I'm Grudgingly Considering A Lesser-Of-Two Evils Vote: Here's Why...

[anaconda]

I consider both Billary and The Donald to be extremely poor candidates, neither deserving of the presidency. My intention has been to vote 3rd Party.

But I am now considering voting for Trump solely to fight back against the unified establishment-mainstream media propaganda assault on a candidate that they don't approve of, but was duly nominated by the people. This strikes me as an opportunity to repudiate the press, which doesn't seem to exist as the "fourth estate" any longer. As well as the Republican establishment, which seems to not care what its voters mandate.

Is this a strategically ethical use of my vote? Or, would this simply be a case of getting sucked into the false left-right dog-and-pony show?

I considered voting for Obama in 2012 simply to punish the Republican Party and Romney. Ultimately, Ron Paul was yet again a registered write-in candidate in CA, so chose that option.

[AuH20]

You have to be intrigued about the potential ramifications?

Will the lugenpresse double down on their treachery?
Will the petulant and infantile denizens of the inner cities literally try to burn everything down?
Will the TPTB try to eliminate Trump?

[nikcers]

What will happen on the next season of The Apprentice? My anaconda don't want none unless you got authoritarianism son.

[undergroundrr]

It won't make a bit of difference either way. If you want to make a difference, vote for Johnson. Or if you want to make an uncompromising principle vote, you can probably get pretty close with Castle.

In the end, actually canvassing for someone, whether online or in the physical world will make much more difference than your vote.

[spudea]

A candidate must earn your vote. If you don't feel strongly about the current candidates it's ok not to vote.

As for hurting those groups you dislike. It's short sighted to put your faith into a candidate to do that for you. Many people put their faith in GW Bush only to be disappointed. Many people put their faith in Obama only to be disappointed. Thus you must find ways to counter those groups in a different way, either on your own, or organizing with other people that think like you do.

If you put your hopes and faith into a candidate that hasn't earned your vote, it is likely for the outcome to be disappointment and a return to voter apathy which really sucks.

[Ender]

A candidate must earn your vote. If you don't feel strongly about the current candidates it's ok not to vote.

As for hurting those groups you dislike. It's short sighted to put your faith into a candidate to do that for you. Many people put their faith in GW Bush only to be disappointed. Many people put their faith in Obama only to be disappointed. Thus you must find ways to counter those groups in a different way, either on your own, or organizing with other people that think like you do.


If you put your hopes and faith into a candidate that hasn't earned your vote, it is likely for the outcome to be disappointment and a return to voter apathy which really sucks.

^^THIS^^

[dannno]

I don't have any good answers for you. The mainstream media is the most evil, god-awful force on the face of the earth, owned and operated by and for a very small group of powerful people. The fact that they are coming out swinging against Trump makes Trump look REALLY good. And that is why he is winning - only 6% of the population believes the mainstream media.

Obviously he is not a liberty candidate, he has some flaws, plus what if the elite know that the mainstream media is dead and the only way they can maintain power is by running a secret-squirrel candidate who is hated by the media (aka Trump)? It's just a theory, but it would be one of the most wild House of Cards type episodes ever.

I can't help but feel like as stupid as the mainstream media is, they still are controlled by a group of people playing a very strategic game of chess. I hate feeling manipulated into supporting candidates. No manipulation was required for me to support Ron or Rand Paul. I'm feeling manipulated into supporting Trump.....and I still don't plan on voting for him because I haven't pinned everything down, but every day I come here and read another one of CPUd's stupid threads it makes me want to vote for him more and more.

[CPUd]

I don't have any good answers for you. The mainstream media is the most evil, god-awful force on the face of the earth, owned and operated by and for a very small group of powerful people. The fact that they are coming out swinging against Trump makes Trump look REALLY good. And that is why he is winning - only 6% of the population believes the mainstream media.

Obviously he is not a liberty candidate, he has some flaws, plus what if the elite know that the mainstream media is dead and the only way they can maintain power is by running a secret-squirrel candidate who is hated by the media (aka Trump)? It's just a theory, but it would be one of the most wild House of Cards type episodes ever.

I can't help but feel like as stupid as the mainstream media is, they still are controlled by a group of people playing a very strategic game of chess. I hate feeling manipulated into supporting candidates. No manipulation was required for me to support Ron or Rand Paul. I'm feeling manipulated into supporting Trump.....and I still don't plan on voting for him because I haven't pinned everything down, but every day I come here and read another one of CPUd's stupid threads it makes me want to vote for him more and more.

