To Vote or Not to Vote

[CaptUSA]

Splitting out from this thread, but could have come from several...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ut-of-the-debt

Why on earth would I do that?

Go ahead and vote for Trump. I'm sure on top of Operation Warp Speed [renamed Project NexGen under Biden to "distance" themselves], his new National Academy, Stop and Frisk, militarized LEO funded by federal tax dollars and how many more Trillions he signs off on will seem a much better improvement over "gee, now that Trump lost, should I get myself a sex change operation?".


I'm staying home that day. I don't want my offspring to ask me "dad, after standing firm on your principles and the way that you taught me, why did you abandon them and suddenly give Approval/Consent to the Trump/Kamala 2-party duopoly?".

Whether you approve or consent, one of these people is going to run the next administration. I understand not voting, but do you have a preference for which administration runs the Executive branch?

Nope. None at all.

As far as "choosing" between Trump's Police-State Apparatus which will violate each and everybody's Bill of Rights, and other Federalized/Nationalized programs which will never go away once implemented, and Kamala's pay for somebody else's sex change operation who are going to get one anyway, I'll let you guys roll the dice.


Vote hard, sleep comfy

Ok, so no preference. So why all the vitriol towards those who do have a preference? I mean, it doesn't matter to you, right? Take "voting" out of the equation for a minute - it's a silly thing anyway. Some people have a preference for one over the other, but you have no preference. Typically, people with no preference wouldn't care if other people state their preference.

I don't have a problem with people having a preference. My experience is that (typcially) people with a preference more often get angry at those of us with no preference than the other way around. And whenver some of us point out what's wrong with someone's preference we get jumped on with "But you know so and so is so much WORSE right?" I have recently had that experince multiple times when I critize Kamala Harris. Not here because this has become an ideological bubble. The Ron Paul supporters who where mainly here because of Dr. Paul's non interventionism have mostly either moved to the right or have left. But in the "real world" I'm personally more likely to interact with a rabid Kamala Harris supporter than I am a rabid Trump supporter. I find both irritating. But there is hope. Our pastor, who I once heard say "I don't know how anyone who is Christian could vote for Trump" has more recently come to see things my way. His friends and family encouraged him to watch the DNC and he noted how everyone was excited and talking about "joy" and saying that the fate of the world depended upon people making the right "choice." So he decided to go back and watch the RNC and he saw the same excitement and many of the same themes. Then he came to the conclusion that "Really we need to choose Jesus." That was the topic of his sermon. He preached about Jesus healing the man and the pool of Bethesda, which people were so desperate to get in for healing when the water water was "troubled" that they would step over others and even pull them back to get in first, as opposed to looking to Jesus who had healing for everybody. More recently in his pre sermon remarks he talked about seeing a sign at a church that said "If you're black and voting for Trump you are stupid" and he remarked that the sign was wrong and people should be free to do their own investigation and decide on their own who to vote for without any pressure from anyone. That was a breath of fresh air!

Here's an analogy. We're with a group of friends who decide to go to this $#@!ty restaurant. There are only 2 choices on the menu and they both suck. They'll both make you sick and taste like $#@!. What's worse is that once the majority of the group decides which option is chosen, everyone in the group has to eat that option. Not eating isn't an option - you will be force-fed which ever option they pick. (what's worse is that the restaurant owner usually forces his pick on the group because he has a benefit in getting rid of one of the options)

Prior to coming to this place, we all bitched and moaned that this place sucks! Why would anyone want this?! But the other people in the group actually like one option or the other and they REALLY want to get their choice next time so they insist we keep coming here.

So what do you do? We're at the restaurant. You can leave if you want, but apparently the other choices are even worse or you already would have left. Do you try to find an option that is less objectionable to you? Do you continue to be the Karen who complains the whole time? Do you just keep quiet and say, "whatever - you guy's pick, it doesn't matter to me."?

I'll go into my approach in the next post.

