2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[dsayers]

if Trump wins the press will suddenly be anti-corruption and anti-war again, perhaps in greater vigor than ever.

How do you know? All statists are minarchists because they only want people to be forced to do what THEY think should be done. Who are any of us to decided that X (what the press that nobody takes seriously anyways MIGHT say) is worth supporting the enslavement of everybody else?!

 

Trump said it today in his AMA on Reddit. You can't fixed a rigged system by rehiring the ones who rigged it.

Poisoning the well. Nobody is hiring anything. The system isn't rigged; It's working exactly how telling a human being they exist is a different, opposing moral category would work.

 

shirgall, I've tried to be polite because I know you're an intelligent and rational person. However, you haven't provided a single argument, so I must be blunt with you also: You don't own me. When you step into that voting booth, YOU are pretending you have powers that YOU do not have, telling other people they have powers that they can't have and you can't give. It's a sham. It doesn't do anything. It wastes time. It suggests you are not free in your own mind. And it tells other people that the system, that the process, and that human subjugation is valid. You have no reason to suspect that your action will have any outcome other than increased State power, which you would have participated in and therefore contributed to. Shame on you for knowing better and pretending differently for the sake of your comfort in the moment.

 

Look at all these wasted resources that could instead be spent making an actual step towards freedom in the world :*(

 

ok, and what am I saying that's different the Stefan?

Appeal to authority. You're running out of ways to deflect :/

[jpahmad]

 

 

Appeal to authority. You're running out of ways to deflect :/

 

no, I'm just curious if there is a marked difference between the things I have been saying and Stefan.  You do share Stefan's videos.  So I think it's safe to assume that there are things with his way of thinking that you agree with.  I am basically reiterating something that Stefan has been preaching for some time now, and you blast me for it. It's a little baffling.  Also, I suggested to Stefan myself while on the phone with him (during a call in show) that maybe it is a good idea to partake in the political process this time around.  He brought up good reasons why it might not matter or make a difference if we vote, but he did say that Trump was a possible exception.  So, with all due respect to Stefan, I had it made up in my mind well before that call in show that perhaps voting in this election would be beneficial to the cause.

 

I can understand if you agree with most everything Stefan puts out there with the exception of voting.  If this is the case, then fine.  I get it.  I'm just asking for you to clarify this.  But if you agree with his support for Trump, and blast me for showing that same enthusiasm, then I think you can understand that it's a little confusing.

[Wuzzums]

 

 

You don't own me. When you step into that voting booth, YOU are pretending you have powers that YOU do not have, telling other people they have powers that they can't have and you can't give. It's a sham. It doesn't do anything. It wastes time. 

Look at all these wasted resources that could instead be spent making an actual step towards freedom in the world :*(

 

 

These statements equally apply to your stance.

[Tyler H]

No he is not a statist.

 

As to him changing his position his timing couldn't be better.

 

Here is what he said before which still hold true in my opinion.

 

https://youtu.be/kB6uQcGo60I

 

Here is why he thinks Trump is different.

 

https://youtu.be/bDDArjG2A6c

 

Personally I don't vote because I don't accept the idea of rulers and even if Trump is the savior people believe him to be I have no faith whatsoever that you can join the mafia and turn it into a charity.

I'm totally open to the fact that this could be my bias - but I'm having difficulty pulling from the videos the evidence as to why Trump's different. You can say he's self-funded, but given his success we know that he's not against using political power to further his own ends; by becoming a politician he circumvents the need to pay for policy which he can enact himself. Everything else I heard in the video (as well as this call) was conjecture and speculation on Trump's motives. Again, if I failed to see the evidence due to my own bias or lack of intelligence please point them out, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

I'd also like to pose the query as to why, when Stef mentioned the addiction to political power, he specifically called out democrats, as if republicans and Trump are not susceptible to this addiction. I think it's statements like these that are causing some of us to raise our hands and say "wait....what?"

[shirgall]

How do you know? All statists are minarchists because they only want people to be forced to do what THEY think should be done. Who are any of us to decided that X (what the press that nobody takes seriously anyways MIGHT say) is worth supporting the enslavement of everybody else?!

