View Poll Results: It is just that I be taxed in order to provide security for...

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • All human beings

    2 25.00%
  • All residents of my country

    3 37.50%
  • All residents of my state

    0 0%
  • All residents of my town

    0 0%
  • All residents of my neighborhood

    0 0%
  • Taxation is never just. I'm an anarchist.

    3 37.50%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 106

Thread: Taxation To Finance Security - When Is It Just?

  1. #1

    Default Taxation To Finance Security - When Is It Just?

    By "security" I'm referring to the protection of life and property from aggression, domestic or foreign, by such institutions as police, courts, and the military. It would seem that the first and last poll options are the only consistent positions. So, I'm mostly interested in hearing from people in the middle, which I assume are most people.

    Go
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-17-2017 at 04:48 PM.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Involuntary taxation is theft. I am an Agorist.
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  4. #3

    Default

    The question of groups and territory is very complex, but neither anarchy nor world government is right.
    People would settle the problem of groups and territory through secession if globalists and imperialist can be defeated.
    The war between the states, was a terrible defeat for justice.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    By "security" I'm referring to the protection of life and property from aggression, domestic or foreign, by such institutions as police, courts, and the military. It would seem that the first and last poll options are the only consistent positions. So, I'm mostly interested in hearing from people in the middle, which I assume are most people.

    Go
    Believing that it is just for me to be taxed doesn't mean that it is just for my neighbor to be taxed.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Believing that it is just for me to be taxed doesn't mean that it is just for my neighbor to be taxed.
    Fair enough, but that's really beside the point of the thread, which is, to rephrase:

    "For the security of whom is it just to tax a person?"

    ...everyone, only his countrymen, only the people in his state, etc.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Fair enough, but that's really beside the point of the thread, which is, to rephrase:

    "For the security of whom is it just to tax a person?"

    ...everyone, only his countrymen, only the people in his state, etc.
    It is only just to tax those who believe taxes are just.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    It is only just to tax those who believe taxes are just.
    If you're saying that it's only just to tax those who consent to be taxed, those aren't taxes at all.

    The question being asked is when, if ever, is it just to force people to pay for the security of others.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you're saying that it's only just to tax those who consent to be taxed, those aren't taxes at all.

    The question being asked is when, if ever, is it just to force people to pay for the security of others.
    When is force justified?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    When is force justified?
    Are you asking me when force is justified, or asking me if that's the question asked in the poll?
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Are you asking me when force is justified, or asking me if that's the question asked in the poll?
    Same thing. You are asking when force is justified to "provide security" (the promise of protection from force) for various polities.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Same thing. You are asking when force is justified to "provide security" (the promise of protection from force)" for various polities.
    So you're asking me to answer the question I asked in the OP...? Sure

    The goal is to minimize aggression (i.e. property rights violations). The fewer of these occur in society the better. Hence it is just to commit aggressions (e.g. to tax people) only if doing so prevents larger aggressions (e.g. the violent chaos of statelessness). Since all persons have the same right to property, this logic does not know national borders. If it's just to tax Bob in TX to protect Joe in CA, then it's just to tax both Bob and Joe to protect Jacques in France. Hence I chose the first option in the poll.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So you're asking me to answer the question I asked in the OP...? Sure

    The goal is to minimize aggression (i.e. property rights violations). The fewer of these occur in society the better. Hence it is just to commit aggressions (e.g. to tax people) only if doing so prevents larger aggressions (e.g. the violent chaos of statelessness). Since all persons have the same right to property, this logic does not know national borders. If it's just to tax Bob in TX to protect Joe in CA, then it's just to tax both Bob and Joe to protect Jacques in France. Hence I chose the first option in the poll.
    Except that the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Except that the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.
    There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.
    I agree that this thread should stick to Monarchy vs. Monarchy and Democracy vs. Democracy.

    In either case the larger the state is the greater the difference will be between it's subjects, culturally, philosophically, religiously, economically, etc. as a matter either of choice or good management there will be differences in the correct policies to fit them. (admittedly this difference falls with smaller government, but it is not eliminated completely, and some people and cultures will insist on bigger government.)
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.
    Also as I stated first, the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.

    It is easier to protest/vote for changes in a small group than a large one, as the group gets larger the difficulty rises exponentially.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Also as I stated first, the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.

    It is easier to protest/vote for changes in a small group than a large one, as the group gets larger the difficulty rises exponentially.
    Sure, but the question is why that voting/protesting would lead to smaller government.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Sure, but the question is why that voting/protesting would lead to smaller government.
    In a small state it might, in a large state it wouldn't have a chance.
    But in a large state other forces would lead to larger government as the different interests of the diverse subjects clashed.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In a small state it might, in a large state it wouldn't have a chance.
    But in a large state other forces would lead to larger government as the different interests of the diverse subjects clashed.
    Let's say 5% of the population of a state wants liberty.

    Why would they be more influential as 5,000/100,000 than as 5M/100M?
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.
    Another thought, competition leads to excellence while monopoly leads to corruption, if there was a world government it would not need to compete for it's citizens residence or allegiance, it would therefore lack the incentive to care for their interests.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Let's say 5% of the population of a state wants liberty.

    Why would they be more influential as 5,000/100,000 than as 5M/100M?
    Because people tend to listen less to minorities as the size of a group increases, in a group of 10 if 1 man states his opinion most of the group will consider it, but if 10% of 100,000,000 hold an opinion very few will listen to them.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Another thought, competition leads to excellence while monopoly leads to corruption, if there was a world government it would not need to compete for it's citizens residence or allegiance, it would therefore lack the incentive to care for their interests.
    Indeed, the existence of multiple states allows for competition for mobile capital and labor - but federalism solves that problem, no need for full independence of the competing entities. Note also that democratic politicians have no incentives to enrich their countries in the first place; it makes no difference to them if their policies cause capital and labor to flee, provided they get reelected. Indeed, the policies on which they can most easily get reelected (e.g. soak the rich to pay for welfare) are precisely those which cause capital and labor to flee. So the economic competition argument only makes sense in the context of governments with an incentive to enrich their countries, i.e. non-democratic governments who effectively own their countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because people tend to listen less to minorities as the size of a group increases, in a group of 10 if 1 man states his opinion most of the group will consider it, but if 10% of 100,000,000 hold an opinion very few will listen to them.
    I don't know that that's true. Any empirical evidence?

    But anyway, does that even matter on a realistic scale? How small are these states you're proposing? 100 people?
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Indeed, the existence of multiple states allows for competition for mobile capital and labor - but federalism solves that problem, no need for full independence of the competing entities.
    Federalism could work up to a point, but only to the point where all of the subject domains would agree to a sufficiently limit the powers of the higher level of government.
    And the member states would still need the right to secede if the upper level of government was abused like the CSA leaving the union.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Note also that democratic politicians have no incentives to enrich their countries in the first place; it makes no difference to them if their policies cause capital and labor to flee, provided they get reelected. Indeed, the policies on which they can most easily get reelected (e.g. soak the rich to pay for welfare) are precisely those which cause capital and labor to flee. So the economic competition argument only makes sense in the context of governments with an incentive to enrich their countries, i.e. non-democratic governments who effectively own their countries.
    Monarchy or democracy is not under discussion, but in either case if everyone leaves or revolts there is nothing left to steal. Illinois is about to demonstrate that.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't know that that's true. Any empirical evidence?
    Practical experience with groups and politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    But anyway, does that even matter on a realistic scale? How small are these states you're proposing? 100 people?
    I am not sure about the ideal size, life would tend to settle the problem for itself if we could defeat the imperialists and globalists.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Federalism could work up to a point, but only to the point where all of the subject domains would agree to a sufficiently limit the powers of the higher level of government.
    The purpose of federalism would be to allow for economic competition between member states, not to restrain the central government.

    If both member states and central government are democratic, there's no reason to suppose the former would have better incentives than the latter, and so no reason to think they would want to check any of its oppressive behavior - as with voters vis a vis their politicians.

    And the member states would still need the right to secede if the upper level of government was abused like the CSA leaving the union.
    Right to secede --> anarchism

    if everyone leaves or revolts there is nothing left to steal. Illinois is about to demonstrate that.
    Right, the democratic state will stop looting when it has literally looted everything; but that's not much of a check is it?

    We want it checked before it loots everything, no?

    Letting a housefire burn itself out isn't a great way of saving the house.

    Practical experience with groups and politics.
    Alright, well my experience doesn't confirm that. Now, if the people are friends, that's different. But that's only possible for very small groups, much smaller than anything you could be considering as an appropriate electorate. See: Dunbar's number
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-17-2017 at 07:54 PM.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The purpose of federalism would be to allow for economic competition between member states, not to restrain the central government.
    If the Federal government is not restrained it will usurp the powers of the subject domains and eliminate competition.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Right to secede --> anarchism
    You could say such a simplistic thing about revolt as well, which would lead to no possibility to redress tyranny.




    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Right, the democratic state will stop looting when it has literally looted everything; but that's not much of a check is it?
    Monarchs have done the same, and we are getting sucked into that old topic again.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If the Federal government is not restrained it will usurp the powers of the subject domains and eliminate competition.
    Q. Restrained by whom?
    A. By other people with no better incentives than it has.
    Q. So how is it actually restrained from doing bad things?
    A. It isn't.

    As in the other thread, you're caught up in a circular quis custodiet ipsos custodes problem.

    You could say such a simplistic thing about revolt as well, which would lead to no possibility to redress tyranny.
    What I'm saying is that to legalize secession is to literally abolish the state. If anybody can secede (i.e. stop paying taxes or obeying other laws), the state ceases to exist. Now, you could arbitrarily restrict secession (it has to be a group of at least X people), but that defeats the purpose (any group below the arbitrary cut-off can be oppressed without having the option to secede).
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  27. #26

    Default

    Voted "all human beings" but the real answer is

    "taxation is just as long as it was voted on at some point"
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  28. #27

    Default

    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The question of groups and territory is very complex, but neither anarchy nor world government is right.
    People would settle the problem of groups and territory through secession if globalists and imperialist can be defeated.
    The war between the states, was a terrible defeat for justice.
    Explain why anarchy is not 'right'.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Yeah, I like cops. They keep the streets safe. Get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The Fed is NOT safe from audit, Trump has said he wants to audit the fed and we may have some bills coming up soon.

    Trump is helping Rand pass his healthcare plan, if you think Trump actually supported RyanCare then you are foolish and you need to go read the threads where I addressed this topic. Rand was talking to Trump 2-3 times a week, and Rand told Trump straight up it wasn't going to pass, it didn't have the votes. Trump knew it wasn't going to pass, so he supported it to make sure it was all Paul Ryan's failure and none of it could be blamed on him. Trump hates Paul Ryan.

    Trump is going to help save Syria, with Russia's help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
    It is not about brainwashing. You can support Trump for practical reasons. I think Danno is right about the Syria missile strikes helping Trump politically in the US. The media stopped talking about the sickening russian narrative. Proof again it was just a hoax to manipulate the public opinion.

    Trump made a good call as a politician. Libertarian souls can bitch all they want about principles and being conned. Trump is going to disappointed again. I have enough hairchest.

    Just answer the question. Which game is Trump playing?

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Explain why anarchy is not 'right'.
    I will explain once, but I will not hold a lengthy debate because I have yet to meet an anarchist who was capable of learning.

    It creates a power vacuum that is then filled by criminals and tyrants.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

    "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith"

    Alexis de Torqueville

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I will explain once, but I will not hold a lengthy debate because I have yet to meet an anarchist who was capable of learning.

    It creates a power vacuum that is then filled by criminals and tyrants.
    Ha ha ha ha ha

    (that's a joke, right?)
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Yeah, I like cops. They keep the streets safe. Get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The Fed is NOT safe from audit, Trump has said he wants to audit the fed and we may have some bills coming up soon.

    Trump is helping Rand pass his healthcare plan, if you think Trump actually supported RyanCare then you are foolish and you need to go read the threads where I addressed this topic. Rand was talking to Trump 2-3 times a week, and Rand told Trump straight up it wasn't going to pass, it didn't have the votes. Trump knew it wasn't going to pass, so he supported it to make sure it was all Paul Ryan's failure and none of it could be blamed on him. Trump hates Paul Ryan.

    Trump is going to help save Syria, with Russia's help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
    It is not about brainwashing. You can support Trump for practical reasons. I think Danno is right about the Syria missile strikes helping Trump politically in the US. The media stopped talking about the sickening russian narrative. Proof again it was just a hoax to manipulate the public opinion.

    Trump made a good call as a politician. Libertarian souls can bitch all they want about principles and being conned. Trump is going to disappointed again. I have enough hairchest.

    Just answer the question. Which game is Trump playing?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Google Finance & Yahoo Finance add Tickers for BTC
    By muh_roads in forum Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2014, 01:58 PM
  2. Taxation
    By Schifference in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 10:06 PM
  3. Princely Finance and Taxation
    By andymillette in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-28-2010, 10:28 AM
  4. A Different Take on Taxation
    By Nathan Hale in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 06:49 AM
  5. FED: Is taxation all that bad?
    By BKV in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-26-2009, 11:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •