Do you support Rand Paul for president 2024?

[Snowball]

Because you're a sellout. Why are you here?

Good question... and given Ron's open support of making bitcion legal tender, and competing against the dollar,
which I also regard as a total affront to the Constitution, and a move that would only increase the criminal elite power,
perhaps I should stop posting here.

 

[Invisible Man]

Good question... and given Ron's open support of making bitcion legal tender, and competing against the dollar,
which I also regard as a total affront to the Constitution, and a move that would only increase the criminal elite power,
perhaps I should stop posting here.

So if people want to use Bitcoin as money, you believe the government should use force to stop them and/or punish them for doing it?

 

[Invisible Man]

If Rand really wants to continue spreading the ideals of liberty, he'll run again but focus on education and rallying at the universities and places like that ala Ron. Ron educated a generation of people in 2007 and 2012. Rand has a similar opportunity to continue that and help build "our" overall numbers. Of course, I don't want to stray into the debate about how "libertarian" he truly is, let's just all be general for the sake of this discussion.

But, thinking he has any shot at the presidency, especially through the GOP who has Trump, DeSantis, Noem, et. al. right now, is a waste of thinking space. I highly suggest people simply focus on lower levels of government where we can actually have impact. In fact, I'd encourage people to just leave the GOP (at least for now, it's Trump's party and there is no turning Trump supporters) and boost the LP and take it over via the Mises Caucus... Let's finally draw the line in the sand and see where our true numbers are with this.

I would encourage people to leave both the GOP and the LP and join the throngs of the none-of-the-above voters and see where our true numbers are with that.

Last I checked, we far outnumbered voters for any other party or candidate.

 

[Snowball]

So if people want to use Bitcoin as money, you believe the government should use force to stop them and/or punish them for doing it?

Current law already demands that. Which is why bitcoin is not "money" in the US.

 

[Invisible Man]

Current law already demands that. Which is why bitcoin is not "money" in the US.

I don't see how that is an answer to the question I asked.

Unless I'm supposed to assume that you support whatever current law demands.

But I can't fathom how anyone could possibly support a law like that. I can't even imagine a political philosophy in which it makes any sense, unless it's for the benefit of certain oligarchs who stand to gain from limiting the population's currency options.

 

[Snowball]

I don't see how that is an answer to the question I asked.

Unless I'm supposed to assume that you support whatever current law demands.

But I can't fathom how anyone could possibly support a law like that. I can't even imagine a political philosophy in which it makes any sense, unless it's for the benefit of certain oligarchs who stand to gain from limiting the population's currency options.

Odd. I guess you're not famlliar with the Consitution, historical reasons why the money power must be connected at the hip to political responsibility, or to the true nature of these so-called cryptocurrencies.

 

[Invisible Man]

Odd. I guess you're not famlliar with the Consitution, historical reasons why the money power must be connected at the hip to political responsibility, or to the true nature of these so-called cryptocurrencies.

None of that matters. If two people make an agreement with each other whereby one of them gives the other some amount of bitcoin in exchange for some good or service, then nobody else has any right to interfere with them.

 

[Snowball]

None of that matters. If two people make an agreement with each other whereby one of them gives the other some amount of bitcoin in exchange for some good or service, then nobody else has any right to interfere with them.

That's not what Ron was talking about... I realize if "two people" make an agreement, etc...the law doesn't stand in the way of that at all. But you can see how this is pushed to expand far, far beyond a simple transaction of an asset. What Ron said is that bitcoin should not be treated as an asset at all. It should be treated as MONEY... meaning that it should not be taxable as other assets are. Now, to be fair, he does say the same about gold, but I would argue that gold and silver have that expressed designation already in the Consitution. Cryptos do not. So, for this and many other reasons, I think he's dangerously wrong. Cryptocurrencies are a plot to enslave the public and price them out, and make accountability disappear.
One thing a truly free people must control is their MONEY and the nature of it. In today's world, when the oligarchy owns a gazillion times more wealth than the public, the public can never be free if its ability to shape the nature of currency is stolen from it. There are a multitude of other issues with cryptos besides these points that make them uniquely advantageous to the One World Order.

