[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by verme (prevaricator)

Either I got the wrong impression of where you stand on politics, or maybe it's not me who's been getting misaligned ideologically.

 

my mind is open. i'm not "aligned" in the usual sense. i'm not "ideological", i think. a true believer? in a platform? too fucking old for that. nah, it's not an age thing. i became a little apostate at age 11, just a year after my first communion. always the doubting thomas lmfao. if i could not believe in god how am i going to believe in... people and party platforms?

i don't know where you stand really, but if you are fixed on "pwning the libs" (at least in this thread it seems you might be) that is a very narrow perceptual bias

Originally Posted by verme (prevaricator)

Anyway I have to say I was surprised to read this from you:
[some lies you made up]

i never said he was a puppet. this is the classic paranoid discourse about "them". it's very naive in that it ignores the fact that institutions have their own internal logic

mearsheimer at least has it clearly in his title: "the tragedy" of great power politics. not "the conspiracy" or "the reptilian alien cabal" of great power politics. a tragedy proceeds inevitably with its own internal logic. the tragic hero can't help himself, just like institutions have their own inertia

biden made his bones during the cold war. he's a staunch believer in nato. he had experienced professionals in his administration and he let them do their job instead of micromanaging or flying to kiss kim jong #something (i can't keep track of the kims). he did not rule capriciously or threaten our allies with random mixed messages

of course our allies is you, so there is that, it takes 2 to tango. it takes 2 to tango with putin too, so in spite of pwning the libs arguments this is not "biden's doing". it's us policy and european policy and nato policy and russian policy, clashing in the tragedy of great power politics

mearsheimer's argument when you analyze it really is that this logical consistency is the tragedy in itself. his argument is not that "trump alone can fix it". his argument at least in the youtubes is that the scenario proceeds by itself, and it doesn't matter who is president, and that nobody in the government is listening to him is telling

not being ideological, im willing to concede that trump just might achieve some deal with pootie--for a price, of course. and the price might just be you, hahaha, so be careful of what you wish for. i've got what i wished for before, and it was not pretty. so go ahead and wish. your wishes are your own

Originally Posted by verme (prevaricator)

Well, I think he made a good argument of why getting Putin in a position where he has nothing left to lose might not be the best answer to it.

well i think in a way everyone agrees with that. this is why western support has been so timid in some sense. sanction but not completely, lend weapons by the teaspoon, etc. the difference is in the strategic estimation of where that point is reached. there are different ways to calculate things when you're not dealing in an exact science

please note this well: i prefer mearsheimer's method of strategic calculus

and yes, neocons have a bad strategic record

but in the social/political calculus (not the same as military strategy), mearsheimer had no answer to how you prevent nuclear blackmail *in the first place.* not escalation, but blackmail of the "he has nukes therefore he can do anything he wants" kind

mearsheimer "believes" that if putin been left alone he would have been harmless. this belief (or wish) is very hard to prove

but yes, we had neocons in office in april 2008 when sparta refused to join the delian league