The Donald-thread

[Seth]

I see Trump has called on Russia to break the law by hacking Hillary's email. Unbelievable that a country could have such an immature and potentially criminal person running for president.

Well, since Hillary won't release them, tries to conceal them, intentionally illegally deletes them, lies about it, breaks numerous law and the Obama justice department refuses to prosecute her Trump, like any other right-thinking person, welcomes any assistance in revealing the truth about her crimes and misdemeanors. If Karl Marx had access to hard evidence of the corruption or treason of an American presidential wannabe I'd welcome his releasing it to the public because the source and the means of obtaining the evidence is unimportant, only the evidence and the truth of it is important.

It's not like we don't already know that the Russians and Chinese had access to her email already because the ignorant twat kept them on an insecure private server that was open to being hacked by anybody and the damage, national security wise, has already been done. If the Russians can help us bring down Hillary and get her put in jail, I'm fine with that, just like I'd be fine with the US providing evidence against Putin to the Russian people to bring him down.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...for the moment.

[Seth]

Anyone who takes public assistance or who doesn't own real property should be denied a vote.

I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but wow.

Why should the dependent class who take government largess be permitted to vote on whether they are to get more largess? They aren't paying for it with their taxes so why should they have a say in who is elected to determine how much taxpayers have to pay to support them? To say that dole-takers should have a vote is to say that the beneficiaries of charitable contributions get to determine how much the donor has to give. Where's the logic in that?

If you want to vote, get off the dole and become a working taxpayer so that you have a moral right to make decisions about how much the government takes out of your wallet to pay for other people's stuff.

[Seth]

"Libertarian"

When the dependent class dole-takers vote themselves largess out of the public treasury they are initiating force and fraud on people who actually pay taxes, so it's entirely Libertarian. Libertarianism doesn't permit anyone to take what doesn't belong to them without the consent of the owner of that property, no matter what their putative justification for doing so may be.

If you want to be on the dole in Libertarianism, you get only what people who choose to voluntarily donate to that cause care to put into it and not a fucking dime more. If you are an ungrateful fuckhead who wants more than someone else is willing to donate voluntarily and you try to use force, any force, including the proxy force of government, you are an initiator of force and fraud and everybody else is entitled to take defensive and punitive action against you to prevent you from stealing from and defrauding others.

Libertarianism encourages you to sit on a corner with a begging bowl asking for alms (or standing on a street divider flying a sign) if you have no other source of income, but it denies you the right to take it at gunpoint and it protects the right of anyone you try to rob to drop you in your tracks.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of Libertarianism is legendary, but thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate just how stupid and ignorant your arguments are.

[Seth]

"Libertarian"

"Marxist"

When the dependent class dole-takers vote themselves largess out of the public treasury they are initiating force and fraud on people who actually pay taxes, so it's entirely Libertarian. Libertarianism doesn't permit anyone to take what doesn't belong to them without the consent of the owner of that property, no matter what their putative justification for doing so may be.

If you want to be on the dole in Libertarianism, you get only what people who choose to voluntarily donate to that cause care to put into it and not a fucking dime more. If you are an ungrateful fuckhead who wants more than someone else is willing to donate voluntarily and you try to use force, any force, including the proxy force of government, you are an initiator of force and fraud and everybody else is entitled to take defensive and punitive action against you to prevent you from stealing from and defrauding others.

Libertarianism encourages you to sit on a corner with a begging bowl asking for alms (or standing on a street divider flying a sign) if you have no other source of income, but it denies you the right to take it at gunpoint and it protects the right of anyone you try to rob to drop you in your tracks.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of Libertarianism is legendary, but thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate just how stupid and ignorant your arguments are.[/quote]

[Forty Two]

Well, the big problem is that the government is just going to make sure that everyone gets some form of largess, and then eliminate everyone's right to vote. :-)

The majority of Americans receive some money from the government already, and that's just counting Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid and welfare. Government insured loans, government grants for school, small business SBA guaranteed loans and grants, and a host of other benefits are doled out all the time.

If you eliminated the right to vote from anyone who receives any money from the government, you have very few voters left.

[Seth]

Well, the big problem is that the government is just going to make sure that everyone gets some form of largess, and then eliminate everyone's right to vote. :-)

And that is the Marxist/Progressive plan and has been since Marx set pen to paper.

The majority of Americans receive some money from the government already, and that's just counting Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid and welfare. Government insured loans, government grants for school, small business SBA guaranteed loans and grants, and a host of other benefits are doled out all the time.

Yup. You bet they do. I didn't, until Obama threatened to send out jackbooted thugs armed with machine guns to steal some $600 from me for not buying his snake-oil program. Not one fucking dime ever.

If you eliminated the right to vote from anyone who receives any money from the government, you have very few voters left.

Exactly the point. When people realize that taking government largess means that they are no longer able to participate in the political process, and that therefore their economic futures depends on the charitable impulses of those who actually pay taxes, they will either be motivated to eschew government benefits and take greater care to provide for themselves economically or they will not, and either is fine with me because if they become productive taxpayers they deserve a say in their representation and if they don't they will have to be satisfied with what those who do pay taxes choose to give to them voluntarily.

[rachelbean]

Anyone who takes public assistance or who doesn't own real property should be denied a vote.

I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but wow.

Why should the dependent class who take government largess be permitted to vote on whether they are to get more largess? They aren't paying for it with their taxes so why should they have a say in who is elected to determine how much taxpayers have to pay to support them? To say that dole-takers should have a vote is to say that the beneficiaries of charitable contributions get to determine how much the donor has to give. Where's the logic in that?

If you want to vote, get off the dole and become a working taxpayer so that you have a moral right to make decisions about how much the government takes out of your wallet to pay for other people's stuff.

I don't think that because someone is in need of assistance that they no longer should have a voice in the system that may have helped put them in that situation in the first place. Secondly, and completely aside from that, a lot of people work and pay large amounts of taxes and yet don't own property.

[Forty Two]

The kind of libertarianism Seth preaches is not feasible or realistic.

I'm libertarian to a great degree, because I value human liberty. However, being libertarian does not require the kind of anarcho-libertarianism preached by Seth, where people only adhere to laws they agree to, or only pay the taxes they say yes to. That kind of "consent" does not make sense in a republican government. We have elected representatives to act for us in determining policies, including tax policies.

[DRSB]

Dollary

[Sean Hayden]

Christ

[Brian Peacock]

I feel slightly queasy now. Pass me the gin Jim.

[Seth]

Dollary

Hillump

[Seth]

Anyone who takes public assistance or who doesn't own real property should be denied a vote.

I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but wow.

Why should the dependent class who take government largess be permitted to vote on whether they are to get more largess? They aren't paying for it with their taxes so why should they have a say in who is elected to determine how much taxpayers have to pay to support them? To say that dole-takers should have a vote is to say that the beneficiaries of charitable contributions get to determine how much the donor has to give. Where's the logic in that?

If you want to vote, get off the dole and become a working taxpayer so that you have a moral right to make decisions about how much the government takes out of your wallet to pay for other people's stuff.

I don't think that because someone is in need of assistance that they no longer should have a voice in the system that may have helped put them in that situation in the first place.

"May have?" That's a pretty vague criteria. How does one determine that "the system" "may have helped" put someone in a "situation" where they decide to take government assistance rather than that they are milking "the system" for all it's worth because they can and because it's more comfortable for them to be a member of the dependent class and let someone else support them than it is to go out and face the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and take arms against them? In the US there is no "system" that forces people into the dependent class. Whether they decide to be dependent is dependent on their willingness to work to improve their lot more than it is any sort of systemic oppression that forces them into dependence that would be the moral or legal responsibility of those who are willing to work to ameliorate.

If you, a young, uneducated, unskilled black man, can't find a job in inner-city Chicago because there's 5 million other uneducated black youths milling around smoking crack and shooting each other the prudent thing to do would seem to be to get the FUCK out of inner-city Chicago and seek your fortune, and a better education, somewhere else in this vast country...where $25 an hour fruit orchard jobs go begging because Americans are lazy and unwilling to work hard to earn their money in large part because it's easier and more comfortable to take perpetual unemployment and other government largess than it is to sweat in the sun picking peaches...and make something of yourself.

Why should anyone feel any sympathy for someone who is too lazy to care for themselves who chooses not to work when work is available or not to get an education when that education is available?

Secondly, and completely aside from that, a lot of people work and pay large amounts of taxes and yet don't own property.

Then they shouldn't get to vote on taxing other people's property.

[rachelbean]

[pErvinalia]

This man has the maturity of a teenager!:

At a rally in Davenport, Iowa today, Donald Trump -- reacting to criticism in the mature, reasoned fashion he usually does -- said he had been watching speakers at the Democratic National Convention. “I mean, the things that were said about me. I mean, should I go through some of the names? You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. … I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was gonna hit this guy so hard, his head would spin, he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”