I'm voting Trump for laughs

[otherone]

Good grief.....

Damn, man. All of Rand's "inclusiveness" has only watered down the brand.
Now we have "paleo-libertarians", fascist-libertarians, progressive-libertarians, skinhead-libertarians, and neocon-libertarians.

[Murrika]

Have you ever heard Donald Trump reference the Constitution even once? Has he ever expressed his admiration for our system of government? Has he given any indication he even knows what enumerated powers are? How has he convinced you that he would be a "Constitutionalist" that is faithful to our nation's founding?

Pause and reflect on that a moment.

You are voting based on emotion and good salesmanship... not principle.

as long as he ends the fed and the IRS, then for the most part that's all I care about for now. Oh and the IMF.

[Murrika]

Hey don't hate my principles because the Pauls failed. We need somebody aggressive that can get $#@! done. No more pussy footing.

[AuH20]

Hey don't hate my principles because the Pauls failed. We need somebody aggressive that can get $#@! done. No more pussy footing.

Vote 3rd party and get some lube. ROFL That's the solution.

[Murrika]

Trump/Paul 2016

[jllundqu]

Hey don't hate my principles because the Pauls failed. We need somebody aggressive that can get $#@! done. No more pussy footing.

I can't hate your principles if you don't have any.

[otherone]

I can't hate your principles if you don't have any.

He has principles; he just doesn't know what they are.

[Suzanimal]

I'm a hardcore constitutionalist and I even own a Ron Paul doll.

Well, that seals it.

I don't have a Ron Paul doll but I have a Cabbage Patch kid, does that make me a cabbage?

[Todd]

Hey don't hate my principles because the Pauls failed. We need somebody aggressive that can get $#@! done. No more pussy footing.

What $#@! are we talking about doing?

[jllundqu]

What $#@! are we talking about doing?

You know.... Trump $#@!. It's gonna be yuuge. Were gonna get some smart people and do all kinds of good $#@!. Believe me.

[jllundqu]

//

[Todd]

You know.... Trump $#@!. It's gonna be yuuge. Were gonna get some smart people and do all kinds of good $#@!. Believe me.

The only $#@! I see getting done is "Operation Troll Ron Paul Forums".

You'd think with all that money he could afford a better propaganda wing than these guys.

[bunklocoempire]

No. I will not vote Trump, because unlike yourself, I am too dumb to be afraid.

[osan]

Osan,

For an eloquent man, and respected member on these forums, I am genuinely surprised by this. What your post boils down to is pragmatism over principle.

No man, you've taken it completely wrongly. Note my sarcasm... it IS detectable, is it not? Or have I become too subtle?

I say have fun with all this nonsense. Why? Because none of it can be credibly taken seriously insofar as the titular figureheads are concerned. There are other, far more seriously dangerous realities out there.

Could you really vote for a man who would murder innocent family members, advocates illegal torture, and force a reluctant military to commit war crimes?

D00d, you cannot be serious. Which one of these feckless, scurrilous bastard-demons do you think will NOT do the same? Which one of them do you think will NOT pile drive the remnants of your life into the ground? Please, sir - take a step back and give a broader think on what it is you are suggesting here. Whether Trump or any of the others are elected, the same innocents are going to die fiery deaths. That much is forgone simply because the decision rests not with the singular man in the funny-shaped office, but by Legion.

I'm upset with the status quo as much as the next man, but what you suggest is that we abandon everything we hold dear in truth and in principle... and go vote for the angry rich guy because "$#@! it"

You mistake my meanings. I suggested what I did precisely because for one thing it matters no whit which of these scum are seated. Secondly, Trump is the only one for which there exists the most remote possibility that he is not bought and paid. Note "REMOTE".

The political process as it stands will yield no net improvement for those who seek freedom. Bank on it.

Therefore, the political process needs modification. This might mean civil disobedience by the tens of millions or it may mean open warfare. Those, too, may hold little chance of bringing the desired change, but they hold precisely that much more than doing the same old thing, yet again.

I would hope that upon deeper reflection, you would not seriously consider voting for Trump just to spite the system.

Spite has nothing to do with it. Entertainment, at the minimum, does. The slimmest chance that he is an actual and true cowboy who will not be bought is the less hopeful element in this.

The man is an unknown quantity.

So? You make my point with this very bit. I KNOW who the others are and that they are eyeballing my sphincter, licking their lips, engorged. So sorry, but I'm not in that mood. Donald might turn out to be the same, so whoopdee friggin' doo if he is. We are no worse off... and at least I get to laugh at this clownery a little bit before the BOHICA event hits.

