War with North Korea?

[oaksdave]

Or tough negotiations? Seems things are heating up, north of the 38th parallel. What's your take?

 

Are they getting Trumped?

[M.2]

I presume you are referring to the Tillerson comment that everyone is fussing about.

 

I don't think anything will come of North Korea anytime soon.

 

On another note... Best movie about North Korea ever:

[Mister Mister]

 China has cut off coal imports to the North Koreans.  Kim Jong Un is a weak leader.  They're done.  The regime will fall in a few years, I suspect and hope.  I don't know what Trump's angle is, but if it was me I would be willing to offer the top brass some kind of asylum (they are terrified of being lynched by the angry mob) in order to make the transition more speedy and peaceful.

[Bushrat]

The Brits used to be very good at orchestrating a regime change, the CIA not so much. Iraq should have been handed that way too if they really wanted Saddam gone. They are the lapdog of the Chinese, make no mistake about that, it will be China who brings them to heel under US pressure. If they don't do it, and US does it, it will be a aggressive act towards the Chinese, does that matter to Trump, I'm not sure. I do think one way or another the Trump will bring NK under control as they are too big a risk for the region... and the Japanese and SK will pay for the whole thing, whatever happens.

[Rventurelli]

My opinion is that if there is going to be a war in the near future, it is probably going to be in Korea, and it is not only because of Tillerson's comments only -- North Korea fired missiles in the Japanese Sea and have been doing many more provocations. One can argue that they always have behaved like that, however, they are used with American leaders that are all talk and no action, Bill Clinton said he would do anything to stop North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, did nothing, and during his own term was when North Korea got them.

This time they may push too far and get a reaction that they are not expecting to get.

[A4E]

I saw the sabre rattling today between NK and USA, and this is my opinion:

 

I think Trump genuinely believe that NK has nuclear bombs, and so thinks that NK is a threat to the world. That might be an unfortunate piece of information to have in this, because it means NK will be treated as a bigger threat than they are.

 

Trump will thus be pushed more to engage in a war with them, both by himself and others. And my prediction is that if they start a war, they will mysteriously and hastily make a deal to not use nuclear bombs.

 

Dirty bombs are still an option though. I guess there won't be any agreement on that, since it would 'Create too much of a hint'.

[ofd]

I think Trump genuinely believe that NK has nuclear bombs,

 

Well they tested some, so chances are high they have some spare ones.

[A4E]

Well they tested some, so chances are high they have some spare ones.

I have fought some crime, so chances are high that I am a superhero.

[ofd]

Being a superhero violates the laws of physics and biology, atomic bombs don't.

[oaksdave]

The attack on Syria happened as Xi was stepping out of his limo at Mar a Lago. Do the math.

[Soulfire]

I hope I'm not wrong in saying this, because I might be, but North Korea's recently failed missile was NOT nuclear, correct? I have little hope in their "government", however, and I really don't know how retaliatory efforts could go with the threat of potential nuclear war hanging in the air. Do they care about the idea of "mutually assured destruction" at all? Then again, this whole discourse merely serves to propagate the "us versus them" dichotomy, of which I am not a staunch proponent by any means. Are we not all just...people? But then, of course, we make the mistake of handing over our individual powers of choice to those who claim to represent us while merely lining their own pockets and acting through greed, aversion, and delusion, and that inevitably serves no one. That's not to say that I am necessarily an anarchist, but really, we're all big boys and girls. Can we not retain our own power and make our own choices? As to a nuclear threat, I wonder whether North Korea has the proverbial "balls" to do it with America's own arsenal trained on them, as I'm sure it currently would be. But then, even Trump isn't stupid enough to push the button first. I hope.

[ofd]

Quote

I hope I'm not wrong in saying this, because I might be, but North Korea's recently failed missile was NOT nuclear, correct? 

They launched a satelitte, so they can put an atomic bomb on a rocket as well. However, the problem with ICBM is the re-entry vehicle. Building those is a non-trivial task. Most likely they can't nuke other places, but they have the power to create an emp device which would fry the electronics in a big area.

