By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bigjon said:
Puppyroach said:

So what you are saying is that Sessions and Trump are complete morons that are easily manipulated? And why did Trump claim Rosenstein had nothing to do with the firing of Comey, that it was all Trumps decision? The conspiracy was so advanced that they could literally guide Trump´s brain to do their bidding? =)

And no, there hasn´t been any illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign. If you are referring to the GOP Fisa memo, it revolves around Carter Page, not Trump.

the political pressure was there too. I guess you could say they made the mistake of trusting Rosenstein. They should have known really. Obama gutted the DOJ and rotted it to its core. So ya they fucked up. They should not trust any of the political infrastructure Obama put in place. 

If we look beside your obvious bias against Obama or that both Rosenstein (which Trump himself nominated), Comey and Mueller are registered republicans, or that Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation or that you seem to think Trump is some fragile, innocent snowflake that is just a victim of a political game... even if we look past all of those things, Trump has confirmed that he had decided regardless of Rosensteins recommendation to fire Comey. So apparently he didn´t trust Rosenstein enough to listen to his advice before he made his decision, which kind of negates the whole point you were making.



Around the Network
Goatseye said:
AsGryffynn said:

After the US already weaponized them by using anti communist propaganda against an ordoliberal government in Guatemala? Or perhaps after pressing Bolivia not to elect Evo? 

Also, the US had discredited itself when you invaded Granada under the pretext of being a security threat. Even lose cannon Margaret Thatcher chewed you out for that one. 

It's time like this I wish the Supreme Court outlawed the Republican and Democratic party from the next elections... 

Your whole argument is non sequitur and actually validates the fight of Americans against foreign intervention on political affairs. 
Try again...

Definition of Non Sequitur: 

non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument. In a non sequitur, the conclusion is either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. 

In this case, it isn't. The US is guilty, Ad Nauseum, of wrongfully invading countries that posed no threat to it's security. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-07/the-u-s-election-s-echoes-of-1996-russia

Team America just got a taste of Russian medicine. Sorry guys, but you don't f with them and not expect to fall into exactly the same trap sooner or later. There's a reason Russia exists: They are America's own personal Karma enforcer... 

Well, if the US does it, so can they... 




VGPolyglot said:
Goatseye said:

Your whole argument is non sequitur and actually validates the fight of Americans against foreign intervention on political affairs. 
Try again...

OK, so let's say the Russian government did get involved. What do we do about it, go to war with a nuclear-powered nation?

Doubly or even triply arrogant given that if, in theory, there could be a "winner" in a nuclear war, it would almost certainly be Russia with it's hundreds of underground bunker cities and enough territory to fit in two United States... Then you take into account they have enough to nukes to overwhelm any ABM system through sheer brute force and that they DOUBLE the US in megatonnage and suddenly nuclear war with Russia looks like a "humiliate the US in the most painful and inhumane way possible" contest. 

Seriously, why in the world would the US seek to provoke Russia? What do they gain besides free money from Lockheed Martin? 



AsGryffynn said:
VGPolyglot said:

OK, so let's say the Russian government did get involved. What do we do about it, go to war with a nuclear-powered nation?

Doubly or even triply arrogant given that if, in theory, there could be a "winner" in a nuclear war, it would almost certainly be Russia with it's hundreds of underground bunker cities and enough territory to fit in two United States... Then you take into account they have enough to nukes to overwhelm any ABM system through sheer brute force and that they DOUBLE the US in megatonnage and suddenly nuclear war with Russia looks like a "humiliate the US in the most painful and inhumane way possible" contest. 

Seriously, why in the world would the US seek to provoke Russia? What do they gain besides free money from Lockheed Martin? 

There would be no winners at all, the whole world would lose.



VGPolyglot said:
AsGryffynn said:

Doubly or even triply arrogant given that if, in theory, there could be a "winner" in a nuclear war, it would almost certainly be Russia with it's hundreds of underground bunker cities and enough territory to fit in two United States... Then you take into account they have enough to nukes to overwhelm any ABM system through sheer brute force and that they DOUBLE the US in megatonnage and suddenly nuclear war with Russia looks like a "humiliate the US in the most painful and inhumane way possible" contest. 