He is a variable, not a constant in this equation. However, what we do know is that he would grow government, kill lots of people, and abuse the already grossly powerful executive branch.

I will not vote for Trump... my soul would rightly object.

Short of a civil war, government is going to continue to grow by leaps and bounds. Or do you feel you have a basis for claiming otherwise?

Don't vote for him if you feel that strongly about it. I certainly have no objection. But you may want to rethink the basis for your position on the matter, because I am not seeing good reason behind it. I may be missing something vital - if so, show me what it is.

[osan]

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.

Tautological.

It is not a vote against Hillary.

So? Would Hillary be any better?

It is not a vote against Cruz.

Would Teddy be any better?

It is not a vote against the "Establishment".

Would Rubio be any better?

A vote for an authoritarian $#@!tard.

Any more than any of the others? If yes, on what basis do you make the claim? If not, then what are you talking about?

Go away.

Where to?

[osan]

Paul ain't running. Pick your destroyer because the Bolsheviks are sure to pick one for you.

Thank GOD someone else here gets it.

[osan]

My position presupposes nothing WRT any type of difference between these clowns. You read something into my statement that was not there. Please don't continue to do so.

Well, if you are not completely blasé regarding for whom one's vote should be cast, then you must of necessity feel there is SOMETHING other than penis-size that differentiates them such that one should be chosen over the other. You say there is no such thing... but then why are you steadfast against Trump vis-à-vis the rest of the stable? Help me to understand this - seriously. So many here seem so against Trump in a way that suggests that one of the others represents an improvement. I just don't see it. They are all of them going to have their way with our backsides. Show me how I am wrong on that point.

If, however, penis-size is indeed the determining factor, then it's Hillary all the way. That woman's got a schwanz to make all men weep tears of bitterest envy. It's small wonder Michelle Obama hates her.

[phill4paul]

Well, if you are not completely blasé regarding for whom one's vote should be cast, then you must of necessity feel there is SOMETHING other than penis-size that differentiates them such that one should be chosen over the other. You say there is no such thing... but then why are you steadfast against Trump vis-à-vis the rest of the stable? Help me to understand this - seriously. So many here seem so against Trump in a way that suggests that one of the others represents an improvement. I just don't see it. They are all of them going to have their way with our backsides. Show me how I am wrong on that point.

If, however, penis-size is indeed the determining factor, then it's Hillary all the way. That woman's got a schwanz to make all men weep tears of bitterest envy. It's small wonder Michelle Obama hates her.

I don't see anyone here shilling for Hillary? They would receive the same excoriation. None of the others represent an improvement, but I don't see a concerted effort to promote them or the name of any other candidate in every other "new post."

[osan]

This has been my theory all along. If he wins, he'll throw it for Hillary. Why would Trump want to be President? Then afterwards, he'll openly mock all of the republicans who voted for him. He is the Uber-Troll after all.

ALL THE MORE THE REASON TO VOTE FOR HIM. This would expose something fundamental about "the system". I do not find your speculation at all objectionable. Dunno how likely it is, but it is certainly plausible. You have asked the $64 question: why, indeed, would Donald want this, one of the most abjectly miserable jobs on the planet? Does Donald really strike you as one seeking to save the nation? I cannot say for sure, but something in that leaves the feel of a greasy stain upon my thoughts... something that needs cleaning ASAP. I don't think he gives the least $#@! about the nation. Electing him stands some chance of exposing the system for what it is. Electing any of the others is a guarantee of 4 to 8 more years of sleep.

Are we not yet tried of the guarantee of the same old thing?

[twomp]

Frankly I care more about the life issue than even the Federal Reserve, and Cruz does seem to be genuinely pro-life.

Not as much as I would like (I would like a President who would have all the abortion clinics burned down, screw the godless constitution, but that's not going to happen) but I do think that unlike Romney types, that Cruz actually is against abortion. Trump is not.

Again, I'm not saying Cruz is good, and I'm not voting for him, but I do think he's clearly preferable to Trump.

OH please the bible thumper shows up talking about "life" when he calls for people to be executed because of who they sleep with. Then supports someone who wants to make the "sand glow" in the middle east. You don't give a $#@! about life, you just like to use it as an excuse for the government to seize more power.

[osan]

I don't see anyone here shilling for Hillary? They would receive the same excoriation. None of the others represent an improvement, but I don't see a concerted effort to promote them or the name of any other candidate in every other "new post."

For pity's sake - SHILLING? You think I'm shilling for Trump? You cannot be serious. He'd have to pay me. A lot... and I don't know what your standards are, but mine would be not a penny under $1K/hour... and I'd call that impossibly generous... on MY part.

