Trump's own inability to take personal responsibility for literally anything also plays into it. If it's expedient to throw kikes under the bus he will do it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717241)

When you look at Trump talking about how we might have "boots on the ground" in Iran and you think back to Trump in 2015, it's almost impossible to imagine supporting the Federal system. At best, perhaps the move is to back good candidates in the primaries and to volunteer your time for them.

But even then, how many candidates are for real? How many simply glom onto whatever it is within their party apparatus that will get them elected?

I see a lot of new "MAGA" types running in this cycle. But what does that even mean now? From a practical standpoint, it seems that MAGA just means more of the same, except we can say faggot (which btw we could during the old neocon run of things.) It's just that a different group of elite jews get to self deal (versus the elite jews that self deal under a Dem admin.)

It is altogether possible that the leviathan is too big and has totally left containment. The time to rein it back in was probably 2008 / 2009...and instead we made it much, much bigger and more intertwined with everything. Unless / until something happens to change this (e.g. something to deflate the debt bubble), I think the best move is to not participate on the federal level.

I gave a lot of money and time back in 2020 / 2022...and all I really have to show for it is endless spam texts, calls, and emails asking for more money for yet another "most important election of our lifetimes!!" Fuck that shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717255)

In my state all of the GOP candidates are claiming to be MAGA in all their ads and in the literature. This time, we're gonna be more MAGA than MAGA! They are also all boomers who support Israel to the hilt. Ljl. Get rekt scumbags.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717280)

additionally, i hate the idea of boycotting an entire party. it's lazy and self-destructive. there are plenty in the GOP like massie that are outspoken about israel and iran. i havent seen any of these people talking about primarying people that support this in exchange for massie types. these people exist in every race. instead, its just lazy partisanship.

lastly, the dems are just as kiked out as the gop. i certainly support the idea of abstaining (or better yet, writing in) if you have a deal breaker issue. but voting for someone out of spite who supports that issue too is irrational.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717300)

Rather than vote for the GOP or the Dems (out of spite), simply write in someone. Better yet, choose a specific person and have as many "groypers" as possible write that person in when they go to vote regardless of what Federal election they are participating in.

Imagine if one million groypers wrote in "Thomas Massie" across the nation. It would have to be covered, IMO. And is much more interesting than voting for gay race communist dems.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717310)

I think a lot of the big profiles on him (NYT, etc.) that came out were less a sign that he's "bought by Jews" (fucking lol) and more a sign that the Capital-L Left thinks he could be a helpful foil towards pushing the goals of the system forward.

I am probably being too abstract in my thinking, and I don't necessarily think that there is a puppet master pulling the strings or some shit, but the system's incentive structure does wonders for incorporating any potential threat into its structure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717358)

and yeah ljl at consuela theories he's bought by jews. i disagree with him a lot but i do think he's a net positive. my bisexual lib gf went on some anti jew rant the other day. i credit fuentes big for pushing the overton window on this stuff such that i hear antiisrsrl remarks spoken openly in a way you'd need a moniker to express just a couple years ago.

my biggest gripes with him is that he can be a useful caricature for opponents to point to to demonize everyone who is anti-israel and that his strategy seems to be getting our bicycle on the right track by slamming a stick into the spokes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717470)

why didnt texas groypers campaign for him? or vote for him even if it was futile to show that their voting bloc could swing a primary? this would actually make candidates reconsider their stance. the primary season is ongoing, the one time people *actually* have a real impact on the candidates, and you have already resolved to vote Dem even though *NOW* is the time you might actually have an impact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717432)

Locally contested primaries require a lot of "boots on the ground" style effort. Legitimately talking to people, including those who disagree (or may disagree) on issues, in a rational way. And often with people who have families and normal jobs. So perhaps it's easier to just try and influence from the top down via big and easy things like "vote dem" than to build an army of local people to influence in real ways.

This is where Charlie Kirk was infinitely more influential and makes his death even more consequential. He actually built something with on-the-ground influence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717462)

also they could just vote. wheres the groyper election guide endorsing the best candidates in every race? remember when groups used to do this? instead theyre vowing to vote D at a time when they can actually have a chance to impact who the candidates are. not just campaigning, but just voting, which if youre actually passionate about changing the direction of the country you should already be doing at the primary level.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717483)

So then when I see him hanging out with "Sneako" and the looksmaxxing clown, it's like "oh ok, you just enjoy being famous a little too much. Great."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717720)

it's because it's clearly not serious, as you acknowledge with the sneako shit. what pisses me off the most about them is that they've got everything they need to make an impact except the scintilla of willpower necessary to harness it. its no wonder they tend to be perpetually aggrieved losers blaming browns, women, boomers, etc for their lot in life but have nothing to show for how they tried to change things aside from internet poasts.