[PAF]

My response from the other thread:

Ok, so no preference. So why all the vitriol towards those who do have a preference? I mean, it doesn't matter to you, right? Take "voting" out of the equation for a minute - it's a silly thing anyway. Some people have a preference for one over the other, but you have no preference. Typically, people with no preference wouldn't care if other people state their preference.

In a community of people, 2 opposing mobsters who hate each other are trying to win power. They each promise a few good things which doesn't really matter, while committing serious crimes against the community.

For some strange reason, the people in the community feel that they must vote for one or the other. Eventually, one of the mobsters wins. Next year, the community is sick and tired of the crimes, so they vote for the other mobster instead.

At a community event, as I listen to other people complain back and forth, I tell them that if the community rejects both mobsters, the mobsters will go away because they have no power over the armed community. Somebody stands up and says "we can't do that, we have to vote for one of them!". For some strange reason, others in the community agree with that person and they continue to vote, while I as an individual suffer no matter which one is in charge.

Do I blame the mobsters who are nothing but opportunists? Or do I blame the people who willfully grant whichever mobster the power to commit crimes against the community?

There comes a time when it is necessary for the mobsters to fear the community, even if that number is only a quarter of the community. And that doesn't happen by promoting/voting for whichever one is perceived to be less bad than the other. It is stoopid people without a brain cell, or lack of a backbone, who make justification for one mobster over the other. I have both the brain cells and the backbone to tell it like it is, and have no need/desire for either mobster to win.

But, YMMV, depending on how many brain cells/backbone you have [or don't].

[CaptUSA]

When faced with that situation, here's my thought process:

I tried to keep them away from that restaurant, but here we are. We're slowly being poisoned and my kids and grandkids will suffer. I can complain about the circumstances, but it's too late for this dinner. I'll have to try again next time - if there is a next time. So, which poison would I prefer to make that next time happen?

Let's go down the issues:

• WWIII: I think Trump is less likely to trigger a world event in the next 4 years
• Debt bubble: I think it's a wash - both of these idiots will continue the spending
• Freedom of Speech: I think Trump is less likely restrict the anti-establishment narrative speech that will be necessary to wake people up to this restaurant
• Foreign Aid (especially, Israel): Another wash - they'll both continue this
• Abortion: I MUCH prefer local decisions - Trump takes the edge here
• Immigration: Neither one of these idiots will do much, but at least Trump isn't actively encouraging a foreign invasion with our tax money
• Policing: Stop & frisk, mass deportation squads?? Kamala takes the edge here, but to be honest, this won't affect me in the next 4 years
• Cabinet and Judicial nominations: This is the big one where Trump is more preferrable. The agencies run by Kamala picks will create untold regulations and will have to be fought at the SC - in the meantime, lots of damage will be done. If RFK, Tulsi, and the like can influence the picks, even better
• Deep state: The restaurant owner wants us to eat Kamala so his previous crimes will never be questioned. Trump has a bad track record, but there's at least some chance that things see some sunshine

So, from my take, I'm hoping the group chooses Trump. Do I like it? Absolutely not! But it's significantly better than the other option. I'll still encourage the group to stop doing this in the future. And you'll never see me defending the taste of the Trump meal. But since I'm not leaving the restaurant, I'll hope for the one that is least objectionable and can help us do better in the future.

I'm not an accelerationist. I have kids and grandkids.

As for voting, I don't place a lot of importance to it one way or the other. I'll probably cast a lot, but I won't disparage anyone for not doing so. I also won't pretend like they have some moral high ground.

[acptulsa]

CaptUSA, why did you start this thread? The first quote you included in your OP is PAF saying, do what you think you must but don't fool yourself into thinking you're supporting anything good. Mr. Drake is not wrong when he says that those who recognize this fact and say it have been relentlessly hounded by certain participants on this forum for doing so. Why single us out? What are the people pointing out things that you yourself just pointed out in Post #3 deserving of this special treatment and not the people screeching, if you don't support this demon you're supporting the other one!!1!