Vote your conscience.

[nikcers]

the unified establishment-mainstream media propaganda assault on a candidate that they don't approve of, but was duly nominated by the people..

"They hate us for our freedoms"

[anaconda]

A candidate must earn your vote. If you don't feel strongly about the current candidates it's ok not to vote.

As for hurting those groups you dislike. It's short sighted to put your faith into a candidate to do that for you. Many people put their faith in GW Bush only to be disappointed. Many people put their faith in Obama only to be disappointed. Thus you must find ways to counter those groups in a different way, either on your own, or organizing with other people that think like you do.

If you put your hopes and faith into a candidate that hasn't earned your vote, it is likely for the outcome to be disappointment and a return to voter apathy which really sucks.

But I was careful to point out that I have faith in neither Trump nor Hillary. My vote in this case would be purely strategic as my minuscule push back against the (non)media and the establishment. I don't expect sound government from either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump.

[AuH20]

But I was careful to point out that I have faith in neither Trump nor Hillary. My vote in this case would be purely strategic as establishment push back.

That is completely logical. Attempt to deny that which the establishment desperately wants. Trump is only a part of this obstructive measure. You can at least have some fun with the limited choice that we have been given.

[angelatc]

I consider both Billary and The Donald to be extremely poor candidates, neither deserving of the presidency. My intention has been to vote 3rd Party.

But I am now considering voting for Trump solely to fight back against the unified establishment-mainstream media propaganda assault on a candidate that they don't approve of, but was duly nominated by the people. This strikes me as an opportunity to repudiate the press, which doesn't seem to exist as the "fourth estate" any longer. As well as the Republican establishment, which seems to not care what its voters mandate.

Is this a strategically ethical use of my vote? Or, would this simply be a case of getting sucked into the false left-right dog-and-pony show?

I considered voting for Obama in 2012 simply to punish the Republican Party and Romney. Ultimately, Ron Paul was yet again a registered write-in candidate in CA, so chose that option.

I had planned to follow the lead of Massie, Amash and Paul. But they divided up, so I have to make a choice. If there are any indicators that Trump has a shot at winning MI, I will probably vote for him. But since I doubt that will happen, I am voting Johnson because the LP needs to keep ballot access.

[anaconda]

I don't have any good answers for you. The mainstream media is the most evil, god-awful force on the face of the earth, owned and operated by and for a very small group of powerful people. The fact that they are coming out swinging against Trump makes Trump look REALLY good. And that is why he is winning - only 6% of the population believes the mainstream media.

Obviously he is not a liberty candidate, he has some flaws, plus what if the elite know that the mainstream media is dead and the only way they can maintain power is by running a secret-squirrel candidate who is hated by the media (aka Trump)? It's just a theory, but it would be one of the most wild House of Cards type episodes ever.

I can't help but feel like as stupid as the mainstream media is, they still are controlled by a group of people playing a very strategic game of chess. I hate feeling manipulated into supporting candidates. No manipulation was required for me to support Ron or Rand Paul. I'm feeling manipulated into supporting Trump.....and I still don't plan on voting for him because I haven't pinned everything down, but every day I come here and read another one of CPUd's stupid threads it makes me want to vote for him more and more.

Great reply. Thanks. And, yes, I have always, and continue to, consider that Trump is a plant by the establishment and simply marketed as very anti-establishment to attract that voter segment and push independents toward the establishment Democrat.

[anaconda]

That is completely logical. Attempt to deny that which the establishment desperately wants. Trump is only a part of this obstructive measure. You can at least have some fun with the limited choice that we have been given.

You are too kind. I'll still likely check the box for Castle. If he doesn't make the ballot in CA I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Johnson (and the Council On Foreign Relations).

[anaconda]

I had planned to follow the lead of Massie, Amash and Paul. But they divided up, so I have to make a choice. If there are any indicators that Trump has a shot at winning MI, I will probably vote for him. But since I doubt that will happen, I am voting Johnson because the LP needs to keep ballot access.

Ah, another logical vote strategy that prioritizes something other than a endorsing a specific candidate (future LP ballot access in your case). Thanks for posting.

[AuH20]

You are too kind. I'll still likely check the box for Castle. If he doesn't make the ballot in CA I'll hold my nose and vote for Johnson (and the Council On Foreign Relations).

Trump could be a fraud or he could be the real thing. I honestly don't know. And the people incessantly bashing Trump don't know either. Time and some serendipity will make that final determination.

