Random Politics & Religion #02

I just stopped when his arguments stopped being logical and he fell back to the old "change definitions until I'm right" routine.

Taxes are just the government taking value from it's citizenry in order to pay for it's functions. They have existed since time immemorial and have about as much to do with a governments currency as a loaf of bread to a horse. The kingdoms of the middle age used to send out "tax collectors" who would count livestock and take a portion of it back to the king, same with a bakers flour and such. Since there wasn't any floating currencies around, guess those weren't really "taxes" according to zero.

Wait, there was a time when his arguments were logical?

All I ever saw was personal attacks and ramblings. You know, troll tactics.

Both Cruz and Trump have them. But Trump has goons too.

Yep cause you totally never brought up hyper inflation or Zimbabwe in your posts.

Also your post demonstrates a lack of understanding in contractionary v expansionary monetary policy. Shame on me for expecting an accountant to understand macroeconomics 101.

My point is that Clinton has to pay for her support. Trump, Cruz, and Sanders gets them for free.

Well I try to give people a chance and extend the benefit of a doubt. Once they jump the shark is when I just tune them out.

Yeah cause the role of taxes today are totally the same as they were in the middle ages. Nothing evolves nothing changes especially not when economic policies change.

They are exactly the same.

The king demanded goods to provide external security (military), internal security (kingsmen / guards / patrols), transportation services (kings highways) and then some extra to provide for the overhead of running the government (household staff). The king would directly tax his feudal lords and they would then collect from their own populations.

Public education was done via the church and they collected taxes in the form of tithes from the feudal lords.

Taxes, of one form or another, have been around since before written language. There is a reason for this famous quote.

It's called countering your point with real-life events.

You are concerned with the illusion of governmental control over free market that you fail to understand the basic concept of purchasing power.

Either that, or you think we live in a society where governments dictate the prices of items. I mean, that is your argument where taxes create value of money. You can keep trying to change the argument all you want, but you cannot do so while arguing the same thing over and over again.

You mean policy where the Federal Reserve, who has no control over taxes, either increases or decreases the supply of money to help battle with inflation? The Federal Reserve, who is not a governmental agency or controlled by the US government at all, other than the President who nominates the Chair of the Board of Governors.

No, it seems like you are the one who doesn't understand anything about monetary policy nor any economic subjects for that matter.

Keep up with the conversation, gawd!

I did mean that Trump/Cruz/Sanders have their support for free. Clinton has to pay people to support her.

And yes, what you consider a troll is not the same as what somebody else consider a troll. Supporting =/= trolling, nor disagreeing with somebody =/= trolling.

How do you mean she pays for support? As in she pays for people working on her campaign? Which I assumed was how it worked.

Or do you mean she paid for support like Trump does at his rallies?

Like Trump does.

I guess they all do.

Meh. I don't care regardless lol. I just wanted to bash Clinton.

This is actually a pretty good point and I was going to make it too.

Bernie, Cruz, and Trump have plenty of loyal supporters pushing their agendas on social media entirely for free.

I've got a Cruz person or two on my friends' list on Facebook that have been severely testing the boundaries of our actual friendship, to be honest. And I'd say that even if they were Bernie supporters. The sheer amount of blind propaganda being spewed is intense.

Trump may have been paying some folks. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but he's definitely got people supporting him 24/7 for absolutely nothing.

Which begs the question, how many people actually support Clinton and how many people are getting paid to support her?

Better yet, how many people are getting paid to support her, but still vote for somebody else?

It's honestly a very good question. I'm willing to concede it could simply be my age group, but the vast majority of liberals in my circle of friends are far more about Bernie than Clinton.

I suspect most of Clinton's support comes from the 40+ year-old establishment Dems.

We should start some BS rumor about Trump eating a baby or something in 1975. When called out on it, simply argue with "Do you have any proof he didn't eat a baby?"

Nah. All those Cruz supporters are actually all sock accounts of Cruz himself!

No kiddin', I imagine the guy would do that lol. Must be his face, his voice, his entire creepiness exuding from all over his persona. Idk.
Guy's so disturbing.

I disagree out of principle that he is my Senator and technically a Texan!

Clinton is really a vampire. This (probably edited) unedited picture proves it!

No, Cruz isn't wasting time trying to appeal to people he didn't already appeal to with his basic hard-right-Christian views. Cruz has taken it up a step and he's pandering directly to delegates.

There was actually a really good article posted by a friend of mine who (inexplicably) supports Trump about this because Pennsylvania's voting is whack as ***, and it lays out that you can't just vote for Trump or Cruz, you've got to break it down to the delegate level and who they support so you can elect the delegate to support the guy you want. And Cruz is out there greasing the palms of the delegates.

Yeah, it is common knowledge. I was wondering if Zero knew. But after reading the past page, it is quite clear he/she doesn't know what they are talking about and thinks using big words makes them look smart.

It's all he had going for him from the start.

I mean, you can't beat the ego of Trump at his own game. He's already hated by the establishment. Hell, he's really not all that popular in South Texas thanks to that shutdown fiasco he pulled. All he had left is "technically" winning the nomination.

Preposterous! The methodology of your approach to the altercation clearly just inspires insouciance.

You vote for the delegate to vote for Trump or Cruz. Unless one of them drops out before the convention their votes are locked into who the people voted for them to vote for, right?

So.. Why would anyone grease the palms of a locked delegate?

I don't know why you struck out "the ego of" because from the very start I've suspected Trump wasn't 100% serious until he started catching on and his ego wouldn't let him back down, and that suspicion was later verified by people who were on his team.