Trump MAGAThread III: Steak, Vodka, Casinos, and America

[Farnhamia]

Jon Stewart on The Late Show again

I really think he needs to find a new show or something. His 'crazy Jon Stewart' act is getting old. Some of it was funny, especially when he and Colbert did the little riff on Carson's Karnak the Magnificent but the giant tie and the thing on his head were cringe-worthy.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

as long as we forget about the mongols since they literally are he exception in every strategy and philosophy. They attacked Russia in the winter, and WON

So did the Japanese.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Whoever knew that Nationstates was full of Ignorant liberals who play around in their little game of politics but know of nothing when it comes to real world political issues; Oh wait, just look at the WA and you can see it easily. Things are a lot more complicated in the real world than just selecting the best option presented. So far, Trump has done nothing but good. If he's done wrong, tell me, so I can argue it; oh, how I love to debate. I am a Libertarian Republican, so I tend to have bigger balls than the rest of the larger party, who is overly cautious about offending people because they are afraid it will negatively affect the vote count. I care about statistics and numbers, so if you can come at me with them, please do. I prefer to keep things civil. Please take this into account when debating with me over the philosophy of government and politics. Donald Trump, despite what the Liberals believe, legitimately won the presidency. We are not a Democracy as many Americans believe, but a Democratic Republic. Meaning, We vote on people to vote for us, a fair system which allows the minority to still have a voice.

I am not an "ignorant liberal" as you seem to call everyone who, apparently, disagrees with you, so I'll take you on this reply myself. Mind, I am also not that particularly nice, or classy, so you'll have to put up with that, given you're starting pretty strong by your statements which, so far, tell me that you only care to prove you're the biggest ball-busting Libertarian Republican patriot in the room. I don't particularly care, nor wish to care, about your particular philosophy of government and politics, as this election proved me right that opportunism beats philosophy; so I sincerely don't wish to understand yours, given that you approve of a man that goes directly against your "Libertarian" values, provided you have also kept track of Trump's more authoritarian tendencies when it comes to his staff and departments under the executive. As such, your title of Libertarian means nothing to me. I should also point out you should not be asking for classy replies when you yourself are saying you can dish it out. We'll see if that's true.

So far, I have seen Trump do several things I am not pleased by. Some of them because I am a Federalist, so I have biases. Others, because they were simply plain stupid. There are some good things I am okay with, like his ban for cabinet members for two years against lobbying once out of office, which given his cabinet picks, I see nothing lost, and his pick for SCOTUS so far. He made a wise choice. Also, the other thing I will commend is Mattis' appointment, even if others have pointed out their misgivings on ex-military leading the military.

On the things I particularly dislike, I particularly don't care about his campaign promises, because so far he has disappointed several groups of people who have voted for him for an issue, such as people who were not aware the ACA was really Obamacare. In regards of that, Obamacare is not a healthcare plan like Medicaid or Medicare, it is a mandate to get insurance on the market. Your girlfriend's parents could have gotten insurance through several providers in the market, but that is neither here nor there, as plenty of people are afraid of the sudden loss of their insurance that was easily provided through the ACA and the funds that are being attempted to be stripped away from states' healthcare plans.

The other thing I am not pleased by is the immigration ban from the 7 Muslim countries. Now, for context, I am not a heart-bleed liberal, so my particular concern with this is not that these countries were banned, in and of itself. That would be nuance-less, and I am not a man without nuance. My particular objection to his immigration ban is, for one, that he retroactively hit people who are green card holders and other visa holders, who are guaranteed rights since they are part of the jurisdiction of the United States. Second, his ban basically makes it so the only people who can come here are on the base of a religious test (or, in other words, religions who are persecuted but are also a minority in these countries). Third, as someone else mentioned before in this thread, it is taking the odd position of actually treating dual citizens as part of one of the countries hit by the ban, instead of treating them as Americans, which is against the 14th amendment of the constitution.

