Separation Of Powers

I got your meaning the first time…I was simply putting it out there…

Cheers

LS

 

Still, one wonders just how far Kim Jong-un will tantalizingly push the envelope…easy enough for the lay person to think the guy is nuts…

 

"Repugnants" ? Sorry, you've really lost me.

 

Eldon, you references pretty much describes in a nutshell (pun not intended) what's happening in NK.

 

The US, Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, French, British and Israelis are not? Mutually Assured Destruction. The Samson Option. This idea that North Korea, the newest and weakest nuclear power, is the most dangerous?

 

Do you really think North Korea will give up their only real deterrent against regime change or invasion? China does not want to be flooded with more economic refugees, get stuck with cleaning up North Korea's mess or see it reunited on South Korea's terms, therefore they won't press them hard. Just like all the other times.

 

Oh, OK. Gotcha.

But when it comes to the legislature aspect, regardless whether the Judge is a Democrat or Republican, their first duty above all else is to the court - an oath taken by all lawyers, including here in Australia - (we know there are those who are corrupt). So aren't you being kinda harsh by unfairly saying your Judiciary is “Repugnant” tarnishing all with the same brush? There are good ones out there.

Our Australian States abides by our Uniform Law which states:

“Fundamental duties of solicitors

3 Paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice

3.1 A solicitor’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty.”

Similarly, your American legal profession has the same law and regulation, and in particular notes:

“…courts are protected from the influence of other branches of government, as well as shifting popular opinion. This allows the judiciary to make decisions based on what is right under the law, without political or personal consequences…”[1]

Don't be too cynical...there are good people out there.


[1]The federal judiciary is defined and explained in Article III of the U.S. Constitution: http://judiciallearningcenter.org/article-3-and-the-courts/

 

Don't understand your post. Please explain.

My earlier comments were in line with NK through the years understood and continue to push the envelope...I'm referring to NK, so what are you saying?

 

Don’t’ understand your question.

I’ve made no mention re regime change – something you’ve brought up. All I’ve been noting all along have been perhaps imposed sanctions by countries coming together may have some peaceful resolution. At no time have I mentioned a military resolution.

I believe you’re Ambassador when given a similar (double barrel) question couldn’t predict a response...with sanctions, time will tell.

What are you talking about…is this in regard to outcome of sanctions or if there’s a military response?

 

Thanks for that. Clarifies where you're coming from. The travel ban is a sensitive subject, we have similar refugee things going on here which are more political dependent on visa situation(s).

 

Why do I have this feeling that #45 is silently envious of KJU who has the adulation and absolute power of 100% of the population, something that the narcissistic #45 can only dream about?

 

Our Constitution has the same set up (Legislative, Judicial (this being what I meant to say in earlier post #209) and the Executive (our Prime Minister)). Without looking into your current laws and legal environment, there must be some separation according to your Constitution ('though from some things I've seen Trump do, I've had the impression he is in total ignorance and I've been amazed no one has taken him to task at each instance - unless he has found some loop holes(?!)).

Cheers

LS

 

​

Brilliant thought!

You mean something like this to be an ongoing, daily occurrence in the House before start of business is what Trump needs?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/trump-cabinet-meeting_us_593ebc52e4b0c5a35ca1acbe



​

 

Yes he is.
And he started playing this dangerous game when Trump was just a political flash in the pan.

 

Seriously? All those countries have nuclear weapons and declared intent to use them as a deterrent and it has worked. North Korea noticed.

 

Sadly the above would not be enough for him. He WANTS the free press very BIGLY to approve of him. He circumvents them by spouting his tweets of attacks to influence the public and sadly his base lap it all up as if they are in a trance....

#45 cannot get over the fact that he doesn't have the majority of people liking him. He NEEDS adulation....

 

How much did #44 dream about?

 

NK IS by far the most dangerous simply because it is the only nuclear power provoking the USA with threats to 'reduce it to ashes'. These ridiculous statements are for domestic consumption but, because of NK's near total isolation and their inability to make any meaningful contact with the outside world, he simply fails to appreciate the public reaction that such statements give rise to, and their political importance in a democracy such as that in America. I can only hope that even a chump like Trump understands this and does not let the provocation get to him.

