "Trump voters" are triggered, when you are the one so concerned (read: triggered) by them, that you're obsessed with downmods and assume that whoever gave you downmods you don't like must be coming from that group who's totally out to get you. You dedicate an entire post (and this isn't the first time you've done this) talking about said mods and this nebulous group of people out to get you.

      It's interesting you accuse Trump voters as being triggered and not wanting to discuss things which it's inconvenient for them, but here you are, in response to a post that was talking about something that didn't favor you (GP pointed out the US doesn't work on simply popular vote), you went off to talk about Trump voters.

    28. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your use of "triggered," and "snowflakes," de-legitimizes your remark and places it in the "flamebait," category.

      If you have a point beyond stirring the pot, you can make it without all the fucking gasoline.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    29. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians have created more good science than any other group ever in the history of the world.

    30. Re:No scientist is needed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If and when Americans decide to change direction, they will communicate such via the election booth.

      Keep in mind that most Americans didn't vote for Trump. :/

    31. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      But not one of them have provided any motherfucking reference that backs that up.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    32. Re:No scientist is needed ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that Trump didn't win the goddam Triple Crown, either.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  16. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AND if/when they get there, the US has many thousands of 'Nuclear scientists' at its disposal (You know because the US has nuclear weapons) that can be used for the 'mop up duty'. Do you REALLY think this summit is about the 'nitty-gritty' of disarmament...if that's what you think YOU'RE the moron.

  17. Yes, without success by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is exactly the discussion the leaders of the G7 are having today about Donald Trump.

    And what luck are they having? None at all it would seem. Trump steamrolled them at the G7 summit and uncovered a lot of uncomfortable facts about a long-time status quo the G7 would rather have remained obscured (like a 270% tariff on dairy going into Canada, a very real and chilling fact about which I had no idea previously).

    Meanwhile Trump has actually gotten the U.S., NK and SK together in a room to talk for the first time in decades.

    So many Trump knows something the megalomaniacs running the EU (if you don't think every single person running each country is a kind of megalomaniac you are an idiot) do not. It's not like their own countries are faring well enough they make great examples to point to for how to run anything.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes, without success by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Informative

      (like a 270% tariff on dairy going into Canada, a very real and chilling fact about which I had no idea previously).

      Then I suppose you also don't know that the US provides over $22 billion a year in direct subsidies to US dairy producers, accounting for over 40% of all dairy profits?

      That's right -- American taxpayers are paying for >40% of all dairy production in the US. That has lead to a significant oversupply of milk and cheese products which the US can't sell domestically, so they want to be able to dump it on other countries well below market value (again -- it's government subsidized).

      That is why Canada has a tariff on US dairy products. Canada doesn't subsidize its dairy industry at all. The tariffs came into effect because the US insists on subsidizing its dairy industry with more US tax dollars than the entire Canadian dairy industry is worth.

      And you know what? Even with all that, Canada imports more dairy from the US than it exports (see above link).

      Want to get rid of the tariffs? Get rid of your own market distorting subsidies first, then we can talk.

      Yaz

    2. Re:Yes, without success by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thanks for the context. Isn't it amazing that at this stage of the game, people are still willing to take an out of context 'fact' from Trump and use it to justify his nonsense. People, Trump lies. All the time. Black is White, Up is Down class lies.

      Trump's rant about imports of cars from Canada did make me wonder about the context of that. It's American car manufacturers building cars in Canada and importing them, NAFTA style back into the US. But why? This is Canada - not Mexico, let alone China. Is Canadian labor that much cheaper - or better educated - or something, than US labor? Do they not have unions there? Or is the fact that employers don't have to pay for medical insurance the thing that makes Canada a more viable location for auto plants than Detroit?

      I suspect it's more like they always built cars for the Canadian market in Canada, and with NAFTA, it makes economic sense to build one model in one plant and another in another. So the models built in Canada end up getting imported here and vice versa. But is there more to it?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    3. Re:Yes, without success by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Informative

      suspect it's more like they always built cars for the Canadian market in Canada, and with NAFTA, it makes economic sense to build one model in one plant and another in another. So the models built in Canada end up getting imported here and vice versa. But is there more to it?

      There are a few reasons, including those that you've touched upon already: better educated population and universal medicare help, but so does cheap and reliable electricity (most of which is green in the main automative manufacturing centres due to our abundance of hydroelectric generation capacity), access to raw materials, and the lower Canadian dollar (which makes worker wages competitive). Automative in Canada actually has very strong unions, but even with that the manufacturers get highly educated talent that costs them less money to maintain.

      Most automotive manufacturing in Canada tends to be mid-to-higher end lines; we don't have a wide variety of vehicle types, and don't make anything either compact or smaller, or in pickup truck form; Industry Canada has a list of passenger vehicles made in Canada in 2017 here (this list doesn't include military or commercial or mass transit vehicles, or anything that floats or flies).

      One thing I will note, it isn't as if automotive manufacturers have been making a run on building assembly facilities in Canada. Most of the facilities in use have been around for decades. Thus, we can conclude that the value is sufficient to keep building vehicles with good sale values in these Canadian facilities, but not so much that manufacturing is leaving the US (or elsewhere) for Canada.

      Yaz

    4. Re:Yes, without success by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's an...interesting take on the G-7 summit. Perhaps you missed (or are trying to miss) Trump's open treachery on lobbying to get Russia brought back into the G-8. The news shows don't want to use that word, treachery, and have just been calling it highly unusual and risky and whatnot, or with Sen Sasse calling it weak.

      But there's plenty enough there to see in this one instance that he is betraying the interests of our country right then and there; the G-8 kicked out Russia for invading and annexing Crimea, and Trump is ignoring that and trying to reward Russia most likely for their aid in getting him elected. I guess Russian information and psychological warfare against the US is ok if it helps Trump, huh? Add in his pretty explicit attempt to start a trade war and sandbag on the other diplomatic measures with our allies, he seems pretty hellbent on tearing apart the post WWII western alliances.

      If Trump's not a puppet of Putin, then it is getting to the point that is pretty hard to see that distinction, and maybe doesn't even matter anymore. He's giving Putin precisely what Putin wants: the US and our alliances divided, weak, and focused internally.

    5. Re:Yes, without success by youngone · · Score: 1
      No, no. You don't understand.
      That clever Mr. Trump uncovered the tariff on dairy. Before that no-one knew they were there.
      He's such an amazing negotiator he will have the Canadians remove their tariffs and pay the US to drink Canadian milk.

      It's true. I read it on slashdot.

    6. Re: Yes, without success by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

      Sure have been a lot of indictments for a "stale" issue.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    7. Re: Yes, without success by youngone · · Score: 1

      is going to get you two or more additional Trump nominees on the Supreme court.

      Why would that matter? Don't you have rule of law in the US?

    8. Re:Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he also claimed he was going to solve the Palestine/Israel problem too. How is that working out. Seriously, the guy says publicly, "I'll know within the first few seconds if we have a deal". Seriously, Does Kim even speak English? Does Donnie speak Korean? The guy just wants to have look at me moments. He is infatuated with himself. Consider what Daniels said prior ro her smacking him. She said all he did was talk about himself.

      We could be TOTALLY screwed as a nation if the G-7 becomes effectively the G-6 and tells us to FO.

    9. Re: Yes, without success by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is it stale if he is running point for the Russians just this week? He's acting in their geopolitical interests now, and is quite open about it. The lingering issues haven't been resolved yet (though Manafort is being buried under a mountain of indictments), and Trump piling on more and more new issues. I have a hard time seeing how the damage won't be extremely long lasting and reshape the post Cold-war political order, well past however long the Trump presidency lasts.

    10. Re:Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it backwards cheese-curd. The US dairy industry is so productive that cheesy foreigners have to put tariffs on it to prevent the US from not only feeding most of the world, but providing them with milk and pudding to go with it.

    11. Re: Yes, without success by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Indictments don't mean shit if you don't get a jury trial. And the few indictments have been on technicalities or issues unrelated to the investigation.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    12. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is going to get you two or more additional Trump nominees on the Supreme court.

      Why would that matter? Don't you have rule of law in the US?

      Heh, that was funny...

    13. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if they make cheese in the USA. Velveeta doesn't count.

    14. Re: Yes, without success by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I know that 97% of all inmates in Federal prison agree with you.

      If you are too lazy to click on the chart, it shows that the Federal guilty plea rate is 97%. Only 3% go to trial.

      So your position is that all the drug dealers, bank robbers, con artists, kidnappers, tax cheats, money launderers, counterfeiters, smugglers, mad bombers, interstate sex traffickers, etc were railroaded because "Indictments don't mean shit if you don't get a jury trial".

      It's great to know that you support a cause that has been taken up by liberal advocacy groups all over the county. I know how hard it is to stand up for liberal causes on Slashdot because of all the right wing trolls, and I salute your commitment to freedom.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    15. Re:Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has EVERYTHING to do with Canada bringing in cheap parts/components from Asia, and then functioning as an assembly mill before sending them to the U.S.

      In short, Asian countries use Canada to access to the U.S. market via NAFTA in a way that they otherwise could not. Canada knows this, which is why they've been arguing not to increase Canadian content of the vehicles assembled there. The original purpose of NAFTA was not to give Asian companies/countries a method of getting around U.S. trade regulations. NAFTA should be scrapped, and Canada should suffer for it. It will be nice to see an economic contraction wipe the smug off some of their faces.

    16. Re:Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Canada can get rid of its dairy industry. Its inefficient and costs to much to sustain. If Canada wants to keep its dairy so badly they should do their own subsidisation. The reason that makes no sense is where Canada is geographically - it makes no sense to raise cows in snow.

      The US is losing 700+ billion in unfair trading deals. Listening to the G7 leaders complain and not seeing it for what it is, is idiotic. Trump is playing hard ball and these losers in that stance want to gang up and keep those unfair deals. Get behind your president, because he is the first president in years who isn't a globalist and is putting the US first in his negotiations.

    17. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Have you ever considered that Russia's interests are more closely aligned to the US's interest than Europe's interests? Europe and the rest of the G6 have drained us of our capital through unfair trade deals for decades. They frequently mock us, while relying heavily on the US Armed Forces for their own defense. They steal our trade secrets, steal our jobs, and expect us to just be happy about it.

      Russia was kicked out of the G8 as punishment for democratically electing Putin. That's the real reason. It was because the "western world" didn't like the way the elections went and sought to punish the Russian people for democratically voting for someone that "the west" didn't pick.

      There's a reason Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people and still has the overwhelming support of real Americans.

    18. Re:Yes, without success by CriticalYetLazy · · Score: 1

      Cause reasoning with a moronic clown that flips his opinion everytime the wind blows is pretty much impossible. He's made a complete fool out of himself, and the US with it. Wow what a result getting NK/SK in a room. Who says they wouldn't be without Humpty Dumpty Donald? And then there's actual results to achieve. Which he won't.

    19. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those people plead guilty because theyâ(TM)re threatened with more charges if they donâ(TM)t, so the choice becomes âoedo I fight it and risk 30 years in prison or do I plead guilty and just get 18 months?â, which obviously even if youâ(TM)re innocent youâ(TM)d seriously consider doing.

    20. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump steamrolled them at the G7 summit and uncovered a lot of uncomfortable facts about a long-time status quo the G7 would rather have remained obscured (like a 270% tariff on dairy going into Canada, a very real and chilling fact about which I had no idea previously).

      Not even considering some of the reasons those tariffs exist (which other posters have already elaborated on), the US has an $8 billion SURPLUS in trade with Canada, so its not exactly like we're getting the short end of the stick.

    21. Re:Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The auto industry was ahead of NAFTA with the Canada-US Auto Pact from the 1960s http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canada-us-automotive-products-agreement/

    22. Re:Yes, without success by terrycarlino · · Score: 2

      I know I'll get called a Russian sock puppet for this, but as someone who actually knows history I have to state that the Crimea was Russian for a long time (1789) and was only part of the Ukraine because the Soviet Union government transferred it to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Russian is and has been the main language. If the indigenous populous had been allowed to vote they would have voted to join Russia. (Just as the Spanish Catalonians would vote to leave Spain if they were allowed.)

    23. Re:Yes, without success by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      No, no, no - he only lies about 70% (or more) of the time: http://www.politifact.com/pers... .

    24. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They frequently mock us,

      About what? We were selling you apples (my country at least), you were selling us gaz. That's all. For the rest, we don't give a shit about Russia, you do whatever you want in you territories (invading other countries, we do not agree), we do whatever we want. In fact, I never heard any conversation about Russia between EU citizens (except for about tourism, we do like visiting Russia and spending money there).

      >They steal our trade secrets, steal our jobs,

      Which one? I am unable to cite any technological product coming from Russia. I am not able to see anything to steal. Rocket science? EU have got the NIH syndrome, scientist here are too proud to steal anything. Steal jobs, do not know any European working in Russia. Must be quite rare.

      >Russia was kicked out of the G8 as punishment for democratically electing Putin.

      Best joke ever.

      >There's a reason Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people and still has the overwhelming support of real Americans.

      Trump, did not even get the majority in number of electors (trump: 62,984,825 ; Clinton: 65,853,516). Lol, real American. You sound exactly like the nazi party during WWII... Real german, Aryan race, ... Blah, blah, ... Then for you more than 65,853,516 people are not real Americans...

    25. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then for you more than 65,853,516 people are not real Americans...

      You do know that the majority of those "votes" weren't even cast by real people, right? The US has a huge voter fraud problem that the liberals use to try and pretend that they have any backing from the American people.

    26. Re: Yes, without success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Har, har! Dumb Americans only produce Velveeta and Budweiser."

          -Yet another ignorant europoor.

    27. Re: Yes, without success by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Russia was kicked out of the G8 as punishment for democratically electing Putin.

      Nice try, Yuri. Russia was removed in 2014 - shortly after their illegal annexation of Crimea. Putin's last election was two years before that.

    28. Re:Yes, without success by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      And much of Poland was part of Prussia for hundreds, and the eastern seaboard of the US was part of the UK for well over a century. Historical ownership doesn't justify illegal annexation.

    29. Re:Yes, without success by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Too bad a Canadian already put links showing that Canada does. The fact of the matter is...nations can do this. It's call 'protecting domestic industries.'

    30. Re:Yes, without success by GrimSavant · · Score: 1

      I won't call you a sock puppet for that, but I do think it is a serious oversimplification of the history. Prior to being conquered by Russia, Crimea was held by the Crimean Khanate, which had Crimean Tatars as the dominant ethnic group. While Crimea was within the Russian empire and subsequently the USSR, the Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed, many fleeing to the Ottoman empire earlier on and eventually the entire population was exiled, mainly to central Asia, by Stalin in 1944. So when you talk about the indigenous population being "Russian", you mean the indigenous population that replaced the previous indigenous population that was wiped out or kicked out by the former empires.

      Justifying modern annexation and conquest based on claims of fallen empires is a pretty dangerous game in general, though. One of primary ancestors of modern Russia was Kievan Rus, centered in modern day Ukraine, and many modern Eastern European countries were at some point under control of either the Russian empire or the USSR. Letting Putin reclaim all that territory based on those old claims would be a great way to start WWIII, this time with nuclear war in Europe. Which gives you brief glance as to why a weak and distracted US and Western Europe and sundering our alliances is in Putin's interest.

    31. Re:Yes, without success by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That is why Canada has a tariff on US dairy products. Canada doesn't subsidize its dairy industry at all. The tariffs came into effect because the US insists on subsidizing its dairy industry with more US tax dollars than the entire Canadian dairy industry is worth [dairyinfo.gc.ca].

