We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. — ssu

With just a tiny, old INS over a 300km trajectory?

Yeah, no.

The whole point is for the GPS and INS to function together to reduce their respective errors.

The ATACMS was developed in the 1980's. It has inertial guidance just as nearly all long range missile artillery systems have, even if it can be aided by GPS. — ssu

You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, but the guidance modules have been updated over time to be able to correlate INS with systems other than GPS, since GPS is basically a relic of the past due to how easily it is jammed.

The issue for Ukraine is that GPS is heavily jammed and thus long-range ATACMS missiles have to rely on different guidance systems to achieve a high degree of accuracy - most-likely classified US ground mapping methods. Hence the obvious conclusion that they're being operated by Americans.

That's not "Putin talk" - that's simply in the nitty-gritty of how these sorts of things work.

And all this "Putin talk" is coming from Western analysts.

Also note the gold price responding to recent geopolitical developments.

When Trump got elected, the price of gold started to come down significantly from an all-time high. Apparently the world, unlike this forum's left-leaning denizens, viewed Trump's election as a turn towards stability.

A few days later, this downward trend is reversed as the Biden administration takes clear steps to make said turn towards stability impossible. The gold price skyrockets to a new all-time high and probably will continue going through the roof for the next several days.

This is not 'Putin talk', it's simply a fact that Ukraine is incapable of operating these weapon systems alone. It's inherent to the weapon systems.

It requires US or British assistance for virtually every step of the deployment process. The strikes are probably completely planned by American and British operators.

With that said, if we survive all of this, maybe several countries in Europe will reinvent this Dutch tradition:

It is one thing when, like during the Cuban Missile Crisis, countries are playing nuclear chicken with their own countries at stake.

Right now, the US and the UK are playing with Ukraine and Europe.

No country in the world should accept this.

They were both downright awful. Maybe that had something to do with it.

This sexist country just can't stand the thought of a woman leader. — RogueAI

Except that Hillary Clinton, an unimaginable hag of a woman, won the popular vote by a comfortable margin in 2016. But keep coping, I suppose..

Well, it can't get any worse than the Biden administration, which is now playing a game of nuclear chicken with Europe as their bargaining chip.

Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives.

The point here is that Ukraine lacks the ISR and fire control capabilities to strike targets deep inside Russia, which means that at this point US and British weapons are being used, using US and British targeting data, operated by US and British operators, to attack Russia directly. (Maybe a Ukrainian presses the final button for appearance's sake)

In other words, NATO, via the US and the UK, is now directly at war with Russia, or so the Russians argue.

When Russia is directly at war with another nuclear-armed power, that puts into effect aspects of their nuclear doctrine, one of which being (I assume) that nuclear weapons are to be permanently aimed at you and me.


It's honestly quite remarkable to me that you're still showing no signs of alarm. At what point will you say enough is enough? When the air sirens go off?


Do you understand the implications of the argument I have put forward previously, that:

1. Europe and Russia are parts of the world the US will no longer be able to control going into the future.

2. Europe and Russia will play a critical role in keeping China's economy afloat in case of a US-China war.

3. Europe and Russia being in pole position to benefit greatly from a US-China war, and probably becoming the laughing thirds of such a conflict.

I wager that the Americans view 'limited nuclear war' as an excellent means of taking out two potential geopolitical rivals who stand to benefit from a US-China war: Russia and Europe.

____________________________________________________________________________

People in the UK are Europeans, actually. :wink: — ssu

For the sake of geopolitics, they are not. The UK belongs to the periphery, and as such benefits from keeping Eurasia divided and fighting amongst themselves. The US operates on exactly the same principles.

Deterrence stops Putin. — ssu

This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. Besides, the Russians have made clear they believe they are protecting vital strategic interests - in other words, they won't be bluffed out of this.

The US and the UK are playing with fire, and it will be us, the Europeans, that are going to get burned.

Sweden and Finland both have this thing called "total defense". — ssu

What you'll have is a total curling up in the foetal position while our countries are incinerated.

You're sitting on the front row, I on the second.

We have nothing to gain here.

All we can hope for is for the Russians to understand that it is the US and the UK who are pursuing this strategy over our backs, and that the Russians seek to impose costs on them instead.

That's the only way for the US and the UK to start behaving - if they are the ones to pay the price of war.

