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

[Cymrea]

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.

Yeah, no.

[Community Values]

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.

If there's a conflict in Ukraine that expands into general war, then America will be involved, with troops instead of diplomats. I don't want US troops to waste their lives in Ukraine, so I'd rather solve the problem now before there is general war. If that takes America caring now, it's not like it costs us that much.

Imagine if your ilk lived in other times. "Germany is just trying to get its land back", "Why should we care about the Holocaust? It's not our country"

[Alvecia]

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.

Here's a list of stock market crashes. You can follow the blue underlined text under the "names" category to view information on that particular crash.
The "country" category has a handy little British flag for each of the ones occuring in Britain. The "date" category lists when it happened

[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.

Here's a list of stock market crashes. You can follow the blue underlined text under the "names" category to view information on that particular crash.
The "country" category has a handy little British flag for each of the ones occuring in Britain. The "date" category lists when it happened

Count how many happened in Britain between 1700 and 1900 according to this list, and how many happened in the USA between 1980 and 2017 according to this list, and report your findings.

[Indo-European Union]

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.

If there's a conflict in Ukraine that expands into general war, then America will be involved, with troops instead of diplomats. I don't want US troops to waste their lives in Ukraine, so I'd rather solve the problem now before there is general war. If that takes America caring now, it's not like it costs us that much.

Imagine if your ilk lived in other times. "Germany is just trying to get its land back", "Why should we care about the Holocaust? It's not our country"

Or indeed, "Why should I care some Archduke was shot in Sarajevo?"

[Alvecia]

Here's a list of stock market crashes. You can follow the blue underlined text under the "names" category to view information on that particular crash.
The "country" category has a handy little British flag for each of the ones occuring in Britain. The "date" category lists when it happened

Count how many happened in Britain between 1700 and 1900 according to this list, and how many happened in the USA between 1980 and 2017 according to this list, and report your findings.

I've got them both at 7.
Alternatively, I've got them both at above 0
Alternatively alternatively I've got the UK at 4 more in that time period compared to 1900-present.
Alternatively alternatively alternatively I've got them happening at roughly the same rate. Depending on whether or not you consider the increased globalisation of today's era compared to then increasing the risk of market failure happening to one person affecting everyone else making markets more vunerable. Comparitavely meaning todays markets crash less.

Bringing it back to the original point of regulations, it seems that an increase in regulations doesn't seem to negatively impact the market, while at the same time providing civil liberties to workers and preventing large corporate exploitation.

My finding are that regulations are a good thing.

[Community Values]

If there's a conflict in Ukraine that expands into general war, then America will be involved, with troops instead of diplomats. I don't want US troops to waste their lives in Ukraine, so I'd rather solve the problem now before there is general war. If that takes America caring now, it's not like it costs us that much.

Imagine if your ilk lived in other times. "Germany is just trying to get its land back", "Why should we care about the Holocaust? It's not our country"

Or indeed, "Why should I care some Archduke was shot in Sarajevo?"

So, would you have supported the sovereignty of Germany to take back their historical lands, with the risk that they would take more, and then kill their own people?

[Indo-European Union]

Count how many happened in Britain between 1700 and 1900 according to this list, and how many happened in the USA between 1980 and 2017 according to this list, and report your findings.

I've got them both at 7.

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

[Indo-European Union]

Or indeed, "Why should I care some Archduke was shot in Sarajevo?"

So, would you have supported the sovereignty of Germany to take back their historical lands, with the risk that they would take more, and then kill their own people?

If we'd let Germany and the USSR annex Poland the historical outcome would also have been better (though people don't like to think about that so much, for whatever reason). WWII was a horrible disaster that blew up in our faces, and left us weaker than we entered, and with more not less of the world under totalitarian control.

[Community Values]

So, would you have supported the sovereignty of Germany to take back their historical lands, with the risk that they would take more, and then kill their own people?

If we'd let Germany and the USSR annex Poland the historical outcome would also have been better (though people don't like to think about that so much, for whatever reason). WWII was a horrible disaster that blew up in our faces, and left us weaker than we entered, and with more not less of the world under totalitarian control.

Do you have any proof that Hitler intended to stop after Poland?

They didn't stop after Austria or Czechoslovakia.

[Cymrea]

So, would you have supported the sovereignty of Germany to take back their historical lands, with the risk that they would take more, and then kill their own people?

If we'd let Germany and the USSR annex Poland the historical outcome would also have been better...

