Donald Trump

[spacee]

honestly its nice to hear someone running talk like a human not a politicy correct robot also he dont have to take bribes he has his own money

 

I can't tell if Trump or his campaign manager are actually smart & doing this stuff on purpose. One thing is for sure is that Trump is a million times more charismatic than Barack Obama, which was said to be a big factor as to why people voted for him.

Yeah for real. Watching his interviews is cringeworthy. Every other word from his mouth is "I'm leading in the polls," "I said it first," "now everyone agrees with me on ___" I'd say its more arrogance than charisma to be honest. Even if I agreed with him I'd find it annoying

 

[Xier0]

[YOUTUBE]DNLnehTFanM[/YOUTUBE]

^@27 mins Stefan Moleneux explains how Trump has subverted the media, immigration, Islam

 

[Logic]

[YOUTUBE]DNLnehTFanM[/YOUTUBE]

^@27 mins Stefan Moleneux explains how Trump has subverted the media, immigration, Islam

His vids are always on point. I rarely find myself disagreeing with anything he has to say.

On a side note. How long have you done this "debating libtards on the internet" thing, because I applaude you for being able to keep calm when responding to people like Ghast. I do understand that the way they win is by dragging you down to their level and then dismissing you for using emotional statements. They seem to ignore that their whole argument is based on emotions rather than hard proof. I keep finding myself thinking "If this was an appartment party then I'd calmly explain my point of view for other people lisening, but since this is the internet then fuck being polite, he surely wont be polite to my intelligence and to common sense". I guess I should try to think of the internet as a 24/7 appartment party. But it's just so hard when you know that no matter what you say or how much hard proof you give the other person will not change his mind(trying to change Ghast point of view is like breaking down a brick wall with water balloons, it just isn't going to happen). Anyways keep up the good work and maybe people reading your replies that havn't formed an opinion on the matter will see the factual and moral superiority of your arguments vs someone like Ghast.

 

No, that was not my argument at all. Good try.
Ben Carson's tax plan does not, "only reduce taxes for the wealthy."
Income taxation is also very nasty, inefficient, corrupted, and is not the best route of taxation.

I never said, or claimed that his plan was only to reduce taxes for the wealthy. Nor did I claim that for any of the other republican candidates. Their tax plans, however, are significant tax cuts for the wealthy. This is a fact.

No they don't. If citizens got to choose how much they each paid in taxes, each person would choose to pay no taxes. The difference between taxes and charity, which you are clearly confusing, is that you choose to donate your money to charity, but taxes are taken from you by force.

We choose whether we want our taxes to be higher or lower when we vote.

I suggest you read the article in full.

Objectively false. Citizens don't get to choose what they get to spend tax money on. If they did, they wouldn't have been taxed it and they would have literally chosen where to spend it themselves!

I can't speak for what the article issuer means, but I'm pretty sure this is tied to his point on voting. Everyone knows you can't specifically choose where your taxes go.

Objectively false! If I stole your car and left $5 in the parking spot, it is still theft because you didn't decide to sell it for $5!

Theft is the taking of assets of from people without their consent and giving nothing in return. Taxes on the other hand are consented to by citizens in exchange for services.

Read the article.

Objectively false once again. When you rent a room/house, you are making a voluntary decision to trade money for goods. When you are taxed, it is done without your consent.

Contradictory to your claim above. WHEN YOU COME TO LIVE THE US YOU AGREE TO PAYING THESE TAXES IN EXCHANGE FOR SERVICES.

Literally supporting my point. The first is not voluntary, the second is.

Read above, I cover this multiple times.

What a joke.

The government is subject to the will of the people. This includes protection and commitment to justice. Saying this is a joke isn't an argument.

His vids are always on point. I rarely find myself disagreeing with anything he has to say.

On a side note. How long have you done this "debating libtards on the internet" thing, because I applaude you for being able to keep calm when responding to people like Ghast. I do understand that the way they win is by dragging you down to their level and then dismissing you for using emotional statements. They seem to ignore that their whole argument is based on emotions rather than hard proof. I keep finding myself thinking "If this was an appartment party then I'd calmly explain my point of view for other people lisening, but since this is the internet then fuck being polite, he surely wont be polite to my intelligence and to common sense". I guess I should try to think of the internet as a 24/7 appartment party. But it's just so hard when you know that no matter what you say or how much hard proof you give the other person will not change his mind(trying to change Ghast point of view is like breaking down a brick wall with water balloons, it just isn't going to happen). Anyways keep up the good work and maybe people reading your replies that havn't formed an opinion on the matter will see the factual and moral superiority of your arguments vs someone like Ghast.

