ATruepatriot
Member

RFK supported and still supports the entire D establishment, and that includes their pet RINOs like McConnell whether he is quite as open about that part or not. Trump had to negotiate and cut compromises to make any progress at all and to avoid being convicted and removed in one of the phony impeachments which almost happened anyway. And nothing can hurt McConnell, he and Dominion have a lock on his seat in both the primaries and the general.

The media is not the deepstate. And the deepstate ignored any order he gave that they wanted to in the White House, that's a fact. The media told us what he did because they were whipping their mob into a frenzy with twisted lies about it all and because the alternative media was telling us about it.

LOL People know what he did, and no amount of denial by you will change that.

Irrelevant, they have been at war with us nonstop since Carter. They were engaged in attacking our embassy and Trump put a stop to it. Learn to read. He didn't do it. FULL STOP. There is no excuse mentioned at all, because there is none for the people who did do it.

Don't forget that they are keeping the visibly senile man who is hated by everyone on the D ticket as if they are going to replace him at the last minute and RFK is the only viable replacement and is trying to appear centrist enough to steal Trump votes while being leftist enough not to lose the far left TDS crowd when they lose Biden to a last minute death or admission of senility.

Correct, RFK is.

So, the deepstate that ignored Trump and did everything it could to thwart him at every turn, just as I expected you to be lying about.

No he didn't. Whatever you are twisting was either Congress deep in the veto proof budget bills or the deepstate bureaucrats whom he had no control over.

He made some progress and was thwarted largely by the people RFK supports. Thwarted by the people RFK supports. He attempted to and got railroaded by the entire establishment, especially by the people RFK supports.

A country that is at war with us, and a general who was coordinating a terrorist attack on sovereign US soil. (our embassy)

You can argue about the intent but what matters is the effect, not the intent. Uniform tariffs provide an advantage to domestic producers, it's a simple fact. Ron finds that to be much better than the bad effects of other taxes, I find it to be a beneficial effect. The difference between low uniform tariffs and what I want (high tariffs on anything we can make here) is a mere matter of detail and intensity. Cry more.

You can't explain a significant difference. So, you are in favor of tariffs instead of other taxes now? Because I have been all along, I told you they had less drawbacks and a few beneficial aspects. Can't you even keep track of what side you are on?

So, When Ron proposes changing from one form of tax to another you agree, but when I do the same thing you oppose it, even though I give a better specific plan for implementing it. I propose to make it happen the same way Ron proposes to make it happen, through advocacy and campaigning for it. You oppose it, you don't want anyone to try to actually do it, you want to just leave it as a disembodied theory you can virtue signal by agreeing with. It's irrelevant. A mere detail that would not exist in any real world implementation and would not affect the principle if it did.

LOL Ron wants tariffs and tariffs give an advantage to domestic producers. Cry more. The details, like how high the tariffs are, and if they reflect the friend/enemy status of the foreign state or its trade policies towards us are mere details by comparison to the basic principle that tariffs are the best form of taxation, and if you think any government policy or tax can or ever will be implemented without political influence you are naive in the extreme. Ron worked in Congress, he knows how the sausage is made even in the best of times and that it will always be made that way to one degree or another, that's just human nature, but he still wants tariffs instead of other taxes and so do I. You are the one who loves socialism and slave labor as long as it takes place in other countries and benefits your wallet in the short term.

Maybe if you'd quit lying about RFK I wouldn't have to drop the receipts over and over.

Those are lies and hypocrisy as I said. They make Trump responsible for things he had limited or no power over, ignore the things he did to oppose them, and pretend that RFK himself doesn't openly plan to do worse in addition to having a much worse record.

Tell me what the difference is other than the amount. Do Ron's tariffs not raise the price of imported goods and thus give domestic producers that much of an advantage?

Neither thing is what I claimed. You just keep making things up. And you are terrible at it, the post you quoted makes it quite clear that applying the same proinciple to the states is MY idea not Ron's. And the fact that Ron didn't go into the details of how to replace one tax with another while I have (by doing both parts in the same bill) only makes his position weaker than mine.

No, I want more tariffs and higher than Trump. There is another thread or maybe more for his tariffs, this thread is and always has been about tariffs as a concept, not about any plan of Trump's. You just keep looking for ways to lie and muddy the waters because you keep losing the argument.

No, they are not. Once you have tariffs instead of income taxes it is just a question of how high they will be. Tariffs are protectionist just by existing, it's only a matter of how protectionist.

There you go again, making up more things. Nobody said anything about Trump. This is about what we should try to do, like what Ron Paul said we should do. And as you have been told repeatedly, you do it at the same time, you pass a bill ending one thing and replacing it with another. Go argue with Ron.

Ron Paul: We should get rid of the federal income tax and replace it with tariffs. Me: We should do the same at the state level even if it requires a constitutional amendment. You: No, it can't be done and it shouldn't be done if it could.

No, in the end of state income taxes. Federal tariffs will end the federal income tax. You just make things up and try to pretend people can't read. This conversation has been about how to change our tax system, since you don't want the tariffs you clearly don't want to change it away from the taxes we have, it's that simple. And then you muddy the waters by lying about whether it is possible (we used to have big tariffs and no income tax, we now have few tariffs and an income tax, so it is absolutely possible) and lying about what I said the state tariffs would end (I never said they would end anything federal). You do realize that Ron Paul has repeatedly said we should switch from the Income tax etc. to tariffs for the federal government and you are opposing him, right?

Probably not. And Trump put Bolton in a position with no power, didn't listen to him on anything, and humiliated him by sending him to Mongolia while he visited N. Korea. Bolton was used as symbol to frighten our enemies and pacify the warhawks and nothing more, he didn't get his war with Iran or anything else.

...

That had to be composed of people McConnell and the RINOs would confirm.

About those lockdowns:

About that spending thing:

Right, you prefer the mandatory search and seizure of your financial records from an income tax, the same for businesses from sales taxes and inventory taxes, and paying rents to your feudal landlord to stay on property you can never own from property taxes. That's SO liberty loving of you.