Ryan Miller

Poll of the day

Also, keep in mind that when I said "on the brink of collapse", I mean a scenario in which a bank doesn't haven't enough money to deposit money to the people (those who put money in the bank) simply because the bank has been handing out loans and and such. There are many other reasons why banks fail but this is simply one (I'm terrible at explaining things so). Any 2008 flashbacks anyone?

6 hours ago, Lordship said:

Have you seen france's arsenal?

http://bevbarnes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/White-Flag.jpg

Brah, it took a coalition to take down France. France even won a war while it was in a middle of a revolution (War of the First Coalition).

Rules:

1. No nukes (as always)

2. NATO doesn't any nation by declaring war etc.

3. Other nations can still sell weapons to a party, but can't help by declaring war

4. A win for any party would mean total destruction of the other party's military

Think of it like this. Imagine the person you hate the most. Both of you are in a room together and there is this collar on your neck. You also have a button when activated, the other person with a collar with die. However, the catch is that the other person will be notified about this and is given 1 hour to live before that person dies.

For an example, if you press the button, the other person has 1 hour to live, and dies. However, the other person can press the button too because he/she still has 1 hour to live.

This mentality is kinda like the nuclear deterrence one. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had the ability to destroy one another, however the other party would know about this and most likely destroy you too.

It's either yes because it prevents wars or no because there is a risk of us being in a nuclear holocaust. Or other things...

Poll of the day

For me, the European Union helps establish unity and prosperity within Europe. It helps unite countries under one strong identity. With the EU, it's economy can rival that to the United States and at the same time make its members stand a little taller against Russia. Sure the EU is in a mess right now, but eventually the EU will be remember as a force to be reckoned with.

.

Another poll about war. This time, it is Saudi Arabia and Iran. But first, here are a couple of rules.

Rules

1. No allies included that means the US won't be helping out Saudi Arabia or vise versa

2. By win, I mean until the military of one side is completely destroyed, or one side voluntarily surrenders

11 hours ago, Lilac said:

I don't know my US history, did the colonies that formed the USA (and complained about taxes) benefit from the land and resources gained from the French? Are these territories part of the US now or part of Canada?

Well, tbh the British Empire surely benefited from what they gained after the 7 Years War (in North America). They got control over the fur trade that was happening where the mid western states are today (like Michigan and Ohio). However, the colonists didn't benefit much because they were prohibited from settling past the Appalachian Mountains. Here is a map of the Eastern United States.

Where you see that red line is where the Appalachian Mountains are and the colonists weren't allowed to settled past that due to the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Today, most of that territory is part of the United States but some of it is part of Canada.

2 hours ago, Kazimierz the Great said:

I do believe EU would win tbh. Russia's population is dwindling, the population as it is, is spread out thin over the country (although mobilization could do something), and their resources aren't at their best. Plus, if all of the EU would get involved, then most likely NATO would get involved, meaning the US would get involved as well.

 

^{_{Plus, Poland wants revenge.}}

While it is almost certain that NATO would be involved, I'm just asking if it was just between the EU and Russia. The only rules are no nukes, and no outside assistance (allies such as the US). But if NATO were to be involved, without nukes, Russia would lose.

Context

Every since European colonial powers have colonized the American continent, they began to compete against each other for control. Control over the American continent. To speed things up, in 1756, the 7 Years War broke out and the British Empire saw itself at war with its rivals, France and Spain. The 7 Years War has many names, but in North America, the British really wanted to control the fur trade in the regions that the French owned the land. Eventually, the British won and gained land from mostly the French.

However, with war comes huge war debt. The war was costly as it was fought all over the globe (there was a lot of fighting in Europe along with colonies of the colonial powers). In order to pay of the war debt, the British imposed taxes on American colonists living in North America. Some of the taxes that the British Parliament imposed were tea (Tea Act of 1773), stamps (Stamp Act of 1765), paint, lead, copper (Townshend Acts of 1767), and much more.

American colonists soon became angry with all of these taxes being put on them, mostly because they had no representation in Parliament. This would give the iconic phrase "No taxation without representation". This would eventually lead to the start of the American Revolutionary War.

Arguments

First, let's start off with why people would think that the British taxes on American colonists wasn't justified. For starters, the colonists had no representation in Parliament and thus had no voice to pass their own laws that would affect them. Keep in mind that these American colonists were still English citizens and thus should've had representation in Parliament. However, Parliament decided no instead and as a result enraged the colonists.

Another reason was that the American colonists shouldn't have to pay English wars, especially if it means having to raise taxes in the process. The British had no right to tax the American colonists so much. If they were going to tax the colonists, they shouldn't have taxed them on goods that the colonists had a high demand on such as paint, lead, and especially tea.

Last but not least for why the taxes weren't justified was because the British should've at least helped the American colonists on paying the war debt. The colonists shouldn't had done it alone and the taxes were probably too high. The British should've raised taxes on the British Isles as well instead of just increasing taxes on the colonists by a lot.

Arguments (Yes)

One of the reasons why people would think that the British taxes on colonists were justified was because even though if the colonists were aloud to be represented in Parliament, that probably wouldn't be enough to influence policies other wise. American colonists would probably only get around 15 seats in parliament compared to around 600 at the time.

Another one was that it was kinda ridiculous having to send representatives from one continent to the British Isles, especially if there is an ocean in the way. The distance between the British North American colonies was just too far away to keep sending representatives from the colonies to Parliament. It would take a lot of time to do so and thus was seen as unnecessary.

Lastly, the taxes were justified because the colonists had much lower taxes than that back in the British Isles. In the colonies, the colonists would pay 2 shillings for a stamp while in the British Isles, they would be paying around 26 shillings just for the same stamp. Therefor, if would only be fair to tax the American colonists more just to help pay for the war debt that they gained from the 7 Years War.

Conclusion

So, after hearing the arguments, what do you think? Do you think that the British taxes on American colonists were justified or not? Why or why not?

For me, it would be the EU, in the long run. Russia does have a strong military presence and the fact that they have a large oil reserves, but that advantage wouldn't last long. Russia's economy right now is incredibly weak compared to the combined economy of the EU. Even Italy has a much higher GDP than Russia. What I'm saying is that Russia would have the upper hand in that war, but would eventually lose a long term endeavor against the EU. I could go on with Russia having a large number of tanks (more than the US), but again, the EU can chip away this early advantage due to a much stronger economy.

This is just a fun experiment. I like trying new things so why not. Who do you think would win in a war between the European Union and Russia.

First, when I say the European Union, I'm still including the UK. Technically, they are still part of the EU (as of when this poll was created), it's just that they are in the process of leaving. Also, we won't be counting nuclear weapons because if we do, nobody would win (Europe would just be an influence for the next Fallout games). We also won't be counting any allies of these two combatants. That means that you won't be seeing the US helping the EU in a war against Russia, it's just between the EU and Russia.

Maybe the government could just pay for majors in science, health, etc. Basically, making education for those majors much cheaper and thus more students would be enrolled in those fields.

Hello there

For me, I can speak English (bruh), I'm somewhat fluent enough to understand simple conversations in French, and I understand Tagalog (language of the Philippines). I'm currently studying German at my high school.

Just another poll so we can learn more about each other.

3 hours ago, RagnarBuliwyf said:

Feels like Spring in the UK. Then again, when it gets to like 8c I fucking burn and it feels like ridiculous hot for me. 

Dang, in the north east (United States), we just had one of the most bizarre snow storms in the beginning of march. Meanwhile in the United States https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/nyregion/blizzard-winter-storm-stella.html?_r=0

Communism fails because once the people inside see just how better off they would be with democracy, they start to riot and protest against the regime. Communism eliminates incentives for someone to work harder. In a communist country, it's either your work or you're killed. However, in a capitalist country, you don't have to work, it's just that life is going to be crummy. However, what makes capitalism much more different is that after you've worked hard enough to feed, house, and bathe yourself, you can still work more in order to live a much more luxuries life. It's that greed that propels people in a capitalist society to have a higher productivity than a communist society.

I only swear only to justify myself against people who are against me in debates where I'm clearly right. So... pretty often. (but not here, because you guys are awesome )

Death penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime

24 minutes ago, Lordship said:

taxation is theft

Using half of our taxes on the military (which is already overpowered) instead of health and education is theft.

That first picture had me fall to my face harder than the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Great way to start the topic 

Context

After winning a stunning election against President John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson appealed to the common man, especially in the south. At the time, the United States was divided between northerners, southerners, and even westerners. The north and the south were even different. The north was industrial while the south was reliant on cotton production and plantations. However, there was a problem for the southerners. Those who owned land in the south had trouble making a living as land was expensive. One way for Andrew Jackson to solve this was by removing the Native Americans already living in the south and resettle them to where Oklahoma is today. Jackson, along with approval from Congress, passed the Indian Removal Act. This would mean that Federal and State governments could buy land from the Native Americans and use the army to help them resettle somewhere else. However, was this action justified, or not. We'll see in today's poll.

Arguments (Yes)

The first reason as to why people would think the Indian Removal Act was justified was because Native Americans would have the chance to move away from the Americans already living in the south. Some of those Americans even wanted to kill those Native Americans just for their land. With the Indian Removal Act and money granted by the government, the Native Americans can finally move to a much more suitable location where they can't be threatened by Americans.

Another reason as to why the Indian Removal Act was justified was because the acquired land would help Americans in the south earn more from cotton trade, plantations, etc. This would mean that southerners would benefit from all the land that was being bought and finally earn more.

Oh also, I already mentioned this in the first paragraph as to why the Indian Removal Act was justified, but I'm going to say it again. The United States bought land from the Native Americans. This would at least make their journey safe for them to resettle west and made sure that the southerners would finally get the land they needed in the south.

Arguments (No)

To begin with as to why people wouldn't think that the Indian Removal Act wasn't justified was because many Native Americans died while they were resettling west. The government of the United States forced the Native Americans to move west. The Native Americans weren't even prepared for the journey as they could only bring what they could carry with them (so many of the Natives left their belongings in their previous settlements).

Not to mention that the Indian Removal Act scattered tribes apart. Resettlement was already difficult and you're having tribes being split while they are marching a heavy and enduring trail. Basically, this would separate tribes from their original group.

In addition, the United States had already made agreements with the Native Americans and granted them rights through previous Supreme Court Cases. For instance, in Johnson v. M'Intosh, the Supreme Court stated that land from the Native Americans can't be taken away from private parties unless consent from the US federal government (instead of the states having power to remove Native Americans). The Indian Removal Act would be a complete violation of this agreement and would ignore the rights that the Supreme Court has granted them.

Not to mention that the Indian Removal Act would further increase tensions between the United States and the Native Americans. This would eventually lead to many wars with the Native Americans where they would continue capturing land from them. Today, people with Native American ancestry living in the United States are struggling in the west due to the continued land acquisition from the United States way back in the 1800s due to Manifest Destiny.

Conclusion

With this in mind, do you think that the Indian Removal Act was justified because it would help southerners living in the south to earn more money because land would be cheaper or do you think it wasn't because it lead to many Native Americans dying in the Trail of Tears, splitting of tribes, violation of previous Supreme Court cases, etc.