[Soulfire]

Great...yet another country with nuclear potential, as if we need that. People need to learn to be good to one another and cut it out with the pissing contests. George Carlin (I know he's just a comedian but he's right when he says this) says that all of our weapons are shaped like phalluses for a good reason. "Mine is bigger than yours, my God could beat up your God, look how much further I can piss"...it's annoying. And it's not just a male thing, so don't get me wrong. Women do it too, just in a more petty and nattering sort of way. A professor of mine says that men have more strength but women have more power. I said to him, yes, he could take me out if he wanted to, but I could bitch him into an early grave. LOL.

[AlonzoTG]

I'm concerned that the apparent N.Korean provocations might be fabricated. I am concerned about the deep state in the USA and would like to hear what independent sources have to say about the subject. Are the alleged statements by N.Korea real? What hype adjustment should I apply when evaluating the state of affairs over there. I know that the N.Korean regime is inherently unstable and will collapse over the next few years, that can't not happen... The question being the appropriate policy response by the USA, and the problems within the US government, mainly the internal conflict between our elected leaders and the "deep state" that might hinder the administration's ability to implement those appropriate policy responses. 

[AlonzoTG]

Ideal solution: Cop goes in and arrests the N. Korean regime for human rights violations... Since they had a dictator, we replace them with listeners... We send a guy to each town and pay him to sit behind a desk and listen to the people all day. He will not have any task or authority other than to sit behind the desk and listen. Whenever he hears something that he can help with, he'll try to give good advice, making it clear it's only a suggestion, maybe it would be in the form of a business plan or maybe he would pass the requests on to outside relief agencies, or relaying messages to neighboring governments. However, I feel it is important that outside agendas are excluded from the process and that things are driven by the N.Korean people themselves as much as possible. 

[Soulfire]

If the people are not so held down by ignorance, fear, and the general nastiness that comes with a totalitarian state, I would agree with you fully. But then, you are, I believe, describing the ideal government for any nation, not just North Korea.

[luxfelix]

12 hours ago, AlonzoTG said:

Ideal solution: Cop goes in and arrests the N. Korean regime for human rights violations... Since they had a dictator, we replace them with listeners... We send a guy to each town and pay him to sit behind a desk and listen to the people all day. He will not have any task or authority other than to sit behind the desk and listen. Whenever he hears something that he can help with, he'll try to give good advice, making it clear it's only a suggestion, maybe it would be in the form of a business plan or maybe he would pass the requests on to outside relief agencies, or relaying messages to neighboring governments. However, I feel it is important that outside agendas are excluded from the process and that things are driven by the N.Korean people themselves as much as possible. 

This sounds familiar, did you have a historical reference in mind when writing this?

[jimofflorida]

just a few tidbits that are often overlooked:

-North Korea is smaller than Mississippi

-they basically only trade with China, which means whatever China says, they will do

-the people of north Korea would love a regime change because the military is led by a lunatic but the populous have been disarmed and, well, the military listens to the lunatic

-they have nukes, but very very few and launching such things in secret is not going to happen so only the neighbors of NK really need to be concerned (which includes China)

There only needs to be "one" target if a war starts, the crazy one; then let the rest sort themselves out. Before we criticize the Korean people too much for allowing this, look at how crazy "most" Americans act today regarding leadership support of insane agendas and regulations. We too just had 8 years of a "dictator" that did more harm to the future of the America than anything in the past 100 years; and we let it happen. If it were not for term limits it would have been the absolute end of our country (not sure we have crossed the tipping point anyway).

So if the Korea attacks, that means the military followed crazy orders; ask China if they will sort it out "now", if not, launch a hundred or so cruise missiles (pricey tho they are) and a couple dozen MOABs at crazy guys likely hangouts. Yes, people will die, that's war...the key is to make sure the OTHER side dies rather than your side. Before the whining about loss of life remember that the people of Korea are not absolved of all guilt here, no leader is in power without being enabled by others. After this happens make sure NOT to say we will rebuild North Korea!!! Let China or maybe SK sort it out.

 

 

[Soulfire]

Oh...Lord..."side, side, side", this only intensifies the "us versus them" dichotomy! I'm sorry, but it's utterly senseless. Going with that view will only pull the chains in which we are bound more tightly. We MUST change our views to change the world. There is no other way.

In terms of North Korea, I'm reminded of Orwell: "The Proles could not rebel until they had become conscious, and until they had become conscious, they could not rebel". It's a circle of ignorance, but, fortunately, we have not gone so far as the Orwellian world had been taken. We still have potential for intercession, as well as for freedom.

If you want to know the truth, I liken the global situation, in terms of its conflicts, to a playground: toys and play equipment, and bigger kids and smaller kids. Well, at the moment, America, Russia, and China are the big kids, but they were poorly treated by their parents and their neighbours, and so now, they victimize the little kids, and especially the ones who don't look or speak like them, in order to steal their toys (weapons and resources) as well as the play equipment they're using (I liken that to the lands themselves). So, toys for resources, equipment--slides and swings and such--for land. Well, at the moment, everyone seems to want to play with the toys rather than the play equipment, whereas, back in the day, it was more about the land, but such fights are rather sweeping and costly and long-drawn, so there is really no point to them now when the three great superpowers already hold enormous amounts of land on their own. So all they're after are toys: that is oil, material, water, and people as well, including their ideologies, which such nations as America especially seek to sweep off the map. Islam at least is not in danger, and is in fact growing far more rapidly than any other religion out there. In terms of North Korea, though, what strategic advantage would there be in a war there, other than to secure China's trust, given that North Korea is at times too crazy even for China? But I personally see no real advantage to war, because, given the nature of war now, which is all guerilla warfare with drone and missile strikes, there can be no preventing massive civilian losses. "Collateral damage"? Would anyone here call their families "collateral damage" if they were threatened by such a strike? What is true in this sense for one is true for all, because we all care for the same kind of people in the same ways; we all have people we want to protect. To say "that's war" is to delude yourself, because all suffer in the same way as you. Not "you" specifically, mind. That was a general statement.   

[Erwin]

17 hours ago, Soulfire said:

I liken the global situation, in terms of its conflicts, to a playground: toys and play equipment, and bigger kids and smaller kids.

Agreed.

It's always the little guys who get bullied, because they can't fight back. There is no risk in violating someone who can't fight back and cause damage to you. This is why I wish people would stop freaking out. There is a big difference between war and the option of war.

Consider the 3 possibilities, at the negotiating table / geo-political stage:

1. War is guaranteed: We will win the fight, but at what cost? 

2. War is not an option: Then why should anyone negotiate with us?

3. War is an option: They now have an incentive to work towards avoiding the war.

As a negotiator, I am convinced that Trump is going for option 3.

[Soulfire]

Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He's NOT a politician; he has no political background whatever, and I don't care that he's the newest celebrity president. Sorry; I'm not a fan of Trump. He's a misogynist, ableist, and racist. And that pig has his finger on the button, for God's sake! I understand why people voted for him: it's because he had the most extensive media coverage during his campaign, and because he literally shouted down any possible opposition. He appeals to the rednecks and to the gun-crazed morons down in the southern part of the country. And Stefan sanctioned him, which, really, to me, just goes to show how even the most intelligent people can make hideously misinformed decisions. I'm not saying that, of necessity, I would have preferred Hilary (I'm Canadian, not American, so I can't REALLY talk), but she did strike me as the lesser of two evils.   

[jimofflorida]

4 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He's NOT a politician; he has no political background whatever, and I don't care that he's the newest celebrity president. Sorry; I'm not a fan of Trump. He's a misogynist, ableist, and racist. And that pig has his finger on the button, for God's sake! I understand why people voted for him: it's because he had the most extensive media coverage during his campaign, and because he literally shouted down any possible opposition. He appeals to the rednecks and to the gun-crazed morons down in the southern part of the country. And Stefan sanctioned him, which, really, to me, just goes to show how even the most intelligent people can make hideously misinformed decisions. I'm not saying that, of necessity, I would have preferred Hilary (I'm Canadian, not American, so I can't REALLY talk), but she did strike me as the lesser of two evils.   

hate to break it to you, however, BUSINESS people are true negotiators, politicians are terrible negotiators; why you may ask?

because businesses actually negotiate with THEIR resources, it matters.

