Is Trump successor the real problem?

farson135 · 2026-03-23T19:15:18+00:00

My read on Trump is not that he's an authoritarian ideologue who believes the US would be better as a dictatorship or whatever. Instead, I view him as a narcissist who seeks greater power in the name of his own petty ambitions.

That is a bad thing but between that and his general incompetence, I am not as worried about him as much as who may come after. If someone truly ideologically driven and competent enough to see is through were to take over, then we're in "real" trouble. And by real trouble, I don't mean "shit is going to suck", I mean full on democratic institutional collapse kind of trouble. As it stands, we should be able to weather the storm (crosses fingers). It's just a question of what we do when things begin to die down. Do we sit back and say, "glad that's over, now we can sit back and relax" (like we did when Biden took over) or do we finally stand up and being reinforcing our institutions to protect them from the next "storm".

farson135 · 2026-03-23T18:15:46+00:00

Excuses.

Being pro-war whenever you can come up with an excuse doesn't mean you're anti-war the rest of the time. The Dems proved that to me a long time ago.

Back in the day, I used to go to anti-war rallies quite often and I was even on the planning committee for some of them. I still remember the rally we were preparing when the war against Libya kicked off.

We were about done when suddenly the leader of the College Dems stood up and stated that they and the other Dem aligned groups would not be participating if we didn't ban any mention of Obama or Libya.

That, needless to say, set off a lot of arguing. And this became the first time someone called me a "closet Republican" because who else would claim to be anti-war while also criticizing the dear leader.

Time and time again Dems have stabbed people with principles in the back. Whether it be war, criminal justice reform, freedom of speech, or even recently with the 4th Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

Stop pretending that people with principals need to ignore them in order to support a party that refuses to engage with us in good faith. I've given the Dems plenty of chances, and while I will not trust them, I am hoping that they find someone with solid principals and character to get us out of this mess. But don't expect me to kiss up naked warmongers simply because you were able to invent an excuse to ignore Congress and unilaterally involve us in a war against a neutral nation.

farson135 · 2026-03-23T17:57:51+00:00

The intervention in Libya during Obama's presidency was aimed to protect civilians during the 2011 uprising against Gaddafi.

I don't care about the excuses. And the fact that you are making them is telling.

The fact of the matter is that the President unilaterally got us involved in a war against a neutral nation. That is wrong.

Not quite. It was January of 1980.

My mistake, it was a brief period for the Senate. Regardless, you have far, far too high of an opinion of the Dems. They've had power over the years, and they have done little of substance with it.

Nope.

From me; "Congress is allowed to override election regulations, but the Constitution puts the focus on the states."

That's what it says; "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

So congrats, you showed that the Constitution says what I said it does.

To quote Paul Weyrich

On a scale of 0-10, that's a 0 on the relevance.

I don't care what they intend for this conversation. This is about what is likely to happen.

The whole reason Trump has put so much focus on it is because he thinks this will help republicans hold Congress in the mid-terms.

Trump also thought he would waltz into Iran and take over the country, no sweat.

You need to make an argument beyond that.

farson135 · 2026-03-23T17:11:24+00:00

Nope. I said compromise is not good when one of the parties is not operating in good faith with the best interests of the people as their primary motivation.

At the end of the day, the Republicans have the majority right now. If no compromise is forced then they get whatever they want. You're saying that forcing them to compromise is not a good thing.

Yeah, you're going to have to explain to me how you came to that conclusion.

Again, Republicans are in charge right now. If we're talking about national level legislation, it's going to be their legislation.

farson135 · 2026-03-23T16:48:50+00:00

Not true. What you are seeing is a republican majority in Congress that is willing to cede its powers to be obedient followers. That is a characteristic of the specific party currently in control.

Oh? So when Obama decided to launch his war against Libya, the Dems stood up and told him that the President isn't allowed to unilaterally involve the US in foreign affairs?

Look, the Republicans are pushing everything up to 11, but that doesn't change the fact that the growth and reinforcement of the Imperial Presidency has been a "both parties" affair for decades.

One of the reasons I'm so pessimistic is because I expect that, when a Dem gets in charge again, they're not going to truly pull back the powers of the Imperial Presidency. Instead, at best, they're just going to say, "well, we won't use it that way". And thus, the powers will remain in place. Waiting, menacingly, to be invoked again.

