Massie wants to avoid the tough questions

[Brian4Liberty]

I recently was unfriended on FB by Thomas because, revelations came out (due to wikileaks) that Hillary wanted Trump to be the nominee.

I have criticized Thomas about supporting that anti-liberty candidate, but after the newer revelations, I asked if he was willing to reconsider his trump support and pledged vote and how he felt after finding out that he and hillary were supporting the same person.

He brushed it aside and unfriended. Unfortunate.

Very unfortunate. Should we ban him?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think I know the one you're talking about. It's got that special device nobody knows the name of, so people just call it "Mr. Thingy". Eh what?

Yeah, it's got cam-locks!! .

 

[angelatc]

I recently was unfriended on FB ....

Oooh! Can I have your spot? His list is full! I donate and everything!!!

 

[Occam's Banana]

There are many practical reasons for supporting Trump.

I see nothing practical in supporting Trump.

I hope that he wins (as I previously explained in this post), but I do not "support" him in any way, shape or form.

A Trump win will be the most (only?) effective possible demonstration of just how impractical it was to have supported him in the first place.

Like dogs that have shat upon the rug, some people just need to have their noses rubbed in what they've done before they'll finally learn ...

It may be nauseating, but it is still less toxic than the prospect of a Hillary in the Oval Office. With Russia and China apparently prepping for nuclear war (which COULD be smoke, but does anyone really want to test this?), I see no virtue in playing the ideals at this time.

I don't buy any of the "Hillary = WW3" hysteria. As I've said elsehwere:

The US excels at (directly or indirectly) stomping the shit out of places that have no chance of defending themselves (like Libya and Yemen), but when it comes to places that can and would actually fight back (such as Russia and China), I suspect the only thing you'll see from the US is a lot of screeching threats and hissy fits.​

I see no reason to think that the system's oligarchs want nuclear war. And although she is indeed an arch-interventionist, when it comes to Russia and/or China, I see no reason to think that Hillary - held to heel by her masters - will be anything but all bark and no bite. (But woe betide the unfortunates residing in weak North African and Middle Eastern satrapies ...)

This is the hand we have been dealt. There will be no re-shuffles. Therefore, you play it as given, or you fold. I wish things were different, but they are not.

Just stop playing in the first place. The deck is stacked and the house dealers have all the aces up their sleeves.

There is no jackpot to be won in their casino, and nothing is going to change until enough people start refusing to ante up ...

EDIT: I just noticed that that isn't La Boétie pictured in the quote graphic. It's actually a portrait of Michel de Montaigne (he and La Boétie were famous friends). Apparently, whoever made the graphic got them confused.

 

[phill4paul]

I see nothing practical in supporting Trump.

I hope that he wins (as I previously explained in this post), but I do not "support" him in any way, shape or form.

A Trump win will be the most (only?) effective possible demonstration of just how impractical it was to have supported him in the first place.

Like dogs that have shat upon the rug, some people just need to have their noses rubbed in what they've done before they'll finally learn ...



I don't buy any of the "Hillary = WW3" hysteria. As I've said elsehwere:

The US excels at (directly or indirectly) stomping the shit out of places that have no chance of defending themselves (like Libya and Yemen), but when it comes to places that can and would actually fight back (such as Russia and China), I suspect the only thing you'll see from the US is a lot of screeching threats and hissy fits.​

I see no reason to think that the system's oligarchs want nuclear war. And although she is indeed an arch-interventionist, when it comes to Russia and/or China, I see no reason to think that Hillary - held to heel by her masters - will be anything but all bark and no bite. (But woe betide the unfortunates residing in weak North African and Middle Eastern satrapies ...)



Stop playing in the first place. The deck is stacked and the house dealers have all the aces up their sleeves.

There is no jackpot to be won in their casino, and nothing is going to change until enough people just start refusing to ante up ...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

 

[timosman]

For once I can't disagree with teh Collins. This election cycle is getting pretty weird.

