I'm voting Trump for laughs

[osan]

I say, if you're going to vote, vote for Trump.

Why this sacrilege, you ask? Because none of the candidates are worth a damn. There is, however, one distinguishing factor with Trump: the impossibly remote chance that he is not an element of planted, scripted political theater.

One of those fops is going to become president and we know that the others are guaranteed to screw us into the dirt even further. The only one among that raft of jokers that holds even the least possibility of being something else is Trump.

So look at it this way: we're screwed no matter what we do, so why not just say "fuck it" and go Trump just for laughs? He cannot possibly be any worse than the others, and if perchance he really is an "outsider", well who knows. The entertainment value alone makes him the choice over the rest.

Would you prefer the closet-chromo, Rubio? The monstrosity, Cruz? Need I even ask about that insane communist Sanders, or Clinton?

There's NOBODY there fit for the office. Not a one. So why not have a little fun with it and put the grandstander in? The worst that happens is he does to us what all the others have done. We're at the bottom of the barrel here, folks. The ONLY place we can go is up and Trump is the only one that holds the least epsilon of hope there. And I mean the LEAST. But vanishingly small is still better than zero and to be honest, I am in the mood to be entertained this time.

 

[Cleaner44]

This is my 5% rule. There is a 5% chance that Trump isn't an element of planted, scripted political theater.

Hilary and Cruz are 0%.

My choice in the general is going to be Hilary, Trump and I think Gary Johnson.

So really my choice is Trump or Johnson.

Johnson would be my normal choice.

My question now is 5% enough for a Republican to earn my vote? Do I take that chance? I guess I have about 8 months to decide that.

 

[phill4paul]

No.

 

[Origanalist]

Vermin Supreme is the only principled choice.

 

[pcosmar]

Vermin Supreme is the only principled choice.

I know.

Been watching the debacle. and was thinking of all,, Sanders may be the best evil if not the least evil.

Invest in popcorn.

 

[CPUd]

Donald Trump vows to "strengthen" laws to allow torture, waterboarding

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said he would "strengthen" laws to allow for the use of torture if he were elected president.

In an interview with "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson, Trump addressed the issue, which was raised during Thursday night's GOP debate.

"We have an enemy in the Middle East that's chopping off heads and drowning people in massive steel cages," Trump told Dickerson, speaking of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. "We have an enemy that doesn't play by the laws. You could say laws, and they're laughing. They're laughing at us right now. I would like to strengthen the laws so that we can better compete."

"You know, it's very tough to beat enemies that don't have any, that don't have any restrictions, all right? We have these massive restrictions. Now, I will always abide by the law, but I would like to have the law expanded," Trump said.

"I happen to think that when you're fighting an enemy that chops off heads, I happen to think that we should use something that's stronger than we have right now. Right now, basically, waterboarding is essentially not allowed, as I understand it. ... I would certainly like it to be, at a minimum, at a minimum to allow that."

Trump discounted the argument that if the U.S. military used waterboarding, captured American soldiers and hostages could be subjected to worse treatment.

"They're doing that anyway. They're killing our soldiers when they capture 'em. I mean, they're doing that anyway. Now, if that were the case - in other words, we won't do it and you don't do it, but we're not playing by those rules. What, did somebody tell ISIS, 'Look, we're going to treat your guys well; will you please do us a favor and treat our guys well?' They don't do that. We're not playing by - we are playing by rules but they have no rules. It's very hard to win when that's the case," Trump said.

When Dickerson asked if rules are what "separates us from the savages," Trump said he didn't think so.

"We have to beat the savages," he said.

Dickerson asked if that would require throwing all the rules out.

"You have to play the game the way they're playing the game," Trump asserted. "You're not going to win if we're soft and they're, they have no rules. Now, I want to stay within the laws, I want to do all of that, but I think we have to increase the laws."

You can see the entire interview with Trump Sunday morning on "Face the Nation." (Check your local listings.)

On the debate stage, Trump was asked by debate moderator and Fox News host Brett Baier, "Experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists' families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they've been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?"

Trump shot back: "They're not going to refuse. Believe me."

When Baier pointed out that such policies are "illegal," Trump responded: "Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They're chopping off heads. They're chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They're drowning people in steel cages. And he -- now we're talking about waterboarding.

"What do you think of waterboarding? I said it's fine. And if we want to go stronger, I'd go stronger, too," he continued. "Because, frankly that's the way I feel. Can you imagine -- can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we're having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That's my opinion."

