# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Question for Anti-Tariffists

## The Rebel Poet

If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?

----------


## Origanalist

Voluntarily.

----------


## dannno

Voluntarily? 

But if you're going to fund it through taxation, low tariffs are the best way. 

Trump dipping his toe into the tariff pool will give him leverage to lower our export tariffs that have been shackled on us by other countries. Time to watch "The Art of the Deal" in action..

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Ah, someone remembers the Harry Browne / Ron Paul platforms which called for abolishing the income tax, and funding the Federal government via excise taxes and (low, flat) tariffs, as the Constitution originally allowed.

----------


## timosman

> Ah, someone remembers the Harry Browne / Ron Paul platforms which called for abolishing the income tax, and funding the Federal government via excise taxes and (low, flat) tariffs, as the Constitution originally allowed.


Unfortunately common sense isn't common.

----------


## Madison320

> Voluntarily? 
> 
> But if you're going to fund it through taxation, low tariffs are the best way. 
> 
> Trump dipping his toe into the tariff pool will give him leverage to lower our export tariffs that have been shackled on us by other countries. Time to watch "The Art of the Deal" in action..


So you think Trump's plan is to replace the income tax with tariffs? 

The problem is that none of it matters unless you shrink government spending and Trump is doing the opposite.

----------


## dannno

> So you think Trump's plan is to replace the income tax with tariffs?


What? No. That would be awesome, but that isn't what I said at all..

----------


## RonZeplin

Make aluminum can collecting great again!



Price of aluminum up due to tariff.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Make aluminum can collecting great again!
> 
> 
> 
> Price of aluminum up due to tariff.


But the recycling fee is based on what a state sets as the deposit.

----------


## RonZeplin

> But the recycling fee is based on what a state sets as the deposit.


Fiat can currency.    Artificially propped up by gov mandates.

----------


## axiomata

> But the recycling fee is based on what a state sets as the deposit.


Fee was set much greater than market price of aluminum scrap to encourage cleaning up public commons. State's probably haven't adjusted rebate in a while for inflation. Potentially if aluminum prices increase enough the market price on aluminum scrap might surpass the centrally planned price and private recyclers might give you more than the state.

----------


## oyarde

> If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?


You have missed quite a bit , anti tariffists are more likely to support taxes , be open borders and wear dirty underwear while running a cord to the guy next doors house for electric while they post in the squalor of an abandoned basement that smells of rat urine while avoiding paying student loans they spent on Mac n Cheese .

----------


## CaptUSA

I’m not morally opposed to a low uniform tariff that is applied at a real low rate across all industries and all imports. But this is not what we have nor what is being discussed.  This is about cronyism to benefit one sector of the economy at the expense of all the rest.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

If it were worthwhile, people would pay for it.

Lotteries, donations, pools for specific programs one wishes to enlist in.

If tariffs were uniformly 2% and the income tax were abolished that would be leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

That is not going to happen as spending will not be cut.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If it were worthwhile, people would pay for it.
> 
> Lotteries, donations, pools for specific programs one whiches to enlist in.
> 
> If* tariffs were uniformly 2%* and the income tax were abolished that would be leaps and bounds better than what we have now.
> 
> That is not going to happen as* spending will not be cut*.


A 2% tariff on everything imported would give you $44 billion to spend.   (Imports last year were $1.2 trillion)

If you want tariffs to replace the income tax, they would need to be to be just over 100%.  
Include your Social Security taxes and you are up to 150%.  
If you want a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 200% tariff on every single item imported.

----------


## thoughtomator

> So spending increases, taxes are reduced. How is it paid for?


It's "paid for" by adding to a national debt that will never be repaid. So ultimately it will be those who chose to buy shares in the ability of the government to extract wealth from us by force, who end up eating the losses. And it will be divine justice when it happens.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> A 2% tariff on everything imported would give you $44 billion to spend.
> 
> If you want tariffs to replace the income tax, they would need to be to be just over 100%.  
> Include your Social Security taxes and you are up to 150%.  
> If you want a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 200% tariff on every single item imported.


Lol.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's "paid for" by adding to a national debt that will never be repaid. So ultimately it will be those who chose to buy shares in the ability of the government to extract wealth from us by force, who end up eating the losses. And it will be divine justice when it happens.


Fair enough.

The correction will be that much more painful.

Also it isn't as if when the house of cards starts to unravel there will not be a dollar dump for actual assets. And while I'm all on board with giving the usurers the finger, not every creditor is going to eat the losses and even while the majority do, still the repercussions of living beyond our means will be felt for years if not decades.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Fair enough.
> 
> The correction will be that much more painful.
> 
> Also it isn't as if when the house of cards starts to unravel there will not be a dollar dump for actual assets. And while I'm all on board with giving the usurers the finger, not every creditor is going to eat the losses and even while the majority do still the repercussions of living beyond our means will be felt for years if not decades.


That ship sailed so long ago there is little to nothing we can do about it at this point. Back when we were campaigning our asses off for RP there was still a chance. After 8 years of Obama our last chance to avoid default is gone.

The creditors will eat the losses because they have no other choice. We have nukes and we will still have them after the default.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> That ship sailed so long ago there is little to nothing we can do about it at this point. Back when we were campaigning our asses off for RP there was still a chance. After 8 years of Obama our last chance to avoid default is gone.
> 
> The creditors will eat the losses because they have no other choice. We have nukes and we will still have them after the default.


Would you expect Congress to limit foreign investment in land and other hard assets within the United States?

I half expect the whores of Congress to authorize the wholesale of acreage to profit one last time off this funny money scheme. Parcel off thousands of acres to satisfy certain so called obligations and establish their socialist fiefdom.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Would you expect Congress to limit foreign investment in land and other hard assets within the United States?
> 
> I half expect the whores of Congress to authorize the wholesale of acreage to profit one last time off this funny money scheme. Parcel off thousands of acres to satisfy certain so called obligations and establish their socialist fiefdom.


Any foreign nation that tried to take ownership of territory as a claim on the national debt would learn that Yamamoto wasn't joking. We could simply deny their claims and there's not a damn thing they could do about it. What are the Chinese going to do, maintain divisions in the continental US to maintain their claims? No matter how much they lose, it will not be worth it to them to get saturation nuked over.

----------


## RJB

Now this is some compelling discussion!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Now this is some compelling discussion!


Zippy did zipsplain to me once again that tariffs would need to be over 100% to fund this government so it hasn't all been for naught.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Any foreign nation that tried to take ownership of territory *as a claim on the national debt* would learn that Yamamoto wasn't joking. We could simply deny their claims and there's not a damn thing they could do about it. What are the Chinese going to do, maintain divisions in the continental US to maintain their claims? No matter how much they lose, it will not be worth it to them to get saturation nuked over.


US debt is not backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the US government" and their ability to tax their citizens.   Debt holders have no claims against US assets.

----------


## thoughtomator

> US debt is not backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the US government" and their ability to tax their citizens.   Debt holders have no claims against US assets.


We don't have any guarantees that we won't get sold out by Congress on that point. It's fair to presume that when the financing desperation sets in, they will indeed attempt to sell off parts of the nation in order to raise cash, as there has already been movement on China's part to secure land in the US as collateral.

The bottom line, though, is that there is absolutely no way for a foreign power to secure a land claim in the US, as long as we have EITHER a nuclear arsenal or a nation full of civilians armed to the teeth. So when the time comes, we will simply declare the debt to be odious and default it and that will be that.

----------


## nikcers

> If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?


How do you put a baby to sleep with a hammer? 


1.Debt (Theft)
2.Industry tarrifs/ corporate tax cuts(protectionism)
4.Fed (Managed Interest Rates)
5.Taxation with representation

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> You have missed quite a bit , anti tariffists are more likely to support taxes , be open borders and wear dirty underwear while running a cord to the guy next doors house for electric while they post in the squalor of an abandoned basement that smells of rat urine while avoiding paying student loans they spent on Mac n Cheese .


You forgot Muslim. They all said they're Muslim right here in this thread.

----------


## TheCount

> I’m not morally opposed to a low uniform tariff that is applied at a real low rate across all industries and all imports. But this is not what we have nor what is being discussed.  This is about cronyism to benefit one sector of the economy at the expense of all the rest.


This.  Also, it's likely impossible to pay for the current size of government via tariffs.  You'd entirely choke off trade first.

----------


## oyarde

> You forgot Muslim. They all said they're Muslim right here in this thread.


And all those other false Gods too . RPF members will be along shortly though to give tax increases and govt spending increases and other satanic verses positive reinforcement  .

----------


## angelatc

> But the recycling fee is based on what a state sets as the deposit.


Read the back of the can. Most states don't have a deposit.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Read the back of the can. Most states don't have a deposit.


I thought it was in more.  All the states I have lived in had one.   Thanks for the info.

----------


## timosman

> I thought it was in more.  All the states I have lived in had one.   Thanks for the info.


Zippy is nice. Doesn't read the back of the can but thanks for the suggestion. Maybe be it should be equipped with at least one hand? Pure AI appears too disconnected from the real world.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?


Well, how are businesses funded? How are you funded?

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## TheCount

> After 8 years of Obama our last chance to avoid default is gone.


He says while supporting a guy who makes Obama look like a fiscal conservative.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Time to watch "The Art of the Deal" in action..


Another thing Trump has lied about doing.




> Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, We need a leader that wrote The Art of the Deal.  If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote The Art of the Deal. 
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...iter-tells-all

----------


## PierzStyx

> Well, how are businesses funded? How are you funded?


Exactly.

----------


## PierzStyx

> A 2% tariff on everything imported would give you $44 billion to spend.   (Imports last year were $1.2 trillion)
> 
> If you want tariffs to replace the income tax, they would need to be to be just over 100%.  
> Include your Social Security taxes and you are up to 150%.  
> If you want a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 200% tariff on every single item imported.


Zip, remember we want to demolish just about everything in that pie chart. So arguing there won't be enough money for it is a pro for us, not a con.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?


Other, namely property tax

It's the most efficient tax, with the lowest compliance costs, smallest bureaucracy, least information reported to the state

And, needless to say, the present tariffs implemented by His Orangeness have nothing whatsoever to do with revenue.

----------


## Raginfridus

> Another thing Trump has lied about doing.


Sun Tzu for President, because everybody else is a plagiarist.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Other, namely property tax
> 
> It's the most efficient tax, with the lowest compliance costs, smallest bureaucracy, least information reported to the state


Disagree.

Property tax is the very *worst* sort of tax, reducing "ownership" of your home or property to nothing more than permanent indentured servitude to the state and being nothing more than a squatter on the King's land.

In states that still have personal property tax and assessors, it is as intrusive and humiliating as you can get: a government worker invading your home or business and picking through every possession you own, to log it into a database and to tax you on it.

Of course, if you know your rights and stand your ground, you can refuse them entry, but then they just "adjust" you into the highest possible tax scenario and assume you have closets full of rare furs, collectible guns and stashed gold hordes.

----------


## timosman

> Disagree.
> 
> Property tax is the very *worst* sort of tax, reducing "ownership" of your home or property to nothing more than permanent indentured servitude to the state and being nothing more than a squatter on the King's land.


That's the essence of life, wouldn't you agree?

----------


## presence

> Ah, someone remembers the Harry Browne / Ron Paul platforms which called for abolishing the income tax, and funding the Federal government via excise taxes and (low, flat) tariffs, as the Constitution originally allowed.


I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all taxes and replaced with flat tarrif
I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all welfare and replaced it with UBI

I have zero intererst in UBI or tariffs_ without abolition of all other forms of taxation and welfare._

even if we got to the point of no other taxes and welfare and we were down to just UBI and tariffs... 
I'd still consider such a system theft,_ feel no moral obligation to comply,_ and petition for redress;
 including but not limited to abolition of legal tender and the FED
which at its onset would defund any of these bullshitisms

the only legitimate form of governance is a signed contract

voluntary or GTFO

----------


## osan

> So you think Trump's plan is to replace the income tax with tariffs? 
> 
> The problem is that none of it matters unless you shrink government spending and *Trump* is doing the opposite.


You need to learn to spell "Congress".

You're welcome.

----------


## juleswin

> If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?


Not that I complete against tariff when I cheer lowering of taxes(not eliminating it). In the case with Trump, it is one the way this particular tariff is written. If it was an overall set rate for every goods coming into the country and it overall lowered the total amount of payment the state received(I believe the state has enough money already and should be reduced) then I wouldn't be complaining.

In my own opinion, I think tariffs are a much better option than income taxes.

----------


## osan

> I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all taxes and replaced with flat tarrif
> I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all welfare and replaced it with UBI
> 
> I have zero intererst in UBI or tariffs_ without abolition of all other forms of taxation and welfare._
> 
> even if we got to the point of no other taxes and welfare and we were down to just UBI and tariffs... 
> I'd still consider such a system theft,_ feel no moral obligation to comply,_ and petition for redress;
>  including but not limited to abolition of legal tender and the FED
> which at its onset would defund any of these bullshitisms
> ...


This is reasonable.

For one thing, practically speaking if we were to abolish all taxation this afternoon the nation would be in a lot of trouble.  We are like the world's largest heroin addict.  When you stop your $500/day habit from one moment to the next, bad things happen.  Just ask Jerry Garcia.

A piecemeal path to lesser servitude is what is needed.  How about we take the first steps first, acclimate, assess, and then move on?

I fully agree that it is all theft, but one must consider the practicalities of global politics.  America does not operate in a vacuum.  The world is full of predators, we being perhaps the worst of the lot.  Assuming we got righteous on foreign policy, there would still be nations seeking to do us harm.  Some will dismiss this, but that is foolery.

Imagine if you will that we go full-Constitution - forget the ideals of anarchy.  We dissolve our standing armies, establish peaceable relations with our global neighbors, and unleash the brute power of the free market and the sheer creative juggernaut of the American spirit.  The result, as we all know, would be an economy that would leave the rest of the world in the dust, to the point of global embarrassment, which would be the key issue in result of our prosperity.  Theye, of course, who are the globalists would still have the rest of the world by its balls.  Firstly, could they afford to allow the example of American thermonuclear success stand before the rest of the repressed world as an example counter to their collectivist-authoriratian tenets?  Not a chance.  The world would see and would inevitably begin to resist Themme.

