I am sad we only got 3 out of 4 of these, couldn't finish.

[Cabal]

Let me be very specific for you.

That would be great.

In Virginia there are human beings that profit from contracts they get from lobbying politicians in Washington D.C. Many of these contracts are for unconstitutional services that we don't need. They add trillions to our national debt. The people that profit from all of the contracts and subsidies and programs and bureaucracies are concerned that the gravy train might derail.

Okay. You're describing the ecosystem of special interests that the State supports through it's monopoly of legal force. These special interests are often in competition for the power being brokered out. You understand that, right? You seem to be imagining that they're all just the same cabal working in unison. So, this idea that because one group of interests is "concerned about the gravy train" based on nothing more than the potential of a Trump presidency means much of anything doesn't make a lot of sense. What makes you think Trump can't be bought? What makes you think he won't invite his own group of special interests into bed? What makes you think he'll "upset the gravy train" of anyone in the first place?

I thought you were going to start being specific? What happened to being specific?

Normally these people are just as happy with Bush as they are with Clinton.

Again, what makes you think there won't be plenty of interests, and perhaps even many current interests happy with Trump?

The system is a scam. The income tax is a scam. Foreign aid is a scam. Are you not aware of these things?

The "system" is statism. The income tax is theft. Foreign aid is redistribution of wealth. You think tossing "scam" onto everything demonstrates awareness?

 

[Cleaner44]

That would be great.



Okay. You're describing the ecosystem of special interests that the State supports through it's monopoly of legal force. These special interests are often in competition for the power being brokered out. You understand that, right? You seem to be imagining that they're all just the same cabal working in unison. So, this idea that because one group of interests is "concerned about the gravy train" based on nothing more than the potential of a Trump presidency means much of anything doesn't make a lot of sense. What makes you think Trump can't be bought? What makes you think he won't invite his own group of special interests into bed? What makes you think he'll "upset the gravy train" of anyone in the first place?

I thought you were going to start being specific? What happened to being specific?



Again, what makes you think there won't be plenty of interests, and perhaps even many current interests happy with Trump?



The "system" is statism. The income tax is theft. Foreign aid is redistribution of wealth. You think tossing "scam" onto everything demonstrates awareness?

You asked what my statements meant. I explained them to you.

You are assuming many other things that don't represent my views.

 

[Cabal]

You asked what my statements meant. I explained them to you.

You haven't explained much of anything. You sound like you're just regurgitating a bunch of meaningless soundbites with no basis in reality that you don't really understand.

You also haven't explained how you reconcile any of the buzzword-loaded bullshit you're peddling with that which obviously contradicts it. For example, Chris Christie endorsing and stumping for Trump. Last I checked, Chris Christie was well within whatever the fuck you like to vaguely refer to as "the establishment." Or are you suggesting he's suddenly "anti-establishment," too?

Lol.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Thats right.. I was going to post this awhile ago but I figured Id wait till after today. Agreed.. now is the time we win... We just have a different champion than we originally wanted.

WE win? Who is this "we" you speak of? And what is it "we've" won?

 

[hells_unicorn]

I am starting to believe that Trump and the Neocons are actually enemies, though I'm still not quite sold on it, but what is going on here shouldn't be sugar-coated as us being gifted with some new hope. Trump is a political wrecking machine, his supposed purpose seems to be to reap destruction upon his enemies, many of whom also happen to be our enemies. However, if and when he does destroy them, there is no guarantee at all that he will do much in the way of positive reform or change. The U.S. is preparing to anoint another temporary emperor, and he doesn't appear to be seeking after something along the lines of being a statesman.

The best that can be hoped for is that he will be a slight improvement over Bush and Obama, which is FAR from ideal.

 

[Cleaner44]

You haven't explained much of anything. You sound like you're just regurgitating a bunch of meaningless soundbites with no basis in reality that you don't really understand.

You also haven't explained how you reconcile any of the buzzword-loaded bullshit you're peddling with that which obviously contradicts it. For example, Chris Christie endorsing and stumping for Trump. Last I checked, Chris Christie was well within whatever the fuck you like to vaguely refer to as "the establishment." Or are you suggesting he's suddenly "anti-establishment," too?

Lol.

I am surprised you are having such a difficult time comprehending this.

Let's keep it very very simple. To me Bush + Clinton = Establishment

For a definition on the Washington machine, I will refer you to the Rand Paul campaign.

 

[dannno]

Donald Trump doesn't respect the first amendment, changed his mind on the 2nd, doesn't respect the 4th... He has some good points as well including being closer to us on monetary policy and foreign policy, but if he is what we "need' to defeat the establishment, it's a pretty sad day.

It's impossible to pin the guy as far as his true beliefs or motivations, or what he actually plans to carry out.

Supporting Donald Trump is like going all in on a Jack and an Ace.

You might win, but you're still a Jack Ace.

 

[Cabal]

I am surprised you are having such a difficult time comprehending this.

It's not my comprehension that's the problem, it's your explanation. I may as well be expecting Bernie Sanders to explain economics in a meaningful and sensible way.

Let's keep it very very simple. To me Bush + Clinton = Establishment

To you. Oh, I see. So you get to determine what "the establishment" is--it's entirely subjective. So, I was correct. You are just tossing around meaningless sounbites with no basis in reality. Which would be fine were it not for the fact you're using this as a basis from which to rationalize the retardation of supporting Trump, and expecting him to disrupt "the establishment" or "the Washington machine."

It's no wonder this place has gradually descended into a realm of shit that has left it unrecognizable, what with this sort of brilliant philosophy and reasoning being espoused.

 

[Cleaner44]

It's not my comprehension that's the problem, it's your explanation. I may as well be expecting Bernie Sanders to explain economics in a meaningful and sensible way.



To you. Oh, I see. So you get to determine what "the establishment" is--it's entirely subjective. So, I was correct. You are just tossing around meaningless sounbites with no basis in reality. Which would be fine were it not for the fact you're using this as a basis from which to rationalize the retardation of supporting Trump, and expecting him to disrupt "the establishment" or "the Washington machine."

It's no wonder this place has gradually descended into a realm of shit that has left it unrecognizable, what with this sort of brilliant philosophy and reasoning being espoused.

I can only state what the establishment means to me. I can't speak for others. If you don't see Bush/Clinton as the reality of establishment as I do, it would be interesting if you would share what establishment means to you.

I get the impression that you think I am a Trump voter. I am not. Not at this point anyway. I haven't voted for a mainstream Republicrat candidate since the 1996 election.

Your snide comments add nothing to the discussion, they simply reveal you to be full of butthurt. Now that Rand is out and Trump is the winner, I am looking for some bright spots. In my opinion it is a good thing that Bush was a massive failure. The next best thing to Rand winning is neocons failing. Trump has handed the neocons a huge failure and that is a win in my book.

 

[erowe1]

Would you rather have a neocon that believes in No Child Left Behind?

Possibly. NCLB is bad. But I'd be a fool to think it couldn't get any worse.

 

[Carlybee]

Thats right.. I was going to post this awhile ago but I figured Id wait till after today. Agreed.. now is the time we win... We just have a different champion than we originally wanted.

Speak for yourself. Voting is a joke. The whole process is a lie. The candidates are worthless.

 

[TheTexan]

Who?

Trump.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Trump is not a champion of the Constitution or liberty like Ron Paul.

Trump is useful for defeating the establishment and Washington machine.

While this is not a step forward for liberty, it is a step back for neoconservationism.

if the neocons are going backwards, by defacto we go ahead.

Of course trump isnt like Ron Paul. but he seems to be the person we need at the right place at the right time to smack those bastards down good.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

I am starting to believe that Trump and the Neocons are actually enemies, though I'm still not quite sold on it, but what is going on here shouldn't be sugar-coated as us being gifted with some new hope. Trump is a political wrecking machine, his supposed purpose seems to be to reap destruction upon his enemies, many of whom also happen to be our enemies. However, if and when he does destroy them, there is no guarantee at all that he will do much in the way of positive reform or change. The U.S. is preparing to anoint another temporary emperor, and he doesn't appear to be seeking after something along the lines of being a statesman.

The best that can be hoped for is that he will be a slight improvement over Bush and Obama, which is FAR from ideal.

Trump exudes a paleoconservative foreign policy.. of course the neocons hate him

 

[erowe1]

Trump exudes a paleoconservative foreign policy.

No he doesn't.

 

[erowe1]

if the neocons are going backwards, by defacto we go ahead.

Oh. So the champion you were talking about was Bernie Sanders.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I hope everyone here who is supporting Trump...maybe who is doing so because of my "The Reluctant Case for Trump" thread, understands that the Reluctant Case is that he will completely destroy the Republican Party after he LOSES TO HILLARY. The Case for Trump is actually the case for Clinton (with Trump taking the fall).

He won't win. And if he does, sure Hillary loses. But that just locks in the GOP in its Trump ways for good.

Think damn it!

 

[wmmonk]

We didn't get four, because some of us were not voting hard enough.
As Vermin Supreme says, "Vote early. Vote OFTEN!"

Had we concentrated on voting, and doing it the right way, we would have already had four out of four.
Maybe we should have an educational campaign JUST ON VOTING!?

Now, I'm voting for Vermin Supreme in 2016.
I'm telling all my friends and family about him. I'm encouraging them to waste their vote, but that's okay, because they are going into the booth knowing that the candidate they are voting for even thinks their vote is a waste.

We aren't being told by the two party losers that we're throwing away our vote. WE ARE TELLING THEM THAT!
When they say why from the "right" side, I reply, "It's not my fault you hate kids and ponies."
When one asks with "left" side tendencies, I reply by first asking if they like The Walking Dead. If so, I tell them about this zombie plan.
If they don't, I basically try to quote his Dental Plan, and say how it's far more advanced and better than the ACA, as it gives us new tooth fairies making parents lives easier.

 

[openfire]

I'm not a Trump supporter, nor would I vote for Trump. He's an authoritarian, etc. However, if we wins, and it looks like he may, the evidence we have thus far indicates that Trump will break the neocon grip on US FP. That's a massive win for humanity.

 

[Cleaner44]

I hope everyone here who is supporting Trump...maybe who is doing so because of my "The Reluctant Case for Trump" thread, understands that the Reluctant Case is that he will completely destroy the Republican Party after he LOSES TO HILLARY. The Case for Trump is actually the case for Clinton (with Trump taking the fall).

He won't win. And if he does, sure Hillary loses. But that just locks in the GOP in its Trump ways for good.

Think damn it!

Trump will defeat Hilary much like he defeated Jebra. In fact I think it will be worse for her as 1 on 1 debates will be brutal. Hilary can't even handle BlackLivesMatter questions from possible supporters. Trump will be the next president if he is alive.

Nothing will lock in the GOP in its Trump ways for good, any more than it is locked into neoconservatism ways for good. We can use this as an opportunity to push the party more towards Paul, Massie, Amash... or we can cry about Trump not being a liberty candidate.

Nothing is going to stop Trump from winning the election so I think we should continue to do our best to protect people like Walter Jones and Rand Paul in Congress.