What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, but... yes and no. We do need to be on reasonably cordial terms, but that can backfire into a power imbalance quickly. for instance, Putin seems to have no fear whatsoever of the US. Trump has put us in a subservient position (in Vlad's eyes). He has no reason to blink with Trump. He knows Trump will be obedient. That's not a healthy respect or relationship.

Thermal, that's the narrative. That's what "people are saying". Why do you believe this to be true - is it just because a lot of people say so? What makes you think Trump will be "obedient"? Because I'm pretty sure that Trump will happily order bombs dropped on adversaries without a second thought if they think it's in the interests of our country. Trump definitely didn't shy away from targeted assassination of enemies in their past administration.

You are making the mistake of thinking that because Trump has had cordial relationships with Putin in the context of business dealings in the past, that makes them actually friends. You seem to think that Putin being under the impression that the US is subservient to Russia that means we actually *are* subservient to Russia. Putin's impression based on their ego doesn't alter reality. Trump threatened Russia with sanctions and action if Russia didn't come to the negotiating table with Ukraine... Putin agreed to negotiate. That doesn't seem like Trump being an obedient servant - What Putin *wants* is to bring the entirety of Ukraine under Russian control, and Putin isn't going to get what they want. They will probably get to keep Crimea - which is unfortunate, but it's a hell of a better fallback for Selensky than either continued war or all of Ukraine. And at this point, getting agreement to negotiate is more than has been accomplished so far.

And lest you or anyone else mistakenly think I support Trump... I don't. But I also don't care about my personal feelings on this topic. Personally I think the US should obliterate Russia and call it good... but I also know that's a short-term desire that won't support long-term objectives. And I can set aside my personal dislike for Trump and recognize that getting Russia to stop it's campaign against Ukraine doesn't require me to like anyone involved.

This is true. In fairness though, a lot of people in the position of authority know 100% who is schmoozing and who is sincere. They take notes on that, too.

Why do you think that schmoozing and sincerity are mutually exclusive? I don't have to like wine to sincerely understand how passionate my exec is about wine, and to recognize what a big deal it is to them to own a small vineyard. I don't have to know or personally care about their kids to understand and appreciate - sincerely - how important it is to them to have their kid get the right kind of educational support and opportunities. I don't have to believe in god to sincerely appreciate and respect how important church and belief is to my mother in law.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Russia knows what it wants, and it has probably the best diplomatic team in the World - Lavrov has literally seen everything and everyone. He knows the US and Trump better than they know themselves.
Rubio will take it as a victory if the gets to keep all his limbs in the "negotiations".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm anxious to see Putin show anything but contempt for us. Any idea how long we'll be waiting?

Lol, Putin will never show anything but contempt for America as a concept, just as most of us will ever show anything but contempt for Russia as a concept. It's irrelevant. As long as Putin doesn't show contempt for Trump and our diplomats, and as long as Trump doesn't show contempt for Putin and Russia's diplomats, it'll be fine.

Hell, I would be surprised if our respective diplomats don't have a fair bit of "I know my guy is being a tard-stick, but here's where we need to get to... " That sort of thing is one of the ways that negotiators build the relationship needed in order to negotiate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

i wonder what trump plans to do with all of this massive leverage he is getting from doing exactly what putin wants and allowing him to insult him publicly.

that is what people with the upper hand do, right?

Yes, actually. It is what people with the upper hand do, quite often. Who gives a crap about being insulted, as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting things done? Do you think personal ego is so important that powerful people would burn it all down just to salve their hurt feelings?

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, actually. It is what people with the upper hand do, quite often. Who gives a crap about being insulted, as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting things done? Do you think personal ego is so important that powerful people would burn it all down just to salve their hurt feelings?

It's like this post was beamed in from another dimension, completely detached from our current reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't think legitimizing the Kim regime hurt our negotiating position? What did DPRK do to earn that standing?

No, I don't think it hurt our negotiating position. You can't negotiate at all if you don't recognize the other side as having authority to negotiate in the first place. DPRK doesn't have to do anything to "earn" standing, they exist as a country, one that keeps trying to cause problems. Who gives a ◊◊◊◊ if Jong Un is a douche? If it gets them to the table to even *begin* discussions, that's a step forward.

Seriously, what do you think the better alternatives are? Let China take over NK and make them a puppet state or outright vassal? We take over NK by force? Bomb them into nonexistence? Call Jong Un names to make them cry?

