[oneloop]

Dude, you didn't need all the citations. I am very keenly aware of every stupid thing Trump has ever said, probably. And I repeat that all of those things are secondary compared to this.

Unfortunately, I don't think war with Russia is outlandish at all. Like I said, for the past 10 years Russia has been repeatedly saying that the US's missile "shield" is threatening their nuclear capabilities (please please see [1], or you won't understand where I'm coming from). Obviously, there is the question of: do they really believe their nuclear capabilities are threatened, or are they just using that as a talking point? If they actually do, that's by far more dangerous than anything Trump can do. You know what happens if you corner a rat, right?

All I said is that the above is more important than Trump's idiocy. I'm not sure why you think this is a myopic view. It's not like I don't know about the things you mentioned. I know about them and took them into account. In fact, I've always said I'd vote Clinton because Trump is too much of a wild card. But actually... as things are, I'd rather take the wild card.

[1] If you're actually interested in informing yourself about this, start with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo The bit I'm talking about starts at 4:00 to roughly 9:00.

[HelloMcFly]

I honestly cannot agree with your reasoning or conclusions at all. You'd choose to vote for the unpredictable bully that isn't totally against using nukes because he admires Putin; nevermind his aggressive rhetoric in literally every other sense (rivals, allies, and our own citizens alike). That's the anti-war vote? It's obviously your vote, but good grief, I can't believe you'd find that more comforting. So yes, I find your position very, very, very myopic.

And just to get ahead of it: I've seen that video. I'm familiar with the topic. I think the idea of an actual war with Russia is very outlandish.

[oneloop]

Well, I hope you're right.

I think that we humans find it hard to conceive such humongous changes in the world around us. We're used to a certain background in our lives and under-estimate the likelihood of any scenario that changes that a lot. Evolutionarily this makes sense: if you always think that the things you've never seen changing will never change, you will be right almost all of the time (and I could just as well call you myopic for not believing _my_ scenario).

But at the same time if instead of going with your instinct of how likely it is that such an outrageous scenario would occur, you instead follow simple game theory, there is only a few ways out of this situation, at least that I can think of:

A) The USA says We acknowledge your concerns and and actually, we're not gonna build that shield after all (or some variation of this)

B) Russia says Actually, I'm just gonna lay down and be bullied into irrelevance

Do you see either of these happening? Things will have to get much worse before either of these happens. Do you see other alternatives?

[HelloMcFly]

Yes, of course there are other alternatives. This isn't "simple game theory", this is the real world. Economies are not independent; a declaration of war against a major trade partner is effectively a declaration of war against yourself. There are thousands of unknowns.

The most obvious potential solution is some sort of tit-for-tat diplomatic agreement where both sides appear to win while both lose something. If your requirement to believe that is likely is for me to draft the proposal then your fears will be validated because I'm not qualified to do so.

To me it is more than far-fatched to believe 1) that the end-game of a highly multi-faceted socio-political issue has only a dichotomous outcome with no middle-ground, 2) that the "Law & Order" bully candidate would abandon the missile shield even though he admires Putin, or 3) even if the worst comes to pass that Russia would put itself into a position to fight the world's strongest military + an entire continent it neighbors, all with a questionable economy.

Of course you could call me myopic for not believing your scenario. 9/11 Truthers could say the same. But I'm not the one betting on a super long-shot hypothetical while ignoring the near-certain other negative outcomes that a Trump presidency brings. To ignore those factors can only be done from a place of privilege where his white male supremecist rhetoric isn't interpreted as a personal threat to your own well-being.

[oneloop]

> Of course you could call me myopic for not believing your scenario. 9/11 Truthers could say the same.

Dude, no need for this style of conversation.

[HelloMcFly]

I wasn't being aggressive or an asshole, I was being literal. Everyone can accuse everyone else of being myopic when they feel their perspective is reasonable, justified, and un-shared. It wasn't my intention to insult, but I see how it could be taken so. I offer my apologies.

[ting_bu_dung]

1.) you're assuming voting for hillary is automatic war with Russia. and would vote based on that single fallacy. (very doubtful you're american anyways)

2.) You, being "single issue" voter, ignore that trump is a psychopathic, women-hating, racist, tax-dodging, russia-affiliated antichrist who will bring shame and destruction to America.

3.) You are so afraid of Russia (they're failing economically, politically, and technically) that you would vote a madman into the US office. You are the type of people that would vote in Hitler.

[oneloop]

> 1.) you're assuming voting for hillary is automatic war with Russia. and would vote based on that single fallacy.

No, I'm assuming that hillary would be very similar to obama and bush. You're the one making the wrong assumption.

> 2.) You, being "single issue" voter, ignore that trump is a psychopathic, women-hating, racist, tax-dodging, russia-affiliated antichrist who will bring shame and destruction to America.

Like I said above, I don't ignore any of the things you mentioned, as I've been following the subject extremely closely. In all likelihood I'm better informed about how flawed Trump is than you are.

> 3.) You are so afraid of Russia (they're failing economically, politically, and technically) that you would vote a madman into the US office (doubtful you're american anyways)

I'm not afraid of Russia, I'm afraid of war. War isn't "we win they lose". More likely, we both lose. In any case, you're mistaken in saying that they're failing in any of the categories you mentioned. Russia was failing in the 90s. I guess you haven't been keeping with the world outside of your bubble since then.

> You are the type of people that would vote in Hitler.

Aright buddy, just lost interest :D

[koverstreet]

> No, I'm assuming that hillary would be very similar to obama and bush.

It's worse than that. If Hillary was going to be similar to Obama, I'd be ok (not happy, but ok) with electing her.

Based on the available evidence though, Hillary is actually far more hawkish than Obama. She was the one pushing for intervention in Libya, Biden was entirely against it - and IIRC Obama has mentioned that as possibly the biggest mistake of his administration. She's also been repeatedly posturing for more intervention in Syria, as if that place isn't enough of a clusterfuck already.

She appears to lack any kind of introspection whatsoever about use of force (look up her comments on the aftermath of Libya...), and worse, appears to view it as some kind of a dick measuring contest (remember the whole "under sniper fire" thing? She clearly has a need to be seen as appearing tough...).

Frankly, I don't know which of Hillary or Trump is more scary. As flawed as Obama has been, I would vote for him in a heartbeat over either of them. Or Romney, for that matter (and I was a Bernie supporter, so that should tell you something).

[ting_bu_dung]

>hillary would be very similar to obama and bush

lol you lost my interest here too. anyone who thinks obama and bush are the same has no clear grasp of reality

[oneloop]

Well, they're very different in terms of domestic policy, but not in terms of foreign policy.