      I agree 100% that this was a stupid, stupid thing to try to point out. Canada is totally in the right here. If the government subsidizes an industry, it's fair to apply tariffs to correct that make your goods competitive again.
      Yet when we want to slap tariffs on goods going to China because the Chinese government does the same thing, everyone loses their shit.

  18. Re:What if it does not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You must not have been paying much attention. People are hoping for the best, but they have already seen over a year of this president's behavior and words.

    Are even the most ardent Trump supporters nervous-as-fuck that this is just going to be yet another embarrassment, or is there something about this story that makes you think he'll finally get something done correctly for the first time in his presidency? WTF is so bogglingly different about the Korean problem that makes it so much easier than the American problems that he keeps fucking up?

  19. Anti Trump, Pro Trump by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is coming from the New York Times. Keep that in mind as you read this article.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many NYT reporters provided sexual favors to federal bureaucrats for that scoop.

    2. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What sources are acceptable to you?

    3. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      I double down on Fox News and raise you a Breitbart.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    4. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      New York Times is a fine source. But one should always know where their news is coming from. Just part of being a wise consumer of news in today's world. It is also wise to look into who the actual sources are.
      Also for me, I tend to view all anonymous sources as the the writers personal views presented as journalism.
      I read the complete article. It presented a valid point of view. With only 1 anonymous source, most others were attributed.

    5. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if you're trying to talk the article up or down, but stating that Trump doesn't like science or advice from outside his trusted circle looks obvious and factual to me.

      My own observation is that most people still consider this a negative, which means all is not lost yet.

    6. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is coming from the New York Times. Keep that in mind as you read this article.

      Just my 2 cents ;)

      Ok. It's safe to assume you're on the side of anti-science.

      So noted.

    7. Re:Anti Trump, Pro Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, is this "obvious and factual" thing newsworthy? I like my news to contain something that I don't already know. This is just a content-free political hit-piece that makes a once respected news organization look rather yellow.

  20. I can't wait until Trump dies in federal prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a traitor, let's not overstate the obvious. He's Putin's little bitch moron.

  21. Not a science problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a people problem.

    No wonder nothing got done with Obama. Always listening to the wrong advisors!

  22. Re:What if it does not? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah I'm sure that South Korea had nothing at all to do with the peace talks. Of course it was God Emperor Trump that scared Kim Jong-Un into submission.

  23. Kendall the Trumpf dick cozy is accessible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Kendall's asshole today, only 200 dollars! New Orleans is CHOCK FULL of Republican Incel faggots like Kendall! Visit!

  24. Re:What if it does not? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    When North Korean re-joins with the south, taking away a huge potential problem for much of the world - who will you *thank*?

    Kenny Rogers had a #1 hit in 1978 with a song that could provide you with some valuable and much needed advice.

  25. North and South combining is a massive victory by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The only way North Korea will rejoin with the south is if Kim Jong-un is allowed to rule it. Will you consider that a victory? I certainly would not.

    I wouldn't consider that much of a victory but I also don't consider it a possibility so it really doesn't warrant any thought.

    Kim Jong-un isn't going to give up control of the North

    Oh, you didn't mean ALL of Korea. (or did you? Not very clear). Nor does he have to, he just has to open up borders and trade between the two countries. That *is* very possible. And is very much a massive victory.

    Trump might, however, create some kind of deal. The only leverage he has is lifting economic sanctions or war.

    "The only advantage Trump has are these giant massive levers here". Um, yes, those are actually two massive advantages. NK is dying as a country, Kim Jong-un knows this, all he needs is a path to a graceful exit rather than a blaze of glory - and Kim Jong-Un as crazy as he is, obviously is a person who wants to live in luxury rather than die in fire. Have you paid no attention to how he lives?

    There's no guarantee that the North would either negotiate in good faith or adhere to the "new rules".

    Oh they will not, but long term it will not matter if the people of the two Koreas are allowed to freely mix.

    The problem isn't the intelligence, prior attempts, or the people who worked on the problem before...

    Then why have there never been talks like this before? Instead all we saw, was countries getting played via telephone from North Korean leaders. Trump is not someone you can play like that because he knows the game, and is will to actually pull the levers unlike previous leaders who NK knew would never ever touch them - even in the face of nuclear weapons being built by North Korea.

    All politicians are sociopaths.

    Yes, but Trump is actually a strong sociopath unlike presidents for decades before him.

    That doesn't guarantee intelligence or good decision making.

    Neither does it preclude the same; Not having a nuclear war is great for Trump, it just also happens to work out for everyone else really well. Obama invited conflict (like invading Libya) so he could prove how tough he was. Obama really was the ultimate God of War.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Rob+Y. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but Trump is actually a strong sociopath unlike presidents for decades before him.

      Um, Trump is a sociopath that makes 'strong' statements and routinely backs down from them. But he's so strong that he refuses to admit he's backed down. I guess as long as the press has some modicum of 'The Emporor's New Clothes' respect left for the office, he can get away with that. But how exactly does that make him strong?

      And how the fuck have we gotten to the point where somebody like you, who seem nominally literate, will fawn over somebody being a sociopath - strong or otherwise? Or are paid trolls being dispatched to such obscure corners of the Internet as Slashdot? Now that's scary.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    2. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking that same thought.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    3. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or are paid trolls

      Go with that. And Russia, Russia, Russia, Trump is a psycho, etc. You've got it all figured out so don't change a thing.

    4. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you have been around long enough to read superkendall's drivel before.
      He has been wedded to ideology over reality for a loooong time and is remarkably capable of ignoring anything that disagrees with he predetermined 'facts'
      In other words, superkendall loves trump because they are so similar

    5. Re: North and South combining is a massive victory by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I think he meant that Trump is a strong sociopath, in contrast to the pathetic, weak, though more charismatic sociopaths (Obama, Bush, Clinton...) we have had for leaders in recent times.

      It comes with the job. Haven't you noticed how prematurely the hair has greyed on presidents? Their karma burns them up.

    6. Re: North and South combining is a massive victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some arguments for strong leaders, democracy is not perfect, but strong leaders never last, and the end is not pretty if democracy is not preserved.
      Anyway Trump is not a strong leader, he's a pathetic moron that wants to look strong, and he _only_ cares about himself. He is literally the opposite of everything a leader should be.

    7. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      And how the fuck have we gotten to the point where somebody like you, who seem nominally literate, will fawn over somebody being a sociopath - strong or otherwise?

      It's quite simple: because Trump normalized overt racism and misogyny. As long as he keeps the racists and misogynists happy, they will keep voting for him.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not the press man.

      They are hoarse from pointing out his lack of clothing for the last 9-12 months.

      The problem is Mr. Trump's authoritarian followers. Read up on the authoritarian mindset. It's present in about 25% of any population. It's capable of flipping on a dime repeatedly to conform to whatever the leader's new reality is.

      It is probably a huge survival trait in authoritarian regimes.

      If Mr. Trump says the sky is black, then to the authoritarian's, it's sincerely black.
      If the next day he says it is yellow, then it's sincerely yellow to them.

      They have little to no cognitive dissonance.

      We did a lot of research into this after world war 2.

      As long as democracy, honesty, and a free press are valued by the leadership- then the authoritarians value it. But they can flip on a dime to not valuing democracy, honesty, and a free press. Consider how many flipped from hating Russia to loving Russia in under 6 months. People who disliked Russia their entire lives suddenly were fine with Russia.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is strong in that he is, for all intents and purposes, able to break federal law over and over, and nobody will do anything but complain about it. The legislature are the only ones that can contain him before he goes full dictator, and they don't appear to care that much as long as it is *their* dictator.

      Even if Trump is a child-brained mafia boss feeding on Russian money, he is powerful if nobody enforces the Constitution and laws of the land on him. He is literally stealing the country from both the Republicans and the Democrats. There are no parties anymore when federal law isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

    10. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Mr. Trump says the sky is black, then to the authoritarian's, it's sincerely black.
      If the next day he says it is yellow, then it's sincerely yellow to them.

      and if Obama makes all the schoolbooks say there are 63 sexes and any student who mentions chromosomes will be punished for creating an unwelcoming environment for the mentally ill, people will tolerate Trump.

    11. Re:North and South combining is a massive victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Mr. Trump says the sky is black, then to the authoritarian's, it's sincerely black.
      If the next day he says it is yellow, then it's sincerely yellow to them.

      A good post, but to be fair the sky does actually tend to change colour several times within the span of a single day.

  26. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Curtman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.

    If he's unsure of who to trust, perhaps he should look at how Trump treats his allies. That should clear up any doubt.

  27. Bush admin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only when it served them, othertimes Republican fascism was enough.

  28. Meanwhile, New York Times is Anti-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of people in big cities telling us all how smart they are. Globalism isn't good for populist America, it is just good for the wealthy guys like Bezos and Slim and Buffet and Soros. Populist America isn't as dumb as they think.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, New York Times is Anti-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, shut up little trumptard snowflake. If we'd elected Harvey Weinstein for president we'd never hear the end of it. And yet you freely, willingly and knowingly elected a narcissist, psychopath, pedophile, sexual predator and con-man who's accumulated more than 1300 civil lawsuits against him in his carreer, and we should just let it slide ?

      Not only are you as dumb as we think you are, but since the last election, you've proven that you're even dumber than that.

      Now watch those who keep blaming the liberals for trying to take away their free speech downmod this post to hell. Typical conservative hypocrisy. Typical, but not surprising.

    2. Re: Meanwhile, New York Times is Anti-American by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      We almost did elect Weinstein into the White House. He was attached at the hip to Hillary. Her kind of guy. Look who she picked for a husband, for petes sake.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, New York Times is Anti-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Populist America isn't as dumb as they think."
      I don't know, yo support Trump thinking that he will defend the little guys, you have to be pretty damn stupid, like negative IQ.
      I just can't imagine a most obvious corrupt scam-artist.
      I guess their only excuse is that they are blinded by rage, it seems the only thing that matter to Trump supporters: making the libtards angry. Are you tired of winning yet ?

    4. Re:Meanwhile, New York Times is Anti-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you freely, willingly and knowingly elected a narcissist, psychopath, pedophile, sexual predator and con-man who's accumulated more than 1300 civil lawsuits against him in his carreer...

      The alternative was much worse.

    5. Re:Meanwhile, New York Times is Anti-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, this pathetic excuse is getting tiring. You all sound like a broken record.

      Tell me, were all the candidates running against Trump in the primaries also as bad or worse than Clinton ? Then why the f..k did you chose this bastard as the republican presidential candidate ? Or are you going to try to pin this one on the demacrats too ? For f..k's sake, you sound like a wife beater who's excuse is "she made me do it !". Pathetic.

      YOU chose Trump in the primaries, and then you did AGAIN in the presidential election. After the primaries, you had another chance to realize what you'd just done and come to your senses, and you blew it once more.

      For God's sake, grow up and man up. Make it right in three years. Kick this abomination to the curb and get a DECENT candidate in the primaries this time.

  29. South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course they do but South Korea credits Trump for talks with North Korea - wouldn't they be in a little better position to know who to credit than you?

    I mean, for decades there has been the opposite of progress, with North Korea developing nuclear weapons unchecked, killing soldiers from South Korea and America without repercussion. The government of South Korea has been as it is for a very long time.

    The only variable in this large equation that has changed is the introduction of Trump. So yes South Korea aided this by being open to talks, but it would not have happened (because it DID NOT HAPPEN) without Trump. End of story.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The only variable in this large equation that has changed is the introduction of Trump.

      That and NK accidentally destroyed their test facility meaning they suddenly have a lot more trouble developing further.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re: South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Korea credits Trump, because they understand him. Tell Trump that he's a genius, that his plan is brilliant, that he's the best ever... and he'll be your best friend (for a while). Hint that someone else deserves even partial credit, and he'll rage and fume and disregard anything else you might say.

    3. Re: South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      It's a wonder how SuperKendall is so naive about politics...

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    4. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by dirk · · Score: 1

      Trump is one variable that changed, yes. Another is the collapse of the North's nuclear testing site. It's a lot easier to say you will stop testing weapons when you have no place to test them.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    5. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by Dynedain · · Score: 2

      Of course they do but South Korea credits Trump for talks with North Korea - wouldn't they be in a little better position to know who to credit than you?

      President Moon rightly figured out the the easiest way to get Trump to go along with something is to simply give him the credit.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    6. Re: South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I like how you utterly ignore reasonable points about why Trump has been given credit, in favor of a crackpot theory that South Korea cares bout what Trump thinks when we already have good relations.

      It's true that Trump likes his ego stroked but that doesn't preclude all of my MANY other strong and sound points (so strong you apparently could do nothing to refute them) from being correct as well.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they do but South Korea credits Trump for talks with North Korea - wouldn't they be in a little better position to know who to credit than you?

      Or they could be appeasing the narcissist so you doesn't start WW3. To be stereotypical, the South Koreans know all about "saving face" as Asians, and they may have determined that this is necessary with Trump.

      We'll know the truth in a few years time once the memoirs are written.

    8. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Who will you blame at the end of the week for the titanic clusterfuck that results after this goes to hell? Will you dump it all on Kim and continue to brown nose Trump? Of course you will

      I'll do my "I told you so now" to get it out of the way. Send your apology anytime, I can wait until hell freezes over.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    9. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention please. There's cycles to these things. NK and SK have had ups and downs where they would have a joint work zone where workers from the north and south could work on things together, friendly talks between the leaders of the north and south, deals with the west securing aide and rolling back sanctions, etc. Then the North Koreans typically reneg on any deals, get provocative again, start killing South Koreans and Americans, kidnapping people across the boarder, testing nuclear weapons and missiles etc. They only play nice to get some stuff and get people off their back for a while, then go back on it once they feel they are in a position of strength again. Did you know the US tax payer is paying for Un's hotel room? It was a condition of this summit. They can afford a nuclear weapons program but not a goddamn hotel room? Or maybe we should be SO HONORED to be meeting with Un that we ought to fit the bill for him? Trump is a damn fool if he thinks this time will be any different. He already is a damn fool because he says he'll get a read on Un within a single goddamn minute. Give me a break.

    10. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Of course they do but South Korea credits Trump

      Yes, for the same reason Macron gave him a military parade, and Netanyahu put together a power point presentation for him fit for a 6 year old. The world knows America has an overgrown child as president. S. Korean and others still have things to gain from America, and they know stroking Trumps's ego is the way to get it.

      but it would not have happened (because it DID NOT HAPPEN) without Trump

      Soooo. What's happened again? Fill me in on what progress has been made.

    11. Re:South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Trump is one variable that changed

      Yes, what changed? Today we are talking about nuclear warheads hitting the coast of CA. 3 years ago you hardly heard anything about NK other than that Kim is over there being crazy doing crazy guy stuff.

      Progress.

      It's a lot easier to say you will stop testing weapons when you have no place to test them.

      Good thing NK only has one mountain in the entire country.

  30. More political slop from uninformed infiltrators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump takes plenty of advice and got to where he was in part by having trusted advisers and being a great leader. Just because he doesn't listen to the people who tried to run our country into the ground doesn't mean he doesn't follow advice from experts on all subjects. He does listen to real scientists, just not Bill Nye the Science Lie.

  31. Are you fucking serious? by DogDude · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking serious?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  32. NK already has nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what on Earth is It that one or few nuke specialists going to add?

  33. How is this flamebait... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    ...and the story it is in response to somehow is not? You're a strange one, slashdot.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  34. His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Troll

    and he made it very, very clear he'd oppose any effort to address or even recognize climate change or do anything whatsoever that would get in the way of business (under the theory we'd all be better off thanks to a large increase in employment opportunities).