You know the restaurant serves poison. You just said so. Why are the people saying so worse in your mind than the people insisting that this particular dish of poison is the healthiest food evarrr?

[CaptUSA]

CaptUSA, why did you start this thread?

Because we have some people in here who think we MUST vote for this guy or gal, then we have others who think that if you do, you are tools of the system and you're consenting to it. It keeps coming up in other threads, but I don't think it's that important.

You gain no moral high ground by either position, nor are you less of a thinking person for whatever you decide. We're all recognizing the problems, but we have different ways of addressing them. That's what liberty is all about.

I recognize that you, too, don't want to cast your lot. Great. But do you have a preference for the administration that will ultimately run these agencies? Are they equally bad? Are the differently bad? Do you think your abstention does anything? If so, what? I do have a preference. I think my lot does VERY, VERY little, but I'm willing to take a few minutes to cast it on the side of my preference.

None of us are suggesting our preference is the "healthiest food evarr" (except maybe SS). We know they're both poison. But yeah, I do have a preference for which poison is less deadly and can get us through to a place where people can finally reject the system. We're not there yet, but there is hope.


ETA: Ultimately, it's a clearing house in the Political Philosophy forum for people to discuss their rationalizations or nuances around the question. Some people think voting is giving consent to the system. Some people think it's a patriotic duty. Then, there's lots of people in between.

[acptulsa]

I'd love to cast my lot. But I have no one to cast it for, because everyone else is content to cast theirs against.

And that is how this nation went down the tubes.

Yes, we do enable evil in this way. I choose not to do that. Why does it matter to you which we would vote against if we weren't disgusted about a system that systematically steals from us the ability to vote for somebody worthy of our trust? Why are you trying to browbeat us into semi-endorsing either evil?

Answer that question and you know how this nation got into this mess.

[CaptUSA]

I'd love to cast my lot. But I have no one to cast it for, because everyone else is content to cast theirs against.

And that is how this nation went down the tubes.

Yes, we do enable evil in this way. I choose not to do that. Why does it matter to you which we would vote against if we weren't disgusted about a system that systematically steals from us the ability to vote for somebody worthy of our trust? Why are you trying to browbeat us into semi-endorsing either evil?

IMO, evil is enabled, regardless. Whether you choose to cast a lot or not. I'm not browbeating ANYONE. But I do wish the opposite would stop. If I cast a lot, it doesn't enable evil any more than you NOT casting one. So why pretend you have some moral high ground?

And yeah, in the past, I've written in Ron Paul (it's still an option this time). But the concept (even if faulty) that the system will see a large Trump turnout as a rejection of the intel agencies and corruption is intriguing.

[jmdrake]

Splitting out from this thread, but could have come from several...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ut-of-the-debt

Here's an analogy. We're with a group of friends who decide to go to this $#@!ty restaurant. There are only 2 choices on the menu and they both suck. They'll both make you sick and taste like $#@!. What's worse is that once the majority of the group decides which option is chosen, everyone in the group has to eat that option. Not eating isn't an option - you will be force-fed which ever option they pick. (what's worse is that the restaurant owner usually forces his pick on the group because he has a benefit in getting rid of one of the options)

Prior to coming to this place, we all bitched and moaned that this place sucks! Why would anyone want this?! But the other people in the group actually like one option or the other and they REALLY want to get their choice next time so they insist we keep coming here.

So what do you do? We're at the restaurant. You can leave if you want, but apparently the other choices are even worse or you already would have left. Do you try to find an option that is less objectionable to you? Do you continue to be the Karen who complains the whole time? Do you just keep quiet and say, "whatever - you guy's pick, it doesn't matter to me."?

I'll go into my approach in the next post.

