all the time in the world to get back into power. that s what you re supposed to do. that s why, you know, carter was a reaction to nixon. everyone is a reaction toion to. somebody else. they spent the last three years in a tantrum. they have blown all of this time. i don t even think they have found anyone. jesse: what would be the reaction to donald trump. could you imagine the opposite of donald trump? greg: good point. i am saying it would be somebody incredibly left-wing. you always see the pendulum shift. they might try he is undoing everything obama did. the next one is going to try to undo everything trump did. jesse: the opposite of trump is probably a female, hispanic, very polite librarian. juan: no, no.
years. talking is not the answer. he humiliated his own secretary of state, rex tillerson, for his diplomatic efforts, tweeting that tillerson was wasting his time. so what changed this week? well, it s not clear. the charitable interpretation would be that the south korean government received assurances that the north was serious about talks to eliminate its arsenal. let s be clear. north korea has announced no concessions, no reversal of its arsenal, no denuclearization, let alone any actions. what appears to have happened is the following. trump was told that in the talks between north and south, kim jong-un expressed a wish to meet with him and trump jumped at the opportunity. henry kissinger has often said that presidential summits should be the climax of a long negotiating process, not the beginning. trump s gambit turns that dictum on its head. victor cha, once slated to be
single other leader of the world since he s taken power. and no american president has ever met with a north korean leader, only former secretary of state. so it s the first, it s incredible television, clearly trump wants to make this happen. that doesn t mean it s going to happen. and there are a lot of things simply the fact of saying there s going to be a subtle has now made trump s presidency more about north korea than i think any of us want. i mean, the fact is, this has been the most intractable geopolitical problem for several mirp administrations now. they ve all decided to kick it down the road, even though we knew it was getting worse. because they worried that openiopen ing up that can of worms had the potential to kill an awful lot of people. and now that trump is making his presidency more about that is a greater greater for all of us. but you re saying from a pure tv point of view, this is irresistible to the former host of the apprentice ? i think it s irresisti
be less capacity for major surprises, comparable to the stadium. when you say that, because you don t think trump should go to pyongyang. i don t think he should go to pyongyang and i don t think kim should come here. i d prefer the dmz, peace house, because i think it gives excellent access to the rok government. you can have daily conversations after the negotiations, and japan could send a delegation and it s great for coordination, but still, even there, there s less capacity for major surprises, but even at the trivial level of protocol, what if on the one hand kim gives president trump a great big bear hug, how do you respond to that awkward moment? what a bad scenario, he gives him a diatribe about all the u.s. sins going back to lgss about u.s. behavior in the korean war. so the president has to be prepared for that. i think the important point is, one, do the right thing. you re here on an historic first meeting of leaders, shake friends, you don t have to be
are precisely the kind of government intervention that produces inefficiency and corruption, but republicans are now apparently comfortable with government intervention as long as it s for the right people. it is also now a party that has developed a total nalysis. consider trump s tariffs are opposed by a remarkable array of scholars from the conservative heritage foundation to the will libertarian kato to the brookings to the center for economic policy and research. the white house barely offers serious arguments about it instead providing a bogus justification for the tare i haves, national security even though china and russia supply only a tiny portion of these goods to the united states. despite research showing that previous protectionist policies have failed, that the steel industry has lost more jobs due to efficiency in automation than to trade, and that preservegs o preserving one job in the steel