    This is exactly what we signed on for, America. What I find odd is that there's so many pro Trump folks on /. (which is ostensibly a site for pro-science nerds) when it was so obvious Trump would oppose everything this site stands for. I mean, yeah, I don't like Hilary and voted against her in the primary, but she at least has a firm grasp on reality and believes in the scientific method.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Nkwe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I find odd is that there's so many pro Trump folks on /. (which is ostensibly a site for pro-science nerds)

      Many folks here on /. are indeed pro-science nerds. Many are also libertarian and don't like government regulation. Of the viable candidates, Trump was the most likely to reduce government regulation. Personally I am not a big fan of the president, but his election wasn't a surprise to me, nor is the support for him here on /.

    2. Re: His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      Trump's election has been devastating to the social conservative Republicans. The only bone really thrown to them was Pence as a running mate. Pence won't follow Trump into office after his 8 years are up. Pence is another Quayle, even comes from the same state.

      Trump wiped out the Bush and Clinton dynasties, and has severely nerfed the religious conservatives. That's an admirable accomplishment.

    3. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many folks here on /. are indeed pro-science nerds. Many are also libertarian and don't like government regulation.

      More to the point, many are poorly socialized, emotionally stunted children who vastly overestimate their own intelligence. They consistently develop cult of personality type infatuations with various people who are the raging assholes they wish they could get away with being.

      They are incapable of understanding that throwing their support behind that person does not make them that person, or someone similar. And because their egos are so fragile and so completely defined outside themselves, they fabricate their own "truths" so they don't have to come face to face with their own weakness and fear.

    4. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Required+Snark · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I look forward to your death by E. Coli from contaminated food.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    5. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      > I mean, yeah, I don't like Hilary and voted against her in the primary, but she at least has a firm grasp on reality and believes in the scientific method.

      Better burn it to the ground than let somebody like Hillary win.

      You just don't appreciate how much people dislike her. They dislike her so much that they willingly voted somebody in that they know has no business being there. Trump is just by accident.. if she was competing against let's say a chimpanzee.. you would have first animal for president. You have more chance of winning the presidency.

    6. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we see how rabidly the rightwingnutjob hates.

    7. Re: His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by pots · · Score: 1

      severely nerfed the religious conservatives

      I'm not seeing it. He has changed the focus from bigotry against gay people to bigotry against Muslims and "Mexicans." That's not at all a blow against religious conservatives, just a change in priorities.

      Anything else which might possibly be considered a nerf against religious conservatives? I can't think of anything. He's screwed transsexual people in the military, but that's not really a religious issue in the same way that it is for gay people. Abortion is pretty much the same debate as always... Tax exemptions for churches are the same and don't look like they're changing any time soon. What other political issues are religious in nature?

    8. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like Hilary and voted against her in the primary, but she at least has a firm grasp on reality

      Pfft. *snicker*. Good one.

      Oh, wait, you were serious? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! HOOOOOOT!!!! HOWWWWWLL!!!!!!!

      *rolls on floor laughing hysterically for over an hour*

      Can I have some of what you're smoking?

      Irony by captcha: 'condom'

    9. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      It's because most of these people are part of a paid Russian attack. The idea being, if you post enough doubt about the other side, the non-paid actors get tired or replying to it, and by sheer mass, it appears that your side is correct. It worked, and you see how Trumps adopted it to be one of his current policies around calling any fact he doesn't like Fake News.

    10. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Many folks here on /. are indeed pro-science nerds. Many are also libertarian and don't like government regulation. Of the viable candidates, Trump was the most likely to reduce government regulation. Personally I am not a big fan of the president, but his election wasn't a surprise to me, nor is the support for him here on /."

      This site is also heavily targeted by highly funded special interests, to go after minds that tend not to follow the leader - but do tend to observe thoughtful reasoning.

      Please stay above the noise that is trying to pull you under - this ugly chapter will bury itself soon.

    11. Re: His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Most religious conservatives I know voted for Trump. If anything he was a blow to the current Republican "free trade" orthodoxy. Republicans could have shored up power (through maintaining demographic advantage) for the next 50 years simply by shutting down immigration. It was a rational move for their party. They chose not to do this however and simply to pay lip service to it because for the Republican party the ideology of free trade trumps everything... until the Trump with a big 'T' was elected.

    12. Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If they aren't in lockstep with our narrative, they must be a foreign enemy agent"

      We have enough paid shills and political operatives as there is, without having to worry about Russians.

  35. Re:What if it does not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I am going to bring peace to the Middle East. Where is my thank you?

    It's not that everyone does not wish him to be successful, it is that we are preemptively calling bullshit. E.g., some people have had to actually deal with working with incompetent people in high impact environments.

  36. correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kim has two choices
    1. Make peace and play nice with the world
    2. President Trump finishes the Korean War, the hard way.

    North Korea can not be allowed to launch nuke ICBMs at Japan, Guam, USA, or anyone.
    They also can not be allowed to sell such weapons on the open market, to other countries - such as Iran.

    Nothing personal, it's just not going to happen.
    One way or the other.

    I congratulate North Korea on it's science successes - proving they are just as smart and just as skilled as other technological countries.
    However - now they have proven they can manufacture Nuke ICBMs, they no longer have to manufacture ICBMs - an expensive project for a cash poor nation.

    Ideally - United Korea could re-form and the great success of South Korea would rapidly grow and enrich North Korea.
    Samsung , LG, and KIA will no longer stand in the shadow behind USA companies - they will enjoy massive growth and wealth.

  37. It was never ravelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, get ye hence, build ye your bunker etc.

    Or maybe just curl up and weep.

  38. By all means let us examine friends of the U.S. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Troll

    If he's unsure of who to trust, perhaps he should look at how Trump treats his allies.

    You mean actual U.S. allies like Israel, India, Saudi Arabia, or Japan?

    Yes, yes it would make pretty clear how the U.S. treats real allies instead of bullshit artists who want nothing to do with possible U.S. success and work hard against it.

    I'm sure Kim has factored this in as well; for as crazy as he may be he's also been pretty shrewd.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:By all means let us examine friends of the U.S. by Curtman · · Score: 0

      Yep, that's it exactly. If he doesn't get his way every single time, he's taking his ball and going home. The petty, arrogant, ignorant fool who attacks his friends and plays the victim. Are you on staff with the administration? You play the part very well.

  39. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps those very allies shouldn't cry like little girls when we start making them pay for all of the benefits we give them. Without American exceptionalism having been pushed around the world, they have managed to live in relative peaceful times and grow, producing untold amounts of wealth, and all they have ever done is abuse our niceness to them.

    So yes, looking at the allies is a useful example. It shows we have a leader who isn't a walking doormat.

  40. The driving force of Science is the Free Market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It takes resources to do Science; the best thing we've got to create flows of resources is a Free Market.

    Trump is probably the most pro-Free-Market President we've had in a very long time, and even then he's not very pro-Free-Market.

  41. I used to think SlashDot readers were more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because it's been this way since WWII, doesn't mean it has to be that way. Or that it is relevant any longer. Or that it was a good idea to begin with. A single Science Adviser is like saying that, there is an expert for EVERYTHING. Not. Having a science adviser hasn't seemed to help the last few administrations deal with this problem. So why does not having one immediately doom this administration's efforts? What is the definition of the word 'crazy' again?

    I used to think SlashDot readers were more logical thinkers. More scientifically-minded if you will. But this particular article doesn't seem to move in that wave at all. If you results are going off the rails - which enough people believed our government was. You change something, and observe for better results. That is what we as US citizens did in November 2016. As so far, the man has done what he has said he was going to do. Like it or not.

    For those of you that didn't vote - shut up and participate next time or don't complain about the outcome. For a country as westernized as ours for only 1/3 of the population to participate in a federal election is shameful For those of you that couldn't vote - we really don't care about your feelings or opinions - not that our intentions were/are to harm you - we just don't care. Our decision, our election, our country, our President.

  42. Too bad we don't still have Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If only we had a Nobel Peace Prize Winner in office, who bombed the fuck out of a place like Libya for giving up their weapons years ago and failed to protect the Ukraine (after they agreed to give up weapons for our support), then we'd be able to inspire trust and honest bargaining.

  43. Was my pleasure showing your kind = liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was my pleasure showing your kind = liars & MORONS https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12209990&cid=56761056/ you welfare sucking leeches.

    APK

    P.S.=> You're also traitorous scumbags on the payroll of that HUMAN SWINE George "Jabba the Hut" Soros (everyone KNOWS thru his "Open Society Foundation" he pays ALL the radical groups too)... apk

  44. Mod Up by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    This post is exactly right, and a great indicator why the talks will be a success. Because NK knows more than anyone the costs of the talks failing.

    There may yet be a bit more drama and back and forth, but ultimately NK can't realistically fight a war of any kind for more than about an hour and at this point probably cannot hurt SK very much. So Kim Jong-un will take the path that lets him continue to party and live the high life.

    More than anything it would also play so well to his ego...

    As you say it is amazing to think what an economic powerhouse a unified Korea would be.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Mod Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much, there is option 3, where NK does exactly what it has done for the past 60 years, which is to threaten a strike on Seoul and play toady to China after promising fake concessions to get short term relief

      Or, even option 4, where he just plays Trump for a fool and then receives the accolades of the rest of the planet for exposing him as an idiot

      Any US attempt to attack NK will result in tons of artillery falling on the most populated area of the 11th largest economy on the planet, nobody is going to risk that regardless of what trump says

  45. Can you blame him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I watched Bill Nye he tried to turn ice cream gay.

    1. Re: Can you blame him? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Ice cream isn't gay.

      I can definitely visualize in my mind, though, a Bill Nye TV show episode (he's a tv actor, like Captain Kangaroo or Big Bird) where the experiment is making ice cream out of tomcat milk (with lots of hormone therapy involved).

  46. Re:Yep, problems all around by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry for bringing logic to a shit-flinging party, can't help myself.

    Unfortunately, you didn't. You have to look at absolute numbers, and not percentages, because the subsidies have a multiplicative effect. They not only change the profitability of milk, but they encourage overproduction (because the subsidies are based on production), which drives down prices.

    Indeed, according to government numbers, the US has a 5-1 price edge against Canada in dairy pricing due to subsidies. That should call for a 500% subsidy to fully correct for, and yet we only charge a 270% tariff.

    You'd expect if the tariffs were completely out-of-line that nobody in Canada would import dairy form the US, and yet in 2016 alone we imported more than $631 million in dairy from the US. For a population smaller than that of California.

    Again -- talk to your own government first. I'd be more than happy to see both of our countries (and the EU, which has the largest dairy subsidies in the world) drop dairy tariffs -- but the unfair subsidies have to come down first. It's the subsidies that have caused the tariffs, not the other way around. Canada is hardly in some power position where we can drop our tariffs and hope for some form of "general goodwill" that the US will stop unfair subsidies and attempts at dumping. The Canadian Government has been clear in the past that if the subsidies go away, we won't need the tariffs anymore.

    Yaz

  47. Yes they have by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, at least they haven't started WWIII over the issue up until now.

    They very much did by allowing to let North Korean (and Iran) get within one launch or a smuggled shipping port nuke away from starting WWIII (or at least a nuclear conflict).

    You can start wars through inaction as well action, you know.

    Just because the nuclear shot has not been fired does not mean the war has not begin.

    I mean, we have dead U.S. soldiers (from Iran and North Korea) and everything... how is that not a war?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes they have by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simply redefining words to mean anything you want is not a valid way to make a point.

    2. Re:Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Better tell the DNC and progressives that. I don't think they're aware.

    3. Re:Yes they have by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, but you'll have to forgive him, he was typing through a quantum gateway to our universe using some scavenged together computer parts that somehow survived the EMP after Iran and North Korea started WW-III and nuked America in 2009..

      If you look back through his netbook's webcam, you can see SuperKendall waving his fist in the air, as he screams into the sky: Thanks Obama!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Yes they have by multi+io · · Score: 1

      What words have they redefined?

    5. Re: Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Partial listing:

      Racism, Tax, Coverage, Equality, Freedom, Rights, Prosperity, Science, Rape, Marriage, Man, Woman, Left, Right, Unemployment, Inflation, Fair, Corrupt

      I'm sure I missed a few...

    6. Re: Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know which country is more likely to start WWIII?

      The fucking USA.

    7. Re:Yes they have by Barsteward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why shouldn't NK and Iran have nuclear? An overriding sense of perceived moral superiority over other nations with a different colour skin is not an answer. Trump and Putin aren't the most stable of leaders.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re:Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't this work like handguns?
      If everyone has nukes, then everyone is safe. If you forbid nuclear proliferation, only criminals will have nukes.

    9. Re:Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump and Putin aren't the most stable of leaders.

      Trump isn't.

      Putin is fairly stable.
      He uses the military to back up his threats, but if some NATO countries suddenly decided to liberate Crimea then Putin will cut his losses there. He isn't going to start a war he can't survive keep until someone starts to go after Russia proper.

      The only thing holding Trump back is other people.
      Trump isn't going to start WW3 simply because the rest of the government wouldn't let him.

    10. Re:Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least they haven't started WWIII over the issue up until now.

      They very much did by allowing to let North Korean (and Iran) get within one launch or a smuggled shipping port nuke away from starting WWIII (or at least a nuclear conflict).

      You can start wars through inaction as well action, you know.

      Just because the nuclear shot has not been fired does not mean the war has not begin.

      I mean, we have dead U.S. soldiers (from Iran and North Korea) and everything... how is that not a war?

      Allowing North Korea and Iran? Do these countries only do what they are "allowed" to do? Or are they sovereign nations? You Americans really do think you rule the world.

    11. Re:Yes they have by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't NK and Iran have nuclear? An overriding sense of perceived moral superiority over other nations with a different colour skin is not an answer.

      It doesn't matter what the color of the skin is (Iran is ethnically Caucasian), but yes, having moral superiority is nice. NK and Iran have both promised to use everything in their power to wipe their peaceful neighbors off the map. I think their word on such matters should be trusted.

    12. Re: Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't you forget it eurofag.

    13. Re:Yes they have by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Do you think Stalin wouldn't have invaded western Europe absent nukes?

      Do you think the Indians (dot) and Pakistanis wouldn't have been back at war by now absent nukes?

      Do you think Taiwan would still be independent if they didn't have biological and chemical weapons?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re: Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed to list these new definitions. I can write any list of words I don't like any day and say you've redefined them. What's more interesting are the words you chose to list. That describes an awful of about you. From your list, you appear to be a republican/libertarian white christian male with little to no education who has issues with women, transgenderism, and with giving social welfare to minorities while collecting welfare yourself. You checked ALL the boxes, son!

    15. Re:Yes they have by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're showing your ingorance now - Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program before the Iran Deal. Their leaders had issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons in Islamic countries. The international community, including intelligence services such as the CIA, Mossad, and MI6, all agreed that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

      Please stop lying.

    16. Re: Yes they have by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      Here a few words they've redefined in the Newspeak liberal dictionary:

      Hate = anything libs don't agree with that is even remotely related to race or religion.
      Diversity = not white.
      Black = even a drop of African blood -- this definition used to be racist, but now its okay since they're using it.
      Fascism = Right - even though this word was created for the facisto supporters in WWII Italy and applies to the Nazi (National Socialist) party of WWII Germany.
      Gender = Fluid and based on feeling rather than biology.
      Race = not fluid and everyone is a victim except whitey, they never can be History = something to erase if it doesn't fit today's PC narrative. Interesting that ISIS feels the same way as they destroy ancient monuments
      Science = Any data that supports the notion that the USA is bad or that humanity should be reduced by any means necessary to minimize our impact on the planet.

      The list is virtually endless. The Obama years were simply awful for a lot of our citizens. If you didn't have concerns about this, you've been indoctrinated rather than educated and should sue your "university" immediately for some of that student loan money back.

    17. Re: Yes they have by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Hate - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.
      Diversity - again, you made that up.
      Black - again, you made that up.
      Fascism - this is what conservatives keep telling themselves, but every time I've heard a liberal call someone fascist or Nazi, it was for specific reasons that relate to that ideology. Your comment, suggesting it only applies to members of two political parties in history, is truly bizarre. Even most of those upset by the idea that white supremacist groups might legitimately be called Nazi would name several groups that fall under the fascism umbrella that aren't Mussolini's or Hitler's.
      Gender - that's literally what it means you numbskull. Why do you think we have the word when we have the word "sex" to describe the biology? It exists to describe the psychological and social side of the social divisions normally associated with the reproductive process. YOU are the one trying to redefine it.
      Race - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.
      History - now you're not even pointing at definitions, you're just having a rant against a straw man.
      Science - ditto.

      Zero for eight. You should be embarrassed.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re: Yes they have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate - never seen anyone use your definition.

      Interesting that you're using the conservative rhetoric of "I haven't seen it therefore it's not true"

      Diversity - again, you made that up.
      Black - again, you made that up.

      The words you're looking for is "fake news", Mr President.

      Again, very interesting that you're trying to rebuke the right... by adopting the very tactics of the right.

      Fascism - this is what conservatives keep telling themselves, but every time I've heard a liberal call someone fascist or Nazi, it was for specific reasons that relate to that ideology.

      Every time you've heard it? Again with passing off only your personal anecdotal experience as acceptable truth. You remind me of conservatives going "It's cold here, therefore climate change isn't real!" "well I'm not convinced by all those reports from quote unquote scientists, therefore they're all faked! Liberal conspiracy!"

      Your comment, suggesting it only applies to members of two political parties in history, is truly bizarre.

      Or, he is NOT suggesting that, and you're the one who is, as you say, literally making that up.

      Even most of those upset by the idea that white supremacist groups might legitimately be called Nazi would name several groups that fall under the fascism umbrella that aren't Mussolini's or Hitler's.

      That's irrelevant. The claim was the left has redefined the meaning of the word, not whether some people today could fit the original meaning of the word or that some people (on the left) are still using the original meaning of the word

      Think of it this way: if I say that around the world, there are people robbing other people. You don't prove or disprove that by pointing to a bunch of upstanding innocent citizens.

      So did the left redefine the word? Well, we just need to find some instance where they did. One instance I can think of is the 2016 election cycle, when it comes to discussing (illegal) immigration, the wall, and Muslims. A large part of the conversation was the left trying to paint any support for those policies as related to fascism, instead of whatever stated reason the conservative has for supporting that policy. Another common tactic is guilty by association. You support policy X? Well, some Nazis over there also support policy X? Are you a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer?

      Gender - that's literally what it means you numbskull.

      What it means *today*. Before, not so much. A quick wiki says the idea of gender as different from biological sex started in the 50s, got popularized by feminists in the 70s, fought to be incorporated into law in the 80s and 90s, with the FDA going back and forth on the definitions as recently as 2011

      So the definition has changed, all within a person's lifetime (older Boomers were alive in the 50s). You can argue the change is good, but you can't deny that the meaning of the word has changed.

      Race - never seen anyone use your definition. You literally made that up.

      Again with the climate change denial rhetoric.

      History - now you're not even pointing at definitions, you're just having a rant against a straw man.
      Science - ditto.

      No, he did offer new definitions.

      The former is "something to erase if it doesn't fit today's PC narrative", the latter is "Any data that supports the notion that the USA is bad or that humanity should be reduced by any means necessary to minimize our impact on the planet"

      You can disagree with those definitions, but they are still definitions.

      That you represent him as not having offered definitions is, ironically, itself a strawman.

      Zero for eight.

      Same score as you then.

      You should be embarrassed.

      Why should he feel embarrassed? Again, you've got the same score. As noted above, you act the same way as the right you mock. You're birds of a feather!

  48. I think we were doing just fine by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    until Saddam & Gaddafi. In both cases we secured promises, backed up by extensive international inspections, that they would not develop weapons of mass destruction. And in both cases we proved to be untrustworthy and brutal and arranged for both men to be murdered (Gaddafi died with a bayonet twisting in his gut).

    Kim would be a real mad man if he stopped trying to get nukes after seeing what we do to people who relinquish them

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, you lie. We didn't "arrange for" Qaddafi to get killed. He arranged that through an unusually cruel dictatorship. We let it happen, by putting a little bit of ordinance into keeping his military from wholesale slaughter of civillians. Saddam of course, you know, and deny, was delbierately keeping inspectors away from certain facilities while also shooting at aircraft patrolling the no fly zone he agreed to. Shooting at military aircraft is, of course, an act of war. Clearly, it was the Americans who were untrustworthy and eventually got tired of that shit and shot back.

    2. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khaddafi actually died getting fucked up the ass with a sword, if that is what you mean by "bayonet twisting in his gut".

    3. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I suppose the bit where we didn't actually find any sign that they were producing weapons of mass destruction after deposing Saddam is lost on you? The worst they found were old gas weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war a decade earlier and those were largely unusable. What we did find were a shitload of documents that confirmed that they'd given up trying to develop WMDs.

      But hey, who cares about facts anymore. If a politician says it, it's your patriotic duty to believe it, right?

    4. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until Saddam & Gaddafi. In both cases we secured promises, backed up by extensive international inspections, that they would not develop weapons of mass destruction. And in both cases we proved to be untrustworthy and brutal and arranged for both men to be murdered (Gaddafi died with a bayonet twisting in his gut). Kim would be a real mad man if he stopped trying to get nukes after seeing what we do to people who relinquish them

      Actually it was worse than that, the bayonet was shoved up Gaddafi's rectum, on film. That is also why one wonders what Bolton was thinking when he announced that the Libyan model would be applied to N-Korea unless Bolton was deliberately trying to sabotage the whole process since his go-to solution to resolve any dispute with another country seems to be war. Either way, I'm pretty sure the only reason Kim Jong Il is showing up for this summit is because the Chinese twisted his balls and I'll eat my hat if he actually gives up his nukes.

    5. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Kim needs development of nukes to keep his spot at the table. He won't back down from that - and he knows he'll lose power if he gives it up.

    6. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting at military aircraft is, of course, an act of war. Clearly, it was the Americans who were untrustworthy and eventually got tired of that shit and shot back.

      What about shooting at civilian aircraft? Is that an act of war too? If so, how do you justify the US shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner? Just curious.

    7. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, that's the GP's point. Saddam caved to the US demands for weapons inspectors and stopped developing WMDs of any kind. In response, we killed him.

    8. Re: I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaddafi was a good man.

      Hillary Clinton is the butcher of Libya.

    9. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. Kim can currently back down to the exact point he was in before the nuclear program, and get considerable concessions from the West in exchange. Add a little bit of thawing the restrictions and he'll be lauded a great reformer of the country. He knows using, or even keeping the nukes would be suicidal now, but instead of fighting a losing battle, he can just get paid to back off to prior positions - demand embargoes reduced, etc.

      He didn't need nukes to bomb USA or Japan. He needed them so that he could sell denuclearization.

    10. Re:I think we were doing just fine by bluegutang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Saddam kicked out the inspectors which were supposed to verify the lack of a nuclear program. Why on earth would he do that if he didn't have a nuclear program?

      The answer is, because he wanted to convince Iran, his regional rival, that he had a nuclear program. Unfortunately, he did too good a job, and convinced the Bush administration too, and we got a very destructive war as a result.

      WRT Libya (and all the more so Ukraine a couple decades earlier) you are correct that the US broke its promises and gave a massive incentive to proliferators in the future.

    11. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minding your own damn business got us into two world wars we almost didn't survive. If it happens again, most will not survive. Both men murdered countless other men and women. All sides have blood on their hands. When all is said and done, dictatorships are always destined to fall and collapse and the neighbours are left to pick up the pieces if they were not conquered by said dictator first. There is true evil in this world and comparing the torture or destruction the US does to that evil is a joke. None of it is right...but what fucking planet do you live on again?

    12. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Whibla · · Score: 1

      I suppose the bit where we didn't actually find any sign that they were producing weapons of mass destruction after deposing Saddam is lost on you?

      But hey, who cares about facts anymore.

      Perhaps a more pertinent question might be: Who cares about reading posts before flying off the handle?

      I've accentuated the two key words that demonstrate GP was only too aware of the situation:

      In both cases we secured promises ... that they would not develop weapons of mass destruction. And in both cases we proved to be untrustworthy and brutal ...

      Replying and raging based, presumably, on who's posting rather than what they said is ... 'unhelpful'.

    13. Re:I think we were doing just fine by butchersong · · Score: 2
    14. Re:I think we were doing just fine by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Keep spreading the propaganda. American troops were exposed to chemical e\weapons during the attack. Biological weapon facilities were found, but actual stores of biological stocks were destroyed, so they wouldn't be found. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons. What we found were records that showed that subordinates were lying to Saddam about the viability of their program. So he thought that Iraq was much closer to nuclear weapons than they were. That erroneous information was what fooled all of the intelligence agencies, U.S., Israeli and European.

      Meanwhile during the war the chemical weapons people say Suddam didn't have were used on U.S. troops.

    15. Re:I think we were doing just fine by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it reversed. the reason Kim came to the table is because with Obama he was convinced the U.S would do nothing. With Trump he is absolutely convinced that having a few nukes will not protect him from the U.S. taking him out. Since survival is the thing most important to him he is now willing to negotiate, convinced that he can control his own people (Gaddafi was taken out by his own people not the U.S.), and make a deal with the U.S. even if he has to give up his nukes. We'll see what happens.

    16. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it reversed. the reason Kim came to the table is because with Obama he was convinced the U.S would do nothing. With Trump he is absolutely convinced that having a few nukes will not protect him from the U.S. taking him out. Since survival is the thing most important to him he is now willing to negotiate, convinced that he can control his own people (Gaddafi was taken out by his own people not the U.S.), and make a deal with the U.S. even if he has to give up his nukes. We'll see what happens.

      Kim always wanted to meet with the US president. The rest of them were smart enough to refuse without North Korea making some changes. Trump folded, because he mistakenly thought Kim wanted to meet him because he's Trump. This isn't great negotiation.

    17. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would he do that if he didn't have a nuclear program?

      It has been some time, however I seem to remember that the people behind the inspections started to antagonize him. Their job was to find something and they didn't find anything for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they explored the corners of the agreement and overstepped some either trying to catch Saddam on a violation or to force him to end the deal - having some foreign inspectors order you around certainly doesn't project the image of a ruthless and invincible dictator.

      By now we had an army there and they didn't find a sign of anything that we didn't know about when the inspections were still a thing, so it is unlikely that he had a nuclear program at any time.

    18. Re:I think we were doing just fine by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he did too good a job, and convinced the Bush administration too, and we got a very destructive war as a result.

      Yeah guess the only way to know for sure was to turn the country into a smoking heap of ashes.

    19. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile during the war the chemical weapons people say Suddam didn't have were used on U.S. troops.

      I'm sure you've got a legitimate source for that, and aren't just parroting propaganda yourself.

    20. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I've never heard of an "unusually cruel dictatorship" where the vast majority of people supported the "unusually cruel dictator".

      In other words, how many South Americans does the CIA have to murder before you realize socialism is bad?

    21. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats... not true. The CIA actually bought a bunch of WMDs from Iraq, and there are plenty of reports of US soldiers getting sick or injured from being around them. Even if it wasn't true (which, it was. There was even a NY Times article on it) Saddam himself wanted the world to believe he did. I guess this is just revisionist history at its finest.

    22. Re:I think we were doing just fine by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Of course it is not really discussed, it was a leftist administration that did it.

    23. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Shooting at military aircraft is, of course, an act of war. Clearly, it was the Americans who were untrustworthy and eventually got tired of that shit and shot back.

      What about shooting at civilian aircraft? Is that an act of war too? If so, how do you justify the US shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner? Just curious.

      It could have been an act of war. Fortunately neither the US nor Iran were particularly interested in going to war over it. Both sides believe it was a terrible reckless mistake and settled it diplomatically.

    24. Re:I think we were doing just fine by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's the GP's point. Saddam caved to the US demands for weapons inspectors and stopped developing WMDs of any kind. In response, we killed him.

      Saddam played both sides. He played ball with the weapons inspectors for a time until the CIA sent infiltrators hidden in the inspectors to bug sensitive areas. He kicked them out and gave the impression to his neighbors that he had WMDs as a deterrent to prevent them from attacking him (IE, Iran..).

    25. Re:I think we were doing just fine by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Rectum...damn near ki...oh!

      He deserved to die of it, slowly. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  49. Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

    See recent Slashdot submission titled Petroglyph Explanation Remains Ignored After 15 Years. This situation with Trump lacking a science advisor is not especially different in that the person making these petroglyph claims, Anthony Peratt, is a government scientist specializing in high-energy density plasmas and nuclear physics, and has even advised the US government on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The Submission ...

    A government researcher in plasma and nuclear physics demonstrated in a 2003 paper that 40% of all petroglyph types could be correlated to unique forms witnessed for the first time just two years prior in classified government laboratories. A recent Joe Rogan Experience episode viewed by a million people and featuring Robert Schoch, a Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, briefly mentions the discovery. But petroglyph experts and the larger scientific community continue to completely ignore the findings and implications. What does it mean that the public must learn about this groundbreaking discovery from a comedian? Why have science journalists ignored the discovery for almost 15 years?

    The Slashdot community does not itself seem especially concerned about warnings from nuclear scientists, as the submission has had plenty of time by now to make it to the homepage.

    1. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The submission has so many links, it's not clear what the main link is. So clean that up. Secondly, it has too many youtube videos. No one has time for that, find a text version (again, see the first sentence). Youtube video links don't make it to the front page very often. Third, get rid of the link to the comedian.

      Finally, and most importantly, looking through the links, the hypothesis is interesting, certainly prehistoric man looked at and recorded the stars, but I don't see the rock solid evidence. Where are the pictures of petroglyphs compared to the High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora? I'll be honest, I don't even know what a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora looks like. So it's hard to really evaluate the hypothesis.

      Finally, as an alternative hypothesis, some of these petroglyphs are still being made by native tribes from around the world, so we do know what a lot of them mean.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Re: "it has too many youtube videos"

      There are two, and both are timestamped. The first takes you directly to the most important quote:

      "My first introduction to petroglyphs was by David Talbott. I went to a meeting of his by accident, and learned something about what they were doing. And then he showed me some pictures, and I looked at the pictures and I said 'Where did you get these pictures?', because I had never seen them outside of an unclassified environment, to tell you the truth. And they're on rocks ...

      'Where are these rocks stored? What vault?'

      He's got these rocks ... You know, I was kind of, you know, what am I gonna do now?

      And he said, 'Oh no, they're all over, they're petroglyphs, they're all over the place.'

      And I was stunned. Having worked in what's called high-energy density plasmas, high-energy density nuclear physics, I was stunned that these pictures - apparently thousands of years old - preceded what we had only been recording for about two years with our new facilities which cost a lot of money."

      Anthony Peratt, On the Origins of Icons from Antiquity,
      Redhill, May 21, 2005
      https://youtu.be/6meaU1QcSdA?t...

      Re: "but I don't see the rock solid evidence"

      That's not my fault. That's because Slashdot is too old fashioned to display imagery on the site, and you apparently didn't go through all of the materials. There is a map of the sequence of plasma formations - the Peratt instability map - in one of the links, where the petroglyphs are correlated with reconstructions of the laboratory forms. The video shows the actual declassified laboratory imagery.

      Realize that for each of these types of petroglyphs, they all have a view of the south magnetic pole.. That is discussed in the video as well.

    3. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Re: "it has too many youtube videos" There are two

      Yes, that is too many.

      and you apparently didn't go through all of the materials.