But the reason there are only two choices is because the group decides to go along with the propaganda that there are only two choices. In reality there are multiple choices on the "menu." (Green Party. Libertarian. Peoples party. Constitution party. Whatever).And what's worse is that people who chose option A are angry at people who chose option B because of ingrediates in option A which are also in option B. "We can't choose peanut chicken because I have a peanut alergy so let's have peanut fish curry instead." Why the peanut fish curry? "Well I'm a vegetarian and while fish is a meat, it's at least a meat that doesn't live on dry land." Okay. But so and so has a fish alergy. "I don't care! I have a peanut alergy and peanuts are DEADLY to me."

[CaptUSA]

But the reason there are only two choices is because the group decides to go along with the propaganda that there are only two choices. In reality there are multiple choices on the "menu." (Green Party. Libertarian. Peoples party. Constitution party. Whatever).And what's worse is that people who chose option A are angry at people who chose option B because of ingrediates in option A which are also in option B. "We can't choose peanut chicken because I have a peanut alergy so let's have peanut fish curry instead." Why the peanut fish curry? "Well I'm a vegetarian and while fish is a meat, it's at least a meat that doesn't live on dry land." Okay. But so and so has a fish alergy. "I don't care! I have a peanut alergy and peanuts are DEADLY to me."

Great point! And since we’re already in the restaurant, it probably makes sense to request the gluten free menu (third party). Too bad RFK took his name off the menu. I venture to say that a large 3rd party showing would get more notice than a low turnout.

[TheTexan]

it probably makes sense to request the gluten free menu (third party).

[TheTexan]

I just order steak and if they don't have it I walk out

[acptulsa]

IMO, evil is enabled, regardless. Whether you choose to cast a lot or not. I'm not browbeating ANYONE.

Why do you keep pestering us to say which evil we consider more evil?

They're both so far off the scale at this point that I'm simply not going to dignify the question with a response. But you keep asking and I don't know why. You certainly don't need my blessing. Would you feel better about running with the herd you're running with if I said it's the less objectionable herd? What?

I still don't understand why this is important to you. I also don't understand how it's so important to you that Corey Contemperatore, may God bless his soul, died randomly at the hands of a zealot, rather than dying randomly just to put the exclamation point on a psyop. Like you say, evil is enabled, regardless. It does his memory no favors to turn a blind eye to the exact nature of the evil which took him from us.

That's not unrelated. Evil sells itself to us by saying, see? Over there is something worse than me! Here's an evil excuse for the evil we committed, but it's not as evil as the real reason we did this, so take it to heart and be reassured! And that's why we fool ourselves into putting up with it.

We're bombing all these people back to the stone age because we think we have a puppet for them who will be "more democratic" than the tyrant they have, not because we want the oil -- though we do also want the oil. Gee, how sweet of you to salve our guilt for paying you evil bastards taxes. I'm more concerned with my immortal soul than being seen with the "correct" herd.

[jmdrake]

When faced with that situation, here's my thought process:

I tried to keep them away from that restaurant, but here we are. We're slowly being poisoned and my kids and grandkids will suffer. I can complain about the circumstances, but it's too late for this dinner. I'll have to try again next time - if there is a next time. So, which poison would I prefer to make that next time happen?

Let's go down the issues:

• WWIII: I think Trump is less likely to trigger a world event in the next 4 years
• Debt bubble: I think it's a wash - both of these idiots will continue the spending
• Freedom of Speech: I think Trump is less likely restrict the anti-establishment narrative speech that will be necessary to wake people up to this restaurant
• Foreign Aid (especially, Israel): Another wash - they'll both continue this
• Abortion: I MUCH prefer local decisions - Trump takes the edge here
• Immigration: Neither one of these idiots will do much, but at least Trump isn't actively encouraging a foreign invasion with our tax money
• Policing: Stop & frisk, mass deportation squads?? Kamala takes the edge here, but to be honest, this won't affect me in the next 4 years
• Cabinet and Judicial nominations: This is the big one where Trump is more preferrable. The agencies run by Kamala picks will create untold regulations and will have to be fought at the SC - in the meantime, lots of damage will be done. If RFK, Tulsi, and the like can influence the picks, even better
• Deep state: The restaurant owner wants us to eat Kamala so his previous crimes will never be questioned. Trump has a bad track record, but there's at least some chance that things see some sunshine

So, from my take, I'm hoping the group chooses Trump. Do I like it? Absolutely not! But it's significantly better than the other option. I'll still encourage the group to stop doing this in the future. And you'll never see me defending the taste of the Trump meal. But since I'm not leaving the restaurant, I'll hope for the one that is least objectionable and can help us do better in the future.