Applauding someone for keeping calm during a debate is like applauding someone for keeping quiet in a library, this is to be expected. Acting like a hothead doesn't make your arguments sound any better, in fact it does the opposite. Instead of piggybacking on the arguments of others, create your own. I'm stating facts, with articles supporting my arguments, you on the other hand are not. Continuously slandering me, but not replying to my arguments directly doesn't make you any better than what you make of me. The way you're acting is childish.

 

[Logic]

I never said, or claimed that his plan was only to reduce taxes for the wealthy. Nor did I claim that for any of the other republican candidates. Their tax plans, however, are significant tax cuts for the wealthy. This is a fact.





I suggest you read the article in full.



I can't speak for what the article issuer means, but I'm pretty sure this is tied to his point on voting. Everyone knows you can't specifically choose where your taxes go.





Read the article.



Contradictory to your claim above. WHEN YOU COME TO LIVE THE US YOU AGREE TO PAYING THESE TAXES IN EXCHANGE FOR SERVICES.



Read above, I cover this multiple times.



The government is subject to the will of the people. This includes protection and commitment to justice. Saying this is a joke isn't an argument.



Applauding someone for keeping calm during a debate is like applauding someone for keeping quiet in a library, this is to be expected. Acting like a hothead doesn't make your arguments sound any better, in fact it does the opposite. Instead of piggybacking on the arguments of others, create your own. I'm stating facts, with articles supporting my arguments, you on the other hand are not. Continuously slandering me, but not replying to my arguments directly doesn't make you any better than what you make of me. The way you're acting is childish.

No matter how you sugarcoat it, taxation is theft at gunpoint and saying that you get 30% back doesn't undo the fact that it was taken from you at gunpoint. How do you fail to see this is beyond my understanding.

You suggest that when we vote we decide to raise or lower taxes, but what if we don't vote or if we vote to lower taxes and they raise them instead. Is that theft then or did we also choose that. To me it doesn't looks like we get a saying in this no matter who we vote for or if we vote at all. This is why we need smaller government.

 

No matter how you sugarcoat it, taxation is theft at gunpoint and saying that you get 30% back doesn't undo the fact that it was taken from you at gunpoint. How do you fail to see this is beyond my understanding.

Let me give you an example:

You come to a country to live in, you'd have to pay taxes to live there in exchange for services they provide, you choose to live there knowing these things.

Is it still theft if you receive the benefit of these services they provide, and receive a tax return that you consented to by choosing to live in that specific country? No.

You suggest that when we vote we decide to raise or lower taxes, but what if we don't vote or if we vote to lower taxes and they raise them instead. Is that theft then or did we also choose that. To me it doesn't looks like we get a saying in this no matter who we vote for or if we vote at all. This is why we need smaller government.

If you don't vote, that is on you. If you do vote for someone who campaigns that they plan on reducing taxes, then does the opposite, then you deserve to be mad, but it's still not theft. Look at the example above. There is no agreement of a set tax that you'd pay by choosing to live in an area. You agree to paying taxes alone by choosing to live there.

 

[JSand]

This entire thread has turned into "You didn't read/respond to my argument so i won't read/respond to yours" It's turned completely convoluted.

Even if you're a republican i don't know how you could possibly support Donald Trump, what exactly is he bringing to the table besides how easy it seems to be for him to spew nonsense?

I would love to hear the opinions of people who live in other countries when they hear what Trump has to say, it must not shine a very good light on America.

The original question that the OP asked was, "Why would you vote for Donald Trump?" and i haven't seen ANY actual answers.

 

[Logic]

Let me give you an example:

You come to a country to live in, you'd have to pay taxes to live there in exchange for services they provide, you choose to live there knowing these things.

Is it still theft if you receive the benefit of these services they provide, and receive a tax return that you consented to by choosing to live in that specific country? No.