 

You know it helps to read the Posts rather than to jump to conclusions

Hence my request you explain for my better understanding that I didn't misinterpret your post...

 

Not going to repeat myself....see earlier Post(s) as I have nothing further to add nor change....

 

Not being a nuclear scientist/physicist/whatever to fully understand how missile projections/potential go, I can't comment as to what stage NK is at on the nuclear front. But I can see they want to be recognised as a nuclear power and agree they are playing a most dangerous game because nobody wants to start WWIII.

I can only reiterate that I hope the sanctions will have some sort of effect to reign them in or at least reach some sort of agreement.

 

That's why he has his OWN:
Trump TV’s ‘real news’ sounds more like real propaganda
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-like-real-propaganda/?utm_term=.0ab48fbc7508

 

Yes, but how would you really compare #45 to previous Presidents? I doubt there have been any as narcissistic or dangerous as this one...or am I wrong?

 

Ahh, I know that blonde gal who used to be on CNN and was glad she was gone. But seems now that she is again delivery fake news. Am waiting for #45 to set up his own REALITY NEWS Network which I will never watch because it would be just too painful hearing and watching it.

PS: why are the vast majority of women on TV who defend, lie and glorify #45 are dyed blondes, high pitched voices, wear crosses and their skirts barely cover their behinds?

 

"that blonde gal" believes everything she spouts and won't be phased regardless of any rebuts against whatever "rot" she may espouse.

As for any 'Reality News Network" I reckon it may pretty much end up competing with...or maybe confused with...SNL
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/alec-baldwin-57921/impersonation/donald-trump-285097

Like...it happened here with REAL news:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/12/politics/dominican-newspaper-confuses-baldwin-trump/index.html

 

Okay, I have this thought that the vast majority of presidents in the past and/or present must all have a touch of narcissism in them. If they wouldn't have this trait, they wouldn't run. This thought would apply to many in governments all over the world. Perhaps also the ones who are in government?

 

Good point...but there was a certain amount of discipline to reign it in as required and maintain the status and decorum expected of a POTUS - in both instances, Trump shows total ignorance along with his understanding of the word "diplomacy".

(In this Forum, I'm am only referring to American POTUS - internationally we would be opening "a can of worms" if looking at Presidents outside).

 

Hopefully some security measures will be put in place before then to ensure straight elections in the US.

If such "fake news" manages to creep in, be interesting to see how such Centres will bear against other news Centres that present facts in the US where it really counts.

For US news, I prefer CNN which I find have anchors that present facts every which way to back their news.
Whereas, Fox News only has 2 anchors I like (Bret Baier, Chris Wallace) who appear to show integrity with their news.

Facebook news I find unstable as much is based on opinion and the facts can get twisted.

Here, domestically, our networks pretty much act as watch dogs, so false news can be quickly uprooted and exposed.

It all falls back on our earlier arguments re Facts vs Opinions.

 

Yes, and that's both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

But, that's not all. Republicans also control a majority of state governorships and state legislatures.

So, shouldn't everything now be just peachy keen ?

https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas

https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures

https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_governors

 

Now that would be an interesting debate.

But I will have to stay out of it because Trump with half a brain is still more competent than the imbecile running my country.

 

I am not a political animal, but I must admit, when Trump became a Presidential Candidate, along with many others like me, he caught our attention mainly because of our Australian alliance with America. We knew any changes he effected as POTUS would ripple all the way down to little people like me (e.g. markets affecting finances and so on and so on down the line).

I even watched Election night (only done that once with one of our Prime Minister candidates)...so I saw the numbers change to a Republican majority and Trump win (fell off the chair in surprise!).

Given the numbers across America, it obviously was a Republican majority, though I was not familiar how it was broken down, so Thank You for giving me a window...and yes, one would think everything should "now be just peachy keen" given the majority.

As a personal observer, in comparison to previous US Administrations under different POTUSs, there has been an unprecedented amount of back-biting, in-fighting and questionable incidences bringing about Mueller's investigations. There's also been a lot of humiliating attacks top down (i.e. POTUS to those under him) of his top people. The worst I considered was the disrespect displayed in the manner he sacked Former FBI director James Comey; disrespectful tirades of tweets against the judiciary (travel bans); and in particular of late, his humiliating treatment of your Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Most surprising has been the growing number of Republicans (Senators, Congressmen, Governors) standing up to criticise the POTUS (particularly after Charlottesville). There does not appear to be the unity required whether within the Republican party or right across the board.

