“Loco” or “Corrupto?” The Case for Loco.

[Jazzhead]

Election Day:  I will step into the booth and decide...

I doubt I will know when I pull into the parking lot.

Same here.  Gosh, what did we do to deserve a choice like this? 

[Cyber Liberty]

Election Day:  I will step into the booth and decide...

I doubt I will know when I pull into the parking lot.

It's difficult to predict the results of a coin toss.

[Jazzhead]

I've been toying with the idea of swapping my Presidential vote for someone else's vote in the PA Senate race.   I'm far more concerned about Pat Toomey getting re-elected than I am with the choice between Senora Corrupto and Senor Loco.

[LateForLunch]

Perhaps your moral/philosophical dimensions are non-existent. I cannot claim that. My vote is, after all, is my stamp of approval on something or someone. I vote for a candidate based not on who they are, but what they stand for, those moral/philosophical dimensions you so lightly pooh-pooh.

 No Joe, you misunderstand. I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly. I meant that APART FROM THE CHOOSING OF A CANDIDATE there is no other significant moral or philosophical issue which voting addresses. most specifically a vote does not support (or fail to support) any ideological "stand". Subtract the vote and no philosophy or moral issue is affected in any tangible way whatsoever - again, apart from its effect as related to how the candidate behaves after being elected by assistance of the vote. For some, a vote may have personal significance which they assign as a result of their own feelings. That is arguably not a tangible thing except for the person who voted and nobody else. [/quote]

I may indeed not be "wired right" but if so, it is likely for other reasons than may be found in that post.

I appreciate the civil response very much.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It's difficult to predict the results of a coin toss.

Tell that to Bernie.

[Cyber Liberty]

Tell that to Bernie.

Bernie was never bright enough to look closely at the two-headed coin he was tossing....

[LMAO]

Fine essay, massadvj.   The dilemma I face is similar to yours - whether to remain neutral or to choose between "corrupto" and "loco" and vote to defeat the one I deem worse.

@Jazzhead

One should always, as Ted Cruz has stated, "vote their conscience" as however they themselves define it. I also am very conflicted this election. I have ultimately chosen not to cast a ballot for Trump this year for reasons I have already stated but I know and understand what a Hillary Clinton will bring to the office.

A very depressing election

[Quix]

Alright, already yet.

We've been given--shoved down our throats, actually, by the tyrannical, cynical, ruthless, demonic, satan worshiping globalist oligarchy in charge of things for a long time--they've given us

a horrible choice--as they are so skillful at doing.

And they have long structured the whole voting charade as a kind of farcical dialectic that always results in their agenda being advanced.

Nevertheless, I CANNOT and did NOT vote in any way which would even appear to contribute to the evil literal practicing bw*tch Shrillery back in the White House.

Her rage-a-holic, homicidal, ruthless, mean-spirited, black-hearted, etc. evil core; evil words; evil deeds are waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond that of anyone major on the political scene Nationally. She's probably even very much beyond OThuga on such scores.

I cannot stomach even a hint of doing anything even appearing to contribute anything of any benefit whatesoever to that evil a creature.

I see Trump as many orders of magnitude not near as evil as she.

However, even 5% less evil would be enough for me to vote for Trump.

Third party votes IN THE REALITY that we are cast into--are merely functionally votes FOR Shrillery. I cannot even appear in any way, stretch or form to support that bw*tch.

High sounding lofty worded ideals are well and good to a point. But at the end of the day . . . a vote for anyone else than Trump is FUNCTIONALLY a vote for a satan worshiping bw*tch. And  that's putting it mildly.

[Smokin Joe]

Alright, already yet.

We've been given--shoved down our throats, actually, by the tyrannical, cynical, ruthless, demonic, satan worshiping globalist oligarchy in charge of things for a long time--they've given us

a horrible choice--as they are so skillful at doing.

And they have long structured the whole voting charade as a kind of farcical dialectic that always results in their agenda being advanced.

Nevertheless, I CANNOT and did NOT vote in any way which would even appear to contribute to the evil literal practicing bw*tch Shrillery back in the White House.

Her rage-a-holic, homicidal, ruthless, mean-spirited, black-hearted, etc. evil core; evil words; evil deeds are waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond that of anyone major on the political scene Nationally. She's probably even very much beyond OThuga on such scores.

