|
Curvature of Earth posted:Let's ask some libertarians! So not taxing people is more important than the survival of the human race. Cases like these remind me of a quote by a crazy friend of mine, Mr. Chigurh; "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Modern wealth management makes it extremely difficult for an heir to waste their inheritance by themselves. I'm aware. I'm involved in a few trusts. Spendthrift clauses are great. But I think you're incorrect and it really depends on the type of trust: revocable, irrevocable, etc. The trust and the grantor may share the same tax paperwork, or the trust may have its own, depending on the type of trust, but taxes are still paid by the trustee. Also if the trustee/executor gives the beneficiary more than they should, they're in breach of trust and fiduciary duties. Assuming they're not self-dealing on a trust where they're the only beneficiary, the other beneficiaries are in their right to sue. And it's not just wealthy people that use trusts. A will is a trust. A corporation is a trust. Social Security is a trust. Yes, wealthy people probably have the knowledge and $1,000 to set them up at higher rates than those in poverty, but it's not like trusts are an arcane secret. Your trust fund friend's 3% distribution is probably sound. I believe for retirees the recommended 401K drawdown is 4%, so 3% should last even longer. The whole fund may still be wiped out in a decade or two by future macroeconomic effects, but oh well. Hopefully the kid's productive today and doing things and can survive such an event, or at least understands that the monthly distribution will probably get smaller as they age. ToxicSlurpee posted:Let's just go ahead and ignore that social mobility is declining in America, minimum wage is enough to afford an apartment literally nowhere, and the traditional way out (you know, college) has become either prohibitively expensive or attached to crippling debt. I agree with some of what you're saying. I couldn't afford school and was raised to be weary of debt. To this day, I avoid debt like the plague. Honestly if that weren't the case I may have left poverty sooner. But the simple fact is many Americans live above their means. Social mobility requires spending less than you make, otherwise you spend your days working for money you've already spent. When I made minimum wage or less, it definitely wasn't glamorous living and I couldn't save much, so I know it's not easy. Now with mandatory insurance it's probably even harder. But saying that the majority of self-made billionaires aren't self-made because their parents were middle class, or they were raised in a good neighborhood, is absurd. A billion dollars is a lot of money. It's a thousand million. You can lazily turn a few hundred thousand into a few million, but you can't lazily turn it into a thousand million. And good news about kids living with their parents indefinitely being great for social mobility, it's the most common living arrangement for adults today. I'm being a bit sarcastic, but hopefully it works out.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
If a person starts out bourgeois and then inflates their already meaninglessly large supply of wealth even higher then that's not them being "self made". They already were.ToxicSlurpee posted:Let's just go ahead and ignore that social mobility is declining in America, minimum wage is enough to afford an apartment literally nowhere, and the traditional way out (you know, college) has become either prohibitively expensive or attached to crippling debt. Best part is Bill Gates is actually William Gates III, and his mom got him the IBM PC deal. Dude had everything handed to him then sat on his rear end and cashed in on licencing. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 03:07 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
So Bill Gates would then be one of the 18% of inherited/self-made, not one of the 62% of self-made.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Triglav posted:I agree with some of what you're saying. I couldn't afford school and was raised to be weary of debt. To this day, I avoid debt like the plague. Honestly if that weren't the case I may have left poverty sooner. But the simple fact is many Americans live above their means. Social mobility requires spending less than you make, otherwise you spend your days working for money you've already spent. When I made minimum wage or less, it definitely wasn't glamorous living and I couldn't save much, so I know it's not easy. Now with mandatory insurance it's probably even harder. No billionaire is self-made. Absolutely always they are a single person who got very lucky and handed an opportunity. Then they took that opportunity and ran with it. Chances are the poor wouldn't have that opportunity. Look at how many of those "entirely self-made" billionaires went to Ivy League schools. Bill Gates had enough time, money, and smarts at the right time to build Microsoft. If he was born ten years later it would be somebody else. More importantly these people ran businesses. Which means they didn't do all the work themselves. In the case of Gates Microsoft developed a nasty habit of eat other company's lunches and was put on trial for trust activities. America's billionaires these days make their money by forcing golden parachute deals on the companies they get to run then not caring all that much because they make their money either way. Typically it isn't the billionaires doing the work. They might start the thing but beyond a certain point it's nothing but "gently caress you I was hear first so I get the biggest share."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Triglav posted:So Bill Gates would then be one of the 18% of inherited/self-made, not one of the 62% of self-made. He's part of the 0% of self made people that exist, because self made people don't exist, because anything human beings can accomplish requires collaboration and assistance with other human beings. I will go further; a human being existing in itself is the result of the collaboration and assistance of other human beings. Talk of being "self made" requires to draw a line in the sand where none of that stuff counts for arbitrary and unjustifiable reasons. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 03:18 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No billionaire is self-made. Absolutely always they are a single person who got very lucky and handed an opportunity. Then they took that opportunity and ran with it. Off the top of my head I can name Thomas Peterffy and Oprah Winfrey as self-made. I know Warren Buffett inherited a good amount so he doesn't work. I can't think of many other billionaires off the top of my head. Steve Jobs maybe? Not sure if that works since his parents were upper middle class. Mark Zuckerberg went to an Ivy League so I'm discounting him immediately. Golden parachutes and CEO roles are made by a company's board of directors, typically as part of a recruitment package to find/entice a replacement CEO to come work for them. So unless the founder, CEO, chairman of the board, and majority stockholder are all the same person, it's a bit difficult for them to force a golden parachute through, especially in most large companies were insider ownership percentages are terrible, less than 1% equity. HorseLord posted:He's part of the 0% of self made people that exist, because self made people don't exist, because anything human beings can accomplish requires collaboration and assistance with other human beings. Right, this is true if you want to be absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Right, this is true if you want to be absurd. No, it is just true. It is literally stated facts. Human beings do not pop into existence for no reason. Neither does the clothes on their back or the contents of their skulls. Stating that you don't like this fact is not an argument against it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Right, this is true if you want to be absurd. You have not seen how absurd HorseLord can get.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:No, it is just true. It is literally stated facts. Human beings do not pop into existence for no reason. Neither does the clothes on their back or the contents of their skulls. I don't disagree that, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, we are all threads interwoven in a single garment. But while some started high up the ladder by dumb luck, plenty started lower. It's easy to climb a rung or two. Some climbed farther. Much of it was circumstance, being in a place at a time with an idea and executing it properly, but as someone who spent years working different poo poo jobs while depriving myself of simple pleasures for the sake of improving my station in life (for some reason that currently includes posting on the Internet more): You're an idiot if you think not a single successful person sacrificed for their success.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
What I would like is someone to justify using the phrase "self made" to describe a person. If you actually mean "they worked hard", say that instead. Then you've a chance of being correct.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Do you speak English as a second language, or are you autistic? "Self-made" is an idiom for "worked hard."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Do you speak English as a second language, or are you autistic? "Self-made" is an idiom for "worked hard." It's not just an idiom; It's used to deny that you were, in fact, made by a great deal of people. You were shaped by your parents, your teachers, anyone you've ever thought was cool. Everything you've ever worked on has had input from other people, every single thing, even if you don't realize it or don't want to admit it. "self made" carries the meaning "i don't owe anyone poo poo, their help didn't matter, gently caress you", which is a wrong thing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It's not just an idiom; It's used to deny that you were, in fact, made by a great deal of people. You were shaped by your parents, your teachers, anyone you've ever thought was cool. Everything you've ever worked on has had input from other people, every single thing, even if you don't realize it or don't want to admit it. You can be a self-made man: 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Do you speak English as a second language, or are you autistic? "Self-made" is an idiom for "worked hard." That self-made man build all the roads he used, built is own car, kept his person safe, was a fire marshal, grew his own food, constructed his own house, and...and...and...had no help from anybody else, right?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Another thing that occurs to me, "self made man" isn't an idiom for "working hard" because nobody uses it that way. Who's ever gone "I've been a self made man today, I scrubbed the toilet for three hours"? Nobody.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
"Self-made" men are OFTEN hard workers, but it's not a requirement to be called that. Somebody who spotted an opprotunity no one else did and lazily took advantage of it would generally also be called self-made.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
It's really a fallacy that dates back to the Gilded Age; Andrew Carnegie stood out among the tycoons of the day because he pointed out pretty accurately "I could have been anyone." He just happened to be in the right place at the right time and got a lucky break. Didn't have a drat thing to do with his gumption or skill; he just happened to be there when Bessemer did his thing, he got exclusive rights to it in America, and became hell of rich. Every other tycoon had about the same story; the exploited a random opportunity and got rich on it. Could have been anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
