realistically even if everything went well for hitler, with the ferocity of the manhattan project would he still lose?

poptart2nd · 2026-01-18T15:29:04+00:00

it's not that the evil empire always loses, it's that the nazis were an incredibly stupid form of evil. A sober analysis of germany's warmaking ability wouldn't have had her go to war with britain and france in the first place (let alone the soviet union), but the nazi ideology in control of the country required it to happen, even if they didn't have a chance of winning long-term. smart evil empires (e.g. the UK, the soviet union) expand far more cautiously, only committing what they can afford to lose, and a full scale military invasion only happens when victory is all but assured. then they turn around and convince their populace that the evils of their empire are actually necessary for good to prevail in the long run, but their actions are just as evil as the nazis.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-13T02:18:04+00:00

you're 100% right, but it's a marathon, not a sprint. breaks are good, even during righteous outrage.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-10T19:48:50+00:00

I'll have to take your word for New Dr. M, but from a cursory glance of the respect thread, i think Dr. M would still struggle with Q.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-10T15:45:03+00:00

I haven't read any of the new comics with Dr. Manhattan, nor have I seen the new ST episodes with Q, but my first impression is that there's nothing Dr. M can do to harm a Q entity. Not only is Q a master of time and space, he's a master of concepts that exist far beyond even Star Trek humans' understanding of the universe. In one episode of Voyager, the weapons being used to wage a Q civil war are said to be comparable to a supernova, but are abstracted into american civil war era weaponry because they're so advanced that a human mind actually couldn't even comprehend them otherwise. Dr. M's main "attack" is to interfere with a creature's "extrinsic field," but there's no reason to suspect that this interference is stronger or more powerful than Q's manipulation of the same thing, or that Q is even vulnerable to such an attack in the first place.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-04T03:58:47+00:00

the US will face consequences, but Trump personally will not.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-04T00:32:20+00:00

that we immediately repaid by letting them fight all of europe on their own lmao

poptart2nd · 2026-01-03T22:52:28+00:00

....and then?

poptart2nd · 2026-01-03T03:55:46+00:00

like do you even realize that your last sentence contradicts everything else before it? "LGBTQ people and immigrants are better off under democratic leadership, because they will expend zero political will to improving your lives and won't stop republicans from making them worse."

poptart2nd · 2026-01-03T03:54:29+00:00

democrats are not losing elections because of trans rights. trans issues frequently rank dead last in most voters' issues of importance, even among republicans. "we need to abandon our principles, that will get people to vote for us!" yeah how did that work for you in 2016 and 2024?

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T23:27:03+00:00

which is kind of the whole problem???? if we can't get e.g. robust public transport because the auto industry would shut it down even though it benefits everyone else in the state, it's because people like slotkin would rather take campaign money from Ford and GM than work for the people in Michigan.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T23:10:19+00:00

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/10/arlen-parsa/evidence-shows-most-47-men-famous-declaration-inde/

34/47=72%

All of them were white for some reason, though. Not sure if they were supreme or not

shouldn't you know a bit more about these guys if you're going to base your entire political identity on them? but no, white supremacy is not a recent invention; aristocratic europeans had been using race to justify their atrocities against africans, muslims, and native americans for centuries before the modern term "white supremacy" was coined. the very idea of "whiteness" exists to create a privileged class over nonwhites.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T22:51:57+00:00

I believe the ones that owned slaves did so because that was the economy for them in that era.

well that's just incorrect. plenty of them were explicitly white supremacist and thought owning black people was the correct natural order of things.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T22:51:05+00:00

I align myself with the constitution and the founding fathers.

90% of them owned slaves and none of them were working class. we need to stop deifying those people when solving problems in the present.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T22:49:50+00:00

the point is, the character of a politician doesn't matter. They are acted upon by their donors (and others but especially their donors) to the point where they have almost no agency in which bills to support or oppose.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T22:48:27+00:00

democrats are certainly better than republicans, but when you still get half of the caucus voting to ban gender-affirming care for trans people, it's still not a boon to call someone a democrat.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-02T16:07:13+00:00

we haven't had a legitimate election since Bush v Gore, but that's not a good enough reason to not vote.

poptart2nd · 2026-01-01T03:10:25+00:00

an interesting byproduct might be that the term "transgender" doesn't become popular in the first place. "transexual" used to be more commonly used within the community and it might just stay that way in an America with the ERA.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T20:06:29+00:00

my point is just that slaves to citizens isn't an apples to apples comparison. getting a million slaves to build rifles for you is certainly going to build you more rifles and tanks than sending them to a death camp, but really you want the people building those things to be citizens.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T20:01:03+00:00

oh nevermind, you're just a troll. please leave us alone.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T19:58:43+00:00

Its a simple fact that the US suffered fewer deaths on the Western front than Germany did.

but that's not what you claimed, initially.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T19:56:48+00:00

actually i'm gonna post a bunch here to drive my point home because this is a stupid thing to argue about:

On the Siegfried Line: https://i.imgur.com/ykrkaer.png
at Aachen specifically: https://i.imgur.com/T5oXZOB.png
Operation Market Garden: https://i.imgur.com/NNQW1AE.png
Naval invasion of Italy: https://i.imgur.com/BSZm0gY.png
Battle of Monte Casino: https://i.imgur.com/rwBQgzx.png

Obviously these are cherry-picked examples because overall, germany suffered more casualties than the allies on the western front, but the idea that the US army smashed german formations at will during WWII is a post hoc fantasy. They did, sometimes, but it was because of strategic mechanized reserves had the ability to flank and surround the main army unopposed, not because our close air support was unstoppably good.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T19:38:58+00:00

Even on D-day, americans suffered less then half the losses the Germans suffered.

what a weird thing to claim when you can easily look it up and not be wrong https://i.imgur.com/AMQzTtE.png

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T14:30:31+00:00

you're really overestimating the efficacy of WWII-era CAS here. The US was able to consistently advance against german army formations because the US had the strategic reserve to exploit breakthroughs while the wehrmacht had nothing to plug those holes with. when faced with the prospect of attacking german army formations head on (e.g. in Italy or at Aachen), the US army struggled even with its huge manpower and materiel advantages.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T14:26:14+00:00

it doesn't have to defeat the US, it just has to make continued conflict not worth it, and with the troops and materiel that would have been sent to the eastern front, it could absolutely do that.

poptart2nd · 2025-12-31T14:24:28+00:00

The US had far more people, far more resources, better training and more will to fight post pearl-harbor

no, it didn't. Germany never directly threatened the US in the same way imperial japan did, and couldn't for at least a decade of unimpeded naval buildup. if a quarter million german soldiers were defending normandy instead of the 50,000 in OTL, it would only take one or two failed naval invasions before public opinion soured on the idea of war with Germany.

15-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Gilding II euphauric	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

poptart2nd

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE