I feel like Trump is purposely escalating with NK...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

He would require Congressional approval. And the Congress isn't crazy enough to destroy the world just to give Trump a war.

Adam Jensen:
He would require Congressional approval. And the Congress isn't crazy enough to destroy the world just to give Trump a war.

Can he not go to war for...I think it was 90 days, without involving them?

Now, ok, such a conflict would last longer than 90 days, so they could decided to not grant approval for longer than that, and then lose voters for betraying US soldiers or somesuch.

Saelune:
People > Corn. The President is supposed to represent and support the American -People-. Most people live in or near urban areas. Urban Areas > Rural areas.

And I mean, isnt the whole point of state rights and their self-governing so that stuff important to say, a coastal state doesnt impede a landlocked farming state?

The needs of urban and rural should not be so dependent on the leader of the whole country. If we are going to have State governments that are practically their own country, then it should be on them to deal with urban/rural issues anyways.

And rural folk =/= poor. Id be willing to bet urban poor are far more numerous than rural poor. I will be bold enough to suggest possibly in New York alone.

I understand your point, and again, that's why the electoral college was invented. People can be steamrolled if they aren't on the winning side. Arizona in land mass is 2 and a half times bigger than New York (113,634 sq miles to 47,213). New York is bigger in pop at 19,889,657 compared to Arizona's 7,026,629. Because of the NYC tri-state area (NYC alone accounting for 8,550,405 of the NY State population), we should always have more say in the running of this country than Arizonians?

Do we need a better system, of course we do. But there has to be some effort of equal representation. Smaller populated and rural states can't do it by themselves. And if Hillary wanted their vote, she should have campaigned harder than she did. That's the short of it.

... wait, Poor? Why are we talking about Poor?

generals3:

CM156:

ObsidianJones:
I hope the promised Tax Cuts that you never received was worth it, Republicans.

To be fair, I voted for Trump over gun rights, not over tax cuts. Although I guess your point still stands. Although I contend we'll need our guns for when this world turns Mad Max

Serious question: do you think you wouldn't have been able to own guns if Hillary had won? As far as I know democrats have never pushed for gun bans but just more background checks to make it less easy to buy a gun than a box of aspirin.

And I think that if the world turns Mad Max you'll regret that so many people own guns they will now be pointing at you :/

Actually, I'm a Democrat and a New Yorker. And yes, I'm a gun owner. Guns are very hard to get here and they are limited. I can only get a certain type of shotgun. Assault rifles are off the table unless heavily modified to the point that they are just slightly better than a hand gun. And some places are frankly draconian in their polices. If I'm a registered gun owner and I even STOP in NYC with a gun in my car, I'm looking at serious trouble.

And also, it's hard as hell to get a license to even own a gun (you can only own a handgun in New York state with a permit) in NYC. You can only get it if you basically know a Judge and s/he likes you

As of yet, Trump has removed a bill that lmiited firearm availiability to those on social security who were considered to be mentality ill, which already had appeal safeguards in place if people felt their rights were unfairly being infringed.. So... I guess that's good?

Meanwhile, I still can't get my UTAS xtr 12 because New York is more concerned that I could be a criminal than the 3 decades of life where I never even got a speeding ticket.

Zhukov:

ObsidianJones:
Do you want to make it racial as well, Zhukov?

If you want, I wouldn't mind. There's some pretty solid arguments to be made there.

Regardless, I'm joking here. Mostly.

Sad thing is, no joke I make is going to be funnier than a deadpan statement of the facts. That's the kind of situation we have here. If it goes south then history students will scratch their heads and incredulously ask their teachers just what the fuck we were thinking. In 50 years a movie will be made and people who weren't alive at the time will think it's exaggerating. I will tell my grandkids that no, really, it was all just that stupid and they'll think I'm joking.

For we are living in times of blackest comedy.

To be fair, I overreacted to you and I even called out Republicans in my previous post. I apologize for it. This lunacy with Trump has got me on edge and I hate the fact that there are so many people who are either willingly blind to how cancerous he is, or don't care because they feel like they are somehow winning even if he erodes everything about America... but in a pro-republican way.

Saelune:

Level 7 Dragon:

Saelune:
If we had a democracy, we would not have a President Trump.

To be fair, is the US was a democracy and not a republic, there would never have been a union of states, since the very institution of the electoral colledge was created in part to bribe the major slave states into becoming part of the federation. As redundant as it is, it would raise the problem of only a handful of major metropolitan areas deciding the course of where the country is heading.

But yeah, if the US were a democracy we might have been have sitting out president Romney's second term about right now.

