I'm voting Trump for laughs

[speciallyblend]

Are you sure you don't need to repeat an eighth time? I'm not sure everyone has yet gotten the message.

1/2

trump supporters are known to be hard headed so it takes about 8 to get thru to them, i just wanted to make sure they understand they are supporting a liberal progressive, though they may not understand the video or what trump is saying,http://theantimedia.org/anonymous-fooled-donald-trump-the-secret-service-and-the-fbi/

 

[speciallyblend]

Really pretty good

Sabotage the Trump brand . . .
I am on board, especially after the pre-Kentucky caucus tweeting from The Don mocking Kentucky, Rand, and liberty.

you are gonna love this, calling all authoritarians, trump,fbi and the police and trump supporters, trump supporters are new obama part 2 clueless or just choosing to stick their heads in the sand , haha http://theantimedia.org/anonymous-fooled-donald-trump-the-secret-service-and-the-fbi/

 

[A. Havnes]

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?





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"

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.

This exactly! The current mindset is "Trump can't be worse than Hillary, right?" The truth is, we don't necessarily know what Trump is capable of. He may be just talking, because Trump does that a lot and it never amounts to anything. On the other hand, he might not. This is the guy who sues people as a form of harassment just because they criticized something of his. He has no moral center as far as I can tell, whereas Ron was extremely principled and had a code that made him stand out amongst the other candidates.

 

[Danke]

Without CONgress support, the President is not gonna do a whole lot.

 

[jllundqu]

Without CONgress support, the President is not gonna do a whole lot.

Wrong. You think Obama abused executive orders?? Just wait until President Trump takes the helm...

 

[osan]

Just wait until President Trump takes the helm...

What is your basis for asserting that Trump will outstrip Obama in the abuse of the EO?

 

[CPUd]

What is your basis for asserting that Trump will outstrip Obama in the abuse of the EO?

Here's one:

 

[Danke]

People have little understanding of EOs.

 

[jllundqu]

What is your basis for asserting that Trump will outstrip Obama in the abuse of the EO?

Every speech he's ever given, more or less. He asserts the military will "obey his orders" even if they are illegal. He asserts "mexico will pay for the wall", which can only happen if he unilaterally imposes tariffs on Mexico (because congress won't oblige). He is the embodiment of your typical strongman-authoritarian. I could cite other examples, but those were just the two off the top of my head.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

The best anti-Trump argument i've heard is "if he wins and sucks, he will discredit anyone who is anti-establishment" in the future. But we might not have a future but for the 1% chance Trump is a decent president. Its tough.

 

[osan]

The best anti-Trump argument i've heard is "if he wins and sucks, he will discredit anyone who is anti-establishment" in the future. But we might not have a future but for the 1% chance Trump is a decent president. Its tough.

That is a REALLY lame argument, given the current state of affairs not only in the United States, but worldwide. Things are so screwed up, I don't think it matters a whit who or what occupies the office. We are heading for something bad, of that I am at about 90% confidence. There is so much crap flying in so many directions, it is now very difficult to divine that which is really going on. I take that to be a sign of grand subterfuge to the end of keeping people disconnected from the truth so that whatever Theye have up their sleeves can be rolled out in as seamless a fashion as possible. By the time you realize what is happening, it is too late to respond. At least, that is how I would do it if greater stealth were not a desirable option.

 

[osan]

Every speech he's ever given, more or less. He asserts the military will "obey his orders" even if they are illegal. He asserts "mexico will pay for the wall", which can only happen if he unilaterally imposes tariffs on Mexico (because congress won't oblige). He is the embodiment of your typical strongman-authoritarian. I could cite other examples, but those were just the two off the top of my head.

And how, pray tell, has this been different from Obammy? Trump could well be a mole, I agree, but so what if he is? At worst we stand to have one more grand BOHICA moment. I suspect that putting Trump into office will reveal more about the real nature of the grander political scheme than will Clinton or Sanders, and at this point I am of the mind that such information is of far higher value than vainly playing the nervous nellie in an effort to spare our sphincters the exercise they are almost certain to be receiving before much longer, regardless of who enters the Oval Office.