Citation needed.

[Vassenor]

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.

You've been here for less than two days. You don't really have any cause to be setting rules.

[Indo-European Union]

If we'd let Germany and the USSR annex Poland the historical outcome would also have been better (though people don't like to think about that so much, for whatever reason). WWII was a horrible disaster that blew up in our faces, and left us weaker than we entered, and with more not less of the world under totalitarian control.

Do you have any proof that Hitler intended to stop after Poland?

They didn't stop after Austria or Czechoslovakia.

I never said he intended to stop after Poland. At worst, he'd have started the war with France himself and the war would have gone as historical. But that's the point: what actually happened was the worst-case scenario.

[Indo-European Union]

Then by General rules, u lose.

You've been here for less than two days. You don't really have any cause to be setting rules.

I never claimed to be able to set them. Others said the rule was to cite claims (even though I never saw anyone else do so - only been here 2 days I guess!) and he refused to do so.

[Community Values]

Do you have any proof that Hitler intended to stop after Poland?

They didn't stop after Austria or Czechoslovakia.

I never said he intended to stop after Poland. At worst, he'd have started the war with France himself and the war would have gone as historical. But that's the point: what actually happened was the worst-case scenario.

And the proof is..?

BTW, would you not care about the holocaust since it was in Germany and didn't concern you?

[Betoni]

I've got them both at 7.

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

Umh, can't resist. You count the 9/11 crash as a meaningful data to support your argument that regulations are bad?

[Cymrea]

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

Umh, can't resist. You count the 9/11 crash as a meaningful data to support your argument that regulations are bad?

Gotta justify the baity insults somehow, right?

[Cymrea]

You've been here for less than two days. You don't really have any cause to be setting rules.

I never claimed to be able to set them. Others said the rule was to cite claims (even though I never saw anyone else do so - only been here 2 days I guess!) and he refused to do so.

If we'd let Germany and the USSR annex Poland the historical outcome would also have been better...

Citation needed.

^^^

[The Blue Flag Republic]

I've got them both at 7.

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

That's a correlation. It's hardly proof of your postulate, and there's more factors at hand than just regulations.

[Alvecia]

I've got them both at 7.

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

Nah, appears I can't read instead. Missed your comment about "and how many happened in the USA between 1980 and 2017 according to this list", just focused on the first bit.

I think we have plenty evidence to state that it is likely that regulation are not the cause there. Take my earlier point about the lack of impact on the UK market.
If regulations were the cause, we'd see an effect in Britain as well. By pointing out how America has changed, and the UK hasn't despite both increasing their regulations, you've provided evidence that regulations are not the cause.

Also, no need to be so rude.

[Indo-European Union]

I never claimed to be able to set them. Others said the rule was to cite claims (even though I never saw anyone else do so - only been here 2 days I guess!) and he refused to do so.

Citation needed.

^^^

How can I possibly cite that? Do you think there is some "Choose Your Own Adventure" book for the universe that tells what would happen in counterfactual histories?

[Indo-European Union]

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

Nah, appears I can't read instead. Missed your comment about "and how many happened in the USA between 1980 and 2017 according to this list", just focused on the first bit.

I think we have plenty evidence to state that it is likely that regulation are not the cause there.

Whatever. You said the number of crashes was itself evidence: now you admit it isn't. Or evidence in the other direction. Now you have to try to explain away why there are way more crises under regulation even though regulation reduces crises. Whatever.

[Indo-European Union]

Then you can't count.

The list gives 7 happening in Britain in the 200 years between 1700 and 1900, and 9+4 happening in the US in the 37 years between 1980 and 2017 (9 with flag, plus 4 described as "global" without flags).

So according to this evidence, which you are so clownishly lazy you clearly didn't even bother to read, the regulatory state has increased the rate of stock market crashes more than ten times!

That's a correlation. It's hardly proof of your postulate, and there's more factors at hand than just regulations.

Your post should be addressed to him. It was his choice of evidence and argument. I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't say what he thought it would.

[Cymrea]

^^^

How can I possibly cite that? Do you think there is some "Choose Your Own Adventure" book for the universe that tells what would happen in counterfactual histories?

This is your response after you decide someone else loses for not providing a source, then you refuse to do the same thing?

Then don't make claims you can't back.

[Pergamon Politeia]

it s the "italian illness", you ll learn it with time, and then come and say "it was that, how blatant and simple that was, we should have studied other countries histories also"