Secondly, so ripe a fruit as a high-flying America would be impossible for Themme to resist as a mere matter of avarice and their inability to control themselves.  History is logged with examples of this.  For thousands of years tyrants have been raiding their more prosperous and freer neighbors.  The statistics are moutainously heaped against any possibility of Themme keeping their hands to themselves.

This being the almost certain case, would America be able to defend itself against the predations of other nations bent on looting?  Maybe, maybe not.  Given we have more weapons than the rest of the world combined, there is maybe even odds that we could.  But why would we want to risk being attacked?  Just as the mere presence of a gun is most often sufficient to deter an attack, the presence of some military force serves the same purpose on the national scale.  This does not mean that military must perforce be federally funded and managed, but there are definite advantages to it over every county in the nation mustering its own defense force.  Superorganization is a distinct advantage over fragmented varieties.  People have erroneously held Vietnam as an example of how small, determined forces can defeat a superpower.  This is an ignorant lie.  We "lost" in Vietnam because we had no objective of winning, period.  Additionally, the VC as well as the NVA were heavily subsidized by the Soviets.  They were no civilian-funded militia.

Therefore, the risks assumed when America disbands its military in favor of local militia are huge, the assumption being highly unsound.  Once again I acknowledge that it is a very $#@!ty reality into which we have been born, but it has been this way since time immemorial for the large human civilizations.  Gathered into large enough groups, humans take on a very different character from that of the individual.  Barring the good old "reset event", this is not going to change, ever.  Therefore, it seems to me that we as a people are behooved to take certain practical measures that best ensure reasonable safety from extra-national predation while minimally impacting liberty.

We can go full anarchist - nothing would please me more - but I do not think the global context would allow it to stand for very long for the reasons cited, above.

But once again, first things first.  Take the first steps toward liberty and continue in piecemeal fashion until such time as we either achieve the autodiathist ideal or we run into a wall of practicality that, were we to pass it, would result in catastrophe.  This gives us time to acclimate and assess, which are of paramount importance on any journey toward freedom in a world that is so far from it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Not that I complete against tariff when I cheer lowering of taxes(not eliminating it). In the case with Trump, it is one the way this particular tariff is written. If it was an overall set rate for every goods coming into the country and it overall lowered the total amount of payment the state received(I believe the state has enough money already and should be reduced) then I wouldn't be complaining.
> 
> In my own opinion, I think tariffs are a much better option than income taxes.


If you can convince Congress that a new form of taxation is better you can be sure that if they adopt it, it will be in ADDITION to existing taxes- not instead of them.

----------


## Madison320

> You need to learn to spell "Congress".
> 
> You're welcome.


True, but it's a group effort. Trump wants bigger government also. Don't forget he signed it.

----------


## Ender

> You forgot Muslim. They all said they're Muslim right here in this thread.


*LOL!*

----------


## Ender

> Disagree.
> 
> Property tax is the very *worst* sort of tax, reducing "ownership" of your home or property to nothing more than permanent indentured servitude to the state and being nothing more than a squatter on the King's land.
> 
> In states that still have personal property tax and assessors, it is as intrusive and humiliating as you can get: a government worker invading your home or business and picking through every possession you own, to log it into a database and to tax you on it.
> 
> Of course, if you know your rights and stand your ground, you can refuse them entry, but then they just "adjust" you into the highest possible tax scenario and assume you have closets full of rare furs, collectible guns and stashed gold hordes.


In absolute agreement.

Property "tax" means that you have no property; stop paying & the real owners will show up, arrest you & take said property.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Disagree.
> 
> Property tax is the very *worst* sort of tax, reducing "ownership" of your home or property to nothing more than permanent indentured servitude to the state and being nothing more than a squatter on the King's land.
> 
> In states that still have personal property tax and assessors, it is as intrusive and humiliating as you can get: a government worker invading your home or business and picking through every possession you own, to log it into a database and to tax you on it.
> 
> Of course, if you know your rights and stand your ground, you can refuse them entry, but then they just "adjust" you into the highest possible tax scenario and assume you have closets full of rare furs, collectible guns and stashed gold hordes.


This has always been my point of view. I like to think of property taxes as the existence tax; It's the only one you don't even have to do anything to get charged.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Other, namely property tax
> 
> It's the most efficient tax, with the lowest compliance costs, smallest bureaucracy, least information reported to the state
> 
> And, needless to say, the present tariffs implemented by His Orangeness have nothing whatsoever to do with revenue.


What should a person do who inherited some land, and now owes money on it, but doesn't have funds to pay rent to the king? What if my crops all failed and rent is due tomorrow?

----------


## Madison320

> This has always been my point of view. I like to think of property taxes as the existence tax; It's the only one you don't even have to do anything to get charged.


Another vote for property taxes being the worst. 

It's hard to describe but with most other forms of taxation at least you're still "in the black" after the tax. You're just getting less than you would have without the tax. But with property tax you can go negative. You can owe money even though you're dead broke.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Another vote for property taxes being the worst. 
> 
> It's hard to describe but with most other forms of taxation at least you're still "in the black" after the tax. You're just getting less than you would have without the tax. But with property tax you can go negative. You can owe money even though you're dead broke.


Governments like the property tax because its revenues are a lot more consistent making budgeting easier.  Sales or income taxes move up and down with the economy much more-  revenues from them go down during tough times just when those same tough times are causing you to spend more money.  (not saying I favor property taxes myself).   Also note that renters don't avoid paying property taxes- the taxes are included in the rent  you are paying.

----------


## osan

> True, but it's a group effort. Trump wants bigger government also. *Don't forget he signed it*.


It would pass anyway.  I'm not defending Trump, but I'm not yet condemning him either.  We don't know what goes on behind closed doors.  We don't know Trump's broader objectives.  He may be just about one of Theire stooges.  That has yet to be proved.  He's done some good things, said some really stupid things.  At this point I see no basis for reaching a conclusion.  This is a tangled web we traverse; who knows what other factors are at play, what other unintuitive tactics pursuant to a greater strategy.  Or he is just another stooge and we are in worse shape than before.  At this point another marginal step toward the end of all that is good doesn't really make much difference.  The time to $#@! or get off the pot will come sooner or later.  Accounts will be settled at that time, either by positive or negative choosing.  I'm old-ish.  I don't give that much of a $#@! what happens because I intend on escaping this prison sooner than later.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Governments like the property tax because its revenues are a lot more consistent making budgeting easier.  Sales or income taxes move up and down with the economy much more-  revenues from them go down during tough times just when those same tough times are causing you to spend more money.  (not saying I favor property taxes myself).   Also note that renters don't avoid paying property taxes- the taxes are included in the rent  you are paying.


Maybe governments should actually store money in the treasury for a rainy day the way it used to be in ancient times.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Maybe governments should actually store money in the treasury for a rainy day the way it used to be in ancient times.


So they should tax people even more to build up a cushion.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So they should tax people even more to build up a cushion.