Honestly, I cannot believe the naïveté I am seeing here in this thread - as if to believe that the choice makes any meaningful difference. It is preposterous on its face. Putting Trump in potentially reveals much about the truer nature of the political environment in America. He is the purported "outsider". It would prove interesting to see just how different such a person would be and how much his "differences" would taste like the establishment. The rest is pure boredom as I already know what is going to happen. Where in hell is everyone's sense of adventure? We know where the others are going to bring us. Why not take a trip down another path just for the hell of it to see what happens? Expect the sphincter calisthenics, and hope for something better.

If I'm careening toward a collapsed bridge with no brakes and the only choice is to turn off the road into wood, I will take the turn because going off the precipice is guaranteed death. I'll take my chances with the trees, fully expecting to die in any case. But under no case am I thinking that the one choice is notably better than the others. That's just crazy.

 

[jllundqu]

And how, pray tell, has this been different from Obammy? Trump could well be a mole, I agree, but so what if he is? At worst we stand to have one more grand BOHICA moment. I suspect that putting Trump into office will reveal more about the real nature of the grander political scheme than will Clinton or Sanders, and at this point I am of the mind that such information is of far higher value than vainly playing the nervous nellie in an effort to spare our sphincters the exercise they are almost certain to be receiving before much longer, regardless of who enters the Oval Office.

Honestly, I cannot believe the naïveté I am seeing here in this thread - as if to believe that the choice makes any meaningful difference. It is preposterous on its face. Putting Trump in potentially reveals much about the truer nature of the political environment in America. He is the purported "outsider". It would prove interesting to see just how different such a person would be and how much his "differences" would taste like the establishment. The rest is pure boredom as I already know what is going to happen. Where in hell is everyone's sense of adventure? We know where the others are going to bring us. Why not take a trip down another path just for the hell of it to see what happens? Expect the sphincter calisthenics, and hope for something better.

If I'm careening toward a collapsed bridge with no brakes and the only choice is to turn off the road into wood, I will take the turn because going off the precipice is guaranteed death. I'll take my chances with the trees, fully expecting to die in any case. But under no case am I thinking that the one choice is notably better than the others. That's just crazy.

You make a fine argument. I agree that the faster we, as a nation, can get to the truth of the matter, the better. Perhaps Trump would hasten such a demise, and thus allowing us to finally take some meaningful steps forward as a people.

It is as you say... rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. That reminds me.... I'm behind on my sphincter stretches.

 

[Ender]

And how, pray tell, has this been different from Obammy? Trump could well be a mole, I agree, but so what if he is? At worst we stand to have one more grand BOHICA moment. I suspect that putting Trump into office will reveal more about the real nature of the grander political scheme than will Clinton or Sanders, and at this point I am of the mind that such information is of far higher value than vainly playing the nervous nellie in an effort to spare our sphincters the exercise they are almost certain to be receiving before much longer, regardless of who enters the Oval Office.

Honestly, I cannot believe the naïveté I am seeing here in this thread - as if to believe that the choice makes any meaningful difference. It is preposterous on its face. Putting Trump in potentially reveals much about the truer nature of the political environment in America. He is the purported "outsider". It would prove interesting to see just how different such a person would be and how much his "differences" would taste like the establishment. The rest is pure boredom as I already know what is going to happen. Where in hell is everyone's sense of adventure? We know where the others are going to bring us. Why not take a trip down another path just for the hell of it to see what happens? Expect the sphincter calisthenics, and hope for something better.

If I'm careening toward a collapsed bridge with no brakes and the only choice is to turn off the road into wood, I will take the turn because going off the precipice is guaranteed death. I'll take my chances with the trees, fully expecting to die in any case. But under no case am I thinking that the one choice is notably better than the others. That's just crazy.

True- so if it makes no difference, who TFC?

 

[cajuncocoa]

And how, pray tell, has this been different from Obammy? Trump could well be a mole, I agree, but so what if he is? At worst we stand to have one more grand BOHICA moment. I suspect that putting Trump into office will reveal more about the real nature of the grander political scheme than will Clinton or Sanders, and at this point I am of the mind that such information is of far higher value than vainly playing the nervous nellie in an effort to spare our sphincters the exercise they are almost certain to be receiving before much longer, regardless of who enters the Oval Office.

Honestly, I cannot believe the naïveté I am seeing here in this thread - as if to believe that the choice makes any meaningful difference. It is preposterous on its face. Putting Trump in potentially reveals much about the truer nature of the political environment in America. He is the purported "outsider". It would prove interesting to see just how different such a person would be and how much his "differences" would taste like the establishment. The rest is pure boredom as I already know what is going to happen. Where in hell is everyone's sense of adventure? We know where the others are going to bring us. Why not take a trip down another path just for the hell of it to see what happens? Expect the sphincter calisthenics, and hope for something better.