 

[Invisible Man]

That's not what Ron was talking about... I realize if "two people" make an agreement, etc...the law doesn't stand in the way of that at all. But you can see how this is pushed to expand far, far beyond a simple transaction of an asset. What Ron said is that bitcoin should not be treated as an asset at all. It should be treated as MONEY... meaning that it should not be taxable as other assets are. Now, to be fair, he does say the same about gold, but I would argue that gold and silver have that expressed designation already in the Consitution. Cryptos do not. So, for this and many other reasons, I think he's dangerously wrong. Cryptocurrencies are a plot to enslave the public and price them out, and make accountability disappear.
One thing a truly free people must control is their MONEY and the nature of it. In today's world, when the oligarchy owns a gazillion times more wealth than the public, the public can never be free if its ability to shape the nature of currency is stolen from it. There are a multitude of other issues with cryptos besides these points that make them uniquely advantageous to the One World Order.

And you are under the impression that the US Constitution positively obligates the government to tax Bitcoin?

I would like to see the quote of what Ron Paul actually said and have you point out what was wrong with it.

 

[Snowball]

And you are under the impression that the US Constitution positively obligates the government to tax Bitcoin?

I would like to see the quote of what Ron Paul actually said and have you point out what was wrong with it.

ok. here has the quotes.. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ron+paul+bitcoin&t=ffsb&df=w&ia=web
and you may watch his speech at the bitcoin conference here on this forum.
No, the government is not obligated to tax anything. I didn't say that. But to make cryptos have the same status as
the dollar would make it untax-ABLE, and to make it legal for all debts. This is what El Salvadorian president is trying to do,
although I doubt he will succeed for long.

 

[tebowlives]

Good question... and given Ron's open support of making bitcion legal tender, and competing against the dollar,
which I also regard as a total affront to the Constitution, and a move that would only increase the criminal elite power,
perhaps I should stop posting here.

Competing currencies are not an affront to the Constitution and you have no proof of this.

 

[Invisible Man]

ok. here has the quotes.. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ron+paul+bitcoin&t=ffsb&df=w&ia=web
and you may watch his speech at the bitcoin conference here on this forum.
No, the government is not obligated to tax anything. I didn't say that. But to make cryptos have the same status as
the dollar would make it untax-ABLE, and to make it legal for all debts. This is what El Salvadorian president is trying to do,
although I doubt he will succeed for long.

You didn't provide a single quote, much less point out anything wrong with anything Ron Paul ever said about this. From what I am able to see in the hits of that search, it doesn't look like RP ever said that the government should make Bitcoin legal tender for all debts. He said it should be permitted to compete with the dollar. Competing would mean that it would be left up to the market. I infer that he means that it would be up to the parties involved to decide for themselves if they agree to use it as payment for debts, without the government forcing them to whether they want to or not.

Do you know of Ron Paul ever advocating any government interference on behalf of Bitcoin that would force people to accept it as payment for debts against their will?

And if I'm right about his position, do you honestly disagree it?

 

[Snowball]

You didn't provide a single quote

I guess you didn't look at the links? Here's one. There ARE quotes.
I disagree with Ron Paul on every single point he makes in this new position of his concerning cryptocurrencies.

https://www.bitcoin-accepted.com/20...-let-the-people-decide-featured-bitcoin-news/

 

[Invisible Man]

I guess you didn't look at the links? Here's one. There ARE quotes.
I disagree with Ron Paul on every single point he makes in this new position of his concerning cryptocurrencies.

https://www.bitcoin-accepted.com/20...-let-the-people-decide-featured-bitcoin-news/

You say "every single point" as if there are a lot of things either to disagree with or agree with there. But I only see two quotes from Ron Paul that actually propose any specific policies: 1. Don't tax Bitcoin or Gold; and 2. Don't have legal tender laws that force people to use federal reserve notes instead of other media of exchange that they may choose to use.

Earlier in this thread you said that you agreed with him on both of those points (or if not positively agreeing, were at least not opposed). Now are you saying that you disagree on both?

If so, how can you possibly disagree with those views? It's just mind boggling.

 

[acptulsa]

What Ron said is that bitcoin should not be treated as an asset at all. It should be treated as MONEY... meaning that it should not be taxable as other assets are.

Ron Paul said all currencies should have the same status.

Where Snowball's train jumps the tracks is, he thinks liquid assets can't be taxed. He also seems to think that Paul saying he wants to give the dollar and any crypto the same status doesn't mean stop forcing the dollar on people. It seems to mean to him forcing people to accept currencies they don't want. I guess he figures Rand Paul is going to force people to accept HasbroBucks straight out of the little till in the Monopoly box.