Politicians negotiate with OTHER peoples resources, it has no impact on them.

as to your other statements regarding Trump, well, please show evidence that such happened in practice and not just a regurgitation of the mass media propaganda machine. Any modern businessman knows that being a "racist" will get you shutdown so fast you will not have time to get to your ATM before you have been fired. Companies direct their HR departments to bend over backwards to make sure that is not going to be an issue. This is the main challenge for t his generation, not defining reality by what they see on twitter/facebook.  Same with the cry of misogyny, Trump has no doubt provided more opportunities for women than the federal government. Usually it is the feminists that have a fit over "beauty pageants", but those events and the scholarships they crank out have helped a lot of, well, ok, pretty girls. Now if you want to claim that Trump likes attractive women, yea, I agree with that. Being "attractive" is just another innate resource like intelligence; it is your resource so use it to your best advantage. Hillary was complete corruption that USED to resources of the people for her and her friends benefit. She actually caused thousands of deaths thru poor judgement! 

well this has gotten a bit off topic;  Trump can negotiate, better than most. What Trump cannot handle is that in business you get used to negotiating with smart/tricky people...but never "crazy". North Korea is run by a lunatic; a business person is willing to negotiate, and even risk their company based on a risk analysis of the cost/benefits. Crazy people will lose everything for a certainty of nothing because, well, they are crazy.

 

[Erwin]

6 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.

I take it you haven't read The Art of The Deal? He has had fantastic negotiations, as exemplified in that book. So there is a historical precedent of very competent deal-making.

Trump's every move so far has been straight out of that book. 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, jimofflorida said:

What Trump cannot handle is that in business you get used to negotiating with smart/tricky people...but never "crazy".

Based on his past behavior, I would say Kim Jung Un is profit-motive oriented and loves to stay in power. I think he is pursuing the Mad Man strategy, which has been used in the business world but not that often. ((( Carl Icahn ))) ?

[Soulfire]

Proof? Gladly! One moment, I will link you.

 

...Actually, I was looking for individual videos to get my points across (namely the ableism, misogyny, and xenophobia), but I think this one embodies all three pretty nicely. Except for the one where he's doing the ice bucket challenge. I don't think that's misogynistic. That's actually a good idea; put himself to good use, anyway. Mind you, he could just donate a few million to the cause, but anyway...

 

Also, he's not that wonderful a businessman either. Hasn't he been bankrupt a few times? Four or five, I think I heard? But anyway, video:

 

 

 

 

[Erwin]

13 hours ago, Soulfire said:

...Actually, I was looking for individual videos to get my points across (namely the ableism, misogyny, and xenophobia), but I think this one embodies all three pretty nicely.

Can you quote me passages? Because I don't know which you are referring to and I didn't find anything bigoted there...

Also, no. He has never been bankrupt. Out of the gazillion businesses he has, a few businesses have failed, not Trump. By comparison, the average entrepreneur fails 10 times before achieving one success. Sounds like he's doing better than most.

[Donnadogsoth]

14 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Proof? Gladly! One moment, I will link you.

 

...Actually, I was looking for individual videos to get my points across (namely the ableism, misogyny, and xenophobia), but I think this one embodies all three pretty nicely. Except for the one where he's doing the ice bucket challenge. I don't think that's misogynistic. That's actually a good idea; put himself to good use, anyway. Mind you, he could just donate a few million to the cause, but anyway...

 

Also, he's not that wonderful a businessman either. Hasn't he been bankrupt a few times? Four or five, I think I heard? But anyway, video:

He's come back from bankruptcy that many times, too, and is still worth billions.

[Soulfire]

Yes, but the fact that he can seem to fall in with bankruptcy so easily isn't the best sign in the world for my poor neighbours to the south. And I've got family in America too (who did NOT vote for Trump, I'm happy to say), so this could negatively effect them as well. And yes, spell-check, the word "neighbour" has a U in it. That makes me think: Stefan's a Canadian. If he made this website, shouldn't it have Canadian spelling settings?

[Donnadogsoth]

21 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Yes, but the fact that he can seem to fall in with bankruptcy so easily isn't the best sign in the world for my poor neighbours to the south. And I've got family in America too (who did NOT vote for Trump, I'm happy to say), so this could negatively effect them as well. And yes, spell-check, the word "neighbour" has a U in it. That makes me think: Stefan's a Canadian. If he made this website, shouldn't it have Canadian spelling settings?

America is already bankrupt.  Who better to lead the country than someone who knows the ins and outs of bankruptcy?

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Soulfire said:

And yes, spell-check, the word "neighbour" has a U in it. That makes me think: Stefan's a Canadian. If he made this website, shouldn't it have Canadian spelling settings?

Nope. Spellcheck is built-in to html, by setting spellcheck="true" (as is the case if you right-click inspect in the text area you write your post). It's up to the runtime environment (in this case your browser) to interpret it how it sees fit.

