The Supreme Court is the best argument you have, I agree, but to me a SC pick wasn't worth all the chaos Trump would bring. Trump isn't a president, he's a reality star that the American people elected as president. Hillary had in my opinion reasonable solutions for most issues. Trump definitely has done things I like, such as the SC pick, cracking down on criminal aliens as well as sanctuary cities, etc, pushing a rhetorical social conservative line of thought, but Hillary would've done more good in office.

Slashing taxes on the 1% while cutting benefits for the 99% isn't necessarily more conservative than raising taxes while trimming government benefits.

I have a question for you.
Are you going to admit you are using this nonsense to deflect from your obviously moronic and wrong accusations of defending tax breaks not being conducive with libertarianism?



This is buying into the leftist narrative that ignores and overlooks facts like the downsides of high taxation that extend to the general public, the fact that the cuts aren't just for the "1%", and that the rich pay a huge share of the taxes right now.

Rather than Hillary responsibly 'trimming benefits' she was pandering to the far left and advocating a much larger and more intrusive government.

Selling our rights down the river for the sake of smoother political sailing for 4 years is unconscionable to me.

What's the difference between Hillary pandering to the far-left and Trump telling voters he won't ever cut medicare or social security?

Bottom line, Hillary's plan was more fiscally conservative. I'd love for it to be more conservative, but it's just one of two choices.

That's not even considering the other benefits of a Hillary presidency.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 24 2017 10:45am

oh, by all means, feel free to explain how a tax break for a company, that i specifically described as "completely failed", is a cornerstone of libertarian policy - i'll fix me some popcorn meanwhile.

but after doing so, please let me know if clinton would have abandoned the 2nd amendment before starting a nuclear war with russia or after, because it's kind of relevant...

This post was edited by fender on Jun 24 2017 10:49am

(C)linton is the subject now? Hahaha saint hillary inventor of politics and the smartest best woman candidate ever with a $1.2 billion bduget who lost to Trump and his twitter account

Hahahahhahahahhahahahhahaha




...



Ahhahahhahahahahaha

Theres a pretty big difference between saying he wont cut medicare, which nearly everyone does, and standing on a platform of large increases in programs nearly across the board.
You dont know the difference, really?

Hillary was on team tax and spend, and regulate to death. Trump has shown skepticism of huge regulatory agencies and high taxes.



Actively supporting one or the other are not the only choices.


Typical fender.
say stupid and insulting things and then expect the other guy to write you an essay about it rather than reflect on your wrongdoings and intellectual shortcomings.

so are you going to admit that a failed tax break for a company is NOT exactly a libertarian policy, and that what you apparently thought was a "gotcha" moment, was in fact just a lazy generalisation that doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny?

typical cumbob, acts like he has a point based on half-assed assumptions and fantasy-fueled interpretations of other ppl's post, and when asked to elaborate dodges with a lazy ad hominem...
shill on, little trumpologist, shill on...

This is what you said


What you said extends beyond "failed" tax breaks.

What is or is not libertarian policy does not hinge on whether you or anyone else deems it "failed" or not.

There was no break from libertarian philosophy in anything I have said in this conversation.
Yet you repeatedly try to accuse me of being a fake libertarian when you don't know what you are talking about.

I've actually spoken out on broader tax cuts being preferable to targeted tax breaks for specific companies in the past, and was speaking here about tax breaks in general being looked down upon.

But you'd rather sardonically attack weak misrepresentations of the opposing positions and interject nonsense about nuclear war than understand what the hell other people might be talking about and consider if they might have merit.
Thats similar to what I called you out on the other day when you were pretending its virtually all stupid people voting against their interests for trump, rather than validly seeing something in trump's policies that they rightly prefer over Hillary.
You responded with the same tired, immature and obviously wrong accusations of "trump shill" etc.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jun 24 2017 11:56am

https://apnews.com/9c78ee01f1ab45ffba852974fb229487/Court-partly-reinstates-Trump-travel-ban,-fall-arguments-set
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-reinstates-trump-travel-ban-143434509--politics.html

the wall is next

[√] winning [ ] not winning

Major win with this one. I predict his approval goes up 5 pts.