 

Poisoning the well. Nobody is hiring anything. The system isn't rigged; It's working exactly how telling a human being they exist is a different, opposing moral category would work.

 

shirgall, I've tried to be polite because I know you're an intelligent and rational person. However, you haven't provided a single argument, so I must be blunt with you also: You don't own me. When you step into that voting booth, YOU are pretending you have powers that YOU do not have, telling other people they have powers that they can't have and you can't give. It's a sham. It doesn't do anything. It wastes time. It suggests you are not free in your own mind. And it tells other people that the system, that the process, and that human subjugation is valid. You have no reason to suspect that your action will have any outcome other than increased State power, which you would have participated in and therefore contributed to. Shame on you for knowing better and pretending differently for the sake of your comfort in the moment.

 

Look at all these wasted resources that could instead be spent making an actual step towards freedom in the world :*(

 

I expect the Press to be just as annoying to Trump as they have been to Bush (either one), Reagan, Ford, and Nixon as far as I've seen in my own life. I've read they were far worse to "conservatives" in past.

 

"I've tried to be polite" is poisoning the well too, by the way, but I'll avoid getting hung up on trivialities.

 

I don't own anyone, I'm not responsible for anything anyone else does, but no one that oppresses either you or me does anything differently if I vote or I do not.

 

When I step into the voting booth (well, when I sit at my desk with a pen and a stamp) I have the power to do so delegated to me (and the state even claims I have a right to vote that they are not permitted to interfere with) to make a mark on a piece of paper that supposedly will change something. I have never seen it have any effect positive or negative. I got people to vote for me as a Ron Paul delegate. Were those people oppressing everyone by leveraging the system? Was I? I got people to vote for me when I ran as a Libertarian in Southwest Portland. Were they oppressing everyone? Was I? Those people voted for freedom, and the Democrat that won never said anything about the race except that she won and I was the devil incarnate.

 

I have never had anyone tell me besides you that my voting legitimizes anything that matters (the Ron Paul thing didn't end up mattering), including the "we all signed a social contract" advocates. To most the fact I don't just leave is endorsement of the way things are where I live. It may be the wrong view of things when considered deeply, but that is what most people think. I have the faintest glimmer of hope that some percentage of people voting against a bond measure means that government can't just do anything and spend everyone else's money. Little else seems to matter.

 

Free in my own mind? I carve out as much freedom as a I can without getting shot, ostracized, or unemployed. Maybe sometimes I'm a cagey bastard. Maybe sometimes I'm in somebody's face that's trying to give me shit. But I'm alive and kicking and that's more effective than isolated, ignored, or dead.

[dsayers]

These statements equally apply to your stance.

Show me where I've claimed to own anybody, to have powers nobody has, told others they have powers nobody has, or tried to give somebody that which I don't have to give. I'll bet when you're unable to, you don't retract this claim :/

 

I have never had anyone tell me besides you that my voting legitimizes anything that matters

This is an appeal to popularity and therefore not an argument. It's also moving the goalposts since previously, your null hypothesis was that it doesn't legitimize anything. Since I have explained how it does, now it's that only I have said so. This isn't even considering my input or the possibility that you could be mistaken. You have yet to put forth a single argument or answer a single challenge. Why is this?

[shirgall]

This is an appeal to popularity and therefore not an argument. It's also moving the goalposts since previously, your null hypothesis was that it doesn't legitimize anything. Since I have explained how it does, now it's that only I have said so. This isn't even considering my input or the possibility that you could be mistaken. You have yet to put forth a single argument or answer a single challenge. Why is this?

 

I never claimed it was an argument, I claimed it was empirical data. I could be mistaken, sure, but I don't see what difference it makes. You accepted that my actions were being pragmatic, not moral.

 

If I use a mechanism of the government to prevent injury to another, am I being immoral by using force? Sure, but I'm being pragmatic by following the Doctrine of Competing Harms.