Pressed about whether he meant targeting terrorists' families, Trump said, "If I say, 'Do it,' they're going to do it. That's what leadership is all about."

Trump appeared to back away from that position Friday. In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, Trump said he would "use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies."

But he continued, "I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties, and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...to-allow-torture-waterboarding-election-2016/

 

[Crashland]

Vote for Trump because he might not be a puppet. Congrats, you just voted for a puppet master.

 

[osan]

No.

Not sure what this means.

"No" as in no vote for Trump? If so, then who would you prefer, meaning who that has some snowball's chance in hell of winning? Now, I readily admit that this flies in the face of all my pontificating about voting one's conscience and all, but bear in mind that such a thing presumes a nominally sane environment. Since things have gone good and crazy in the nearing-worst sense of the word, I say screw principle and have a little fun with it, even though it be a mite morbid.

Or do you mean "no" as in "I'm not going to participate"? If this, I say HUMBUG! I'm serious about the "having fun" aspect of this because shit's gone so far off the edge that one cannot in all good conscience take any of it seriously. At this point my morbid curiosity has stepped up like a boss and wants to see what happens if we loose a Trump on the world. I already know what will happen with the rest, so that's no fun. Trump is the only potential wild-card here and I am now interested to see whether he changes his demeanor as president, or Bozos his way through the term.

I'm tired of being bored by these petty, low-rent punk-crooks like Bammy, Pelosi, Graham, and all the rest. If I'm going to have a grafting tyrant at the helm, well God damn it I want some laughs. It's the damned least Theye can do for me in return for the tax monies I don't pay them. Theye OWE me, and by cracky I'll have my due.

Seriously, what possible objection could you have with Trump, given the deplorable circumstance under which the elections shall move forward?

Also, consider this: the media are going on and on about the conniptions the GOP is having over Trump. Is it real, or is it just more theater? I cannot tell, though the latter would not surprise me. Electing Trump would likely reveal some vital information about the truer nature of the current situation. If the conniptions are real, and I mean at the highest levels, something pretty fucked up is likely to happen... like a dead Trump or some such. But if GOP suddenly shuts its hole after the swearing-in, it might constitute a significant revelation regarding the degree to which theater is played out for the benefit of the mean American nitwit.

So as you can see, there are actually valid reasons for voting Trump. You don't like him. I don't much, either. But there may be a pearl or two available if we seat him. And the best part is that we have literally nothing to lose because he will do nothing worse than any of the others. This is a freebie.

 

[otherone]

Not sure what this means.

"No" as in no vote for Trump? If so, then who would you prefer, meaning who that has some snowball's chance in hell of winning?

 

[pcosmar]

Well,, for a lifelong Democrat,, he is quite effectively Trolling the GOP. (showing the fools for the fools they be)

I wonder if he will drop out if Hillary wins over Sanders.???
(I do wonder that)

An then,, just who will the GOP appoint? (Surprise=Jeb)?

 

[phill4paul]

"No" as in no vote for Trump?

Correct. If a yes vote is cast for him even if for "shit and giggles" then the one who casts that vote is complicit in whatever consequences may come of it. I will seek another option to pulling the switch on the trolley.

 

[cajuncocoa]

OP is right. None of the other candidates are worth a damn. But neither is Trump. I will not vote for Trump.

In the words of the former First Lady who passed away this morning, "Just Say No."

 

[Christian Liberty]

Cruz isn't good but he's better than Trump. So yeah, just no.

 

[anaconda]

Trump's policies suck and he never mentions constitutional principles. He is not worthy of my vote. I will probably find a third party candidate that is worthwhile. Perhaps Gary Johnson if he gets nominated.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Gary Johnson wants to force Christians to countenane gay weddings and he's pro-abortion. So yeah... he's awful.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
It is not a vote against Hillary.
It is not a vote against Cruz.
It is not a vote against the "Establishment".
It is a vote for Trump.
A vote for an authoritarian fucktard.
Go away.

 

[phill4paul]

I would really like to see a "No confidence in any of the above" selection on the bottom of the vote card just to see what the percentage would reveal.

 

[Cleaner44]

I would really like to see a "No confidence in any of the above" selection on the bottom of the vote card just to see what the percentage would reveal.

That is exactly why it will never be allowed.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I already voted today...Rand was on the ballot so he got my insignificant vote.

 

[TheTexan]

Vote Trump

Ok