      I barely have time to read the summary, clicking through a maze of links is too much trouble. I clicked around for a while but didn't see much good. Isn't there a single page that summarizes it all?

      Realize that for each of these types of petroglyphs, they all have a view of the south magnetic pole.

      Really? Is that true? Tucson Arizona has a view of the south magnetic pole?

      Seriously though, the formatting of the submission is very poor, that's the #1 reason it didn't get accepted.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      I've implemented your suggestions w a new submission, and there has been no difference at all in the moderation. This does not reflect well upon the tech community ... apparently so busy making apps that there is not enough time to listen to a government researcher explain that the Earth was hit by a solar outburst which appears to have been much stronger than the Carrington event.

      Re: "Really? Is that true? Tucson Arizona has a view of the south magnetic pole?"

      Ah, so because I did not put the word "sky" after "south magnetic pole", you don't believe it?

      Re: "Isn't there a single page that summarizes it all?"

      The problem is that science journalists refuse to cover the matter, and since people don't know what a plasma is, they quickly stop trying to understand it. History will not look kindly upon the tech community's lack of leadership. This is yet another instance where there is a real need for forward-looking leaders thinking deeply about the hardening of all of our networks and power grids, and apparently it is just too much work to care.

      I honestly have considerably more faith that Trump will sort out the North Korean situation than tech creating networks and power grids which are actually hardened against solar outbursts.

    5. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      It's an improvement!

      The way it's written, it seems like it's about petroglyphs. People aren't really interested in petroglyphs on this site.......

      I honestly have considerably more faith that Trump will sort out the North Korean situation than tech creating networks and power grids which are actually hardened against solar outbursts.

      Yeah, I agree haha.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have science journalists ignored the discovery [sic] for almost 15 years?

      Because it's junk.

    7. Re:Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 2

      Honestly, at this point, I am trying too hard to help tech help itself. If the world of tech cannot understand or care about the meaning of these findings - whose importance are truthfully inherently self-evident - then let it crash and burn. Whatever replaces it will learn from tech's failure.

  50. Um... because you would want someone by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    who can speak intelligently about nuclear weapons vs nuclear power?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um... because you would want someone by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      No one on Slashdot.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  51. Among other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like logic, reason, truth, compassion, honesty, decency.

    Just ask the leaders of the free world, AKA the G6.

    Most people follow leaders, and most leaders lead towards progress not away from it.

    I'm sure the other countries aka "turd world" countries will follow the USA.

    The way to tell when an American is lying, "words are coming from their mouth".

    1. Re:Among other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most leaders of the major democratic countries appeal, even if just in appearance, to the best that humanity has to offer, like you said: logic, reason, compassion, decency, etc.

      When Trump opens his mouth, all he ever appeals to is anger, fear, selfishness, greed, hate.

      And yet, he won the election.

      That tells me all I need to know about the majority of Americans.

  52. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 0

    I would want to have someone who could clarify terms like "get rid of" and who could interpret their offer to "cease production". Even if they aren't at the table, you need to know if they are even offering anything.

    They closed down a test facility that was probably ruined by earthquake and dangerous. That's not giving up anything. You can't have a deal where one side doesn't know what they agreed to.

    Yes even in very broad terms.

  53. Yes there are specific examples by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you have any examples (specific quotations would be awesome but I think that might be asking too much) of bad science advice people have given with regards to Korea?

    Well the scientists working with intelligence agencies have been wrong about the speed at which North Korean could develop nuclear weapons and delivery technology basically forever - from the most recent example:

    " At the start of Donald Trump's presidency, American intelligence agencies told the new administration that while North Korea had built the bomb, there was still ample time - upward of four years - to slow or stop its development of a missile capable of hitting an American city with a nuclear warhead."

    But this kind of terrible under-estimation goes back decades.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please can you tell us where estimates for the time it would take NK to establish a viable nuclear weapons program were provided, and where they were wrong.

      Alternatively, stop making shit up.

    2. Re: Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, eurotroll.

    3. Re: Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argument through attrittion: attach to every point of the opponent's claim and demand more, better sources to wear them off. At some point the opponent gets tired of doing your homework for you and you claim victory because *something* they said is unsourced.

    4. Re:Yes there are specific examples by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They have warheads. They have missiles. So they can deliver the warheads with the missiles?

      There's a bit more to it than nipping down to B+Q and getting a blister pack of bolts.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...there was still ample time - upward of four years ... But this kind of terrible under-estimation goes back decades.

      That's because they use US as a baseline. Nothing gets done "quick" these days (lawyers, discussions, and then more discussions), so we don't expect other nations to do things quick either. Essentially they underestimate the swiftness with which things operate if you remove roadblocks and ignore anyone not raising a genuine technical objection.

      During WW2, US had very similar environment (in relation to nukes)... US managed to go from *nothing* (no plans, and no physics worked out, just an idea that "big enough chunk of uranium might go boom") to *TWO* nuclear designs within 3 years. Thinking that any nation-state cannot replicate a nuke (with already existing public knowledge---stuff to eliminate blind alleys---and knowledge that it *can* be done) within a few years of dedicated effort is just being stupid.

    6. Re:Yes there are specific examples by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Ironically the first Science Advisers were to advise on how to make a nuclear weapon and immolate people a few hundred thousand at a time.

      Interesting stance for the NYTs to take.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re: Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argument through bullshit. You did not provide any proof for your claim, because you have none. NK does not have a viable warhead miniaturised to be delivered via ICBM. You are claiming that they will have within 31 months. Back up your claim.

    8. Re:Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is maybe because it was not about developing... They were right about the time to develop. BUT the non scientist failed with their works: a success commercial embargo. The "political" premises under which scientists were wrong, there was technology exchange. A-Bomb asks Pakistan... For the missiles, check the usual suspect and strange pieces from western countries (an intermediary?). Seems more a political failure and a secret services failure than a scientific failure. It was never about developing but about transferring technology.

    9. Re:Yes there are specific examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't prove bad scientific advice though. The advice would have been based on the intelligence the scientists were allowed to see; that intelligence could have been bad (more likely than not).
      I bet the scientific advisers said something like "If the intelligence reports are correct then they will need x years..."

  54. Re:What if it does not? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    As long as the re-unification creates a democratic state, I for one would be be quite happy.

    My worry is that with Trump involved he might mix up the 'good' and 'bad' Korea and give control to the North.

  55. Science requires evidence by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    and there's plenty to support Trump being anti-science. To wit:

    His EPA chief is ignoring air and water quality research and reducing controls on water and air quality

    He called Global Warming a Chinese hoax, despite the overwhelming condenses of peer reviewed science recognizing it

    He opposes Net Neutrality and ignores studies that show eliminating it would have negative effects on the free exchange of ideas.

    He and his VP support Abstinence based education even though it's been shown to be completely ineffective (again, by science).

    Two words: Clean Coal.

    Two more words: Betsy Devos

    I could go on and on. The scientific position to take is that Trump is, in fact, anti-science. He doesn't believe in evidence and facts, preferring the "I substitute your reality with my own" school of thought. To call him anything but anti-science is itself anti-science. It's an attempt to ignore or refute reality itself.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Science requires evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget about the EPA saying that asbestos is OK again thanks to Trump and his legion of morons.

  56. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    ...oh really.. by all means tell us about history's great scientists and what they were trying to sell?

  57. Re:Yep, problems all around by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You seem to confuse production efficiency with subsidy, correcting for subsidy is one thing, correcting because your own farmers can't produce milk at the same price because they are more inefficient is very much protectionism (and a kind of subsidy all by itself on the part of the Canadian government, very telling you cannot or will not admit that).

    I think at this point it's important to let readers read facts about the matter rather than your own un-substnatiated figures, I think I'll leave the discussion at that - facts on which people can decide, rather than the emotion of only one side supposedly subsidizing an industry.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  58. Re:What if it does not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be very curious to see the mental gymnastics required to not give Trump any credit

    Really? This still holds interest for you? The entire intellectual apparatus of the Western world has been hell bent on denying Trump credit for anything since he was elected, including the fact that he was elected. What aspect of this behavior do you still find interesting?

    You're not dealing with rational people waiting dispassionately for the outcome to judge the results fairly. These are partisans. Turn them off. They do more damage than any benefit you might have by listening to them about anything.

  59. Re:Yep, problems all around by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Informative

    correcting because your own farmers can't produce milk at the same price because they are more inefficient is very much protectionism

    Canada has higher food quality regulations than the US does. We don't permit the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in milk producing cows for one. We also don't permit the high levels of antibiotic use the US dairies are allowed to use in the US. The maximum Somatic Cell Count permitted in Canadian milk is nearly half that allowed in US milk.

    So yes, in some ways Canadian dairy production is slightly less efficient, but only because we don't feed our cows growth hormones which are detrimental to both bovine and human health, and don't allow all the blood and pus and other non-milk cellular material the US permits in their milk products.

    But again -- if US dairies are willing to meet our dairy requirements and stop with the subsidies worth more than the entire Canadian dairy industry is worth -- you'll find Canada ready to talk. Again -- the tariffs were in response to continued US Government subsidies, and not the other way around.

    Yaz

  60. Re: Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second you resort to name calling in a debate, you've lost.

  61. Re: By all means let us examine friends of the U.S by Curtman · · Score: 1

    I would save the celebration for a while. Absolutely nothing has been solved thus-far. America is increasingly isolated by the antics of your glorious leader, including his pursuit of Russian interests while he is being investigated for collusion with the Russians.

  62. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These aren't hard concepts, nor are they at all unprecedented.

    "get rid of" = dismantle any operational or partially assembled nuclear explosive device, under inspection from international observers (UN inspectors), and nuclear material turned into a mixed-oxide reactor-grade fuel assembly.

    "cease production" = complete cessation of production of nuclear explosive devices or their components; stopping any fuel enrichment activities; dismantling of any laboratories or facilities related to the creation of, assembly of, or production of nuclear explosives, components, or enrichment of nuclear fuel.

    How is that hard to grok?

  63. Re: I can't wait until Trump dies in federal priso by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Your crapflood is boring. Weak. Pathetic.

    You embarass the balanced and rational people who oppose Trump. They wish your kind would just shut up.

  64. Re:BIGLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is using AI to solve this, the true millennial genius he is! You so woke bro!!

  65. Re: Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second you use ac sockpuppets to support your position, kendall, you have proven what a lying coward you are

  66. Re: In a shithole cuntry maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the USA. It's filled with USAmericans.

  67. Really msmash? We've sunk to this? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Out and out editorials, no facts, nothing at all. Just a pure, garbage opinion piece.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: Really msmash? We've sunk to this? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      We have.

      Slashdot is under rather new ownership. There have been subtle changes.

  68. Re:Kendall you are a moron by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    "Get rid of" - eliminate. No longer possess.

    "Cease production" - stop building new ones.

    You're welcome. Sheesh, it's politicians who love debating what the meaning of is, is. A different approach here is at least moving the process forward, a process that has seen 3 Administrations, over 24 years, basically appease North Korea and fail to control anything.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  69. Re:You do love getting bitchslapped dont you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're such an Amerikuk Kendall.
    The Washington Post? Oh go fucking hang!

  70. Nice straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Trump is not anti-science or anti-advice.

    He is PRO getting the job done.

    1. Re:Nice straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahaha has, you Trumplthinskins are deluded.

  71. Re:What if it does not? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

    I'll thank Beijing for summoning Kim by train and explaining exactly what was going to happen to him if he kept his shit up.

    Trump didn't accomplish a fucking thing.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  72. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    O.k. I'll bite...

    Tesla / Westinghouse Vs Edison / General Electric

  73. Re:Yep, problems all around by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Informative

    NAFTA doesn't allow you to use food regulations to ban or add tariffs to products. If they meet the agreed-to standards per NAFTA guidelines (and rBST was not considered) then you cannot place a tariff on the product. Canada may have higher milk standards, but per the NAFTA treaty they cannot add tariffs on milk. Canada is actually violating NAFTA.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  74. Re: By all means let us examine friends of the U.S by dryeo · · Score: 1

    There's not going to be any re-unification, perhaps some opening up of the borders.
    North and South Korea have diverged enough that even the language is hard for each to understand, the young S. Koreans aren't interested in re-unification and it would be as expensive as shit (see Germany), though with Trump's understanding of finances, perhaps America will borrow more and underwrite the cost.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  75. like anything Trump does is actually planned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a person who won an election by sheer spite and sits around watching eight hours of television every day (google it)

    he is literally the crank uncle you must have over every thanksgiving who sits at the table spouting garbage, but now in charge of a country

    everything that happens is out of sheer dumb luck

    if he gets to pick supreme court judges, you are screwed for decades

  76. So you hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've already heard that song.

  77. Re:Was my pleasure showing your kind = liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spamming lying retard bullshitter APK caught spamming, lying, and bullshitting again.
    To counter legitimate downmodding he spams, lies, and bullshits some more.

  78. Re:Kendall you are a moron by nonBORG · · Score: 0

    This is not how negotiation is done. You want to give them time to get used to aspects of the deal that you are going to accept so they don't get blindsided and basically have to think outside of what they were planning.

    This is why Trump has said, US protection for NK meaning military alliance. Also total denationalization or he walks. Also Sanctions stay until the deal is signed.
    This is how you get them used to the ideas you have, negotiation is a slow process normally perhaps Trump has a different method. The reason it is slow when the other side gets a surprise it normally has an emotional response and you want a thought out response. Too many surprises too quickly and the emotions will destroy the deal. But if you have some non negotiables it is best to have them laid out so you dont all sit down with false expectations.

    --
    You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
  79. Re:Was my pleasure showing your kind = liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet he proves you lied about Soros and that you project onto others what you yourself are that you continually prove for him.

  80. Stop the presses! by Subm · · Score: 1

    Stop the presses!

    Breaking news:

    > In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice.

    Who knew?!?

  81. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What DID the romans every do for us?

  82. Re: Yep, problems all around by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Where is the science that any of that is actually bad for either cows or humans? The FDA has some of the strictest regulations in the world, yet you say they're letting farmers poison the population with milk?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  83. Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science has turned into joke. Science is now bad statics. Causation and correlation don't matter. Just publish to publish. If no one has published, that means you're correct. Peer reviews are dead.

  84. Re:Yep, problems all around by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, NAFTA does allow permit this for dairy products:

    NAFTA, Annex 703.2, Section B, Part 7 states:

    7. Notwithstanding paragraph 6 and Article 309:

    a) the rights and obligations of the Parties under Article XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT and those rights as incorporated by Article 309 shall apply with respect to trade in agricultural goods only to the dairy, poultry and egg goods set out in Appendix 703.2.B.7; and

    b) with respect to such dairy, poultry and egg goods that are qualifying goods, either Party may adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction or a customs duty on the importation of such good consistent with its rights and obligations under the GATT.

    Appendix 703.2.B.7 lists the specific items which qualify under this part.

    Likewise, Article 712 states:

    Right to Take Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

    1. Each Party may, in accordance with this Section, adopt, maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health in its territory, including a measure more stringent than an international standard, guideline or recommendation.

    Right to Establish Level of Protection

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, each Party may, in protecting human, animal or plant life or health, establish its appropriate levels of protection in accordance with Article 715.

    Scientific Principles

    3. Each Party shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies is:

    a) based on scientific principles, taking into account relevant factors including, where appropriate, different geographic conditions;

    b) not maintained where there is no longer a scientific basis for it; and

    c) based on a risk assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances.

    Non-Discriminatory Treatment

    4. Each Party shall ensure that a sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between its goods and like goods of another Party, or between goods of another Party and like goods of any other country, where identical or similar conditions prevail.