Have I not been clear in my opinion that Trump is almost certainly the SOS? If it's not been clear to YOU, then be clear on it now: Donald is almost certainly not going to be good for America, just as will be the case with any of the others. Claro?

But something odd MIGHT (not word in caps) be up with Trump. I only suggested we let that play out just to see if anything notably different comes of it. We already know what we will get with the others.

[osan]

But if you DO participate, Theye would simply say, "you DID participate, thereby making the voice of your pleasure heard loudly and clearly." And in this Theye are correct - by participating, you DO in fact promote greater currency and social credibility for Theire claims of legitimacy (whether you intended to or not). But by NOT particpating, you do NOT do so - regardless of what Theye claim ...

The answer to your "interesting question" is what Theye most and truly fear. Sufficiently massive non-participation would seriously degrade the currency and social credibility of Theire claims to legitimacy. That is why Theye fear it - and that, in turn, is why Theye must resort to (falsely) asserting co-option of non-participation (à la "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain," etc., etc.).

Campbell's Law also applies here: "You can't do just one thing."

If motivated by actual opposition rather than mere apathy, mass popular non-participation would be symptomized by much, much more than merely "not voting." You have already mentioned "mass civil disobedience." There would also be "mass active non-compliance," "mass vocal dissent & denunciation of Themme," etc., etc. (perhaps even including or culminating in openly violent resistance to Themme).

In other words, "not voting" is not sensibly to be understood as the cause of mass opposition to Themme, but rather as just one more effect or expression of such opposition. Participation is deleterious to the cause of opposition - it plays right into Theire hands, and it redounds to Theire benefit. This is why voting for or otherwise "supporting" Trump (or any other Clowne) in any way - even if only for "entertainment" purposes - is counterproductive. It allows Themme to claim legitimacy (whether that was intended by the participants or not) and it sluices opposition into "safe" channels (which may pose cosmetic challenges, but no fundamental dangers, to Themme).

Nice response. Kudos, as usual.

My question then is this: how bad would things have to become to drive numbers to these sorts of acts? Is there ANY level of degradation beyond which the mean American would finally hoist himself up and say, "ENOUGH!", and actually stand by it?

[FunkBuddha]

Are we not yet tried of the guarantee of the same old thing?

Honestly at this point I''m done wasting my cycles on the process at the national level. My new political philosophy isn't anarchism or libertarianism, it's chokemism. I won't vote for anyone that I can't drive down the road and the choke the $#@! out of 'em when they do or say something stupid... Or at least yell obscenities at them, spread vicious rumors about them or roll their lawn.

[FunkBuddha]

Honestly at this point I''m done wasting my cycles on the process at the national level. My new political philosophy isn't anarchism or libertarianism, it's chokemism. I won't vote for anyone that I can't drive down the road and the choke the $#@! out of 'em when they do or say something stupid... Or at least yell obscenities at them, spread vicious rumors about them or roll their lawn.

The problem i see is that by voting for the lesser evil, you're endorsing every bat $#@! crazy idea they've ever have had or will have. They don't see themselves as the lesser evil.

[Todd]

Thank GOD someone else here gets it.

So now we are either on the side of the Bolsheviks or the Fascists.

[openfire]

So now we are either on the side of the Bolsheviks or the Fascists.

But we already have fascism. Eliminating 1 out of 2 is a start.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I expect to be voting LP in the general and hoping they cross the ballot access threshold. That would certainly not be a wasted vote

[phill4paul]

So now we are either on the side of the Bolsheviks or the Fascists.

Well sure, because there is only two choices...ever. Bolsheviks or Fascists. Nationalists or Globalists. Right or Left. The boot size is the same.

[Christian Liberty]

OH please the bible thumper shows up talking about "life" when he calls for people to be executed because of who they sleep with. Then supports someone who wants to make the "sand glow" in the middle east. You don't give a $#@! about life, you just like to use it as an excuse for the government to seize more power.

Executing the guilty isn't anti-life. Admittedly "pro-life" is a slogan but we all know what it means.

I agree that making sand glow in the middle east is an evil thing to say. But I don't believe for a second that Trump would not do that as well. I'm also not "supporting" Ted Cruz. I've already been quite clear that I do not support ANY candidate. I happen to think Cruz would be less terrible than Trump. That's all I'm saying.

Magisterial authority has gotten way out of whack, I want them to have far less. Though admittedly still more than an ancap. If you support Trump I want more limited government than you

[Slave Mentality]

Better off staying at the house to await the coronation of Queen Hillary.