I want a little more time to do the latter, and for that I need a Trump to slow things down somewhat. Hillary will advance Obama's agenda even faster than he did. I dont want the dollar to be completely ruined so fast, as that will cause tremendous problems for all of us.

Dropping out of the race and then dropping back in again.

I voted for him actually. I am not sure why or how he "blew it".

How far have you gotten with the motor?

I hope you are right. He has my vote.

Obviously the votes are counted as the sum of all individuals who vote, not whatever each individual wants alone which is contradictory and makes no sense. Every individual who votes affects the outcome because they are added together. That is inherent in the concept of 'election'. The sophistry that contrary to the meaning of 'election' your vote can't determine the outcome by itself is Rationalization on behalf of fantasy voting ignoring what elections are and what the results are for, namely which of (normally, as in this case) two candidates will take power.

In addition to your own vote you can advocate for others to make the best choice available (including in primaries, but we are past that now). Better election choices over time come from better understanding from the spread of better ideas, not fantasizing at the last minute on election day. Meanwhile we are faced with a very specific limited choice between two candidates, one of which will definitely take power no matter what you do. Which one is the subject of the election.

The election is not to choose philosophy, it determines which of two candidates will be in power. There is no other choice in the election. Both candidates are the result of philosophy already chosen long ago and is not subject to change by the election. There are no philosophies named on the ballot, only the candidates today that are already the results of previous choices of what to believe. Choices not only have consequences, they have consequences over time and cannot be instantaneously reversed. The problem of saying 'I told you so' is that it means it's too late -- though not necessarily for a better long range future.

Changing the kind of candidates over time requires changing the dominant philosophy, and that cannot be done on the ballot or in the time-frame of the ballot or of an election cycle. The place to advocate for better philosophy, other than what is available either in the Pragmatist deal-maker who is half open to listening when he's not tweeting or in the dedicated nihilistic socialist power seeker is not available on the ballot. But the choice between the results of their difference to our lives now and for the next 40 years is.

Making a choice from what is available is not a sanction of either. Moral choices can only be made within alternatives available in reality, and must be made there, not in imagination of what should have been. The necessity to make choices in reality that make a difference to your life is what gives rise to the need for morality at its foundations. If there were no choices that made a difference there could be no morality, and practicing morality does not consist in ignoring the reality of limits on choices available in favor of fantasizing.

Choosing between two candidates, one of whom will be in power no matter what you do, is not condoning or sanctioning anything either of them does. It is a recognition that in the context of the election it is the only choice you have and that what they do affects your life and makes a difference to it. Recognizing those facts is not Pragmatism. Ignoring the need to defend yourself as best you can and to advocate for a better philosophy and to fight for better policies between elections, and then pretending at the last minute that the election is the place to 'make a statement', is fantasy in the name of morality worse than Pragmatism.

To what outcome? Another election of no choices like the last 6 presidential elections? No thanks.

For a while Ross Perot had a real chance of winning in 1992 before he totally blew it.

Yet you seem to think there will be a "difference in outcome" that depends upon whom you personally vote for. You are not "choosing between two given candidates," since your individual vote can't possibly affect the outcome. This leaves you free to choose the candidate that most closely aligns with your views.

Sarah called it ingenious. In general, the same argument against voting takes different forms heard over and over, such as "making a statement", "can't condone", etc.

The election is about choosing between two given candidates, one of whom will be in power, and that is all. In particular it isn't about who will "govern" you personally, or to what extent, or if that is a proper function of government at all. The only choice available in the election, the one between the two candidates that the election will decide, is limited to what the political system is imposing.

I don't find anything humorous about it at all, gallows humor or otherwise, but disliking it doesn't imply any fantasies about what the election is not about or that there is no difference in outcomes of what happens to the country between the two candidates. This is serious.

This sounds a lot like pragmatism- to me, philosophy matters. And both philosophies of the candidates are the same, and both will lead to destruction. By casting my vote either way- and this is my opinion, not yours - I would be voting for the policies these candidates support.
Quite frankly, my speech was not meant to influence you into taking the course of action jbrenner suggested. It was humor mixed into lamentation about the sorry state of affairs. I'm going to contact Bill Gates about making a sarcasm button for my use.

Sorry, in case you didn't catch it, that was sarcasm too.

Edit: Corrected "Gated" to "Gates." Dumb phone.

Sorry, j, he was quoting me on the ingenious part. If there were a relevant "sarcasm" button I would've hit it in my post. Some people get deadpan humor and some do not.

John Galt knows how.

Unless you find a way to reside completely off the grid, and I don't see how. For that matter, how does one get off the grid legally anyhow?

I did not view voting for myself as ingenious, nor was I "making a statement". I will vote for downballot politicians because there have been cases in my county where certain offices did come down to a vote or two, on at least a couple of occasions. As for voting for myself, I was trying to inject a little humor into an otherwise sad state of affairs. Apparently, some people appreciated the humor, and you did not.

I know that the only person you would be satisfied with governing you is you, and that was my point.

The election isn't about condoning anything, sanctioning or supporting policy, who you personally "like", or "making a statement". It determines which of the two candidates will be in power for the next four years and all that implies about future impacts. One of the two of them will be in power no matter what else you do. The choice between the two of them is the only choice you have and the only choice relevant when voting. Nothing else matters in the voting both. If you think it doesn't make any difference then don't vote. If you see how it does or could then vote accordingly and explain to others why, one at a time. Making dramatic speeches about voting for yourself or any other antics are irrelevant to the election, not ingenious.

It is good to hear from you again, Zen. I would rather enjoy a little humor than cry about a situtation that I cannot control.

j; I appreciate the humor. Let the games begin.

I might you grant you a position as a cabinet secretary, but only if your job was to legally abolish as many government jobs as possible. ;)

Of course, you are right, but the presumption you are making is that I am not going to shrug completely if Shrillary is elected.

Is it a matter of slowing down cronyism and socialism? Or is time to either shrug, leave, or start a nonviolent revolution?

On an even-money bet I would pick Trump to win.

This is somewhat off topic, but I found one good reason to vote for Clinton.

If she loses, we're going to have to suffer another 4 years worth of her campaigning.

But the system is too crooked to permit a third party or lone person to ever win