I cannot stomach even a hint of doing anything even appearing to contribute anything of any benefit whatesoever to that evil a creature.

I see Trump as many orders of magnitude not near as evil as she.

However, even 5% less evil would be enough for me to vote for Trump.

Third party votes IN THE REALITY that we are cast into--are merely functionally votes FOR Shrillery. I cannot even appear in any way, stretch or form to support that bw*tch.

High sounding lofty worded ideals are well and good to a point. But at the end of the day . . . a vote for anyone else than Trump is FUNCTIONALLY a vote for a satan worshiping bw*tch. And  that's putting it mildly.

In my state a third party vote will be a vote of conscience but will likely not change the allocation of electoral votes one iota. Thankfully, I am free of some obligation to choose between those two and can, in fact vote my conscience without affecting the outcome of the election, unless I am joined by a host of others who do the same.

So, I shall vote my conscience. Your situation is apparently different, and you have voted yours. I'm not giving you flack over that, but a vote for Darrell Castle is not a vote for Hillary, nor will it functionally assist her in any way.

Popular vote does not decide the election, and mine will remain as a dissenting voice..

[Quix]

In my state a third party vote will be a vote of conscience but will likely not change the allocation of electoral votes one iota. Thankfully, I am free of some obligation to choose between those two and can, in fact vote my conscience without affecting the outcome of the election, unless I am joined by a host of others who do the same.

So, I shall vote my conscience. Your situation is apparently different, and you have voted yours. I'm not giving you flack over that, but a vote for Darrell Castle is not a vote for Hillary, nor will it functionally assist her in any way.

Popular vote does not decide the election, and mine will remain as a dissenting voice..

I understand . . . and felt similarly with Perot . . . and regretted it.

[Smokin Joe]

I understand . . . and felt similarly with Perot . . . and regretted it.

Still, and I recall Perot, a vote for Perot here did not affect the electoral vote outcome.

The popular vote is not what decides the overall race, only when it changes the the electoral vote allocation does it make a difference. Mine is no battleground state. Here there would have been nothing to regret in a vote for Perot, because it would have taken far more for Clinton to get even one electoral vote out of North Dakota.

We know she is evil. We don't know that he is equally so, but he sure has a lot of the warning signs. He knows many of the same players, hobnobs with the same group, has supported them financially (likely bribes or 'contributions' to grease the skids), run in the same entertainment venues, repeatedly discusses a checkered past with no remorse or repentance nor does he see the need for any, despite proclaimed sin. With the myriad signs, the thin nuance of only suspecting he is as vile instead of knowing so is not much to base a vote on for me.

By contrast, I can vote for someone who represents a Party which proclaims that

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles  and  values.  For  this  very  reason  peoples  of  all  faiths  have  been  and  are  afforded  asylum,  prosperity,  and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

(from the Preamble, Constitution Party Platform)

As I said, I do not judge you for your vote, you must vote your conscience.

I can vote mine, and will. While I know my vote will make no difference in the final tally of electoral votes, and thus who wins the election, I will have voted to affirm my beliefs and desires as a voter. I am blessed to have that luxury, without self-recrimination, to do so.

[INVAR]

Tuesday "I am the law" - and I will choose neither Corrupto or her Trojan Stalking Horse Loco.

I will choose Castle and will forever only choose vetted certified Constitutional Conservatives.

Not that it matters a whit at this late date in the post-velvet coup Amerika.

[Quix]

Still, and I recall Perot, a vote for Perot here did not affect the electoral vote outcome.

The popular vote is not what decides the overall race, only when it changes the the electoral vote allocation does it make a difference. Mine is no battleground state. Here there would have been nothing to regret in a vote for Perot, because it would have taken far more for Clinton to get even one electoral vote out of North Dakota.

We know she is evil. We don't know that he is equally so, but he sure has a lot of the warning signs. He knows many of the same players, hobnobs with the same group, has supported them financially (likely bribes or 'contributions' to grease the skids), run in the same entertainment venues, repeatedly discusses a checkered past with no remorse or repentance nor does he see the need for any, despite proclaimed sin. With the myriad signs, the thin nuance of only suspecting he is as vile instead of knowing so is not much to base a vote on for me.