 

I am not trying to antagonize you, that was never my intention. My intention is to point out that this debate is akin to dancing angels on the head of the pin. There are far greater evils afoot than a particular individual voting or not just to save himself some taxes and maybe (doubtfully) sway things to a judge that prefers to hear cases with victims over cases about "because I said so" laws.

[Wuzzums]

You don't own me. When you step into that voting booth, YOU are pretending you have powers that YOU do not have, telling other people they have powers that they can't have and you can't give. It's a sham. It doesn't do anything. It wastes time. It suggests you are not free in your own mind. And it tells other people that the system, that the process, and that human subjugation is valid. You have no reason to suspect that your action will have any outcome other than increased State power, which you would have participated in and therefore contributed to. Shame on you for knowing better and pretending differently for the sake of your comfort in the moment.

 

Look at all these wasted resources that could instead be spent making an actual step towards freedom in the world :*(

 

You don't own anybody therefore people have the right to vote.

You are pretending to hold powers by claiming not voting is actually conducive towards a better society, and your are trying to recruit others into your line of thinking.

It's a sham. Not voting doesn't do anything. You're wasting our time here.

You're suggesting people are acting like slaves for wanting to vote. You're telling people that casting the dice and standing up for their choice is tantamount to subjugation.

You, dsayers, have no EMPIRICAL evidence that your lack of spine is what's needed to decrease the state.

Shame on you for criticizing people that actually wanna stand up for something that JUST HAPPENS to not be how you want people to act.

 

Look at all this time you wasted on this forum trying to stop people from DOING SOMETHING instead of doing something yourself.

 

 

Rome is burning, son. Get a bucket or shut up.

[dsayers]

You accepted that my actions were being pragmatic, not moral.

For clarity's sake, I don't see all that which is amoral as being pragmatic or not. Also, I did NOT accept that you were being pragmatic. In fact, I've twice claimed that because you are expending effort when you know it will have no effect, you are not being pragmatic. This is one of the challenges that I see as having gone unanswered.

 

I do not wish to antagonize others either FWIW. As a man of integrity, I would want contradictions within me brought to my attention. As such, I'm trying to show others that political voting is antithetical to the acceptance of property rights and in a way that both legitimized AND perpetuates the machine.

[shirgall]

For clarity's sake, I don't see all that which is amoral as being pragmatic or not. Also, I did NOT accept that you were being pragmatic. In fact, I've twice claimed that because you are expending effort when you know it will have no effect, you are not being pragmatic. This is one of the challenges that I see as having gone unanswered.

 

I do not wish to antagonize others either FWIW. As a man of integrity, I would want contradictions within me brought to my attention. As such, I'm trying to show others that political voting is antithetical to the acceptance of property rights and in a way that both legitimized AND perpetuates the machine.

 

But, contrarily, fighting taxes on my property by voting against a bond measure whose passage relies on simple majority of those who voted and does not account for those who do not is fighting FOR my property rights. The effort I expend by sending in my ballot to avoid $20/mo in taxes on my house is not unbalanced. It's bad that I can be forced to pay rents on property I supposedly own, but there is no mechanism short of rebellion to prevent it. Voting seems a safer alternative.

[Tyler H]

But, contrarily, fighting taxes on my property by voting against a bond measure whose passage relies on simple majority of those who voted and does not account for those who do not is fighting FOR my property rights. The effort I expend by sending in my ballot to avoid $20/mo in taxes on my house is not unbalanced. It's bad that I can be forced to pay rents on property I supposedly own, but there is no mechanism short of rebellion to prevent it. Voting seems a safer alternative.

I think you have point here - I think there is a difference between voting on ballot measures that do not initiate or mitigate the use of force and voting for a politician. 

 

-Edited for a grammatical error-

[dsayers]

You don't own anybody

...and never claimed to.

 

You are pretending to hold powers

No I'm not.

 

Not voting doesn't do anything.

Inaction isn't action. I've said as much many times and never said otherwise.

 

You're suggesting people are acting like slaves for wanting to vote.

