Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   GrumpyRabbit (grumpyrabbit@social.teci.world)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 00:55:38 JST GrumpyRabbit
   Unconstitutional actions cannot be "official" acts: They're Constitutionally prohibited and/or "null and void."
   
   Treason is a crime whose elements are defined by the Constitution itself, and so it cannot qualify as an "official" act.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 00:55:37 JST djsumdog

     in reply to
     It's kinda silly to think anyone at that level will ever be held accountable for anything.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 01:28:50 JST djsumdog

     in reply to
     I thought with Nixson, he didn't even know about Watergate at the time, plus he won like 90% of the states anyway. He resigned because he didn't admit when he found out immediately? (Not defending Tricky Nicky; guy let Kissinger bomb Cambodia, but he did pull troops from Vietnam).
     
     I think most of the Trump stuff we've seen for the past decade has been bullshit narrative kayfabe. Including the arrest and that fake as hell assassination. It's a narrative story made to make people mad and divide people in ever part of the political compass.
     
     Also pretty sure you can't charge someone for treason unless you're in a declared war either, but it's such a rare charge for recent history is kinda a joke anyway.
   • Embed this notice
     GrumpyRabbit (grumpyrabbit@social.teci.world)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 01:28:51 JST GrumpyRabbit

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @djsumdog That completely depends on whether or not the depth and breadth of outrage by voters. It's highly likely that the Senate would have convicted Nixon, had he not resigned. Ford's pardon was strongly criticized at the time. (I followed Watergate very closely in real time, as it was happening.)
     
     With a sample size of one, it's not valid to conclude that an impeached President who either resigns, or is convicted by the Senate, would always be pardoned.
     
     And no President has ever been impeached for treason, let alone for a case where the evidence is clearly "beyond a reasonable doubt," and is not clearly motivated mostly by partisan political rhetoric.
     
     Although Clinton and Trump were also impeached, they were not convicted by the Senate. In both of their cases, the Senate (correctly) perceived the impeachments as partisan political actions.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 06:24:08 JST djsumdog

     in reply to
     I wrote this months back. I think I have a reasonable basis for thinking the assassination was staged, but could be wrong. It's not a ridiculous claim when you really dig into it:
     
     https://battlepenguin.com/politics/aiming-for-americas-ear/
   • Embed this notice
     GrumpyRabbit (grumpyrabbit@social.teci.world)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 06:24:09 JST GrumpyRabbit

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @djsumdog There's nothing in the Constitution's definition of treason that requires that the US must be in a war.
     
     Nixon was impeached because of the cover up, not because there was proof he instigated the break in.
     
     Some of the "kiss and make up" fights that Trump has had with is on-again, off-again supporters are absolutely "kayfabe." But the multiple attempted assassinations, and the indictments, and the impeachments are absolutely not. The claim is ridiculous on its face.
     
     But you can believe what you want.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 16:15:53 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     No, that's not what I'm saying at all. In order for the ridged uniparty system to work, you need propaganda. You need stories to pacify the population. The charade is necessary, planned and intentional.

     "Hollywood and Washington have a symbiotic relationship. They both deal with illusions. Reality doesn't often play much of a part" -Gore Vidal

     There is also scientific research that shoes that the values of individual in America and their voting very little effect on policy, unless the people who are voting are rich:

     https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

     Not that being rich gives you vote more value obviously. You just happen to be in the group that aligns with where the policy needle moves. I made a full video on this using that study:

     https://battlepenguin.com/politics/video/does-voting-make-a-difference/

     Your overall message reduces to "it's all hopeless."

     Why? Because voting is literally the least significant way to change the world? Go vote harder then. See if it makes a different.

     No, voting is not the answer. It's a piece of paper in the slaves suggestion box between the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right. James Corbett has an entire series he called Solutions Watch, which goes over all the actual ways individuals can make meaningful differences:

     https://corbettreport.com/?s=solutions+watch

     But there are limits to what can be done. To quote Osho, "Democracy is a government by the people, of the people for the people. But the people are retarded."

     Do what you can, but also be prepared if and when your State starts to collapse.

   • Embed this notice
     GrumpyRabbit (grumpyrabbit@social.teci.world)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 16:15:54 JST GrumpyRabbit

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @djsumdog Here's your actual thesis--which for you is axiomatic, meaning it motivates all else that you believe: "It will not matter if people vote, because Trump’s installation is already a foregone conclusion. We do not elect leaders in America, we select one of two puppets."
     
