Ron Paul: "Bernie is just a variant of Trump"

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Well yes, there's always going to be some sort of authority and always going to be some sort of submission on the individual's part. Even in Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard's dream worlds there's going to be submission to some sort of authority. Unless you want to live naked in the wilderness, that's how it's going to be.

I'm not an anarchist, so I understand that there will be some sort of authority. My position is that this authority should be necessarily limited. It's fundamental purpose should be to protect our rights and liberties. It's purpose should not be to babysit us. For over a century our Government was small, but it has steadily grown. It's never shown any sustainable decrease, it's always headed to greater size even if there are momentary cuts. At some point even the statists will have to look at this and say, "Now what a minute... how did we get here?"

And yeah, it's scary when someone rules over you and makes decisions for you.

It's more than scary, it's immoral and unethical.

This is why corporate tyranny is so terrifying. They're beholden to no one but themselves and their board of directors so they can force you to do whatever they want and.

Here is where you lose me. Under what system is a business able to force you to do whatever they want? That's just not reality at all. A business cannot force you to do anything. A Government can. And a Government always has. That's why throughout history it's been Governments that cause the most damage to people. Nowhere in the top 1000 would a business have destroyed the lives of people when including Governments. This is why your concern is very interesting...

Government is scary and should be kept in check. How do you do that? Through popular participation in the political process. Iceland just found out their Prime Minister was involved in the Panama Papers scandal and right away they took to the streets and he resigned. He got "fired" so to speak.

That doesn't work so well, and historically hasn't. How many presidents have been removed from office? How many bad justices? How many corrupt senators? By the few number we have we must have a sterling group of people in charge!

The best way to curtail the damage and threat of Government is to keep Government small. Limit what those in power can do.

The CEOs of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and the rest have yet to be fired.

When you're in bed with Government you get perks. These companies SHOULD have failed. Bailouts aren't created by the people, they were a Government initiative.

Just recently I was reading back on the guerrilla movement in Peru.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Peru

From 1980 to 2000 it produced 70,000 deaths. It was lead by a Maoist organization (Shining Path) that decided to take power through violence. How and where did they recruit people to join such a criminal organization? From the very poorest areas of Peru. Areas that had no running water, no electricity, no roads, hospitals, etc.

The absence of the state fueled their anger. Not the absence of big business. In fact, these areas were so obscure they functioned more or less like an anarcho-capitalist dream: no big government to speak of, free reign for people to act out in their own rational self-interest.

What was the result? A bunch of entrepreneurs opening up businesses left and right and creating a rich, thriving society? Nope. Areas so miserably poor they created people who were so frustrated with the situation that they turned to mass-scale violence and terror.

This is what right-wing libertarian ideas look like in real life and outside American poly-sci majors' heads.

This is in no way a representation of what I am advocating nor is any libertarian I know of. Isn't our platform based upon freedom and non-violence? Government has a role there. We do need Government to be there to have a military and a justice system to protect our liberties. We do not need Government to tell us who we can marry, who we should sell our baked goods to, how much of our production we get to keep, etc.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Income tax is part of the background in which employment agreements are made; it's not something imposed after the fact. Once one realizes that, your whole point falls apart. People don't accept jobs with the understanding that they will not pay income taxes.

You just keep treading water in a sinking boat.

People are paying income taxes no matter whether they accept a job or create their own income. There is no choice, besides jail or income tax. You're trying to imply choice but there is no free choice here. The choice between a gun and a tax isn't a choice.

Look up "non sequitur."

It absolutely does follow.

No it doesn't, and I explained how. You just doubled down with your stupidity, but that doesn't change anything.

Employers have a financial incentive to pay employees as little as possible (granting that they want a certain class of worker, might want to discourage turnover, etc.), right?

"As possible" deserves attention. What does this mean? If the person is willing to work for $3/hour and turnover is low enough that you can successfully keep the job profitable at $3/hour then yes. But that's fair. If someone is willing to work for $3/hour and turnover is so low that you can maintain people at that job for $3/hour, then that's what they'll pay. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a mutual agreement. An employer cannot pay so low that people won't take the job or that turnover is so high to make replacing people constantly no longer worth it which incentivizes them to pay the employee more in order to reduce turnover.

And it has been established that headline pay - income tax is the ideal amount. So if income taxes are removed from the picture, employers would have incentive to lower headline pay to the level where the it meets workers' previous take-home pay.