Two nations are flaunting the fact that "their missiles" are hitting targets in Russia: the US and the UK.

What did they achieve?

Nothing, except for the fact that Putin has stated in September they would consider themselves to be at war with NATO if this were to transpire, with which he refered to their nuclear doctrine which undoubtedly prescribes that in the event of a war with another nuclear-armed power, Russian nukes should be ready 24/7 to deliver a 'second strike'.

How do Europeans sleep, knowing they're the playing chips with which the US and the UK are pursuing these types of escalations?

I do believe you should focus more on the situation at hand, [...] — Benkei

In what way do you suppose I am not?

The reality is Trump is not exactly a stable factor where it concerns foreign policy. Since the EU is not sufficiently integrated militarily to deter Russian aggression, Trump is not making our world safer. Zelensky realises this and immediately signalled a willingness to negotiate.

Of course, it could lead to long term stability at least on the European continent, where it concerns Russia, if we ensure the EU has a strong role in establishing the peace deal and it becomes more a tri-partite treaty than bilateral. — Benkei

The problem lies in US and UK integration into the European security structure.

If the Americans want to leave voluntarily and clean up the mess they created while they're at it (ergo. peace in Ukraine) then that's manna from heaven.

A diplomatic settlement in Ukraine would lead to a period of peace during which Europe can get its act together. Given our population and GDP, there's no reason whatsoever Russia should ever be a threat to us.

Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, so what on earth are our politicians doing?

Yes, there's just one hot war in Europe, if you mean that by "no concrete threat". Because the Russian hybrid attacks (last few days ago) and the bellicose rhetoric of Russia sure feels like some kind of a threat. — ssu

What I meant is that Russia is currently occupied in Ukraine and won't conceivably threaten to invade NATO for the foreseeable future.

In 20 years that situation might be different, and at that point the US pivot to Asia will have proceeded even further.

Many Americans are what I class as the "Pivot people". America has to Pivot! Well, perhaps not from defending Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East, but still, Europe! Bye bye Europe.

But let's just think of how "clear" these goals and challenges are:

- First, there's nothing like the NATO in the Far East. SEATO failed, the countries didn't see eye to eye and the US simply gave up. These countries do train to operate jointly at the level as NATO countries do. They usually hold exercises occasionaly with the US, but not with each other. What is the American solution? AUKUS. Which actually isn't anything new at all as the countries have already defense pacts with each other. How well South-Korea and Japan are doing together? Not so good as Germany and France.

- Which of these Far Eastern allies have the capabilities of the UK or France? None, even if Japan has a big navy. It's one thing to prepare for domestic security and defending in one's own territory, another thing to train for out of the area operations. NATO can do that, Far Asian allies of the US aren't capable of that.

- Which of these Far Eastern countries are rearming to meet the Chinese threat? Nothing like the rearmament in Europe is happening in the Far East, except China.

Hence the real question is, how many would be willing to fight alongside the US if Taiwan would be invaded? Totally different from the question of how many NATO countries would fight if Poland was attacked. Especially when the US policy is "Strategic Ambiguity".

Hence if the US intervenes in a Chinese retaking of Taiwan, likely the American President will scream for the NATO losers to join in. — ssu

The principal difference is that China is a peer competitor and Russia is not.

War in the Pacific is very easily imaginable, whereas war between Europe and Russia is not logical at all.

If a peace is reached in Ukraine, relations will probably gravitate back to the pre-2008 status quo.

East-Asia however is critically imbalanced, with the US sphere of influence smushed up against China in an attempt to contain it, and to dangle a sword of Damocles over its maritime trade and with it its entire economy.

That's simply a situation the Chinese will not accept going into the future.

The only question is how long before the Chinese start throwing their weight around, and indications are that it may still take some time before the Chinese start taking military action. The political and economic war is already well underway, though.

:lol:

Trump is insane, but cunning. And he will destroy America if he is allowed to, and possibly the world. — unenlightened

The US and Biden's push into Ukraine is the single greatest threat to the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis - not Trump.

Trump has been elected on a strong platform to end this war.

As Trump moves into office, we see the Biden administration deliberately taking steps to deteriorate the situation in the hopes of making peace impossible.

Is partisanship the sole reason you're avoiding this pink elephant, or do you really not see it?

Don't think that Europeans aren't taking Trump seriously. They genuinely believe that Trump and his gang could take the US out of NATO. It's a genuine possibility that could happen: Americans could be perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot and breaking their strongest alliances, then wake up and notice that they aren't anymore the Superpower they used to be. If the US goes into isolationism, it simply will be a richer and larger version of Canada. People don't have anything against Canada, they might even know the name of the Canadian prime minister, but that's it. Who cares about the policies that Canada is pushing in it's foreign policy. It something quite irrelevant for Europeans. — ssu

Yes, I think we Europeans might be genuinely worried about Trump leaving NATO - much like how a fat private fears PT. Yet, PT is the only way to whip said private back into shape.

Now would be the best time, since there is no concrete threat to Europe yet.

The problem I have described in the past though, is that I fear that the US will use European militarization as a means to create more tension between Europe and Russia.

That is the exact opposite of what Europe should want.

This is why I welcome the departure of the Americans if it were to happen.


About NATO being the US' strongest alliance I am not so sure, though. It certainly is big and has potential, but Europe is currently without teeth. It is also situated on the other side of the globe from where the next real 'Cold War' is going to take place (the Pacific).

Controlling Europe costs resources, and perhaps Europe is proving too big to control in a time when the US cannot afford to waste resources.

Personally, I think Europe has dropped down on Uncle Sam's priority list, in favor of the Five-Eyes Alliance, Japan and South-Korea. These countries have a far clearer overlap with US strategic goals and challenges.

Isn't Poland acting accordingly? They are on the track to have the strongest military in Europe. Finland is arming itself and the military is excercising it's forces on a level not seen since the Cold War. — ssu

Indeed. This is both logical and desirable. However, my principal worry is the way the US may use European militarization as a method to create more tension between Europe and Russia.

Under the current circumstances, one could easily envision this spiraling into a direct conflict.

The Poles seemed to have wisened up to this, and have started to push back on attempts to drag them deeper into the conflict.

That awareness needs to be present in all of Europe.

Yet notice one thing that has been true throughout the entire span of history: transport in trade by water is far more efficient and less costly than transport by land. One cargo ship can carry several cargo trains of produce. Ancient civilizations emerged on large rivers and the Mediterranean was such a lucrative sea for trade. It's just simply physics. Silk road and China's new land routes simply cannot compete with international shipping. — ssu

Roughly speaking that's true, but we are talking about a scenario in which Chinese sea trade were to be completely cut off.

At that point, land-based trade would be all that is left.

In a US-China confrontation scenario, the Chinese economy would simply implode if it couldn't find alternative markets over land, and this hangs like a sword of Damocles above them.

I think this recent move by the US to allow Ukraine to use US arms to strike targets deep inside Russia blatantly shows their escalatory intentions.

At this point in time, Ukraine is lost and will soon be pressured to the negotiating table by Trump. Even though I understand that it will be a painful process for Ukraine, I consider it to be in Ukraine's best interest. The alternative is an even longer war with an even bleaker outlook, from which Ukraine stands to gain absolutely nothing.

The Biden administration is plainly trying to make such a process impossible by attempting to deteriorate and escalate the situation to a point where negotiations are no longer an option.

Washington desires war, and this is what they had envisioned since the start of the conflict in 2008, when they deliberately set out to violate Russian red lines - this is what I have argued for months, if not years by now.

Everyone can see that any further expansion of military aid to Ukraine at this point is too little too late, and won't change the situation on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, the Russians have been warning NATO about the seriousness with which they regard this particular escalation, saying that they would consider this move to put Russia directly at war with NATO - aka World War 3. This blatantly puts all of Europe into the crosshairs of Russian retaliation, and for what?

Ukraine is really the odd one out, since the Russians have been proclaiming red lines vis-á-vis Ukraine since 2008. Therefore the route the Ukrainians have chosen was indeed much riskier than is the case for the Baltic States, Finland and Sweden.

However, my point remains that NATO leans completely on the American security apparatus, and at this point in time it is clear that the Americans will not commit to the defense of any nation in Europe, since it must focus on the Pacific and China.

Europe is in fact defenseless. And instead of acting accordingly, we do everything possible to follow Washington's line towards further confrontation with Russia.

Apparently people in Europe are under some sort of illusion that we can bluff the Russians into backing off, but that's obviously not working.

The Russians perceive our behavior as a clear sign that we are no longer interested in peace, and if we start treating them as 'the enemy', they will start treating us as 'the enemy', which is a position Europe can only lose from.