They should spend less to build up a cushion, when the cushion is large enough they can reduce taxes further.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What should a person do who inherited some land, and now owes money on it, but doesn't have funds to pay rent to the king? What if my crops all failed and rent is due tomorrow?


What if you can't live on your income less income tax?

What if you can't live on your income less sales tax?

Taxation sucks. 

The question is which form sucks least and, from an economic point of view, property tax sucks least.

It has the lowest compliance costs for the taxpayer, requires the smallest government agency, etc.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What if you can't live on your income less income tax?
> 
> What if you can't live on your income less sales tax?
> 
> Taxation sucks. 
> 
> The question is which form sucks least and, from an economic point of view, property tax sucks least.
> 
> It has the lowest compliance costs for the taxpayer, requires the smallest government agency, etc.


Property tax is the only tax that will take you backwards without you even moving.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> What if you can't live on your income less sales tax?


The difference is that property taxes can be levied against people with no money; sales tax cannot. If you cannot live on your income less sales tax, then you buy less, and live off the land.

----------


## The Northbreather

//

----------


## The Northbreather

> Property tax is the only tax that will take you backwards without you even moving.


Yes.

Now its get tricky, especially when we ask do we own ourselves if the state takes the right to demand taxes from us.

The way I take it, the property tax is the foundation of the entire immoral tax structure much as property rights are the foundation all the other rights starting with self ownership and the right to life/owning property that can sustain your life.

----------


## Madison320

> It would pass anyway.  I'm not defending Trump, but I'm not yet condemning him either.  We don't know what goes on behind closed doors.  We don't know Trump's broader objectives.  He may be just about one of Theire stooges.  That has yet to be proved.  He's done some good things, said some really stupid things.  At this point I see no basis for reaching a conclusion.  This is a tangled web we traverse; who knows what other factors are at play, what other unintuitive tactics pursuant to a greater strategy.  Or he is just another stooge and we are in worse shape than before.  At this point another marginal step toward the end of all that is good doesn't really make much difference.  The time to $#@! or get off the pot will come sooner or later.  Accounts will be settled at that time, either by positive or negative choosing.  I'm old-ish.  I don't give that much of a $#@! what happens because I intend on escaping this prison sooner than later.


I was neutral on Trump before he took office but I think he's clearly failed on the big issues. He's in favor of huge spending increases and he nominated a cheap money guy to head the Fed. Plus he openly flip flopped on some important stuff like calling the stock market a "big fat ugly bubble" and the jobs reports "fake" before the election, now he's bragging about the stock market and the jobs reports.

----------


## Madison320

> Property tax is the only tax that will take you backwards without you even moving.


Thank you. That's what I was trying to say, only you said it better.

----------


## osan

> I was neutral on Trump before he took office but I think he's clearly failed on the big issues.


You have allowed yourself to be fooled by appearances.  It is still too soon to know what he is really about.  We may know by this afternoon, or may remain unsure in another year.

We are in a time of broader results.  The details cannot be relied upon to tell us anything essentially truthful about the deeper state of things.  Unless this is 100% theater, which it may be, there is a very fundamental struggle for the future of American reality.  If we assume that this is not all smoke and mirrors, then Trump is a fly in Theire ointment and the battle to which we are witnesses is deep and very broad.  Being so, almost anything is possible and one cannot trust much of what he sees.

Therefore, I maintain my advice to take care and be patient with regard to assessing that which appears to be happening.

For example, I have heard that Mueller may be a Trump mole.  I have no idea whether it is true, and I acknowledge it doesn't seem very likely.  But in a game with stakes this large, almost anything is possible.  




> He's in favor of huge spending increases and he nominated a cheap money guy to head the Fed.


He APPEARS to be in favor.  Don't be so easily drawn in by appearances.

Consider this: Trump is treading a knife's edge.  _IF_ his primary goal is to "drain the swamp", which I will assume to mean the charging, trying, and imprisoning of what could be hundreds of Democrat "leaders" including Clinton, Obama, Rice, Lynch, Holder, etc., he is pissing in the cornflakes of a vast array of evil and very dangerous people.  The risks are huge and he will need all the friends he can get just to keep his head, much less to succeed.

Given all that, he can by no means afford to piss even more people off, some of those powerful, evil, and dangerous people - some of them in his own party.  Therefore, one thing at a time.  Prioritize the list of world-bending objectives and do one, survive, regroup, then on to the next.  It is impossibly naive to think he could doo this at once.  He stands to be assassinated as it is.  If he bites off too much, there is no possibility of him prevailing.  Trump doesn't play with the objective of losing and I very seriously doubt he is such a fool as to not understand that of which he is up against.  His life is literally on the line.  His family is on the line.  If you think he is not cognizant of this and not being very careful in his choice of actions, you are fooling yourself.

We are talking about affecting sea changes in the American juggernaut, no mean feat for virtue of size and the sheer risks associated with defying Themme in such brash and direct fashion.




> Plus he openly flip flopped on some important stuff like calling the stock market a "big fat ugly bubble" and the jobs reports "fake" before the election, now he's bragging about the stock market and the jobs reports.


Poor choices of behavior, I agree, but not necessarily indicative of a relevant truth.  Trump clearly has his issues, just as do we all.  He could use some tuning for the sake of public relations, but thus far he has proved himself a capable strategist and negotiator.  Credit where due.

----------


## CaptUSA

> He APPEARS to be in favor.  Don't be so easily drawn in by appearances.


Well, he APPEARED to sign a huge spending increase bill.  So there's that.

----------


## osan

> Well, he APPEARED to sign a huge spending increase bill.  So there's that.


What's your point?

----------


## CaptUSA

> What's your point?


That appearances seem to be bleeding into reality but somehow people are still giving this guy a pass...  Based merely on their own "hopes" of what is really happening.  I suppose you could say, "I'm being easily drawn in by this reality"?

----------


## osan

> That appearances seem to be bleeding into reality but somehow people are still giving this guy a pass...  Based merely on their own "hopes" of what is really happening.  I suppose you could say, "I'm being easily drawn in by this reality"?


Read what I wrote on that very topic.  You cannot do it all at once.  You have powerful and numerous enemies.  The bill would pass with or without his signature.

----------


## Madison320

> Read what I wrote on that very topic.  You cannot do it all at once.  You have powerful and numerous enemies.  The bill would pass with or without his signature.


Then he should veto the bill and let them try to override it. 

But Trump WANTS more spending. He still wants to build a wall, increase military spending, infrastructure spending.

You guys are all going to jump off the bandwagon when the SHTF. First you'll blame it on Obama, then you'll jump ship completely and pretend you were never a big fan of Trump.

For the record the collapse is mostly the fault of previous mistakes, but I'm consistent, I'm not giving credit for the continued stock market bubble to Trump.

----------


## osan

> Then he should veto the bill and let them try to override it.


Clearly you failed to read what I wrote.  To veto the bill puts the conflict "out there".  In the end it is overridden and he has made even more enemies, the very last thing he needs at this time.  Vetoing is the feel-good move of a losing strategy.  He needs to buy time and that may be exactly what he is doing.




> But Trump WANTS more spending. He still wants to build a wall, increase military spending, infrastructure spending.


Says you, but do let us know how you are privy to his innermost thoughts.  Once again, do not be so easily taken in by appearances.  You MIGHT prove correct in the end, but it will be by pure accident rather than because of adept analysis.  No intention to insult or demean, but at this juncture you cannot know what Trumps desires are, unless he's pulled you into a private meeting and told you.  Even then, you cannot be quite 100% certain.




> You guys are all going to jump off the bandwagon when the SHTF.


I'm not on anyone's bandwagon and I have made that plain for over a year.  Unlike many others, I understand the nature and magnitude of the situation and IF (note the qualifier) Trump is on the level, he can in no way afford to play in linear mode.  Obliquity and adept prioritization in this case can readily lead to very subtle moves that appear as something other than what they are.  OR, Trump is just another scoundrel playing his supporters like a squeeze box.  Too early to tell, which is my message, yet you claim I am on a "bandwagon".  So sorry, but that fails in glaring fashion.




> First you'll blame it on Obama, then you'll jump ship completely and pretend you were never a big fan of Trump.


Now you're just being silly, man.  If I am nothing else, I am forthright and I own my errors and admit them freely.  If you cared to read what I write, I choose my words with all due care to make clear that I am not a Trump supporter.  Neither am I his detractor.  Unlike you, I am a skeptic.




> For the record the collapse is mostly the fault of previous mistakes, but I'm consistent, I'm not giving credit for the continued stock market bubble to Trump.


Consistent, and wrong in any event - at least where this exchange is concerned.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

@osan Thank you for that trumpsplanation danno.

----------


## osan

> @osan Thank you for that trumpsplanation danno.


I don't know what is going on here lately, but it is as if some here have abandoned all rationality in favor of blind emotionalism.  The hatred of Trump is not as yet well justified.  I have explained this time and again, yet we still see responses such as this one.  "Trumpsplanation".   Come now, this is what I would expect from a hard-left progressive who employs these implicitly disparaging terms in the effort to marginalize and discredit, and not even for valid reasons at this stage.

What is going on here?  Have you all lost your sense of strategy and subtlety?  How about patience?  For Pete's sake, the man fails to pull a miracle out of his boothole within 20 minutes of inauguration and you're already calling for his head on a pig pole.  This is not reasonable.  You don't have to trust him.  I don't.  But for heaven's sake, short of assassinating him, he's what we have until 2020.  I say give him rope and see what he does with it.  The absolute worst that can happen is he turns out to be as bad as Hillary.

This irrational ire is not befitting of a Freeman.  We are supposed to be better than that.

As usual, do as you wish.  It is your right.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I don't know what is going on here lately, but it is as if some here have abandoned all rationality in favor of blind emotionalism.  The hatred of Trump is not as yet well justified.  I have explained this time and again, yet we still see responses such as this one.  "Trumpsplanation".   Come now, this is what I would expect from a hard-left progressive who employs these implicitly disparaging terms in the effort to marginalize and discredit, and not even for valid reasons at this stage.
> 
> What is going on here?  Have you all lost your sense of strategy and subtlety?  How about patience?  For Pete's sake, the man fails to pull a miracle out of his boothole within 20 minutes of inauguration and you're already calling for his head on a pig pole.  This is not reasonable.  You don't have to trust him.  I don't.  But for heaven's sake, short of assassinating him, he's what we have until 2020.  I say give him rope and see what he does with it.  The absolute worst that can happen is he turns out to be as bad as Hillary.
> 
> This irrational ire is not befitting of a Freeman.  We are supposed to be better than that.
> 
> As usual, do as you wish.  It is your right.


In case you hadn't noticed, he's 25% of the way through his first term.  Everything you're saying about Trump could easily have been said about Obama at this time had you the predilection.  "Oh, give him a chance."  "Yeah, we know he advocates for some extremely anti-liberty positions, but that's just because he's tricking the establishment."  "He's a total outsider to the Washington machine - he's gonna drain the swamp!  But you can't expect him to do it all at once - they'd catch onto him."

Sorry, Pal.  You've fallen under the spell of your own hope.  A tool that Trump has used for years and even wrote about.  (he probably saw Obama using his hope game and thought, "hell I can do this better!")

He bombs the Middle East at an expanded rate - oh, but Hillary would have been worse!
He signs a HUMONGOUS spending increase - Yeah, but that's because he's gonna cut spending later
He grows government and the military at an alarming rate - Yeah, but he got a tax cut through..
He gives cover for control measures - oh, but that's because he's saving us from something worse

Seriously, the list goes on and on.  He's done some decent things, but on the whole, he's been horrible for liberty.  Even worse than that, he completely decimated the liberty movement by hypnotizing many of our allies into believing he's actually helping us.  And then there's his anti-liberty rhetoric on every subject imaginable - ahy should I not believe his rhetoric when his actions are so closely aligned to them?!

----------


## Superfluous Man

> at this juncture you cannot know what Trumps desires are, unless he's pulled you into a private meeting and told you.  Even then, you cannot be quite 100% certain.


That's an understatement.

----------


## osan

> In case you hadn't noticed, he's 25% of the way through his first term.


What has that to do with anything?  IF (<-- QUALIFIER ALERT!!!!!) he is on the level, then he is seeking to undo at least 100 years of progressive erosion of everything for which "America" is supposed stand, and here I am not referring to our anarchoid ideals, but just those of the Constitutionally Limited Republic.  That is a lot of damage to correct.  It is a lot of embedded, entrenched, powerful, unforgiving, and very dangerous-to-cross interests to which to pose an existential threat.  Is it really so difficult to get it through you head that no man, not even Ron Paul, can waltz into the Office and start taking things apart as he sees fit, no matter how adept, how soundly considered, and how lovingly and correctly designed?

Let us put it to the people of these forums this way: were YOU to step into power as POTUS, what would YOU do?  How would YOU proceed in real terms to make better all the booboos that violate everything for which we as free men stand?  This is not a rhetorical question.  If Trump is so inept, so evil, so bumbling, then please show us the better way forward in terms that cannot be readily destroyed with reminders of the real world limitations placed upon presidents and any other individuals.

Look at our own esteemed Thomas Massie - bright fellow with all the right views on liberty, rights, etc.  How is it that he has not swept Congress off its feet with the glaring light of his own philosophical and moral superiority - and I mean that sincerely and not as sarcasm.  Could it be that there are far too many corrupted men in Congress who have no interest in doing the right things, no understanding of what those things are, and are interested solely in enriching themselves at the expense of their fellows and their own grandchildren?

So please, ye detractors and know-betters, show this lowly cur-dog the shining path forward to the Repiublic we all seem to believe was intended by the Framers.  I want to know how I may instruct Trump such that we reach the promised land in the sad remains of my lifetime.  Seriously, show me.





> Everything you're saying about Trump could easily have been said about Obama at this time had you the predilection.


As easily, yes.  As credibly, no.  If he has nothing else, Trump has a rather long history of successful negotiations and running hundreds of widely differing businesses.  Please don't parade his few failings because anyone doing that much will have some of that to his credit, some of it significant.  As for complaining about weaseling out of financial responsibility for some of those failures, while I will not defend it morally, it is what people DO generally.  Few of us are willing to nobly go down with the ship and we therefore tend to leave others holding the bag when the USS Businessventure springs fatal leaks.  Our statutes, rightly or otherwise, even make provisions for this sort of thing.  One cannot blame individuals for wanting to preserve themselves under such circumstances, even if we do not agree with such actions.  The will to live is strong in us all and I daresay few here, if even any, would stand proudly on the fantail of the Titanic as she slipped beneath the surface.  So please, let us spare one another righteous indignation.

Obama had no experience at anything.  He was shown to be a literal punk.  I would therefore have to conclude that the comparison you make between the two really doesn't hold water.




> "Oh, give him a chance."


I actually said that of Obama in the very beginning.  By six months in, he'd demonstrated his lack of knowledge of rights, freedom, etc., and his open hatred of America - WHITE America in particular.

He made patently absurd claims of a timbre very different from those of Trump - "You didn't build that..."  "That's not who we are...", and so on down a long litany of statements that could not be rationally associated with an oblique strategy for overcoming a hostile Congress.  Quite the contrary, Obama had a Congress - a BIPARTISAN Congress no less - ready and eager to service his little black missile any time and any way he wanted.  There was no need for Obama to play oblique strategies and tactics precisely because he had no significant enemies in the other branches.  This is obvious fact based on the nearly universal absence of opposition to his idiocies and trespasses upon the American people.  Rather, they were met with thunderous applause, to borrow a line.

So no, there is no valid comparison between the circumstances into which Trump stepped upon taking his oath, and those with which Obama had to contend.  We speak here of real, vehement, broad, and at least in terms of sentiment very violent opposition on the one hand, versus token shows by a governing body just sloppily salivating in anticipation of a taste.

This is not even a remotely valid equation.




> "Yeah, we know he advocates for some extremely anti-liberty positions, but that's just because he's tricking the establishment."  "He's a total outsider to the Washington machine - he's gonna drain the swamp!  But you can't expect him to do it all at once - they'd catch onto him."


You have wholly mischaracterized my position.  Whether by intent or misunderstanding, or simple carelessness, I cannot say.  Firstly, my position has been that I cannot as yet tell whether he is on the level.  Mi capisce?  Assuming so, IF he seeks to drain said swamp, he must be very careful in how he proceeds, lest his threat spread too widely and deeply, resulting in the spread of his brains on some sidewalk.  Do you disagree that this is a very real and present risk?

Not being able to "do it all at once" applies to anyone, not just Trump.  It would have applied to Obama as well, or Bush, or...  No inconsistency there and equally correct in terms of the magnitude of the problem... well, almost.  After all, it is a larger challenge than it was twenty years ago.




> Sorry, Pal.  You've fallen under the spell of your own hope.


Now THAT made me chuckle.  You think that _I_, of all the people here, have _hope?_  You've not been paying attention.  Perhaps more than anyone else here, I am the realist who has expressed his reasons for believing there is next to zero hope for liberty in this world.  Perhaps you just wanted to use a quasi-poetic quip that was burning a hole in your pocket and saw opportunity here - I don't know.   Regardless, you mismeasured badly.  But in case you never saw me write it before, I will do you the courtesy of clarifying: the chances of anything good coming of human relations in our lifetimes is just this side of vanishing.  I will further state that in treating the population of America as a statistical object, nothing short of a deeply disruptive event is going to provide impetus for us to change in a better way.  That, of course, is my worthless opinion.  YMMV.




> He bombs the Middle East at an expanded rate - oh, but Hillary would have been worse!
> He signs a HUMONGOUS spending increase - Yeah, but that's because he's gonna cut spending later
> He grows government and the military at an alarming rate - Yeah, but he got a tax cut through..
> He gives cover for control measures - oh, but that's because he's saving us from something worse


And I have been clear that this may all be examples of the same old $#@!.  But if it is not, it would make sense in the context of a piecemeal strategy to get to the heart of the real problems plaguing this land - problems the address of which carries vast risk for himself and his family.  Draining the swamp as an IDEA exposes him to great physical dangers, regardless of whether his intentions are real.  If they are not, then I guess this is all smoke and mirrors as per the usual and the good things he has managed to accomplish are mere window dressing designed to fool his supporters and buy time for the deeply eville plan he intends on foisting upon us all.  Yeah, I get your point and it is valid as theory.  All I am saying is that it is yet to be proven.  Good grief, this is strategy and tactics analysis 001.




> Seriously, the list goes on and on.  He's done some decent things, but on the whole, he's been horrible for liberty.  Even worse than that, he completely decimated the liberty movement by hypnotizing many of our allies into believing he's actually helping us.  And then there's his anti-liberty rhetoric on every subject imaginable - ahy should I not believe his rhetoric when his actions are so closely aligned to them?!


Time will tell whether you are correct.  In this I have been the smarter one in that I have neither condemned nor praised him.  I don't like a lot of what I see, but bear in mind (difficult as it is at times) that there could be a bigger game afoot, just beneath the surface.  Everything I have claimed is valid, unless of course you would challenge it in terms of the dangers, etc., and how it would be played by an adept whose goal it was to actually survive the playing.  Please do show my faults that I may see - seriously d00d, show me.  I've not asked anyone to support Trump, or denounce him, but rather to remain skeptical a while longer.  Give it another year, barring something truly and immediately dangerous, like sending the military door to door to confiscate our weapons, for example.  If in a year's time, for example, we are no closer to arrests and charges for the likes of Lynch, Clinton, etc., then I will start to lean.  Until then, I will hold my nose with some patience.  A lot of patience, actually, because what I see tries mine daily.  But I am determined to remain an adult about this and not lapse into a tantrum because what I want has not magically fallen into my lap as a golden turn directly from God's very bootus-hole on demand.

We're in it deep and it took a long time to get this way.  It's not getting better by this afternoon, that much I guaRONtee.

Do as you please, of course.  I choose to fight my own impulses and remain faithful to reason and rational patience, trying as it may be to do so.

Good luck.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> IF (<-- QUALIFIER ALERT!!!!!) he is on the level, then he is seeking to undo at least 100 years of progressive erosion of everything for which "America" is supposed stand


What kind of nonsense is this? Just a few posts ago (post #72), your defense of him was precisely that he's not on the level, and that's why we need to wait and see if he really follows through on his promises to continue and even deepen the progressive erosion of which you speak.

He ran for president on a platform of being by far the most unabashed progressive ever to win the Republican nomination. When has he ever talked about any intent to undo progressivism?

----------


## CaptUSA

> Let us put it to the people of these forums this way: were YOU to step into power as POTUS, what would YOU do?


First, do no more harm.  Ok, you want to give him a pass on not fixing things - fine.  I get it - it's hard to turn a ship around.  But how do you give him a pass on making things *worse*?!  Spending increases, expanded military, violation of civil liberties - no, these things are real.

And I suppose you like Trump's 'timbre' of "take the guns first; worry about due process later"?  What would be you're sentiment if Obama made that statement?!  What about if GWB increased military spending on a Trumpian scale?!  Come on - you're under the spell.  Just like the Obamabots.  The only "bigger game afoot" is the game he's playing on you.  You would have condemned nearly anyone else in that position, but you're giving this guy a pass, because you really want to believe that he's different than all the rest of him.  

