The TRULY ***Official*** 2024 Election Season thread

[TheTexan]

Such a party animal.

You're in denial of the fact that if we want our free country back we're going to have to work at it like beavers.

If I'm in denial of anything, it's that I'm in denial that we will ever get our "free country back".

The best that we can hope for, is for this country to fall apart into several pieces, and hopefully find some freedom amongst the chaos.

If I thought it were within the reality of possibility that, people would "work at it like beavers [to get our freedom back]" I would totally get behind that idea, but I simply don't see that within the realm of possibility, considering where we are and what we have allowed to date.

Consider this: roughly 50% of what anyone makes goes to taxes into some form or another. And people aren't upset about it. Hell, they don't even talk about it. And when people, like me, raise the issue, they laugh and say haha you're a funny guy and then they go on with their lives and they continue to happily paying their 50% in taxes without giving it even a second thought.

Do you really think that those people - who represent 99% - are really going to "work at it like beavers to [get our freedom back]" ??

Do you really think that the 1% of us that care about such things - can really defeat the 99% who love the system the way it is?

The only chance that the 1% of us who care have to get our freedom back, the only chance I see, is through secession of some form. (e.g., Free State Project and similar, but more goal oriented towards secession)

That's why I strongly remain an advocate of secession, in all of its forms.

But "work at it like a beaver" to fix this country? Hard fucking pass.

And you're only mad at me because I refuse to let you wallow in that delusion uninterrupted.

It's not delusional it's logical. I remain strictly focused on the possible, even if unlikely. And fixing this country by "working at it like beavers" is simply not possible, not even theoretically.

Breaking this country apart however? That is possible, even if unlikely, but possible. And Trump is contributing to the likelihood of that happening.

 

[Anti Federalist]

That's where we stand. American men would almost certainly already be doing something productive right now, if they weren't all sucking on a pacifier named Trump and hoping to get more out of that than we got before. Like Michael Malice said, Trump is the dam, and he's holding back a lot of useful energy.

As for your attempt to paint yourself as righteous because you're being practical, figure out how many states even have a Tulsa, then calculate the odds that my vote being withdrawn will tip it away from Trump.

Gang up on and demean me, then try to soft soap me into believing that I'm the only person here capable of demeaning anyone. Y'all are acting like liberals again. Just partisans driving the speed limit after all.

You aren't harping on me because my vote would do a damned thing. You're harping on me because you're in denial about how bad it really is, and what the realistic chances are of Trump lifting one finger to fix it.

I'm not harping on you, I'm not demeaning you, I'm not calling you an infant, a sheep, a lunatic, a cocksucker or anything else.

Nor am I trying to cloak myself in righteousness.

I've "known" you for years, and as I do for many other people around here, I have a great deal of respect for you and have honestly assessed your opinions and arguments.

I simply disagree.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[WarriorLiberty]

Harris must be desperate.

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1849140688253804696

 

[Philhelm]

Ron Paul has said that he didn't see much to choose from when he picked a major party to align with. And he aligned with the GOP which was nominating Ronald Reagan. Now, Phil, don't tell me it hasn't changed a drop since.

Which leaves us with the my herd is better argument.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567766-My-Herd-Is-Better-Than-Yours

Well, I agree. Doesn't mean I want to go where your sheep dogs are herding us. Your sheep dogs, their sheep dogs -- right now I'm a lot less focused on choosing between them than trying to figure out how to avoid them all.

What has Ron Paul said about that party lately..?



Israel is trying to start WWIII, and your Alpha has already announced that he's their Huckleberry.

Ron Paul wouldn't have a seat at the table with the Democratic Party today either.

My issue isn't how you will vote or not vote, but the premise that the outcome doesn't matter. This isn't a "my herd is better" situation since one side's burgers is laced with rat poison. One group of constituents hates you, wants to silence and marginalize you, whereas the other group of constituents likely shares common cause with you on at least some important issues, if not many.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1849235332518015001

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/i/status/1849069005685813310

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/ramzpaul/status/1849269044085395786

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/ramzpaul/status/1849253960072511656

 

[TheTexan]

https://x.com/ramzpaul/status/1849253960072511656

lol God's All Stars

 

[Occam's Banana]

Harris must be desperate.