It doesn't work so simplistically. If they CAN reduce pay and not have turnover, then they can reduce pay. This is what decides it, not income taxation. Just because income tax is removed doesn't mean that people are going to keep the same rate of turnover for the job. The profitability of the job would also fluctuate, as income would be higher across the board. You're pretending that none of this transpires in any meaningful way, and that everything - including pay - will follow a uniform set adjustment that keeps things as they were. This is just brainless stupidity that you're hanging on to because you're terrified of giving an inch.

None of that affects the point. It's just background (alters the "ideal level" of take-home pay, but it applies equally without regard to the existence of income tax).

Of course it does. These things factor into pay.

That is false. Additionally, money going from person/organization A to person/organization B doesn't reduce total purchasing power or have any necessary impact on total value in the economy (I say "necessary" because the behavioral changes it would lead to might reduce or increase value).

No it's not. You're telling me that if I get to keep all of my paycheck instead of only 60% of it, that I won't have greater purchasing power? You're suggesting that a business that gets to keep more of it's production will suddenly jack up their prices? You're suggesting that the Government produces at such a level as businesses, that the business cannot make itself more profitable as a result of them keeping their wealth instead of it going to Government?

Are you telling me that Steve Jobs would not have created more or done more for society with the money Government took from him than what the Government did with that money? Yeesh.

 

[Jack V Savage]

People are paying income taxes no matter whether they accept a job or create their own income.

Sigh. People are agreeing to work for after-tax dollars. Income tax isn't a surprise. I mean, at least show that you understand the point before flipping out sometime.

"As possible" deserves attention. What does this mean? If the person is willing to work for $3/hour and turnover is low enough that you can successfully keep the job profitable at $3/hour then yes. But that's fair. If someone is willing to work for $3/hour and turnover is so low that you can maintain people at that job for $3/hour, then that's what they'll pay.

Um, sure. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. If people are willing to work for $3/hr after taxes, why wouldn't they work for $3/hr before taxes? That's what we're talking about. Cutting their taxes wouldn't affect the amount of after-tax money they get, in the long run at least (in the short run, people don't like nominal tax cuts so we'd see real incomes gradually decline rather than immediate cuts).

It doesn't work so simplistically. If they CAN reduce pay and not have turnover, then they can reduce pay. This is what decides it, not income taxation.

Right. So income taxation falling, even to zero, would like cause their pre-tax wages to fall until they get in line with their previous post-tax wages.

No it's not. You're telling me that if I get to keep all of my paycheck instead of only 60% of it, that I won't have greater purchasing power?

I'm telling you that income taxes raise your pre-tax wages (because people agree to work for after-tax wages). How are you not able to understand such a simple point?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Sigh. People are agreeing to work for after-tax dollars. Income tax isn't a surprise. I mean, at least show that you understand the point before flipping out sometime.

Sigh. Black folks in the 1800's agreed to work the cotton fields. They could have refused, they could have run, but most chose to work the fields. Working those fields in the South wasn't a surprise. It wasn't slavery.

Um, sure. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. If people are willing to work for $3/hr after taxes, why wouldn't they work for $3/hr before taxes? That's what we're talking about. Cutting their taxes wouldn't affect the amount of after-tax money they get, in the long run at least (in the short run, people don't like nominal tax cuts so we'd see real incomes gradually decline rather than immediate cuts).

Nothing is the same if income tax is gone. It's not as if the entire country would remain the same. Production would be higher. Businesses could expand more. Consumers could spend more, etc. You're pretending that if there was no income tax everything remains the same, but the entire arrangement changes. And if you have people who have been making a certain wage, none of them are going to protest to the sudden reduction in their pay? No matter what their purchasing power is, someone who has been making $15/hour for 20 years isn't going to take it bending over when the employer says, "Oh BTW, now that we don't have income tax we're going to cut you to $10/hour. Don't worry, your net result will be about the same." People will protest and there would be turnover. Other employers could take advantage of this and scoop up the best laborers by offering them more.

Businesses also would have more wealth which they could invest back into their business. Without changing the pay. With increased production and increased competition comes lower prices - which also helps the purchasing power of consumers.

There is SO MUCH MORE to this than your simple equation of "Without income tax taking 35% of the laborers net income, businesses will reduce pay by 35% and the same purchasing power will exist". I mean, that is about as lazy and stupid a conclusion as one could draw.

