Vote for Thomas massie.
Idc if you think voting is rigged or fake or gay or whatever. If you dont vote then jews win. Hes the ONLY motherfucker that doesnt take their money and they are trying to buy his seat.
The doomer shills will cry "its all rigged dont even participate!" But guess what, your lack of participation makes it that much easier for them to ruin good white men. It takes nothing to at least try.
Hmm…
>[continues spamming talking points that only paid shills have ever said]
Why would we ever actively signal our support for our own enslavement? You can’t justify this. Whites will never actively act in support of our own species ever again, but the very fucking least you can do is *passively* deny your own genocide instead of actively working in favor of it.
# Every.
# Single.
# One.
# Of.
# Them.
# Is.
# Owned.
Stop paying taxes. Stop obeying laws. Kill them when they come for you. That’s my vote.
It's really embarassing to see our guys worshipping this openly anti-white zogtician.
How is that pro white? How does that help anyone except the jews? Is that who you work for?
Prove it.
>because youre a doomer shill trying to prevent anyone from doing anything.
Literally done nothing but beg anyone to do anything for the last ten years. You’re not even pretending to be rational.
>Youre just a mildly successful containment fed.
***[Thanks](https://archive.ph/mGMYK) for [proving](https://archive.ph/CDrdv) me [right](https://archive.ph/7B4B1) every [waking](https://archive.is/a60t8) moment of [your](https://archive.is/5iL58) life.***
> Everything you've always said is always "no nothing
Thanks for admitting you’ve never read anything I’ve ever written.
>How is that pro white?
Said the voter. With a hard R.
>How does that help anyone except the jews?
Said the voter.
>Is that who you work for?
Just keep voting. Two more elections. Trust the ballots.
You want us to think they are because youre a good goy.
Random buzzwords unrelated to anything I said, thanks.
>Guess what you can do? Two things at once.
OH BOY, I CAN SUPPORT MY OWN GENOCIDE *AND* OPPOSE IT AT ONCE? WHAT A CONCEPT!
Run the math on that one for me. pSee where it averages out.](https://media1.tenor.com/m/fp4qkaHjuTIAAAAC/sponge-bob-to-do.gif)
>You can vote for the only person who doesnt take aipac money
OH BOY VOTING EXISTS! BECAUSE JEWS SAY SO!
>the fantasy shit
lol, “refusing to obey the jews” is a “fantasy.” Okay.
>You want us to think they are
Random buzzwords unrelated to anything I said, thanks.
I can tell you. Kill them. Do it alone, or group up *peacefully* (there you have your peaceful option) for the purpose of killing them (oh well, it was nice while it lasted). Crucify them in droves, place them into public places, publicly hang them, publicly behead them, show acts of severe torture to demoralize them.
Anything less than that is pointless. Voting is wishful thinking. My country just voted self-destruction in a sudden and unexpected way to the highest degree. The LAST bastion where Democracy works as long as it's taken over by enemies is gone, because it was taken over by enemies. That was my only and last vote I made in my life - and it was TOTALLY POINTLESS. The time for peace is over. They're already talking about reinstating the military draft, and they will support whatever the EU conjures up to wage war with Russia with Ukraine as a proxy.
At some point you will have to think how many lives can be saved by eliminating only a few. When it comes to WWIII, with potentially millions of deaths over some BULLSHIT, do you think there will be nobody who will do it?
> AND you can do all the fantasy shit you think you do in your head too
It happened in the past, a lot, and it worked tremendously well, even if it was temporary (a century). And it can work again - in fact it's the only way. It's also how leftists/jews have operated - so it works for everybody.
> us
There is no "us." It's only you and a bunch of other anonymous people.
Including but not limited to just leaving the seat empty.
Otherwise you're advocating for individual warfare against the government which is suicide.
Yeah, that’ll work. Just vote harder to change it, right?
>where the total number of uncast votes is actually counted and used to alter the outcome of elections. Including but not limited to just leaving the seat empty.
If not for that last sentence, my response would’ve been quite different. The idea is *interesting*, but also completely untenable. You can’t use lack of participation as a metric for anything, and if you make Election Day a national holiday, the sociopsychological pressure to “just do anything” would ensure it’s never actually used, since people will vote randomly for someone on the ballot rather than not voting.
I see what you’re going for, though. Can’t be effected without guns, though.
>Otherwise you're advocating for individual warfare against the government which is suicide.