Collins started to sound reasonable recently. What the heck is going on?

 

[osan]

I see nothing practical in supporting Trump.

I hope that he wins (as I previously explained in this post), but I do not "support" him in any way, shape or form.

Don't these seem a bit contradictory?

A Trump win will be the most (only?) effective possible demonstration of just how impractical it was to have supported him in the first place.

While likely true, barring special knowledge, I would say this declaration is a bit premature.

Like dogs that have shat upon the rug, some people just need to have their noses rubbed in what they've done before they'll finally learn ...

Holy HELL - you cannot be serious. We got our noses rubbed in it by Wilson. Then by Roosevelt II. Then LBJ. Then Nixon. Then Carter. Then Reagan. Then Bush I. Then Der Klinton. Then Bush Part Deux. Then Obammy. And those are only the more easily dredged examples, representing over 100 years of the Man corn-holing the American people, over and over with the same clapped-out old tricks, each successive iteration producing ever wilder success. The average man has learned nothing of value because the truths to which the lessons point are nothing he wishes so much as to consider, much less face, acknowledge, and act against.

You are expecting the impossible from men whose brains are in a state such that they may be said to have no brains of which to speak.

I don't buy any of the "Hillary = WW3" hysteria. As I've said elsehwere:

The US excels at (directly or indirectly) stomping the shit out of places that have no chance of defending themselves (like Libya and Yemen), but when it comes to places that can and would actually fight back (such as Russia and China), I suspect the only thing you'll see from the US is a lot of screeching threats and hissy fits.​

Could well be the case. But why then has Russia moved heavy assets including nukes into Kaliningrad, according to reports? That is a LOT of material reality just for the sake of... well, what exactly? Scaring people? Saber rattling? It could be that, but it's a dangerous game in which to engage where misunderstandings and other errors could result in global calamity. Besides, Russia could rattle it sabers in other, far less risky ways, don't you think?

I see no reason to think that the system's oligarchs want nuclear war.

That is precisely my view as well, but then how do we explain what we see? Today I heard that the US has sent Marines to Norway and that Putin has now told Olso that they will be nuked if any more Marines arrive there. Is this all bullshit too? Not saying it is or is not. I'm not there, so I do not know beyond that which I hear. But if we are living in an era where it's not just the typically idiotic American statesmen who are speaking as dangerously stupid and ill-bred children, but those of nations such as Russia as well, I'd say we are living right at the edge.

But one thing I DO know is that my little brother is in the South China sea and is not supposed to be there for reasons I will not divulge publicly. Suffice to say that things must be credibly hot in the region for him to be where he is at this time. He is one of those people the navy calls in when they need extraordinary goals to be met or something major has seriously turned to crap. We are, therefore, concerned.

And although she is indeed an arch-interventionist, when it comes to Russia and/or China, I see no reason to think that Hillary - held to heel by her masters - will be anything but all bark and no bite. (But betide the unfortunates residing in weak North African and Middle Eastern satrapies ...)

Once again, my views coincide with these. However, I have seen enough remarkably strange stuff to give me pause in assuming anything about anyone in such political circles. Far too much of what I see makes far too little sense for me to take anything for granted.

Stop playing in the first place. The deck is stacked and the house dealers have all the aces up their sleeves.

Likely the case. But my view on why to play once again speaks to the slim threads of chance that something unexpected may occur, giving rise to the brand of extreme result I feel represents to only hope for the average dullard. People have learned little to nothing over the last century, much to my astonishment. Just how bad do things have to get such that they finally purchase a clue and act? That is what I hope for, slim as that hope may be. If Trump wins, the left has promised to burn the nation down. This is precisely the sort of reaction I hope to see because nothing less will stir the average man from his self-willed stupor. Even that is a pretty remote chance, not only of anything occurring, but of yielding the better result. But for me the only other alternative entails despair and I won't go there because I am in no mood to shoot my own brains from the confines of the place God made for them. Furthermore, I do not want to continue this slow-burn descent into hell. I'd literally prefer to see civil war, and I don't really want that either. But there appear no hope of Americans rising to the challenges of the accord of the challenge itself. They are uninterested in freedom, preferring convenience and infantile distraction.

