I'm voting Trump for laughs

[nasaal]

5% chance he's not as bad as them huh? 95% chance that he's worse in my opinion. Does that mean I should vote for Hillary in the general? That isn't reasonable. The danger comes when we try to draw any discernible distinction between Trump and Hillary. They aren't better than each other. THey aren't particularly different from each other. Neither is Cruz for that matter. Nor Rubio. There are very few candidates each time that are different from the rest. Love or despise him, Sanders is quite a bit different. Ron Paul was different.

 

[kpitcher]

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.

I doubt that high a percentage. So many people want to 'vote for the winner' no matter what the candidate stance is. Or the fear of 'throwing away the vote'. Really don't understand how people will listen to the news for an hour to see the poll results instead of educating themselves .

 

[enhanced_deficit]

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.
...

Are you aware he has disrespected our national leaders of both major parties using rude language?



Trump: Lindsey Graham a 'disgrace,' 'nut job,' 'one of the dumbest human beings'
www.politico.com/story/.../trump-lindsay-graham-insults-219374Politico


Trump: Bush Administration Knowingly 'Lied' About Iraq War
townhall.com/.../02/.../trump-bush...lied-about-iraq.../full

 

[Cabal]

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).

All of this. Over, and over again. Until it sinks in.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

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 ...
...

I personally would not let "what they will say" consideration influence by political choices since I see "them" as the problem and a corrupting influence on US Politics.

I didn't read full post yet, hope I have guessed "they" you had in mind correctly.

 

[Ender]

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.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[CPUd]

 

[Ender]

They had him killed

Yep- it seems that .gov may have conned America into WWII in more ways than one.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

On related note, in 2007 Obama looked like lesser evil on foreign policy compared to McCain.

But evil identifications get confusing sometimes.

 

[William Tell]

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.

Nope. This mindset is what resulted in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. It can keep on getting worse until everyone is dead.

 

[phill4paul]

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.

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.

 

[otherone]

Asshole commentator is too busy mocking his focus group to realize that there are an awful lot of angry poorly educated people in this country...and it's getting worse.
THIS is the reason for Trump's success.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

On related note, in 2007 Obama looked like lesser evil on foreign policy compared to McCain.

But evil identifications get confusing sometimes.

When someone says they would launch a preemptive strike at North Korea, it isn't really too hard to see.

So he says Iraq was a mistake? Big fucking whoop. They'll be saying North Korea was a mistake once Trump has missiles launched at them and every service member stationed in South Korea is slaughtered.

 

[FunkBuddha]

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)

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.

 

[openfire]

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.

LOL That would be epic!

 

[ProBlue33]

Do you really think he wants the Trump name for himself and his children and descendent's drawn through the mud of historical infamy. He has wealth and power, now he wants to cement a legacy, and not bad one either.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Are you aware [Trump] has disrespected our national leaders of both major parties using rude language?

So what? "Our national leaders of both major parties" are authoritarians and enemies of liberty. They ought to be disrespected. So fuck them.

But Trump is also an authoritarian and an enemy of liberty. He ought to be disrespected, as well. So fuck him, too.

 

[jllundqu]

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 ****, 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.

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. 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?

TRUMP: “We’re fighting a very politically correct war,” he said in response to a question about avoiding civilian causalities. “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

At tonight’s Fox News debate, Bret Baier confronted Donald Trump over former NSA/CIA Director Michael Hayden‘s recent remarks that the military would flat-out refuse to follow illegal orders of his.

Specifically troubling for Hayden was Trump saying he would want to do “worse” than torture and would want soldiers to kill terrorists’ families.

Baier told Trump the latter is explicitly illegal, but Trump insisted, “They won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.”

Baier said, “But they’re illegal.” Trump brushed it off.

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 "fuck it"

I would hope that upon deeper reflection, you would not seriously consider voting for Trump just to spite the system. The man is an unknown quantity. 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.

 

[AuH20]

 

[Root]

Nobody but Paul