[jimofflorida]

23 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Proof? Gladly! One moment, I will link you.

 

...Actually, I was looking for individual videos to get my points across (namely the ableism, misogyny, and xenophobia), but I think this one embodies all three pretty nicely. Except for the one where he's doing the ice bucket challenge. I don't think that's misogynistic. That's actually a good idea; put himself to good use, anyway. Mind you, he could just donate a few million to the cause, but anyway...

 

Also, he's not that wonderful a businessman either. Hasn't he been bankrupt a few times? Four or five, I think I heard? But anyway, video:

 

 

sorry but what in that video has you condemn the man...really..

I do not see anything in there that remotely supports your very strong accusations. Are you perhaps viewing the video thru mass media colored lenses? I do not watch much tv and like to research things, it takes time but I find it worth it. I guess I would ask you to provide more specific references and the context in which those events occurred. I never mind debating a topic, but we need to check the biases at the door to the extent that it is possible.

 

 

 

 

[Soulfire]

1. Blanket MUSLIM ban. Just Muslims. Mildly prejudicial if you ask me because you can't paint an entire religion with the "terrorist" brush, I'm sorry.

2. Same with Mexicans, but swap "terrorist" for "criminal" generally.

3. The only reason for insulting someone is because you can't think of an intelligent and inoffensive remark. That entire thing about him going after Obama for his birth certificate was bull, because he was using the whole "potential Muslim, OH NO!" thing, thereby feeding the needless and senseless fear of Muslims in America. As if it were a BAD thing to be a Muslim. True, people who aren't born on American soil can't be president, I know that much about your politics, but that was just a smear campaign. Sorry to play the race card on Obama's behalf, but I honestly think that, if he were white, Trump wouldn't have dared to pull that move. I mean, even Obama's laughing at him!

4. With the abortion issue: this is a REALLY heavy issue, and I'm not going to go all, "Oh, he's a man so he has no right to talk about t." No, he does, and he's a father too, so he does, but I really don't think that anyone should bring their private beliefs into public policy. That's not how a democracy works, not for a person in office, or, as it was at that time, potentially to be in office. And now that he is in office, I wonder how that will play out? Abortion is only safe if it's legal, because women would have to resort to illegal, and therefore potentially harmful techniques through which to undergo the procedure. No one has any right to tell anyone else, either through words or through laws, what they can or can't do with their own body. This is the sole decision of the woman and the man who was with her. It's not a matter for public process, or at least I don't think so.

5. The whole "dropped to your knees thing" is a little bit...odd...yes, that's a good word for it. Like, she shouldn't be advertising the fact that she did that, and he shouldn't be getting off on it, or at least not on national television. Creepy much?

...And I'm done. Oh nay-sayers! Pray, do your best.  

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

1. Blanket MUSLIM ban. Just Muslims. Mildly prejudicial if you ask me because you can't paint an entire religion with the "terrorist" brush, I'm sorry.

How many muslims did you harbour in your house? None? RACIST!!!

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

2. Same with Mexicans, but swap "terrorist" for "criminal" generally.

How many mexicans did you harbour in your house? None? RACIST!!!

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

3. The only reason for insulting someone is because you can't think of an intelligent and inoffensive remark.

Here's a 2nd reason: FOR THE LULZ

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

That entire thing about him going after Obama for his birth certificate was bull

Then why was it in the original version of Obama's auto-biography that Obama was born in Kenya?

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

he was using the whole "potential Muslim, OH NO!" thing, thereby feeding the needless and senseless fear of Muslims in America.

The Quran explicitly encourages lying to infidels, and infiltrating them to use "the wombs of their women as our swords". Also, you know... they do have a disproportionately high rate of terrorist violence. How many more people are you willing to sacrifice in the name of diversity? Think hard and well, cuz their blood is on the hands of people like you.

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

No one has any right to tell anyone else, either through words or through laws, what they can or can't do with their own body. This is the sole decision of the woman and the man who was with her.

A foetus has distinct genes, fingers, heart, brain, and limbs from the mother. It's a different person. Therefore, abortion is baby murder.

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

5. The whole "dropped to your knees thing" is a little bit...odd...yes, that's a good word for it. Like, she shouldn't be advertising the fact that she did that, and he shouldn't be getting off on it, or at least not on national television. Creepy much?

Not An Argument.

