American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

I wonder if dictators give long speeches because they believe only their opinion matters?

If Elissa Slotkin's rebuttal is a sign of where the Democrats are headed, the Republicans are in big trouble .

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

No need to watch the video; it's just Sachs recounting events from the 1990s to the present at the European Parliament. He provides more details on what I've been saying all along. Something you would have a clue about already if you are not completely inside your bubble. They say you can cure stupidity, but willful ignorance is terminal.

I just stated that it seemed like you didn't know nukes can't be defended against.

Sure, it's challenging, but please enlighten us with your funky math on why nukes can't be defended against.
Besides, nukes are just a Red Herring so you can ignore all the threats having full blown enemy military bases 5 minutes away from the border.

Ukraine WILLINGLY joining a defensive alliance. Aggression..

Strawman. You can never stop twisting words, can you? I never said Ukraine is the aggressor. As I’ve said in the previous post, “the not-so-innocent bystander, the condom.”
US/NATO is the aggressor

Russia INVADING a country. Not aggression.

Provoked aggression perhaps, but self-defense, yes.

YOUR LOGIC IS TOO POWERFRUL!!!!

Thank you. The only way to go. Try that sometimes

you seem to be missing the mineral deal is not mutually exclusive with the EU also doing something. Both things can happen. And ya it won't stop the war, which you seem to be implying. I will argue again its not hard for the EU to do better. They have promised more aid since Friday, but haven't made it official, but again assuming its some amount of aid and soon it is better than an unknown amount at an unknown time. Again, Ukraine may still do the mineral deal as well to maybe get US to do future aid. 

Without the mineral deal you don’t have the US on the Ukraine side. With the mineral deal would come the peace negotiation to end the war. That goes without saying. The EU can do whatever the fuck they want when they want - what does that have to do with anything? Sending more aid and prolonging the war only means sending more people to death. Exactly something an armchair general and bloody jo do.

Again. 
There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal.

[Mjmd]

Heh an insult, I was almost afraid you wouldn't follow your normal pattern.

Its not really funky math or a weird take I swear. Again, no current system has a 100% success rate. If 10% get through, well 1 nuke can kill a city. The US has a lot of those. The iron dome also gets to defend against missiles that have to actual hit or get really close to their target. A nuke can explode higher up and do plenty of damage. There are problems like multiple warheads and decoys along with just more missiles making defense systems easy to overwhelm. It should be noted Israel's stated intercept rate is 90% (and I use the most biased estimate for conservative purposes), but they have to defend a small area against usually a low number of incoming. In nuclear war we have to defend everywhere against a very high number of incoming. Also, you literally bring up the Cuban missile crisis and nukes EVERY time you try to defend Russia's invasion. So if its a red herring its because I've followed you down the rabbit hole. And listen, I agree its not a serious argument as again there is ZERO proof nukes would have been put in Ukraine and based on NATO history and current nuke deployments there is good reason to believe they wouldn't have been. As for a military invasion I've already talked about this ad nauseum and you've never replied to any of my logical proofs that conventional NATO military isn't a threat to Russia. You just keep stating it is without proof and without refuting me. Should be a good indicator.

I'm sorry did NATO or the US invade Russia when I wasn't looking? A nation formerly in Russia's orbit wanted to join a different orbit of their own free will. Are you one of those people who believe all of Rome's conquests were defensive? I know those people exist. Still believing the propaganda millennium later. EVERY single war in history has been started using some justification. ALL OF THEM. Most of the time its a smokescreen for expansion. What is your PROOF this one is different. Because Putin told you? Again, look at the actual threats and work out that no they aren't. And its not like "maybe their could be a perceived threat" is a good justification for war even if the threats were valid (which again they aren't).

