I'm jumping off the FDR TRUMP TRAIN!! PEACE OUT YALL!!!

[davidhodges71]

Hey Guys and Gals.... Honestly, it's been a tough day for me. So much anticipation prior to the debate last night. I guess you could say I fell hook, line and sinker for the hype. It was very disappointing the way Donald Trump performed. I was hoping that his message would have evolved further by this point compared to the past year. I was hoping all of his mud sling, shit talk and emotional reactions, in the past year were an intentional, calculated act; and like many americans probably wondered the same. I guess that was the best way to frame it all along. IN MY OPINION, I think we saw the TRUE Trump. I was not impressed whatsoever. I've been listening religiously to FDR for over 4 years now and have grown by leaps in bounds. I have grown alongside Stef too. I believe it is soon time for Stef to come out and talk about the poor performance, attitude and incompetencies of Trump. Perhaps Stef would like to wait until after the election? That's fine. But I'm jumping off the FDR TRUMP TRAIN. I'm going back to my quiet study of how to be a moral anarchist until all of this election cycle blows over. I guess Im saying... I have had enough. I'll catch yall on the flip side of this muther fucking election season!!!

[DaVinci]

I watched the debate too, and yeah it was typical Trump, but I don't think he can suddenly become this eloquent master speaker who pauses politely to let duckies cross the road. 

 

In other words he can't really let up on being Trump because then what is he doing? Playing the politics game by their ridiculous rules? 

[Matthew Moran]

I am reading headlines of people praising Trump for "restraint" he showed, and that pisses me off because that is the complete opposite of what made Trump so appealing in the first place. He specifically decided not to say things he planned to say about Bill's rape accusations, and that is troubling in terms of what it might indicate about his conscience. If he goes into the next debate and shows less restraint and is more focused on what specific and clear points he wants to make to the American people about the truth of the Clinton's, then I will be more hopeful, but at this point I am also disappointed he did not do this as effectively as it seemed he maybe could have in the first debate. 

 

The moderator was clearly biased but Trump didn't seem to have any trouble saying whatever he wanted because of his impressive command of the conversation. The fact that he chose to focus on minutia with the command he was capable of makes his strong assertiveness sort of aimless and somewhat empty.

[Pod]

Ho'd up. 

 

You stopped studying ethics and philosophy to follow Trump?  Can't you do both?

[Wuzzums]

I feel what you're saying but I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm going full-Trump, mainly because it's more entertaining this way, partly because you can't really back off on a bet.

 

His performance was lacking, sure, but Trump works in mysterious ways. He has a plan for us all and it's going to be yuge.

[Boss]

I normally dont watch these political debates but I just checked it out on youtube 2x speed after multiple reports of a poor performance. One thing that sticks out was when Hillary said something like "Trump may not be paying taxes and that money could have gone to the disabled vets". I was thinking Trump just did a fund raiser and donated $6 million to them without coercion. Trump could have brought the idea of the NAP! You can donate without guns. I just checked how many people watched and its over 84 million. Anyways back to the OP I do feel Trump held back but im sure he knows what happen and will take the gloves off in the next one. With a totally unfair hit job moderator and non-critical questions being asked, that is the only option.

As far as how Hillary performed. I felt she left the idea of the future of the U.S under her presidency.
"There is NO doubts now that Russia has used cyber attacks against US organizations and I am deeply concerned about this" - Hillary Clinton 

 

[shirgall]

I agree the debate wasn't the roast I was hoping for, but I'm not ready to give up. I think he should have stopped when he landed a punch and started to ramble and his explanations could have been clearer. Those explanations came across as being in the "uncanny valley" of not being practiced enough but also not "off the cuff" either, which misses the marks for both "heartfelt" and "clear".

 

There's a couple more debates and October surprises to come. As a mail ballot voter, some of those have less impact in my state than others, but I'm cautiously optimistic that I'll see the evisceration of popular tropes in the near future.

[jpahmad]

What does Trump's debate performance have to do with whether you'll vote for him or not?  I mean, how does it change anything fundamentally?

[powder]

What if Trump's role in all of this is to pull a Bernie?  What if the whole charade is just that?  What if the president doesn't have the real power to make the kinds of changes they claim?  What if the political process is not what they want you to believe it is?  

