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

[Ashmoria]

Russia has formally charged 2 former security officials and a top cybersecurity expert with treason.

Charged for hacking...or for letting Americans catch them hacking?

maybe charged for leaking the info in the trump peepee dossier.

[Indo-European Union]

I would ordinarily be inclined to disbelieve those claims, but since you carefully and meticulously supported them with detailed argument and primary source references, I cannot do so, and have been fully persuaded to your point of view. Well played, sir.

I've already listed a vast number of economic disasters that occurred during the period. Several of those disasters, many of which were at the start of the period resulted in significant economic regulations. See, for example, the outcomes of the South Sea Bubble (the first of those in my list).

You never provided any citation for "disasters" let alone that GB was "utterly and completely disastrous". Cite UK GDP per capita in 1700 and 1900. Cite it as a percentage of the world average.

[Cymrea]

Russia essentially already owns the Russian bits of Georgia, the whole of Belarus, and eastern Ukraine - you want war over that? I don't see what possible benefit the US would derive from that that is worth the cost, and since Russia is nuclear you'd fail anyway. Same arguments apply the other way with respect to Russia invading Latvia, so it's not going to happen.

We should just let Russia take whatever they want, for fear of a war over which we have no direct stake - just the intrisic one of the integrity of sovereignty. Fuck 'em, cuz they're not us.

[Indo-European Union]

You started talking about maximising legitimacy, now minimising deaths in the short term. Which is it? The way to minimise deaths in the short term is pretty much always to accept the status quo.

Unless the status quo is currently encompassed by such deaths. I doubt anyone in Syria thinks that the current state of affairs is one they'd like to continually exist.

I bet a lot of them would prefer it to eternal war, or war followed by state failure like in Libya, or war followed by Islamic theocracy. Old, stable dictatorships are very rarely blood baths.

[Indo-European Union]

Russia essentially already owns the Russian bits of Georgia, the whole of Belarus, and eastern Ukraine - you want war over that? I don't see what possible benefit the US would derive from that that is worth the cost, and since Russia is nuclear you'd fail anyway. Same arguments apply the other way with respect to Russia invading Latvia, so it's not going to happen.

We should just let Russia take whatever they want, for fear of a war over which we have no direct stake - just the intrisic one of the integrity of sovereignty. Fuck 'em, cuz they're not us.

They want to be part of Russia: mostly they're Russians, just living somewhere else as a result of an accident of how borders were after the fall of the USSR.

You're fighting for yourselves, over a goal of no value to yourselves. Why fight at all? You know you can just make your soldiers play Russian Roulette around a bonfire of greenbacks instead.

[Community Values]

Naw, it'd be more like Germany declaring that the Sudetenland is their's because there's a sizable German minority there, and then Chamberlain appeasing them and calling it "Peace in our time".

But duh, Russia will obviously stop its warmongering ways right after it takes eastern Ukraine... And Georgia... And Eastern Latvia... And the Russian minorities in Belarus.

And Chamberlain's action wasn't unreasonable. The vast majority of territory grabs - especially of people who want their territory to be part of the invading country anyway - have not blown up into cataclysmic wars.

Russia essentially already owns the Russian bits of Georgia, the whole of Belarus, and eastern Ukraine - you want war over that? I don't see what possible benefit the US would derive from that that is worth the cost, and since Russia is nuclear you'd fail anyway. Same arguments apply the other way with respect to Russia invading Latvia, so it's not going to happen.

No, war is bad. Russia is a fox that will keep eating what it can until you scare it off with fire. AKA, we don't appease Russia and we punish them for their actions with sanctions until they get the point that maybe they don't support Novorossiya.

[Gauthier]

Russia has formally charged 2 former security officials and a top cybersecurity expert with treason.

Charged for hacking...or for letting Americans catch them hacking?

maybe charged for leaking the info in the trump peepee dossier.

Leaking... peepee...

[Ashmoria]

Russia essentially already owns the Russian bits of Georgia, the whole of Belarus, and eastern Ukraine - you want war over that? I don't see what possible benefit the US would derive from that that is worth the cost, and since Russia is nuclear you'd fail anyway. Same arguments apply the other way with respect to Russia invading Latvia, so it's not going to happen.

We should just let Russia take whatever they want, for fear of a war over which we have no direct stake - just the intrisic one of the integrity of sovereignty. Fuck 'em, cuz they're not us.

I would suggest considering "the profit" in anything that trump might do. if the US gets nothing for dropping sanctions SOMEONE ELSE does.