That is a logical fallacy. If x then y; trust me its implied. If mineral deal then peace deal. We can hope. But its far from guaranteed and there is nothing in the agreement to that end. Again, Ukraine may do in the hopes it helps, but its not guaranteed. You have to distinguish hope from 100% that is what will happen even though there is no wording to support that. The war will continue as long as the TWO sides aren't close on terms. The US can't force Ukraine to sign peace unless we invade them too. I don't want more death either. However, I understand WHY Ukraine is fighting and WHY they don't just give in to Russian terms. Its because if they gave into the terms as Russia currently wants there is no guarantee Russia wouldn't just come invade them again. Their terms are pretty much designed for this. Just giving Russia what they want isn't a long term strategy. Its a I'm going to solve the immediate problem and have no concern for the future. If you want peace then Russia has to agree to let Ukraine have security guarantees. Something I touch on a lot and you never acknowledge. How do we make Russia let Ukraine have those? Please do let me know your solution. And it can't be mineral deal = all problems solved magically somehow. Why would RUSSIA make peace. I get that the hope is by not giving Ukraine aid to force them to take a bad peace, but giving up land and war reparations is already a big ask. They have 0 incentive to give up security guarantees because that is the future of their nation.

[Charr Babies]

Heh an insult, I was almost afraid you wouldn't follow your normal pattern.

Aww the lil boys feeling is hurt
I was hoping you wouldn't throw your fallacy bs around but you started that pretty early this time, and starting twisting words again. 

Its not really funky math or a weird take I swear. Again, no current system has a 100% success rate. If 10% get through, well 1 nuke can kill a city. The US has a lot of those. The iron dome also gets to defend against missiles that have to actual hit or get really close to their target. A nuke can explode higher up and do plenty of damage. There are problems like multiple warheads and decoys along with just more missiles making defense systems easy to overwhelm. It should be noted Israel's stated intercept rate is 90% (and I use the most biased estimate for conservative purposes), but they have to defend a small area against usually a low number of incoming. In nuclear war we have to defend everywhere against a very high number of incoming. Also, you literally bring up the Cuban missile crisis and nukes EVERY time you try to defend Russia's invasion. So if its a red herring its because I've followed you down the rabbit hole. And listen, I agree its not a serious argument as again there is ZERO proof nukes would have been put in Ukraine and based on NATO history and current nuke deployments there is good reason to believe they wouldn't have been. As for a military invasion I've already talked about this ad nauseum and you've never replied to any of my logical proofs that conventional NATO military isn't a threat to Russia. You just keep stating it is without proof and without refuting me. Should be a good indicator.

Yada Yada Yada. Again the my ESL is no help here. So Can't = 90% now. Okay Show me your funky formula that prove 90% failure. 

I don't need to refute an armchair general's assertion if Russia should feel threatened. You simply do not know enough. But I have entertained your absurdity asking you to answer why we were scared shitless re Cuba Missile Crisis. Ya ya ya, ignore all the possible threats having enemy military bases only minutes away and throw out more nukes CAN'T be defended Red Herring. The answer is right there staring you in the face. Willful Ignorance To The MAX!? 

I'm sorry did NATO or the US invade Russia when I wasn't looking? A nation formerly in Russia's orbit wanted to join a different orbit of their own free will. Are you one of those people who believe all of Rome's conquests were defensive? I know those people exist. Still believing the propaganda millennium later. EVERY single war in history has been started using some justification. ALL OF THEM. Most of the time its a smokescreen for expansion. What is your PROOF this one is different. Because Putin told you? Again, look at the actual threats and work out that no they aren't. And its not like "maybe their could be a perceived threat" is a good justification for war even if the threats were valid (which again they aren't).
That is a logical fallacy. If x then y; trust me its implied. If mineral deal then peace deal. We can hope. But its far from guaranteed and there is nothing in the agreement to that end. Again, Ukraine may do in the hopes it helps, but its not guaranteed. You have to distinguish hope from 100% that is what will happen even though there is no wording to support that. The war will continue as long as the TWO sides aren't close on terms. The US can't force Ukraine to sign peace unless we invade them too. I don't want more death either. However, I understand WHY Ukraine is fighting and WHY they don't just give in to Russian terms. Its because if they gave into the terms as Russia currently wants there is no guarantee Russia wouldn't just come invade them again. Their terms are pretty much designed for this. Just giving Russia what they want isn't a long term strategy. Its a I'm going to solve the immediate problem and have no concern for the future. If you want peace then Russia has to agree to let Ukraine have security guarantees. Something I touch on a lot and you never acknowledge. How do we make Russia let Ukraine have those? Please do let me know your solution. And it can't be mineral deal = all problems solved magically somehow. Why would RUSSIA make peace. I get that the hope is by not giving Ukraine aid to force them to take a bad peace, but giving up land and war reparations is already a big ask. They have 0 incentive to give up security guarantees because that is the future of their nation