[jpahmad]

What if Trump's role in all of this is to pull a Bernie?  What if the whole charade is just that?  What if the president doesn't have the real power to make the kinds of changes they claim?  What if the political process is not what they want you to believe it is?  

 

 

If Trump gets in, then we will certainly find out the answer to all of your questions.  That is why Trump needs to get in.  It's information we all need!

[davidhodges71]

He doesn't understand fundamental principles of liberty.  Perhaps it would be acceptable if he thoughtfully and strategically placed elements of tyranny in order to "bridge the gap".  However, to me it's quite clear he is an ideological mixed bag which leads me to believe he is  more motivated by status rather than principles.  I'm not worried that he will detonate a nuclear, however, I'm more afraid that he is tarnishing the image of conservative values; thus further complicating the relationship the uniformed "conservative" base has with libertarians and further entrenching the leftists.   Stef used to have a point a view that it might be better not to mix a conservative/libertarian (such as Ron Paul) leader during a time when economy is on the brink of collapse bc it could destroy the message of liberty for a long time(generations?).  I'm sticking with that school of thought for now even though I know there is a case that much may be at stake regarding immigrants/voter base in this election.   My reasons are personal to me and I'm not exactly asking others to jump off the trump train with me.  I just place principles of liberty and non-aggression above all else.  Not really willing to compromise my point of view for sake of Trumps election at this point.

[algernon]

This is what Scott Adams had to say about it, something interesting to consider.

 

Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded.

 

But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

 

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.

 

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.

 

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.

 

[AnonymousCoward2]

Ho'd up. 

 

You stopped studying ethics and philosophy to follow Trump?  Can't you do both?

Well first of all the new FIFA 17 came out yesterday and as you know the day only got 24 hours .

 

Honestly speaking yeah, the debate was bullshit. Trump looked tired and was not the way I am used to see him. But hey might just be as Scott writes on it, but can't the guy just have had a bad day? Still jumping the train because he did not behave absolutely as expected appear a bit infantile, which suggests to me OP was actually just looking for an excuse to jump off the train. If that was so, I don't really see why join in the first place. 

[dsayers]

If Trump gets in, then we will certainly find out the answer to all of your questions.  That is why Trump needs to get in.  It's information we all need!

This is bias confirmation that would only lead to moving the goalposts. History is full of empirical evidence that a psychopath pretending to own hundreds of millions of people does nothing to help anybody. The information is already available.

[jpahmad]

bias towards what?

[Wuzzums]

This is bias confirmation that would only lead to moving the goalposts. History is full of empirical evidence that a psychopath pretending to own hundreds of millions of people does nothing to help anybody. The information is already available.

 

You destroyed your own argument.

History has plenty of leaders who helped millions of people. It may be true the vast majority did only harm but I feel compelled to point out the common "not all" argument. 

And by the way, do you believe Trump is a psychopath or do you think he's a psychopath because you don't like him?

My reasons are personal to me and I'm not exactly asking others to jump off the trump train with me.  I just place principles of liberty and non-aggression above all else.  Not really willing to compromise my point of view for sake of Trumps election at this point.

 

But how are you compromising your principles by voting against the people who want to destroy everything you stand for?

I'm sorry to be so blunt but to my ears this is exactly like saying you're not willing to do anything to the man that raped your wife because you're against violence.

[David Ottinger]

It was only the 1st round.  I see it as another calculated move because he was intentionally pulling his punches.  My guess is he's rope-a-doping her. 

[dsayers]

History has plenty of leaders who helped millions of people. It may be true the vast majority did only harm but I feel compelled to point out the common "not all" argument. 

And by the way, do you believe Trump is a psychopath or do you think he's a psychopath because you don't like him?

What I think is irrelevant. People do not exist in different, opposing moral categories is true. Subjugating people is not helping them is true. The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is true.

[Wuzzums]

What I think is irrelevant. 

 False, otherwise you wouldn't be making threads or writing lengthy articles.