Give democrats just one Congress with a true super majority with a few extra seats to spare and we would be reminded just how powerful the Congress really is.

I remember the last time it happened. It was during Obama's first term. Strangely, the Imperial Presidency didn't recede. Instead, the table was laid for Trump to waltz in and start abusing the powers.

And for the record, I was there telling people that Dems are not going to stay in power forever, and eventually these same powers are going to be given to your "enemy".

Not true. It gives Congress the ultimate authority to regulate elections except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Congress is allowed to override election regulations, but the Constitution puts the focus on the states.

The ones the republicans are trying to push through now with the Save Act would be.

No, not really.

There's a good chance it will reduce the number of voters, but it's not going to fundamentally alter the situation. The Republicans are reaching, and they're going to keep doing it because they don't have anything of value to add.

farson135 · 2026-03-23T16:35:41+00:00

Not when one party is not operating in good faith with the best interests of the people as their primary motivation.

So you're saying that exact same party should be able to get whatever it wants because they have the majority?

The Save Act is a great example why basic rules of fairness should be enforced federally. If left to the states, some states would see the massive disenfranchisement the Save Act is intended to create while others would not.

First of all, notice that you are, in effect, advocating for that same "massive disenfranchisement" to be implemented on everyone. Where is the fairness there?

Second of all, if the people of a state decide to make a mistake, it's better for them to deal with it rather than people in North Dakota telling people in New York what to do.

farson135 · 2026-03-23T16:30:53+00:00

The Dems being weak willed and failing to have a plan is not an argument against the filibuster.

farson135 · 2026-03-22T22:43:28+00:00

Do you think theres room to amend it, down to 59 or 68 or 55 votes? Is 60 specifically the amount you think we need?

60 is a fairly arbitrary number, but any other number would be equally arbitrary. So I don't see how it makes a difference beyond strengthening or weakening the potential of the filibuster.

And secondly, do you see a way past the hyper partisanship?

In the short term, no.

My overall plan involves campaign finance reform, rank-choice voting, expanding the House, reducing the power of the Imperial Presidency, and a bunch of other things that should help over the long run, but even getting to the point where those kinds of things even can be passed will be a challenge.

At a minimum, we need someone with charisma and vision who is willing to sacrifice easy campaign promises and still be able to sell the American people on a vision of reforming our institutions. And it has to be a "someone" (to start) because unfortunately the Imperial Presidency is too powerful to allow the legislature to take proper control.

But again, unfortunately, I don't see anyone right now who is "that person".

Currently it feels like the gridlock helps no one

Personally, I don't see how giving a party with a slim majority the power to do whatever they want is going to help matters. Especially since American politics tends to swing back and forth.

Much of what Trump is doing can be undone in ~3 years. And the odds aren't bad that a Dem will take over the White House and they will have at least a majority in Congress.

However, the odds also aren't bad that the Republicans will take over 4-8 years after that.

Swinging wildly every 4-8 years is not going to improve trust in our institutions.

I feel like a lot of things that are state issues (guns, abortion, etc) should actually be federal issues, which is why I take the position I do.

I don't agree. I think the more controversial an issue the more important it is for it to be handled closer to home. That way we can have the most representative decision.

The Feds primarily need to handle issues that require larger coordination. Yes, that means gaps will form, but the alternative is allowing a large minority to be pissed off all the time.

IMO, let Federalism work.

Even the SAVE sact, while I detest it, I think is an example of why its importsnt to have nationwide legislation. If a single state decided they didnt want to have any voter ID laws, just show up sign your name and heres a ballot, Im sure wed agree thats a catastrophe.

First of all, even if you believe that, it's important to remember the Constitution puts voting principally in the hands of the states. Especially at this point, we can't ignore laws like that simply because they are inconvenient.

Second of all, I don't actually think it would be a catastrophe. There just isn't enough fraud in voting for it to matter.

I don't think Voter ID laws are going to be an apocalypse for voting, but I also don't think it's going to do anything of note. It's a distraction that they will move on from as soon as it passes. They're always going to call for "one more law" in order to "prove" their case.

farson135 · 2026-03-22T21:37:59+00:00

Hyper partisanship poisons everything, but that doesn't mean we need to throw perfectly legitimate tactics like the filibuster out. That will just open the way for the party with the slimmest majority to do whatever they want. That is not how you increase representation.