In a negotiation, you have to be willing to walk away from the table. You can only walk away from the table if you make it to the table in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

2) Repeat after me: Businesses are not nations

True. But sometimes tactics are transferable, because people can be much the same even in different contexts. You don't expect it to work here. Perhaps you are correct, but perhaps not. But one should at least understand the purpose of a tactic, even if one thinks it will fail.

You don't think legitimizing the Kim regime hurt our negotiating position?

No. Because you can't negotiate at all unless the other side is a legitimate negotiating partner. If they aren't, then there's nothing to negotiate over. That's why we don't negotiate with terrorists. Now, maybe you think we shouldn't negotiate with North Korea at all. Which, OK. Perhaps we don't need to. But if we want to, then no, "legitimizing" them doesn't hurt negotiations at all.

 

[Thermal]

Thermal, that's the narrative. That's what "people are saying". Why do you believe this to be true - is it just because a lot of people say so? What makes you think Trump will be "obedient"? Because I'm pretty sure that Trump will happily order bombs dropped on adversaries without a second thought if they think it's in the interests of our country. Trump definitely didn't shy away from targeted assassination of enemies in their past administration.

I was just watching Trump, Vance and Zelensky having a meeting. Trump was bullying and pro-Putin far in excess of any "narrative", jabbing a finger at Zelensky and telling him he "was in no position to negotiate" and was "playing with World War 3" if he didn't roll over and do as the US told him to do.

You are making the mistake of thinking that because Trump has had cordial relationships with Putin in the context of business dealings in the past, that makes them actually friends. You seem to think that Putin being under the impression that the US is subservient to Russia that means we actually *are* subservient to Russia. Putin's impression based on their ego doesn't alter reality. Trump threatened Russia with sanctions and action if Russia didn't come to the negotiating table with Ukraine... Putin agreed to negotiate. That doesn't seem like Trump being an obedient servant - What Putin *wants* is to bring the entirety of Ukraine under Russian control, and Putin isn't going to get what they want. They will probably get to keep Crimea - which is unfortunate, but it's a hell of a better fallback for Selensky than either continued war or all of Ukraine. And at this point, getting agreement to negotiate is more than has been accomplished so far.

No. My issue with Trump is the relentless fawning before Putin, and being his surrogate bitch when talking with Zelensky. If Trump were behaving strong and diplomatically with both, that would be one thing. Have you forgotten that Trump (again very publicly) has been saying Ukraine literally started the conflict, and that Zelensky is a dictator? This is not exactly a subtle preference President Trump.is showing to the world.

And lest you or anyone else mistakenly think I support Trump... I don't. But I also don't care about my personal feelings on this topic. Personally I think the US should obliterate Russia and call it good... but I also know that's a short-term desire that won't support long-term objectives. And I can set aside my personal dislike for Trump and recognize that getting Russia to stop it's campaign against Ukraine doesn't require me to like anyone involved.

Understood. I believe you to be exactly what you say you are, a republican that does not like Trump. You have my support on that, as its a perfectly respectable position, and no, I'm not one of these bleaters who will summarily accuse you of being a closet Trumpanzee.

Why do you think that schmoozing and sincerity are mutually exclusive? I don't have to like wine to sincerely understand how passionate my exec is about wine, and to recognize what a big deal it is to them to own a small vineyard. I don't have to know or personally care about their kids to understand and appreciate - sincerely - how important it is to them to have their kid get the right kind of educational support and opportunities. I don't have to believe in god to sincerely appreciate and respect how important church and belief is to my mother in law.

Honestly, it's just the cynic in me that draws a hard line between the schmoozer and the sincere. I'm highly alert to manipulation, and assume the worst intentions. It's experience based. When someone asks about something I know they have zero interest in (but know I do), I recognize the butter-up. And we all know why you butter something up, and it ain't because you are concerned with how it's life is going.

 

[Tero]

Trump is never without words. Yet when Putin comes up he is whimpering. A man with 5-6 air craft carriers vs 1 barely worlkng.

 

[Donal]

No, I don't think it hurt our negotiating position.

You should go explain that to everyone with knowledge of the situation.

You can't negotiate at all if you don't recognize the other side as having authority to negotiate in the first place.

They pissed away that courtesy.

DPRK doesn't have to do anything to "earn" standing, they exist as a country, one that keeps trying to cause problems. Who gives a ◊◊◊◊ if Jong Un is a douche? If it gets them to the table to even *begin* discussions, that's a step forward.