By contrast, I can vote for someone who represents a Party which proclaims that (from the Preamble, Constitution Party Platform)

As I said, I do not judge you for your vote, you must vote your conscience.

I can vote mine, and will. While I know my vote will make no difference in the final tally of electoral votes, and thus who wins the election, I will have voted to affirm my beliefs and desires as a voter. I am blessed to have that luxury, without self-recrimination, to do so.

Understand.

I certainly respect you and your voting rationale.

I was overseas for Perot and voted by absentee ballot. It certainly did not effect anything. LOL.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Just excellent Victor.  It really is.

Mega dittos @massadvj   

[massadvj]

Mega dittos @massadvj   

Thank you RIV. 

[mystery-ak]

You speak for a lot of us Victor...wish I could express myself as you do.

[Quix]

THANKS for your good and worthy points.

Well done, alright.

I do think that Trump is probably 1/10th the narcissist that Shrillery is.

“Loco” or “Corrupto?”  The Case for Loco.
Victor J. Massad

This whole Hillary Clinton e-mail fiasco reminds me of that great movie The Verdict starring Paul Newman. You probably remember it.   The family of a woman who died on the operating table was suing the doctors and hospital for negligence, and Newman’s character Frank Galvin finally finds the smoking gun, only to have the judge in the case render it “irrelevant.”  But the jury had seen the evidence, and it was damning.  So Newman delivers one of the great trial closing statements in movie history.  It seems to me his summation is worth looking at in these times:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15uqb30Fq8

“You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.

I mean there is no justice. The rich win; the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time we become dead, a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims -- and we become victims. We become weak; we doubt ourselves; we doubt our beliefs; we doubt our institutions; and we doubt the law.

But today you are the law. You are the law…”

I believe that at the moment James Comey decided to reopen the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, America finally got its glimpse of what is true.  And that truth is the very ugly reality that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States is a traitor to this country.  I need not make that case.  In the coming weeks the truth will become more and more evident as the Clinton Inc. trail of corruption is exposed. 

We have seen enough already to know what is there: selling access and favors to foreign governments, destroying evidence under subpoena, lying to congress and obstructing justice at every turn.  Based only on what we know now from the limited evidence we the American people have been allowed to see, I don’t think anyone doubts it will all be verified in time.  I also don’t think anyone believes Hillary Clinton will ever face justice for her many crimes.

There is a deeper truth in Frank Galvin’s words.  The rich win.  If I vote for Donald Trump in order to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton, I doubt anything will substantially change.  Trump is no more than a charlatan who has tapped into the anger and frustration of the American people in order to market himself as an “America First” populist; but everything in the man’s history demonstrates that he is not “America First” but “Trump First.”

When it came to honoring his pledges of fidelity to his spouses or indulging his basest desires, Trump chose the latter.  When it came to honoring his pledges to his investors or leaving them out in the cold and cutting and running, Trump chose the latter.  Donald Trump is clearly a self-absorbed narcissist who by no stretch of the imagination deserves to be President of the United States.

If Trump wins the presidency, I imagine he will redecorate the White House to look like some outlandish New Orleans brothel.  He will hold lavish parties, and all the Washington elite (including the Obamas and the Clintons) will attend, and they will pay due homage to the newly-crowned emperor, and they will marvel at his abilities, and laugh at the yahoos in flyover country who bought his snake oil.

I believe all of this to be true.  And yet, come Tuesday I will cast the worst vote of my life.  I will vote for Donald Trump for president.  And I will do so for one reason and one reason only.  When I am alone in that voting booth I will close my eyes, wish I had another choice, and then utter to myself the only words that will matter.

“Today I am the law.”

[massadvj]

You speak for a lot of us Victor...wish I could express myself as you do.

 

[Fishrrman]

Victor, I knew you'd come around to reality.

Thanks for the post.

[catfish1957]

Nicely put, but the old curmudgeon,  stubborn , principled me just couldn't pull the lever for either of one of these turds.

I hold the 11,000,000 + who voted for Trump in the primaries accountable for the disaster.

[LateForLunch]

It would do no good to put forth any more pointed, reasoned refutation arguments in favor of Donald Trump in response to the above posts  - virtually every poster above has given strong signals in how their posts are worded that they personally are not prepared to consider any change to their position.

