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

[Gauthier]

Trump will recognize Russian annexation of Ukraine because he's strong on foreign policy unlike weak, effeminate Obama. *nod*

That's a wet dream that is purely conjecture and you know it.

Sure. Whatever helps with sleep at night.

[Indo-European Union]

The debate started with someone asking me if an economy with no regulation had ever worked (which was a deliberate misreading of what I was advocating anyway) - which obviously it has. I then responded with an example of it working.

No one said, "here is an example of an economy with no regulation not working, because x, y and z..." - they just said it didn't work and demanded I prove them wrong. Which is not quite what I've done in return, but, sure, I'm not going to run off and do serious research and quality writing for such people. Especially as they'll likely dismiss it with a single line anyway.

No, you didn't. You gave an example which you claimed, without evidence or argument:

a) had no regulation; and
b) worked.


I then provided evidence that (b) was false (the many, many major market crashes during the period in question), which you utterly ignored, and you continued to provide zero evidence or argument for your point.

I gave an example without links, to a rebut a position consisting of no links and no example.

I read your post and did not respond to it because it was not addressed to me.

[Uxupox]

What's the US interest in keeping Russians in East Ukraine from rejoining Russia? It seems like you guys are just acting out of spite at this point.

It is in the interests of all people to refuse to accept as legitimate the acquisition of territory by force. I'm sure a history buff like yourself doesn't need any explanation as to why.

Territory has been grabbed, taken or something similar by force since possibly before we huddled in tribal communities. It is sadly a normality.

[Indo-European Union]

What's the US interest in keeping Russians in East Ukraine from rejoining Russia? It seems like you guys are just acting out of spite at this point.

It is in the interests of all people to refuse to accept as legitimate the acquisition of territory by force. I'm sure a history buff like yourself doesn't need any explanation as to why.

The whole southern and western US was taken by force. Worked out OK.

[Lady Scylla]

What's the US interest in keeping Russians in East Ukraine from rejoining Russia? It seems like you guys are just acting out of spite at this point.

I just want a nuclear holocaust. The possibility leaves me in anticipation. *nodnod*

[Salandriagado]

No, you didn't. You gave an example which you claimed, without evidence or argument:

a) had no regulation; and
b) worked.


I then provided evidence that (b) was false (the many, many major market crashes during the period in question), which you utterly ignored, and you continued to provide zero evidence or argument for your point.

I gave an example without links, to a rebut a position consisting of no links and no example.

I read your post and did not respond to it because it was not addressed to me.

You appear to be failing to understand what "evidence" is. It is not a function of how many url tags you have in your post. I note that you have still failed to provide any evidence or argument in support of your claim.

[Indo-European Union]

What's the US interest in keeping Russians in East Ukraine from rejoining Russia? It seems like you guys are just acting out of spite at this point.

Russians taking eastern Ukraine makes them feel confident about taking more land. Why do we want Russia, with a kleptocratic president that's essentially a dictator, to take more land and feel confident that he can war and pillage whatever he wants?

At the very least, America and the EU (if the EU stops their love of Russian fuel) need to put sanctions on Russia.

EDIT: America loves Saudi oil, not Russian oil.

He's invading a bit of land that contains Russians. It's like if the US invaded Australia in response to a Chinese-backed coup and people in China started screaming "but what if they conquer Mongolia next?!!".

[Gauthier]

It is in the interests of all people to refuse to accept as legitimate the acquisition of territory by force. I'm sure a history buff like yourself doesn't need any explanation as to why.

Territory has been grabbed, taken or something similar by force since possibly before we huddled in tribal communities. It is sadly a normality.

But somehow Russia will be satisfied and not try for the rest of Ukraine.

[Lady Scylla]

its WEAK to build an international consensus that wrecks the Russian economy, dammit

its STRONG to talk tough (not that I think he will talk tough) and pretend that you will use your big stick.

Never did stop the Russian intervention in Syria as part of the pro-government force nor did it force the immediate Russian forces to withdraw from both Crimea and the Ukraine region.

The use of the "big stick" policy as termed by the our previous President Theodore Roosevelt only had resounding success in the areas that it was used.

I still wish we would have moved missiles onto Russia's door-step and started a stand-off.

[Uxupox]

Territory has been grabbed, taken or something similar by force since possibly before we huddled in tribal communities. It is sadly a normality.

But somehow Russia will be satisfied and not try for the rest of Ukraine.

How about facts and not assumptions?

[Uxupox]

Never did stop the Russian intervention in Syria as part of the pro-government force nor did it force the immediate Russian forces to withdraw from both Crimea and the Ukraine region.

The use of the "big stick" policy as termed by the our previous President Theodore Roosevelt only had resounding success in the areas that it was used.

I still wish we would have moved missiles onto Russia's door-step and started a stand-off.

I don't know about that... Could have kicked off Missile Crisis 2.0 or could have made them back off. Who knows.

[Lady Scylla]

Never did stop the Russian intervention in Syria as part of the pro-government force nor did it force the immediate Russian forces to withdraw from both Crimea and the Ukraine region.

The use of the "big stick" policy as termed by the our previous President Theodore Roosevelt only had resounding success in the areas that it was used.

did we TRY to stop Russian intervention in Syria? Russia has a long standing relationship with Syria.

I believe our role in trying to curb Russian involvement was by subsidizing Syrian rebels in the region with the hopes that Assad would be toppled.

[Indo-European Union]

I gave an example without links, to a rebut a position consisting of no links and no example.

I read your post and did not respond to it because it was not addressed to me.

You appear to be failing to understand what "evidence" is. It is not a function of how many url tags you have in your post. I note that you have still failed to provide any evidence or argument in support of your claim.

