Thursday, October 4, 2012

Jesse Ventura Ups The Empty Chair Ante

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

Jesse Ventura takes a page from Clint Eastwood, and ups the ante:

If Jesse really wants to make a dent in the one-party state, he should advise people to stay home, and not vote at all.

As we've shown here at EPJ, the crowd-surfing, anti-trust filing, war on terror supporting Gary Johnson just doesn't cut the Libertarian mustard.


  1. Yes not voting sends such a strong message... I can't wait until after the election when everyone is talking about how you didn't vote.

    1. Actually, non-voting does send a message. That's why in some democratic countries like Australia the government sticks a gun in your face and makes you vote. Participation implies consent. The overlords want people to think they have consent to do what they do. It gives them a veneer of legitimacy.

    2. Actually, saying you didn't vote on purpose gets people really riled up. You can have a much more interesting and spirited debate if you tell people why you don't vote. In the end, you won't break through the programming probably, but you never know.

    3. Anonymous @ 7:26 PM,

      Telling people RIGHT NOW that I'm not voting is sending a strong message to those around me RIGHT NOW.

      This is having a huge impact on individuals and they are talking about it RIGHT NOW.

      They are actually thinking about things instead of using their feelings to decide things, RIGHT NOW.

      Forget about after the elections, RIGHT NOW is as good a time as any.


      It's the Psychology!

      "Not voting is a psychological act. It is a breaking free from allegiance to a system that is broken. That's far more important than any conceivable benefit from a cost-benefit standpoint of voting. The idea is to get free of the warfare-welfare state and its crazy impositions domestically and its empire overseas. The premise of not voting is not to change the system through that system, but to change that system through a change in thinking and ideas at the personal level that then leads to social change and a basic change in how 300 million people govern themselves. It's a bottom up notion. It's educational in nature. The context is really a change toward an ethics of liberty. This is a slow process and formless. There's no formula to it. We can't get right without doing right. Every small step to doing right reinforces it and has a tendency to spread in unanticipated ways. At present, voting is an act of domestic warfare, with winner take all. That's no way to live. It's as simple as that." ...

      Vote, If...

      "Vote in the elections if you want to acknowledge that you are little more than a trained dog whose freedom is limited and controlled by its master.." ...

      - clark

  2. Ventura's great, & if I'd vote Johnson before the other two creeps, despite his failings he's a lot closer to what this site & I advocate than the other two. A small step toward freedom is better than none at all, or worse away with the others.

  3. "Gary Johnson just doesn't cut the Libertarian mustard"
    Because everyone knows only a career politician who wants to go into debt to fund the military can be a libertarian.

    1. Yes, that's why you see so much support of Romney and Obama around these parts. Not.

  4. It's impossible to make a complete ideological change in one four year presidential cycle. It's a strategy for the long haul just like the current CFR plan that only allows the chosen ones to become candidates in the twin party oligarchy running the corporation we call THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Gary Johnson is not a perfect example of a libertarian. Neither is Ron Paul. But are they electable as moderate libertarians, as transitional candidates to introduce the lazy, uninformed electorate to a new way of looking at government? We'll never know if "not voting" is the only strategy used to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the cabal's candidates. Not voting is not a strategy it's "sour grapes".

    If every voter unhappy with O or R would vote for third party that could be the beginning of a long term strategy. Most of us agree there's no difference between O and R so what harm could it do. The more votes third parties get, the more funding they get, the more exposure the MSM will give them and the more respect is given to third party ideological differences. As the voting dip-shits learn something new, that might actual benefit them, they are more inclined to vote third party the next four-year cycle and maybe in a few decades we have real libertarian candidates that represent the commoners.

  5. Sorry guys but Jesse the body .. er ... the mind is a joke. I'm not sure why you give him any coverage. He's a left-wing populist in the mold of Dennis Kucinich. He couldn't articulate free market economics principles or the non-aggression axiom if he tried.

  6. Somebody finally picked up on it. It should have been two empty chairs in the first place which is why I never finished watching Clint.

  7. I'm still deciding whether to note vote, vote Gary Johnson, or write in Ron Paul...

    I'm going to the voting booth anyway as there's 3 state ballot questions this year in MA that actually increase liberty for once.