Yada Yada Yada
Cuban Missile Crisis
We were in for an all out war vs Russia, if Russia hadn't backed down. We imposed embargoes and sanctions on Cuba since. 3 Generations of human suffering.

Again.
EU to prolonging the war only means sending more people to death. Exactly something an armchair general and bloody jo do. 

There is no guarantee the EU can give that is better than Trump's mineral deal.

[Mjmd]

Yes commonly known logical fallacies are bullshit. Ignoring you are making logical errors is a good way to win arguments (in your own head).

You can find this statistic reported pretty widely; its not me doing a "funky formula". Again, this is ISRAEL saying it, but even at 99% its not good enough against nukes. And to note some of the bigger missile attacks in Oct 24 have reported rates of only 75% (although not by Israel). The bigger the attack the harder it is for a defensive system to handle it even given enough interceptors in the area being attacked (which again US has a lot to cover) to guarantee the rate you want (ie a lot of times you shoot multiple missiles to get to a higher rate of success). Again, the missile attacks on Israel are probably the best real life example even if the situation is much different from an area to cover and types of incoming. But mass attacks vs Ukraine and Russia systems (both due to their soviet heritage have pretty good missile defense / did; Russia does have some good missile D) show they are pretty easy to overwhelm.

Heh you are back on the thing you already admitted was a red herring. You've never addressed my points regarding either. 1) tech has come a long way making this moot. 2) difference between nukes going in and "maybe they could have even though NATO hasn't". You are also seem to be indicating our response was bad back when the technology did matter, so why is Russia's response now with vastly different situation justified? Again, from a moral perspective no. From a geopolitical "we want our shit back", sure, but we are justified both morally and geopolitically not letting them.

What is your alternative? We can't force Ukraine to make peace. We can not provide them aid, which will only increase the amount of death, because I don't think they are giving up without security guarantees. You CONTINUE to ignore my questions on "why giving Russia everything they want" is a valid strategy or "how are you bringing RUSSIA to the peace table"?. Like if you are Russia and the US is looking like they are doing everything you want, why make peace if you think you can get more because Ukraine is now in a worse position? Relevant questions. Will probably go unanswered.

Its like you are an ad nauseum machine. I've talked about this how many times now and you just keep repeating it without refuting any of it.

[Charr Babies]

You would think Google, CoPilot and DeepSeek would know something so widely reported. I can’t find any reports on GAME THEORY predicting a 90% failure rate. Maybe you would like to share a link? 

BULLSHIT only you are capable of manufacturing. Can't = 90%. and now CAN’T=75%!? Yes, keep moving the goal post. 

I have said all I need to say to once again prove your BS. If in doubt, just reread my last post.

I can't help Willful Ignorance!

Have your last word, twist words, go off on a tangent with a wall of text, whatever
or simply post with a single - word 

.

[Mjmd]

Here is an article on the Oct attack mentioning 3/4 (with US help)
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/poli...views-gulf

I haven't vetted all of these, but here are some with 90%.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/ir...2024-09-25
https://apnews.com/article/israel-defens...739b7f2ef3
https://www.unav.edu/web/global-affairs/...nse-system
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/...e/irondome (note this is Raytheon ITSELF using as marketing so probably a good hint of upper limit)
https://english.mod.gov.il/About/Innovat...ation.aspx (this appears to be an Israeli gov site).
I can go on.

So failed to discredit and didn't answer my questions! If missile tech was so consistent, well it still wouldn't be be good enough for nukes, but it would still be good.

I'm willing to do some kind of prop bet on last word btw since Mar 24 or whenever that was. Loser has to pay KoP to help with site maintenance. Lets say $125 if you lose, $100 if I do? Loser can't post on the political forum until you pay. I will go through and take screen shots of who has gotten last word since then and put in a google doc. Want to bet? I don't have time tonight though. I almost never gamble money and I have to buy a new vehicle and I have a mortgage, but I'm pretty confident so I'm giving you even odds (the $25 difference is to account for my time in putting together the proof). I'm also willing to give you odds $200 (I pay) vs $25 (you pay) odds on who starts the most. Definition being a day between not subject. For instance both the last and this argument were on Ukraine, but you posted the last like 3 times the last time and this argument on Ukraine and Russia is separate as its been a few blessedly quite days. Again, loser can't post here until they pay. Want to bet?

[Charr Babies]

I am not going to comment on the validity of your links since I have given you the last word. So moving on.

I ended up with a headache trying to unravel the terms of the bet. Even if you have the time to go through every exchange, I don’t want to have to verify your results. We will probably go thru another hundred pages debating on the terms, and then the results. It is enough to know you would make a single WORD post just to have the last word.

That being said. I was waiting for KoP to set up for donations. I am all for it.
I will match anyone’s donation right here and now.
.

[Gavagai]

I don't want more death either. However, I understand WHY Ukraine is fighting and WHY they don't just give in to Russian terms. Its because if they gave into the terms as Russia currently wants there is no guarantee Russia wouldn't just come invade them again. Their terms are pretty much designed for this. Just giving Russia what they want isn't a long term strategy. Its a I'm going to solve the immediate problem and have no concern for the future. If you want peace then Russia has to agree to let Ukraine have security guarantees. Something I touch on a lot and you never acknowledge. How do we make Russia let Ukraine have those? Please do let me know your solution. And it can't be mineral deal = all problems solved magically somehow. Why would RUSSIA make peace. I get that the hope is by not giving Ukraine aid to force them to take a bad peace, but giving up land and war reparations is already a big ask. They have 0 incentive to give up security guarantees because that is the future of their nation.

I think "security guarantees" rhetoric from Ukrainian side is a blatant manipulation. Right now there is no discussion of a comprehensive peace deal. Trump wants to have a cease-fire very soon ("weeks" as he said) and then negotiate peace with the understanding that this second stage could take years. Somewhere in-between elections in Ukraine should be held, this alone will take months. "Security guarantees" are relevant for the second stage but not for the first one. Cease-fire without security guarantees means that everything remains the same as now for Ukraine (they have no guarantees now) but they stop losing lives and territory.
Cease-fire is good for Ukraine and bad for Russia because Ukraine is losing and Russia is winning. This is why it is a big question how we make Putin accept this plan but in theory Trump can have enough carrots and sticks to force him to do it. But we are not at the Putin stage yet because Zelensky does not seem to be on board with the plan which is just mad (well, not mad from Zelenskiy's personal perspective because it is all about elections for him but mad from the national perspective). The way the war works is that there is always at least one side who would be better off not fighting and if both want to continue to fight, it means at least one of them is deeply delusional.
In any case, now Zelensky seems to change his position, there is almost no "security guarantees" talk in his most recent statements. Apparently, being thrown out of the White House was a really useful experience for him. So we can hope for the best.

[Mjmd]

I think the question on how to get Putin to the table is the key question that a lot of people don't consider (for some odd reason). The last time clear cease fire terms were laid out from the Russian side just to START the conversation Ukraine had to dearm, give Russia more territory than Russia currently controlled, and promise not to join NATO. That was just to start negotiations for a cease fire mind. That was 8 months ago to be fair, but we haven't heard much detail wise from Russia since (although Russian media Gav????). But yes Russia is making slow progress and Ukraine's biggest aid supplier is rolling over. Why would they stop? Again, not sure why this is so ignored. People just blame Ukraine for the continued war and forget there are two sides   .

Zelensky did offer this yesterday. He has also offered to resign for peace.

“We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky — ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure — and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same,” he wrote.

Zelensky has still requested security guarantees since Friday still though so I doubt Russia will bite.