[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.