Strange how literally every single “person” uses the exact same “argument” despite no one saying this. Almost as though it’s part of a script that hasn’t changed for decades…
There are several states where citizens can directly change the constitution.
> You can’t use lack of participation as a metric for anything
I think you can when you have a two party majority. If the two parties collude, as they have, then it's a simple race to the bottom where you get most of the electorate to not participate. Which is already true in most of the country where around 12% of the people are actually picking the district representative.
> since people will vote randomly for someone on the ballot rather than not voting.
If voting was mandatory. I think if you leave it open the consequences of an empty chair are actually not that great. We've got enough laws on the books and I can't remember when congress has done anything that's improved my life recently. If the people could actually lock the entire body out by eliminating the ability to form a majority then we might stand a chance of getting ahead of these fuckers for once.
If you want to give them a concession then they have one month to arrange a new election and try to win that again. I think there'd be good sense in limiting campaigning to a single month anyways. We have a right to a speedy trial, why not a speedy election? If they waste $2B putting two shitheel candidates up, that's on them, and they will suffer for it.
Instead of intentionally creating the least worst losing team they'd have no choice but to create a winning one.
> Strange how literally every single “person” uses the exact same “argument” despite no one saying this.
It's either a conspiracy against you personally or it's just obvious to most people by default. Unless, you know, you like organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively though some leadership mechanism, I don't see how this works in practice.
Your reasoning on this is apparent but, in light of this, it seems either incomplete or circular. The recognized solution cannot be fabian attrition tactics.
That’s every state. It requires guns to do. Pieces of paper can’t do it.
> I think you can when you have a two party majority. If the two parties collude, as they have, then it's a simple race to the bottom where you get most of the electorate to not participate.
But then what? So they don’t participate (that’s several recent elections already). And then… the people in power are supposed to just magically give up power? Why? Because the masses who didn’t care enough to vote are definitely going to… still do nothing to make them give up power?
>I think if you leave it open the consequences of an empty chair…
Ah, but *what* consequences?
>If the people could actually lock the entire body out by eliminating the ability
Okay, how do they do that? By wishing really hard?
>If you want to give them a concession then they have one month to arrange a new election and try to win that again.
This is what they do in Europe already. “Whoops, no one got a majority; we’re just going to re-run the thing and force you to keep voting until we get the outcome we want!”
>I think there'd be good sense in limiting campaigning to a single month anyways.
That makes sense from the get-go, not just in the second runoff. But, uh… how are you going to do the limiting?
>We have a right to a speedy trial
Well, no. A piece of paper says that, but we keep inmates on death row on the white taxpayer’s dime until they die of old age. And *before* the trial? ***[IT HAS BEEN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed)
>If they waste $2B putting two shitheel candidates up, that's on them, and they will suffer for it.
By raising our taxes to pay for it.
>Instead of intentionally creating the least worst losing team they'd have no choice but to create a winning one.
Like in Europe, where anyone who wants to obey the law and serve the people is ganged up on by every other party, which set aside their “differences” merely so that they don’t get to be in the second run-off election!
>It's either a conspiracy against you personally or it's just obvious to most people by default.
Or it’s only paid shills that say it, since voting has demonstrably done nothing in the last 80 years.
>Unless, you know, you like organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively though some leadership mechanism, I don't see how this works in practice.
I don’t see how voting works in practice. I think we should organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively instead.
>Your reasoning on this is apparent but, in light of this, it seems either incomplete or circular.
In light of what, the fact that voting doesn’t exist and everything I’ve said gets proven right?
> The recognized solution cannot be fabian attrition tactics.
I was thinking more “shooting the people who try to arrest you for not breaking the law,” because as long as you get more than one of them before they get you, you win by default and eventually they run out of lackeys.
You should really study state law a little more. What I'm literally telling you is pieces of paper _can_. It's actually baked into the state constitution that you can referendum new law into it entirely bypassing the legislature.
> By raising our taxes to pay for it.
You can't spend tax money on campaigns.
> Or it’s only paid shills that say it, since voting has demonstrably done nothing in the last 80 years.
Okay, you're just too black pilled to have an actual conversation with, so once again I have to wonder why you even waste your breath.
Or are you the paid shill? Paid to generate despair and to push people away from actual working solutions in favor of blind and hopeless violence?
> “shooting the people who try to arrest you for not breaking the law,” because as long as you get more than one of them before they get you
Hmmm... this _is_ exactly what that kind of shill would say. Selling the nigger level short sighted solution. This is all starting to become a bit clearer.