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1849140688253804696

She forgot Stalin and Mussolini.

The Atlantic is having one

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...thoritarian-rhetoric-hitler-mussolini/680296/

​

Bonus round:

https://x.com/TheAtlasSociety/status/1848883842536640812
[article: https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2024/10/donald-trump-is-elon-musks-trojan-horse/680309/]

​

 

[Occam's Banana]

This: ↓

I can respect that you don't want to vote for evil. That's fine. [...] We are all rational actors here.

The "lesser evil" is "still evil" ... but by the same token, it is also "still lesser" - and that is not nothing (especially when there are more rather than fewer degrees of separation between the lesser evil and the greater).

Whether and to what degree an evil is lesser than another is something over which there may be reasonable disagreements.

Rejecting a "lesser evil" because it is "evil" is not irrational - but neither is preferring a "lesser evil" because it is "lesser".

Welcome to the limits of reason - and to what some call "the human condition".

Also this: ↓

I think Ron Paul directly led to Trump. And I mean that in a positive way. A Trump Presidency I don't think would have been possible without Ron Paul.

And this isn't to give Trump credit, at least not for much. The fact that he inspires divisiveness, is more of an acknowledgement, than an attribution of credit. I doubt he does it intentionally for that purpose

Someone had to be the harbinger.

One of the major reasons we have this level of anti-establishment sentiment is because Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012. [1]

Ron Paul was the necessary precursor - and unfortunately, we got Trump as the primary receiver of that benefaction (rather than the other way around).

But one way or the other, Trump's estate will pass on soon enough.

Hopefully, the next inheritor (if there even is one) will actually be worthy of it.



[1] And even he didn't originate it - but he did greatly amplify, focus, and galvanize it.

Also also this: ↓

Consider this: roughly 50% of what anyone makes goes to taxes into some form or another. And people aren't upset about it. Hell, they don't even talk about it. And when people, like me, raise the issue, they laugh and say haha you're a funny guy and then they go on with their lives and they continue to happily paying their 50% in taxes without giving it even a second thought.

Do you really think that those people - who represent 99% - are really going to "work at it like beavers to [get our freedom back]" ??

Do you really think that the 1% of us that care about such things - can really defeat the 99% who love the system the way it is?

The only chance that the 1% of us who care have to get our freedom back, the only chance I see, is through secession of some form. (e.g., Free State Project and similar, but more goal oriented towards secession)

That's why I strongly remain an advocate of secession, in all of its forms.

But "work at it like a beaver" to fix this country? Hard fucking pass.

Any cause or ideology (including libertarianism) that tries to make its success contingent upon persuading "most people" to agree with or adopt it is doomed to fail. (This is especially manifest and evident in continent-spanning nations that encompass a third of a billion people.)

"Most people" are not and never will be ideological - and even among those who are, most are only passively so. They'll tell pollsters they "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" with this, that, or the other thing - and on certain augural dates, they might even go so far as to insert written incantations into magic wishing boxes - but otherwise, they are inert ballast who for the most part won't make any ultimate difference to anything.

At scale, majorities do not matter, and they never will. Power - be it the power to impose tyranny, or the power to uphold liberty - is always taken or wielded by a relative few, never by an absolute many (i.e., "most"). Almost everyone else more or less begrudgingly goes along with whatever the result happens to be. Just ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Martin Niemöller.

 

[CaptUSA]

Such a party animal.

You're in denial of the fact that if we want our free country back we're going to have to work at it like beavers. And you're only mad at me because I refuse to let you wallow in that delusion uninterrupted.

I don't hear much about all the work you're doing. I'd like to hear more about that and less whining about other people's choices.

As for me, my work focuses fighting against the Department of Energy and now the Department of Transportation. It wasn't perfect under Rick Perry, but was a thousand times better than fighting against the agencies run by Granholm and Buttigieg! I mean, it's not even close! These are the regulatory agencies that impair people's access to low-cost energy and free choice in mobility. That's why appointments matter. My tiring work for liberty gets MUCH easier if Trump's team is selecting the appointments rather than the regime's puppet.