Im not too fond of the excessive power of state rights. I mean, sometimes it works out for me, I wont pretend it doesnt, especially as a New Yorker, but its stupid that gay marriage was ever only legal in -some- parts of the US.

The Electoral College may have been a positive thing when we had territories and the future of states was less certain, but now the US spreads from "sea to shining sea" and the EC is outdated. Just because something was, doesnt mean it should still be. The US was founded on opposing old outdated and laws and ideas. I mean, seriously, "lack of representation" is why the US exists. Its really rather hypocritical to keep the EC as it stands.

I understand how you feel, the EC is a really messy thing, since a handful of ghost towns with a population of an old man and a tumbleweed are able to swing important elections, but repealing it is a difficult process, considering that opinions of both parties on the institution swing every few decades (ala first GOP loved EC because it gave them Dubya, then started to campaign to abolish it when it gave the presidency to Obama even when Romney won the popular vote, etc).

But yeah, I get it. A lot of more rural states are fundementally backwords on issues of civil rights, however repealing the EC would lead to a scenario where the politicians would have no reason to spend a dime on a lot of those areas due to not getting much out of them in the larger democratic process (considering that a lot of those areas have a POC majority population this could be a major problem in the long run).

Indeed, the centralization of power is a two side sword in many regards. Here in Russia we generally have a decentralized federal system and although I would like the federal government to allow more autonomy to the various regions such as allow oblasts to elect their own presidents instead of governtors, this might have a really detremental effect in the long run. Such as, the same autonomy which Moscow has to allow for minority protection laws and more liberal drug policies is used in Chechnya to institute islamist laws that are aimed at persecuting women and gender/sexual minorities.

One needs to balance the desire to enforce civil rights nationwide with protecting institutions against abuse, since even with a direct democracy system it's only a matter of time until another irrational actor comes into a position of power. After all, Trump is able to do the things he does partially because Obama and Bush expanded presidential powers during their terms. Running a republic is a careful balancing act between paving way for the next FDR and making barricades for the next Berlusconi.

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
People > Corn. The President is supposed to represent and support the American -People-. Most people live in or near urban areas. Urban Areas > Rural areas.

And I mean, isnt the whole point of state rights and their self-governing so that stuff important to say, a coastal state doesnt impede a landlocked farming state?

The needs of urban and rural should not be so dependent on the leader of the whole country. If we are going to have State governments that are practically their own country, then it should be on them to deal with urban/rural issues anyways.

And rural folk =/= poor. Id be willing to bet urban poor are far more numerous than rural poor. I will be bold enough to suggest possibly in New York alone.

I understand your point, and again, that's why the electoral college was invented. People can be steamrolled if they aren't on the winning side. Arizona in land mass is 2 and a half times bigger than New York (113,634 sq miles to 47,213). New York is bigger in pop at 19,889,657 compared to Arizona's 7,026,629. Because of the NYC tri-state area (NYC alone accounting for 8,550,405 of the NY State population), we should always have more say in the running of this country than Arizonians?

Do we need a better system, of course we do. But there has to be some effort of equal representation. Smaller populated and rural states can't do it by themselves. And if Hillary wanted their vote, she should have campaigned harder than she did. That's the short of it.

... wait, Poor? Why are we talking about Poor?

Because states shouldnt have say on who runs the country, thats my point. The people of this country should have the biggest say. No "state" should. And not everyone in New York agrees with eachother. Hell, once you go too north or west from NYC, it gets very well, red state. And is their voice not silenced by the EC too?

We need to stop thinking in urban vs rural and state vs state. We should focus more on the "United" and "America" part of our name.

As for poor, from what Ive seen, this idea that the rural = the poor seems to be pushed. One of the major "pro-Trump" points was how he was "for the poor" but everyone meant "rural" when they said that. No one was honestly arguing Trump was fighting for Urban poor.

Level 7 Dragon:

Saelune:

Level 7 Dragon:

To be fair, is the US was a democracy and not a republic, there would never have been a union of states, since the very institution of the electoral colledge was created in part to bribe the major slave states into becoming part of the federation. As redundant as it is, it would raise the problem of only a handful of major metropolitan areas deciding the course of where the country is heading.

But yeah, if the US were a democracy we might have been have sitting out president Romney's second term about right now.

Im not too fond of the excessive power of state rights. I mean, sometimes it works out for me, I wont pretend it doesnt, especially as a New Yorker, but its stupid that gay marriage was ever only legal in -some- parts of the US.

The Electoral College may have been a positive thing when we had territories and the future of states was less certain, but now the US spreads from "sea to shining sea" and the EC is outdated. Just because something was, doesnt mean it should still be. The US was founded on opposing old outdated and laws and ideas. I mean, seriously, "lack of representation" is why the US exists. Its really rather hypocritical to keep the EC as it stands.

I understand how you feel, the EC is a really messy thing, since a handful of ghost towns with a population of an old man and a tumbleweed are able to swing important elections, but repealing it is a difficult process, considering that opinions of both parties on the institution swing every few decades (ala first GOP loved EC because it gave them Dubya, then started to campaign to abolish it when it gave the presidency to Obama even when Romney won the popular vote, etc).

But yeah, I get it. A lot of more rural states are fundementally backwords on issues of civil rights, however repealing the EC would lead to a scenario where the politicians would have no reason to spend a dime on a lot of those areas due to not getting much out of them in the larger democratic process (considering that a lot of those areas have a POC majority population this could be a major problem in the long run).

Indeed, the centralization of power is a two side sword in many regards. Here in Russia we generally have a decentralized federal system and although I would like the federal government to allow more autonomy to the various regions such as allow oblasts to elect their own presidents instead of governtors, this might have a really detremental effect in the long run. Such as, the same autonomy which Moscow has to allow for minority protection laws and more liberal drug policies is used in Chechnya to institute islamist laws that are aimed at persecuting women and gender/sexual minorities.

One needs to balance the desire to enforce civil rights nationwide with protecting institutions against abuse, since even with a direct democracy system it's only a matter of time until another irrational actor comes into a position of power. After all, Trump is able to do the things he does partially because Obama and Bush expanded presidential powers during their terms. Running a republic is a careful balancing act between paving way for the next FDR and making barricades for the next Berlusconi.

The President of the US should be the President of the US. The whole US. Not some of the US.

I dont have all the technical answers, but I know what direction we should be moving towards, but we wont get there on outdated wheels.

ObsidianJones:
I understand your point, and again, that's why the electoral college was invented. People can be steamrolled if they aren't on the winning side. Arizona in land mass is 2 and a half times bigger than New York (113,634 sq miles to 47,213). New York is bigger in pop at 19,889,657 compared to Arizona's 7,026,629. Because of the NYC tri-state area (NYC alone accounting for 8,550,405 of the NY State population), we should always have more say in the running of this country than Arizonians?

In a democracy, in that more votes is supposed to result in more representative power, yes. Each New Yorker should have the same amount of power as each Arizonian. One New Yorker is always going to have less say than the collective voice of everyone else in New York, for example.

ObsidianJones:
Assault rifles are off the table

You mean "assault weapons"? Not the same thing, assault rifles are even more restricted.

Saelune:
Because states shouldnt have say on who runs the country, thats my point. The people of this country should have the biggest say. No "state" should. And not everyone in New York agrees with eachother. Hell, once you go too north or west from NYC, it gets very well, red state. And is their voice not silenced by the EC too?

We need to stop thinking in urban vs rural and state vs state. We should focus more on the "United" and "America" part of our name.

As for poor, from what Ive seen, this idea that the rural = the poor seems to be pushed. One of the major "pro-Trump" points was how he was "for the poor" but everyone meant "rural" when they said that. No one was honestly arguing Trump was fighting for Urban poor.

We're very much agreed that we should be voting for the welfare of America. But the reason why we need to vote state is that enough people aren't concerned about their fellow American that all a president would have to do is focus on what, 9 states to get half of the US Population? Cali, Texas, Illinios, Michigan, Ohio, Penn, New York, Georgia, and Florida. Why would these people care about the midwest?

One would hope just for the sheer goodwill of being fellow citizens, but that hasn't happened yet.

I desperately want people to be better. To care about others. But we just have to turn on any news media to see people frothing at the bit for someone to hate and feel superior over to see that day of altruism isn't happening any time soon, so we need to make sure voices can be equal by any means necessary.

Thaluikhain:

ObsidianJones:
I understand your point, and again, that's why the electoral college was invented. People can be steamrolled if they aren't on the winning side. Arizona in land mass is 2 and a half times bigger than New York (113,634 sq miles to 47,213). New York is bigger in pop at 19,889,657 compared to Arizona's 7,026,629. Because of the NYC tri-state area (NYC alone accounting for 8,550,405 of the NY State population), we should always have more say in the running of this country than Arizonians?

In a democracy, in that more votes is supposed to result in more representative power, yes. Each New Yorker should have the same amount of power as each Arizonian. One New Yorker is always going to have less say than the collective voice of everyone else in New York, for example.

But the heart of my point is that most of the population does not "deal" with the same problems as the midwest, so they might think giving them tax dollars or funding isn't important. Most like how the wealthy in New York do not want to give broad taxes for public school if they can send their children to Private.

So while theoretically one Arizonian vote and one New Yorker vote should be in the same in representative power, by the sheer number of geography and votes, the New Yorker sensibility becomes more important than the Arizonian. That's my point. The population is too spread out in some cases, to condensed in others, and way too far apart end to end for the lowest common denominator person to care about what's happening in any place other than their neck of the woods.

That's also the reason I put deal in quotes. Because if people in major cities think they won't deal with any issues if the farmers can't keep up with all our hunger, they are going to be sadly, SADLY mistaken.

Thaluikhain:

You mean "assault weapons"? Not the same thing, assault rifles are even more restricted.

I meant Assault rifles. I was hinting at other types of weapons that can be labeled assault when I said that we're limited in scope of what kind of shotguns we can buy. Box fed automatic shotguns might as well be called an AR around here, and are banned from the state. Likewise, I know that I could get a hunting rifle if I wanted one. I was going through major categories of typical firearms (Shotgun, Rifles, and Handguns) and highlighting just a small part of the limitations New York Gun owners face.

generals3:

CM156:

ObsidianJones:
I hope the promised Tax Cuts that you never received was worth it, Republicans.

To be fair, I voted for Trump over gun rights, not over tax cuts. Although I guess your point still stands. Although I contend we'll need our guns for when this world turns Mad Max

Serious question: do you think you wouldn't have been able to own guns if Hillary had won? As far as I know democrats have never pushed for gun bans but just more background checks to make it less easy to buy a gun than a box of aspirin.

And I think that if the world turns Mad Max you'll regret that so many people own guns they will now be pointing at you :/

Well, consider this: Gun control is almost always passed by democratic controlled areas. Look at DC and Chicago which banned handguns and required us to take them to court on that one. And the Heller and McDonald decisions were only 5-4, with mostly democratic appointees (John Paul Stevens being an exception, he was picked by Nixon) saying that banning handguns is A-OK under the constitution. With a Supreme Court seat hanging in the balance, I don't feel like this could be risked.

Trump is scum, but I am glad he has the ignorant balls to stand against North Korea. Any other politician wouldn't.

Further, Trump is absolutely correct to use the strong rhetoric he has. Sanctions don't work, North Korea is slowly preparing to build a nuclear arsenal, and if we let this continue the world and our nation may be destroyed. If North Korea were destroyed tomorrow, while I would grieve profusely for the loss of life and the millions who didn't even like the NK government, I would nonetheless find this to be the most ethical and effective course of action. In the long-term view of the world and in the context of everything North Korea has done until now, a nuclear holocaust of a country that outright wants to destroy our own country with nuclear missiles, I would firmly stand by as the right choice.

Too many politicians are cowardly children in the face of this grown up decision; ironically the most childish politician among them is the only one grown up enough to do it.

ObsidianJones:
But the heart of my point is that most of the population does not "deal" with the same problems as the midwest, so they might think giving them tax dollars or funding isn't important.

Certainly. But if the majority of the people don't think something should be funded, if you have a democracy, it shouldn't be (unless your constitution says it should).

Now, you can certainly point to problems with that, and argue that the will of the majority should be ignored, but you're no longer a democracy once you do that.

ObsidianJones:
I meant Assault rifles.

Selective fire rifles firing intermediate powered cartridges using a detachable magazine? You aren't realistically going to get your hands on one of those, whichever state you live in, unless you have serious money to fork out.

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
Because states shouldnt have say on who runs the country, thats my point. The people of this country should have the biggest say. No "state" should. And not everyone in New York agrees with eachother. Hell, once you go too north or west from NYC, it gets very well, red state. And is their voice not silenced by the EC too?

We need to stop thinking in urban vs rural and state vs state. We should focus more on the "United" and "America" part of our name.

As for poor, from what Ive seen, this idea that the rural = the poor seems to be pushed. One of the major "pro-Trump" points was how he was "for the poor" but everyone meant "rural" when they said that. No one was honestly arguing Trump was fighting for Urban poor.

We're very much agreed that we should be voting for the welfare of America. But the reason why we need to vote state is that enough people aren't concerned about their fellow American that all a president would have to do is focus on what, 9 states to get half of the US Population? Cali, Texas, Illinios, Michigan, Ohio, Penn, New York, Georgia, and Florida. Why would these people care about the midwest?

One would hope just for the sheer goodwill of being fellow citizens, but that hasn't happened yet.

I desperately want people to be better. To care about others. But we just have to turn on any news media to see people frothing at the bit for someone to hate and feel superior over to see that day of altruism isn't happening any time soon, so we need to make sure voices can be equal by any means necessary.

NYC is literally the most stuffed city in the world. There are millions no doubt of people in NYC who do not get their voices heard because millions more in NYC think otherwise. The EC screws over people in every state on both sides.