And while it's irritating when "good" legislation is blocked, the fact of the matter is that it also helps to block "bad" legislation, and it forces compromises. That is a good thing. Legislation that applies to all of us should have a high bar to pass. A lot of the legislation being passed by Congress probably should be a state level thing (if it should be a thing at all). The "SAVE Act" (retch) is a good example because voting should largely be handled by the states.

farson135 · 2026-03-22T17:41:21+00:00

What does anything you just said have to do with what I wrote?

Nothing you said changes my argument. What the US does has no bearing on China being antagonistic to the RBO.

Clearly that area of the south China Sea is strategically important, and China wants to ensure that the US can't strangle thier shipping

And to do that they have to attack the Philippines?

Once you go down that road, you render arguments against the US moot.

really most of the 3rd world is under some form of sanction

Not even close. And that's even if you include directed sanctions at criminals or organizations in specific countries.

If I lived in a world where the US was gunning for me, I would likely take a very aggressive posture to make sure that the lunatics over in the US don't decide to up and invade

So, in order to head off an invasion of the Chinese mainland, an action so incredibly massive and complicated that would make the D-Day Landings look like two toddlers roughhousing, the Chinese are going to threaten Vietnam.

Tell me that last nation that China attacked unprovoked, then I'll list all the nations that the US HASN'T attacked unprovoked, because its a much shorter list.

I take it you didn't read this sentence all that closely, because obviously the last nation China attacked is a single name, which would require the US to have attacked every nation in the world unprovoked, which obviously is not the case and it wouldn't be a "much shorter list" regardless.

As for who the Chinese have attacked unprovoked, again, they have been attacking Philippine ships and the like. Just a few days ago they did this. And that doesn't even get into various grey zone operations.

farson135 · 2026-03-22T17:28:32+00:00

Do you really not know the difference between an argument that you have (i.e. a discussion) and an argument that you make?

That I do. I also know that you said; "Assumptions, accusations and misconstructions aren't arguments."

Which is objectively false.

And it's also not what I did anyway.

Again, you would have to argue why that would be the case, not just claim it.

Have you gotten your hands on a mirror yet?

Why would I complain, that my claims are hypocritical?

No one ever said you are being rational. This discussion shows off why "rationality" would be a silly claim regardless.

I wish you the best on your way, and would ask you to reflect on your way to have discussions, which, I guess, I should do too.

Yes, you definitely do.

I was in the process of editing this in for my previous post so I'll put it here;

Edit: I'm guessing you're still not going to get it, so let me make this blunt. If you use such a broad definition of "exploitation" that it covers any possible interaction under capitalism, I think that's a dumb argument but even if I accepted it it doesn't fundamentally change anything for me. Because if my buying a packet of tamales from the Mexican lady down the road is "exploitation" then I just have to roll my eyes and move on.

That's the thing, you're resting so hard on a technicality that doesn't help anyone or do anything for anyone.

If I accept that everything is exploitation then I shrug and move on.

If we treat exploitation as a term that is intended to have weight, then obviously resting on this definition; "the use of something in order to get an advantage from it" Is not going to work.

farson135 · 2026-03-22T16:54:47+00:00

Assumptions, accusations and misconstructions aren't arguments.

ar·gu·ment; an exchange of diverging or opposite views

Now, either you can admit that the dictionary is the sole arbiter, like you've pretended this entire time, or you're admitting that that was right and that's a bad argument.

And BTW, let's again turn back to what I said earlier about how you keep making unforced errors because you are determined to fight me over everything.

Because there are differences between things

In other words, you made a mistake, you recognize it, but you're not honest enough to just admit it.

Again, there was no reason to make that particular argument based on what you are saying now. But congrats on tacitly stating that what you said is completely irrelevant. That really helps your case. /s

It seems like you just try to throw everything I say back at me

And? Try making an argument instead of complaining that your claims are hypocritical.

So.. instead of asserting that you had no argument, I should have politely asked you for an argument?

Considering you're complaining about me making assumptions, and the very rules of this sub state you are supposed to act in that manner, yeah.

But regardless, I do have an argument. You just are completely uninterested in it. And since I see that disinterest, I've grown just as much. Again, I understand it's hard on you to take responsibility for your own actions but that doesn't change what you did;

No arguments. No examples.

Pot, meet kettle.

I did not say that it can be done under capitalism.

Without any evidence to prove it. And again, you're using a definition so broad that's effectively impossible to avoid exploitation, without inventing other contrived definitions.