So Gary Johnson is the official Libertarian Party candidate. What do we know about him?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So Gary Johnson is the official Libertarian Party candidate. What do we know about him? We know that due to their rather ineffectual commitment to their own ideology, Libertarians have selected a LINO as their standard barer, giving up the game that they're just make weed legal and don't let the government seize my child labor Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's really a fallacy that dates back to the Gilded Age; Andrew Carnegie stood out among the tycoons of the day because he pointed out pretty accurately "I could have been anyone." He just happened to be in the right place at the right time and got a lucky break. Didn't have a drat thing to do with his gumption or skill; he just happened to be there when Bessemer did his thing, he got exclusive rights to it in America, and became hell of rich. Meanwhile they always claim to be totally self-made. One of the reasons I like Nick Hanauer, besides his support of higher minimum wages and such, is that he's a rare example of a billionaire venture capitalist who freely admits that he didn't work that hard and was largely just lucky (he had some money from his reasonably well-off family and used it to be the first non-family investor in his buddy Jeff's start-up business, some little online bookstore called Amazon).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
No matter how they made the money, or their origin, large amounts of wealth are inherently a problem because money is power. Who cares how they got it, the idea that 1% of society can control 50% of the wealth because they "earned it" is ludicrous. The morality of it is irrelevant, the actual effects of that sort of inequality and wealth concentration are the issue. A person could start as a literal street urchin, and still be a problem if he uses his self-made man funds to lobby against the public good. gently caress rich people, no matter their origin, is my point. Triglav posted:I don't disagree that, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, we are all threads interwoven in a single garment. This really depends on a confluence of factors, not the least of which are race and gender. Millionaires are disproportionately male and white (with the male being the biggest difference, the study I remember seeing was that around 15% of millionaires in the US were women) and this skews more as you rise in income. Effort is definitely a part but ultimately, even if you wanted to pretend the US is a meritocratic society, you have to deal with the fact that just being born white or with a penis skews the playing field. On this level, individual tales of toil and sacrifice are meaningless anecdotes. They don't address the core reasons why you see such a wide discrepancy in outcomes for minorities or women. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
I've always felt "I worked hard for my money" is an intriguing defence of being bourgeois, because if you're going to say that then you must, obviously, have come up with a way of measuring how hard people do their job. What would we call the unit, LabourPower? It'd be interesting to see the ratio of LP exerted to $ earned across a wide range of professions. Is the measurement calibrated to an average human, or the individual one being tested? Maybe sitting on his rear end all day and occasionally signing licence agreements his lawyer wrote for him was the absolute limit of Bill Gate's human capabilities past 1982 or so. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 05:56 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:No matter how they made the money, or their origin, large amounts of wealth are inherently a problem because money is power. Who cares how they got it, the idea that 1% of society can control 50% of the wealth because they "earned it" is ludicrous. The morality of it is irrelevant, the actual effects of that sort of inequality and wealth concentration are the issue. A person could start as a literal street urchin, and still be a problem if he uses his self-made man funds to lobby against the public good. That is, I think, another point; people very often fail to realize how obscenely rich the wealthiest people are. This isn't the difference between the guy making sandwiches and the guy that organizes guys making sandwiches. This is...the difference between... ...I don't even loving know a good comparison it's so absurd. It'd be like if the guy making sandwiches got one sandwich a day and the members of the 1% got thousands of sandwiches every day and they're all dipped in gold. ... I LIKE SANDWICHES, OK?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I've always felt "I worked hard for my money" is an intriguing defence of being bourgeois, because if you're going to say that then you must, obviously, have come up with a way of measuring how hard people do their job. Socially necessary labor time. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
The international bourgeoisie has accumulated so much surplus value that not only is it more than what they could ever hope to spend, but that the world economy depends on all of that money staying out of circulation. They're not capable of actually spending it all, but if it was redistributed then you'd see global hyperinflation. That's how much goddamned money they have. This is great for the bourgeoisie because, once you have more money than you can spend in your life no matter how hard you try, then there's no practical difference between that and having infinite money. Everything is effectively free, because the number in your bank account has lost all connection with the reality of your life and what you do with it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The international bourgeoisie has accumulated so much surplus value that not only is it more than what they could ever hope to spend, but that the world economy depends on all of that money staying out of circulation. They're not capable of actually spending it all, but if it was redistributed then you'd see global hyperinflation. That's how much goddamned money they have. Not entirely true; the only thing left for them to buy was entire loving countries. ...which is exactly what they're buying right now.