11

Donald vs Hillary - Disgusting or Hillarious

Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 10 months ago to Politics
102 comments | Share | Flag

"On one side we have a rich, fat, old, white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, candidate with an unpleasant voice, an arrogant manner, and an authoritarian personality. On the other side we have Donald Trump. Apart from sex, they’re like two megalomaniacal peas in a pod.What is a voter to do? Imagine a ballot with Benito Mussolini and Eva Perón. Choose one. Go ahead. "


All Comments

  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-regis...

    AFAIK, there is no quorum-type requirement on voters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I really should know these things, but what happens:
    1) dens get 32% let's say of electoral college republican get 33.5% and an independent gets 34.5%. Does the independent win?
    2) only a small number of citizens actually vote, say 10%. Is the election still valid or is it required that a certain percentage of citizens vote
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The topic here is voting, not taxes. You CAN support your liberty by not voting for statist candidates.
    The idea of a consumer strike is also a promising one, but the government party encourages FUD among us that only serve the purpose of enhancing the government's power and preventing united efforts that would change the situation in favor of liberty. We have to concentrate on one goal, reducing government power. We must stop taking the bait and giving 'one more chance' to lying looters in the statist party. They have proven repeatedly that they don't deserve support or consent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand your position. There is a fine line I am trying to define I suppose. I could grow my own food, but I choose to buy it from others. If there is a tax on those purchases I suppose I am willingly supporting the government. Almost everything I buy is taxed one way or another so the best I can do to not support the looters is to work and buy as little as possible within the framework of the U.S. Economic system ( to shrug).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As stated, I won't comment on my taxes.
    We are tallking about consent.
    When someone threatens you with force beyond your ability to defend yourself, you are not consenting to their wishes, you are being robbed at gunpoint.
    When you cast a vote for continuation of this robbery after decades of evidence, you are giving consent with knowledge of the evil it represents.
    Stop giving consent to enslavement by your enemies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you sure you don't empower them. I bet you buy things at local stores and live somewhere Both those are taxed and I do resent paying those taxes but I can't live in the USA without paying them. It makes me want to shrug. But even sun rands characters supported the statists
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "What is it about Trump except for his recent speeches that actually makes you believe he is anti anything Obama did?" Well, for starters, his 2011 book Time to Get Tough was a non-stop rant against Obama.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I won't comment on what taxes I pay, but in reply I state emphatically: I do not consent to be a slave. No one holds a gun on you and forces you to vote for evil. You make that choice and consent yourself. I do not. You claim to want freedom and you act to continue increasing government enslavement. I do not.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Perot supporters also awakened the one major party to the danger of any other option, and they are relentless in preventing anyone they cannot control from selection as their candidates. That alone should have conservatives who support the GOP running for the exits, but most keep drinking the cool aid.
    Its our job to awaken their minds to the insidious slavery they are living and to provide a way to break those chains.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bueno put the two together we've covered it I like the addition of accepting consequences of one's actions.

    I consider supporting the present system functionally useless and hastening it's demise not only useful but a requirement - the opening of a counter revolution in rhetorical terms.

    I most certainly do accept the consequences and have done so for fifty one years. That was the first time I swore to uphold the Constitution. The mission now is to get it back. Looking at it objectively I can only say what does this government have to do with that document?

    My useful phrase for that is A citizen has rights and responsibilities. Without both the other must surely fail. (The exception of course are the draft laws.)

    I still applaud the Perot supporters. they accomplished one great objective. That of forcing recognition of the reality of the present system and it's perversions. For that Thank You for serving your country. It was not a waste nor the wrong thing to do. It was a necessary step.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Living in a democracy, we are all slaves to the biggest mob really whether you consent or not. I bet you pay their taxes and obey most of their rules or they simply take your property and jail you. So given those options aren't you consenting to be a slave ?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are responsible for the consequence of your choices. If you make an ideologically pure choice that results in a consequence of greater evil then you have created greater evil. You cannot hide behind the making of a pure, but functionally useless choice.

    I supported Perot because I didn't want either Bush or Clinton (damn here we are again), I would have preferred Bush as the lesser of two evils but as a consequence of Perot we got Clinton. I accept that I helped elect him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why not it's my reality. I also choose to use pre PC definitions look for answers that aren't contradictions or end in futility.

    People who support evil are by definition evil people. A left winger would undoubtedly say that about me.

    The degree of evil is irrelevant. What is relevant is their definition of evil or translated what are their morals, values, and standards. If any.


    Left Wing fascist socialism is evil.

    Both eventual choices belong to political parties which are left wing, socialist and fascist in that they both support government control over citizens to one degree or another.

    I support the opposite.viewpoint

    Under the choices allowed A, B or blank the only moral choice is not playing the game of Evil.

    My conscience is clear, I maintain self respect. I have not indulged in play pretend. What others choose to do is their choice. At least for a while. That's getting problematical.