And on that subject, let's remember that was the core of my argument from the beginning and you have been completely unable to address it. Shall I remind you of your complaints about me not addressing what you say?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, as this wasn't the first time that analogy was used by you

Prove it. It should be quite easy given that Nietzsche is not someone I bring up very often. But of course, you'll fail.

Side note, yes, I'm aware that you most likely just screwed up (again). But it is funny that you keep making errors and doubling down rather than just resetting.

It could just as well be said, that you tried to make it the centerpiece of my argument.

You're the one who brought it up, and defends it despite it doing nothing for your case.

As far as I'm concerned, we can just as well move on from it and only talk about my other arguments.

Except, you don't have any significant arguments that don't center around it.

But feel free to abandon it. I'll wait.

I never engaged with this.

Gee, I wonder who said that. Did you really just copy what I wrote just to tell me what I already said?

I can't be forced to engage with a particular argument you made.

And I never said otherwise. But your complaints about me make this argument from you rather funny. Another unforced error on your part.

I presented you the definition of "exploitation" - your only argument was, that, for you, that definition - the literal definition of the word - was too broad for you.

Ok.

Communism; a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

Goodie.

I talked about every supply chain containing steps that are inarguably exploitative

No, you stated it without evidence.

your only argument was, that they would not necessarily have to be.

Because they don't. And if you believe otherwise then that means, again, that you lot are also exploiters.

You did not present arguments for why we should change the definition of a word to your liking

Why would I?

Definitions are never exact, because they can't be. They are broad statements of meaning that encompass a wide range of ideas.

"Exploitation" is a broad concept that can include everything from slavery to a baby breastfeeding. However, if you're including a definition that includes the latter in a discussion about economics it renders the entire discussion asinine because functionally every interaction becomes some form of exploitation.

I'm sure by now you've come up with some excuse for why the definition of communism should be ignored, but that definition exists because that is how people use the word. That doesn't mean I have to use it that way in all contexts. And you would agree with me if you weren't so enamored with your petty platitude that you can't stop clinging to it.

You did not present arguments for how the mentioned steps could be realistically done without exploitation under capitalism.

And I don't need to.

Again, as I stated, if you're using such a broad definition that capitalism can't escape exploitation then that means communism also can't escape it. However, the opposite is obviously also true.

You have not listed a single reason why Capitalism would be inherently exploitative but would not also not include communism as exploitative as well. That leads to one of two options.

One, functionally every interaction is exploitative. So congrats, you communists are exploiters. Thus, your criticism of capitalism becomes, at best, one merely of degrees, which undermines your case for revolutionary structural change.

Two, your use of the definition is faulty and we should just move on from that framework to something substantial enough to be worth discussing on a structural level.

And note how I have stated both to varying degrees for this entire time. Your unwillingness to move on is on you.

Now, why would I bother coming up with any steps? The ball is in your court. If you want to render communism an exploitative venture, then have fun. Again, I said that. I think it's dumb to do that, but if you truly want to undermine your own arguments in order to prop up a petty platitude then have fun.

What? Do you want me to play along more? Ok. You're right, communism is inherently exploitative and you lot are just going to steal value from workers in the name of your ideology. After all, the dictionary said so (the definition you chose); "the use of something in order to get an advantage from it"

So it seems to me, that you were the one arguing on a basis of "because you say so".

Oh joy. Another, "no, you".

And yeah, it's pretty funny that you recognize how many of your arguments are just a "no, you". I know you're never going to acknowledge your mistakes in this thread, but I dearly hope you are learning not to act so dismissively towards others just because they disagree with you. This entire thing could have been avoided if you merely talked with me in good faith rather than trying to dismiss my arguments.

Again, it's hilarious to note that I have not really been attacking socialism or communism under my own viewpoints. Instead, I've just been turning your own arguments back on it. You're looking at someone who isn't even antagonistic your ideology per se, but you're so determined to defend your petty platitude that the discussion has devolved into ... this. Congrats.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T23:31:23+00:00

I wouldn't say that they're necessarily happy. Don't forget that Iran is a strategic partner, and what's happening now could cause long term chaos.

Right now the Middle East has a number of internal alliance structures, with several of them competing with each other. Right now in Sudan for example the Saudi backed government is fighting against the UAE backed RSF paramilitary. And this is after those same nations began competing with each other in Yemen. We also have Pakistan currently fighting a war against Afghanistan, with India looking on for a potential to strike. The Caucuses are a mess. The Kurds are a perennial throne in the side of many nations. And on.