 

Subjugating people is not helping them is true.

leadership =/= subjugation

[Matthew Moran]

I am reading headlines of people praising Trump for "restraint" he showed, and that pisses me off because that is the complete opposite of what made Trump so appealing in the first place. He specifically decided not to say things he planned to say about Bill's rape accusations, and that is troubling in terms of what it might indicate about his conscience. If he goes into the next debate and shows less restraint and is more focused on what specific and clear points he wants to make to the American people about the truth of the Clinton's, then I will be more hopeful, but at this point I am also disappointed he did not do this as effectively as it seemed he maybe could have in the first debate. 

 

The moderator was clearly biased but Trump didn't seem to have any trouble saying whatever he wanted because of his impressive command of the conversation. The fact that he chose to focus on minutia with the command he was capable of makes his strong assertiveness sort of aimless and somewhat empty.

 

I changed my position on this post for sure now after hearing Mike's recent call-in (check it out! FDR343)

 

The error I made in this post was assuming that a different debate performance than Trump gave would have been best for his public perception. In my opinion, the most important factors about Trump (elaborated on in that call-in as well as many others) remain true, and these important factors indicate not only is he serious about his positions on immigration and foreign policy, but he also has the best chance one could envision in the current system to act on his beliefs.

 

It is very appealing to become a frustrated brat and take your support away from Trump because he isn't the anarchist ideal, but when we're thinking about the long term prospects for the world we need to act in a bit less haste than to disregard evidence and reason because we were personally unsatisfied with his debate performance. If his debate performance were less restrained and this caused him to go down in the polls, then my personal preference being met would have been potentially worse for the future state of the world - and that's downright selfish.

[eugenius]

You guys have no idea how to debate a woman. Trump held back, demonstrated restraint and suffered through petty coordinated attacks at the end from both Clinton and her moderator.

 

Hillary is veering into full feminist fat-shaming

[dsayers]

 False, otherwise you wouldn't be making threads or writing lengthy articles.

 

leadership =/= subjugation

The claim your input was attempting refute was "History is full of empirical evidence that a psychopath pretending to own hundreds of millions of people does nothing to help anybody." This statement is either true or false. Whether it is true or false is not at all impacted by what I think. Whether it is true or false is not at all impacted by pointing out that two words which were never claimed to mean the same thing do not mean the same thing. You are deflecting and I suspect it is because you want to refute what was said to support your prejudice that political voting is productive, but are unable to do so by addressing the claim directly.

[algernon]

 False, otherwise you wouldn't be making threads or writing lengthy articles.

 

leadership =/= subjugation

 

Would you consider the example in this video "leadership"?

 

https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk?t=11s

[Wuzzums]

The claim your input was attempting refute was "History is full of empirical evidence that a psychopath pretending to own hundreds of millions of people does nothing to help anybody." This statement is either true or false. Whether it is true or false is not at all impacted by what I think. Whether it is true or false is not at all impacted by pointing out that two words which were never claimed to mean the same thing do not mean the same thing. You are deflecting and I suspect it is because you want to refute what was said to support your prejudice that political voting is productive, but are unable to do so by addressing the claim directly.

 

Do you agree there is a clear distinction between leadership and subjugation?

Would you consider the example in this video "leadership"?

 

https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk?t=11s

That's subjugation veiled as leadership. A cultural marxist trick.

[RCali]

Dsayers, let me put this into perspective. I'll asume you want the best for humans in general and I assume you want the best for freedom and a voluntaristic society in the future.

Let's say we have 3 options. First option is to participate in political voting. And that voting would be towards Hillary Clinton. The antithesis of freedom and anarchy and progression and evolution. The antithesis of good and morality.

Second option is to participate in political voting. For Donald Trump. He's a statist and not in any way a voluntarist. Maybe not even a capitalist. He promotes free speech and a freer existance than what is true today. He promotes smaller government and he definitely doesn't want to go into WW3.

Third option is to not participate in political voting. Keep doing what many of us have been doing and spread the message of freedom and philosophy.

 

Considering how likely it is that one of the two mentioned will take over the presidency (almost entirely likely) ignoring this is irresponsible. If you ignore the first two possibilities considering the consequences they can have you are either choosing stubbornly to remain dogmatic to a principle or not understanding just how important these options and their outcomes are.

What would happen if Hillary wins? What would happen if Trump wins?

That's easy. Catastrophe for the first - this is a certainty. For the second... Probably the opposite, and progress towards something better. Even if not progress, a definite pause. One of these two will take power, and if you decide to NOT help the second get there, you ARE responsible if the first gets into power. You WILL be responsible if the worst happens and the USA collapses because of this.