    So in effect, dairy is exempt from most NAFTA rules, and setting human health standards for products is perfectly legal, so long as it is non-discriminatory.

    Yaz

  85. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump beat Hillary! We hates him! Hates him my precious! Hates him forever!
    By way of "My pussy hurts."

    It's not like this is going to be a handshake deal and done.
    And we have this nifty thing called THE INTERNET. We can move gazillions of bytes a day over it.
    So any proposals can be put before the eyes of a pro at this stuff in minutes if necessary.

    But no. TRUMP MADE MUH HEAD ASPLODE!

  86. Re: Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Canadian milk tastes like actual milk, not salty yoghurt like US milk, which i suppose matches the high fructose brioche that they call bread...

  87. I can't argue with that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    he is reducing government regulation. But there's going to be consequences. He's repealing the laws put in place from the 2008 crash. There's going to be another, worse crash. He's rolling back EPA regulations on clean air and water. He's reducing regulations that required schools to teach science instead of religion. Those are the kinds of regulations he's reducing.

    Most regulations were done for a reason. They were reactive, not proactive, and they're not just some libtard trying to spoil everybody's fun or some science nerd trying to bilk a paycheck out of the public Universities. There are going to be some nasty consequences for all this deregulation. The annoying part is it'll be like it always is. A Republican deregulates, something blows up and a bunch of awful things happen, then a Dem cleans up the mess. That's where the 'cyclical' nature of the economy comes from.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I can't argue with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the word "libtard" is divisive name-calling. We could also say something like "repugnicans", or "libertardians", or lientists, or whatever...

      This is divide and conquer speech; the stuff of bots, algorithms and foreign powers, trying rip the United States apart.

      Don't take the bait.

    2. Re:I can't argue with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys do use those words quite regularly with much fervor. I'm tired of being the nice guy democrat. We can only fight your hate with more hate. We have to speak your language and that's all you understand. So excuse me if I tell you to fuck right off. It's good enough for you guys, it's good enough for me.

  88. Re:Yep, problems all around by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yaz Said..

    Sorry for bringing logic to a shit-flinging party, can't help myself.

    Unfortunately, you didn't. You have to look at absolute numbers, and not percentages, because the subsidies have a multiplicative effect. They not only change the profitability of milk, but they encourage overproduction (because the subsidies are based on production), which drives down prices.

    Indeed, according to government numbers, the US has a 5-1 price edge against Canada in dairy pricing due to subsidies. That should call for a 500% subsidy to fully correct for, and yet we only charge a 270% tariff.

    You'd expect if the tariffs were completely out-of-line that nobody in Canada would import dairy form the US, and yet in 2016 alone we imported more than $631 million in dairy from the US. For a population smaller than that of California.

    Again -- talk to your own government first. I'd be more than happy to see both of our countries (and the EU, which has the largest dairy subsidies in the world) drop dairy tariffs -- but the unfair subsidies have to come down first. It's the subsidies that have caused the tariffs, not the other way around. Canada is hardly in some power position where we can drop our tariffs and hope for some form of "general goodwill" that the US will stop unfair subsidies and attempts at dumping. The Canadian Government has been clear in the past that if the subsidies go away, we won't need the tariffs anymore.

    Yaz

    Great post Yaz. Very informative. Surprised someone is trying to mod you down.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  89. Do you ask a carpenter for advice on postwar recon by poity · · Score: 1

    One imagines that psychoanalysts and cultural experts and perhaps defected army officers would be those who might provide relevant insights to help in the denuclearization negotiations. Physicists not so much.

    "Oh so the bomb uses an IMplosive mechanism to trigger the critical mass! Oh NOW I know what to say to Kim in the next meeting, we've been doing it all wrong!"

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  90. Re: Do you ask a carpenter for advice on postwar r by poity · · Score: 1

    *postwar reconstruction

    No hard character limit on the mobile site.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  91. Re: Yep, problems all around by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where is the science that any of that is actually bad for either cows or humans? The FDA has some of the strictest regulations in the world, yet you say they're letting farmers poison the population with milk?

    Fortunately, Health Canada puts their research online:

    Executive summary: it's much worse for cows than for people, but there are still some concerns about immune responses in some people. So it's mostly about the health of the cows (and the milk produced by potentially unhealthy cows) rather than a direct effect of rbST in milk on humans.

    Yaz

  92. Re:Yep, problems all around by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. Most products do not get such exemptions, so adding duties on them would be, in effect, a violation of the treaty.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  93. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's being played. Nearly as much as you are.
    Every round of talks produces nothing but cash and food for the north, and bugger all for everyone else. But this time is different TM.

  94. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you're wrong. But if you apply it to a made up situation that isn't happening. It's still true. Well done, that's exactly how logic works.

  95. Re: Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never tasted salty milk, though I'm not sure if they even sell milk from the US in any store in which I've shopped. The numbers stated above for dairy imports must be for cheese primarily, which I also only buy from local producers—unless it's Greek feta.

  96. Re: Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha, oh wow. I bet the term soyboy describes you perfectly.

  97. Re: Yep, problems all around by sjames · · Score: 1

    While my own informal observations lack rigor (since I haven't the time or money to make more rigorous observations), it's not necessarily harmful to people, but when the "milk" production is boosted, there is a noticable "watered down" quality to the milk.

    Meanwhile, the FDA is hardly infallible.

  98. Both Countries Subsidize Dairy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    (like a 270% tariff on dairy going into Canada, a very real and chilling fact about which I had no idea previously).

    Then I suppose you also don't know that the US provides over $22 billion a year in direct subsidies to US dairy producers, accounting for over 40% of all dairy profits?

    That's right -- American taxpayers are paying for >40% of all dairy production in the US.

    Canada (at least in Ontario) also subsidizes dairy producers, by limiting the number of producers. The industry pretends in their literature that this matches supply to demand, which is trivially absurd because "demand" does not exist independent of supply. It's a curve, not a single value. (For the literature, see, e.g., https://www.milk.org/Corporate...)

    So basically, they're keeping the number of dairy licenses low which makes the wealthiest farmers rich, the poor farmers unable to enter the market, and dairy more expensive for everyone. They keep the price artificially high by doing this and by having insane tariffs on importing dairy. It's not like they're just putting tariffs on commercial imports--they charge ridiculous tariffs if an individual drives across the border with it.

    I'm not defending the President's actions--ultimately he's doing something anyone competent knows is stupid to appeal to voters who don't understand trade. The most obvious example is NAFTA, which could be renegotiated, but no meaningful business in the world will make significant plans that are dependent on a treaty with a five-year sunset clause like he wanted. (The clause was probably about presenting Canada with two options: back out because the treaty is unworkable and dumb at that point, or agree and set up the Republicans to campaign on renegotiating or cancelling it for reelection from the masses while ALSO campaigning on it with their donors getting money in exchange for their promise to renew it)

    But still, it would be inaccurate to claim only one country is subsidizing dairy. What's actually happening is bad enough.

  99. Re: By all means let us examine friends of the U.S by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

    "Russian" is the new "Benghazi"

    Same playing surface, just the sides have switched.

  100. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't really matter, since NAFTA is ~15 minutes away from being scrapped. The Canadians (like the one above) are butt hurt because they know that without NAFTA allowing them to bring in Chinese parts to assemble and ship products to the U.S., they can't produce much. I for one will be quite entertained to watch Canada and Mexico take a big shit after the obnoxious and self-righteous way they have been carrying themselves the past few years.

  101. Re:Yep, problems all around by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 4, Informative

    73% of US dairy farmers' revenue is from subsidies. https://www.realagriculture.co... so, fine to get rid of them, but get rid of crop insurance, Price Loss Coverage, Agricultural Risk Coverage, Stacked Income Protection Plan, Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers, Dairy Product Donation Program. Then there is below cost (aka subsidized) water for irrigation, subsidized electricity to pump it. "The total value of irrigation subsidies provided by state and local government has been estimated at between US$10 billion and US$33 billion" so pot? meet kettle!

  102. BWARKKKK by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I'll just respond to one of the parrots of this "interesting" talking point being spread by the Hive Mind.

    Just because the known facility was destroyed does not mean they could not simply move on to another..

    They have a very large one sitting right next door for example. Or the entire ocean... maybe during a training exercise by other nations. Oops!

    Basically the thought they would have to be done because one facility is close to collapse is idiotic and ignores the realities of a nuclear weapons program.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  103. The word is clear, as are the deeds by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Since you seem incapable of understanding simple words, I'll repeat them to you until it percolates through your brain there is a question: How are dead American soldiers, purposefully killed by North Korea and Iran, not part of and cause for a war?

    Until you answer that simple question it is you who are trying to hand-wave away the simple facts of the matter.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, they should stop interfering in places they don’t belong. Dead US soldiers is a good thing, raising the worlds average IQ.

    2. Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if I grant your couple of [citation needed] deaths, I wasn't talking about typical low-level friction (and your definition of any death of any soldier anywhere as a "war" is just plain stupid). I specifically said "WWIII", which is well known by everyone, apparently except you, to mean a major, probably nuclear, war amongst superpowers.

      We are not now, and have never been, fighting WWIII. Even the Cold War, which had plenty of dead soldiers on all sides, was not WWIII.

    3. Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American deaths in Korea are low-level friction. You're an ass.

    4. Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is indeed callous an international incident where soldiers were killed is not a war. In a war there is a declaration of intent and then lots and lots of shooting and appropriation bills that congress has to allow.

    5. Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Because it is not worth getting many more people killed. There is no longer an excuse for war. None. Bring resources under a common market and war evaporates.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      While that is indeed callous an international incident where soldiers were killed is not a war. In a war there is a declaration of intent and then lots and lots of shooting and appropriation bills that congress has to allow.

      The way that this has often gone since WWII is that you can have some small "military action" without it being an actual war. Obviously, not every situation where a soldier is shot and killed is an all out war. What we had with Korea, and later Vietnam, are very small conflicts that slowly got bigger. Each month the conflict is a litttttle larger than the month before. Those incremental additions never require approval either. So while sending hundreds of thousands of troops into a war zone at once might require a declaration of war, you can get the same effect without one by starting small and slowly growing the presence.

      The Vietnam War, for instance, started with a number of troops simply there to help the South Vietnamese with troop training and assistance. It wasn't until a bit later that those troops were taking active roles in fighting. And then we started sending a few more, a few more.

  104. Re:Was my pleasure showing your kind = liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeh, the dumb fat virgin Cunt APK is a useless turd, who never won anything in his life

  105. Just a thought but by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    when WAS the last Science friendly administration ?

    Late 60's ?

    1. Re:Just a thought but by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Obama appointed Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy.

      Trump appointed Rick Perry, former Texas Governor and graduate of Texas A&M where he got a degree in Animal Science and was one of five "yell leaders" who lead cheers during athletic contests.

      In describing his college experience Perry said "I was probably a bit of a free spirit, not particularly structured real well for life outside of a military regime, I would have not lasted at Texas Tech or the University of Texas. I would have hit the fraternity scene and lasted about one semester."

      You choose who was more science oriented.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  106. I and I alone invented science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I know science better than the generals, beliebe me! The relativity guy, Albert Weinstein even endorsed me. My science gave me beautiful hair that defies gravity. Everyone comes to see it and touch it in wonder; bigly popular. Long lines!"

  107. Re:Was my pleasure showing your kind = liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One knows they have defeated APK when he starts posting to make it look like someone else supports him.

  108. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It takes resources to do Science; the best thing we've got to create flows of resources is a Free Market.

    That's weird, I could have swore that the USSR was the first country in space. I'm also pretty sure that what has made the U.S. such a scientific powerhouse has been tons of federal grant money that flows into our universities for basic research. The free market turns that into money afterward. There's also the issue of all those nifty advancements brought about through NASA's research.

    The free market is important, but when you make it the be-all, end-all, you'll find that things don't work out as well as Ayn Rand's stories would have you believe.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  109. Re: Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up and down the thread, delusional Incel Bing is trying to support the delusional Trump.
    Trump will get screwed by Kim.

  110. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Both you and Yaz are falling for Trump's gimmick. If you think this is about DAIRY TARIFFS, you've already missed what happened.

    Trump wants to destabilize the existing relationship so he can "renegotiate" a mafia strong-arm position that puts the US in an isolationist posture. He's going to do it on every front, Mexico, Canada, G7, everywhere. The exact tariffs themselves are just dog and pony shows. The fact that you guys are mired in discussions about dairy tariffs shows that you are missing the forest for the trees. Trump would do this NO MATTER WHICH TARIFFS are at issue.

    And he insulted Trudeau as part of his bully strategy. Trudeau didn't say anything that he hadn't already said before. Trump would have taken any statement and pretended it was offensive. The goal of Trump is to bully and harass, laws and regulations be damned. He's the King of the US and he doesn't care what you, or any of the voting public think. He can break the law, shoot some guy on the street (his point, not mine), and pardon himself.

    You're witnessing the birth of a Putin-esque oligarchic faux-capitalist government with a Supreme Leader. Stop arguing about milk and pay attention to the big picture.

  111. Re:Kendall you are a moron by sjames · · Score: 1

    "Get rid of" - eliminate. No longer possess. Sell to the highest bidder

    UhOh

  112. Re:Yep, problems all around by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. Most products do not get such exemptions, so adding duties on them would be, in effect, a violation of the treaty.

    Agricultural goods are a real problem area when it comes to international trade, and are exempted all over the place because certain regions (like the US and EU) subsidize agriculture very heavily, which distorts the market for agricultural goods globally.

    IIRC, there was an attempt during GATT negotiations to fix this global problem, but once the 2008 economic meltdown hit everyone just forgot about it and things remained as they have been for decades, with some countries massively subsidizing agricultural sectors, others putting tariffs and non-tariff protections in place, and others have seen their industries failing and disappearing.

    It's a mess. I'm not trying to assign blame -- the US probably feels that they can't drop their dairy, corn, and other farm subsidies because (let's be frank) those are major voting blocs they don't want to piss off. And at the same time, it's an international problem beyond Canada and the US.

    Yaz

  113. The Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is a Christian. The answer to everything is "God did it!".

    Who needs science?

  114. I just tried Anal Sex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My German girlfriend likes to rate our sex between 1-10. She kept shouting NINE! That's the best I've done yet.
     
    captcha: fingers

  115. Re:Really msmash? We've sunk to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mrs. Mash likes her opinion pieces. She's a gossiper.

  116. Re: By all means let us examine friends of the U.S by Curtman · · Score: 1

    There is no surface anymore.. Your top security agency warns agains Russian aggression, and your president advocates for them. The smartest thing for any country to do at this point is to have as little as possible to do with the U.S.

  117. Re: Nazi Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wht on earth are you on about?

  118. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When have you ever brought logic into the pile of shit that you bring around? Actually fucking read the reasons instead of just keeping your head so firmly shoved up your own asshole that you can't hear the facts.

  119. Re:Yep, problems all around by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

    Great post Yaz. Very informative. Surprised someone is trying to mod you down.

    It's okay -- it's not like a I can exchange Karma for a wheel of cheese anyway :)

    Yaz

  120. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can just join the TPP instead, much bigger and growing markets await.

  121. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

    A different approach here is at least moving the process forward, a process that has seen 3 Administrations, over 24 years, basically appease North Korea and fail to control anything.

    It was exactly this thinking said nothing could be worse than leaving Saddam in power...
    Bad is only bad if you are too stupid to figure out that things could always be much, much worse.

  122. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free market is the engine of innovation that runs the ground bone dust of people who died from cancer, pollution-based illnesses, or physical smashing. Their blood is the fuel of the pistons.

  123. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, get rid of could mean "sell to Islamic terrorists" and you'd be fine with that? No? So maybe words do actually need to be defined properly after all?