I'm not an accelerationist. I have kids and grandkids.

As for voting, I don't place a lot of importance to it one way or the other. I'll probably cast a lot, but I won't disparage anyone for not doing so. I also won't pretend like they have some moral high ground.

Why would anyone think Trump or Harris was less likely to get us into WW 3? First off U.S. presidents didn't start WW 1 or 2 and the cabal that started those wars seem gunning to get us into WW 3. Sure Trump has an edge when it comes to Ukraine, but when it comes to Israel / Gaza / Lebanon Trump and Harris are a wash, you said it yourself, and it when it comes to Iran Trump is demonstrably worse. You might not be affected by "stop and frisk" but as @Anti Federalist has pointed out in the "If George Floyd was white" thread you are just as likely to be straight up killed by police as I am and Trump wants MORE police immunity! The censorship regime seems to be beyond Trump's willingness and/or ability to control as it kicked off during his presidency and I don't see where he did aything to slow it down let alone stop it despite it being largely aimed and conservatives. I do give Trump an edge for not going after the Ururu defendants despite their being from the left. On abortion I much prefer how things were under 18th century English common law where abortion was legal until the "quickening" (around 14 weeks) and banned after that. Alabama banning abortion at conception was stupid and had the effect of shutting down IVF clinics based on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos were "people." Washington D.C.'s law that allows aborions at any time at any reason are also equally ridiculous. And on top of that, [b]Alabama is trying to prosecution people for having abortions in other states! How is that "state's rights?"[b/] What should happen is a national dialog on all of these issues, just like a group of friends should have a discussion and work to come to a consensus of where to eat instead of attacking each other on their menu choices and "voting" to force their view on their "friends." Really your resturant example is great for an argument against voting.

[acptulsa]

Really your resturant example is great for an argument against voting.

If my friends came to me and said, let's go to Burger King because it's slightly less unhealthy than KFC, I'd offer to cook for them. And if they refused, I'd go home and cook for myself.

I don't need a herd to run with.

[jmdrake]

Great point! And since we’re already in the restaurant, it probably makes sense to request the gluten free menu (third party). Too bad RFK took his name off the menu. I venture to say that a large 3rd party showing would get more notice than a low turnout.

And I wish Cornell West and Jill Stein the best. This year's libertarian candidate is hated by every libertarian who's opinion I trust. I think Terry Randall of the Constitution Party goes beyond reason on the issue of abortion. (He's the "Operation Rescue" guy). I could vote for Cornell West or Jill Stein but I have drifted so far to the right over all these years that it just doesn't feel right, although both of those candidates are actually good on all the wars (meaning they oppose them). So I am where I am. But I have no illusions that this election will send any sort of "message" either through a good 3rd party showing or a low turnout. I have a much simpler wish. I wish people would quit hating on people based on who they're planning to vote for. It's so freaking stupid! It's so counter productive. You want something done about immigration? Okay. Both Democrats and Republcians (includingTurnip Trump) have embraced a police state "virtual border wall" to accomplish this! Which means it's probably going to get implemented regardless of how many votes the third parties lose by. I'd rather see people start asking the question "Do we really need to eat at this resturant at all? What are our options for growing and cooking our own food?"

[sparebulb]

I vote only to amuse myself.

I also vote AGAINST people in my local elections.

There is almost never someone to vote FOR.

[jmdrake]

I like your analogy, but I would like to add to it.

The mobster who wins has complete control over the kops and the courts. If you mount an individual or group threat to them, they will crush you with the system, because the system follows orders because the system writes their paychecks and allows them to profit legally and not-so.