 

[Greoric]

It's not just the EU, it's Japan as well. Like I said, it's demand and the financial crisis. Less consumer demand and banks aren't about to start pumping out really cheap, high risk loans just because they have high reserves. Regardless of IOER.
Low oil prices and the effect on the dollar are a factor here as well.

Of course if velocity increases it should lead to inflation, which is what they are aiming for after all. That doesn't equate to apocalyptic hyperinflation though.

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. It was rhetorical, but still deserved an answer.

I went over this with JVS too. Its not about demand. Demand or lack there of isn't the cause, its just a symptom. In the GFC its not as if people wanted to stop taking out loans or buying houses for equity gains, its that people weren't able to make their payments. That's a production issue representing an unsustainable allocation of resources, not a demand issue.

Similarly, now its not like small business owners aren't demanding to take out loans and spend it on start up cap ex, its that banks are unwilling to make uncollateralized loans. Case in point, they have less problem issuing out collateralized car loans ala the auto loan bubble we have brewing.

Another thing to point out as you mentioned is the oil problem. The glut in oil production and commodities in general is a direct result of the easy money. A prolonged low interest rate environment after all incentivizes longer term projects for obvious reasons. Now we're going to pay the piper for it in terms of the exposure the banks all have to the tune of quadrillions, a number no one really comprehends. Those bubbles are going to put us under some extremely heavy deflationtary pressure.

Now here's where it gets interesting to me. The counter party risk to these banks far exceeds even what they have in reserves. So let's say they come under sufficient stress with these counter parties rolling over. I don't know that the 3 trillion will be able to make a dent in that problem. My concern primarily is the round of easing from our monetary authorities that will follow when the market is trying to restructure, which invariably is incredibly painful.

By the way, I'm glad you brought up Japan. What a shit show. As an aside I remember asking JVS a couple years ago how the keynesian policies were working for them over there, and he mentioned things were on the up swing.

 

[Ruprecht]

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. It was rhetorical, but still deserved an answer.

I went over this with JVS too. Its not about demand. Demand or lack there of isn't the cause, its just a symptom. In the GFC its not as if people wanted to stop taking out loans or buying houses for equity gains, its that people weren't able to make their payments. That's a production issue representing an unsustainable allocation of resources, not a demand issue.

Similarly, now its not like small business owners aren't demanding to take out loans and spend it on start up cap ex, its that banks are unwilling to make uncollateralized loans. Case in point, they have less problem issuing out collateralized car loans ala the auto loan bubble we have brewing.

Another thing to point out as you mentioned is the oil problem. The glut in oil production and commodities in general is a direct result of the easy money. A prolonged low interest rate environment after all incentivizes longer term projects for obvious reasons. Now we're going to pay the piper for it in terms of the exposure the banks all have to the tune of quadrillions, a number no one really comprehends. Those bubbles are going to put us under some extremely heavy deflationtary pressure.

Now here's where it gets interesting to me. The counter party risk to these banks far exceeds even what they have in reserves. So let's say they come under sufficient stress with these counter parties rolling over. I don't know that the 3 trillion will be able to make a dent in that problem. My concern primarily is the round of easing from our monetary authorities that will follow when the market is trying to restructure, which invariably is incredibly painful.

By the way, I'm glad you brought up Japan. What a shit show. As an aside I remember asking JVS a couple years ago how the keynesian policies were working for them over there, and he mentioned things were on the up swing.

Eh? I directly answered both questions in your post.

On the other hand none of what you posted addresses mine. I'm not interested in this shell game of cause and effect. If IOER is the reason there's no hyperinflation, then why have the European nations and Japan, with enormous quantitative easing and negative IOER, not experienced it?

 

[Greoric]

Eh? I directly answered both questions in your post.

On the other hand none of what you posted addresses mine. I'm not interested in this shell game of cause and effect. If IOER is the reason there's no hyperinflation, then why have the European nations and Japan, with enormous quantitative easing and negative IOER, not experienced it?

So you're asking me to answer a burden of your own objection? Its evident that banks are not making loans in the US, and interest on their excessive reserves provides an incentive to not make them. If that's not the incentive, then I don't know, but that doesn't change the fact that something is still getting them to hold on to those reserves. What other incentive is there that you know of? That's up to you to posit.

More appropriately, The issue of incentive is tertiary to the fact that if those reserves are purged out into the larger market then we would see an extraordinary amount of inflation. You disagree?

 

[skombolis]

In a combined lab meeting we were talking about communicating science to the public and outreach at elementary schools. One approach discussed was keeping sentences very short and being repititive.
Looks like that fits: Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall. Make America Great Again. Wall.

It's pretty standard for sales too. (Even if the product is your self). Repeat the name or a simple saying over and over again. It definitely has proven itself to be effective in both. One-liners are early to remember and regurgitate. Trump certainly knows this.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I think you missed the point. It isn't about knowing you are taxed, it's about being taxed via force. You are forced to pay the income tax. Spending tax is voluntary. If you don't want to be taxed on clothes, you can make your own or trade with people. If you don't want to be taxed on food, you can make/grow you own, or trade with others. Or you can choose to pay the tax to get your goods.

All taxpayers, whether they're paying an income or sales tax, are "taxed via force". Having money taken out of your paycheck isn't labor, so it's not slavery.

Income tax doesn't work that way. It's taken before you ever even see it and you have no say over what it's used for. If you don't want to pay it you're going to end up in prison or dead.

You do have say in what it's used for. That's why people vote.

That land isn't yours. Your income is yours.

It's not mine only if society determines it's not mine. Just like income tax revenue isn't yours, because society has determined that some money belongs to the government.

Then what are you saying? I don't want to misquote you.

In a libertarian society people can be punished for not accepting their being excluded from resources. Even though these people weren't given the opportunity to decide the rules governing resource use. The person who appropriated a beach and has rented it out, making a fortune and passing it on to his family never got my vote of approval for using land that way.

It appears to me that what you're saying is that it's okay for people to prey upon you and your resources. You're saying that you cannot resist them if they want to take advantage of your property. For if you tell them no and they resist you, you're supposed to capitulate. If you don't surrender to their insistence upon using your property then it's YOUR FAULT things escalated. Am I understanding you right?

No. My point is that your concern for people refusing to obey their society's rules being punished, possibly to the point of death, is pretense.

This seems to me to be a form of masochism. According to you, if someone insists upon taking advantage of you, it's your fault if you resist to the point that they become violent with you. Essentially you seem to be in favor of abuse.

No, I'm just being consistent; I think the trespasser and thief should be punished for refusing to obey society's rules governing resource use, just as I think the income tax evader should.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

All taxpayers, whether they're paying an income or sales tax, are "taxed via force". Having money taken out of your paycheck isn't labor, so it's not slavery.

What? A system set up to steal your property without your permission is not a form of slavery to that system?

Well... if that were true then why hot have 100% of your income taken from you and redistributed? I am sure you'd still feel it's not a form of slavery to the system, right?

This is what happens when you have capricious beliefs. You can extrapolate your idea into another context and see how you would suddenly reverse course.

You do have say in what it's used for. That's why people vote.

I can demonstrate the same counter to your point here. Let's take your idea and apply it in another context and we'll see how quickly you reverse course.

Your idea is that you do have a say because you can vote. If your say doesn't win the vote, then it's still right because you had a say.

Well... let's apply that reasoning to slavery. Give slaves the right to vote, but if the majority votes to enact slavery then it's the right choice because the voters voted in favor of it. It's what society agreed is best.

Are you for allowing us to vote on everything? I bet your answer is NO. So if you agree that we cannot vote on everything, then you cannot use voting as your answer. You'd - I presume - agree that people have certain rights, and those cannot be voted away from you. So what are those rights? Who decides? Can we decide slavery is okay? Then can we decide theft is okay, as long as it's voted in?

You see, this is where you'll now try to change the meaning of theft so it does not apply to taxation by force. If you apply your reasoning equally, you'll find that it doesn't work. So the only choice left to you in order for you to maintain your position it to try to change the meaning of words and play semantic games.

It's not mine only if society determines it's not mine. Just like income tax revenue isn't yours, because society has determined that some money belongs to the government.

It's not yours because a society based upon freedom is a society based upon personal property. You cannot say that you're for freedom and liberty and then say that you do not believe in personal property. So here is where you have a choice. You can come clean and say that you do not support freedom and liberty and you support a socialistic system or a communistic system, or you can come over to the side of freedom and liberty.

What I see you doing is being very capricious. You'll say that you believe in freedom and liberty, but you use the terms only when it suits you. And when it doesn't suit you you'll toss aside freedom and liberty or you'll do your best to twist the meanings of words or play semantic games to confuse the reality that your position is anti-freedom and liberty. In the end, it isn't about freedom and liberty for you, it's authoritarianism. Freedom and liberty is allowed when you decide it's allowed. When it is of no use to you, you oppose it while pretending that you do not. It's all about your feelings, not about what others have a fundamental right to.

Your income is another piece of property that you own. You created it, you sacrificed time and effort to create it. It's yours. If society comes in with guns and tells you that you only get to keep 70% of it, that isn't freedom and liberty. That's something else.

In a libertarian society people can be punished for not accepting their being excluded from resources. Even though these people weren't given the opportunity to decide the rules governing resource use. The person who appropriated a beach and has rented it out, making a fortune and passing it on to his family never got my vote of approval for using land that way.

Why would he need your vote for that land? You really do seem to believe in communism. You seem to be taking a position that you believe that everyone works and then everything that is produced is thrown into a pot and then society will divide up for everyone. If this is what you believe in, then come out and fucking say it already. Why do people who believe in these types of principles always present their case as if they're for freedom and liberty?

If a person worked hard and saved up money, and that person purchased a beach to rent it out, why would society have a say in that? The purchase of that is a matter of mutual agreement between the buyer and the seller. Society has no role unless you believe in communism so you might as well just admit what you believe in.

No. My point is that your concern for people refusing to obey their society's rules being punished, possibly to the point of death, is pretense.

Again, it's about whether or not you believe in freedom and liberty. If you believe in freedom and liberty then you believe in personal property. If you believe in personal property, then you understand that no one has a right to come and force your property from you - otherwise you do not believe in personal property, you believe in communal property. If you believe in communal property, then you do not believe in liberty and freedom. So come out and say it already.

I can respectfully disagree with you if you're saying that your basic principles are founded in communism. We can have a discussion about which is a better society, which is fair, etc. It's not cool to have a conversation with someone who is being capricious and inconsistent and is misrepresenting themselves.

No, I'm just being consistent; I think the trespasser and thief should be punished for refusing to obey society's rules governing resource use, just as I think the income tax evader should.

But you're not being consistent. On one hand you just said that you believe in personal property and that if someone trespasses upon your personal property, that they should be punished for violating your rights. But on the other hand you're saying that if Government does it, by popular vote or whatever, then your personal property CAN be trespassed upon and that if you resist the violation of your personal property then you should be punished. On one hand you're protecting personal property and on the other you're violating it. This is inconsistent.

In other words, you're saying that freedom and liberty aren't your basic principles, you're more in favor of society as a whole picking and choosing what rights you have by vote. Mob law - in other words. And again, in this scenario you can justify slavery of minorities as long as the popular vote says it's okay. Why should the minorities be protected then? What is there protecting the minorities from what society is deeming appropriate for them? Can you answer that?

I can tell you that IF you answer that you're going to demonstrate how capricious you are.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

What? A system set up to steal your property without your permission is not a form of slavery to that system?

Well... if that were true then why hot have 100% of your income taken from you and redistributed? I am sure you'd still feel it's not a form of slavery to the system, right?

This is what happens when you have capricious beliefs. You can extrapolate your idea into another context and see how you would suddenly reverse course.

It's not slavery because if the government requires high income earners to pay high taxes on that income, the government isn't forcing anyone to be a CEO, banker, entertainer, etc.

I can demonstrate the same counter to your point here. Let's take your idea and apply it in another context and we'll see how quickly you reverse course.

Your idea is that you do have a say because you can vote. If your say doesn't win the vote, then it's still right because you had a say.

Well... let's apply that reasoning to slavery. Give slaves the right to vote, but if the majority votes to enact slavery then it's the right choice because the voters voted in favor of it. It's what society agreed is best.

Are you for allowing us to vote on everything? I bet your answer is NO. So if you agree that we cannot vote on everything, then you cannot use voting as your answer. You'd - I presume - agree that people have certain rights, and those cannot be voted away from you. So what are those rights? Who decides? Can we decide slavery is okay? Then can we decide theft is okay, as long as it's voted in?

I never claimed everything should be determined by majority vote. I was simply pointing out that your claim that taxpayers have no say in how their government's money is used, is false.