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Triglav posted:I'm aware. I'm involved in a few trusts. Spendthrift clauses are great. But I think you're incorrect and it really depends on the type of trust: revocable, irrevocable, etc. The trust and the grantor may share the same tax paperwork, or the trust may have its own, depending on the type of trust, but taxes are still paid by the trustee. To no one's surprise, I am revealed as not knowing anything about finance. In general, if I'm not linking to something, you can be pretty sure I don't know what I'm talking about. Triglav posted:And in America, the 1860s, 1920s–30s, and 1960s–80s destroyed untold amounts of familial wealth. lol Matthew Yglesias posted:Today's rich families in Florence, Italy, were rich 700 years ago (I'm going to ignore Yglesias' attempt to immediately discount this, because it's Matthew Yglesias and he can waffle with the best of them.) Triglav posted:The whole fund may still be wiped out in a decade or two by future macroeconomic effects, but oh well. Hopefully the kid's productive today and doing things and can survive such an event, or at least understands that the monthly distribution will probably get smaller as they age. double lol  (Chart and its underlying data is courtesy of Yale University economics professor Robert Shiller. It's up-to-date as of May 2016.) True, at any given time, some people might lose money, but over the long term the stock market has averaged 9.5% annual growth. A wealthy person could, in theory, lose enough money to no longer be considered rich, but that would require both phenomenally poor timing and an inability to wait out a temporary recession with a mere half of the ungodly shitload of money you used to have. Oh no, you used to have $20 million, now you only have $10 million! What ever will you do?! (The worst-case scenario on the chart is a crash to about one-sixth of the peak in 1929. Every other crash approximately halved in value from the peak to the trough.) On average, most rich families would make it out okay. Triglav posted:But saying that the majority of self-made billionaires aren't self-made because their parents were middle class, or they were raised in a good neighborhood, is absurd. A billion dollars is a lot of money. It's a thousand million. You can lazily turn a few hundred thousand into a few million, but you can't lazily turn it into a thousand million. triple lol  (Link to screenshot of full article, because it's the Financial Times and normal access for non-subscribers is spotty and limited.) £500,000 grew to £350 million in the span of 85 years. In the span of two or three generations, a family that already has a lot of money can become 700 times richer through literally zero skill or effort on their part. (Yes, I'm aware this isn't counting inflation. But frankly, nobody accounts for inflation whenever the discussion of the starting wealth of now-even-richer people is brought up.) (While I'm at it, that £350 million would almost certainly be even larger if Barclay's weren't managing it, by which I mean overmanaging it and charging massive "management" and "service" fees to perform slightly under the stock market average, which on the scale we're talking here could've easily added up to another £10 million or so.) Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 09:36 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Not entirely true; the only thing left for them to buy was entire loving countries. Why do you think I refer to them as the international bourgeoisie?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It's not just an idiom; It's used to deny that you were, in fact, made by a great deal of people. You were shaped by your parents, your teachers, anyone you've ever thought was cool. Everything you've ever worked on has had input from other people, every single thing, even if you don't realize it or don't want to admit it. No poo poo. Going further, free will is an illusion. We are all merely reactions to past actions, like waves in a reflecting pool #woah #wow #deep  ToxicSlurpee posted:That self-made man build all the roads he used, built is own car, kept his person safe, was a fire marshal, grew his own food, constructed his own house, and...and...and...had no help from anybody else, right? Unfortunately the man did not create himself nor his genetic material ex nihilo, nor the nature that nurtured his feral body, so, Q.E.D., you're wrong. HorseLord posted:The international bourgeoisie has accumulated so much surplus value that not only is it more than what they could ever hope to spend, but that the world economy depends on all of that money staying out of circulation. They're not capable of actually spending it all, but if it was redistributed then you'd see global hyperinflation. That's how much goddamned money they have. Most of their worth is on paper and not liquid. It's tied up in assets other than cash. You're right to a point: If a majority asset holder were to exchange half their holdings at once, the exchange would create a market imbalance that would devalue the remainder of their holdings. That is, if they had assets totaling $100, sold half for $50, their total holdings may equal $75. An example of this that comes to mind was Steve Jobs leaving Apple after his ouster in 1985. He liquidated his position in anger, devaluing the float, market supply exceeding demand, sending Apple's stock price downward. However, just because an asset isn't liquid doesn't mean you can't use it to your advantage. It's common to take loans out against holdings. It sometimes bites those who do in the rear end in funny ways. But stability is the whole point of the Federal Reserve and other central banks. I wouldn't worry about it. Their job is to transact with the Treasury as