  124. Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the so called "Science adviser" believes in global warming, is he really a scientist? Global warming has no science to back it up. If anyone tells you Climate change is a science, ask them to run test to prove it.

    Trump has been doing a great job so far, so if he thinks he does not need one, then one isn't needed. Besides, there are a lot of positions unfilled because of Democrats stall tactics, that is much more important story to write about.

    1. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, even for a RWNJ that’s a stinking pile of shit, the science is irrefutable around AGW, no matter how many times you stick your fingers in your ears and yell lalala. The job Trump has done well at it pissing off all your allies, whilst licking Russia’s ass.
      Never mind, we will watch and laugh whilst the descent of the US to third world shithole continues.

    2. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OP is a clueless idiot. But you are not much better. The preponderance of evidence certainly points to manmade climate change being true, but the science is by no mean irrefutable or complete at this point. Regardless pumping toxins and garbage into our environment needs to stop as it isn't healthy for us even if it isn't affecting the climate.

  125. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's exactly what he thinks, it's the type of poo passing for political analysis the last year and a half.

  126. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >>> "Get rid of" - eliminate. No longer possess.
    >>> "Cease production" - stop building new ones.

    Good god, can anyone on slashdot really be this stupid?

    Is removing the firing controller from a nuclear bomb getting rid of it? It's not a functioning bomb any more, but it can be made into again very quickly.

    Oh, maybe you think disassembling the bomb and destroying the components is getting rid of it? Ok, but what are you doing with the fissile material? The enrichment process is the most difficult, expensive and timing consuming part of a making a bomb.

    Even if you destroy everything else, you can get back to a functioning bomb pretty quickly if you keep the pits.

    So, you want to get rid of the pits? How are you going to verify this? What costitutes getting rid of the material? Literally handing it over to another country? Which country? Who verifies it? Does blending the material down count as destruction?

    Complex topics are complex, even if you would like to pretend they're not.

  127. Re:Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? I know it's LynnwoodRooster but you're a moron. Get rid of - he said no longer possess and you go off on some tangent about missile controllers? You're a fucking idiot. You do the ACs a disservice. Just go kill yourself.

  128. Re:Nazi Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, the uneducated right winger at his finest, cant spell, doesn’t know what grammar is and utterly clueless about history.
    Is that you Donnie, perhaps those tiny hands can’t make it all around the keyboard.

  129. Re: Kendall you are a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science is required to build nuclear weapons. *Diplomacy* is required for denuclearization. You moronic shilling fuckwit.

  130. Re:Do you ask a carpenter for advice on postwar re by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    You probably don't need a team of scientists, but knowing what will show up on satellites, or what the impact of agreeing to X is going to do to their ability to make bombs seems important. Otherwise, how is he going to know if the tradeoffs make sense.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  131. Re: By all means let us examine friends of the U. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You tell 'em, Ivan!

  132. Who needs science when you have God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep your atheistic science you'll burn in hell forever. The sooner this world ends the better off all God fearing people will be. #MAGA

  133. Obama obviously by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    If Obama hadn't let little Kimmy get Nukes, he would never have had the confidence to meet Trump as an equal.
    So all credit obviously goes to Obama for doing all the legwork in setting up the deal for Trump to just swoop in and take the credit.

  134. Re: Kendall's AC, you are also a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you Kendall, pretending to be an AC trash talking your other post as an AC. I'm the only real AC, you traitor apologist faggot INCEL Nazi Russian communist fascist Taliban Richard-Simmons-watching paper-hanging Bolshevik papist yellow-bellied gay capitalist pig running dog problematic insensitive clod jihadi privileged misogynistic misandrist left wing right wing poopy-head!

  135. Can't be bothered to vote beat them both. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    More people decided that they didn't care enough to even vote for either candidate.

  136. Re:Really msmash? We've sunk to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see plenty of facts here. Let me quote the first paragraph of the summary:

    As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.

    The first two sentences are purely facts. You may not like these facts, but they are facts. The last two sentences are arguably opinion, but are you really going to argue the opposite of the statements in those sentences?

  137. Kim Jung Un is not a nuclear physicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has nothing to do with physics. Just more nazi-left slander.

  138. Let me look in the glass bowl and ... by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    ... I'll tell you this: he will also be the first president that will try and may be succeed to enforce a third term for his presidency.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  139. Re:Do you ask a carpenter for advice on postwar re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You probably don't need a team of scientists, but knowing what will show up on satellites, or what the impact of agreeing to X is going to do to their ability to make bombs seems important. Otherwise, how is he going to know if the tradeoffs make sense.

    Let me preface this with "I hate Trump too".

    That said, not having advisors there, physicists or preparing for the meeting isn't really a problem. It's not like Trump is going to honor any commitment he makes. He violated the Iran deal. He agreed to the G7 then cancelled it the same day. Trump isn't to be trusted, nor is the American government while this is going on.

    That said, Russia is the one pushing this shit, so watch where the puppet strings lead before you buy into the enemy of my enemy.

    I was ok with Republicans until Bush Jr, I liked Bernie and voted for Clinton when that was the choice remaining. As an American, I say this. We will forgive all bullshit tit for tat after Trump is gone. We understand why you have to push back now. America will be back, we will be your friend again. We're not broken up, we're just on a break. Please forgive us when we demonstrate we learned our lesson.

  140. its simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that comes out of Universities is SJW now.
    Advisor would not be exception.

    Perhaps he has advisor and doesn't want others to know about him?

  141. It was a pleasure showing your kind = liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody defeats themselves like you do unidentifiable anonymous coward liar & it was my pleasure exposing it https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12209990&cid=56761056/

    * LOL!

    ( YOU SUPPORT ME VIA YOUR STUPIDITY I USED AGAINST YOU IN THE LINK ABOVE! )

    APK

    P.S.=> You're SO unbelievably dumb it makes me laugh... apk

  142. If they have so much cheese... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Americans make so much cheese, why don't they eat any of it? When I went there to visit, all I could find was this bright yellow-orange stuff called "cheese food" or something similar, but no actual cheese...

    1. Re:If they have so much cheese... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to shop somewhere other than a gas station or concession stand if you want the good stuff.

  143. Just to be clear by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the trump administration is going to be the first administration in the past few decades to negotiate de-nuclearization in North Korea without a senior White House science advisor at the table (or even in the administration, right?

    And every other administration for the last few decades has had a senior White House science advisor at the table for such talks, right?

    Well, honestly, every prior administration that negotiated with North Korea got rolled and wound up pouring money, aid on North Korea while they kept working on getting the bomb.

    Do we really need to repeat the failures of prior administrations? Why didn't the presence of a senior White House science advisor prevent all the prior administrations from signing flawed agreements?

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Just to be clear by LoudPipesSaveLives · · Score: 0

      Exactly! This isn't a negotiation on any kind of science, this is pure deal-making which Mr. Trump is quite capable at. As for the science advisors, if you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result...

    2. Re:Just to be clear by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      So you look at this situation with North Korea, and think "the reason things didn't work in the past was TOO many smart people involved". Given Trump's track record, he's unlikely to sign ANY agreement (see: all other international relations), but I'm sure you'll spin that as a great victory for Trump somehow

    3. Re:Just to be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is behind both of the people at this summit. They told the US that he can get a win, and told NK that they can join up with their authoritarian economy.

    4. Re:Just to be clear by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So the trump administration is going to be the first administration in the past few decades to negotiate de-nuclearization in North Korea without a senior White House science advisor

      You do realize that nothing at all has been accomplished, right? No meeting. No deals. No agreements. Nothing.

      Oh wait. Trump did call Kim childish names like "rocket boy" on Twitter. It's hilarious, until you realize that burning to death in a nuclear fire isn't fun.

    5. Re: Just to be clear by kenh · · Score: 1

      What would a scientist add to the negotiations? This is a septuagenarian billionaire who has negotiated a butt-load of international deals and a chubby thirty-something wanna-be who killed his brother to get his job.

      There is no chance the success or failure in this negotiation will hinge on someone at the table being someone Neil DeGrasse-Tyson would swoon over.

      This will be bare-knuckles, street negotiating, and I fully expect trump to walkout atleast once before negotiations are completed, if for no other reason than to prove to Little rocketman that we are willing to walk away.

      --
      Ken
    6. Re: Just to be clear by kenh · · Score: 1

      Little Rocket Man is in Singapore for talks, that's something that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan couldn't get done with him or his father.

      But that's nothing.

      North and South Korea are talking about ending their 50 year 'war'.

      But that's nothing.

      What did Obama do? He sent aid, held s press conference and declared NK was no longer working on a nuke - whoops.

      Trumps methods are raw, but effective.

      --
      Ken
    7. Re: Just to be clear by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Depends what they're negotiating. We already know Trump is a HORRIBLE political negotiator - he managed to "negotiate" in the business world by screwing over contractors and strong arming the other side, but he views negotiations as something that can be won when a good negotiation would be where everyone wins. I also fully expect Trump to walk out but because he has no clue what he's doing. He's batting a 0 on the international stage at the moment.

    8. Re: Just to be clear by kenh · · Score: 1

      I also fully expect Trump to walk out but because he has no clue what he's doing. He's batting a 0 on the international stage at the moment.

      Trump has accomplished exactly as much as Obama did on the "international stage" when he won the Nobel Peace Prize - no word yet if Trump has used drones to kill US citizens without benefit of due process...

      he views negotiations as something that can be won when a good negotiation would be where everyone wins.

      That is the logic that rendered previous negotiations with North Korean leaders pointless and expensive - we trade shallow promises for US aid, giving North Korea much-needed aid and the President got to hold a press conference saying they've "resolved" the North Korea "issue". By your thinking this is a "win-win" and did little more but tee up the next administration to repeat the process in a few years for another "win-win" agreement.

      When dealing with a brutal dictator, only Neville Churchill thinks handing them something is necessary - "Peace in our time!"

      --
      Ken
    9. Re: Just to be clear by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Trump has accomplished exactly as much as Obama did on the "international stage" when he won the Nobel Peace Prize

      I think most people (even Obama) agree that the Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to someone else.

    10. Re:Just to be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is +4 Insightful? WTF? Do you have the slightest evidence that the presence of a science advisor had anything whatsoever to due with past failures? No. You have as much grounds for that conclusion as you do for saying 'In the past, every time there was a guy with a mole on his nose, and we failed. This time there is no guy with a mole, so it must be better'.

      In fact, it's even stupider than that. The science advisor only becomes relevant *if* there is a de-nuclearization agreement in principle, when he advises on verification. He can't help with or hinder the political agreement of principle.

      I swear, slashdot gets stupider by the hour.

  144. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact you are answering this using a subproduct of the CERN, a multistate funded organization :-)

  145. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is smart enough to know Germany is doing well in the economic stakes - and gaining through science, and for some reason have not become speculators. Trump knows China is like a thousand flea bites, grabbing money while upping -err science. Yeah. Maybe he hopes sheer economic clout may win, over science - but it sure seems to not be going that way. Re-write trade agreements- yeah that may work.

    Boycotting China is hard to do - if they wont throttle NK harder. Somehow one does not think NK will exit the arms trade
    unless the are huge benefits over and above Chinas present low low border rate. In fact a trade war may drive NK to say no thanks, as exporting stuff then, has lower margins. Doubt US will do a Cuba agreement -which may work.
    Oddly, Trump need to know outsourcing science to China is bad - but he has done nothing.

  146. Keep on shoveling. Shovel! Shovel! Shovel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more bovine feces for the pile! Feces as far as the eye can see! No, not in the Trump administration but right here on Slashdot!

    Most people seem unaware of it's presence as they gleefully consume each rancid, greasy, non-factual turd.

  147. Re:Nazi Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nazi left had eihht years to fix the problem and now everythjbg is President Trump's fault? And I suppose the 9-11 plot wasnt hatched under Clinton either, the 1993 WTC bombing was Bush's fault? ae911truth org

    msmssh needs to go back to rewriting Wikipedia history because everyone here knows the Nazis were leftists like him, not alt-right or neo-con or whatever nonsense libtards are spewing.

    There we go, someone finally admitting they are so far to the right they think the bloody Nazis are to their left. First step is admitting you have a problem.

  148. Liberal Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NY Times is far left, and the claim is completely unfounded.

    The Trump administration embraces science and advice, but it's not going to just accept whatever is offered.

    We will NOT pay a carbon tax.

  149. There's no such thing as a 'scientist' by terrycarlino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I work with a lot of physicists. I have three masters degrees myself. There is no such thing a 'scientist' is the sense that there is someone who is qualified advise on nuclear weapons, cybersecurity and AGW. As I said I work with physicist and to many of them think they are competent to speak on any subject, which is of course bollocks.

    If you want to know about nuclear weapons find a nuclear weapons expert, who might be a physicist, but more likely is a nuclear engineer or might even be a historian or a political science major, who has specialize in disarmament and disarmament verification.

    if you want to know about cybersecurity ask a cybersecurity expert. Having a physicist science adviser and asking them about cybersecurity makes as much sense as asking a biologist or a philosopher.

    As for AGW I'm sure there's a propagandist around to give pointers on how to use panic to transfer wealth or you could find someone who knows statistics and model building to explain to the credulous how science really works.

    1. Re:There's no such thing as a 'scientist' by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I work with a lot of physicists. I have three masters degrees myself.

      Look, there's no shame in trying to get a PhD and failing. The world needs engineers, too. Like the saying goes, those who can get a PhD, and those who can't end up as Howard Wallowitz.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  150. Re: Yep, problems all around by coofercat · · Score: 1

    Who gives a toss? If Canada doesn't want it, then they can quite reasonably stop it. They're not just stopping it from America - no country can sell them stuff that contravenes their rules. America doesn't get a free pass to do whatever it likes.

    As for the FDA having some of the strictest regulations in the world... That gave me a good laugh.

  151. dear democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please crawl back under your rock. Not having a science advisor is not a crime. Having one who insists on "climate change" is as bad as CNN ... lies lies and more lies!

    Trump did the right thing! When science starts doing what science was meant to do, explain the truth; then maybe Trump will get one. But again, he doesn't need another liar in his ear!

    Cheers
    ps
    trudeau is a lying backstabbing schmuck!

    hey justin, find your balls boy! tell the old f$ck up front what your issues are... NOT AFTER HE WENT HOME! AND NOT IN PUBLIC FIRST - MAN TO MAN !

  152. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both you and Yaz are falling for Trump's gimmick. If you think this is about DAIRY TARIFFS, you've already missed what happened.

    I think Yaz is not so much falling for Trump's gimmick, as opposed to showing that there is no logic in it. Like how there is no logic to taxing steel and aluminium for "national security" reasons. Or the lack of logic in letting Russia back into the G7.

    This observation is probably the best one I've heard recently:

    "He’s like Heath Ledger’s Joker--but without the operational excellence." That was the grim after-action assessment of one senior G7 official with whom I spoke in the shocked aftermath of President Donald Trump’s savage post-summit tweets.

    * https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/trump-g7/562487/

    By showing the lack of logic, Yaz is simply helping to expose the foolishness of Trump's Twitter tirades.

  153. Re:Nazi Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice gotcha, but you really need to stop framing boomer cucks as far right. They are milquetoast centrists and you know it.

    Or are you so far to the left you literally can't tell the difference between Andy Griffith and Heinrich Himmler?

  154. There's no science involved here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This denuclearization summit has dick to do with science. KJU either agrees to destroy his NWP, or Trump will do it for him. That's what this summit is about. This doesn't have to do with science. This has to do with "I'm going to bomb the snot out of your entire military if you don't stop acting like a petulant child, but I will give you the grace of saving face by having this summit with you, to allow you the chance to make it look like you are doing something wonderful."

    Also, could someone please point to the law that says the President must have a science advisor?

