The Goat Pen

America punished voters for McCain, McConnell and Lindsay Graham by electing Trump.

seoul will be a target range along with every base we ever had if trump launches

most of the icbm's nkorea would try to launch would malfunction

the nkorea people are divided into the haves and havenots. there might be 2 million military (including reservists)along with another couple million fanatics but for the most part I would think the population if the writing was on the wall would turn against the regime once the fanatics were taken care of

once the conventional artillery threat is taken care of it would be short--skorea is where the price would be paid not here

Anybody planning a trip to Seoul?

once the conventional artillery threat is taken care of it would be short--skorea is where the price would be paid not here

Japan too. They're within easy missile range.

That's why we just installed Theatre High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) in South Korea. That should help take out some of the incoming missiles, but not all, and certainly not the artillery shells falling on Seoul.

I heard where we were putting in some missile defense system at a golf course near Seoul to take out incoming missiles and the South Koreans were lined up along the street protesting and throwing items at the trucks carrying it.

Read previous post.

hedge wrote:Anybody planning a trip to Seoul?

I wonder how many people put down a deposit on this:

https://www.hollandamerica.com/details? ... &shipId=VO

eCat wrote:I heard where we were putting in some missile defense system at a golf course near Seoul to take out incoming missiles and the South Koreans were lined up along the street protesting and throwing items at the trucks carrying it.

True

eCat wrote:
Then I hear Mexico has agreed to renegotiate NAFTA as Trump was about to exit it via an EO. Probably got some leverage for building the wall out of it as well. I have a feeling Mexico is going to end up doing alot of shit they swore they'd never do in October.

Maybe Mexico is dumb enough to believe it, if what you say is true. But, only Congress can exit NAFTA, IIRC.

NATFA itself has a very simple escape clause.

Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.

You want out, you get out in six months. No questions asked. So if the United States submits written notice to Canada and Mexico, it could be out in time for the holidays.

The real question is: Who is the United States? Does this formal withdrawal require an act of Congress, or can the president pull the switch alone?

Article II of the Constitution makes clear the president’s power in making treaties.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

As with Supreme Court appointments, that “Advice and Consent” clause has been regularly read as meaning that the Senate’s approval is required. There are some types of treaties that president may enter into without getting that box checked, but NAFTA was approved by the Senate.

What about getting out? That is, unfortunately, a good deal muddier.

In 2001, George W. Bush let Russia know that he intended to withdraw from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

In making his announcement, Mr. Bush declared at the White House Rose Garden, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks."

Bush didn’t seek any sort of approval from the Senate. His move went unchallenged in court and six months later the ABM Treaty was nullified. What would have happened if the Senate had challenged Bush’s authority to make this move? It’s resoundingly unclear.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter announced that the Untied States would withdraw from the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. This reflected the change in U.S. relations toward Taiwan and a growing need to deal directly with the government in Beijing. Barry Goldwater and a group of Republican senators challenged Carter’s ability to leave the treaty without permission. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, allowing Carter’s action to stand. However, the case was dismissed on a basis of standing, as Goldwater et. al. weren’t recognized as representing a formal challenge to the president’s power, but were seen as individuals acting for political reasons.

So … could Donald Trump unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA? Unless the United States Senate offered a formal court challenge, an event that seems extremely unlikely, then yes. If Trump signs the executive order as planned, NAFTA will die.

a classmate of mine -


http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... str-000429

So Trump's play is to outcrazy the crazies? It's crazy enough to work! Or we're all gonna go to heaven on a billy goat. (that was also a nod to today being the anniversary of the release of the Grateful Dead album "Go To Heaven" in 1980).

I'd be grateful if you were dead...

"It's crazy enough to work! "

[youtube]Z_JOGmXpe5I[/youtube]

Hep meh!!

That's the best scene without Harvey Korman in it.

Trump is apparently not much of a Civil War buff. What a fucking moron.

I'm not so sure he was given the benefit of the doubt (not that he deserves it). After all, Jackson was against secession, which was a topic of debate while he was still alive. While I think Trump's grasp of US history pales in comparison to that of my 10-year-old, it seems as though this being blown up more than what was the reality.

And I hate Trump and wish he'd quit today. But I'm getting sick of overreactions when there's plenty of legit shit to cause people to want to blow up the White House if it means getting rid of him.

Ah well. At least Frederick Douglass is still doing amazing things. He too wishes people would chillax over this Civil War thingy.

At Trump Admin.'s Urging, Argentina Drops Plan to Honor President Jimmy Carter with Nation's Highest Honor - CNN

So Argentina's prez was in D.C. last week at the WH's invitation, and wanted to briefly honor Carter for promoting human rights back when the Argentines were under a military dictatorship - and was told to think again, not gonna happen. Apparently Trump's ego is too fragile these days and he can't abide medal ceremonies that don't feature himself.

I had a chance to listen to Marie Le Pen's campaign manager on the news this morning.

He handled the questions they threw at him really well pressed about why isn't it ok for a Muslim woman to wear a head scarf in public. He talked about the history of France and religious conflict - how its resulted in bloodshed and what they've learned from it in regards pushing a religious agenda outside the home or place of worship. He reiterated that religious mandates for a segment of their society isn't the French way and its basis for tolerance is being secular - meaning people should not be subjected to a religious doctrine or belief outside designated areas of worship.

Then he was pressed about not being pro immigration and how immigration is good for the economy. He cited some figures about economic growth stagnating and how a much higher percentage of immigrants are unemployed as compared to the general population. He also cited increased unemployment and stagnated wages for French citizens to to the influx of immigrants.

Finally they asked him about if the populist movement was waning due to Austria and the Netherlands rejecting populist candidates, and he pointed out how their economies were growing allowing them to absorb immigrants and the populist/nationalist movement not striking a chord with a nation that isn't facing the same economic challenges.

It was a very common sense approach to addressing the pro immigration opponents and question from liberal leaning NPR.