And that is a fact - not delusion!

 

[Occam's Banana]

Breaking this country apart however? That is possible, even if unlikely, but possible. And Trump is contributing to the likelihood of that happening.

It's possible - even if unlikely, but possible - that a Harris presidency would also contribute to the likelihood of that happening.

If it happens at all, then at some point, one or more states/governors are going to have to get pissed off enough to tell the feds to go kick rocks (and to back up any such ultimatum with substantive or significant action, or a credible threat of such action). If Harris wins, such a reaction might be precipitated if the crypto-Marxists (or even just the garden-variety overweening establishment power-mongers) among her handlers try to push things too far.

So in that respect, "Trump or Harris?" could pan out to a "win" either way.

(My own sense is that the time is not quite ripe yet, and that Trump or Harris will, at most, only contribute to the eventuality, without actually presiding over it. But who the hell knows? Things happen gradually ... right up until they happen suddenly.)

 

[Anti Federalist]

It's possible - even if unlikely, but possible - that a Harris presidency would also contribute to the likelihood of that happening.

If it happens at all, then at some point, one or more states/governors are going to have to get pissed off enough to tell the feds to go kick rocks (and to back up any such ultimatum with substantive or significant action, or a credible threat of such action). If Harris wins, such a reaction might be precipitated if the crypto-Marxists (or even just the garden-variety overweening establishment power-mongers) among her handlers try to push things too far.

So in that respect, "Trump or Harris?" could pan out to a "win" either way.

(My own sense is that the time is not quite ripe yet, and that Trump or Harris will, at most, only contribute to the eventuality, without actually presiding over it. But who the hell knows? Things happen gradually ... right up until they happen suddenly.)

Speaking of...your search fu is strong...can you find that thread regarding the stand off at the border between Abbot in Texas and the DC regime?

 

[Occam's Banana]

[bold emphasis added]​

[...]

(My own sense is that the time is not quite ripe yet, and that Trump or Harris will, at most, only contribute to the eventuality, without actually presiding over it. But who the hell knows? Things happen gradually ... right up until they happen suddenly.)

Speaking of...your search fu is strong...can you find that thread regarding the stand off at the border between Abbot in Texas and the DC regime?

Feds warn Texas not to enforce state-level immigration bill

From which:

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1750300619787649412

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's possible - even if unlikely, but possible - that a Harris presidency would also contribute to the likelihood of that happening.

If it happens at all, then at some point, one or more states/governors are going to have to get pissed off enough to tell the feds to go kick rocks (and to back up any such ultimatum with substantive or significant action, or a credible threat of such action). If Harris wins, such a reaction might be precipitated if the crypto-Marxists (or even just the garden-variety overweening establishment power-mongers) among her handlers try to push things too far.

So in that respect, "Trump or Harris?" could pan out to a "win" either way.

(My own sense is that the time is not quite ripe yet, and that Trump or Harris will, at most, only contribute to the eventuality, without actually presiding over it. But who the hell knows? Things happen gradually ... right up until they happen suddenly.)

"They thought Trump was the river, but he was the dam." -- Michael Malice

https://twitter.com/ReedCoverdale/status/1750643939156087101

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/i/status/1849222273045082314

 

[TheTexan]

It's possible - even if unlikely, but possible - that a Harris presidency would also contribute to the likelihood of that happening.

Yea I agree, and it's all part of the plan.

You'll notice, that I didn't say Trump had to win to contribute to the likelihood of breaking this country apart.

Win, or lose, Trump is good at pissing people off, and getting people pissed off. A Harris Presidency in a universe without Trump, would probably be a pretty bland affair just by itself.

(My own sense is that the time is not quite ripe yet, and that Trump or Harris will, at most, only contribute to the eventuality, without actually presiding over it. But who the hell knows? Things happen gradually ... right up until they happen suddenly.)

Yep. Normalcy bias is a bitch. Never know when. I tend to agree that we're not there yet, but shrug, who the fuck really knows

 

[TheTexan]

https://x.com/i/status/1849222273045082314

Nice rant, and I generally agree,

but...

"biggest crime in the history of the United States" ???

I think Abraham Lincoln gets credit for that one