Do the local people also choose to live there and by your logic agree to pay taxes in order to be allowed to live there? At what age can you censent to this?

If you don't vote, that is on you. If you do vote for someone who campaigns that they plan on reducing taxes, then does the opposite, then you deserve to be mad, but it's still not theft. Look at the example above. There is no agreement of a set tax that you'd pay by choosing to live in an area. You agree to paying taxes alone by choosing to live there.

So if at 1 point government decides to end private ownership then that's also not theft? just a 100% tax rate right?

This entire thread has turned into "You didn't read/respond to my argument so i won't read/respond to yours" It's turned completely convoluted.

Even if you're a republican i don't know how you could possibly support Donald Trump, what exactly is he bringing to the table besides how easy it seems to be for him to spew nonsense?

I would love to hear the opinions of people who live in other countries when they hear what Trump has to say, it must not shine a very good light on America.

The original question that the OP asked was, "Why would you vote for Donald Trump?" and i haven't seen ANY actual answers.

He is calling liberal twats liberal twats and showing how teethless the media and social justice actualy is. I like him just for that alone. He is like the small boy from The Emperor's New Clothes who pointed out that the emperor was naked.

 

[JSand]

Do the local people also choose to live there and by your logic agree to pay taxes in order to be allowed to live there? At what age can you censent to this?



So if at 1 point government decides to end private ownership then that's also not theft? just a 100% tax rate right?




He is calling liberal twats liberal twats and showing how teethless the media and social justice actualy is. I like him just for that alone. He is like the small boy from The Emperor's New Clothes who pointed out that the emperor was naked.

So..... You're voting for Trump because he's calling liberals out? Really? Your entire basis on voting for the man who's going to lead our country for the next 4 years is because of that? Are you stupid? By your very description you're voting for a troll.

That's just about as stupid as African Americans voting for Obama solely on the basis of him being half black.

You should have a MUCH stronger basis for voting for someone especially when it's THIS important, for example. His foreign policies, his background in economics, his domestic policies, etc etc... Not because he's a troll.

Please don't take offence to what i'm saying, i just feel that you shouldn't vote for someone for such a weird reason.

 

Do the local people also choose to live there and by your logic agree to pay taxes in order to be allowed to live there?

If I'm living in a specific area, it's because I choose to live there. Because I'm living in that area, I'm agreeing to pay taxes by association. We'd call those people legal entities of the state.

Just like if I'm living in a specific area with specific laws, I'm supposed to abide those laws, otherwise consequences are faced. Saying "I didn't choose to live here", isn't an argument.

At what age can you censent to this?

Taxes are taken from your income. You'd then be asking, "what age can you start working?", and that answer varies.

So if at 1 point government decides to end private ownership then that's also not theft? just a 100% tax rate right?

That's not possible.

The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property.

Source

 

[Logic]

So..... You're voting for Trump because he's calling liberals out? Really? Your entire basis on voting for the man who's going to lead our country for the next 4 years is because of that? Are you stupid? By your very description you're voting for a troll.

That's just about as stupid as African Americans voting for Obama solely on the basis of him being half black.

You should have a MUCH stronger basis for voting for someone especially when it's THIS important, for example. His foreign policies, his background in economics, his domestic policies, etc etc... Not because he's a troll.

Please don't take offence to what i'm saying, i just feel that you shouldn't vote for someone for such a weird reason.

Chill dude. All I said is that I like him for that alone, it doesn't mean I only like him for that. I can't even vote for Trump since I live in Europe.
Also you'd be surpriced on how many people are scared to compliance by these liberals. They will even go as far as get you fired for disagreeing with them and I don't see how that would be possible with someone like Trump in charge. People would stop fearing these nutjobs. I fail to see the similarity with obama being half-black.

If I'm living in a specific area, it's because I choose to live there. Because I'm living in that area, I'm agreeing to pay taxes by association. We'd call those people legal entities of the state.

Just like if I'm living in a specific area with specific laws, I'm supposed to abide those laws, otherwise consequences are faced. Saying "I didn't choose to live here", isn't an argument.

So you are one of those "Move to Somalia and don't try to change anything" sort of person. I don't see any point in argueing with a brick wall.

Taxes are taken from your income. You'd then be asking, "what age can you start working?", and that answer varies.

Taken at gun point = stolen and there are more taxes than just income tax.
You can lose your "private" property if you don't pay the property tax.

That's not possible.



Source

My last argument pretty much shows that it's very much possible. Government makes the laws and can tax you at 100%. Is that theft or not? You failed to answer this before.

 

[Xier0]

We choose whether we want our taxes to be higher or lower when we vote.

Objectively false. Government legislators choose the tax rate. I can't just go to a voting booth and check a box that says "I vote to pay no taxes", then not pay any taxes.

Everyone knows you can't specifically choose where your taxes go.

Then why did you fucking intentionally make the opposite claim if everyone knows this? Literally read what you sourced here below and then re-read above.

Citizens choose the level of these taxes and where they go

Theft is the taking of assets of from people without their consent and giving nothing in return. Taxes on the other hand are consented to by citizens in exchange for services.

Services they don't ask for. They have to pay regardless of whether or not they use it or not. I can't just send you a bill for products you didn't agree to buy from me. I can't force black people to work on a cotton farm all day if I provide them the services of food and a shanty house if he didn't agree to it.

WHEN YOU COME TO LIVE THE US YOU AGREE TO PAYING THESE TAXES

How do I consent to the government taking half my money in taxes by living on my own private land and working @ private business?

Just like if I'm living in a specific area with specific laws, I'm supposed to abide those laws, otherwise consequences are faced. Saying "I didn't choose to live here", isn't an argument

You aren't supposed to abide by immoral laws, regardless of your geographic location. Just because it is legal to own slaves on one side of the border and illegal on the other side doesn't mean that people are justified in doing it in the place that does have slavery, even if it is legal. Taxes aren't suddenly moral because I happen to live in an area that is under government conquest.

 

Objectively false. Legislators choose the tax rate. I can't just go to a voting booth and check a box that says "I vote to pay no taxes", then not pay any taxes.

Who chooses these legislators? The voters.

Then why did you fucking intentionally make the opposite claim if everyone knows this? Literally read what you sourced here below and then re-read above.

In case you didn't already realize, I did not write the article, and attempting to strawman his points don't give your own credibility.

Services they don't ask for. They have to pay regardless of whether or not they use it or not. I can't just send you a bill for products you didn't agree to buy from me. I can't force black people to work on a cotton farm all day if I provide them the services of food and a shanty house if he didn't agree to it.

I don't think you understand the definition of theft. Saying they don't ask for those services that are funded by taxes, doesn't justify that being "theft". By choosing to live here, you're a legal entity of the state, thus paying taxes is an obligation. Just like you're obligated to follow laws.

Let's look at what taxes fund.

Social Security
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies
Safety net programs
Interest on the national debt
Benefits for federal retirees and veterans
Transportation
Education
Science and medical research
Non-security international
And all other federal expenditures

These programs being funded affects all taxpayers.

How do I consent to giving the government half my money in taxes by living on my own private land and working @ private business?

Local governments can't tax private property on federal land.

You aren't supposed to abide by immoral laws, regardless of your geographic location. Just because it is legal to own slaves on one side of the border and illegal on the other side doesn't mean that people are justified in doing it in the place that does have slavery, even if it is legal. Taxes aren't suddenly moral because I happen to live in an area that is under government conquest.

All laws aren't universal. Most laws have nothing to do with immortality. Laws are specific to the land you're on.

Taken at gun point = stolen and there are more taxes than just income tax.
You can lose your "private" property if you don't pay the property tax.

You don't have to pay taxes. There are simply consequences if you don't.

Private property cannot be taxed!

My last argument pretty much shows that it's very much possible. Government makes the laws and can tax you at 100%. Is that theft or not? You failed to answer this before.

False. Government can't end private ownership of property, that's not constitutional. How about giving plausible examples instead of ones that are virtually impractical?

Jesus fuck, can we stop going off topic?

 

[Xier0]

All laws aren't universal. Most laws have nothing to do with immortality. Laws are specific to the land you're on.


Jesus fuck, can we stop going off topic?

You were claiming that lowering taxes on the rich was "the epitome of shadiness. "

Republicans want to cut taxes from the rich. That is the epitome of shadiness.

If your go-to argument AGAINST a candidate or party is they want to DECREASE stealing, you are in sore need of a correction.

Your justification that taxes are not theft because you receive services in return is not valid. One party is charged regardless of whether or not he uses the services at all.

Your justification that taxes are not theft because people choose to live in a certain place under government subjugation. If I said that women were to blame for being raped because they were in the "wrong place", you would know that is a false statement, because the person #1 responsible for the rape is the rapist. The woman doesn't somehow automatically consent because she happened to be within striking distance of the rapist.

You don't have to pay taxes. There are simply consequences if you don't.

This is called extortion. A shakedown. A threat.

 

[JSand]

False. Government can't end private ownership of property, that's not constitutional.

Eminent Domain

 

If your go-to argument AGAINST a candidate or party is they want to DECREASE stealing, you are in sore need of a correction.

Your justification that taxes are not theft because you receive services in return is not valid. One party is charged regardless of whether or not he uses the services at all.

Your justification that taxes are not theft because people choose to live in a certain place under government subjugation. If I said that women were to blame for being raped because they were in the "wrong place", you would know that is a false statement, because the person #1 responsible for the rape is the rapist. The woman doesn't somehow automatically consent because she happened to be within striking distance of the rapist.

Context is everything. Look at what I was replying to. That wasn't a standalone comment.

He said dems are "shady as fuck", and that was my reply. It's not my "go-to argument" against the GOP, trust me. There is a long list of reasons why you shouldn't vote for the party.

If paying taxes is theft, then paying rent is extortion. You see how that doesn't add up? You could strawman my argument to throw ridiculous comparisons, but it doesn't change my point in which taxation isn't theft. Read the article I gave, as well as the comments. It gives good insight.

This is called extortion. A shakedown. A threat.

You can say the same about rent.

Eminent Domain

End as in all.

 

[Xier0]

You can say the same about rent.

No you can't. If I choose not to pay rent, I find my door locked when I go to enter my apartment. The difference is that the government locks you inside, and you never agreed to rent from them in the first place.

End as in all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause <- Government controls all private property exchange with the commerce clause. Courts even ruled that the federal gov't can do this in any state regardless of interstate commerce having to take place. It ended freedom of association in order to forcibly integrate private businesses.

 

No you can't. If I choose not to pay rent, I find my door locked when I go to enter my apartment. The difference is that the government locks you inside, and you never agreed to rent from them in the first place.

You said:

This is called extortion. A shakedown. A threat.

"If you don't pay your rent, you will be kicked out"

1. That's a threat.
2. A "shakedown"
3. Extortion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause <- Government controls all private property exchange with the commerce clause. Courts even ruled that the federal gov't can do this in any state regardless of interstate commerce having to take place. It ended freedom of association in order to forcibly integrate private businesses.

Yay, more impractical examples.

Eminent Domain is assessed to devote private property to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. You can't claim this when ending all privatized ownership of property. It's not constitutional.

 

[Xier0]

You said:

"If you don't pay your rent, you will be kicked out"

1. That's a threat.
2. A "shakedown"
3. Extortion

It's a suspension of rental services they are providing that you agreed to pay for and aren't paying for. They aren't threatening to imprison you if you don't pay regardless of whether or not you rent from them!

Yay, more impractical examples.

It's not an impractical example?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

Eminent Domain is assessed to devote private property to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. You can't claim this when ending all privatized ownership of property. It's not constitutional.

You keep saying "It's not constitutional" when I'm providing you examples of laws and government actions that are unconstitutional. The fact that the government doesn't act within the bounds of the Constitution is what I am pointing out. This isn't a new phenomenon either since it begins with the publishers of the Bill of Rights, who directly violated it and owned slaves.

[YOUTUBE]Gj1g3LZcf9I[/YOUTUBE]

And it's funny too that the left scrambled to actually look up to read what the Constitution says when Trump said he was going to prevent Muslim immigration. Apparently, Constitutional rights don't matter when it comes to property ownership (especially ownership of guns), free speech, freedom of association, freedom from involuntary servitude, freedom from search and seizure, right to a speedy & fair trial (WHICH ARE ALL LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION), but they are looking for rights for immigrants which aren't listed in the Constitution (ofc all people have human rights, but their argument doesn't rely on that).