Trump MAGAThread XI: Button, Button, Who's Got The Button?

[Jerzylvania]

You mean his constant attempts to antagonise the North Koreans aren't him jockeying for a War President boost?

"Antagonising the North Koreans"? I doubt you can antagonize an oppressive inhuman dictatorship more than it deserves. Will you complain about how the USSR and Third Reich were antagonized too?

Good point. Wish I'd said that!

[Vassenor]

You mean his constant attempts to antagonise the North Koreans aren't him jockeying for a War President boost?

"Antagonising the North Koreans"? I doubt you can antagonize an oppressive inhuman dictatorship more than it deserves. Will you complain about how the USSR and Third Reich were antagonized too?

Were either of those states constantly poked with a sharpened stick?

[Proctopeo]

Given that the popular vote is irrelevant for the election, yes, it was working as intended.

If you look at the Electoral College as an insulator for populists to allow for proper statesmen, then it actually backfired quite spectacularly given what Trump is.

It almost worked. Clinton being overconfident (and also being an idiot herself) contributed to his victory. No barriers are in place to prevent populists becoming President when the not-populist keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

If you look at the Electoral College as a means to represent the small states, then it fails because the vast majority of Presidents also won the popular vote, a more successful system would have it more evenly split.

Do notice that it does give smaller states more sway. Wyoming and Alaska are slightly less irrelevant than otherwise. History has also shown that these minor states are important, if the race is close enough, and that an election with a margin of only a couple electors is very possible.

If you look at the Electoral College as a way to represent the will of the people, well you've just not been paying attention.

I can kinda give you that, I guess?

No matter how you look at it, the Electoral College, for the most part, has failed all its "intended" purposes.

One of those failures was partially a consequence of the other candidate, another is only partially a failure (increasing the important of "flyover country"), and the third wasn't explained.

[Novowarsawianka]

"Antagonising the North Koreans"? I doubt you can antagonize an oppressive inhuman dictatorship more than it deserves. Will you complain about how the USSR and Third Reich were antagonized too?

If antagonizing has the potential to bring about my untimely death, I think I have a right to complain.

Yes, the high tech jugernaut that is the "DPRK" will surely destroy any enemy with ease. Just look at their leader, he has like 100 olympic gold medals, even in team sports where he competed alone.

The only actual threat posed by the "DPRK" is that to the Republic of Korea mainly via nerve agents, which I admit, is a dire problem.
Never the less, at some point, one way or another, the Hermit Kingdom must be dealt with and the Korean people liberated from brutal tyranny. No person deserves to live under such a disgusting system. I wish for no war, but there must be made a plan to get rid of the current leadership, in a way that it doesn't shed blood.

[Valrifell]

If you look at the Electoral College as an insulator for populists to allow for proper statesmen, then it actually backfired quite spectacularly given what Trump is.

It almost worked. Clinton being overconfident (and also being an idiot herself) contributed to his victory. No barriers are in place to prevent populists becoming President when the not-populist keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

If you look at the Electoral College as a means to represent the small states, then it fails because the vast majority of Presidents also won the popular vote, a more successful system would have it more evenly split.

Do notice that it does give smaller states more sway. Wyoming and Alaska are slightly less irrelevant than otherwise. History has also shown that these minor states are important, if the race is close enough, and that an election with a margin of only a couple electors is very possible.

If you look at the Electoral College as a way to represent the will of the people, well you've just not been paying attention.

I can kinda give you that, I guess?

No matter how you look at it, the Electoral College, for the most part, has failed all its "intended" purposes.

One of those failures was partially a consequence of the other candidate, another is only partially a failure (increasing the important of "flyover country"), and the third wasn't explained.

The first isn't really a consequence of the other candidate, since other radical reformers and blatantly insane people have been elected to the office before (see: Andrew Jackson), flyover country is still largely ignored in favor of "swing states" (granted, in an ideal world all state would be swing states and this wouldn't be a problem, but that is obviously not the case.), the fact that the EC has the potential to supersede the popular vote is just kind of indicative that it's not really representing the people all that well. It's redundant at best if that what you think it's for.

[Valrifell]

If antagonizing has the potential to bring about my untimely death, I think I have a right to complain.

Yes, the high tech jugernaut that is the "DPRK" will surely destroy any enemy with ease. Just look at their leader, he has like 100 olympic gold medals, even in team sports where he competed alone.

The only actual threat posed by the "DPRK" is that to the Republic of Korea mainly via nerve agents, which I admit, is a dire problem.
Never the less, at some point, one way or another, the Hermit Kingdom must be dealt with and the Korean people liberated from brutal tyranny. No person deserves to live under such a disgusting system. I wish for no war, but there must be made a plan to get rid of the current leadership, in a way that it doesn't shed blood.

Can't fight a conventional war with a nation that has nukes, especially if said nukes can reach you. Which is the largest issue.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes, the high tech jugernaut that is the "DPRK" will surely destroy any enemy with ease. Just look at their leader, he has like 100 olympic gold medals, even in team sports where he competed alone.

The only actual threat posed by the "DPRK" is that to the Republic of Korea mainly via nerve agents, which I admit, is a dire problem.
Never the less, at some point, one way or another, the Hermit Kingdom must be dealt with and the Korean people liberated from brutal tyranny. No person deserves to live under such a disgusting system. I wish for no war, but there must be made a plan to get rid of the current leadership, in a way that it doesn't shed blood.

Can't fight a conventional war with a nation that has nukes, especially if said nukes can reach you. Which is the largest issue.

Which is we should have taken a page from Israels book and bombed their reactor in the 1990's.

[Valrifell]

Can't fight a conventional war with a nation that has nukes, especially if said nukes can reach you. Which is the largest issue.

Which is we should have taken a page from Israels book and bombed their reactor in the 1990's.

Alas, we can't go back in time.

[Proctopeo]

It almost worked. Clinton being overconfident (and also being an idiot herself) contributed to his victory. No barriers are in place to prevent populists becoming President when the not-populist keeps shooting themselves in the foot.


Do notice that it does give smaller states more sway. Wyoming and Alaska are slightly less irrelevant than otherwise. History has also shown that these minor states are important, if the race is close enough, and that an election with a margin of only a couple electors is very possible.


I can kinda give you that, I guess?


One of those failures was partially a consequence of the other candidate, another is only partially a failure (increasing the important of "flyover country"), and the third wasn't explained.

The first isn't really a consequence of the other candidate, since other radical reformers and blatantly insane people have been elected to the office before (see: Andrew Jackson),

In this case, it most likely was.

flyover country is still largely ignored in favor of "swing states" (granted, in an ideal world all state would be swing states and this wouldn't be a problem, but that is obviously not the case.),

But it is less irrelevant than it would be otherwise. So it's done something.

[Novowarsawianka]

"Antagonising the North Koreans"? I doubt you can antagonize an oppressive inhuman dictatorship more than it deserves. Will you complain about how the USSR and Third Reich were antagonized too?

Were either of those states constantly poked with a sharpened stick?

No, and that is a problem. If those two monsters were dealt with earlier, tens of millions of people wouldn't have to meet their deaths in prisons, trenches, battlefields, camps, and any other form of mass murder the USSR and Third Reich figured out.

We have seen what "collectivist" ideologies lead by dictators do to their people. Why do we ignore that there are millions of Koreans right now, living isolated from the world, in a system which tells them that their lives are nothing compared to the life of their leaders, where the greatest joy they can attain is to die for their leadership and so on?

It is not just the "DPRK" that is like this, but it is the most prominent and most absurd example.

[Valrifell]

The first isn't really a consequence of the other candidate, since other radical reformers and blatantly insane people have been elected to the office before (see: Andrew Jackson),

In this case, it most likely was.

I was speaking more generally, but yes. Still, though I don't think a system should fall apart if the wrong candidates happen to meet.

flyover country is still largely ignored in favor of "swing states" (granted, in an ideal world all state would be swing states and this wouldn't be a problem, but that is obviously not the case.),

But it is less irrelevant than it would be otherwise. So it's done something.

Something extremely marginal, since their voices still aren't being pandered to. But still something, I suppose.

[Novowarsawianka]

Yes, the high tech jugernaut that is the "DPRK" will surely destroy any enemy with ease. Just look at their leader, he has like 100 olympic gold medals, even in team sports where he competed alone.

The only actual threat posed by the "DPRK" is that to the Republic of Korea mainly via nerve agents, which I admit, is a dire problem.
Never the less, at some point, one way or another, the Hermit Kingdom must be dealt with and the Korean people liberated from brutal tyranny. No person deserves to live under such a disgusting system. I wish for no war, but there must be made a plan to get rid of the current leadership, in a way that it doesn't shed blood.

Can't fight a conventional war with a nation that has nukes, especially if said nukes can reach you. Which is the largest issue.

