Do you support Rand Paul for president 2024?

[acptulsa]

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?

Because Andrew Jackson wanted money to remain just a thing you trade for other stuff. He wanted it to remain money, a convenient asset with actual intrinsic value, and didn't want us stuck getting our wealth drained by the perpetrators of a Legal Currency.

What did you think? Seriously? That Ron and Rand Paul want to pass laws to make gold suffer inflation?

 

[Invisible Man]

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 Freedom doesn't arise when control is rescinded, as it was by our representatives.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.

I can't follow much of what you just said here. But notably, you still haven't pointed out any specific thing Ron Paul said, in his own words, that you disagree with.

Reading between the lines it looks like you really strongly believe that Bitcoin should be taxed though.

 

[acptulsa]

I can't follow much of what you just said here. But notably, you still haven't pointed out any specific thing Ron Paul said, in his own words, that you disagree with.

Reading between the lines it looks like you really strongly believe that Bitcoin should be taxed though.

Snowball the Statist trying to read between the lines because he thinks Ron and Rand Paul want to try to regulate Competing Official Legal Currencies is what caused this whole mess. Maybe reading between the lines is an unwise approach.

Try this: Assume he's so authoritarian it boggles his mind that kids trade Three Musketeers bars for Hot Wheels without going to the government and having one or the other declared a Legal Tender, and go from there.

 

[Snowball]

Because Andrew Jackson wanted money to remain just a thing you trade for other stuff. He wanted it to remain money, a convenient asset with actual intrinsic value, and didn't want us stuck getting our wealth drained by the perpetrators of a Legal Currency.

What did you think? Seriously? That Ron and Rand Paul want to pass laws to make gold suffer inflation?

This is incorrect. Andrew Jackson opposed the formation of a private interest central bank for the same reasons Jefferson and many others did. He knew it was composed of foreign oligarchs and un-American monopolists who sought to take the country over. Well, this already happened. Now, you don't oppose it by keeping that in place and giving another, even worse thing the same power. All the same arguments he made to oppose the private bank can be applied to a private cyptocurrency regime. The same people created it. They own it. Wake UP. They want traceable, trackable, surveilled, and worthless money that is NOT EVEN within the political ability of the public to affect. If you think the Fed is bad, and it IS, someday you will understand why the same people created cryptos. It's just more of their own skrill. It enforces their power even harder and more effectively. http://www.campaignforliberty.org/andrew-jackson-and-the-central-bank

 

[Invisible Man]

Snowball the Statist trying to read between the lines because he thinks Ron and Rand Paul want to try to regulate Competing Official Legal Currencies is what caused this whole mess. Maybe reading between the lines is an unwise approach.

He does seem to be doing a lot of muddying up with his words.

One distinction is that may need to be clarified is different ways that someone may use the phrase "legal tender."

On the one hand, someone may mean a special government granted status to a currency that obligates creditors to accept it in payment of debts when a debtor chooses to pay using it whether those creditors want to accept that kind of payment or not, such as the way the statement on Federal Reserve Notes declaring them legal tender is usually taken.

One the other hand, someone may just mean it literally, that it is simply legal to use that currency if you want to, and not that anybody who doesn't want to should be forced to.

I'm certain that all Ron Paul has said in favor of Bitcoin being legal tender is in the latter sense.

That seems completely unobjectionable to me. And Snowball has not provided a quote of RP advocating anything more than that and not taxing Bitcoin.

 

[acptulsa]

This is incorrect.

No, it isn't. And you aren't Matt Collins.

Andrew Jackson opposed the formation of a private interest central bank for the same reasons Jefferson and many others did. He knew it was composed of foreign oligarchs and un-American monopolists who sought to take the country over.

How? Take it over how? What was the mechanism? Via a Legal Currency? Jackson was trying to prevent someone from taking a population which was thriving using plain old money and sapping that wealth by forcing them to use their Legal Currency? Is that what you mean?

Then how is what I said incorrect?

Do you think Bitcoin is somehow legal tender nowhere on earth, and fiat currency too? What do you think fiat means? Do you think it's only an acronym for Fabricators of Italian Automobiles in Turin?

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Seriously man, don't pick up the crack pipe until after you post.

 

[Snowball]

I'm certain that all Ron Paul has said in favor of Bitcoin being legal tender is in the latter sense.

That seems completely unobjectionable to me. And Snowball has not provided a quote of RP advocating anything more than that and not taxing Bitcoin.

Ron is against all legal tender. He's been against legal tender for a long time, even introduced a bill in 2003 to that effect.
When he says allow bitcoin to compete fully with the dollar, he means more than just not taxable. He means legal tender,
just like El Salvadorian president wants to do.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ron+paul+"legal+tender+laws"&t=ffsb&ia=web

 

[Invisible Man]

Ron is against all legal tender. He's been against legal tender for a long time, even introduced a bill in 2003 to that effect.
When he says allow bitcoin to compete fully with the dollar, he means more than just not taxable. He means legal tender,
just like El Salvadorian president wants to do.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ron+paul+"legal+tender+laws"&t=ffsb&ia=web

Notice how you just contradicted yourself by equivocating on the term "legal tender" in exactly the way I just explained.

Either Ron Paul is against all legal tender, or he is for making Bitcoin legal tender. It can't be both.

In reality, he's against it in the first sense that I explained in post #65, and he's for making Bitcoin legal in the second sense I explained in that same post.

Both of those positions are totally consistent and totally unobjectionable.

If you object to legalizing the use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange, and not taxing it, then what specific policy that would accomplish those things that Ron Paul supports, and that you can actually quote him supporting, do you object to. No vague abstractions. Specifics.