Saying to somebody who claims to own you "I agree" is acting like a slave. It's not a suggestion, it's an observation for which you have no refutation, hence the deflection, the making stuff up, etc.

 

your lack of spine

Yes, standing against the current of emotional flood waters is completely spineless.

 

Shame on you for criticizing people

It's called ostracism and like my body, it's mine to dispense how I see fit. By saying this, you are criticizing me, making this an arbitrary, meant to exempt yourself standard. Which is self-detonating or evil depending on your intent.

 

Look at all this time you wasted on this forum trying to stop people

I'm not trying to stop anybody. I'm trying to hold up a mirror and hope that they'll realize that pretending property rights are invalid is contrary to the acceptance of property rights so that they will do the right thing of their own accord.

Notice how you're pointing at me as opposed to making any arguments? Oh, and don't think for a second that I'm the only person who sees this.

 

shirgall, you've shifted from presidential to local several times now. Are you not willing to answer the challenges made of the claims you've put forth regarding the presidential election? I reject your claim that asking your masters to whip you softer is fighting FOR your property rights. $20 off a month is still $X on where X > 20 by no small margin I expect. I understand the temptation. Still, voting is cooperating with people who claim to have the power to own other people. They have no reason to suspect that they don't, because... hey... look at how everybody plays along.

 

You can sell yourself all you like, but you don't have the power to sell your children and your neighbors.

[Wuzzums]

Notice how you're pointing at me as opposed to making any arguments? Oh, and don't think for a second that I'm the only person who sees this.

 

I'm gonna repeat myself again and say: that statement applies to you equally.

[dsayers]

I'm gonna repeat myself again and say: that statement applies to you equally.

Detractors are not offering arguments. Just logical fallacies and yummy downvotes to demonstrate the emotional root that the lack of integrity embodies. And I HAVE responded to those. You just keep making false claims with no circling back to correct for them once they're revealed to be false. Totally called that one too.

 

[powder]

But, contrarily, fighting taxes on my property by voting against a bond measure whose passage relies on simple majority of those who voted and does not account for those who do not is fighting FOR my property rights. The effort I expend by sending in my ballot to avoid $20/mo in taxes on my house is not unbalanced. It's bad that I can be forced to pay rents on property I supposedly own, but there is no mechanism short of rebellion to prevent it. Voting seems a safer alternative.

I have been an anarchist since before I was old enough to vote.  So I have only ever voted once in my life.  The smallish city that I live in now had a referendum to give the city permission to build a 36 million dollar sports facility.  It would increase property taxes by about $20 yr. they claimed.  I was also working in a private sports facility that would likely go out of business if it had to compete with this new complex, I voted 'no'.  The 'yes' vote won.  The facility ended up costing over 60 million, has been a $ pit ever since, and the private club where I went, and others went out of business.  

 

Last year, the city had another referendum, an arts facility that would supposedly cost about 90million, and increase property taxes for home owners by about $40 yr.  I did not vote, on principle.  

 

I got a bit of attention for my philosophical stance on the issue.  I am well known here as a musician and esp as an artist (painter) so it was assumed I would be in favor of the project and I was actively being recruited for the 'yes' campaign.  I was interviewed by the newspaper because there was a heated local debate between left and right, liberals and conservatives, and I was bringing in a completely different perspective.  I think it made some people think, and consider property rights and freedom in a way that had not occurred to them before.  

 

It made a difference for the future because I know a number of people took what I said seriously and decided to look into it further.  

[jpahmad]

Detractors are not offering arguments. Just logical fallacies and yummy downvotes to demonstrate the emotional root that the lack of integrity embodies. And I HAVE responded to those. You just keep making false claims with no circling back to correct for them once they're revealed to be false. Totally called that one too.

 

 

no, I'm just curious if there is a marked difference between the things I have been saying and Stefan.  You do share Stefan's videos.  So I think it's safe to assume that there are things with his way of thinking that you agree with.  I am basically reiterating something that Stefan has been preaching for some time now, and you blast me for it. It's a little baffling.  Also, I suggested to Stefan myself while on the phone with him (during a call in show) that maybe it is a good idea to partake in the political process this time around.  He brought up good reasons why it might not matter or make a difference if we vote, but he did say that Trump was a possible exception.  So, with all due respect to Stefan, I had it made up in my mind well before that call in show that perhaps voting in this election would be beneficial to the cause.