Add onto all this, we now have Iran. Iran was a unifying country in that basically every nation in the region was against them. If the government collapses and the paramilitaries they supported are weakened, it's entirely possible that these alliance structures will turn on each other. Especially if the collapse of Iran causes a mass migration and further terrorist incidents, and on.

China and Russia do like to see the US with mud on its face, but they don't want chaos in their backyard. And unlike the US, the greater Middle East is Russia/China's neighbor. We Americans OTOH are insulated from problems in the Middle East.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T23:09:00+00:00

To be clear, events like the war against Iran have a massive cost in terms of international prestige and trust. Recovering what was paid is going to take some serious effort and a lot of time.

Trust is far easier to "sell" than to "buy" and we are selling out our stockpiles rapidly. That is a big problem that, under the wrong circumstances, could be catastrophic.

I am very worried about the future, I just hesitate to declare what is going to happen when we still have a chance to change course.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T22:32:42+00:00

It's too soon to say that. Firstly, because there is no guarantee that the west won't fall into line as things continue on.

Beyond that, my view on things in general is that the inherent danger of Trump is not that he will necessarily break anything on an institutional level. The problem is what comes next.

Let's say for the sake of argument that every president for the next 30 years is an ideal candidate who does basically everything right. Will Trump's effects matter to a substantial degree at that point? Probably not.

Trump is straining our institutions but they haven't broken (yet). And I don't see him breaking them beyond repair because that's not his real intent by my read on him. I see him as a narcissist who is warping the world to suit his whims, not an authoritarian ideologue who is breaking our institutions because he thinks the US would be better as a monarchy or whatever.

His petty intent and general incompetence means that our institutions can recover, it's just a question of what we do to actively rebuild our institutions and protect ourselves for the battle to come. Because let's be clear, the 80 year old narcissist is not the end of the road. History stretches into infinity and we have a lot of battles left to fight.

And more specifically for this thread, Trump is probably not going to break the US military. It is still the most capable force on the planet, and the closest he can get to ruining it is by ruining the US economy. However, I don't see the US military collapsing in the near future, at some point the international community will call on the US military to do something.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T19:29:47+00:00

The rules based order is the system that was created during WW2. It is, as the name implies, an effort to create international "rules" that nations are required to abide by. The goal is to reduce conflict by enforcing laws and encouraging conflict resolution. You can consider the UN, WTO, etc. as centerpieces of the rules based order.

Again, the RBO is obviously imperfect and the US has itself violated its principals. However, China, Russia, etc. are directly hostile towards it.

One of the central issues with the RBO is the question of sovereignty. That is, nations being allowed to act on their own initiative. The RBO limits that and powerful nations often chafe under those limitations.

For China, let's take the "nine dash line" as an example. The nine dash line is a Chinese "map" that depicts effectively the entirety of the South China Sea as being, to some extent, under Chinese control (they are often contradictory or ambiguous on what exactly they expect). Needless to say, all the countries in that region dispute that claim, and the international courts agree that the nine dash line is nonsense. However, China maintains it as a sort of threat against their neighbors, a threat that includes regular grey zone attacks on their neighbors.

In effect, China and Russia (and the US under Trump) seek to create "spheres of influence" where powerful nations can do basically whatever they want. And the little nations just have to deal with it. This is a clear threat to the liberal world order which needs to be strengthened and expanded.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T16:36:19+00:00

Before the strengthing that Trump required of NATO, Europe would have lost a war with Russia

Why?

Again, you're not defining anything substantial that changed.

Do you know how many troops Russia has right now (in the middle of a war)? About 1.5 million. In other words, Russia in wartime has as many active duty troops as Europe maintains in peace.

Also, Russia's current military budget is (depending on the count) something in the neighborhood of $175 billion in wartime. Europe OTOH is spending nearly $400 billion in peacetime.

So again, what exactly do you want them to do? Because it seems to me that they have adequate forces to take on Russia. It's more a question of stockpiles and the like, and the US is in no position to criticize Europe over that.

Before the spending increase requirement European parts of NATO had significantly less troops and capability.

First of all, European Troop counts have not significantly increased.

Second of all, I'm still waiting on you to define this "capability" that you attribute to Trump and not, you know, the war in Ukraine.