They can talk to representatives from the state department. They don't get a meeting with POTUS until they make real progress on the humanitarian front and stop poking at South Korea. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Seriously, what do you think the better alternatives are? Let China take over NK and make them a puppet state or outright vassal? We take over NK by force? Bomb them into nonexistence? Call Jong Un names to make them cry?

Anything's better than what the Orange Weakling did.

In a negotiation, you have to be willing to walk away from the table. You can only walk away from the table if you make it to the table in the first place.

Your attendance at the table is something to be negotiated. You can make good faith gestures to demonstrate you are interested in serious discussions.

 

[Donal]

True.

aaand stop

But sometimes tactics are transferable, because people can be much the same even in different contexts. You don't expect it to work here. Perhaps you are correct, but perhaps not. But one should at least understand the purpose of a tactic, even if one thinks it will fail.

You'd have a point if you weren't carrying water for a guy with 6 bankruptcies.

No. Because you can't negotiate at all unless the other side is a legitimate negotiating partner. If they aren't, then there's nothing to negotiate over. That's why we don't negotiate with terrorists. Now, maybe you think we shouldn't negotiate with North Korea at all. Which, OK. Perhaps we don't need to. But if we want to, then no, "legitimizing" them doesn't hurt negotiations at all.

The seat at the table is something that can negotiated for. What did Captain Bankruptcy get from the Kim regime before tip-toeing through the tulips hand-in-hand with the world's second biggest failson?

 

[Ziggurat]

The seat at the table is something that can negotiated for.

That's what you do when you don't care whether or not there even are negotiations, but the other side does.

What did Captain Bankruptcy get from the Kim regime before tip-toeing through the tulips hand-in-hand with the world's second biggest failson?

An end to their nuclear and missile tests, since you seem to have forgotten. And what did it cost us? Trump saying nice things? Not a steep price.

 

[Donal]

That's what you do when you don't care whether or not there even are negotiations, but the other side does.

that's called leverage

An end to their nuclear and missile tests, since you seem to have forgotten. And what did it cost us? Trump saying nice things? Not a steep price.

It would have been great if that happened. but it didn't. Mainly because Captain Bankruptcy is mentally unstable and can change his mind on a whim.

And since we were already getting that from Iran and he still walked away, no one can trust the US to keep our word.

 

[plague311]

An end to their nuclear and missile tests, since you seem to have forgotten. And what did it cost us? Trump saying nice things? Not a steep price.

Wait, Trump's nice words got Kim to stop? Cause I thought "The Security Council has banned the North from ballistic missile and nuclear weapons development and imposed a number of sanctions for violations." I had abso ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lutely no idea that Trump changed his name to "The Security Council"! er did you mean he led The Security Council? Er was he on the council when the ban went into affect? Did Trump orchestrate it? What the ◊◊◊◊ did Trump do and when?

 

[Donal]

Trump is famous for working within the parameters of the UN

 

[Ziggurat]

Wait, Trump's nice words got Kim to stop? Cause I thought "The Security Council has banned the North from ballistic missile and nuclear weapons development and imposed a number of sanctions for violations."

It's cute that you think Kim listens to the UN. Seriously, your own source says they imposed sanctions for violations, which means that the UN ban didn't work.

What the ◊◊◊◊ did Trump do and when?

Seriously? You couldn't even google it?

 

[plague311]

It's cute that you think Kim listens to the UN. Seriously, your own source says they imposed sanctions for violations, which means that the UN ban didn't work.

Seriously? You couldn't even google it?

Did you read the article I linked? They're testing missiles that can carry nuclear warheads right ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ now. They're just not ballistic.

Cool link though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you read the article I linked?

Better than you did.

They're testing missiles that can carry nuclear warheads right ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ now. They're just not ballistic.

And? What's your point? That they didn't stop forever? You are quite correct, they didn't. They started again during Biden's presidency.

2021–2023 North Korean missile tests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[plague311]

Better than you did.

And? What's your point? That they didn't stop forever? You are quite correct, they didn't. They started again during Biden's presidency.

2021–2023 North Korean missile tests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They tested the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ missile on Wednesday lol. Hence why I asked if you read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ article.

 

[Ziggurat]

They tested the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ missile on Wednesday lol. Hence why I asked if you read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ article.

Again, what's your point? Are you confused about what the word "start" means?