    What choice you want is unboxed. You get to choose according to your ...personal beliefs. You still may and can say I'm choosing the best of the best choices. And if your choices are the ones that rigged the election don't worry be happy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Framing the debate" is a way of disguising reality by expressing it in terms designed to elicit a specific conclusion. You put a box around the issue to force the choice you want. I reject that as a strategy. What is, is. You don't 'frame' reality to make it look a certain way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's called framing the debate. The choice is are you a supporter of evil or are you not a supporter of evil. Choose one you become a slave to evil. Choose the other you don't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Timing is everything, and given the growing popularity of the "non-politicians" in both parties (Sanders isn't a non-politician, but he's very unconventional), the public is showing your view isn't so foreign. People are simply angry at the "business as usual," and are looking to a solution outside the established (entrenched) Party "anointed" like Hillary and Jeb. Carson seems to be the only candidate I would consider entirely trustworthy. The question has to be whether or not the voting public is ready to take the next step and give a new party strong support. If it becomes obvious that the DNC and RNC are working harder to take down the "upstarts" than win the Presidency, I think the tipping point will have been reached.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Violent revolution is not the solution I would choose either.
    As long as people that call themselves conservatives continue to vote for the GOP there will be no change in the growth of government and the loss of liberty. However, more and more people are coming to the rational conclusion that the GOP is no more an answer than the Dems. Assuming my goal is to work for a peaceful, political solution, encouraging thoughtful, rational people to come to that conclusion is worthwhile and the seeds I plant will grow and spread, and the voting power will be transferred to more ethical candidates outside the two parties.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Most places all those votes are given to the number one 'vote getter' under the winner take all provisions. Your vote is then changed to reflect the opposite of what you intended. Catch 22 they got you coming and going. The only way to win....is don't play their game.

    Current lineup , approximately.

    All Democrats are a lost cause they do not have quite enough for a solid majority.

    Most Republicans are Democrats by another name RIN

    Some Republicans might be convinced to join the third largest group.

    Non-Voters, Independents, Third Party Voters, and Write-in Voters.

    Add in those that might be inclined to register but not vote.

    Non-Registrants, Non -voters, and Republicans who are faithful to a party that is not faithful to them.

    That's your target audience. They also number more than the Democrats.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That sounds great philosophically, but I really doubt there will be choices like absolute perfection vs less than absolute perfection. Obviously I would vote for the perfect candidate in that case. But if there are a series of less than perfect candidates, if one does not vote at all, one lets the other people choose among the less than perfect candidates- and you get to live under their choice.

    If there were two candidates- one of them Hitler and the other Trump- would it make sense to not vote at all? Or to vote for the lesser evil.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rant aside, choosing the lesser of two evils means you support less evil. Making a third choice that will not result in your choice winning has the effect of removing your vote from the lesser of the two evils giving the greater evil a better chance to win and is thus voting to keep greater evil.

    Unless of course the two evils are equally evil then it doesn't matter what you do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, the original question was: "what is a voter to do?"
    The answer is vote for liberty by removing your support from both the GOP and the Dems.

    You may be right about the entire field of candidates offered by the GOP and the Dems. The concentration of power tempts them all, and none can be trusted. The real solution is decentralization of power, and, as you noted earlier, neither of the parties want their power reduced.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Choosing any form of evil is a confession that you support evil and are 'commanding it's presence.' And that will make you a slave to the system by your own consent. If the only way offered is don't vote then that is the only way offered. You don't have to join the secular devil's congregation. Not voting is another way of saying "Get behind me!" Secularism is a form of religion.

    In a religious sense I don't believe there is any such thing as a Democrat or Republican Christian. One cannot serve two masters and adhere to the demands of two oaths. Ergo sum it's two oxymorons.

    In a secular sense you either honor your oath of Citizenship to the Constitution or you don't.

    People who didn't serve in the military or other public offices and were born in the country don't have to make that choice with one sort of exception . Their citizenship was bought for them by others if they are female.


    The excepton.....

    If they are male they come under the Military Conscription Act where in they are coerced by threat of jail and fines to volunteer and bought and paid for with college loans and promises of government jobs and a little side benefit the promise of no jail time nor fines.

    Involuntary Volunteers the ultimate oxymoron.

    All you have is your conscience. One you said the magic words 'lesser of two evils' you made defined the situation and made the choice.' Now go look in the mirror and define self respect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Conspiracy- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons
    Every deal that Trump does includes "surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons"
    By definition, they are conspiracies.
    Anyone who thinks they aren't is naive.
    "Just like a spin of the roulette wheel"
    You think the gambling "industry" is the ethical goal that businessmen should model their actions upon?
    There is nothing in my reponse that indicated a legal offense by Trump. Trump acts as a businessman with the ethics of a looter in the Wall Street bankster tradition.
    I have no hatred of capitalism. I have a dislike for unethical practices by people who claim to be ethical productive businessmen.
    Trump and his attorneys created contracts in his deals to reduce his risk and increase his profit as much as possible at the expense of other shareholders. Trump is not unique in this; it is accepted practice in business. Being accepted does not make it ethical, nor is it a criticism of 'capitalism' to point out the faults of current accepted unethical practices.
    I think that Trump wil act in the same manner if he is elected POTUS That is not acceptable practice for any president.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo