I'm voting Trump for laughs

[TheTexan]

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

Thanks for voting.

 

[Origanalist]

Thanks for voting.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, and then when Trump has Snowden rendered and executed, or he launches a preemptive strike on Iran or North Korea, or he expands the police state, and he expands the surveillance state, or the prison state, or the military industrial complex, agricultural complex etc. or he raises tariffs to 20 percent or 30 percent (or whatever percent a protectionist might arbitrarily decide) you can all bear responsibility of what your leader has offered.

What your representative has done.

What your God told you what was acceptable.

And if there is a God in Heaven, I really don't think He'd understand or accept your brainwashed justifications and promotions of evil.

 

[Origanalist]

Yeah, and then when Trump has Snowden rendered and executed, or he launches a preemptive strike on Iran or North Korea, or he expands the police state, and he expands the surveillance state, or the prison state, or the military industrial complex, agricultural complex etc. or he raises tariffs to 20 percent or 30 percent (or whatever percent a protectionist might arbitrarily decide) you can all bear responsibility of what your leader has offered.

What your representative has done.

What your God told you what was acceptable.

And if there is a God in Heaven, I really don't think He'd understand or accept your brainwashed justifications and promotions of evil.

You should replace all those "or"s in that first sentence with "and"s. Just a opinion.

 

[dannno]

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

Why drop out? All he has to do is keep quiet about the electronic voting machines like Kerry.

 

[Jamesiv1]

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.

one could also say if the choice is Trump vs. Hillary and Hillary wins, then one is complicit in getting Hillary elected - which would not be bad, it would be evil.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

one could also say if the choice is Trump vs. Hillary and Hillary wins, then one is complicit in getting Hillary elected - which would not be bad, it would be evil.

Not voting does not equal helping Hillary get elected. Voting for any of them, you do bear responsibility for their crimes. The difference is the withdrawal of consent or approval versus consent, promotion and/or approval.

 

[Origanalist]

Not voting does not equal helping Hillary get elected. Voting for any of them, you do bear responsibility for their crimes. The difference is the withdrawal of consent or approval versus consent, promotion and/or approval.

If you can't withdraw consent from this field of candidates, then what would it take for you to just say no?

 

[RJB]

Against the current candidates, I was all for voting for Trump for shits and giggles, but my giggling stopped when he called for Snowden's execution.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If you can't withdraw consent from this field of candidates, then what would it take for you to just say no?

Shortages and starvation.

But given the climate, they'll probably ask for more.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

Ah, the lesser of evils debate. Apparently you have come to enough of a conclusion to muster enough excitement to make a choice and create a thread on it.

Can't say I have reached that level of enthusiasm about any of the evils. I could do a pros and cons analysis, but once again, the lack of enthusiasm prevents it.

Here's the closest I have come:

Where did the Ron Paul supporters go?

You have focused on the anti-establishment aspect, so my $.02 still stands. What they would actually do in office remains a mystery to me.

Position: Anti-establishment. This is more of a vague concept, but it was extremely popular this year. Ron Paul was the only anti-establishment candidate for two election cycles. Now, many put on this mantle, some more than others. Interestingly enough, the media attempts to label candidates that are clearly part of the establishment and call them anti-establishment. Rubio and Fiorina come to mind. Classic Orwellian double-speak. The establishment makes it pretty clear who they oppose, so this one is easier to observe.

Candidates: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

Great idea. But that stat would already be reflected by third-party and write-in votes. The establishment would not like that, and their media does not report it, which explains why that option does not exist.

 

[osan]

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.

Meh... I don't really see this as necessarily true. Complicity in this case predicates on the reasons for having cast a given vote.

Besides, your position tacitly presupposes that there is some radical difference between these clowns. There are differences, that's for sure, but they are irrelevant because no matter which of these fools you elect, the fundamental result will be the same: we will be screwed. Whether they put out the right eye or the left matters no whit; you're still out an eye.

Honestly, it would seem that you and many others are taking this way too seriously. How could you? To do so is to lend credibility to these schmucks - talk about COMPLICITY. The only things that need be taken so seriously all relate to physical realities such as declarations of martial law, more draconian legislation and its enforcement, etc. This third-rate clownery cannot be regarded seriously by rational men, in sé. Participation in the game as a form of entertainment... now that's what I'm talking about. Participation on the assumption that you are going to change something fundamentally for the better... that's just craziness. Mass civil disobedience and bullets are the only things that stand the least hope of seeing the changes we would like.

 

[osan]

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."

Raises an interesting question: what if we massively refused to participate? My immediate impulse is to conclude that Theye would then do whatever the hell they wanted, any complaint to be met with "you didn't participate, thereby making the voice of your pleasure heard loudly and clearly."

 

[TheTexan]

Theye would then do whatever the hell they wanted

We certainly wouldn't want that to ever happen.

 

[osan]

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.

It would be small, IMO. Why? Because people are either brainwashed into believing their ballots at this level of choice count for something, or they are too frightened to "throw away a vote". It is largely the same mechanism that drives people to vote for the one they believe is most likely to win: fear of losing. Better the party win, even if represented by a scumbag, than let the enemy carry the day.

 

[osan]

Against the current candidates, I was all for voting for Trump for shits and giggles, but my giggling stopped when he called for Snowden's execution.

Just one reason I am not confident he will prove to be anything notably different from the rest.

Is this true? First I've heard of it. If so, that's pretty foiged up.

 

[invisible]

Last time I checked, this was still Ron Paul Forums. So here we have an entire thread specifically dedicated to telling people to vote for someone that Ron Paul himself said is an awful candidate.

 

[openfire]

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

Cruz = Goldman Sachs.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Cruz = Goldman Sachs.

I understand that and I'll note that I did not say Cruz is good, but Trump is clearly worse in just about every way. That said my metric would be a bit different than most here. I am not casting a vote in the primaries and I'll be writing in the name of a theonomist in the general election if I make it to the polls, so I'm not promoting Cruz, but I do think Cruz is more Christian than Trump is.