I am also displeased by the fact that he has managed to create a constitutional crisis the likes of Andrew Jackson, in which he is defying Federal court orders and hamfisting his poor attempt at making a meaningful legislation. Not to mention the ridiculous idea that, somehow, instating one regulation and taking away too as a way to reduce regulatory overhead from the Small Business Administration is simply that, ludicrous. Not to mention his bravado at the wall and then recanting on that and making us, Americans, pay for the wall. Oh he is threatening to make Mexico pay for it with tariffs and dismantling NAFTA, but that will hurt us, more than it will hurt Mexico.

Speaking of foreign issues, I am surprised that, for someone who claims to be America first, and ran on an isolationist campaign, did not stop the deployment of troops to Poland. I am also extremely displeased with him having Bannon and Miller as the ones handing him EOs they have drafted, not only that, but also putting Bannon as regular member of the National Security Council when Bannon is utterly incompetent in foreign and domestic affairs.

The Republican congressmen, furthermore, are not scared anymore about "displeasing" the broader audience. They never were scared to displease "liberals" honestly, nor minorities. They are now scared Donald Trump will not endorse them and they now have to be yes-men. I have never seen, in my short life, a bunch of more pathetic, spineless individuals in office. But that's okay, I already knew they were opportunistic men who don't care about values, but about their comfy chairs in congress.

I don't think you have anything to argue against those points, necessarily, since you seem to just love to be contrarian. So I will not be particularly surprised if you try to defend it by using sophomoric arguments, even though I have laid out, in a mature, albeit neither classy, nor nice, way, how I am displeased with Trump, and the very few things I am somewhat okay with.

[Indo-European Union]

You are kidding, right?

A university degree is vital to securing a position these days. There are very few jobs available to high-school only employees. You need a fucking Sanitation degree just to be a janitor and a garbage pick up man.

It's not, actually. In fact, what's screwed over a lot of people is this whole idea that if you don't go to university you'll be a failure. All it's resulted in is a surplus of people with degrees and massive amounts of debt.

Sure, it's almost impossible to find a decent job with just a high school diploma nowadays, but university isn't the answer by default. What more people should be looking into is trades. That's where the money's at.

Proving my point - you don't need a "sanitation degree" to work as a janitor, you might need a "sanitation degree" to get a job as a janitor. If the state banned "sanitation degrees", janitors would not be any worse at their jobs but would enjoy a higher standard of living. So there is a strong public welfare argument for banning "sanitation degrees" - and most other degrees.

[Indo-European Union]

1. the worst people couldn't afford a boat fare

2. you couldn't naturalise unless you were Caucasian or African

Except in 1900, it was poor Greeks, Poles, Russians, and Italians who were viewed as the menace to America and its predominately Anglo-Saxon culture, just as the hated Irish had been a few decades earlier.

Which just goes to show how much your standards have dropped.

And the view that dangerous elements (back then it was "anarchists" rather than "terrorists") were embedded in this immigrant tide was every bit as strong as it is today (if not even more so). See the infamous case of Sacco and Vanzetti, as well as the First Red Scare.

Excluding communists and communists-by-other-names from America was reasonable.

[Indo-European Union]

What Western bureaucracy doesn't claim to be both?

That doesn't answer the question at all. Claims aside, where - specifically - has transparency and good structure been tried and failed?

No True Scotsman.

You are proposing the system: you have to show it worked somewhere else, and if it worked nowhere else in history, the assumption is that it's impossible or highly unlikely, not that it's as good as certain to happen in your country.

[Betoni]

That doesn't answer the question at all. Claims aside, where - specifically - has transparency and good structure been tried and failed?

No True Scotsman.

You are proposing the system: you have to show it worked somewhere else, and if it worked nowhere else in history, the assumption is that it's impossible or highly unlikely, not that it's as good as certain to happen in your country.

Um, so you want to get rid of all bureaucracy and regulation? When did that system work?

[Indo-European Union]

No True Scotsman.

You are proposing the system: you have to show it worked somewhere else, and if it worked nowhere else in history, the assumption is that it's impossible or highly unlikely, not that it's as good as certain to happen in your country.

Um, so you want to get rid of all bureaucracy and regulation? When did that system work?

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

[Philjia]

Um, so you want to get rid of all bureaucracy and regulation? When did that system work?

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

Of course, the colossal deprivation, lack of adequate sanitation, and so on were just peachy.

[Alvecia]

Um, so you want to get rid of all bureaucracy and regulation? When did that system work?