i also don't think nick is some X-controlled patsy, but it's easy to see why so many do. hes harnassed a bunch of disaffected people who want change and have convinced them doing nothing is the best path to achieving it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717907)

"IM RIGHT, NO I WONT EXPLAIN HOW! BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO GENERATE THOUSANDS OF WORDS!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49718147)

the fact is that they are filled with righteous indignation but won't lift a finger to change what theyre maf about unless it's to press a key on their keyboard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717598)

this is all posthoc rationalization, and its not even accurate, you're about to vote blue no matter who even if theyre a boomer. there are younger candidates in the primaries that are against israel too. should i find some of them too or will you just make an excuse for why you decided not to support someone you are hearing about for the first time?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717712)

### Summary of the Discussion Between gunneratttt (Operation AIPAC Fury) and HAtp (goyim in abundanceeeeee)

The thread centers on Nick Fuentes's proposed strategy for his followers (often referred to as "groypers") to protest-vote Democrat in the 2026 midterm elections as a means to reduce perceived Jewish influence in the GOP, particularly in light of dissatisfaction with Donald Trump's pro-Israel policies. HAtp (posting as goyim in abundanceeeeee) initiates the thread by endorsing the plan, framing it as a "psychotic" but necessary tactic to "cast off the yoke of our Jewish masters" by supporting candidates who oppose whites and favor communism if it disrupts GOP control. gunneratttt counters early, arguing that such a boycott or abstention would only strengthen external control over the party and urges active participation instead of "slackivism."

The core exchange unfolds as follows:

- **Initial Clash on Strategy and Impact**: HAtp argues that a GOP loss would pressure Trump's successors (e.g., Vance and Rubio) to defend the administration's war record to voters, opening dialogue for change, and dismisses Trump as a "lame duck" who is "cooked." gunneratttt clarifies they were responding to another poster's point about Trump reversing course but agrees on the focus shifting to successors.

- **Betrayal by Trump and Party Options**: HAtp accuses Trump of betraying "goy nationalism" by prioritizing Israel despite campaigning on identity politics that energized white voters. They assert that right-wing populists face only two bad choices—Democratic policies like open borders and "tranny nonsense" or GOP "Jewish supremacy"—and that withholding support from the GOP is essential to loosen Israel's grip, as it relies on white Christian identitarian votes. gunneratttt rejects the notion that Trump campaigned on "goyim identity," noting his explicit pro-Israel stance across elections, and calls HAtp's view a hallucination or wishful thinking. They predict disappointment from expecting hidden beliefs in Trump that contradict his statements.

- **Alternatives to Protest Voting**: gunneratttt criticizes the groyper approach as lazy and self-destructive, pointing out anti-Israel figures like Thomas Massie in the GOP and questioning why groypers don't focus on primaries to support or run similar candidates instead of blanket Democratic voting. They highlight the lack of a groyper election guide or endorsements during ongoing primaries, when influence is highest, and suggest this reveals insincerity given the group's alarmist rhetoric about national peril. HAtp agrees groypers support Massie and emerging figures like James Fishback but notes most races lack such options, making protest voting the current best tool. They emphasize building toward future groyper candidates but reject supporting "boomers" or Gen Xers, viewing them as untrustworthy regardless of platform.

- **Specific Candidate Example and Rationalization**: gunneratttt cites Virgil Bierschwale, a Texas candidate aligned with groyper views on foreign wars and immigration who received 6,000 votes in a primary, as an example of missed opportunity—asking why groypers didn't campaign or vote for him to demonstrate bloc power. HAtp dismisses Bierschwale as too obscure and old (68), arguing candidates need prominence like Fishback or Massie, and insists on a "new generation" without boomers, whom they distrust entirely. gunneratttt accuses this of being post-hoc rationalization, noting HAtp's unfamiliarity with Bierschwale and inconsistency in voting Democrat (including boomers) while rejecting GOP boomers. They question why groypers aren't running their own candidates or supporting younger anti-Israel ones in primaries. HAtp challenges gunneratttt to name more viable non-boomer candidates like Massie or Fishback, rejecting examples like Valentina Gomez, and reaffirms personal long-standing anti-boomer stance (with Trump as an exception).

- **Broader System Critique and Regrets**: Interwoven are points on Trump's stubbornness and manipulation by others, with HAtp expressing ongoing affection for Trump personally despite policy regrets, and gunneratttt recalling pre-election warnings about Trump's true positions. HAtp views the protest as a "shock to the system" to force GOP panic, while gunneratttt sees it as irrational spite-voting for Democrats who share the same issues, preferring write-ins or targeted abstention.