 

I can understand if you agree with most everything Stefan puts out there with the exception of voting.  If this is the case, then fine.  I get it.  I'm just asking for you to clarify this.  But if you agree with his support for Trump, and blast me for showing that same enthusiasm, then I think you can understand that it's a little confusing.

[Tyler H]

Detractors are not offering arguments. Just logical fallacies and yummy downvotes to demonstrate the emotional root that the lack of integrity embodies. And I HAVE responded to those. You just keep making false claims with no circling back to correct for them once they're revealed to be false. Totally called that one too.

 

Lol, this deserves to be posted here.

[Wuzzums]

Detractors are not offering arguments. Just logical fallacies and yummy downvotes to demonstrate the emotional root that the lack of integrity embodies. And I HAVE responded to those. You just keep making false claims with no circling back to correct for them once they're revealed to be false. Totally called that one too.

 

 

[dsayers]

you blast me for it

Personalization, poisoning the well, bias, projection, and false dichotomy. You're saying that I have to agree with you or else I'm blasting you. This is precisely the division I was referencing before. I've tried having a conversation with you. I've made rational arguments and challenges. All you've done is this bullshit.

 

You don't own me is a statement of fact, not blasting you. You are free to attempt to prove otherwise. Until you do, you are advocating the transfer of that ownership to somebody else, which you do not have the right to do. Which means even if I WERE blasting you, it would be called for. It would be more defensive than you voting because if X gets elected, your life wouldn't change if you were free in your own mind. But if you vote, you are actively trying to transfer ownership of me to somebody else. Hypocrite.

[Wuzzums]

But if you vote, you are actively trying to transfer ownership of me to somebody else.

 

GOOD.

[Tyler H]

GOOD.

Dude, really?

[Wuzzums]

Dude, really?

Just trying to trigger him. Don't tell me I accidentally triggered you?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I fail to see what is a) hard to understand or b) confusing - about this election cycle.

 

Immigration is the only issue that matters. If it's not tackled now - the United States is done. Any hope of limited government is through for generations and generations.

 

Trump is the only candidate who is talking serious about immigration - and the reason he is believed is due to his uniqueness as a unprecedented type of candidate.

 

People who understand that not handling the immigration issue means the death of America - like Trump. It's not complicated.

 

People who don't understand that not handing the immigration issue means the death of America - feign concern that Trump's steak licensing agreement didn't make millions of dollars or cloak him in evil sounding language. Muh Hitler! Hillary Clinton is far scarier than Donald Trump could be on his worst day. If you disagree with that, you haven't examined with of them with enough detail absent bias and hysteria. Many weak, pathetic and unsuccessful people don't like Trump because he reminds them daily how weak, pathetic and unsuccessful they are - somebody like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush doesn't.

 

If you don't get Trump - you don't understand the immigration issue and what it means for the future of Western Civilization.

 

There are tons of pro open borders related immigration studies which fall apart under the smallest scrutiny - but I can understand if people don't have the time to actually read them critically or aren't smart enough to see the flaws in the data/arguments/logic. I suggest people look critically at these pro-immigration arguments - I have yet to hear one that doesn't fall apart under the slightest weight of an educated counterpoint. We've debunked a bunch of them on the show - and there have been no shortage of shows on Immigration as a topic.

 

If you don't understand why people like Trump - you should retire from any semblance of intellectual discussion.

 

This post is so dark I needed to use a flashlight to read it. When I did read your dark words the inside of my mind went pitch black and I fainted. Luckily an illegal immigrant ran out in front on me to close my computer screen. He now he lies motionless on the floor before me, and I am left only with a tiny, intricate scar resembling a skyscraper below my forehead, just between my eyes.

 

Damn you logic-based people I will have my revenge!!!