However, it is quite revealing how the media and political establishment pulled out the stops for Hillary and abandoned any semablance of objectivity. What do THEY KNOW that we don't? Furthermore and more importantly, what do the intelligence agencies that dictate the mainstream media agenda, know that we don't?

[euphemia]

I can't help but feel like as stupid as the mainstream media is, they still are controlled by a group of people playing a very strategic game of chess..

The MSM are making a choice based on their own indoctrination. You are a not indoctrinated by anyone, and are not stupid.

[jmdrake]

I consider both Billary and The Donald to be extremely poor candidates, neither deserving of the presidency. My intention has been to vote 3rd Party.

But I am now considering voting for Trump solely to fight back against the unified establishment-mainstream media propaganda assault on a candidate that they don't approve of, but was duly nominated by the people. This strikes me as an opportunity to repudiate the press, which doesn't seem to exist as the "fourth estate" any longer. As well as the Republican establishment, which seems to not care what its voters mandate.

Is this a strategically ethical use of my vote? Or, would this simply be a case of getting sucked into the false left-right dog-and-pony show?

I considered voting for Obama in 2012 simply to punish the Republican Party and Romney. Ultimately, Ron Paul was yet again a registered write-in candidate in CA, so chose that option.

I live in a state so red it would give it's elector votes to Magickarp (a very weak and lame Pokemon') if that was the GOP nominee so I'm voting Daryl Castle. (Gary Johnson has lost me with his abject stupidity as he lost me before in 2012 and Bob Barr lost in in 2008 for being abjectly stupid and horrid. I don't know why libertarians seem to pick the most unlibertarian candidates?) If I lived in a battleground state I would (gasp) vote for Trump because Hillary is so horrid and at this point we really need someone to push back against the past 8 years of Obama.

That said, I blame Trump for what's happening to his campaign more than the "liberal media." It was Trump who decided to make an issue out of the Khans. (Stupid! Abysmally stupid!) Trump should have instead called Hillary out on the carpet for lying to and then about the Benghazi families. (She's being sued for libel but who knows that?) Trump should be talking about Obama not letting in Christian refugees rather than rolling out "extreme vetting" plans that say you might be a terrorist if you don't support gay marriage like he does. And if Trump was going to go after Obama and Hillary for their role in the rise of ISIS, he shouldn't have poisoned the water by first calling them the "founders" of ISIS, then coming back and saying "Just kidding!" A very strong case can and should be made that the Hillary/Obama plan of supporting, arming and doing airstrikes for Al Qaeda linked jihadists in Syria and Libya is what opened the door for the rise of ISIS. Instead he pissed that away with cheap infowars.com style rhetoric. The man is a buffoon. Or maybe not. Maybe he's the Clinton's "manchurian candidate." I dunno.

[jmdrake]

Trump could be a fraud or he could be the real thing. I honestly don't know. And the people incessantly bashing Trump don't know either. Time and some serendipity will make that final determination.

Here's what I do know. Bill Clinton in 2015 asked Donald Trump to "get involved with the GOP." That's admitted fact. Now why would Bill Clinton do that? To help the Republicans, or to help his wife? Anyway the die has been cast. Rand Paul should have been then nominee. Barring Rand it should have been Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. Now we're stuck with Trump, the person the Clintons put up to run, as the only hope to stop the Clintons. Heaven help us!

[AuH20]

Here's what I do know. Bill Clinton in 2015 asked Donald Trump to "get involved with the GOP." That's admitted fact. Now why would Bill Clinton do that? To help the Republicans, or to help his wife? Anyway the die has been cast. Rand Paul should have been then nominee. Barring Rand it should have been Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. Now we're stuck with Trump, the person the Clintons put up to run, as the only hope to stop the Clintons. Heaven help us!

He was tickling Trump's ego. Trump was the long shot of long shots. Most of the serious candidates had seeded organizations that were at minimum two years old. Jeb Bush was supposed to be have the GOP nomination locked up if not for Trump.

[alucard13mm]

LP should have nominated vince vaughn from dodgeball. He is a friend of ron paul. I bet he has more name recognition than gary johnson. Vote for the guy from dodgeball! Hehhe

[jmdrake]

He was tickling Trump's ego. Trump was the long shot of long shots. He had ran in 2008 and was essentially an afterthought. Most of the serious candidates had seeded organizations that were at minimum two years old. Jeb Bush was supposed to be have the GOP nomination locked up if not for Trump.