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

This came up in the Unions thread, I'd like to clarify.
Is production the only, or most important, metric which you use to determine a society's success?

[Camicon]

Indentations are not a literary device, they are a stylistic choice, and they go largely unused on this forum.

Paragraphs, on the other hand...

Then why complain that my seven sentence paragraph was not formed correctly? (By the way I just noticed your flag and I love it)

Because your seven sentence paragraph should really have been split into two or three.

[Socialist Nordia]

as long as we forget about the mongols since they literally are he exception in every strategy and philosophy. They attacked Russia in the winter, and WON

So did the Japanese.

[Alvecia]

So did the Japanese.

Eh. Given the Soviet propensity to treat their troops like equipment, I don't think you can accurately state whether a war involving them was won or lost purely on the loss of manpower.

[Costa Fierro]

So did the Japanese.

Finland still lost FYI.

[Betoni]

Um, so you want to get rid of all bureaucracy and regulation? When did that system work?

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

Did Great Britain have less regulation and bureaucracy than other nations at the time? They most likely didn't have the same regulations or the type of bureaucracy that, say the US, has now. In what way, did their system work better than what the US has now? Can you actually measure that in any meaningful way?

[Philjia]

Reuters/Ipsos: "Only 31% of Americans think the travel ban will make them safer".

[Salandriagado]

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

Did Great Britain have less regulation and bureaucracy than other nations at the time? They most likely didn't have the same regulations or the type of bureaucracy that, say the US, has now. In what way, did their system work better than what the US has now? Can you actually measure that in any meaningful way?

1720, 1769, 1772, 1791, 1796, 1825, 1847, 1866, and 1873 all had major market crashes that modern financial regulations exist specifically to prevent repeats of.

[Philjia]

Did Great Britain have less regulation and bureaucracy than other nations at the time? They most likely didn't have the same regulations or the type of bureaucracy that, say the US, has now. In what way, did their system work better than what the US has now? Can you actually measure that in any meaningful way?

1720, 1769, 1772, 1791, 1796, 1825, 1847, 1866, and 1873 all had major market crashes that modern financial regulations exist specifically to prevent repeats of.

The rise to power of our first proper Prime Minister was precipitated by his role in the investigation into the South Sea Bubble and the collapse of the government's finances.

[Lady Scylla]

Eh. Given the Soviet propensity to treat their troops like equipment, I don't think you can accurately state whether a war involving them was won or lost purely on the loss of manpower.

Plus. The Finns are nuts. 'Let's take frozen soviet bodies and stick them up'

I do like FInland and the Finnish though. Such a quirky country.

[Lady Scylla]

Finland still lost FYI.

Ehh, they avoided a take over. But they did cede land sadly. But we digress.

[Indo-European Union]

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

Of course, the colossal deprivation, lack of adequate sanitation, and so on were just peachy.

Marxist insanity. Britain had the most prosperous population and best sanitation of any country in history in that time. (which is not true today)

[Lady Scylla]

Of course, the colossal deprivation, lack of adequate sanitation, and so on were just peachy.

Marxist insanity. Britain had the most prosperous population and best sanitation of any country in history in that time. (which is not true today)

Ah, yes. Britain at the height of the Industrial Revolution. Where cholera took our children, and work took our old.

[Indo-European Union]

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

This came up in the Unions thread, I'd like to clarify.
Is production the only, or most important, metric which you use to determine a society's success?

What other metric do you choose - scientific leadership, artistic accomplishment, social harmony? Of all those, production is perhaps the only one on which our current society can claim primary (of course, only due to greater technical knowledge, and imported processes). We've lost a lot more than just our economic leadership; probably more than people born today can ever truly comprehend.

[Indo-European Union]

To a close approximation, Great Britain 1700-1900.

Did Great Britain have less regulation and bureaucracy than other nations at the time?

Yes.

[Ifreann]

Of course, the colossal deprivation, lack of adequate sanitation, and so on were just peachy.

Marxist insanity. Britain had the most prosperous population and best sanitation of any country in history in that time. (which is not true today)

It was the tea. Once everyone started drinking tea, which required boiling their water, they became much healthier.

Course, these days we have water treatment plants.