There are three options and only two of them are mutually exclusive. Do not think you are not being faithful to the NAP by voting Trump. I'd argue you would be BREAKING the NAP if you do NOT vote Trump, because of what I've previously stated. Hillary leads to certain doom while Trump leads to at minimum more time bought. There's the good old quote: "The only thing necessary of the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

It is not a pretty thing that we are reduced to voting and following a politian... But it is certainly better than the alternative.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[powder]

 

Dsayers, let me put this into perspective. I'll asume you want the best for humans in general and I assume you want the best for freedom and a voluntaristic society in the future.

Let's say we have 3 options. First option is to participate in political voting. And that voting would be towards Hillary Clinton. The antithesis of freedom and anarchy and progression and evolution. The antithesis of good and morality.

Second option is to participate in political voting. For Donald Trump. He's a statist and not in any way a voluntarist. Maybe not even a capitalist. He promotes free speech and a freer existance than what is true today. He promotes smaller government and he definitely doesn't want to go into WW3.

Third option is to not participate in political voting. Keep doing what many of us have been doing and spread the message of freedom and philosophy.

 

Considering how likely it is that one of the two mentioned will take over the presidency (almost entirely likely) ignoring this is irresponsible. If you ignore the first two possibilities considering the consequences they can have you are either choosing stubbornly to remain dogmatic to a principle or not understanding just how important these options and their outcomes are.

What would happen if Hillary wins? What would happen if Trump wins?

That's easy. Catastrophe for the first - this is a certainty. For the second... Probably the opposite, and progress towards something better. Even if not progress, a definite pause. One of these two will take power, and if you decide to NOT help the second get there, you ARE responsible if the first gets into power. You WILL be responsible if the worst happens and the USA collapses because of this.

There are three options and only two of them are mutually exclusive. Do not think you are not being faithful to the NAP by voting Trump. I'd argue you would be BREAKING the NAP if you do NOT vote Trump, because of what I've previously stated. Hillary leads to certain doom while Trump leads to at minimum more time bought. There's the good old quote: "The only thing necessary of the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

It is not a pretty thing that we are reduced to voting and following a politian... But it is certainly better than the alternative.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

this is conjecture.  I would argue that it is just as likely that keeping the status quo with the democrats and hitting the iceberg sooner and sinking fast has as good a chance to preserve freedom as trying to slow the ship.  welfare and immigration would evaporate when the gov goes bankrupt.  The voice of freedom needs to be there when it happens.  

 

conversely, I think the ruling class are pretty good at knowing when to give the cattle a little more freedom when they get restless so that they can regroup and regrow state power after the wealth has been rebuilt and the new generation forgets the past.  This has happened countless times, the oligarchs are in no hurry, they think long term.  

[dsayers]

 

He promotes free speech and a freer existance than what is true today. He promotes smaller government

No he doesn't, would not have the power to make such changes, voting for him does nothing to put him there, and you still don't own me.

 

Considering how likely it is that one of the two mentioned will take over the presidency (almost entirely likely) ignoring this is irresponsible.

This is false. There is a lack of cognitive dissonance in simultaneously claiming there's nothing we can do to stop it AND doing nothing is irresponsible. This is dishonest in that it categorizes addressing the PROBLEM as nothing. And you still don't own me. So PRETENDING that you do is literally doing nothing. Assuming doing nothing is bad, as appears to be the standard you are putting forth for others. Which in itself is dishonest because it inflicts an unchosen obligation.

[RCali]

If there's a way to abolish the government within 1 month, do enlighten us. It has to be sustainable, though.

 

I don't know what you're talking about in the last bit or about owning you.

[dsayers]

If there's a way to abolish the government within 1 month, do enlighten us. It has to be sustainable, though.

This does nothing to address my challenges. Nor are the validity of my challenges dependent on me satisfying some arbitrary standard. Also, the arbitrary standard is intellectual sloth in that you are not applying that standard to your own position. "Abolish the government" is vague. It is also begging the question in that it supposes that in order to defeat Santa Claus, you must act upon it. When in fact accepting the fact that he doesn't exist is an internal decision.