That is tantamount to admitting that one is a fanatic, and I have a firm policy of never entering into a substantive debate with a fanatic.

Instead I will restate what I believe is the truth for anyone who is following this thread who may be undecided.

Much has been said in prediction of that Donald Trump will do as president but the bottom line is that nobody knows for sure - regardless of past verbal or overt behavior  - people can change. Sometimes people can change a great deal in only a few months.

One of the marks of billionaire business people is adaptability. They tend to change their strategy and configure their resources (personal and logistic) to the task at hand. Career politicians like Hill-O-Lies survive by remaining exactly as they are but repackaging themselves using slick PR and propaganda tools.

For this reason, Hill-O-Lies is unlikely to change anything significantly about herself - she has behaved like an Alinskyite Marxist (albeit a softer species of tyrant than Alinsky or his heroes Trotsky or Bolivar) for her entire life, before during and after each political incarnation. She is arguably a radical socialist to the core of her being, just like the Eightball Obama.

Trump is at worst a populist. He has no proclivities to do anything other than to adapt to the needs of the time in whatever context he functions. Although he is not a principled conservative, he has chosen one as his VP, which says a  lot about what he wants to do for the nation.

If Trump wins he will want to be reelected (not even his greatest detractors have disputed the notion that he has a strong enough ego to want to be reelected) the logical thing for him to do would be to govern in such a way that he does not alienate the constituents who elected him, many (most of) them who are either anti-establishment types voting for the first time, conservatives or self-described moderates who find Hill-O-Lies obvious ideological extremism horribly disturbing. So he will likely rely on Pence for long-term policy direction and on his own instincts for adaptability to the other dictates of dominion.

At worst Trump will likely do what Slick Willie did and use the Machiavellian/Alinskyite strategery (sic) known as "triangulation" which is to take input from his own policy people (Pence, et al) the Congress and the People (through opinion polling).

That was how Slick Willie won the hearts of so many self-described "moderates" in his two terms, he compromised with his political adversaries when the polling told him that it would benefit him politically.

The advantage that Trump has over Slick Willie is that the latter became totally dominated by opinion polling and political motivations. His success in that regard changed the political landscape (especially for the 'Crats) and largely gave us both the Eightball Obama (who is also a purely political animal, not a statesman) and the Bitch (ditto). Trump has little inclination to be a purely political animal, because he has thumbed his nose at the establishment in many ways throughout his campaign and his constituents expect him to continue to be more of an iconoclast than a sock-puppet who holds his finger to the wind to sense the trend of opinion before blowing his nose the way most 'Crats and RINOs do. 

[Jazzhead]

I opposed Trump when he first announced his candidacy.   I opposed Trump during the primary battles.   I opposed Trump and called for an uprising to defeat him at the convention.   I opposed Trump and called for him to step down when Pussygate erupted. 

Now it's come down to Election Day.   Will I spit the bit?   

[LateForLunch]

I opposed Trump when he first announced his candidacy.   I opposed Trump during the primary battles.   I opposed Trump and called for an uprising to defeat him at the convention.   I opposed Trump and called for him to step down when Pussygate erupted. 

Now it's come down to Election Day.   Will I spit the bit?   

I have given up trying to convince fanatics of anything. Even of the fact that they are fanatics which most deny. A fanatic BTW, is someone who has no interest in considering substantive arguments in opposition to their own view. That would be you.

I am not fanatically pro-Trump so much as anti-Hill-O-Lies.

The argument that Trump is "just as bad and would govern just as badly" as Hill-O-Lies has always seemed contrived and specious and I think it seems that way to most fair-minded people too. Those who have invested months of emotional capital in their opposition to Trump are unlikely to have any sort of epiphany. Their own egos will be the first and foremost hurdle to overcome in that sense, because so many people identify so strongly with their opinions, that to reappraise their opinion would be tantamount to shaking the foundations of their personalities - which few people are willing to do under any circumstances, least of all ones that are based purely in an abstraction such as the "best interests of the nation".

[Smokin Joe]

It would do no good to put forth any more pointed, reasoned refutation arguments in favor of Donald Trump in response to the above posts  - virtually every poster above has given strong signals in how their posts are worded that they personally are not prepared to consider any change to their position.