You see, this is where you'll now try to change the meaning of theft so it does not apply to taxation by force. If you apply your reasoning equally, you'll find that it doesn't work. So the only choice left to you in order for you to maintain your position it to try to change the meaning of words and play semantic games.

Not even close. It's libertarians who redefine words and fail to understand concepts. Theft is not the forceful taking of goods that a person subjectively thinks he is entitled to, which is how libertarians redefine theft.

It's not yours because a society based upon freedom is a society based upon personal property.

Meaningless.

You cannot say that you're for freedom and liberty and then say that you do not believe in personal property. So here is where you have a choice. You can come clean and say that you do not support freedom and liberty and you support a socialistic system or a communistic system, or you can come over to the side of freedom and liberty.

Liberty is absence of restraint. If you support property rights then you support restraining people. It's not that followers of your ideology support liberty and everyone else opposes it, it's that you support certain liberties and other people support other liberties.

What I see you doing is being very capricious. You'll say that you believe in freedom and liberty, but you use the terms only when it suits you. And when it doesn't suit you you'll toss aside freedom and liberty or you'll do your best to twist the meanings of words or play semantic games to confuse the reality that your position is anti-freedom and liberty. In the end, it isn't about freedom and liberty for you, it's authoritarianism. Freedom and liberty is allowed when you decide it's allowed. When it is of no use to you, you oppose it while pretending that you do not. It's all about your feelings, not about what others have a fundamental right to.

This is just nonsense.

Your income is another piece of property that you own. You created it, you sacrificed time and effort to create it. It's yours. If society comes in with guns and tells you that you only get to keep 70% of it, that isn't freedom and liberty. That's something else.

I don't think sacrificing time and effort entitles someone to not pay taxes on the income they earn through that sacrifice of time and effort.

Why would he need your vote for that land? You really do seem to believe in communism. You seem to be taking a position that you believe that everyone works and then everything that is produced is thrown into a pot and then society will divide up for everyone. If this is what you believe in, then come out and fucking say it already. Why do people who believe in these types of principles always present their case as if they're for freedom and liberty?

I didn't say he would need my vote to exclude me from it. I'm simply saying that if you believe the first person to 'mix his labor' with an unowned part of the universe should gain the right to unilaterally impose an obligation on everyone else not to use that 'soil', you support coercion.

I don't say I'm a communist because I'm not.

If a person worked hard and saved up money, and that person purchased a beach to rent it out, why would society have a say in that?

I was mainly talking about appropriation, that is, the initial claim that an unowned piece of the universe now is owned by someone.

Why would society have a say, and do something like tax the people who make a fortune renting the land out? Because other people didn't have the same opportunity to make that fortune. It's a matter of fairness.

The purchase of that is a matter of mutual agreement between the buyer and the seller. Society has no role unless you believe in communism so you might as well just admit what you believe in.

Society absolutely has a role in creating and enforcing property rights.

In other words, you're saying that freedom and liberty aren't your basic principles, you're more in favor of society as a whole picking and choosing what rights you have by vote. Mob law - in other words. And again, in this scenario you can justify slavery of minorities as long as the popular vote says it's okay. Why should the minorities be protected then?

Because when people are racially discriminated against, their inherent dignity is not being recognized.

What is there protecting the minorities from what society is deeming appropriate for them?

Your question doesn't make sense; if society treats minorities as equals then equality is what society deems appropriate for them.

 

[machidafan99]

I certainly don't believe Bernie is anythying like his minions believe him to be. He's a gun-toting authoritarian for sure. No question.
Super angry + Socialist is not a good combo

 

[CableandThanos]

The problem with responding to Jack's lies is this. When someone says something untrue about you or what you're saying and you spend the time to correct them, what you're telling them is; "You're a rational guy, let's discuss this together." And that is a problem with habitual liars like Jack, because he is NOT a rational guy. He is a guy completely motivated by a particular narrative and he will say and do anything to further that narrative. He's not there to have a civil conversation with you, so to grant him the platform of, "You're rational, let's talk about this" is to give him credibility that he has neither earned nor deserves. And I say this having given him countless opportunities. I'm a fool for still indulging.

Jack is full of shit and either lies or uses word games. Then he falls back on, well you don't understand what I am saying or you just aren't smart enough to understand what I am saying.