No one is expecting anyone to get us out of the hole right away, but dammit, can't we at least expect them to stop digging?!  Back on topic, this tariff talk is emblematic of more digging.  Funny how Trump's actions seem to be just as bad as his words.

----------


## osan

> What kind of nonsense is this? Just a few posts ago (post #72), your defense of him was precisely that he's not on the level, and that's why we need to wait and see if he really follows through on his promises to continue and even deepen the progressive erosion of which you speak.


I defy you or anyone to point to a single statement from me defending Trump.  I'm a skeptic.  I have no idea whether he is on the level, though it seems a bit too much for which to hope.  I feel I have absolutely nothing to lose by paying out the rope and seeing what he does with it.  Nobody else need follow suit.  

Somewhat orthogonally, lest I stand accused of posting a strawman, if Trump is the evil that so many here claim, *and he may well be††*, and if that is so objectionable, why then has nobody taken a shot at him?  I'd say that "put up or shut up" applies to all of us, myself included.  Seriously, if Trump and Congress are so evil, so destructive of our inherent rights, why is nobody taking materially meaningful steps at taking care of the problem?  We've all complained.  Not a one, myself once again included, have done a single significant thing about it.  If the destruction of our rights is so important to us, which apparently it is not, why have we not risked our lives, fortunes, and "sacred honor" (<-- sad joke alert) to correct it without equivocation, regret, or apology?




> He ran for president on a platform of being by far the most unabashed progressive ever to win the Republican nomination. When has he ever talked about any intent to undo progressivism?


I do not know the answer to that.  Nor do I know that your assertion of him being a progressive is accurate.  Might be, might not.  If it is, then we are all being played once again and are really no worse off than we would have otherwise been.  Or are you of a mind that Hillary would have produced a lesser evil?

It must be me, because I'm not grokking all of these assertions that I am pro-Trump when I have explicitly stated that I am not.  We can bitch and whine all we like.  Have at it as much as you please, but it is not going to improve your circumstance a whit.  Perhaps we don't really want improvements, but just to vent.  That, too, is OK but should we not at least be honest about it?  The reality is this: we claim to want freedom, yet we do nothing materially relevant toward the stated goal.  We either are a raft of liars or we are no better than the progressive snowflake antifa über-phagues who whine for this and that, demanding is all be provided to them by someone else.  

So which is it?  By all appearances we are not serious about any of this, given that actions speak more truthfully than do words.


†† Note how I carefully qualify things.  Contrary to some suggestions, I do not own a set of Trump kneepads.

----------


## osan

> First, do no more harm.


In principle, we are on the precise same page.  But what if circumstance forces you to choose between two evils?  Please do not come back at me with the claim that such doesn't happen or that it is perforce not the case here.  It happens all the time, warfare giving us endless examples, rightly or otherwise.






> Ok, you want to give him a pass on not fixing things - fine.


Once again, you have failed to properly read what I wrote.  I'm giving Trump NOTHING, but *rope*.  I have no opinion on his inner motives because I have nothing upon which to judge, save what he has done so far.  The situation he faces forces me to accept the _POSSIBILITY_ that he may be playing a long game where he feels he must make certain intermediate moves in order to win the game.  This like chess and _gō_.  If you want to win against an adept player, strategy becomes key.  Do you deny this?  If not, and if you accept that the current political hand is much like those games in terms of what is required to prevail, then you should also be willing to accept the _POSSIBILITY_ that strategy is at work here.  Nowhere have I stated that it is in fact the case, but only that it _may_ be.  It fits well with the circumstance.

I think perhaps we may agree that Clinton would have come out of the gates flailing and hacking.  Therefore, she was a guaranteed loser.  Trump may also be a loser for us, but is there any harm in giving him rope?  What else is there to do?  Assassinate him?  Nobody is stepping up, and if they do, will we be any better off?  Were we as a nation to stand tall and remove the invalid establishments of governance, I'd say great.  But picking off one lousy president, only to repair to our caves to hide once again in hope that the Whipmaster will spare us yet another day, is pointless.  It buys us nothing, so why bother?  Pence takes over from where Trump left off.  Go ahead, shoot him too.  Then what?  We are either serious about this liberty thing, or we are full of $#@!.  Thus far, we have demonstrated nothing of serious.




> I get it - it's hard to turn a ship around.


At this point it is damned nearly impossible, which is a centrally significant point that cannot be glossed over with a mere seven words.  It needs to be examined in its depth and breadth and length for the monstrous endeavor it is.  The controls are entrenched and hostile to any course corrections.  They are hostile enough to kill you stone dead, if Theye feel they must.  We live in a world where some would knock you a deep fathom under the earth for the $2 in your wallet.  What does anyone thing Theye would do to preserve their positions in the world?  Let us be circumspect about this.




> But how do you give him a pass on making things *worse*?!


I haven't.  All I have done is put off my harsher judgments until such time as I feel I have enough basis for coming to such conclusions about the man.  I will probably come to your conclusion - that he is just another high-level political stooge.  The odds favor it, but I am not quite willing to jump to that conclusion just yet, which would be the easiest thing to do, the temptation to which I find myself daily at war with myownself.  Others may feel they have sufficient basis for complaint.  I do not.  I am not fast on my feet.  I never really have been.  I take things in and I let them digest over long periods because I take seriously the judging of others.  Probably I am a stooge and fool, as well as not very capable, but I have to be true to myself no matter how limited I am.  I wait and observe.  When I am satisfied that Trump is just another douche, I will proclaim it without equivocation or soft voice.  But if he turns out OK, I will as loudly and certainly give credit where due.  I did it with Obama.  I gave him his due for brass and his ability to read well a teleprompter.  I cannot readily recall anything else for which he deserved recognition... well, OK, there's treachery too.  Not much else.




> Spending increases, expanded military, violation of civil liberties - no, these things are real.


Yes, they are - and they would have come no matter what Trump did to oppose them.  So why fight if there is no chance of winning, again if we assume he is on the level?  Rather, give the short-sighted filth what they want and what they would get regardless of whether you fight them, but attach to it a price to be exacted at a time of your choosing?  Strategy.  Playing the game to win and not to make oneself feel good now.




> And I suppose you like Trump's 'timbre' of "take the guns first; worry about due process later"?


Don't be disingenuous and silly.  We've both been here long enough a year to know very well that I do not support such positions in any way.  But IF (there's that qualifier again) he's playing the long game and making these statements to buy time and some leverage, I can live with it so long as he makes good in the end.  If he doesn't, I don't see that I am any worse off.

Let me ask you this: if Trump (or alternately Clinton) were to go whole hog on gun confiscation - I mean an all-out ban replete with door to door searches and breaches for those refusing to open up, do you think Americans would do _anything_ effective to stop it?  Be serious now - would we stand up and start shooting?  I don't think we would.  I think most of American - ENOUGH of America - would lay flat down on the ground and take it any way it was given.  I may be mistaken and hope I am, but I do not see there being enough to stand tall before the Man and take him to task.

So what, then, are we really talking about here?  Unless at least 10 millions of us are ready to stand, fight, and die if necessary for the good of our posterity, all we are doing here is blowing steam from our bootholes.




> What would be you're sentiment if Obama made that statement?!


Apples and oranges for reasons given in another post.




> What about if GWB increased military spending on a Trumpian scale?!  Come on - you're under the spell.


I am under no such thing.  In case I have STILL  not managed to make myself clear, I fully expect to be disappointed in the end, probably bitterly so.  What I am doing that you are not, is holding control over myself with the knowledge that waiting to see what ultimately transpires brings me no harm, save in the case where I would otherwise be fixing to go warring, which I am not.  Therefore, being a very small creature, I stand to lose nothing by sitting back and waiting until I feel I have a basis for either condemning or praising Trump.  I dare not hope for the latter, but will not indulge my impatience with the former at this time.  Time enough for all those things to come.




> Just like the Obamabots.


Nothing like them.  Not in my case, anyhow.




> The only "bigger game afoot" is the game he's playing on you.


No sir.  You err deeply with this assertion.




> You would have condemned nearly anyone else in that position, but you're giving this guy a pass, because you really want to believe that he's different than all the rest of him.


Oy...




> No one is expecting anyone to get us out of the hole right away,


Are you even serious?  His supporters are largely doing just that.  A small ton of people here expect it to happen and when it doesn't they lose their sense.  Let us be fank on this point - very few Americans have the patience to endure what is necessary to claw our way back to something even vaguely resembling liberty.  When Ron Paul was running, you'd think Jesus had touched down on the waters of lake Okeechobee or something.... that he was going to set it all straight.  No, he wasn't.  The real likelihood is that nobody is going to do $#@! to fix this in a systemically deep way.  Window dressing means nothing.  It's the deeper issues that are important and those don't remedy without lots of time and a very carefully crafted strategy.

Trump (or anyone else including Ron Paul) fixing the problems of this nation is like a single man standing before an entire Roman Legion.  The odds are about that good, IMO.




> but dammit, can't we at least expect them to stop digging?!


Yes, we can.  But you at least have to acknowledge the possibility that a deeper strategy, which is by all means the requirement under the assumed circumstance of draining the old swamp, does not always entail immediate gratification.  I don't know how many ways to try to make clear that it is POSSIBLE he is being very clever in hiding his truer intentions with a show that places his enemies at some ease.  POSSIBLE - not PROBABLE.  Need I repeat myself yet again to make it sink in?  The likelihood, given our history and the statistical reality to which it gives rise, is that Trump will prove just another stooge in a costly suit.  That is the likely result, but the conclusion is not as yet foregone.

I think I've explained this as clearly as I am able.  If anyone walks away from this one still saying I'm a Trump fan, I can only conclude they are absent to mental capacity to understand plainly structured English or are peddling.

Best wishes to one and all.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In principle, we are on the precise same page.  But what if circumstance forces you to choose between two evils?  Please do not come back at me with the claim that such doesn't happen or that it is perforce not the case here.  It happens all the time, warfare giving us endless examples, rightly or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have failed to properly read what I wrote.  I'm giving Trump NOTHING, but *rope*.  I have no opinion on his inner motives because I have nothing upon which to judge, save what he has done so far.  The situation he faces forces me to accept the _POSSIBILITY_ that he may be playing a long game where he feels he must make certain intermediate moves in order to win the game.  This like chess and _gō_.  If you want to win against an adept player, strategy becomes key.  Do you deny this?  If not, and if you accept that the current political hand is much like those games in terms of what is required to prevail, then you should also be willing to accept the _POSSIBILITY_ that strategy is at work here.  Nowhere have I stated that it is in fact the case, but only that it _may_ be.  It fits well with the circumstance.
> 
> I think perhaps we may agree that Clinton would have come out of the gates flailing and hacking.  Therefore, she was a guaranteed loser.  Trump may also be a loser for us, but is there any harm in giving him rope?  What else is there to do?  Assassinate him?  Nobody is stepping up, and if they do, will we be any better off?  Were we as a nation to stand tall and remove the invalid establishments of governance, I'd say great.  But picking off one lousy president, only to repair to our caves to hide once again in hope that the Whipmaster will spare us yet another day, is pointless.  It buys us nothing, so why bother?  Pence takes over from where Trump left off.  Go ahead, shoot him too.  Then what?  We are either serious about this liberty thing, or we are full of $#@!.  Thus far, we have demonstrated nothing of serious.
> ...



You must spread some reputation around...

----------


## The Rebel Poet

@osan I appreciate your being precise with your words. I would like to clarify two things that I think a lot of us think, and have not been clear enough about. The two main points of contention we have with your assessment are:

1) A lot of us don't think the actions Trump has taken are good even as a strategy. Speaking for myself: I can accept that I don't know Trump's innermost thoughts, so I must accept that he _could_ be doing things for the sake of strategy, but a lot of us not only feel that his actions are immoral even as strategy, but also that his actions cannot work properly even as strategy.
2) A lot of us think, not that your positive belief that Trump is good is ridiculous (since you have made clear that you *don't* positively believe Trump is good in your long post history), but that even your belief that Trump might be good is ridiculous. This is precisely because we believe his (possibly strategic) actions are both immoral and essentially guaranteed to make things worse.

----------


## osan

> The two main points of contention we have with your assessment are:
> 
> 1) A lot of us don't think the actions Trump has taken are good even as a strategy.


Nowhere did I say it was good, but only that it MIGHT be a strategic move.  I've made absolutely no value judgments there.




> Speaking for myself: I can accept that I don't know Trump's innermost thoughts, so I must accept that he _could_ be doing things for the sake of strategy, but a lot of us not only feel that his actions are immoral even as strategy,


Fair enough.  I've not suggested to anyone they accept his moves as moral.




> but also that his actions cannot work properly even as strategy.


Here you are mistaken.  There is a wide variety of ways in which his actions might prove effective, particularly as diversions.  Note the absence of value judgment.




> 2) A lot of us think, not that your positive belief that Trump is good is ridiculous (since you have made clear that you *don't* positively believe Trump is good in your long post history), but that even your belief that Trump might be good is ridiculous. This is precisely because we believe his (possibly strategic) actions are both immoral and essentially guaranteed to make things worse.


You are free to believe as you wish, of course. But ask yourself this: what do you think is required to affect the sorts of changes we may conversationally say we agree upon in order to nudge America in a better direction?  Think "hostile, endlessly corrupt Congress and courts, aided and abetted by MSM and large and heavily invested money interests."  Would Ron Paul, with his principles, have accomplished what we want?  No.  He's a boyscout.  I respect that, but I also recognize and acknowledge that boyscouts are too rare to have great and positive effect in a world of corrupt individuals who want their politicians to be corrupt, steal from the "rich" (or whomever) and give to THEM.

I really cannot tell anymore what most people think is going to work in a land as rotten with corruption as this one is.  I prefer principle, but when it becomes clear that that holds next to zero chance of producing a positive result, the choice then comes down to stick with principle as the ship sinks, or get one's lillywhite hands dirty and start patching the holes.

But as I wrote previously, I'm getting old and don't give a damn what happens.  People want to live under tyranny.  I say let them.

----------

