The Aleppo thing shows just how laughably unprepared third party candidates are in general and why their amateur hour bull**** doesn't belong on the national stage. I feel bad for Bill Weld, tho.

More unprepared than the bitch who expects us to think she didn't know the C in those documents stood for Classified?

Or th guy that doesn't know JAG is a thing that exists?

At least Johnson has actually ****ing read the Constitution. You know... the founding document and supreme law of the land of this nation?

Yes, Johnson is more unprepared than both Hilldawg and the Donald.

Wow, video was alot worse than I imagined. Lol @ that clown in a debate.

do you...do you think Hillary Clinton has never read the Constitution? Like literall the way Ive never read Moby Dick, or because she has a different interpretation (or perfectly normal one) of its meaning than you?

It taxes people that pay only capital gains tax (15%) more because when they buy things they have to pay 30% on them instead. If Mitt Romney wants a new yacht, he would sell some stock and buy the yacht. The stock he sells he'd pay only 15% on the capital gains. Under the Fair Tax, he'd pay 30% of the value of the yacht (because he'd have to pay $130,000 for a current price $100,000 yacht - nominal percentage is 23%). This is much more. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump would probably pay more under the FairTax.

It taxes people who receive a multi-million dollar salary less. So the football player will get to keep much more of his salary than with the current tax system. This is because he would be in a much higher tax bracket when he's playing and in a much lower tax bracket when he retires.

It taxes the people who are close to retirement more because they'd be paying the consumption tax while having paid the income tax under the current system. It taxes the people who are young and don't have a lot of savings less for the same reason.

You can't just say "nobody takes it seriously" and just expect the argument from authority to stand here. There are serious pros and cons of this proposal and it's quite interesting.

"argument from authority" is only a logical fallacy if the authority isnt qualified on the topic in question. things like "Bill Maher says vaccines are dangerous" is a logical fallacy. "economists think this economic proposal is a joke" is not.

If you think that any Democrat has a "perfectly normal" interpretation of the Constitution, I have a bridge to sell you.

I suppose it depends how you define 'normal'. If you define it as "an interpretation most constitutional experts would find reasonable" then yes her understanding of teh constitution is perfectly normal. I guess you're admitting that she's read the constitution, right?

I have no idea if she actually has or not, but (just for starters) she seems to think that the second amendment is basically an ink blot.

I also have no idea how "most constitutional experts" [citation needed] interpret the Constitution, but I do know that the only reasonable way to interpret the constitution is how it was intended when it was written. And in the spirit that it was intended when written, which was as a limiting document on federal power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWyyEkOlIEU

If this sounds like a guy that's unprepared to you, you're probably a partisan idiot. It sounds like someone who made a flub and was humble enough to own up to it. Which is what you want in someone with access to the nuclear football -- I sure as **** don't want a narcissistic egomaniac or a downright sociopath up there.

Aleksei- By the end of sophomore year you're going to look back on these posts and laugh bro

Of course you don't. That's why you're embarrassing yourself on the internet.^[1]

needs more (((globalists)))

Dude if you're not aware that most constitutional law experts don't adhere to Libertarian interpretations of it I don't know what to tell you aside from
.

Why should anyone respect your interpretation of the constitution more than anyone elses?

Because it's not my interpretation that matters. It's the interpretation of the people who wrote the ****ing thing. Which is more important than your appeal to authority.

And yes, that is an appeal to authority. You can't just say " the experts say X" and let that stand without explaining why. Experts are neither infallible nor free of bias, and before you accept their word you have to understand what it is they're saying, and why.

If you cannot explain your opinion yourself, you aren't qualified to have one.

By the time you're 35, knee-deep in taxes, getting charged by the bank for storing money in it, and trying to sustain a family in a dwindling economy you're going to look back and wish you'd listened.

The people who wrote it wanted it to be interpreted by the supreme court no? That does appear to be what's happening.

Not exactly. The role of the SCOTUS was supposed to be to essentially pass judgments on whether laws enacted adhered to the Constitution or not. Instead, the SCOTUS has essentially taken it upon itself to bend the constitution to its own whims.

I'll have you know that that bridge is public property tyvm.

True but also is the fact Trump did not know Russia had troops in Crimea. Yet he has 45 % of the vote. Tells you how stupid the average voter is or how bad the opposition is. Wait they are both true

I don't really see a difference between "pass[ing] judgments[sic] on whether laws enacted adhered to the Constitution" and "explaining the meaning of the Constitution."

There is a difference between interpreting and creating. An interpretation is an attempt to explain what something originally meant. When you veer away from that into " it means what I want it to mean" territory, then you're violating the spirit of the term "interpretation". It is obvious that the Founders were classical liberals (of whom libertarians are descended), so modernist/non-originalist interpretations of the constitution are, equally obviously, ad hoc (read: made up). The SCOTUS is violating its mandate, and thus cannot be considered the supreme law on these matters.

Not that it likely matters to any of you, so long as this "interpretation" fits your agenda.

Yeah well, that's just like your opinion man. And unfortunately for you the rules laid down by the founding fathers means your opinion means far less on this matter than the opinions of SCOTUS who seems to disagree with you.