Saelune:

NYC is literally the most stuffed city in the world.

*Puts on pedantic glasses*
ACTUALLY there are several other cities, worldwide, with higher population density than New York. New York City, is, however, the most dense in the United States.

Unless you have another definition of stuffed. Perhaps involving stuffed crusts on Pizza?

CM156:
New York City, is, however, the most dense in the United States.

Unless you have another definition of stuffed.

Oh...you've just opened it up to other definitions of "dense".

Epyc Wynn:
Trump is scum, but I am glad he has the ignorant balls to stand against North Korea. Any other politician wouldn't.

Further, Trump is absolutely correct to use the strong rhetoric he has. Sanctions don't work, North Korea is slowly preparing to build a nuclear arsenal, and if we let this continue the world and our nation may be destroyed. If North Korea were destroyed tomorrow, while I would grieve profusely for the loss of life and the millions who didn't even like the NK government, I would nonetheless find this to be the most ethical and effective course of action. In the long-term view of the world and in the context of everything North Korea has done until now, a nuclear holocaust of a country that outright wants to destroy our own country with nuclear missiles, I would firmly stand by as the right choice.

Too many politicians are cowardly children in the face of this grown up decision; ironically the most childish politician among them is the only one grown up enough to do it.

North Korea is not as irrational as people think. That's just their standard rhetoric aimed at their people. Everything that NK does it does to sustain the status quo. They have no real interest in war. They know that they would lose and that they would all die. If you corner them and force them into a war they'll annihilate South Korea and Japan. And maybe some of their missiles could hit the US. What do you think would happen to the world economy if South Korea and Japan were even attacked, let alone destroyed with nukes? Even if the rest of the world could deal with North Korea without escalating into a global nuclear war, the world economy would get so fucked that pretty much everything would collapse.

TL;DR - Trump is being an idiot again.

Level 7 Dragon:

To be fair, is the US was a democracy and not a republic, there would never have been a union of states, since the very institution of the electoral colledge was created in part to bribe the major slave states into becoming part of the federation.

I love it when Europeans think there is nothing more than "Muh Slavery" to US history.

Virginia was one of the most populated states (it might have been the actual highest) at the time of the signing of the Constitution, and they were the slave-erest state at the time. No, the electoral college was implemented solely at the behest of the little states, same as the Senate.

At the convention for the Constitution, each state had a number of representatives proportional to their states population, but the vote to pass the Constitution was counted by state, as at the time the US was a Confederation of states, so each state was it's own country(ish). You couldn't be legally above board by lumping the representatives' votes together; it was the states that were really voting, not the representatives. So power had to be apportioned along state lines to get anybody to come together. The incentive for the slave states was the 3/5ths Compromise. The incentive for the little states was the Electoral College and the Senate. While it is true that several slave states were counted among the little states, there were a number of them in the North also, who fought for their representation. As a matter of fact, there were two competing plans for the Constitution at the beginning of the convention, one which was generally pro big states and the other was generally pro little states. Guess what they were called? The big state plan was the Virginia Plan, a slave state, and the little state plan was the New Jersey Plan, a northern state.

Trying to link every political decision in US history to slavery is reductionist and is one of my pet peeves.

Well, in a positive side, this is a perfect opportunity to start a nuclear shelter construction business. Better to be ready before the first nuke goes off. Will there be copyright issues if I name mine "Vault-Tec"?

Thaluikhain:
Certainly. But if the majority of the people don't think something should be funded, if you have a democracy, it shouldn't be (unless your constitution says it should).

Now, you can certainly point to problems with that, and argue that the will of the majority should be ignored, but you're no longer a democracy once you do that.

And that's the problem with democracy in and of itself. To be truly successful, it needs forward thinking, rational minded people who can see the bigger picture and will vote for the benefit of all.

... and we ain't them.

Thaluikhain:
Selective fire rifles firing intermediate powered cartridges using a detachable magazine? You aren't realistically going to get your hands on one of those, whichever state you live in, unless you have serious money to fork out.

Believe me, I would fork it out. But realistically, it's the cartridges that makes me lead to the semi-automatic shotgun more. Like I said, the Utas Xtr 12 with it's piston driven gas operated system makes so much more sense to me. Because I can easily make my own shells more than I can just scrounge up 7.62x39 or the like.

... I want that damn shotgun...

Saelune:
NYC is literally the most stuffed city in the world. There are millions no doubt of people in NYC who do not get their voices heard because millions more in NYC think otherwise. The EC screws over people in every state on both sides.