Seriously, why in the world would the US seek to provoke Russia? What do they gain besides free money from Lockheed Martin? 

There would be no winners at all, the whole world would lose.

Technically, you win if your loss is less than the enemy... 

SpokenTruth said:
AsGryffynn said:

Doubly or even triply arrogant given that if, in theory, there could be a "winner" in a nuclear war, it would almost certainly be Russia with it's hundreds of underground bunker cities and enough territory to fit in two United States... Then you take into account they have enough to nukes to overwhelm any ABM system through sheer brute force and that they DOUBLE the US in megatonnage and suddenly nuclear war with Russia looks like a "humiliate the US in the most painful and inhumane way possible" contest. 

Seriously, why in the world would the US seek to provoke Russia? What do they gain besides free money from Lockheed Martin? 

80% of their population lives west of the Ural mountains which is an area less than half the size of the US.  And we both have enough nukes to render Earth a wasteland.  We have 6,800, they have 7,000.   Are you not familiar with M.A.D.?  Mutually Assured destruction?  It's the concept that kept the cold war from becoming a hot war.

I am aware of this much. However, Russia's non urban population is spread so thinly that it's been discussed that in the event of Russia starting a nuclear war, there would be enough nukes to reduce the US population to a sub hundred thousand number, but Russia's population would probably remain in the million range, even if only a very small figure... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia

With three inhabitants per square kilometer, you're only going to have enough to nuke the major cities because the other locations are near non existent as they are. The only place that would fare similarly would be Alaska... 



Around the Network
AsGryffynn said:
VGPolyglot said:

There would be no winners at all, the whole world would lose.

Technically, you win if your loss is less than the enemy... 

Not if you're dead too.



VGPolyglot said:
AsGryffynn said:

Technically, you win if your loss is less than the enemy... 

Not if you're dead too.

We're arguing from a philosophical or technical standpoint now. If we both die, but I die later, I technically win. 



AsGryffynn said:
VGPolyglot said:

Not if you're dead too.

We're arguing from a philosophical or technical standpoint now. If we both die, but I die later, I technically win. 

You can't declare victory if you're dead.



VGPolyglot said:
AsGryffynn said:

We're arguing from a philosophical or technical standpoint now. If we both die, but I die later, I technically win. 

You can't declare victory if you're dead.

You can right before you die XP

Now I am just talking weird gubbins with you... 



AsGryffynn said:
VGPolyglot said:

There would be no winners at all, the whole world would lose.

Technically, you win if your loss is less than the enemy... 

SpokenTruth said:

80% of their population lives west of the Ural mountains which is an area less than half the size of the US.  And we both have enough nukes to render Earth a wasteland.  We have 6,800, they have 7,000.   Are you not familiar with M.A.D.?  Mutually Assured destruction?  It's the concept that kept the cold war from becoming a hot war.

I am aware of this much. However, Russia's non urban population is spread so thinly that it's been discussed that in the event of Russia starting a nuclear war, there would be enough nukes to reduce the US population to a sub hundred thousand number, but Russia's population would probably remain in the million range, even if only a very small figure... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia

With three inhabitants per square kilometer, you're only going to have enough to nuke the major cities because the other locations are near non existent as they are. The only place that would fare similarly would be Alaska... 

Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana all have population densities lower than or as low as Siberia.  Generally speaking, your concept probably applies to the whole region east of the (U.S.A.'s) West Coast states but west of the Mississippi River.  This region is on average more hospitable, I think, to human life than Siberia, but would likely experience worse fallout.  I'm not sure how that would balance out. 

Either way, the better question is, what do you define as Russia "winning" versus the United States in a nuclear war?  Total number of survivors?  Percentage of population reduction?  If its government is totally destroyed, can "Russia" be the winner, even if there is a remnant of the U.S. government left?  Should we factor in the likelihood of a neighbor annexing the remnant instead of helping it back on its feet? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!