[RichardY]

5 hours ago, Soulfire said:

...And I'm done. Oh nay-sayers! Pray, do your best.  

1. What's wrong with being prejudiced?

2. If Mexicans cross the border illegally they are by definition criminals in that respect.

3. The Hillary campaign brought up the Birth Certificate originally, when they ran against Obama. It does not favour crony capitalistic practices to discredit a potential collaborator. 

4. Minefield. If there are no consequences, there is no law. Even if something is legal like alcohol, it may not be safe, physically and especially emotionally.

5. As Trump is a fairly old guy I could see how that could be creepy. If he was 30 and doing an Entertainment show would that be seen differently? 50 Shades of Grey(Never read it), perhaps.

[jimofflorida]

8 hours ago, Soulfire said:

1. Blanket MUSLIM ban. Just Muslims. Mildly prejudicial if you ask me because you can't paint an entire religion with the "terrorist" brush, I'm sorry.

2. Same with Mexicans, but swap "terrorist" for "criminal" generally.

3. The only reason for insulting someone is because you can't think of an intelligent and inoffensive remark. That entire thing about him going after Obama for his birth certificate was bull, because he was using the whole "potential Muslim, OH NO!" thing, thereby feeding the needless and senseless fear of Muslims in America. As if it were a BAD thing to be a Muslim. True, people who aren't born on American soil can't be president, I know that much about your politics, but that was just a smear campaign. Sorry to play the race card on Obama's behalf, but I honestly think that, if he were white, Trump wouldn't have dared to pull that move. I mean, even Obama's laughing at him!

4. With the abortion issue: this is a REALLY heavy issue, and I'm not going to go all, "Oh, he's a man so he has no right to talk about t." No, he does, and he's a father too, so he does, but I really don't think that anyone should bring their private beliefs into public policy. That's not how a democracy works, not for a person in office, or, as it was at that time, potentially to be in office. And now that he is in office, I wonder how that will play out? Abortion is only safe if it's legal, because women would have to resort to illegal, and therefore potentially harmful techniques through which to undergo the procedure. No one has any right to tell anyone else, either through words or through laws, what they can or can't do with their own body. This is the sole decision of the woman and the man who was with her. It's not a matter for public process, or at least I don't think so.

5. The whole "dropped to your knees thing" is a little bit...odd...yes, that's a good word for it. Like, she shouldn't be advertising the fact that she did that, and he shouldn't be getting off on it, or at least not on national television. Creepy much?

...And I'm done. Oh nay-sayers! Pray, do your best.  

 

1. the ban that Trump pushed forward was NOT a Muslim ban, in fact, it did NOT include the countries that are MOSTLY muslin; go to wikipedia and lookout islam by county (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country); it targeted those countries the OBAMA administration identified as dangerous. So that takes care of your concerns regard blanket muslim ban... provably not true

2. Mexicans flood across our borders, they have NO "right" to invade another country; it is illegal which means "not according to or authorized by law". I do not get to ignore the laws of the US, why should the government of the US get to ignore the laws? The government has the highest obligation to follow the laws which means, keeping people who are NOT us citizens out of the country, REGARDLESS OF THEIR REASONS FOR WANTING IN!!! Their NEED in no way grants them the rights of US citizens. This is a simple matter of stopping those that violate the law which is being twisted by the democrats/mass media to flood the country with potential welfare recipients which almost always vote democratic...its a long term power move.

3.It is a non-issue now which is why nobody cares, but feel free to examine CLOSELY the birth certificates (youtube video here=> watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM). I think its a non-issue now because the damage has been done. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it, that said, notice how you are still willing to play the race bait card. Did you watch the large pool of republican presidential nominees bicker on stage, did you see the racists trump attacking the "black" candidate the most.. oh wait, he hired that guy for secretary of housing!

4. abortion is a VERY difficult topic, you claim the absolute right to control what happens to your body, fair enough, who speaks for the child? At some point you must accept that within a very few months from conception that is a "person" for whom somebody needs speak because, no different than a 1day old baby, that is a human being that cannot speak for themselves. So the morning after pill, sure; the week after, ok; 6 weeks after..hmmm; 3months later, 6 months??? So it is not a simple question, TIME matters. I suspect if you asked the people opposed to a 2month window for abortion vs a 6month window the difference would be HUGE.

5. ...complete non-issue... adults get to control what they do, just like you said...