 

[acptulsa]

See, this is the problem. Even the people who understand there's a problem and want to fix it are so brainwashed and confused that they don't know when they're looking straight at a living Senator who has all the best of what Andy Jackson had.

ETA:. And no, repeating your debunked falsehood doesn't improve its smell at all.

 

[Snowball]

Notice how you just contradicted yourself by equivocating on the term "legal tender" in exactly the way I just explained.

Either Ron Paul is against all legal tender, or he is for making Bitcoin legal tender. It can't be both.

In reality, he's against it in the first sense that I explained in post #65, and he's for making Bitcoin legal in the second sense I explained in that same post.

Both of those positions are totally consistent and totally unobjectionable.

If you object to legalizing the use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange, and not taxing it, then what specific policy that would accomplish those things that Ron Paul supports, and that you can actually quote him supporting, do you object to. No vague abstractions. Specifics.

I think I said what I wanted to. No reason to beat a dead horse. He wants bitcoin to enjoy all the same treatments as the dollar, which means the same as Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

 

[Invisible Man]

I think I said what I wanted to. No reason to beat a dead horse. He wants bitcoin to enjoy all the same treatments as the dollar, which means the same as Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

He wants to repeal the legal tender laws that give the dollar that special treatment so that people can be free to make agreements with one another using whatever the parties involved choose to use as payment. He wants to give Bitcoin (and every other currency anybody wants to use) equal status with FRNs under the law by taking FRNs off that pedestal, not by putting Bitcoin on it.

If you want to criticize what he says, give the actual quotes and point to the words he actually used, which you have repeatedly refused to do throughout this thread.

 

[oyarde]

Personally I think for those of you interested in saving America and anything good about it presently you'll need to see that competition for currencies is needed. The FRN is on the way to the trash bin without that I guess.

 

[Snowball]

He wants to repeal the legal tender laws that give the dollar that special treatment so that people can be free to make agreements with one another using whatever the parties involved choose to use as payment. He wants to give Bitcoin (and every other currency anybody wants to use) equal status with FRNs under the law by taking FRNs off that pedestal, not by putting Bitcoin on it.

If you want to criticize what he says, give the actual quotes and point to the words he actually used, which you have repeatedly refused to do throughout this thread.

I already did that but for some reason you still don't grasp the distinctions. People are already "free to make arrangements with one another using whatever the parties involved choose to use as payment". That has always been the case and is not even relevant to the topic.

 

[acptulsa]

I already did that but for some reason you still don't grasp the distinctions. People are already "free to make arrangements with one another using whatever the parties involved choose to use as payment". That has always been the case and is not even relevant to the topic.

Let's see if we can make this so simple even you can understand it.

He does grasp the distinction.

Ron and Rand Paul do grasp the distinction.

"The distinction" is legal tender laws dating back to 1913.

Ron and Rand Paul want to repeal those laws, and completely do away with "the distinction".

That can really, really happen.

Now do you finally understand The Distinction?

 

[Invisible Man]

I already did that but for some reason you still don't grasp the distinctions. People are already "free to make arrangements with one another using whatever the parties involved choose to use as payment". That has always been the case and is not even relevant to the topic.

The problem is, I understand the distinctions, and you're trying to erase them. Every time you try to criticize RP's position you pull a switcheroo where you replace his position with things you made up and can't find any quotes of him saying.

 

[Snowball]

Let's see if we can make this so simple even you can understand it.

He does grasp the distinction.

Ron and Rand Paul do grasp the distinction.

"The distinction" is legal tender laws dating back to 1913.

Ron and Rand Paul want to repeal those laws, and completely do away with "the distinction".

That can really, really happen.

Now do you finally understand The Distinction?

Dude, you're just plain wrong. It isn't about 1913. The Legal Tender Act was in 1862, and it was ruled Consitutional in 1863.
The demands for what IS money and HOW money should be regulated are in the damn U.S. Constitution and subsequent laws.

I do not wish to discuss this topic with you or Invisble any longer.

 

[Invisible Man]

Dude, you're just plain wrong. It isn't about 1913. The Legal Tender Act was in 1862, and it was ruled Consitutional in 1863.
The demands for what IS money and HOW money should be regulated are in the damn U.S. Constitution and subsequent laws.

I do not wish to discuss this topic with you or Invisble any longer.

Where in the US Constitution does it require that the government deem it illegal for people to use Bitcoin as money in their exchanges with eachother?

Or to tax Bitcoin?

Or to pass laws requiring that all creditors must accept payment of debs made in Federal Reserve Notes, such that people may not be allowed the freedom to choose to enter contracts with one another requiring the use of Bitcoin or anything else besides FRNs for payments of debts?

 

[acptulsa]

Dude, you're just plain wrong. It isn't about 1913. The Legal Tender Act was in 1862, and it was ruled Consitutional in 1863.
The demands for what IS money and HOW money should be regulated are in the damn U.S. Constitution and subsequent laws.

I do not wish to discuss this topic with you or Invisble any longer.

I'm sure you don't want me smacking down your anti-Rand Paul trolling and your outright lies.

You know. The way the Supreme Court struck down the Legal Tender Act of 1862 in 1863.

Unfortunately for you, what lying trolls want from me and what they get from me are two different things.

 

[Invisible Man]

That mention of the 1862 Legal Tender Act was curious. The whole point of that act was to empower the federal government to print, use, and require the use of money that was not backed by gold or silver.
[MENTION=35668]Snowball[/MENTION], are you a modern greenbacker?