When the mobster is replaced with the other mobster, the system faithfully follows their orders as well.

When an individual or group mounts or threatens reform, both mobsters will retaliate with the system and the underground system because none of them want reform. Both mobsters will use "reform" as a slogan, however.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sparebulb again.

The number one mission of any system is to protect and propagate itself.

[acptulsa]

Consider the nature of the antichrist. He will be a con man. He won't advocate for evil, he'll just do it. He'll advocate for Godliness, because that's how a con man maintains his cover.

Oh, at least he doesn't sell evil, so he's better than the naked demon. Is he? Or is his insidious nature more effective, and therefore likely to get more evil accomplished?

[Anti Federalist]

I'll tell all ya'll the same thing I told Elon Musk.

Let's buy four more years.

Four more years to try and organize some effective resistance.

Most likely a fool's errand but I sure as hell don't see any better suggestions out there.


https://x.com/AntiFeder1776/status/1840464864575168703

[acptulsa]

That's a theory, but not one I'm buying. If they try to sustain the unsustainable, they lose eventually. This is just inducing fear in an election year. The Democrats "won", yet we didn't get four more years if the BLM riots they engineered. Did we?

Hell, if they did keep it up between elections, at least some of the population would stop tolerating the intolerable. That would be bad?

[acptulsa]

People aren't, unsurprisingly, thinking this through. If you want cheaper labor, you don't go for latin American gangsters. Obviously.

There are only two reasons for importing those. One, you're a eugenicist and you want somebody in the ghettos who can actually kill who they're shooting at. The other is to scare people. As in, scare them bad enough that they forget that a decade ago, they were wondering if it was really a good thing to give Netanyahu unlimited funds for genocide. That was due to us and Ron Paul.

Can't give voters the luxury of thinking that one through.

[acptulsa]

This is The Election to End All Elections. They're destroying the DNC. They're practically advertising that they're going to obviously steal it again. They're doing everything they can think of to make us sick of elections.

Donald Trump is anything but He Who Must Not Be Named.

It's a significant pattern.

[Occam's Banana]

I do have a preference for which poison is less deadly [...]

The "lesser evil" is "still evil" ... but by the same token, it is also "still lesser" - and that is not nothing (especially when there are more rather than fewer degrees of separation between the lesser evil and the greater).

Whether and to what degree an evil is lesser than another is something over which there may be reasonable disagreements.

Rejecting a "lesser evil" because it is "evil" is not irrational - but neither is preferring a "lesser evil" because it is "lesser".

Welcome to the limits of reason - and to what some call "the human condition".

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1840409051357696324

Elon Musk: "The only thing holding California back from extreme socialism and suffocating government policies is that people can leave California and still remain in America. Once the whole country is controlled by one party, there will be no escape."

Ron Paul: "... *something* *something* wall *something* keep us in *something* *something* ..."

[Occam's Banana]

IMO, evil is enabled, regardless. Whether you choose to cast a lot or not. I'm not browbeating ANYONE. But I do wish the opposite would stop. If I cast a lot, it doesn't enable evil any more than you NOT casting one. So why pretend you have some moral high ground?

//

Neither voting nor not voting is necessary in order to "do something".

And merely voting - or merely not voting - is hardly doing anything.

I don't think that casting a lot is any worse than abstaining.

It's not - and abstaining is not any worse than casting a lot.

Neither merely voting nor merely not voting is of any real importance, significance, or consequence.

But the pro-voting cultists have to fetishize voting, and the anti-voting cultists have to fetishize not voting.

Both groups need heretics and infidels to decry and castigate, so they can feel the rush of zealous self-righteousness.

[Anti Federalist]

Elon Musk: "The only thing holding California back from extreme socialism and suffocating government policies is that people can leave California and still remain in America. Once the whole country is controlled by one party, there will be no escape."