As someone earlier in this Post noted, "...Society is only as good as it's leaders..." (the mekanic - Post #178)

So given my personal observations, I can see why things aren't as "peachy keen" as they should be in spite of a Republican majority.

Cheers

LS

 

Reckon...!? Not being American, I probably wouldn't be able to participate as passionately as others

Ah...Well...I dunno about that...given the current situation, all the rhetoric tirades and now on the brink of an international crisis...

 

Fareed Zakaria (CNN) often offers some interesting (insight) opinions, here are a couple:

Kim Jong Un — smart and strategic?

By Fareed Zakaria Opinion writer September 14 London


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.9872ed1b239f


I particularly find interesting his imaginary interview with Kim Jong-un:

Fareed Zakaria imagines interview with North Korea's Kim Jong-un and the result was not far from truth Sep, 15 2017 17:48:22 IST

http://www.firstpost.com/world/fare...he-result-was-not-far-from-truth-4047245.html

 

A crisis that was not started by Trump.

Didn't the US wipe out 20% of North Korea's population? During a war under the leadership of a democratic US president?

 

We have wiped and been wiped in confrontations under presidents of every persuasion. Plenty here in Arlington and many buried overseas,

I believe there was a democratic pres in the '50 that was ready to flatten NK.

It's not a new thing!

You've heard pres's say to bring the boys home when speaking of the Middle East. Everybody forgets we've had people in Korea since the '50's.

I work quite a bit on Air Force and Navy bases here and see many young people who's first assignment is to go to South Korea.

 

Yes.
And that's when this mess started.

 

My comment alluded to the fact that he hasn't helped the situation, given the tirade of tweets and lack of diplomacy, not that he started the crisis...and when you look at the current new leaders' types in the US and NK, diplomacy is paramount...particularly when dealing with Asians (losing face/saving face is an Asian's concern in every day life, so imagine the higher the status of the person how it must feel if they are being disrespected publicly on an international stage).

 

“…The Korean War was a conflict fought on the Korean peninsula fron June 1960 to July 1953. Initially the war was between South Korea (Republic of Korea) and North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), but soon developed into an international war involving the USA and 19 other nations. The USA sent troops to South Korea as part of a United nations “police action” which sought to repel the Communist aggression of North Korea.”[1],[2]


[1] See Post #31 August 17 2017 - Legalsuit

[2] West’s Encyclopedia of Amerian law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

 

Trump will never be diplomatic - it's his way or his way.
That's how he ran his businesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Because of the above, North Koreans 'forget' how many other countries were part of the UN force.
To them, the US was (and still is) the enemy.

 

As an American, I can tell you that governance has become farcical.

If one has any shred of intellect, they would realize that we face serious problems due to four decades of gross mismanagement. Fiscal and governmental. IMHO, the Obama presidency tended to hold people more accountable, which one would think should appeal to the party of "personal responsibility", a.k.a. the GOP.

However, the GOP seem to think people capable of the highest marks of anarchy (they ain't.) and have gutted protections and aim to undo rules which would penalize mismanagement of the environment. Greenspan's "flaw" is very much alive, and the modern GOP is blind to it.

 

Well, he'll have to put a "sock in it" when he attends the United Nations General Assembly this week (not sure if there'll be a representative from NK attending - reckon it would be good if there is, given the UN round table environment, would force civility and diplomacy (one hopes)):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...at-to-watch-in-trump-first-attendance/8954146

I reckon it is probably because US has maintained a much higher profile over the years, particularly this year...

 

I'm going to leave discussions in reply to others who are more au fait with the concerns you have noted in reference to your country.

One comment I can offer, is that here, similar financial concerns/management are focal point of discussion with every Prime Minister in Office.

 

Perhaps this problem is more pervasive than a tinpot dictator:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

What I found concerning about that article is something prevalent today - fast foods vs unprocessed (healthier) foods...I didn't like to see such a large company pushing its products as being "nutritious", the end result being obesity, particularly with children.