The discussion remains focused but grows repetitive on themes of action versus rhetoric, with both acknowledging some merits in the other's points (e.g., HAtp on voting for groypers when available, gunneratttt on shifting to successors). It ends without resolution, with HAtp committing to the plan and gunneratttt critiquing its lack of seriousness.

### Unbiased Analysis of Who Performed Best

To evaluate performance, I focus on objective criteria: engagement (active participation and depth of involvement), responsiveness (directly addressing opponent's points without evasion), consistent logic (arguments that maintain internal coherence, avoid contradictions, and build progressively), use of evidence or examples (specific references to support claims), and overall coherence (how well the position holds up across the exchange). Inflammatory language is disregarded, as are external biases about the views expressed.

- **Engagement**: Both are highly engaged, posting multiple detailed responses that sustain the thread. gunneratttt contributes more posts directly in dialogue with HAtp (around 12 vs. HAtp's 10 in their back-and-forth), often initiating sub-threads with questions or examples to probe deeper. HAtp matches this by consistently replying, but gunneratttt shows slightly higher initiative in steering the conversation toward actionable alternatives, keeping it dynamic.

- **Responsiveness**: gunneratttt excels here, methodically addressing HAtp's points—e.g., clarifying context on Trump responses, directly challenging the "goyim identity" claim with historical recall, and countering the Bierschwale dismissal by noting it as an asked-for example without prior knowledge. They frequently reference HAtp's exact words or implications (e.g., seeking links to boomer-specific protest caveats). HAtp is responsive but occasionally evades specifics, such as shifting from Bierschwale's merits to a blanket anti-boomer rule without initial mention, or challenging for more examples without fully conceding the point. This makes gunneratttt more precise in rebuttals.

- **Consistent Logic**: gunneratttt maintains strong consistency, arguing throughout that protest voting is counterproductive and inaction hypocritical given groyper rhetoric; their logic builds from general critique to specifics (e.g., primaries as key leverage, write-ins as better protest). No major contradictions emerge, and they acknowledge agreements (e.g., on successors). HAtp's logic is mostly consistent in defending protest as a necessary shock, emphasizing long-term generational shift, but shows minor inconsistencies—e.g., endorsing Massie (a Gen X-er nearing boomer age) while rejecting all boomers/Gen X, and admitting regret over Trump less than Fuentes while pushing full protest. Their position evolves reactively rather than proactively, leading to some post-hoc adjustments.

- **Use of Evidence/Examples and Coherence**: gunneratttt bolsters arguments with concrete examples (Bierschwale's primary results, Massie as a model, historical Trump stances) and logical extensions (e.g., primaries' timing, endorsement lists' feasibility), creating a coherent case for internal reform over blanket opposition. HAtp uses examples like Fishback and Massie effectively but relies more on assertions (e.g., Israel's dependence on groyper votes, future candidates emerging) without equivalent specifics, making their overall position coherent but less substantiated. The exchange highlights gunneratttt's emphasis on immediate, practical steps versus HAtp's focus on symbolic disruption.

Overall, gunneratttt performed best. Their responses demonstrate superior responsiveness and logical consistency, using evidence to challenge assumptions and propose alternatives, which keeps the debate structured and forward-moving. HAtp holds their ground effectively with engagement and a clear ideological thread, but the analysis tilts toward gunneratttt for better addressing counterpoints without evasion or retroactive shifts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717977)

Trump ran on goyim identity. He brought goy nationalism to the forefront of American politics. Then he did 100% of everything Isreal asked of him. How is this not a betrayal?

We have two choices. Either we get open borders and tranny nonsense and brownoid race Communism, or we get Jewish supremacy. Those are the two choice for right wing populists in 2026.

So how can you sit there and say oh well if you don't do what the kikes want, things will actually get a lot kikier?

Isreal cannot achieve its goals without support from the white nationalist goy vote. They need white Christian identitarians to go along with the kikeing. If all those people don't vote or vote Democrat, Isreal will lose its grip on power.

How do you not get this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717266)

This is effectively the brilliance of The System at work to ensure it continues to push in its desired direction. And it has chosen to effectively maximize the culture war to keep enough people engaged on bullshit and stop the vast majority from finding common ground. And it self-selects for politicians who will lean into the bullshit and not actually do anything to affect real change that 80% of people agree on. And it scares away any really competent people from getting involved for many obvious reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717279)

State/local probably not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717238)

no one is going to do this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717271)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841827&forum_id=2...id.#49717745)