Ron Paul: "... *something* *something* wall *something* keep us in *something* *something* ..."

Well, the fact is, there is no wall on either the northern or southern border.

And there's not going to be one any time soon.

There's a mind $#@! for ya...build a wall that will keep you in because the country has turned communist because of invaders that the wall could have kept out.

[CaptUSA]

The "lesser evil" is "still evil" ... but by the same token, it is also "still lesser" - and that is not nothing (especially when there are more rather than fewer degrees of separation between the lesser evil and the greater).

Whether and to what degree an evil is lesser than another is something over which there may be reasonable disagreements.

Rejecting a "lesser evil" because it is "evil" is not irrational - but neither is preferring a "lesser evil" because it is "lesser".

Welcome to the limits of reason - and to what some call "the human condition".

An analogy in another thread was talking about cars... Do you want an old beater with 300,000 miles on it, or a used unimpressive import with 40,000? Nope - I'm holding out for a brand new Maserati or at least a Porsche.

Everything is a matter of degree. And as you point out, very subjective. There's no escaping evil - is there a lesser evil that you can tolerate??? Or are they so close that it doesn't matter?? Comes down to a personal preference.

[fisharmor]

I'm not an accelerationist. I have kids and grandkids.

My children are the reason I am an accelerationist.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of going to my grave knowing I did what was required to cement a communist dictatorship here. Because the slow boil is a requirement. You need to convince everyone that this is always the way things have been.

Kinda like how we're entering the ninth presidential election I've been an adult for, and everyone is 100% acclimated to the idea that we have to vote because if we don't then something even worse is going to happen.

I'm taking a stand. I'm continuing to stand on the idea that unless you give me someone to vote for, then I will not vote. I refuse to vote against. It might be a stand of one but I'm taking it, dammit. Either my one-man stand will result in one less vote and therefore won't make a difference...
...or my one-man stand isn't a stand of one, and Trump stands a real chance of losing.

If he loses, then the country's Trump supporters can either
1) take note that whatever he was doing isn't enough, try to figure out what it is that wasn't worth voting for, and try to find someone who meets the criteria that will win people like me, or
2) continue to ignore the principle voters, play the ooga booga game for the rest of time, and continue to lose.
We all know they'll choose option 2. When that happens, they'll eventually get into a position of not being food secure. At that point the principle voters (we all tend to be rather more self-sufficient as I see it) will explain to them as we're helping them work out why their garden isn't working that their support of an obvious narcissist pantomime candidate is what got us there.

I'm very much raising my children - and helping to raise children of other like-minded people - to have that conversation when it happens. But I'd rather be there to participate. I'd rather die knowing we have come around a bend, rather than knowing we're still far off from even seeing it.

And just to be clear, it's entirely possible I'll vote again. If RFK had been allowed to participate I totally would have helped vote him in. Yeah, he has issues. But I remember the signs from 2008 that said "Dr Paul Cured My Apathy". RFK came pretty close to doing that, too. You don't just get my participation in a process I fundamentally don't agree with - you have to earn it. RFK did the best job of anyone since 2012.

And then that takes us back to the black pill. Because as he pointed out, he wasn't allowed to participate. And that should remind everyone that Harris is totally going to cheat. I mean FFS anyone who watched any of the 'debate' last night should understand exactly how stacked this deck is. It's less that I'm an accelerationist... and more that the DNC is accelerationist.
So there's still the ultimate point: I can either be one of those sad deluded chumps who still think peaceful political resistance is even possible, or I can look at the facts on the ground and say "all right, $#@! it, let's go".

[jmdrake]

Well, the fact is, there is no wall on either the northern or southern border.

And there's not going to be one any time soon.

There's a mind $#@! for ya...build a wall that will keep you in because the country has turned communist because of invaders that the wall could have kept out.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/12/bor...llance-virtual

The U.S. government is building a "virtual wall" at the southern border by erecting hundreds of high-tech surveillance towers — some of which use artificial intelligence — to detect people in an effort to reduce drug smuggling and sky-high unauthorized migration.

Why it matters: A record-high number of people have entered the U.S. through the southern border this year, resulting in multiple crises and exacerbating U.S. Customs and Border protection staffing shortages. But the new surveillance technology is giving rise to concerns over civil liberties, digital watchdogs say.

Details: Although there have been surveillance towers at the border for several years, the new autonomous towers can better detect abnormal activity.

The U.S. has installed about 300 different types of surveillance towers from the California coast to the tip of Texas, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that monitors civil liberties in the digital world.
Using public records, satellite imagery, road trips, and virtual reality, the nonprofit mapped the presence of surveillance towers along the border in remote and highly populated areas.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials have praised the autonomous technology as a great asset that helps agents do their jobs, and it has bipartisan support.
CBP has said more are coming. The agency has not responded to repeated requests for comment.
How they work: Autonomous surveillance towers contain 360-degree pan radars and sensors that can scan for miles.

The towers are outfitted with AI software that distinguishes people from desert animals. Towers can be programmed to block off sections of surveillance areas, like homes on private ranches, so they don't monitor those regions.
Images are fed back to Border Patrol personnel who can deploy agents to the area where activity was detected.
The towers are solar-powered and can be erected in a matter of hours without drilling holes or requiring concrete, which means they can also be moved with ease.
Between the lines: The influx of new technology comes six years after the U.S. Government Accountability Office faulted the Border Patrol's surveillance technologies for needing improved data quality and effectiveness.

In 2011, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano pulled the plug on President George W. Bush's $1 billion initiative to build a 700-mile "virtual border fence" because of problems with the technology and how it was deployed.
Zoom in: Defense contractors such as Anduril Industries and Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of Israeli-based Elbit Systems, are among those who have recently built new towers on the border.

They sit on public, private and tribal land. Many are located where there are few border agents.
Rancher Albert Miller walks by a Autonomous Surveillance Towers, the new CBP camera tower made by Anduril near his property in Valentine, Texas, on January 17, 2022.
Rancher Albert Miller walks by an autonomous surveillance tower near his property in Valentine, Texas, on January 17, 2022. Photo: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images
What they're saying: "This is a perfect solution in terms of a way to protect the border. They are better than a wall or just having officers patrolling on horseback," Jorge Guajardo, a partner at Dentons Global Advisors, tells Axios.

"I think this is a solution that is very beneficial to the United States and also one that Mexico can work with and be agreeable to."
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has not commented on the towers. Last year, he signed a deal with the White House to jointly invest in border technology.
Yes, but: It's unclear if the surveillance towers close to the border are also monitoring people in Mexico, Dave Maass, Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of investigations, tells Axios.

It's also unknown if towers near cities are watching everyday citizens, he says.
"What are these towers for? How often are they just looking at people who live there or go hiking out there?"
What to watch: The U.S. will continue to build more towers along the border, according to CBP.

Ongoing negotiations over potential border security measures could have an impact on funding for surveillance technology.

Now you may ask "If there's already a virtual wall, why isn't it working?" Good question! Israel has a virtual and physical wall that magically quit working on October 7 even though Israel had Hamas' plans a year in advance and was told weeks in advance by U.S.,, Israeli and Egyptian intelligence that an attack was imminent.

[CaptUSA]

My children are the reason I am an accelerationist.

I guess I'm hoping for the white pill. Not electorally, obviously. But the corporate press is dying. The machine is becoming more and more obvious. Guns sales keep increasing. Podcasts will long-form policy discussions are increasing in popularity. People are becoming more vocal at the local level. A new coalition is building in opposition to the State (including RFK, Tulsi, Massie, and Paul). The Supreme Court is deeming a bunch of the regulatory state unconstitutional...

Seems like there's optimism on the horizon if we can make it there before they shut down opposition voices (again), before they outpace the Court with new unconstitutional regulations, before they flip the demographics entirely from producers to consumers, or before they stack the SCOTUS.