I want a better system. Without a doubt, but just like Solar can't completely fix all of our problems, that doesn't mean we should shelf it until we find something better. But that's exactly what we did with solar, and it hasn't helped us any.

CaitSeith:
Well, in a positive side, this is a perfect opportunity to start a nuclear shelter construction business. Better to be ready before the first nuke goes off. Will there be copyright issues if I name mine "Vault-Tec"?

That sounds pretty scary. You're going to have to make it more inviting to people you're trying to court. Maybe a friendly... mascot or something.

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
NYC is literally the most stuffed city in the world. There are millions no doubt of people in NYC who do not get their voices heard because millions more in NYC think otherwise. The EC screws over people in every state on both sides.

I want a better system. Without a doubt, but just like Solar can't completely fix all of our problems, that doesn't mean we should shelf it until we find something better. But that's exactly what we did with solar, and it hasn't helped us any.

Well, unlike Republicans and healthcare, we have a better system to replace the bad one with. Its called Democracy. Its not perfect either, but its better than the EC, and when we have it, we can then work on improving it.

CaitSeith:
Well, in a positive side, this is a perfect opportunity to start a nuclear shelter construction business. Better to be ready before the first nuke goes off. Will there be copyright issues if I name mine "Vault-Tec"?

I know you're making a joke, but still, yeah, Im pretty sure Bethesda could sue you.

But if you wanted to maybe inquire about them investing in you...

ObsidianJones:

I understand your point, and again, that's why the electoral college was invented. People can be steamrolled if they aren't on the winning side. Arizona in land mass is 2 and a half times bigger than New York (113,634 sq miles to 47,213). New York is bigger in pop at 19,889,657 compared to Arizona's 7,026,629. Because of the NYC tri-state area (NYC alone accounting for 8,550,405 of the NY State population), we should always have more say in the running of this country than Arizonians?

Do we need a better system, of course we do. But there has to be some effort of equal representation.

That's what the Senate is for, to balance out the differing population sizes between states.

The Electoral College is the exact opposite of that, because it makes votes in some states far more powerful than votes in other states. This is a problem because it means the decisions made at the Federal level affect everyone, not just the people in that state. In a pure democracy, the decisions that affect everyone regardless of which state they're in would be made with equal input from everyone affected, so in that case yes, the people in NYC tri-state area should have more representation at the federal level than the people in Arizona.

It's also purely undemocratic in its own right. It exacerbates gerrymandering, it creates battleground states (effectively locking the majority of states out of having any political influence at all in the presidential elections), and the actual electors themselves are picked by party officials.

Smaller populated and rural states can't do it by themselves.

Which is why they should be trying to persuade the majority of the country who isn't living in a rural environment to help them and try to compromise to reach solutions rather than metagame the system in their own favor at the expense of everyone else.

War with North Korea is necessary.

PsychedelicDiamond:
God, if it comes to a war with North Korea I hope Merkel won't be stupid enough to support America send the Bundeswehr there.

... no, I'm pretty sure Merkel will totally be stupid enough to support America and send the Bundeswehr there. Had she been in charge, we would have been in Iraq too.

She'll send us there if the entire thing isn't in the public eye.

But its NK vs Trump, so it will be, so she'll do the populist thing and stay out of it completely since thats what the public will want, overwhelmingly anyway.

OT: He probably wants to use it as his own personal falklands war - a mock conflict that never grows really hot but unleashes a patriotic wave throughout the country.

A very dangerous game to play even when you're not playing it with someone who may be completely insane. That being said, something has to be done about North Korea, right? So I ask - what?

Adam Jensen:

Epyc Wynn:
Trump is scum, but I am glad he has the ignorant balls to stand against North Korea. Any other politician wouldn't.

Further, Trump is absolutely correct to use the strong rhetoric he has. Sanctions don't work, North Korea is slowly preparing to build a nuclear arsenal, and if we let this continue the world and our nation may be destroyed. If North Korea were destroyed tomorrow, while I would grieve profusely for the loss of life and the millions who didn't even like the NK government, I would nonetheless find this to be the most ethical and effective course of action. In the long-term view of the world and in the context of everything North Korea has done until now, a nuclear holocaust of a country that outright wants to destroy our own country with nuclear missiles, I would firmly stand by as the right choice.

Too many politicians are cowardly children in the face of this grown up decision; ironically the most childish politician among them is the only one grown up enough to do it.

North Korea is not as irrational as people think. That's just their standard rhetoric aimed at their people. Everything that NK does it does to sustain the status quo. They have no real interest in war. They know that they would lose and that they would all die. If you corner them and force them into a war they'll annihilate South Korea and Japan. And maybe some of their missiles could hit the US. What do you think would happen to the world economy if South Korea and Japan were even attacked, let alone destroyed with nukes? Even if the rest of the world could deal with North Korea without escalating into a global nuclear war, the world economy would get so fucked that pretty much everything would collapse.