I suppose I may be dead wrong on all of this, but this is how I am perceiving things at the moment. I welcome any ray of hope that would give me a plausible escape route from this tedious view of the world. It isn't that much fun.

There is no jackpot to be won in their casino, and nothing is going to change until enough people just start refusing to ante up ...

Not sure what you mean by "refusing to ante up". If you mean refusing to vote, I must disagree strongly. I assume that doing less there carries across to other avenues of action and I believe that history will bear me out on this. That is precisely what Theye want - apathy, for that is what most enables them. If you mean something along the lines of mass civil-disobedience, then I would have to agree with you.

Not sure this applies in an age of VERY long technological levers, especially when coupled to a ready willingness to use deadly force in whatever measures deemed necessary to get the job done. Doubly so where the people are so ignorant, compliant, and cowardly that a few well chosen examples keeps the rest in line. I no longer have any idea whether there is any debasement to which Americans could be subjected that would give rise to rebellion. We may be too far gone now.

 

[TheTexan]

I recently was unfriended on FB by Thomas because, revelations came out (due to wikileaks) that Hillary wanted Trump to be the nominee.

I have criticized Thomas about supporting that anti-liberty candidate, but after the newer revelations, I asked if he was willing to reconsider his trump support and pledged vote and how he felt after finding out that he and hillary were supporting the same person.

He brushed it aside and unfriended. Unfortunate.

How long were you two friends?

You really shouldnt break up a long friendship because one person supports Trump.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Don't these seem a bit contradictory?

No. What I support is "not being executed."

But if I am to be executed, I hope to be shot rather than hung.

It is facile to conclude from this that I support "being shot."

Holy HELL - you cannot be serious. We got our noses rubbed in it by Wilson. Then by Roosevelt II. Then LBJ. Then Nixon. Then Carter. Then Reagan. Then Bush I. Then Der Klinton. Then Bush Part Deux. Then Obammy. And those are only the more easily dredged examples, representing over 100 years of the Man corn-holing the American people, over and over with the same clapped-out old tricks, each successive iteration producing ever wilder success. The average man has learned nothing of value because the truths to which the lessons point are nothing he wishes so much as to consider, much less face, acknowledge, and act against.

You are expecting the impossible from men whose brains are in a state such that they may be said to have no brains of which to speak.

Holy HELL - I was talking about those anti-establishmentarian Trump supporters who (rightly) oppose "the Man corn-holing the American people" but who have nevertheless managed to delude themselves into imagining that Trump will somehow achieve all manner of ridiculously grandiose victories over the aforesaid "Man" (such as putting a stop to the aforesaid "corn-holing" - or "draining the swamp" or "bringing the Clintons to justice" or "smashing the establishment" or any other of such absurdities) while often simultaneously declaring that anyone who does not feel the same is nothing but a useful idiot or Hillary shill. My reference to "getting their noses rubbed in it" is to the upcoming salubrious disillusionment (should Trump win) of those particular persons in that particular context.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I was referring to anyone or anything else. I even provided a link to a post in which I further specified my meaning and purpose. You appear to have dismembered what I said into separate chunks and then to have interpreted each independently from the whole.

Could well be the case. But why then has Russia moved heavy assets including nukes into Kaliningrad, according to reports? That is a LOT of material reality just for the sake of... well, what exactly? Scaring people? Saber rattling? It could be that, but it's a dangerous game in which to engage where misunderstandings and other errors could result in global calamity. Besides, Russia could rattle it sabers in other, far less risky ways, don't you think?

Kaliningrad Oblast is among the westernmost Russian territory in Europe. Why shouldn't they put some of their nukes there?

