2016 Election Thread Part Deux

[Grand Vol]

Usually you yield to me on economics. Why do you think we should continue these sanctions that have done nothing to change power in NK?

Usually doesn't always apply in this case as it's not economically based.

You're talking about a country where they shut down the internet, shut down foreign films, shut themselves off from the rest of the world and kept their citizens in the dark. How is us extending our hand in friendship going to change them wanting/needing outside influence.

NK is an isolated state because they know if their people were to learn the truth, those in power would quickly get trampled. And furthermore, they control the (seemingly fed) military that keeps the people in check.

 

[n_huffhines]

Usually doesn't always apply in this case as it's not economically based.

You're talking about a country where they shut down the internet, shut down foreign films, shut themselves off from the rest of the world and kept their citizens in the dark. How is us extending our hand in friendship going to change them wanting/needing outside influence.

NK is an isolated state because they know if their people were to learn the truth, those in power would quickly get trampled. And furthermore, they control the (seemingly fed) military that keeps the people in check.

Yeah it is. It's the economic side of foreign relations.

It's not extending the hand of friendship, it's business. He did all these horrible things with sanctions in place. They aren't helping. They are making matters worse. I don't care if it looks like it's friendship to you. It will help raise the standard of living for the otherwise hopeless masses in NK.

Right now Un can blame their poor economy on foreign sanctions. Let's take that excuse away from him.

 

[hog88]

Yeah it is. It's the economic side of foreign relations.

It's not extending the hand of friendship, it's business. He did all these horrible things with sanctions in place. They aren't helping. They are making matters worse. I don't care if it looks like it's friendship to you. It will help raise the standard of living for the otherwise hopeless masses in NK.

Right now Un can blame their poor economy on foreign sanctions. Let's take that excuse away from him.

How about the fact that they are broke? Just what in the hell would they buy from us?

 

[Grand Vol]

Yeah it is. It's the economic side of foreign relations.

It's not extending the hand of friendship, it's business. He did all these horrible things with sanctions in place. They aren't helping. They are making matters worse. I don't care if it looks like it's friendship to you. It will help raise the standard of living for the otherwise hopeless masses in NK.

Right now Un can blame their poor economy on foreign sanctions. Let's take that excuse away from him.

You really are clueless about this whole thing and unwilling to accept any input about the concept. You think free trade is going to solve all the problems and overnight NK will love us.

The leaders use food as a way of keeping their population as virtual slaves. The UN sent food and guess who got it? The mother****ing military.

You are completely and entirely off your rocker on this one.

 

[n_huffhines]

You really are clueless about this whole thing and unwilling to accept any input about the concept. You think free trade is going to solve all the problems and overnight NK will love us.

The leaders use food as a way of keeping their population as virtual slaves. The UN sent food and guess who got it? The mother****ing military.

You are completely and entirely off your rocker on this one.

You're going on the offensive because you don't got much to say other than their leadership is bad... I get that. It's not about Kim Jong Un. It's about making a difference in the lives of people who are suffering.

What about China's leadership? It was every bit as bad, but the west has been trading with China and look at how things have improved for the oppressed classes.

Tell me I don't have a clue again. I'll come up with more examples of why sanctions are a bad idea and you can continue to talk about how much I know.

 

[hog88]

You're going on the offensive because you don't got much to say other than their leadership is bad... I get that. It's not about Kim Jong Un. It's about making a difference in the lives of people who are suffering.

What about China's leadership? It was every bit as bad, but the west has been trading with China and look at how things have improved for the oppressed classes.

Tell me I don't have a clue again. I'll come up with more examples of why sanctions are a bad idea and you can continue to talk about how much I know.

China's leadership hasn't been as bad as the Kims of NK. Not even close.

You still haven't answered the question, what would we trade with them?

 

[n_huffhines]

China's leadership hasn't been as bad as the Kims of NK. Not even close.

You still haven't answered the question, what would we trade with them?

Most anything that they want to buy, I suppose.

China's leadership was worse than the Kims, but we traded with them and things improved for the masses to the point where that level of oppression is much more difficult to pull off/less desirable. Mao killed 45 million in four years. That's almost twice NK's population. The Kims are saints compared to him.

 

[Grand Vol]

You're going on the offensive because you don't got much to say other than their leadership is bad... I get that. It's not about Kim Jong Un. It's about making a difference in the lives of people who are suffering.

What about China's leadership? It was every bit as bad, but the west has been trading with China and look at how things have improved for the oppressed classes.

Tell me I don't have a clue again. I'll come up with more examples of why sanctions are a bad idea and you can continue to talk about how much I know.

You're right and I'm sorry. How silly of me to think a totalitarian government that's been in power almost 60 years would suddenly change their tune because we removed sanctions.

My bad. Carry on.

 

[n_huffhines]

You're right and I'm sorry. How silly of me to think a totalitarian government that's been in power almost 60 years would suddenly change their tune because we removed sanctions.

My bad. Carry on.

Nobody said suddenly. It took time in China. Ad hominem attacks, now straw man, what's the next fallacy you are going to go with?

 

[Grand Vol]

Nobody said suddenly. It took time in China. Ad hominem attacks, now straw man, what's the next fallacy you are going to go with?

You keep using that phrase "straw man." I'm pretty positive I haven't created one, nor do I want to since you are so right in the perfect world you created.

Carry on, please.

 

[hog88]

Most anything that they want to buy, I suppose.

China's leadership was worse than the Kims, but we traded with them and things improved for the masses to the point where that level of oppression is much more difficult to pull off/less desirable. Mao killed 45 million in four years. That's almost twice NK's population. The Kims are saints compared to him.

Been several years since I was in a business class so I'll ask, how the **** could they buy anything and what the **** would we buy from them? Isn't trade a two way street still?

 

[MG1968]

Been several years since I was in a business class so I'll ask, how the **** could they buy anything and what the **** would we buy from them? Isn't trade a two way street still?

Well, if sanctions were lifted, they could embrace capitalism just like China did and in 60 years the NorKs will be as productive and industrious as their brothers in South Korea.

Which begs the question, why hasn't China done more to lift it's tiny ally out of misery?

 

[DC_Vol]

Well, if sanctions were lifted, they could embrace capitalism just like China did and in 60 years the NorKs will be as productive and industrious as their brothers in South Korea.

Which begs the question, why hasn't China done more to lift it's tiny ally out of misery?

Travel to China and youll find out they aren't anywhere close to out of misery. The majority of the wealth is still controlled by a handful, much of the consumer spending is driven by corruption money, the government props up GDP spending, and the mainland is still an awful hopeless place.

they are so progressive they still censor the Internet, monitor foreigner communications, and black out news reports from Hong Kong and the U.S.

 

[n_huffhines]

Travel to China and youll find out they aren't anywhere close to out of misery. The majority of the wealth is still controlled by a handful, much of the consumer spending is driven by corruption money, the government props up GDP spending, and the mainland is still an awful hopeless place.

they are so progressive they still censor the Internet, monitor foreigner communications, and black out news reports from Hong Kong and the U.S.

It's no paradise by our standards, but the rising tide has lifted everyone's boats.

Forbes

 

[red butler]

Been several years since I was in a business class so I'll ask, how the **** could they buy anything and what the **** would we buy from them? Isn't trade a two way street still?

Surely we have something left that hasn't been outsourced. Maybe we could train them to process our welfare checks.

 

[hog88]

Well, if sanctions were lifted, they could embrace capitalism just like China did and in 60 years the NorKs will be as productive and industrious as their brothers in South Korea.

Which begs the question, why hasn't China done more to lift it's tiny ally out of misery?

They would not embrace capitalism. Embracing capitalism would end the Kim's reign of terror and they will not allow that to happen.

 

[n_huffhines]

They would not embrace capitalism. Embracing capitalism would end the Kim's reign of terror and they will not allow that to happen.

Capitalism would raise his boat, too. He's not going to open up right away, but over time he would see, just like the Chinese are opening up. It takes time to see the fruits of trade with those under despotic government, but it's better than 60 years of no change.

 

[AM64]

Surely we have something left that hasn't been outsourced. Maybe we could train them to process our welfare checks.

Nah, I think that's being done in India.

 

[volfanhill]

China's leadership hasn't been as bad as the Kims of NK. Not even close.

You still haven't answered the question, what would we trade with them?

Our grain for their portrates of Dear Leader obviously

 

[AM64]

The fact is that you can't do free trade with a communist country. They can play games all day (or centuries) long with labor rates to keep them so low that we can't compete. Since the country isn't free, basic economic laws don't apply to their labor rates. Once we've outsourced everything because they build it cheaper and have no manufacturing base and destroyed the middle class, they win. War can be economic as well as with weapons when "leaders" in free economies don't understand the game. And about that property the Chinese buy here that we probably couldn't buy there - assuming someone didn't mind losing should they want to play the little "nationalization" game...

Another little thing that makes it all possible is the Oriental concept of time - we are always in a rush for results; they view time very very differently. One artillery round at a time on a bicycle down the Ho Chi Minh trail (and our absurd rules of engagement) kept North Vietnam in the game until our national patience wore out.

 

[n_huffhines]

Been several years since I was in a business class so I'll ask, how the **** could they buy anything and what the **** would we buy from them? Isn't trade a two way street still?

I'll make this real easy for you...why do we need sanctions if we wouldn't trade without them?

 

[volprof]

The question of sanctions is an important foreign policy question, especially considering the gravity of that question at the moment with sanctions affecting and/or having affected nations as diverse as Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

On the side of engagement is the fact that nations like China have admittedly "liberalized," although that means something much different to them than it does to us. (It should be pointed out, however, that although China has become more "liberalized" through engagement it has not become a part of the "international order" established by the US. China is somewhat exceptional though, as any great power that does not share another's most basic values will most likely always be somewhat recalcitrant and obstinate.) Also on the side of engagement is the notion that rebuilding and aiding the German economy after WWI would have prevented WWII and the fact that the Marshall Plan essentially rebuilt Europe while American policy in postwar Japan made it a viable regional ally rather than a long-term vindictive nation. In either of the latter two cases, it is conceivable that sanctions would have just kicked the can down the road.

On the side of sanctions, however, is the fact that refusing to ever completely normalize relations with the Soviet Union was just one major factor that accelerated (not necessarily created) its demise, all without having to fire a shot without a proxy present. Also, this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-times-that-economic-sanctions-really-worked/

It seems likely that sanctions are probably more often not (or minimally) effective than are mostly effective. Like with most things in life, however, where we seek an absolute answer to every situation that could ever arise for all time, it's most likely that there will be cases where sanctions can be effectively used and cases where they cannot. Determining when they should be used is a combination of smart analysis and a simple crap shoot.

 

[VolnJC]

Sanders looks like he will sweep the Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii caucuses today..he still won't win but the state totals show the Dems are more divided than they claim..Hillary 18 states Sanders 15 and they basically tied in Iowa and Mass.

 

[VolnJC]

Sanders is absolutely destroying Hillary in AK and WA and with a Hawaii win tonight, he will have won the last five contests..but there is zero talk about the results on CNN or MSNBC. This process was rigged from the beginning but they didn't count on the level of support an old socialist would get. You proud of your party Dems?

 

[VolnJC]