     You comprehend everything based on that premise. It's patently ridiculous. Were it true, there would be no need for the charade you believe is happening. Once that level of control were achieved, it would be "game over."
     
     Your overall message reduces to "it's all hopeless." That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And should it be true, then you would have no rational motivation to champion it. And that raises the question of why you're doing it.
     
     I'll let the audience answer that question for themselves.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 16:19:26 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     Imagine thinking you can effectuate the politically nuanced by only selecting between two parties.
     
     > Abortion or Guns?
     
     > Sorry policy state is the best we can do.
     djsumdog likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 20:42:44 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Vinnewed Goblin
     😁 oh come on, it's lightens the mood, everyone knows it and it's funny .. and ... kinda true 😬😅
   • Embed this notice
     Vinnewed Goblin (warmbeverageenjoyer@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 27-Jul-2025 20:42:46 JST Vinnewed Goblin

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @djsumdog @GrumpyRabbit
     > To quote osho
     Jesus Christ my guy
     It's a funny quote but you gotta realize quoting the guy without at least some caveats noted massively undermines everything you say right?
     
     It's like talking about good policy then sneaking a stalin quote in there.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Jul-2025 06:08:10 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     FALSE. ... What those (and other) studies show is that the rich generally get what they want

     That's what I fucking said.

     No, you idiot

     I never called you any names. I'm not "blackpilling," I literally posted a link to Corbet's solution watch threads which gave a lot of solutions.

     You start going ad hominem and insulting me here man, which is not cool. We can disagree, but now you're all self-righteously political sperging.

     Go outside my dude.

   • Embed this notice
     GrumpyRabbit (grumpyrabbit@social.teci.world)'s status on Monday, 28-Jul-2025 06:08:11 JST GrumpyRabbit

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @djsumdog "Because voting is literally the least significant way to change the world? Go vote harder then. See if it makes a different."
     
     No, you idiot. One person's vote is essentially meaningless. Always was, always will be, no matter how smart or dumb the voters are, no matter how honestly or dishonestly the media may be in the narratives it pushes.
     
     Why? It's the math: One vote is just one vote, typically out of thousands, if not millions.
     
     What matters is how the crowd votes. That's why so much money, time and effort is spent attempting to influence public opinion. It's why I bother to post anything publicly at all, just as it's why you do the same.
     
     We're both trying to move the Overton Window. Perhaps in the same direction, even. The difference is that I'm trying to move it incrementally, in order to avoid having my message be completely ignored because it causes too much cognitive dissonance, and so has no effect on most of my audience. And also because "the people are retarded."
     
     You, on the other hand, are trying to black pill people into apathy, into despair, into either useless action (because most people aren't ready for the world you'd like to live in,) or into no action at all.
     
     By the way, the world I want to live in is a strictly-voluntary society without any monopoly providers of justice and security (no "governments" as we know them, no "states.")
     
     Democracy is not a system that puts the people in power. "The people" will never be in power.
     
     Democracy is a system that puts the best manipulators in power.
     
     “We need to give more power to the State so that the State can limit its own power,” said the idiot.
     
     Power is power. Once you delegate it to the collective, you cannot control whether it will be used for good or evil. Nor against whom.
     
     It's impossible to grant the monopoly power to effectively fight injustice, corruption and oppression without also granting the power to engage in it with impunity. A monopoly cannot be expected to police itself; it's a conflict of interest.
     
     "There can be no such thing as 'limited government,' because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power." ~ Joseph Sobran
     
     Therefore, our job is to get a critical mass of people to understand all of the above. But that has to be done incrementally. And while we're doing that, we ALSO have to try to prevent The Powers That Should Not Be from gaining so much power and control that Orwell's nightmare vision of "a boot stamping on a human face— forever" does not come to pass.
     
     YOU are not helping. Or at least, not currently.
   • Embed this notice
     xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Monday, 28-Jul-2025 12:33:57 JST xianc78

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     @djsumdog @GrumpyRabbit We have a history book's worth of examples of civil disobedience and other forms of grassroots activism bringing positive change to the word, probably even more than voting has allegedly done. There is nothing blackpilling about telling people the truth about voting.