And I fully agree. Still, it would be possible to deal with the issue in more covert manners, or something else. A conventional war with North Korea would only result in massive loss of Korean lives. With it's subpar military being mainly focused on manpower, the death toll would be horrible.

[Valrifell]

Were either of those states constantly poked with a sharpened stick?

No, and that is a problem. If those two monsters were dealt with earlier, tens of millions of people wouldn't have to meet their deaths in prisons, trenches, battlefields, camps, and any other form of mass murder the USSR and Third Reich figured out.

There was never a good time to take on the USSR, though, most of Europe was in ruins after the Second World War and America was busy trying to secure Europe and deeply concerned about whether or not the Depression would pick up where it left off, and we weren't too sure about our place in the world. Plus, the USSR was still technically an ally to the West for a bit. By the time everyone got their collective shit together, and realized the USSR hated everyone, the USSR secured an atom bomb.

The Depression ruined the ability of the Allied forces in World War 2 to adequately respond to Hitler's blatant aggression leading into it, they simply weren't ready to face an enemy that had re-organized itself to put the military and the state first no matter what. Plus, the exact scale of the Holocaust was never really known until we started liberating Germany.

[Valrifell]

Can't fight a conventional war with a nation that has nukes, especially if said nukes can reach you. Which is the largest issue.

And I fully agree. Still, it would be possible to deal with the issue in more covert manners, or something else. A conventional war with North Korea would only result in massive loss of Korean lives. With it's subpar military being mainly focused on manpower, the death toll would be horrible.

The tricky thing is you can't really deal with North Korea covertly. What are you gonna do? Assassinate Un so another member of the Kim family can step up? You'd have to systematically uproot the entire North Korean way of life without being detected. Or at least partially do that.

The window for liberation of North Korea has, most likely, closed for the foreseeable future.

[Shofercia]

Were either of those states constantly poked with a sharpened stick?

No, and that is a problem. If those two monsters were dealt with earlier, tens of millions of people wouldn't have to meet their deaths in prisons, trenches, battlefields, camps, and any other form of mass murder the USSR and Third Reich figured out.

We have seen what "collectivist" ideologies lead by dictators do to their people. Why do we ignore that there are millions of Koreans right now, living isolated from the world, in a system which tells them that their lives are nothing compared to the life of their leaders, where the greatest joy they can attain is to die for their leadership and so on?

It is not just the "DPRK" that is like this, but it is the most prominent and most absurd example.

"We shall prevent mass murder by committing mass murder" - Novowarsawianka

The earliest Nazi Germany could've been dealt with was 1938. The earliest the USSR could've been dealt with, was... never. There was an intervention in 1917-1921, while USSR was having a Civil War - it didn't go well. Then everyone was tired of war. The only reason that Nazi Germany hit the radar in 1938, was because they were invading countries; it wasn't because of what they were doing internally.

There's this concept, called Morale. You cannot just, willy-nilly, order troops into battle. When Mussolini stopped Hitler, he was preventing Hitler from taking Austria - he was never going to go into Nazi Germany. You speak of armies and navies as if you're playing Risk or Diplomacy. Real Life is much more complicated. Your suggestion will lead to mass murder. Why do you think South Korea is against this? Do you think the South Koreans also worship North Korea's Dictatorial Dynasty? I doubt that even the North Koreans do; I think they pretend to do so, in order to continue living their lives in relative peace.

[Senkaku]

Can't fight a conventional war with a nation that has nukes, especially if said nukes can reach you. Which is the largest issue.

Which is we should have taken a page from Israels book and bombed their reactor in the 1990's.

The problem has always been that North Korea even then didn't really need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. Without nukes they couldn't have hurt the US, but they could've rained a lot of shells down onto Seoul and caused huge suffering in the South and in Japan (and China or Russia, if they came in against it) before going down.

Now with nukes and ICBMs, it can just hit us directly too if things ever come to blows. :/

Frankly, what we should have done was kicked the shit out of the PLA and pushed back to the Yalu in the '50s.

[Ransium]

USA is a deep racist shithole.

This comment is clearly directed at all Americans not places abstractly therefore: *** Warned for trolling ***

Let’s not get in the habit of calling places shit holes generally, it can easily turn to trolling if you are really talking about the quality of people who live there.

[Shofercia]

Which is we should have taken a page from Israels book and bombed their reactor in the 1990's.

The problem has always been that North Korea even then didn't really need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. Without nukes they couldn't have hurt the US, but they could've rained a lot of shells down onto Seoul and caused huge suffering in the South and in Japan (and China or Russia, if they came in against it) before going down.

Now with nukes and ICBMs, it can just hit us directly too if things ever come to blows. :/

Frankly, what we should have done was kicked the shit out of the PLA and pushed back to the Yalu in the '50s.

Or, and now this is a totally radical suggestion, the US could've supported unification in the 1990s, when the US could've taken the reigns and lead the World into Prosperity, instead of randomly bombing various countries.

[Valrifell]

The problem has always been that North Korea even then didn't really need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. Without nukes they couldn't have hurt the US, but they could've rained a lot of shells down onto Seoul and caused huge suffering in the South and in Japan (and China or Russia, if they came in against it) before going down.

Now with nukes and ICBMs, it can just hit us directly too if things ever come to blows. :/

Frankly, what we should have done was kicked the shit out of the PLA and pushed back to the Yalu in the '50s.

Or, and now this is a totally radical suggestion, the US could've supported unification in the 1990s, when the US could've taken the reigns and lead the World into Prosperity, instead of randomly bombing various countries.

Are you implying we've done a bad job as global hegemon?!

Because, yeah, that's fair.

[Novowarsawianka]

The problem has always been that North Korea even then didn't really need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. Without nukes they couldn't have hurt the US, but they could've rained a lot of shells down onto Seoul and caused huge suffering in the South and in Japan (and China or Russia, if they came in against it) before going down.

Now with nukes and ICBMs, it can just hit us directly too if things ever come to blows. :/

Frankly, what we should have done was kicked the shit out of the PLA and pushed back to the Yalu in the '50s.

Or, and now this is a totally radical suggestion, the US could've supported unification in the 1990s, when the US could've taken the reigns and lead the World into Prosperity, instead of randomly bombing various countries.

As far as the 90s are concerned, the USA didn't randomly bomb various countries, but rather focused mainly on two countries which invaded their own neighbours: Yugoslavia and Iraq.
But yes, the Unificiation would have been good, as long as there was a guarantee that the people in the North would have media access to be educated about the world beyond a bunker state.

[Uxupox]

The problem has always been that North Korea even then didn't really need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. Without nukes they couldn't have hurt the US, but they could've rained a lot of shells down onto Seoul and caused huge suffering in the South and in Japan (and China or Russia, if they came in against it) before going down.

Now with nukes and ICBMs, it can just hit us directly too if things ever come to blows. :/

Frankly, what we should have done was kicked the shit out of the PLA and pushed back to the Yalu in the '50s.

Or, and now this is a totally radical suggestion, the US could've supported unification in the 1990s, when the US could've taken the reigns and lead the World into Prosperity, instead of randomly bombing various countries.

If the Serbians decided not to hold massacres, rapes, and destruction of a particular ethnoreligious group different then theirs maybe they wouldn't gotten bombed.

[Uxupox]

Which is we should have taken a page from Israels book and bombed their reactor in the 1990's.

The problem has always been that North Korea even then didn't really need nuclear weapons to have a deterrent. Without nukes they couldn't have hurt the US, but they could've rained a lot of shells down onto Seoul and caused huge suffering in the South and in Japan (and China or Russia, if they came in against it) before going down.

Now with nukes and ICBMs, it can just hit us directly too if things ever come to blows. :/

Frankly, what we should have done was kicked the shit out of the PLA and pushed back to the Yalu in the '50s.

Highly unlikely that the UN would have ever pushed out the PLA without resorting to total war.

[Petrasylvania]

Or, and now this is a totally radical suggestion, the US could've supported unification in the 1990s, when the US could've taken the reigns and lead the World into Prosperity, instead of randomly bombing various countries.

If the Serbians decided not to hold massacres, rapes, and destruction of a particular ethnoreligious group different then theirs maybe they wouldn't gotten bombed.

If the Serbs had done it in the 21st century they could have called it fighting Islamic terrorism and have been applauded for it.

[Uxupox]

If the Serbians decided not to hold massacres, rapes, and destruction of a particular ethnoreligious group different then theirs maybe they wouldn't gotten bombed.

If the Serbs had done it in the 21st century they could have called it fighting Islamic terrorism and have been applauded for it.

Didn't know that in the manuals of the armed forces of the Western militaries they have included specified guidelines into raping and how to conduct massacres.

[Petrasylvania]

If the Serbs had done it in the 21st century they could have called it fighting Islamic terrorism and have been applauded for it.

Didn't know that in the manuals of the armed forces of the Western militaries they have included specified guidelines into raping and how to conduct massacres.

It's what's happening in Myanmar and nobody's bombing them.