On the first page of the thread I wrote this post, arguing why America doesn't necessarily lose wars, but instead tends to fight wars in which a decisive military victory is not the goal.

We see another clear example of that in Ukraine, where even as Ukraine is starting to warm up to the idea of negotiations, the US continues to escalate the conflict in an attempt to drag things out.

It's quite understandable that countries that border Russia seek some form of protection against it.

Trying to join NATO was arguably the crudest and most risky way of doing so, and hedging the survival of the country on a distant maritime power was rather naive given the track record of said power, and that is a criticism that applies to virtually all NATO members.

We should know better than to trust Washington.

Tzeentch, you are clueless. — Fooloso4

How come? :chin:

What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?

If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads. — Fooloso4

The politician's trick is to get people emotionally invested and riled up, so they turn off their brains.

In case you didn't catch it, I'm responding to what posted about adults malding on social media about the election.

I think it's a sign of the unhealthy amounts of rage that were fostered by the Democratic Party, but obviously the Republicans have their own versions of it.

Just like Poland was risking war with Germany in the late 1930's. Just like Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway were also risking war with Germany, for that matter. And not only did they risk it, they got the war Hitler. How badly done from them! Especially the Poles, didn't they get the memo (Mein Kampf) that they were Untermenschen and should move away somewhere else and give their lands to the German Übermenschen? — ssu

Going straight to WW2 and Hitler comparisons isn't really a serious argument, and I was hoping for/expecting something better from you.

Of course I understand the metaphor. I was just wondering why you aimed it at me. But ok, apparently it was about the US.

Whatever the case, grannies cramping themselves into an aneurysm is just sad on multiple levels. How many years on Earth does one need to understand the politicians' trick?

What pot do you suppose I'm boiling in?

I think you're underestimating what kind of cynical calculus takes place in Washington.

Taiwan is risking war with China. Just like Ukraine was risking war with Russia, South Vietnam was risking war with the North, etc.

Uncle Sam isn't risking anything.

God, it's a bizarre spectacle to see adults get played like this. Propaganda has got them firmly by the emotions.

So, why is it that Republicans in the US just dominate the airwaves and internet social media sites? — Shawn

I live in Europe and virtually all the news that I saw being pushed via the local legacy media and via internet media was pro-Harris, so I'm scratching my head at the idea that the Republicans dominated the airwaves.

My impression is that precisely because the Republicans did not dominate the legacy media (since I'm not an American we may have different experiences here) they took it to the alternative media which turned out to be a lot more impactful than people thought possible.

Even the wildly popular Joe Rogan podcasts did not get pushed, even though they should have clearly 'gone viral'. To me, this suggests certain social media sites may have even tampered with the algorithms to suppress Trump's campaign material.

It appears the establishment's former domination of the legacy media is no longer effective, since people have probably tuned out en masse and switched to alternative media. And also, people are wisening up to the ways the establishment tries to control what information reaches them online.

There are a few things that ought to be mentioned here:

1. Waging war is a matter of costs and benefits.

2. In order to gauge whether a war is lost or won, the conditions for victory must be established.

3. Countries may lie to foreign and domestic audiences about their reasons for going to war, and their victory conditions for reasons that should be obvious.


If we look at Afghanistan with that in mind, what were the real reasons for US involvement there? What did the US expect to gain, and at what cost?


It probably comes to no surprise to you that I am deeply skeptical about the US' stated reasons for going to war: 'the war on terror' and 'spreading democracy'. I think these are both completely unbelievable and clearly fabricated for PR purposes, quite similar to how the US did not invade Iraq over suspected WMDs.


This leaves us guessing as to what the real reasons were for US involvement in Afghanistan, without which it is impossible to gauge whether the US achieved its goals or not.


My sense is the following: the US keeps getting into 'forever wars' not by accident, but because forever wars serve US interests. The US goal in Afghanistan and Iraq was a 'forever war' - continued conflict and instability.


Why would the US be interested in that?

Simple - the US is a maritime power that must dominate global trade and divide the Eurasian continent in order to maintain global dominance.

Being the most powerful maritime power and having strong maritime powers as its allies, domination of maritime trade is a given. However, the goal is to dominate global, and not just maritime trade.

