I don’t have an opinion one way or the other. I was commenting on a single point you made. But if you’re really interested, you could look at historical data for similar economies.
If Trump were to attack North Korea unilaterally, I suspect his approval rating would take a big hit. If North Korea attacks US, and Trump reacts forcefully, I suspect that would boost his approval rating significantly.
The little Machiavelli in me says that there are ways the USA could probably goad North Korea into doing something stupid: big war games and exercises near / in disputed waters, for example, aggressive flight patterns or blockade practices, radio broadcasting / jamming, etc, but I don’t think those things can be fine-tuned enough to prompt a response at the specified time.
I don’t think NK is crazy enough to attack us, and I doubt they would be obliging enough to assist in Operation Wag the Dog, Part II by coordinating with Mueller or the Democrats.
But if Kim attacks, I still feel even the Democrats would react as they did with 9/11, at the very least for a while. And that is what I expect, not merely what I hope. Some things are more important than politics, and the Dems realize that.
Regards,
Shodan
And not like the Republicans did with the Serbia engagement or the Iraq no-fly-zone enforcement actions. That was, of course, different. Somehow.
Also, when Clinton went after Osama Bin Laden, that was just to distract from his problems, he wasn’t actually interested in fighting terrorism.
Some things Republicans do are more important than politics, but they don’t always extend that courtesy to things Dems do.
"But if Kim attacks [us]…
Emphasis added. Yes, different.
I’m not sure where you are going with the Iraq no fly zones. Those were in effect during Bush - Clinton - Bush. Iraq had been shooting at us more or less continuously. But if you are talking about the bombing campaign initiated by Clinton, that was not about them attacking us. It was about the breakdown of the UN WMD inspection process:
No doubt some military action would boost his ratings, as we saw reporters gushing about how Presidential Trump suddenly became when he attacked Syria last year.
He may have another chance to “look presidential” soon…
That seems like a stupid move. Assad has basically won the war. He can reasonably expect American retaliation for a chemical weapons attack. Why would he do that again?
I don’t watch TV, but do not recall gushing in the New York Times and Washington Post.
However, check at 538, it does seem the on-or-about April 7, 2017 period marked a polling low from which Trump somewhat recovered.
A reckless attack on North Korea would probably help Trump in the polls if Kim Jun-un did absolutely nothing in response. But if he replied with renewed and intensified threats, as seems likely, it might not help Trump. I don’t even want to think about what happens if Kim Jun-un tries to respond in kind.
It’s because Assad is the devil and doesn’t need a realistic motive.
Funny how every time the terrorists look likely to lose another one of these strange isolated attacks allegedly occurs.
Do you have some master list of times “the terrorists” looked to lose something, and another careful list of “strange isolated attacks” so we could run actual statisitics on the alleged 100 percent correlation?
It seems that if Korea is attacked it will have nothing to lose in retaliating. Having a nuclear arsenal would seem to be rather pointless as a deterrent to aggression otherwise.
No master list.
Just an understanding of history and the ability to pay attention to the news.
I’m OK retracting the ‘every time’ claim if that’s what offends you.
But that hardly defeats my point that these alleged chemical attacks help the ISIS and Al Qaeda ‘rebels’ more than they help the Syrians and their government.
Maybe the Republicans should trot out their Rainbow Of Fear again to see how much being scared makes people like Trump before he starts killing people for the ratings.
Between the Obama administration’s reticence to act and his Russian patronage, why on earth would Assad “reasonably expect American retaliation?” He has a free pass and he knows it.
.
Trump already bombed Syria once, and apparently still maintains a military presence there.
“The US intends to maintain an open-ended military presence in Syria, not only to fight Isis and al-Qaida but also to provide a bulwark against Iranian influence, ensure the departure of the Assad regime and create conditions for the return of refugees, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said on Wednesday.”
Looks like Syrians are still in the crosshairs.
Were you on vacation in early April of last year or something?
And how are the jobs losses attributable to Obama’s policies? As I said in a previous post, you can’t simply look at numbers from one year to the next. The burden is upon you to demonstrate how policies influenced the final economic outcome. I’m giving you fair warning: I know some shit about economic history. I will completely and utterly dominate you in a debate if you try to trot out this Ludwig Von Mises bullshit. Know your shit or don’t debate is what I’m saying.
The recovery began in the 3rd quarter of 2009, not even a year removed from the worst financial crisis since 1932. Again, Trump inherited 8 years of economic growth; Obama inherited the worst financial situation in 80 years. I don’t give Obama 100% of the credit. FDR gets some credit for having established the institutions for preventing a complete collapse of financial markets. George W Bush gets credit for eschewing right ideology and pushing congress to use these tools. And Obama gets credit for working with GWB (once upon a time, there was a Republican who actually cared about the country more than himself) during the transition to make sure that the recovery happened. I give the market the rest of the credit.
LMFAO!!!
Here’s what you said earlier (the post I quibbled with):
You may know loads about economics, but you’re apparently shit for dates. What calendar are you looking at that “the 3rd quarter of 2009” = “early 2009”?