TL;DR - Trump is being an idiot again.

That excuse isn't going to hold up when North Korea has an arsenal able to genuinely destroy other countries. If a country says "I want to annihilate you" then you are supposed to assume "they want to annihilate me." To assume otherwise would be stupid.

So.. We only need to evacuate like 200 million people from the region... quickly? Should they not already be working on that?

Level 7 Dragon:
(ala first GOP loved EC because it gave them Dubya, then started to campaign to abolish it when it gave the presidency to Obama even when Romney won the popular vote, etc).

I just wanted to clarify this little bit.
Romney didn't win the popular vote in the 2012 election. Initially he did have a lead, but the total tally came to 65.9 million votes for Obama and 60.9 million votes for Romney. The GOP was pissed with the EC because if the Electoral Votes were not distributed as "winner takes all" like they are now, Romney could very well have won that election.

Dr. Thrax:

Level 7 Dragon:
(ala first GOP loved EC because it gave them Dubya, then started to campaign to abolish it when it gave the presidency to Obama even when Romney won the popular vote, etc).

I just wanted to clarify this little bit.
Romney didn't win the popular vote in the 2012 election. Initially he did have a lead, but the total tally came to 65.9 million votes for Obama and 60.9 million votes for Romney. The GOP was pissed with the EC because if the Electoral Votes were not distributed as "winner takes all" like they are now, Romney could very well have won that election.

A tad off-topic, but that doesn't make sense. By electoral college standards, Obama won that election by more than a hundred electoral votes. By democratic standards, Obama won that election by more than five-million votes. What system would have possibly given Romney a victory? Further, what scum would support such a corrupt system that enables ignoring five-million votes?

Epyc Wynn:
A tad off-topic, but that doesn't make sense. By electoral college standards, Obama won that election by more than a hundred electoral votes. By democratic standards, Obama won that election by more than five-million votes. What system would have possibly given Romney a victory? Further, what scum would support such a corrupt system than enables ignoring five-million votes?

Did you read the article I linked?
Because it rather clearly states that had every state's Electoral Votes been distributed by which candidate wins Congressional Districts, rather than winner takes all, Romney would have won. This system wouldn't have changed the end result of many previous elections, but it would have changed the results of the 2012 election. Here's another article that goes a little more in-depth.

FalloutJack:
Both leaders have child brains and are functionally delusional. We should seal them up into a little room and just never look back.

So like why is no one trying to figure out how we are supposed to evacuate 200 million people from the region? They really should get started on that... We should bring all of Japan and South Korea and put them in the midwest to have the children of the corn stare at them in awe.

realJeremyP:
War with North Korea is necessary.

If that is the case, when are they going to start evacuating South Korea and Japan to the US before shat hits the fan?

Lil devils x:

realJeremyP:
War with North Korea is necessary.

If that is the case, when are they going to start evacuating South Korea and Japan to the US before shat hits the fan?

Why? To waste precious time and resources? A well executed strike would render North Korea militarily ruined in hours. Did they evacuate Iranians and Pakistanis prior to the Afghanistan War?

realJeremyP:

Lil devils x:

realJeremyP:
War with North Korea is necessary.

If that is the case, when are they going to start evacuating South Korea and Japan to the US before shat hits the fan?

Why? To waste precious time and resources? A well executed strike would render North Korea militarily ruined in hours. Did they evacuate Iranians and Pakistanis prior to the Afghanistan War?

Do you have any idea how different this is than the Afghan war? You cannot even begin to compare the two situations. All NK has been doing for the past 50 years is piling up ammunition and weapons pointed at Seoul. This is not the same thing at all. You are talking about densely populated high tech cities with millions of people, The US has no way to stop the attacks on South Korea from hitting, there are simply too many weapons, too close to their target and too many US loving civilians the US promised to protect will die.

I do not think you understand how this works. Before the US can even get forces close enough NK will launch their attacks on the south and Japan. US forces are not strong enough in the area currently to be able to do enough fast enough. It is impossible for them to do enough fast enough is the issue here. NK has guaranteed to make it extremely bloody if we try. The threats here are no where near comparable.

realJeremyP:

Lil devils x:

realJeremyP:
War with North Korea is necessary.

If that is the case, when are they going to start evacuating South Korea and Japan to the US before shat hits the fan?

Why? To waste precious time and resources? A well executed strike would render North Korea militarily ruined in hours. Did they evacuate Iranians and Pakistanis prior to the Afghanistan War?

Holy Jesus fucking Christ. You actually believe this?