[Tyler H]

I fail to see what is a) hard to understand or b) confusing - about this election cycle.  Who is this directed at?  Who said they are confused or didn't understand this election cycle?

 

Immigration is the only issue that matters. If it's not tackled now - the United States is done. Any hope of limited government is through for generations and generations. How do you know this? Also, why are we hoping for limited government when the goal is no government?

 

Trump is the only candidate who is talking serious about immigration - and the reason he is believed is due to his uniqueness as a unprecedented type of candidate.  Other than self-funding, unprecedented how?

 

People who understand that not handling the immigration issue means the death of America - like Trump. It's not complicated.  Yes, it's not complicated that if they think that they would like Trump.  However, how do we know the "death of America" is a) a bad thing b) will be caused by immigration or c) preventable by Trump?

 

People who don't understand that not handing the immigration issue means the death of America - feign concern that Trump's steak licensing agreement didn't make millions of dollars or cloak him in evil sounding language. Muh Hitler! Hillary Clinton is far scarier than Donald Trump could be on his worst day. If you disagree with that, you haven't examined with of them with enough detail absent bias and hysteria. Many weak, pathetic and unsuccessful people don't like Trump because he reminds them daily how weak, pathetic and unsuccessful they are - somebody like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush doesn't.  I don't think a single person argued against him on any of those points, although it's possible I missed one due to the moderator approval process postponing posts.

 

If you don't get Trump - you don't understand the immigration issue and what it means for the future of Western Civilization.  Saying "if you don't get...if you don't understand...people who understand" is presuming your argument is the correct one without offering any evidence and attacking someone's intelligence who doesn't agree with you.

 

There are tons of pro open borders related immigration studies which fall apart under the smallest scrutiny - but I can understand if people don't have the time to actually read them critically or aren't smart enough to see the flaws in the data/arguments/logic. I suggest people look critically at these pro-immigration arguments - I have yet to hear one that doesn't fall apart under the slightest weight of an educated counterpoint. We've debunked a bunch of them on the show - and there have been no shortage of shows on Immigration as a topic.  I don't think anyone here is pro-immigration.

 

If you don't understand why people like Trump - you should retire from any semblance of intellectual discussion.  I understand why people like Trump.  I even understand why some libertarians like Trump.  What I don't understand is why Trump is different from any other politician (aside from self-funding which I addressed in post #180), so different in fact that Stef would change his mind on the efficacy and immorality of voting. These are the points that have not been addressed in any posts or podcasts brought forth in this toreador the original.  I am certainly open to hear arguments, in fact I am desperate to be persuaded - mainly because without them the thought keeps popping into my head that the support for Trump by Stef is either real and an abandonment of values, or an attempt to boost viewership by withholding principles.  I don't think that's true and I don't want that to be true.  

 

My experience of your post (and the ones against jrodefeld) was not that you were interested in changing anyone's mind, but making them feel stupid for disagreeing.  If this is not the case then I apologize.  

I'm probably not even close to the intellectual mean in this community, but I don't think that sarcasm and condescension is the way for us to help those of us who are less perspicacious understand complex arguments.   I don't say these things for any reason but that I believe them to be a deviation from your own values and hope that if I am right you may see it and if I am wrong I can try to figure out why I thought it was so and profusely apologize.

[Tyler H]

Just trying to trigger him. Don't tell me I accidentally triggered you?

No I just didn't think it would devolve to that level.

[jpahmad]

Personalization, poisoning the well, bias, projection, and false dichotomy. 

 

Can you please reply like a normal person dsayers?  Jesus, I can't imagine what it would be like being married to you. Lol!

[Wuzzums]

No I just didn't think it would devolve to that level.

You must not have been reading most of his recent posts, then.

[Tyler H]

You must not have been reading most of his recent posts, then.

It's been gradual, what you said really hit me. I think it's important to remember that while we disagree on this topic we are on the same side here and want the same results more or less.