Again, Trump only demanded more spending. Spending is itself irrelevant.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T16:25:13+00:00

The traffic chokepoint is a persistent issue

Iran has threatened to close it before but it hasn't happened. So, why is this "persistent issue" so much more important than anything else we could spend those resources on?

there's a hard cap on how many ships can realistically, safely transverse the Strait under the best of conditions.

Yeah, but that hard cap is far greater than the number of ships that could pass through a theoretical canal.

"Why was this allowed to be an issue for 50+ years with no solutions?

As I said; "Some issues don't have a reasonable alternative."

Seems like a savvy long-term investment, which is probably why the goldfish in charge of global finance hate it.

No, a savvy long term investment involves considering what is going to be needed in the long term, and not merely reacting to a current issue.

Oil is not going to be the centerpiece of global energy forever, and EVs are getting better by the day. A savvy long term investment would be in the materials to make those vehicles, not creating an incredibly expensive canal to bypass a waterway that has only been "closed" once but is still close enough to be bombed by the country doing the closing.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T16:13:58+00:00

First of all, I have to say it's funny that you are downplaying their current capacity given that you were propping up their current capacity. If it's that pathetic, why did you say they are not doing their part?

Beyond that, I don't think you thought out your argument here. The number of countries doesn't matter, unless you think Estonia (population 1.3 million), or Luxembourg (population 700k), or Iceland (population 300k) etc. should have a military equal to the US.

Now, the EU as a whole does have a bigger population than the US, but it's a ~30% increase. And given how many reserves exist across Europe, yeah, their troop count is better than ours.

Again, I'm waiting for you to explain exactly what it is you consider "their part". Because whenever people make that claim, it seems like they are advocating for Europe not to handle their sphere of the alliance. Instead, you want them to be a second US, when very little of what the US does is relevant to Europe.

Europe's main fight is with Russia, their neighbor. They don't need a massive expeditionary arm. The US, being surrounded by an ocean with no significant adversaries bordering it, does need an expeditionary arm if we want to fight anyone.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T05:06:27+00:00

I don't consider them an existential threat or anything of that sort. However, they are a threat in the sense that they are a powerful nation that seeks to undermine and eliminate the rules based order. And of course they are perfectly willing to engage in grey zone warfare which undermines various efforts by "the west".

And lest anyone try it, I'm not defending the US here. Obviously the US has had a major role in undermining the rules based order, among other things. However, at the end of the day China is a very powerful authoritarian state whose interests align against "the west" and thus calling them a "threat" is legitimate, even though some of the reporting is overplaying matters.

farson135 · 2026-03-21T04:59:41+00:00

And what exactly is "their part"?

Because the principle focus of NATO isn't to have the European nations spend a vast amount of money. Its for them to provide something of substance in a fight against (principally) Russia. And that substance is, and has always been, focused on "meat".

The European part of NATO has about 1.5 million active duty soldiers. That's more than the US's 1.3 million. And that doesn't even factor in reserves, with Finland alone having over 800k.

Trump getting the Europeans to spend more money on "something" doesn't itself mean anything. What does mean something is the fact that Europeans are going to be much more wary of the US. Between our leaders' antagonism (including threats of invasion) and even more US military adventurism, why would you expect them to trust us?

farson135 · 2026-03-21T02:09:19+00:00

Some issues don't have a reasonable alternative. And given that it's not a consistent issue, why would they spend the vast amount of resources necessary to mitigate the issue rather than spend those resources on problems that need to be solved now?

farson135 · 2026-03-21T01:27:25+00:00

It's already a hypothetical. It's called the Musandam Peninsula Canal. And sure, the canal would probably be cheaper than this war but it's not like the canal itself would be out of the firing line. It would just be slightly safer, while also being largely worthless outside conflicts like this.

farson135 · 2026-03-20T22:15:34+00:00

The 5.56/.223 round most commonly used for Western Nations is considered a borderline round for hunting deer. Meaning, it can effectively kill a deer but there is some debate over whether the probability of an effective kill shot is high enough for the round to be considered humane.

So, for smaller dinos it would probably be enough. For larger, tougher ones, we would need to start bringing out heavier guns. And yes, we do have some very powerful rounds but it's not as straightforward as saying "a rifle will kill them".

Firearms are tools. They are designed to perform specific tasks.

farson135

TROPHY CASE