  155. Evergreen dancing in the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we should just have our mouths open wide while we let the education system shove it down our throats? Of course not. We're taught so-call facts while at the same time being fed bias and then you wonder why people don't want to listen it. When you look at colleges these days full of lefty loon students, agenda biased professors, and greedy leaders, sure it's hard to trust the education system. It's no wonder people scoff at the education system. Just because it's taught doesn't always mean that it's true? Or are you just opening wide? And yeah, score one for you for lumping people who watch reality shows and ancient aliens with trump supporters - way to understand the problem.

  156. Re:Yep, problems all around by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 0

    Yaz, stop it. You're being too much of a badass.

    --
    I tend to rant.
  157. Shareblue propaganda hits slashdot again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about Hyperbole. Please continue telling us all anyone who doesn't agree with the DNC are Nazis.

    Screw your idiotic propaganda.

  158. Re: What if it does not? by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

    For a second there I thought you were talking about Obama.

  159. A glimmer of hope for America by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    I saw this bumper sticker on a car a few days ago; "Bernie 2020"

  160. Re:Nazi Left by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > Lol, the uneducated right winger at his finest, cant spell, doesnâ(TM)t know what grammar is and utterly clueless about history.
    Is that you Donnie, perhaps those tiny hands canâ(TM)t make it all around the keyboard.

    Your insults don't alter the fact that this is a pre-existing condition. This didn't get solved during your "Age of Aquarius".

    Most of the rhetoric regurgitated by partisans on this or any issue these days is just deranged nonsense intended to sell ads. It's pure intellectual garbage of no value (informative or otherwise). It's the intellectual and data equivalent of Twinkies.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  161. a bit misleading by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    The government employs thousands of scientists. I was once one of them. There are high level scientists who have access to white house staff at agencies like NSF, NIH, DOE, CDC, NASA, and DOD. The government still operates government labs through those organizations. There are openings at all of these agencies, but that is nothing new. There are ignored reports coming out of these agencies, but that is nothing new.

    The major office that is going unfilled is in OSTP. Perhaps once this office had a great scientific purpose, but it is a political office now. The job of staff at OSTP is to make the president and administration look good. It's a very useful science marketing department, but it is frequently at odds with the people who actually perform science inside the government. This is because organizations like DOE and DOD have a responsibility to get nuclear testing right while OSTP has recently had a responsibility to make it look good. At times, making the test look good is more important than it being done right. However, this function should not be confused with "science." You will generally find great scientists at OSTP, you will also find press briefings given by precocious interns.

  162. Hillary by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    When looking at it from the outside it is clear that Hillary wasn't a good alternative either.

    Those who have personally worked with her say she did a good job. The political process always nitpicks and magnifies things. I'd rather have somebody with a careful mouth negotiating than a loose one. I don't believe T's Yosemite Sam negotiation style works well, based on personal experience.

    As far as "the emails", a lot of politicians bungle technology, including the current crew and the prior crew. Just make sure you hire good tech guidance.

    1. Re:Hillary by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      They are not negotiations. They are power deals, brokering. Trump is amazing at this shit. No one sees him coming, totally underestimates him, he plays into their notion of his craziness....totally thrown off, over-confident, they lose. that is what I'm seeing. You can't be foolish enough to think that Trump is just a crazy buffoon? He has literally been holding together copious amounts of drama for years. He has been learning the president and Washington thing and basically owned the Republican party---who he had very little respect for in aggregate. Now other politicians are scared to death of him. He can take to the streets, TV, Town Halls, and just fucking obliterate their careers. He caused almost 40 long-standing politicians to leave Washington DC--resigned!!

      People are going to be studying this presidency for 100 years.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:Hillary by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      There isn't a politician in Washington right now that doesn't get sick to their stomach thinking about the next election.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re:Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not negotiations. They are power deals, brokering. Trump is amazing at this shit. No one sees him coming, totally underestimates him, he plays into their notion of his craziness....totally thrown off, over-confident, they lose. that is what I'm seeing. You can't be foolish enough to think that Trump is just a crazy buffoon? He has literally been holding together copious amounts of drama for years. He has been learning the president and Washington thing and basically owned the Republican party---who he had very little respect for in aggregate. Now other politicians are scared to death of him. He can take to the streets, TV, Town Halls, and just fucking obliterate their careers. He caused almost 40 long-standing politicians to leave Washington DC--resigned!!

      People are going to be studying this presidency for 100 years.

      They'll be studying it to see how on earth it could have happened and how ignorant his supporters had to be.

      His "power deals" (as you call them) have resulted in his having businesses he owns go bankrupt, and close on several occasions. He is often defeated or settles whenever actually challenged (see his legal history) and relies on screwing over people in weaker financial positions (ie many of his subcontractors). Most of his "business" is simply renting his name out (appealing to his narcissism). His selfmade man act fails when looked at with an eye to the actual facts. Same with identifying his historical racist and misogynistic behaviour.

      He wants so bad to be a strongman dictator...and hates the fact he just can do what he wants. He has lowered the US' position in the world, alienating our long term allies. Not good for the US at all.

    4. Re:Hillary by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      There isn't a politician in Washington right now that doesn't get sick to their stomach thinking about the next election.

      Just get somebody drab, predictable, centrist, experienced, and normal. DC & USA need a vacation from drama. Is that asking too much? Seems so these days.

    5. Re:Hillary by dave420 · · Score: 1

      His history of bankruptcies shows that's not the case. His lack of understanding of basic economic ideas also shows he's not great at this. All he's good at is saying he's great at stuff - actually being great at anything applicable to being a president seems beyond him.

  163. Re:What if it does not? by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

    Which American problems would those be?

    The tax cut which resulted in more money in my pocket?

    The economy which is finally recovering from the pit that Bush and Obama, two professional politicians, put it in?

    The unemployment situation for the majority, African-American and Hispanic communities?

    Personally I got the highest pay raise I've had since Bush was in power. Anecdotal sure, but I reject the premise I shouldn't be concerned about my own prosperity.

    Finally recognized Israel's capital. Make no mistake I've been to Israel, Jerusalem is the capital. Pretending it's not is like everyone pretending New York is the U.S. capital and putting their embassies there and traveling to Washington every time they want to meet with the U.S. government, which is what has happened in Israel for years.

    Is Trump perfect? Hell no. I think that he is crass and in many ways personally and morally repugnant. No more so than the Clintons, but pretty bad. I think Obama was probably a pretty good husband and father. A disaster as a president, but personally probably a pretty interesting guy to have dinner with, though I'm sure we would disagree about just about everything.

    The point is when I hire a plumber to clean the s**t out of my toilet I don't really care if he's a nice guy or how crude he is. I want my toilet to work.

    When I vote in a president to change the direction of my country from the off the cliff policies of the mainstream Democratic/Republican globalists I don't so much care how much of a toad he is personally, as long as he is effective. And so far, by economic and political measurements that matter to me, he's been pretty effective.

  164. Obvious bias is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Trump

    Only since 2016 has the press taken to changing the President's title to "Mr."

    He won. Get over it.

  165. I don't think it matters by sheph · · Score: 1

    It's not like this is a technological problem, or an agreement that hinges on scientific understanding. It's completely political. Time and time again we've signed agreements, given them money, only to have them continue to develop nuclear weapons. What requires a scientist to understand that dichotomy?

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  166. Re:Nazi Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I literally couldn't tell the difference between Andy Griffith and anyone else I don't know until I Googled him. Should have just said Matlock.

  167. Yeah, about that science.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The science that conveniently ignores facts and manipulates data to support an agenda isn't real science. The science where two thirds of studies cannot be replicated by their peers and peer reviews in general are bad or non-existent. Science has become politics.

  168. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ayn Rand died on welfare. I swear, that fact should be printed in large letters on the side of a building beside the major highway in every town in America.

  169. Re:What if it does not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. I wouldn't put it past Chinese Intelligence to be the ones who caused the "accident" at the testing facility either. I bet they told Kim that he might have an unfortunate accident next if he doesn't stop launching rockets.

  170. Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm no fan of Ayn Rand, but she took social security and Medicare, not welfare. She acceded because she had paid into those entitlements.

  171. WTF?!?!?! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Trump is an obvious thug, in the likes of John Gotti Sr and Al Capone.
    He "rules" by his gut, which, as POTUS, is akin to speculative gambling with non-discretionary monies!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  172. Make America Dark Ages Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Orange Oaf is trying to take up back to the Dark Ages so he can be Donald the First (Assclown the First would be so much better).

  173. But we believe in glorious leader Trump! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    with a childlike faith reminiscent of a five year old waiting for Santa Clause.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  174. Facts, not feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not opinion that scientific advisors haven't been appointed, it's fact.

  175. Try communicating... by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    I've been voting for over 40 years. During that time I have written to every single president. Now, I know that my mail is probably simply categorized and reported in a broad statistic I write to them either to approve or disapprove what they do. However, it is interesting to note that the only president who has not had his staff respond back to me, was Obama. I've "heard back" from Trump every time I've written. It kind of made me wonder. Was the mail I sent to Obama just 86ed? Were they even tallying the information for him?

  176. Re:What if it does not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When North Korean re-joins with the south, taking away a huge potential problem for much of the world - who will you *thank*?

    In all honesty, if that could happen, I would certainly be willing to shower the praise where it was deserved. Now, if the summit is a humiliating failure, will you admit that?

  177. Re:What if it does not? by shanen · · Score: 1

    This "summit" is a meeting between two puppets. Don't forgot that the KGB owned little Kim's father, and probably his grandfather, too. Whoever the KGB owned, he's now Putin's toy.

    So what happens when two puppets play? In the few puppet plays I can remember, one of them beats up the other one. Suddenly this makes a lot of sense.

    Puppeteer Putin make Trump puppet GREAT again! (First time was in 2016.)

    Now a bit of satire for comic relief:
    https://www.newyorker.com/humo...

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  178. Liberate the Crimea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you looked at a map? I donâ(TM)t think so.

  179. You don't need a "Science" advisor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need a nuclear physicist, either. This isn't a science problem. This is a political problem. We have to get them to agree that they don't need nukes. Once you do that, THEN you can bring in the scientists to make sure it's done, and done correctly.

  180. Re: Yep, problems all around by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Where is the science that any of that is actually bad for either cows or humans? The FDA has some of the strictest regulations in the world, yet you say they're letting farmers poison the population with milk?

    The antibiotic problem is a huge one. I don't think it affects whether the milk will make people sick, but the this constant dosing of even healthy farm animals with antibiotics assists in the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

  181. What's there to know? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    NK is giving them up. What else do we need to know? NK is really a broken country with no options. Their test site collapsed and is totally useless now. They're just about out of food and out of options. Just bad options and options that get a lot of their people, including KJU killed. China has had enough of them too. Especially after his hits abroad.

    Trump is exactly the right guy at the right time to do this. Get us out of another Democratic mess. Just like Nixon got us out of Kennedy's Vietnam mess.

  182. There is no Libyan War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really strange that no matter who is president, there are military conflicts constantly around the world, dontcha think?. How those are handled is one of many things that define a presidency. Do you know why the news isn't constantly talking about the war in Libya? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE. The Democrats didn't think a full scale invasion was necessary to deal with it. You think Romney or McCain wouldn't have put 150,000 boots on the ground? How's that Iraqi and Afghanistan war going for ya? Can you name a US "leftist" war still going on? Clinton got us out of Bosnia. Carter avoided one with Iran. Obama switched to tech like drones to reduce real person casualties and even attempted a withdrawal though unsuccessful. Democrats, of this decade anyway, are not warmongers no matter how much you stretch your equivocations.

    1. Re:There is no Libyan War by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Do you know why the news isn't constantly talking about the war in Libya? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.

      Right. We overthrew the dictator, got our embassy destroyed and people murdered with bad security, and washed our hands of the country. Libya became part of the operating region for the newly reinvigorated Islamists, in the name of ISIS.

      You think Romney or McCain wouldn't have put 150,000 boots on the ground? How's that Iraqi and Afghanistan war going for ya?

      Bush and Rumsfeld was criticized for trying to do Afghanistan on the cheap. Obama increased troops into Afghanistan.

      Democrats, of this decade anyway, are not warmongers no matter how much you stretch your equivocations.

      Which candidate was pushing for more involvement in Syria, in potential conflict with Russia? Oh, that's right, it was Clinton.

  183. It can be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it can be. You don't think much. Something can be your fault and the reasons why will never be divulged to you. Or it could be your fault and the aggrieved party is not gonna tell you how they'll fix it. Or it could be that it's your fault, they aren't gonna tell you why, aren't gonna tell you the solution, and sure as fuck don't want your help. Hence, your fault AND none of your business.

  184. Snowflakes are melting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean your president is only good for name calling. Crooked Hilliary, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, Mr Magoo, Little Rocket Man, I'm sure I've forgotten others.

    I didn't even finish the post. As soon as I saw Dirty Donald I KNEW some jackhole would be down here bitching about it as if thier shit smells like roses and here you are. I'd instruct you to google "hypocrisy" but you'd probably just think it was referring to someone else.

  185. Re:Yep, problems all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're witnessing the birth of a Putin-esque oligarchic faux-capitalist government with a Supreme Leader. Stop arguing about milk and pay attention to the big picture.

    That's a bit much. He's as isolationist as the brits and the rest of the world is being at the moment. China, Russia, always have been. But with the advent of automation popping and reforming the world economy, there's a strong push to hold on to what's already ours. That'll fade once the global trade game settles down again.

  186. Science is great until people get involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists have opinions just like everyone else, but they also have better opinions according to cultural norms. There is a big problem that a Scientist's opinion is better than other peoples, because that means the Science career track draws people who want to use that power. It draws opinionated people who want to enforce their opinions on other people, which is not the point of science. Science is great, but let facts speak for themselves. Scientists can and should be wrong. We can't hold them on higher moral ground. Trump is wrong a lot, I didn't vote for him, and saying what I'm saying is not saying Trump is right. Its saying scientists aren't special, and there is no reason a president can't operate effectively with a lot of smart people who are not scientists.

  187. Oh Pleeease! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You honestly don't think he has a TEAM of various specialized Science Advisors!? Of course he does. If he chooses not to show his hand (his kitchen cabinet) to the media or public, then so be it. He's BOSS! Deal with it .....

  188. Well, There It Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Voice of the Deplorable.

    This is a Big Giant Orange Head level of lies, misinformation and misleading statements. Here are just a few, just to give a taste of the predilections of the Deplorables:

    "The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US."

    Yeah, "nothing for the US" except for the nuclear nonproliferation angle. You know, the whole reason for the deal in the first place?

    "Trump called the NATO countries out as well about their penchant for never meeting their financial responsibilities to NATO."

    Every President since Nixon (IIRC) has made this point. But no, BGOH is different, because of his Big Giant Orange Head?

    "The G7 countries are not upset because they think the current trade policies are fair (true and then a bunch of nonsense statements after)..."

    BGOH brought in steel and aluminum tariffs on the basis of a lie (national security my ass!). Then he claimed there was a trade imbalance with Canada and even admitted he lied about that one. "Calling out" selective trade imbalances completely misses the point because trade relations depend upon the idea of "competitive advantage".

    Most single product or service trade balances will be unbalanced due to competitive advantage, that was the whole point!! I'm not surprised the Deplorables don't know this. Alternatively, they do know this and don't mind lying about it.

    Which makes the Deplorables look better, willful ignorance or willful deception?

    Neither. They both look stupid. And destructive, and that includes self-destructive. That's why the G7 are mad.

    Not your whiney list of shit you know little or nothing about.

  189. You mean if Sanders had picked Hillary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sanders was leading, and ruined by his own party of assholes. (As opposed to that other party of assholes, owned by the same owners of course.)