needed, and Treasury auctions occur constantly. I assure you: There is more global wealth in bonds, and in particular treasuries, than there is in other assets. Cash is effectively a treasury, since it's backed by treasuries, among other things. You know all that money "held overseas" by American corporations? Those oversea accounts are holding treasuries, i.e. the U.S. government already has the money on deposit for use, though the government does owe interest and whatnot to the bondholder (unless you're holding Japanese, Swedish, or European bonds, which currently have negative interest rates, lol). The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on Earth in part because everyone globally wants treasuries for their historic stability (completely circumstantial, as the U.S. wasn't destroyed repeatedly in the 1900s like other world powers were). A bigger balance concern, I think, than fearing someone will liquidate their assets, is the peculiarity that there are more global liabilities than assets, i.e. more debt than cash. Presumably, at some point, that needs to be settled. But if all goes to plan, cash flows in a few decades will be greater than the debt that comes due. If not, I guess we can auction off new treasuries to pay off old treasuries! It worked for Puerto Rico! Or currencies could be devalued. Curvature of Earth posted:lol See the sag there, 1960s–80s? Want to know what else happened then? Runaway inflation and high interest rates. Market prices went down and your money was worth less! Nice! Though I'm not sure if Schiller's chart is pre-adjusted for inflation (his Case–Schiller home price indices are interesting btw). If you were a bondholder it wasn't too bad due to high interest rates, but if you were in equities, what that chart shows, you were wiped out until the mid-80s when things started turning around. Here's some stuff Warren Buffet wrote about that back during the tech bubble. See the parabolic rise from the 90s bull market to, especially, today? Want to know why that is? Stable inflation, changes to capital gains taxes that promoted investment, increasingly lower interest rates, and, since the financial crisis until just recently, zero interest rate policy! Thus the joky phrase these last few years, riffed from Margaret Thatcher about capitalism but currently applied to equities among finance folks: "There is no alternative." If you were in equities, you were good! If you were in bonds, well, at least bonds are safer! There's a reason people say "risk premium"! Curvature of Earth posted:True, at any given time, some people might lose money, but over the long term the stock market has averaged 9.5% annual growth. Arithmetically, you're right. But there are some things to consider: Inflation, and that the United States was a developing economy for much of that time. Today the U.S. is developed. It will not see growth like that again. But if you're willing to stomach geopolitical and currency risks, you could find growth like that today in emerging markets. And speaking of London, if you have a brokerage account with access to the London Stock Exchange, you could literally buy shares in a fund managed by Lord Rothschild, if you are willing to stomach currency and geopolitical risks (Brexit!). Curvature of Earth posted:(Yes, I'm aware this isn't counting inflation. But frankly, nobody accounts for inflation The primary purpose of buying assets is wealth preservation, i.e. to survive inflation.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Triglav posted:No poo poo. You don't get to mock something as being an obvious and basic thing to say, when not twelve hours ago you were stuck between not understanding the idea and refusing to because it could undermine your worldview.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
What's my world view?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Triglav posted:What's my world view? Some horseshit dependant on "self made men" being real.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Don't blame me for the Wall Street Journal's choice of words! I'm well aware that Oprah Winfrey's a woman.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Triglav posted:See the sag there, 1960s–80s? Want to know what else happened then? Runaway inflation and high interest rates. Market prices went down and your money was worth less! Nice! Though I'm not sure if Schiller's chart is pre-adjusted for inflation (his Case–Schiller home price indices are interesting btw). If you were a bondholder it wasn't too bad due to high interest rates, but if you were in equities, what that chart shows, you were wiped out until the mid-80s when things started turning around. Here's some stuff Warren Buffet wrote about that back during the tech bubble. You didn't really address my point that halving someone's obscene wealth—heck, let's throw in stagflation eating into their wealth, too—doesn't bring rich people to ruin. They're still rich. Triglav posted:Arithmetically, you're right. Nope. The page I linked also gives the arithmetic average, which is 11.4% over the last 87 years. The geometric average I gave is correct, at 9.5%. Triglav posted:The primary purpose of buying assets is wealth preservation, i.e. to survive inflation.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/libertarian-party-candidate-strips-dances-national-convention-article-1.2654209 Aw, beat me to it
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So Gary Johnson is the official Libertarian Party candidate. What do we know about him? He appears to dislike the Civil Rights Act, but also disapproves of selling heroin to five years olds, so by libertarian standards he's a controversial man of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He appears to dislike the Civil Rights Act, but also disapproves of selling heroin to five years olds, so by libertarian standards he's a controversial man of contrasts. He got booed for saying he supports the civil rights act, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:12
|
|