If I'm careening toward a collapsed bridge with no brakes and the only choice is to turn off the road into wood, I will take the turn because going off the precipice is guaranteed death. I'll take my chances with the trees, fully expecting to die in any case. But under no case am I thinking that the one choice is notably better than the others. That's just crazy.

**Conspiracy Theory Alert**

What if he's hinting at exactly what he'll do? His supporters are good at spinning war into peace, intervention into non-intervention, tyranny into liberty, but what if he really means what he's saying...not just what they want to hear? And keep in mind, too...this is a man who adds and subtracts from his policy positions from one day to the next. Will that change once elected? What if he changes toward even less liberty-based positions than he holds right now? When he has the power to enact martial law at the stroke of a pen, will he hesitate? When he has the power to nuke Iran with the push of a button, will he hesitate? This is not a man who is used to following rules (The Constitution) or getting permission (Congress)...this is an egomaniac who you want to entrust with ultimate power. I'm not willing to take that chance, but I'm at the mercy of those who are. I can only try to talk you out of it at that s point, but I know it's like trying to convince Boobus that we shouldn't go to war just because we're the United States of America.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...lol! at this thread...

(...i'm still waiting to see if putrid, stinking ted cruz passes the smell test of the noses who can't stand eau de trump..) (i smell more than a few eau de cruzers :o around here...PEE-YEW!...)

 

[osan]

**Conspiracy Theory Alert**

What if he's hinting at exactly what he'll do? His supporters are good at spinning war into peace, intervention into non-intervention, tyranny into liberty, but what if he really means what he's saying...not just what they want to hear? And keep in mind, too...this is a man who adds and subtracts from his policy positions from one day to the next. Will that change once elected? What if he changes toward even less liberty-based positions than he holds right now? When he has the power to enact martial law at the stroke of a pen, will he hesitate? When he has the power to nuke Iran with the push of a button, will he hesitate? This is not a man who is used to following rules (The Constitution) or getting permission (Congress)...this is an egomaniac who you want to entrust with ultimate power. I'm not willing to take that chance, but I'm at the mercy of those who are. I can only try to talk you out of it at that s point, but I know it's like trying to convince Boobus that we shouldn't go to war just because we're the United States of America.

You are speculating based on the infamous "what-if" method. We can what-if ourselves to death and 99% usually comes to naught. Of course, that 1% can be a real bastard at times.

The obvious flaws aside, your points are well taken. But once again the question stands unanswered: how is he worse than the rest? I would really like to see a pointed, rational, sensible answer to this.

 

[osan]

True- so if it makes no difference, who TFC?

Valid point. And once again I reiterate: it is my sense of morbid curiosity at work. The SOS gets us nothing. The Trump is most likely to get us nothing, but I would still like to see how that choice would play out because it is the only one of which I cannot claim to know precisely what is going to happen.

I say vote for Donny BadHairDay not because I believe in him - hellphukno - but just to exercise the boundaries of the circus. As I wrote earlier, the information gathered on that path is worth far more than the vain attempts at trying to stop someone you don't like in the context of a process that offers you nothing but those sorts of choices. I am surprised to see this much round-and-round on what IMO is a conceptually very simple, clear, and direct case. Sone of the posts go on as if their authors believed there was a better alternative. There isn't. This is sphincter time.

 

[cajuncocoa]

...lol! at this thread...

(...i'm still waiting to see if putrid, stinking ted cruz passes the smell test of the noses who can't stand eau de trump..) (i smell more than a few eau de cruzers :o around here...PEE-YEW!...)

I think 99.9% of us threw Cruz out with the trash a very long time ago.

 

[cajuncocoa]

You are speculating based on the infamous "what-if" method. We can what-if ourselves to death and 99% usually comes to naught. Of course, that 1% can be a real bastard at times.

The obvious flaws aside, your points are well taken. But once again the question stands unanswered: how is he worse than the rest? I would really like to see a pointed, rational, sensible answer to this.

I don't know that he is worse than the rest, but since I'm not choosing any of them, I'm just giving you my reasons for not going along with Trumpmania.