North Korea has ~6 million armed forces members (1-1.5 million active, 5 million reserves last time I checked up on it). From the word "go," NK forces would be able to immediately start raining shells down on Seoul and could overrun it completely in a matter of hours. There are only ~30,000 US troops and well under 1 million South Korean troops in country. To be completely frank, the US troops stationed in South Korea are there as nothing more than a show of force and a damn tripwire to guarantee we end up at war from a NK attack. They don't have the munitions, manpower, or firepower to do anything else.

This is completely ignoring the giant ass elephant in the room that is China. Any type of preemptive strike against NK is going to piss the fuck out of them. North Korea is viewed by the Chinese as a buffer state between their border and US influence in South Korea. The last time that US/UN/SK troops entered North Korea, we ended up in a shooting war with China itself. Does that sound like a good idea to get ourselves into again?

Finally, let's not forget that the type of leaders that North Korea has wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons in the field if we miss any in the very first attack particularly if they felt they might lose power.

Avnger:

realJeremyP:

Lil devils x:

If that is the case, when are they going to start evacuating South Korea and Japan to the US before shat hits the fan?

Why? To waste precious time and resources? A well executed strike would render North Korea militarily ruined in hours. Did they evacuate Iranians and Pakistanis prior to the Afghanistan War?

Holy Jesus fucking Christ. You actually believe this?

North Korea has ~6 million armed forces members (1-1.5 million active, 5 million reserves last time I checked up on it). From the word "go," NK forces would be able to immediately start raining shells down on Seoul and could overrun it completely in a matter of hours. There are only ~30,000 US troops and well under 1 million South Korean troops in country. To be completely frank, the US troops stationed in South Korea are there as nothing more than a show of force and a damn tripwire to guarantee we end up at war from a NK attack. They don't have the munitions, manpower, or firepower to do anything else.

This is completely ignoring the giant ass elephant in the room that is China. Any type of preemptive strike against NK is going to piss the fuck out of them. North Korea is viewed by the Chinese as a buffer state between their border and US influence in South Korea. The last time that US/UN/SK troops entered North Korea, we ended up in a shooting war with China itself. Does that sound like a good idea to get ourselves into again?

Finally, let's not forget that the type of leaders that North Korea has wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons in the field if we miss any in the very first attack particularly if they felt they might lose power.

Not only is this not even remotely comparable in terms of combat, people have to realize that Kim Jong Un is not his father. The reason everyone wanted his older brother he had killed off to become leader is this kid was the wacko who said his father's biggest fault was that he did not follow through and attack the US. I do not believe the guy is bluffing. He has killed off more of his closest people in his administration repeatedly, than well, anyone, he is nuts, and I think he has every intention of attacking. HE actually thinks he will be better off if he does attack is the problem.

Just from what I heard about the guy before his father passed was scary enough to make people realize this was going to be bad if he came into power. The world would have been much better off with his capitalism loving brother he killed, Now I do not think people understand how bad this is going to be as no one has ever seen anything this bad to even compare it to in our lifetime.

I am 100% serious about needing to figure out how to get the people out of there.. fast. Like we need to figure out how to carry out the biggest evacuation in history, like now.

Epyc Wynn:
That excuse isn't going to hold up when North Korea has an arsenal able to genuinely destroy other countries. If a country says "I want to annihilate you" then you are supposed to assume "they want to annihilate me." To assume otherwise would be stupid.

North Korea had the ability to destroy the South through much of the 60s and 70s when their situations were essentially reversed compared to now. The North was propped up (financially and militarily) by Russia and China and the South was dirt poor, had almost zero infrastructure since the majority of it was bombed into oblivion during the war, was run by dictators and was barely defended. They could have invaded at any time for almost three decades and quite possibly won. America was even thinking of pulling out completely at one point. This rhetoric about annihilating their enemies has been going on just as long as well.

Even if North Korea gets nukes, so what? I can't count the number of times I've said this but while Jong-un might be a megalomaniac, he's not a complete idiot and surely would know that in full on war, he'd be on the losing side inevitably. Having nuclear missiles makes him look big in front of his minions and the general population of the DPRK and means he remains on the throne indefinitely. I don't think the DPRK being a nuclear power is ideal but stop acting like the second he gets one working, they're all going to be flying toward California is ridiculous fear mongering. Besides, other counties hostile to the West have had them for decades and we've managed to keep it together.

If followed through on, all this tough guy bluster will lead to millions of civilian deaths and possibly the worst refugee crisis humanity has ever seen. The North would fall eventually but at an utterly unfathomable cost to the world, but mostly to South Korea.

You gonna be there on the front lines to help clean it up?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here