Of course he was. But why? He knew Donald Trump would be a wrecking ball to anyone in the GOP that might have actually given Hillary a run for her money. Hillary would be losing right now if she was facing TV commercials like this.

[AuH20]

Of course he was. But why? He knew Donald Trump would be a wrecking ball to anyone in the GOP that might have actually given Hillary a run for her money. Hillary would be losing right now if she was facing TV commercials like this.

Would she? The only two candidates who polled higher than Hillary in terms of RCP average were the uninspiring John Kasich and Marco Rubio. Secondly, the battle against Hillary goes far beyond just defining and beating Hillary Clinton by conventional means. If you want to defeat someone like HRC, you must delegitimize her many surrogates in the media.

[puppetmaster]

A candidate must earn your vote. If you don't feel strongly about the current candidates it's ok not to vote.

As for hurting those groups you dislike. It's short sighted to put your faith into a candidate to do that for you. Many people put their faith in GW Bush only to be disappointed. Many people put their faith in Obama only to be disappointed. Thus you must find ways to counter those groups in a different way, either on your own, or organizing with other people that think like you do.

If you put your hopes and faith into a candidate that hasn't earned your vote, it is likely for the outcome to be disappointment and a return to voter apathy which really sucks.

while I agree with some of this I wonder how a new candidate can "earn" your vote. Unless they have a track record in Congress like the Paul's or a few other liberty members you have to base your vote on other things. Hillary has a proven track record in government of failure and criminality. The others running only have words and it seems everytime the speak they make me trust them less. If I was to vote on principles only I guess it would be castle. But since he is unable to win I will be basing my vote on other reasons. As of right now I will be voting for the person who has the best chance of beating Clinton. If I can help keep her out of the white house then I will be satisfied. Trump is disliked by both parties and that warms my heart. I most likely will be disappointed with Trump but no one knows for sure so I may be surprised. If Trump is only 10% in line with my views it is still better than hillary's 0% I cannot fathom having to hear from hillary for the next 4 years. I really wish Rand had remained in the mix, I think he would have been able to win if he had not gone out so early.

[puppetmaster]

LP should have nominated vince vaughn from dodgeball. He is a friend of ron paul. I bet he has more name recognition than gary johnson. Vote for the guy from dodgeball! Hehhe

would have been a much better choice.

[undergroundrr]

The mainstream media is the most evil, god-awful force on the face of the earth, owned and operated by and for a very small group of powerful people.

I don't disagree. However, would people be comfortable if trump established direct state control over the media after his election? Just a hypothetical.

Otherwise, what exactly would change about the MSM after a trump victory? Would they be weakened somehow? I'm not sure how supporting trump hurts the media. He's a cash infusion for them at the moment.

[jmdrake]

Would she? The only two candidates who polled higher that Hillary in terms of RCP average were the uninspiring John Kasich and Marco Rubio. Secondly, the battle against Hillary goes far beyond just defining and beating Hillary Clinton by conventional means. If you want to defeat someone like HRC, you must delegitimize her many surrogates in the media.

Wrong. In February 2016 Cruz was beating Clinton 47.7 to 46.0. And he was climbing. What happened? The GOP wrecking ball Trump is what happened.

See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-4034.html

Trump has consistently trailed Clinton. In May 2016 he head 43.4 to 43.2. That's a mere 0.2% lead! He peaked in July 2016 with 45.7 to 44.6. Note that Cruz almost had a 2% lead over Clinton at one time when the best Trump ever had was barely over a 1% lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

On top of that Cruz would not have done something so utterly stupid as to attack a Goldstar family.

[heavenlyboy34]

[anaconda]

"They hate us for our freedoms"

LOL

[adissa]

I consider both Billary and The Donald to be extremely poor candidates, neither deserving of the presidency. My intention has been to vote 3rd Party.

But I am now considering voting for Trump solely to fight back against the unified establishment-mainstream media propaganda assault on a candidate that they don't approve of, but was duly nominated by the people. This strikes me as an opportunity to repudiate the press, which doesn't seem to exist as the "fourth estate" any longer. As well as the Republican establishment, which seems to not care what its voters mandate.

Is this a strategically ethical use of my vote? Or, would this simply be a case of getting sucked into the false left-right dog-and-pony show?

I considered voting for Obama in 2012 simply to punish the Republican Party and Romney. Ultimately, Ron Paul was yet again a registered write-in candidate in CA, so chose that option.

However you get to that decision, liberty wins. Well done.