Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (77054)	6/12/2018 4:32:33 PM
From: zzpat	Respond to of 357918

The Iranian deal was one of the most historic deals of our lifetimes but it didn't have pictures and it was done by a black president so it had two points against it. If a white president did the Iranian deal it'd have been headline news for weeks. Look at this white nut in the WH. He has nothing and it's headlines. He shook hands and it's headlines. It doesn't take much to impress the racists who write the news we consume. They need white. White defines them.

To: Sam who wrote (77054)	6/12/2018 6:32:08 PM
From: Katelew	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357918

Thanks, Sam, for providing the actual statement. I see that it does conform exactly to what a "statement of agreement" typically is. The meat of it is that Kim agrees to complete denuclearization, and Trump agrees to provide security for Kim. It will be interesting to see exactly what 'providing security' entails. I assume Trump means that he is assuring Kim that the USA won't try to depose Kim or invade his country, but Trump can't protect Kim from others and Trump can't guarantee that a future POTUS won't decide to depose Kim or haul him before the Hague. So I found that guarantee a little puzzling. As for the MSNBC commentary, it was nothing surprising. An outpouring of criticism and negative spin was to be expected, and I didn't see anything that would have a prayer of changing my opinion. It's more negative speculation and this is the pattern to date. Every step of the way, the liberal media has been filled with negative speculation---the meeting won't happen, Trump will blow it, Trump will start a war, Kim would never consider giving up his weapons, etc. etc. etc. But here we are. The meeting took place, the mutual goals are in writing, and there now exists a framework for the process to begin. What's not to like? Seriously, what's not to like? Have you come across an alternate proposal for how this whole thing should have unfolded?

To: Sam who wrote (77054)	6/13/2018 9:03:01 PM
From: robert a belfer	Respond to of 357918

"On the troops: many people don't know this, but its actually cheaper to keep troops in S. Korea than in the US. Why? Because S.K. picks up half of the cost. So contrary to what Trump said, there won't be any cost savings. Plus of course there is the deterrent factor of having the troops there." --Evelyn Farcas That is a very shallow analysis. . First, will we need to keep all those troops on active duty or can we reduce our force structure. Secondly and IMO more important is the cost of recruiting and retaining the best people I googled this "are soldiers stationed in Korea on unaccompanied tours" this was the first return. whattoexpect.com Think of the children. This reads like a forum for people who are set on a career path but some,particularly junior personnel will get out.