As such, it is of prime strategic interest for the US to disrupt land-based trade routes to keep key rivals from establishing land-based alternatives to US-dominated sea routes.

The US lacks the means to efficiently invade and occupy large countries overseas, and therefore cannot seek hard, long-term control over vital trade regions. However, to disrupt trade hard control is not necessary - sowing chaos and instability is enough.

Enter the 'forever war': a (relatively) low-footprint, low-cost method of destabilizing key regions in the world for long periods of time.


The war in Afghanistan is a continuation of a long-standing US policy of sowing instability in Central Asia and the Middle-East that started with the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. The war successfully extended instability in the region for another 20 years.

When viewed through this lens, the war in Afghanistan was not a defeat at all.


So why is the US so interested in destabilizing this region? Because Central Asia and the Middle-East connect key US rivals: China, Russia and India (plus potential regional powers that may spring up in the Middle-East in the long-term like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey).

Note how this bloc of three countries comprises a gigantic portion of the world's population and natural resources.


To make a long story short, due to the nature of the wars the Americans fight, they often do not have to win decisive military victories in order to reach their goals. However, not winning a decisive victory is not the same as losing.

I've recently developed an appreciation for American gun laws.

Two months ago my downstairs neighbor decided to go batshit insane and after I complained to the landlord the neighbor started threatening me.

Here, you're not allowed to carry any type of self-defense weapon and the police shrug their shoulders until something serious happens.

Bans on weapons perhaps worked well here in the past, when the police showed more teeth and people in general were more decent and functional.

As society becomes more dysfunctional, with dangerously unstable people everywhere as a result of drug abuse, crime, poverty, etc. either the police needs to step up their game, or people need to be allowed to defend themselves. Neither of which is probably going to happen here where I live..

Yep, it's all fun and games until people start threatening you and you realize the system leaves you utterly vulnerable with no way to protect yourself.

1) Palestine's sovereignty. I guess Democrats are pro-Palestine, but I don't know if it is an important matter amongst the voters — javi2541997

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do. — T Clark

It's no secret that the Israel lobby holds great sway over American politics, and the lobby must have been on the side of the Republicans, since the Democrats have been trying to put pressure on Israel whereas the Republicans have expressed support.

The Israel lobby represents a diverse collection of special interests, and their influence extends to far more demographic fields than just American Jews.

As the situation in the Middle-East worsens, which is likely to happen under Trump, the lobby will ramp up their efforts to secure support from the US government.

With Israel on the cusp of regional war, in my opinion it is almost unthinkable that an American president is elected who is critical of Israel in any meaningful way.

And anyone who seems to JUST read Noam Chomsky will only have that perspective and regurgitating only his ideas.

I was waiting for you to name-drop him, as this inability to understand what I'm talking about is common among those who don't read much more than his writings. — Christoffer

You asked me for substance. I gave you substance.

If you think I view your offhand dismissal of Chomsky as anything other than clownesque posturing I'm afraid you are wrong.

You simply prove that you're not really interested in anything I have to say, which is why I haven't been taking this conversation particularly seriously. It begs the question, if you're not interested then why do you keep writing these cramped replies? :chin:

If you really need to be given proof for the major influence governments have on public opinion then you must have been living under a rock for the past couple decades.

If you need a place to start I would read Manufactoring Consent by Noam Chomsky.

Ignoring the largest contributor to our modern world, social media. The elite do not have that much control over those channels, [...] — Christoffer

Yes, that's my point.

Today the media dominance of the western elites has been broken, which is why now all of a sudden people are starting to notice something is wrong.

Guess what: it has been this way for decades, but because there was very little to stir up the echo chambers most people didn't notice.

If you find it difficult to believe that government elites conspire against the common people, I don't know what to tell you. Open your eyes?

I could stand on a street corner in Washington DC and pass out flyers [...] — Wayfarer

The difference with systems like China and Russia is that at least there it is clear the population has little to no agency.

In the West, populations have been tricked into believing that they are in charge when in fact they are not - a much more effective way of placating a population, because it keeps them ignorant and/or guessing as to who their masters are.

I'm not sure whether it's endearing or grotesque that you would suggest handing out flyers in the face of the influence of the MIC, big business, powerful lobbies and establishment elites.

Wouldn't that require complete abandonment of culture and society, medicine and technology? — Wayfarer

No, it would just require people to become highly selective in what sources of information they initially trust.

Turn off the television, stop watching "the news", stop using social media. Touch grass, talk to your neighbor, see what's real.

If you actually read and understand me first you would understand that I argue that post-truth is a problem within the public itself and their relation to truth and how to evaluate who's honest and who's a liar. Communist regimes used and use state violence methods to craft narratives that the public follow by force or indoctrination, it's not the same thing as what post-truth is about. — Christoffer

Oh, I disagree with that definition of post-truth. People in general do not become delusional voluntarily. Some outside force is necessary, like a corrupt government elite that feeds them propaganda, and uses censorship to block off all roads to the truth.

Since the end of the Cold War, western governments (with the US at the helm) have dominated the information landscape and abused that position to influence their population in a way that can only aptly be described as 'brainwashing'.

Communist regimes functioned in exactly the same way, essentially holding a monopoly on information within the totalitarian state.

Today, that western/elite domination of media has been broken, hence we notice something is terribly wrong and call it 'post-truth'. But we have been living in this 'post-truth' reality since 1991 onward, and it started perhaps even before that.

The difference is that now large amounts of people are able to tell something's wrong, which they simply couldn't before due to the totality of the propaganda system.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Any return to "fairness" ideals would be treated as an assault on free speech. The dark corollary of free speech is the right to lie. So the only thing we can hope to do is to help people learn to seek truth. — Relativist

I think people generally prefer truth over lies, and they also absolutely hate being tricked, so at least there are natural forces which ought to nudge people towards truth.

The problem is, all sources of authority have adopted 'post-truth'; governments, international institutions, media, science - it's all tainted.

It appears the only way forward is for the common people to completely reject traditional sources of information, and rebuild the truth from the bottom up. I suppose it's just a matter of time before the house of cards comes tumbling down and people will be forced to do so.

What I'm about is some minimum degree responsibility and accountability, and in gentler times these things usually just flow. But not now. Where once folks were more-or-less responsible and accountable, now they're not. And either we have them or we don't. I say we should have them, and where folks deny them, to impose them. — tim wood

The issue is that the very governments who would impose on people are part of the problem. When was the last time you heard of a government holding itself accountable and acting responsibly?

On the subject of how individualism fostered the post-truth society, [...] — Christoffer

Surely you are aware of the questionable relationship history's various collectivist projects had with the truth? Hell, it was the commies who formed the OG post-truth societies.

Trump didn't cause the problem; he exploited it and exacerbated it. — Relativist

But so did the establishment media, no?

The establishment has dominated the media for decades. They have operated on 'post-truth' principles for just as long.

The difference is that now there are multiple actors operating on 'post-truth' principles and the resulting bullshit cacophony makes it impossible not to notice something is wrong.

I agree. Bernie would probably have comfortably won against Trump, even back in 2016, just because he is a normal man with normal views and seems to possess a moral backbone (a rarity in politics).

I spent some time wondering why the Democrats went with circus candidates instead of him, but then the obvious conclusion came: Bernie is just as big of a threat to the neocon establishment as Trump is.

The problem is that things like this becomes a foundation for conclusions that doesn't correlate with the specifics of the criticism. — Christoffer

The foundation of my opinion is intuition, and I am unashamed to admit it.

I don't expect anyone to take it seriously, but alas here we are.

Intuitions lead to investigations, and, lowe and behold, investigations lead to indications that something is fishy.

For example, let's stop the ongoing trend of nose jobs. The regret rate among patients is at an average 16.4%. Since this leads to mental health issues such as "Body Dysmorphic Disorder", depression, anxiety and "Post-Surgical Dissatisfaction" with many returning for correction that only deepens the problems, I suggest that we should ban nose jobs in society.

Why isn't this an equal issue in society seen as how many go through with it? — Christoffer

Yea, why isn't it? I would say the normalization of cosmetic surgery is a serious issue, actually. I can't think of anything more damaging to say to a young person than "You are, indeed, not good enough and we should mutilate you to make you better".

Do note that I said nothing about bans, but I'm glad my argument sounds authoritative enough that it would merit a ban. Just something to think about...

Why is it that transgender people gets this much critique? — Christoffer

I don't remember the last time "society" was being blamed for the high rates of suicide among recipients of cosmetic surgery.

That, and the fact that transgender viewpoints are finding their ways into children's classrooms which is obviously not where they belong.