As for teh Collinz, anyone who can cooly sit and mumble that Rand's impurities will cause teh mighty little man to only give 73% instead of 115% this time even as Rand is single handedly slaying the Mighty Covid Bullshit Machine indicates that Rand knows all about Matt's 115% and don't want none.*

The Too Pure For Paul Brigade, out in force. Wasn't it, ironically, the TPFPB that was trying to herd us in the Trump camp five years ago saying, he has momentum, and sounds more Pure than Paul (about half the time, the rest of the time he sounds like a neocon)?


*Note this "fact" will soon be checked and found "incorrect"

 

[Matt Collins]

As for teh Collinz, anyone who can cooly sit and mumble that Rand's impurities will cause teh mighty little man to only give 73% instead of 115% this time even as Rand is single handedly slaying the Mighty Covid Bullshit Machine indicates that Rand knows all about Matt's 115% and don't want none.*


*Note this "fact" will soon be checked and found "incorrect"

Your "facts" are incoherent and make zero sense... no one even knows what your point was.

Want to try rephrasing it?

 

[acptulsa]

Your "facts" are incoherent and make zero sense... no one even knows what your point was.

Want to try rephrasing it?

Considering some of the characters you've associated with, some of the good initiatives you've worked like the devil to torpedo, and some of the positions you've taken, I'd say flunking your "purity test" is a major selling point for a candidate. I'd put your "purity test" between a Grammy and a Nobel Peace Prize for being about something other than what they claim to be about.

 

[Snowball]

If so, how can you possibly disagree with those views? It's just mind boggling.

Let's affirm first, about making bitcion non-taxable and money (legal currency), which is what Ron supports. You don't get taxed for holding dollars. So he thinks we should have a digital currency, NOT accountable to the people or their government, that the holders thereof benefit from its rise in value without taxation, because it is NOT AN ASSET, it is CURRENCY. So - I argue the cryptoassets - digital assets - should NOT be currency but stay as assets. Do you want a digital transaction society ? This is the one world scheme.. NO ACCOUNTABILITY to the governments. BROKE governments. Who do you think created cryptos? Who owns them, and the networks? Who shut down Mt. Gox and murdered Autumn Radtke, took over and started the Dark Web? Who is "Satoshi"? Why does Bill Gates patent link cryptocurrency payment systems with human biology in a patent numbered 666? You consider these things. Then remember why the dollar lost value - because of the plot to form the Federal Reserve, and who debased the dollar, whose interests did FDR act under in 1933?
Ron said: “My concern is that governments over centuries have been notoriously very eager to have control of the money. Believe me, they will not give up control of money,” he emphasized. (link I posted already)
Contrarily, I would say, his concern should be that governments were not eager ENOUGH to have control of the money. That is how the people and the states lost power to the cabal. That is how they came to own us like cattle and direct our lives. Freedom doesn't arise when control is rescinded, as it was by our representatives. Freedom will not increase if we adopt just another tool, even more nefarious, from the same cabal, and this time the repurcussions are much more transformative than mere inflation.

 

[acptulsa]

Let's affirm first, about making bitcion non-taxable and money (legal currency), which is what Ron supports. *

*The hell he says.

Ron Paul doesn't want to confer special status on everything from Bitcoin to those crappy gold foil covered fake chocolate coins they sell at Halloween. He wants to strip special status from everything, including the dollar. Snowball's such a statist so down deep inside he can't conceive of money as just a thing you can trade for other stuff, just like anything else you own. This has been a public service post in aid of the poor hapless guys who had the misfortune of getting this place named for them.

 

[Snowball]

*The hell he says.

Ron Paul doesn't want to confer special status on everything from Bitcoin to those crappy gold foil covered fake chocolate coins they sell at Halloween. Snowball's such a statist so down deep inside he can't conceive of money as just a thing you can trade for other stuff, just like anything else you own. This has been a public service post in aid of the poor hapless guys who had the misfortune of getting this place named for them.

Yes he does, because the dollar is the only money. By making bitcoin the same as the dollar, it elevates bitcoin to special status indeed, and the beneficiaries are not the people, but the global oligarchy and secret groups who run it. Money is not just a thing you trade for other stuff. If that were true, why did Andrew Jackson fight the private central bank? Why did Jefferson warn against the same, and insist upon the public ownership of banks?