 

 

I would also like to add that of course if Trump or Johnson (however unlikely) were to win I would prefer that to Hillary - especially if she ends up being prosecuted as a result (however unlikely). My objection to voting is a moral one that I can't justify through self defense or the argument for effect.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

 

I fail to see what is a) hard to understand or b) confusing - about this election cycle.  Who is this directed at?  Who said they are confused or didn't understand this election cycle?

 

Immigration is the only issue that matters. If it's not tackled now - the United States is done. Any hope of limited government is through for generations and generations. How do you know this? Also, why are we hoping for limited government when the goal is no government?

 

Trump is the only candidate who is talking serious about immigration - and the reason he is believed is due to his uniqueness as a unprecedented type of candidate.  Other than self-funding, unprecedented how?

 

People who understand that not handling the immigration issue means the death of America - like Trump. It's not complicated.  Yes, it's not complicated that if they think that they would like Trump.  However, how do we know the "death of America" is a) a bad thing b) will be caused by immigration or c) preventable by Trump?

 

People who don't understand that not handing the immigration issue means the death of America - feign concern that Trump's steak licensing agreement didn't make millions of dollars or cloak him in evil sounding language. Muh Hitler! Hillary Clinton is far scarier than Donald Trump could be on his worst day. If you disagree with that, you haven't examined with of them with enough detail absent bias and hysteria. Many weak, pathetic and unsuccessful people don't like Trump because he reminds them daily how weak, pathetic and unsuccessful they are - somebody like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush doesn't.  I don't think a single person argued against him on any of those points, although it's possible I missed one due to the moderator approval process postponing posts.

 

If you don't get Trump - you don't understand the immigration issue and what it means for the future of Western Civilization.  Saying "if you don't get...if you don't understand...people who understand" is presuming your argument is the correct one without offering any evidence and attacking someone's intelligence who doesn't agree with you.

 

There are tons of pro open borders related immigration studies which fall apart under the smallest scrutiny - but I can understand if people don't have the time to actually read them critically or aren't smart enough to see the flaws in the data/arguments/logic. I suggest people look critically at these pro-immigration arguments - I have yet to hear one that doesn't fall apart under the slightest weight of an educated counterpoint. We've debunked a bunch of them on the show - and there have been no shortage of shows on Immigration as a topic.  I don't think anyone here is pro-immigration.

 

If you don't understand why people like Trump - you should retire from any semblance of intellectual discussion.  I understand why people like Trump.  I even understand why some libertarians like Trump.  What I don't understand is why Trump is different from any other politician (aside from self-funding which I addressed in post #180), so different in fact that Stef would change his mind on the efficacy and immorality of voting. These are the points that have not been addressed in any posts or podcasts brought forth in this toreador the original.  I am certainly open to hear arguments, in fact I am desperate to be persuaded - mainly because without them the thought keeps popping into my head that the support for Trump by Stef is either real and an abandonment of values, or an attempt to boost viewership by withholding principles.  I don't think that's true and I don't want that to be true.  

 

My experience of your post (and the ones against jrodefeld) was not that you were interested in changing anyone's mind, but making them feel stupid for disagreeing.  If this is not the case then I apologize.  

I'm probably not even close to the intellectual mean in this community, but I don't think that sarcasm and condescension is the way for us to help those of us who are less perspicacious understand complex arguments.   I don't say these things for any reason but that I believe them to be a deviation from your own values and hope that if I am right you may see it and if I am wrong I can try to figure out why I thought it was so and profusely apologize.

 

 

It's almost as if you don't even watch/listen to the show.

[Crallask]

 

My experience of your post (and the ones against jrodefeld) was not that you were interested in changing anyone's mind, but making them feel stupid for disagreeing.  If this is not the case then I apologize.  

I'm probably not even close to the intellectual mean in this community, but I don't think that sarcasm and condescension is the way for us to help those of us who are less perspicacious understand complex arguments.   I don't say these things for any reason but that I believe them to be a deviation from your own values and hope that if I am right you may see it and if I am wrong I can try to figure out why I thought it was so and profusely apologize.

I think an important point to remember is that they've done various videos covering the data he was referencing here. 

 

They've already done huge amounts of work in terms of making this knowledge more accessible for the average reader. 