That is tantamount to admitting that one is a fanatic, and I have a firm policy of never entering into a substantive debate with a fanatic.

Instead I will restate what I believe is the truth for anyone who is following this thread who may be undecided.

Much has been said in prediction of that Donald Trump will do as president but the bottom line is that nobody knows for sure - regardless of past verbal or overt behavior  - people can change. Sometimes people can change a great deal in only a few months.

One of the marks of billionaire business people is adaptability. They tend to change their strategy and configure their resources (personal and logistic) to the task at hand. Career politicians like Hill-O-Lies survive by remaining exactly as they are but repackaging themselves using slick PR and propaganda tools.

For this reason, Hill-O-Lies is unlikely to change anything significantly about herself - she has behaved like an Alinskyite Marxist (albeit a softer species of tyrant than Alinsky or his heroes Trotsky or Bolivar) for her entire life, before during and after each political incarnation. She is arguably a radical socialist to the core of her being, just like the Eightball Obama.

Trump is at worst a populist. He has no proclivities to do anything other than to adapt to the needs of the time in whatever context he functions. Although he is not a principled conservative, he has chosen one as his VP, which says a  lot about what he wants to do for the nation.

If Trump wins he will want to be reelected (not even his greatest detractors have disputed the notion that he has a strong enough ego to want to be reelected) the logical thing for him to do would be to govern in such a way that he does not alienate the constituents who elected him, many (most of) them who are either anti-establishment types voting for the first time, conservatives or self-described moderates who find Hill-O-Lies obvious ideological extremism horribly disturbing. So he will likely rely on Pence for long-term policy direction and on his own instincts for adaptability to the other dictates of dominion.

At worst Trump will likely do what Slick Willie did and use the Machiavellian/Alinskyite strategery (sic) known as "triangulation" which is to take input from his own policy people (Pence, et al) the Congress and the People (through opinion polling).

That was how Slick Willie won the hearts of so many self-described "moderates" in his two terms, he compromised with his political adversaries when the polling told him that it would benefit him politically.

The advantage that Trump has over Slick Willie is that the latter became totally dominated by opinion polling and political motivations. His success in that regard changed the political landscape (especially for the 'Crats) and largely gave us both the Eightball Obama (who is also a purely political animal, not a statesman) and the Bitch (ditto). Trump has little inclination to be a purely political animal, because he has thumbed his nose at the establishment in many ways throughout his campaign and his constituents expect him to continue to be more of an iconoclast than a sock-puppet who holds his finger to the wind to sense the trend of opinion before blowing his nose the way most 'Crats and RINOs do.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen much change in yours, despite the opinions of others being rendered repeatedly on the threads. Apparently your mind will not be changed, your position remains unswayed.

Be careful who you label "fanatic". I think that might fit more than you think.

[Jazzhead]

I have given up trying to convince fanatics of anything. Even of the fact that they are fanatics which most deny. A fanatic BTW, is someone who has no interest in considering substantive arguments in opposition to their own view. That would be you.

I am not fanatically pro-Trump so much as anti-Hill-O-Lies.

The argument that Trump is "just as bad and would govern just as badly" as Hill-O-Lies has always seemed contrived and specious and I think it seems that way to most fair-minded people too. Those who have invested months of emotional capital in their opposition to Trump are unlikely to have any sort of epiphany. Their own egos will be the first and foremost hurdle to overcome in that sense, because so many people identify so strongly with their opinions, that to reappraise their opinion would be tantamount to shaking the foundations of their personalities - which few people are willing to do under any circumstances, least of all ones that are based purely in an abstraction such as the "best interests of the nation".

I am no fanatic, sir.   I am saddened by the choice we face.   I do not want to choose between two evils,  and wish I didn't live in a swing state so I could have the luxury of casting a vote for a man I believe in, in a year where the two major parties offer a choice between a new Nixon or a new Mussolini.   

I feel uncomfortable doing what Sink did by voting for a fine, honest, uncorruptable individual like Evan McMullin.  I wish I could do just that and sleep soundly.  But here in Pennsylvania,  which could decide the whole enchilada?   Is it a cop-out to remain neutral?    This is a decision that is tearing at me.  And you label me a "fanatic".

You have no idea the pain this election is causing good folks,  in cities and towns all across this land.