[Indo-European Union]

And Chamberlain's action wasn't unreasonable. The vast majority of territory grabs - especially of people who want their territory to be part of the invading country anyway - have not blown up into cataclysmic wars.

Russia essentially already owns the Russian bits of Georgia, the whole of Belarus, and eastern Ukraine - you want war over that? I don't see what possible benefit the US would derive from that that is worth the cost, and since Russia is nuclear you'd fail anyway. Same arguments apply the other way with respect to Russia invading Latvia, so it's not going to happen.

No, war is bad. Russia is a fox that will keep eating what it can until you scare it off with fire. AKA, we don't appease Russia and we punish them for their actions with sanctions until they get the point that maybe you don't support Novorossiya.

What's the evidence for that? Only thing they ate was a bit of land that is populated by their people, wants to be part of them, and was only not part of them because of an accident of history. None of that would matter of course if you had a military alliance with Ukraine - but you don't.

[Ifreann]

Not for all the people who died in the process.

Mexican-Americans exist. Clearly Mexico should reclaim the Southwest. >.>

America is so full of Irish people that it is clearly our rightful clay.

---

Not for all the people who died in the process.

You started talking about maximising legitimacy,

No I didn't.

now minimising deaths in the short term. Which is it? The way to minimise deaths in the short term is pretty much always to accept the status quo.

Do you really not understand this? Maybe you want to read up on the history of the world since the second World War. I understand that you don't think that people should engage in discussion on topics they're not well versed in.

[Ashmoria]

maybe charged for leaking the info in the trump peepee dossier.

Leaking... peepee...

*give gauth the look*

IF these men are in trouble for leaking then that freaking dossier is TRUE.

[Cymrea]

We should just let Russia take whatever they want, for fear of a war over which we have no direct stake - just the intrisic one of the integrity of sovereignty. Fuck 'em, cuz they're not us.

They want to be part of Russia: mostly they're Russians, just living somewhere else as a result of an accident of how borders were after the fall of the USSR.

You're fighting for yourselves, over a goal of no value to yourselves. Why fight at all? You know you can just make your soldiers play Russian Roulette around a bonfire of greenbacks instead.

Then that fractional minority can move to Russia, presuming they aren't simply agitators put in place to provide an excuse for stealing local assets. Simply annexing pieces of other nations for the sake of a small group of alleged ethnic Russians is wrong.

[Indo-European Union]

They want to be part of Russia: mostly they're Russians, just living somewhere else as a result of an accident of how borders were after the fall of the USSR.

You're fighting for yourselves, over a goal of no value to yourselves. Why fight at all? You know you can just make your soldiers play Russian Roulette around a bonfire of greenbacks instead.

Then that fractional minority can move to Russia, presuming they aren't simply agitators put in place to provide an excuse for stealing local assets. Simply annexing pieces of other nations for the sake of a small group of alleged ethnic Russians is wrong.

Also a perfectly acceptable solution.

My question is why does Joe American give enough of a damn whether the people or the border moves in some distant scrap of land to fight the world's second most powerful country over it?

And it's not a small group, it's the majority.

[Community Values]

No, war is bad. Russia is a fox that will keep eating what it can until you scare it off with fire. AKA, we don't appease Russia and we punish them for their actions with sanctions until they get the point that maybe you don't support Novorossiya.

What's the evidence for that? Only thing they ate was a bit of land that is populated by their people, wants to be part of them, and was only not part of them because of an accident of history. None of that would matter of course if you had a military alliance with Ukraine - but you don't.

There's no evidence for it, as we haven't tried it yet. Surprisingly enough though, I think that Russia might back down when they don't get to sell their stuff to Europe anymore, or get to buy things from America. But how's this for evidence: I can cite other situations where people want land because history had made an accident with borders. And let me tell you, they did not stop at their historical borders when they got them.

[Ashmoria]

Then that fractional minority can move to Russia, presuming they aren't simply agitators put in place to provide an excuse for stealing local assets. Simply annexing pieces of other nations for the sake of a small group of alleged ethnic Russians is wrong.

Also a perfectly acceptable solution.

My question is why does Joe American give enough of a damn whether the people or the border moves in some distant scrap of land to fight the world's second most powerful country over it?

And it's not a small group, it's the majority.

geeez

its the greater question of WHATS NEXT? if we let Russia take what it will how will we stop them from taking ANYTHING?

the Russian sanctions don't hurt US.

[Cymrea]

Then that fractional minority can move to Russia, presuming they aren't simply agitators put in place to provide an excuse for stealing local assets. Simply annexing pieces of other nations for the sake of a small group of alleged ethnic Russians is wrong.

Also a perfectly acceptable solution.

My question is why does Joe American give enough of a damn whether the people or the border moves in some distant scrap of land to fight the world's second most powerful country over it?

And it's not a small group, it's the majority.

Russia inserts a division of "locals" into the area, then claims it's a majority. Sassy.

Because perhaps Joe American gives a fuck about something beyond his own self-interest. At least some Americans do.

[Indo-European Union]

What's the evidence for that? Only thing they ate was a bit of land that is populated by their people, wants to be part of them, and was only not part of them because of an accident of history. None of that would matter of course if you had a military alliance with Ukraine - but you don't.

There's no evidence for it, as we haven't tried it yet. Surprisingly enough, I think that Russia might back down when they don't get to sell their stuff to Europe anymore, or get to buy things from America. But how's this for evidence: I can cite other situations where people want land because history had made an accident with borders. And let me tell you, they did not stop at their historical borders when they got them.

So do you think that Russia will invade the whole of Ukraine? Easy: give a defence guarantee to the bit of Ukraine they haven't invaded yet!

[Indo-European Union]

Also a perfectly acceptable solution.

My question is why does Joe American give enough of a damn whether the people or the border moves in some distant scrap of land to fight the world's second most powerful country over it?

And it's not a small group, it's the majority.

geeez

its the greater question of WHATS NEXT? if we let Russia take what it will how will we stop them from taking ANYTHING?

the Russian sanctions don't hurt US.

Yes what next - what if we don't stop Indonesia invading Western New Guinea, soon they're gonna invade the whole WOOOORRLLLDD!!

[Vassenor]

Guess the GOP really does hate democracy after all.

[Ashmoria]

geeez

its the greater question of WHATS NEXT? if we let Russia take what it will how will we stop them from taking ANYTHING?

the Russian sanctions don't hurt US.

Yes what next - what if we don't stop Indonesia invading Western New Guinea, soon they're gonna invade the whole WOOOORRLLLDD!!

that is a useless response.

[Gauthier]

Guess the GOP really does hate democracy after all.

Sneering at Democrats in 3... 2... 1...

[Community Values]

There's no evidence for it, as we haven't tried it yet. Surprisingly enough, I think that Russia might back down when they don't get to sell their stuff to Europe anymore, or get to buy things from America. But how's this for evidence: I can cite other situations where people want land because history had made an accident with borders. And let me tell you, they did not stop at their historical borders when they got them.

So do you think that Russia will invade the whole of Ukraine? Easy: give a defence guarantee to the bit of Ukraine they haven't invaded yet!

No, I don't. At least, not right now. But maybe if they feel there would be no consequences for invasion they would.

So instead, maybe we should give a large "fuck you" instead of allowing them to rectify the "ugly product of the Ukrainian referendum"

[Indo-European Union]

So do you think that Russia will invade the whole of Ukraine? Easy: give a defence guarantee to the bit of Ukraine they haven't invaded yet!

No, I don't. At least, not right now. But maybe if they feel there would be no consequences for invasion they would.

So instead, maybe we should give a large "fuck you" instead of allowing them to rectify the "ugly product of the Ukrainian referendum"

Why do you even care? It's like a Mississippian complaining about the crime rate in downtown Honolulu. I guess it's bad? In a vague sense? But really what's it even got to do with you? In the 80s, it was about beating the commies. That was important because the commies had serious credibility, support in America, even militias in America that could e.g. bomb the Pentagon. But today Russia is just yet another strong man state, with more capability than most but far less than most of its neighbours. Russia isn't doing anything new that is truly frightening. What it has done, you can't undo. And the one useful thing you could do - make Ukraine small and homogeneous enough that it could join NATO and the EU - you won't do. Crazy.

[Salandriagado]

I've already listed a vast number of economic disasters that occurred during the period. Several of those disasters, many of which were at the start of the period resulted in significant economic regulations. See, for example, the outcomes of the South Sea Bubble (the first of those in my list).

You never provided any citation for "disasters" let alone that GB was "utterly and completely disastrous". Cite UK GDP per capita in 1700 and 1900. Cite it as a percentage of the world average.

I feel no need to do so, given that you've provided not even the flimsiest of arguments in favour of your assertions.

[Indo-European Union]

You never provided any citation for "disasters" let alone that GB was "utterly and completely disastrous". Cite UK GDP per capita in 1700 and 1900. Cite it as a percentage of the world average.

I feel no need to do so, given that you've provided not even the flimsiest of arguments in favour of your assertions.

Then by General rules, u lose.