And assuming the reports to which you refer are true - of course it's sabre-rattling. The whole point of sabre-rattling is deterrence. A lack of sabre-rattling would only encourage further belligerence from the US and it's NATO proxies. Given the goings-on in Ukraine and the like, what else should we expect Russia to do? If Russia was ginning up militaristic anti-American sentiment in Mexico, we'd rattle our sabres, too. Fuck, we'd probably be one hell of a lot less restrained and circumspect about it than the Russians have been ...

That is precisely my view as well, but then how do we explain what we see? Today I heard that the US has sent Marines to Norway and that Putin has now told Olso that they will be nuked if any more Marines arrive there. Is this all bullshit too? Not saying it is or is not. I'm not there, so I do not know beyond that which I hear. But if we are living in an era where it's not just the typically idiotic American statesmen who are speaking as dangerously stupid and ill-bred children, but those of nations such as Russia as well, I'd say we are living right at the edge.

But one thing I DO know is that my little brother is in the South China sea and is not supposed to be there for reasons I will not divulge publicly. Suffice to say that things must be credibly hot in the region for him to be where he is at this time. He is one of those people the navy calls in when they need extraordinary goals to be met or something major has seriously turned to crap. We are, therefore, concerned.

I don't understand what any of this (including the alleged Kaliningrad nukes) has to do with anything I said, which was concerned solely with hysterical claims about what Hillary will supposedly do (ZOMG!! WW3!!!1!) merely because she is the Wicked Witch of the West, and not at all with whatever Russia is supposedly doing. (I am also unsure as to how to reason competently concerning vague rumors and mysterious anecdotes.)

Not sure what you mean by "refusing to ante up". If you mean refusing to vote, I must disagree strongly. I assume that doing less there carries across to other avenues of action and I believe that history will bear me out on this. That is precisely what Theye want - apathy, for that is what most enables them. If you mean something along the lines of mass civil-disobedience, then I would have to agree with you.

I mean active non-compliance, civil disobedience, uncivil disobedience, etc., etc. (including refusing to vote). What enables Themme is participation in Theire system according to Theire rules (including the most common form of participation: voting).

Not voting merely because one does not give a shit is indeed a manifestation of "apathy" - but it is apathetic, and therefore problematic, because of the "not giving a shit" factor, NOT because of the "not voting" factor. (I do not vote precisely because I am NOT apathetic.) However, the voting aspect of the issue is largely symbolic. As a purely practical matter, voting on anything other than the smallest of scales is simply and utterly ineffective and irrelevant. Especially on federal and state levels, the effective difference made by submitting or withholding one's vote is absolutely nil - whether one votes or not, subjective psychic satisfaction is the only thing to be gained.

 

[dannno]

This is ridiculous.. Hillary supported Trump in the primary, not in the General.

Massie didn't support Trump in the primary, he supports him in the General.

Total opposites.

 

[osan]

No. What I support is "not being executed."

But if I am to be executed, I hope to be shot rather than hung.

It is facile to conclude from this that I support "being shot."

Fair enough.

Holy HELL - I was talking about those anti-establishmentarian Trump supporters who (rightly) oppose "the Man corn-holing the American people" but who have nevertheless managed to delude themselves into imagining that Trump will somehow achieve all manner of ridiculously grandiose victories over the aforesaid "Man" (such as putting a stop to the aforesaid "corn-holing" - or "draining the swamp" or "bringing the Clintons to justice" or "smashing the establishment" or any other of such absurdities) while often simultaneously declaring that anyone who does not feel the same is nothing but a useful idiot or Hillary shill. My reference to "getting their noses rubbed in it" is to the upcoming salubrious disillusionment (should Trump win) of those particular persons in that particular context.

Again, fair enough, but I was responding to your notion of people learning the lessons of history. They don't. Ever. I cannot figure it. I understand largely why it happens, but what I cannot quite wrap my head around is why they choose to think and subsequently act to such great disadvantage to theirownselves. Why is suicide, symbolic or otherwise, so attractive to the meaner?

Kaliningrad Oblast is among the westernmost Russian territory in Europe. Why shouldn't they put some of their nukes there?

Because large movements of such things is generally looked upon as provocative, leading to the question: why provoke?

of course it's sabre-rattling. The whole point of sabre-rattling is deterrence.

The point being that they feel the need to rattle on. What is the reason? Is it something "we" are doing, or are they up to nothing good? Either way...

alleged Kaliningrad nukes

My folks in Europe all hear it. It is apparently on the news there, at least in some locales. Could still be lies. I don't know.

I mean active non-compliance, civil disobedience, uncivil disobedience, etc., etc. (including refusing to vote). What enables Themme is participation in Theire system according to Theire rules (including the most common form of participation: voting).

Then I guess we agree.

 

[EBounding]

This is ridiculous.. Hillary supported Trump in the primary, not in the General.

Massie didn't support Trump in the primary, he supports him in the General.

Total opposites.

Yes, Massie specifically voted for Rand through the Kentucky caucus when Rand had already dropped out.

 

[Jesse James]

There is a reason that Justin Amash didn't endorse him but Massie and Rand did... Either Massie and Rand are going to run together or Amash is going to run.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I was responding to your notion of people learning the lessons of history.

I wasn't talking about people learning the lessons of history (about which, I pretty much agree with what you've said).

I was talking specifically about the more wildly delusional of Trump's anti-establishmentarian supporters discovering just how overboard they've gone with their expectations when those expectations finally intersect the reality of an actual Trump presidency. It is to be hoped that such a discovery would lead them to finally realize the folly of pinning one's ambitions on challenging the system "top down" and from the "inside" (though no doubt some of them - especially the from the most rabid among them - would simply concoct cognitively dissonant excuses for the failure of those expectations).

Because large movements of such things is generally looked upon as provocative, leading to the question: why provoke?

The point being that they feel the need to rattle on. What is the reason? Is it something "we" are doing, or are they up to nothing good? Either way...

Is it provocative to respond (not unreasonably) to provocation? As I pointed out: "Given the goings-on in Ukraine and the like, what else should we expect Russia to do? If Russia was ginning up militaristic anti-American sentiment in Mexico, we'd rattle our sabres, too."

Then I guess we agree.

 

[65fastback2+2]

there is a HUGE difference, in silently voting for trump and basically out campaigning for him and going around telling everyone to vote trump and coming up with all sorts of excuse/reasons.

Secondly, I voted for Thomas. He doesnt have to, but it is prudent to answer questions your constituents ask.

Rand didnt go around posting and campaigning all over the place for trump...neither should have Thomas.

Esp after it was revealed that it was rigged by hillary and hillary wanted trump. Perfect time to say "Clinton got us all" and make corrections. Not head forward.

Even Ron says we shouldnt compromise on liberty. Its one thing to get hoodwinked and correct. Its totally another to get hoodwinked and pretend it didnt happen.

 

[angelatc]

There is a reason that Justin Amash didn't endorse him but Massie and Rand did... Either Massie and Rand are going to run together or Amash is going to run.

Or Amash is in a more moderate district.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Or Amash is in a more moderate district.

I don't see Amash's endorsement of another Republican for Congress in some other state having any effect on his electability.

But it's still not the same. Rand is a US Senator in Massie's state. His endorsement matters there. Amash's doesn't.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I recently was unfriended on FB by Thomas because, revelations came out (due to wikileaks) that Hillary wanted Trump to be the nominee.

I have criticized Thomas about supporting that anti-liberty candidate, but after the newer revelations, I asked if he was willing to reconsider his trump support and pledged vote and how he felt after finding out that he and hillary were supporting the same person.

He brushed it aside and unfriended. Unfortunate.

We also aren't allowed to mention which forum he used to be a part of...