 

Did you for a moment think that was actually a refutation?

 

I don't know what you're talking about in the last bit or about owning you.

When you vote on the scale of US president, you are pretending to transfer the ownership of 300 million people to somebody. In order to be able to do such a thing, you would have to first own those 300 million people to begin with. Since you don't own me, I know that you do not satisfy the requisite for voting. If you accept self-ownership and property rights (which I can see that you do), you cannot also vote if you wish to remain consistent within your own mind/life/values. I've offered numerous null hypotheses, which nobody has even tried to approach (see your attempt at a refutation above). The simplest has been the FACT that you don't own me. So that is my go to until such a time as somebody manages to prove that they do own me and therefore can transfer that ownership of me. At that time, I will acknowledge that that person alone can legitimately vote while espousing to accept self-ownership and property rights.

[RCali]

You can say that over and over again, but won't change the fact that a Hillary Clinton victory would destroy civilization and a Trump victory will more likely than not bring us closer to freedom. In the very least pause the advancement of the state.

 

Yes, in this situation voting can remain consistent with the NAP, as you wouldn't be promoting the state, but the diminishing of it. And if you decide not to fight against Hillary in any way possible you are letting her advance, thus allowing the further destruction of the NAP.

 

We need to make do with whatever possibilities we have in this shitty situation. Trump seems to be the best choice.

[Izzy]

I think we will have to wait and see until the election is over and look at the results. There are so many variables in play that are new, actions taken that are great and actions that are terrible. Some say the polls are rigged, and others say the reflect peoples opinions perfectly. Whether Trump loses or wins we will learn something new, either we've found a way to win people over or we figured out that there's not much we can do to affect our politics after putting forth the biggest attention grabber we could find.

 

Saying Trump messed up and will lose is the easy way out (in my opinion). If he wins, you'll be pleasantly surprised, and if he loses, you will say you knew it all along. I'm voting for Trump and remaining agnostic on this matter until we see the results. I don't see the point of becoming pessimistic when we're only a month away from the election.

[shirgall]

No matter what train you are on, or if you are on the sidelines, keep your powder dry.

[dsayers]

You can say that over and over again

Not even sure what this is meant to communicate. You could always address the challenges if your position is air tight.

 

won't change the fact that a Hillary Clinton victory would destroy civilization

Scare tactics and exaggerations are not arguments. "Civilization" is undefined, as is proof that it would be destroyed, isn't already destroyed, could be saved, or should be saved. It's an appeal to emotion. Which does nothing to prove that you have the power to influence the outcome. Here, I've formalized the challenge for you. Were you to choose to even address one, you'd already by standing out among all self-ownership-accepting pro-voters.

 

a Trump victory will more likely than not bring us closer to freedom. In the very least pause the advancement of the state.

Wishful thinking and incredibly ignorant of all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Which does nothing to prove that you have the power to influence the outcome. That he could even accomplish such a feat... Really, it's all outlined in the link above. Hope to see you there.

 

Yes, in this situation voting can remain consistent with the NAP

Only insomuch as it is an act of co-operative fantasy. Trying to transfer the ownership of that which you do not own would be theft if it weren't imaginary. Not that anybody made the claim that it was aggression. Which does nothing to prove you have the power to influence the outcome.

 

if you decide not to fight against Hillary in any way possible you are letting her advance, thus allowing the further destruction of the NAP.

Poisoning the well. Helping people to think rationally and accept that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral category is hardly doing nothing. Also, Hillary is a person. Everything you hate about her was here before her, might be here long after her, and will progress in other ways with or without her. You are a slave in your own mind for as long as you focus where they tell you to instead of where that focus would matter. Which does nothing to prove you have the power to influence the outcome.

 

Oh and you cannot destroy a principle.

 

We need to make do with whatever possibilities we have in this shitty situation. Trump seems to be the best choice.

False dichotomy.

 

Not one argument offered. Not one null hypothesis offered. Not one challenged addressed. I'm sorry you have been led astray, brother, and that you continue to accept it

[algernon]

No matter what train you are on, or if you are on the sidelines, keep your powder dry.

 

I think we're on the same page, and quite unfortunately all of my powder along with everything else was lost in a tragic boating accident. Quite unfortunate.