Evidence can be as simple as pointing to an historical event. I pointed to Great Britain 1700-1900. It was, indeed, close to stateless for a lot of that time, certainly for economic purpose, and while we can quibble about whether it was perfect, it was the leading state of its day, had a high level of culture, was politically stable, and prosperous by the technological standards of its time. So to the question of whether a state without economic regulation can work - albeit not whether it's the very best way to organise a state - the example of GB clearly shows the answer is "yes".

My opponents gave no evidence at all.

[Ashmoria]

Never did stop the Russian intervention in Syria as part of the pro-government force nor did it force the immediate Russian forces to withdraw from both Crimea and the Ukraine region.

The use of the "big stick" policy as termed by the our previous President Theodore Roosevelt only had resounding success in the areas that it was used.

I still wish we would have moved missiles onto Russia's door-step and started a stand-off.

probably not a good idea. we really don't have THAT much interest in keeping Russia out of the state it use to own.

[Lady Scylla]

I still wish we would have moved missiles onto Russia's door-step and started a stand-off.

I don't know about that... Could have kicked off Missile Crisis 2.0 or could have made them back off. Who knows.

Missile Crisis 2.0 wouldn't have been bad. I should elaborate that the goal I had in mind for such a measure was to facilitate a stall. Both sides would be forced to negotiate, and neither could move in fear of MAD.

[Ifreann]

It is in the interests of all people to refuse to accept as legitimate the acquisition of territory by force. I'm sure a history buff like yourself doesn't need any explanation as to why.

Territory has been grabbed, taken or something similar by force since possibly before we huddled in tribal communities. It is sadly a normality.

Okay.

So?

[Betoni]

What claim? I've noticed nobody else making any such claims; just plenty of people challenging yours. Which you still haven't provided the slightest evidence or argument for, I note.

The debate started with someone asking me if an economy with no regulation had ever worked (which was a deliberate misreading of what I was advocating anyway) - which obviously it has. I then responded with an example of it working.

No one said, "here is an example of an economy with no regulation not working, because x, y and z..." - they just said it didn't work and demanded I prove them wrong. Which is not quite what I've done in return, but, sure, I'm not going to run off and do serious research and quality writing for such people. Especially as they'll likely dismiss it with a single line anyway.

I realize this is a bit off topic and will make this the last post on the subject on my part. Just to clarify, I did ask for such an example. I did not say that it could not work ever in any situation. I did try to google search about it even before you replied and no I am not an expert on British history, I do believe I have the basics down though. I was merely interested in it and would have liked some sources that I could learn about it. I don't really care about winning the debate or that nonsense. Just found it unlikely that the British rise to dominance was mostly due to the relative lack of regulations or bureaucracy, history tends to be more complicated than that. Either way, this tangent is getting more and more off the topic so let's put an end to it.

On the Russia-Ukraine subject, it seems the right time for Kremlin to get a feel of how Trump will play his cards on that mess. As someone on the thread said earlier, it's likely that Trump will have his honeymoon with Russia over pretty quick. Obama and Bush tried to play nice too at the beginning of their terms. I do hope that the US at least nominally backs their European allies.

[Patridam]

Just going to leave this here.

ABC cuts out footage of JFK detainee saying he likes Donald Trump.

JFK detainee?

And ok? Not like they made a huge silly blanket ban that only makes people feel safer.

John F Kennedy International Airport. As in, the biggest airport serving New York City.

[Gauthier]

But somehow Russia will be satisfied and not try for the rest of Ukraine.

How about facts and not assumptions?

By the time facts set in it'll most likely be too late. No treaties signed, but damn if this doesn't look and rhyme an awful lot like the fiasco called the Munich Agreement.

[Indo-European Union]

did we TRY to stop Russian intervention in Syria? Russia has a long standing relationship with Syria.

I believe our role in trying to curb Russian involvement was by subsidizing Syrian rebels in the region with the hopes that Assad would be toppled.

You guys are hilariously evil.

[Seraven]

It is in the interests of all people to refuse to accept as legitimate the acquisition of territory by force. I'm sure a history buff like yourself doesn't need any explanation as to why.

Hm. I don't know. He was just touting about Britain during a certain... expansive era.

They were late...about seventy years, I assume.

did we TRY to stop Russian intervention in Syria? Russia has a long standing relationship with Syria.

I believe our role in trying to curb Russian involvement was by subsidizing Syrian rebels in the region with the hopes that Assad would be toppled.

We all know it wasn't a success story.

[Ashmoria]

But somehow Russia will be satisfied and not try for the rest of Ukraine.

How about facts and not assumptions?

there are no facts about the future. its always assumptions.

[Lady Scylla]

It is in the interests of all people to refuse to accept as legitimate the acquisition of territory by force. I'm sure a history buff like yourself doesn't need any explanation as to why.

Territory has been grabbed, taken or something similar by force since possibly before we huddled in tribal communities. It is sadly a normality.

A normality we do try and control now, at least for the 'common good' since a global conflict like the last two isn't something many, I would hope, would want.

[Lady Scylla]

I believe our role in trying to curb Russian involvement was by subsidizing Syrian rebels in the region with the hopes that Assad would be toppled.

You guys are hilariously evil.

Well. It's not like I try to hide the fact.

[Ashmoria]

did we TRY to stop Russian intervention in Syria? Russia has a long standing relationship with Syria.

I believe our role in trying to curb Russian involvement was by subsidizing Syrian rebels in the region with the hopes that Assad would be toppled.

well no

we tried to get fighters who would only target isis. turns out they all wanted to target assad as well as isis. that's why we spent ....many millions of dollars.. and only got 5 men trained.