 

So the fact that people kind of ignore those videos (or don't watch them) would seem to indicate either a lack of effort or a lack of honesty from those going against their statements. 

[whirlingmerc]

I will vote but I think the VP choices are better than both the presidential choices

[Guest Gee]

I think it's important to remember that while we disagree on this topic we are on the same side here and want the same results more or less.

 

I don't think I agree.

 

If you accept that to not vote/support Trump is to increase the probability of Hillary winning.

If you accept that Hillary winning is to increase the probability of less freedom.

If you accept that to not vote/support is a choice.

Then you are making a choice to increase the likleyhood of less freedom.

 

If this is team increasing freedom, then I don't think we are on the same side.

[Tyler H]

I think an important point to remember is that they've done various videos covering the data he was referencing here. 

 

They've already done huge amounts of work in terms of making this knowledge more accessible for the average reader. 

 

So the fact that people kind of ignore those videos (or don't watch them) would seem to indicate either a lack of effort or a lack of honesty from those going against their statements.

 

If that's the case what's wrong with saying just that? Wouldn't that be the most honest thing to say? Why is it that the questions can't be answered here in a post? And that making mere objections and counter arguments to posts warrants a down vote? I said I haven't seen them all so if an argument I put forward was addressed already that I apologized and would like to be shown. I watched the ones put forward and some related others which did not address the arguments I put forward. Does this qualify as ignoring?

[powder]

no, I'm just curious if there is a marked difference between the things I have been saying and Stefan.  You do share Stefan's videos.  So I think it's safe to assume that there are things with his way of thinking that you agree with.  I am basically reiterating something that Stefan has been preaching for some time now, and you blast me for it. It's a little baffling.  Also, I suggested to Stefan myself while on the phone with him (during a call in show) that maybe it is a good idea to partake in the political process this time around.  He brought up good reasons why it might not matter or make a difference if we vote, but he did say that Trump was a possible exception.  So, with all due respect to Stefan, I had it made up in my mind well before that call in show that perhaps voting in this election would be beneficial to the cause.

 

I can understand if you agree with most everything Stefan puts out there with the exception of voting.  If this is the case, then fine.  I get it.  I'm just asking for you to clarify this.  But if you agree with his support for Trump, and blast me for showing that same enthusiasm, then I think you can understand that it's a little confusing.

Yes, this, I agree with most everything Stef says except his 'endorsement' of Trump.  I would prefer to be able to share his videos and messages on other topics but I can't argue the case for voting and Trumpism for the reasons put forward in this thread by unmarried people like dsayers.  

[Gavitor]

What makes trump unprecedented is that not only is he bringing up genuine problems with the country and concerns the average citizen has but he is also using the medias tactics against them to propel himself forward.

 

As far as America falling, If I understand them correctly the issue is not so much America falling but western values falling. America is still closest to those values despite straying so far from them. Basically they understand that if you replace America with Americastan the world has a high chance of regressing back to a dark ages type scenario.

 

Essentially if Trump becomes president and actually accomplishes anything its possible he can buy a few more generations giving people a chance to raise more anarchists and eventually have the state become obsolete in peoples minds.

 

I however have absolutely NO faith in the system whatsoever and don't trust anyone with that kind of power.

 

As far as what Stef says, he said in a recent video that you should be thinking for yourself. Not just blindly accepting what he says.

 

Considering its been known for a while that elections can be rigged and the electoral college has final say I don't get why you have any faith that your vote means a damn thing. As a reminder America is not an out right democracy, Its a democratic republic where you pick someone else to vote for you.

 

Honestly I'd like Trump to win out of curiosity if he is actually able to get anything done. Even if trump is anything close to the savior some make him out to be I don't think he can join the mafia and turn them into a charity.

 

On the bright side he has done a lot of good just running because he is showing everyone who isn't 100% stuck in their ways that the media is completely full of shit and is nothing more than a propaganda machine.

 

If you have faith in the system and accept someone else as your ruler then by all means vote. I however have not been given a compelling reason as to why I should accept someone as my ruler.