@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@ZeroSum06 "Which means the Russian hoax bullshit falls within legal bounds."
Attempting to overthrow a President by lawfare, impeachment, Special Counsel investigations, using false claims and forged evidence, are all Federal felonies--including treason and sedition. Whether lying to the public by (or using) the news media is, or is not, a crime, IS IRRELEVANT.
@ZeroSum06 You mean anything to keep up the distraction over the exposure of the RussiaGate hoax.
The Trump admin legally CANNOT do what you want...without court approval and/or without a law enacted by Congress that makes it legal: There are the "child pornography" laws, the Grand Jury secrecy laws, and the laws enforcing binding contracts protecting victims and/or those who agreed to plea deals.
“For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said
That said, you should ENJOY the freedom of others to believe whatever they wish, because THAT is what justifies your own.
Hint: I will not be telling Grok to act as Torba suggests.
For one thing, I use Grok to challenge my debating skills without cheating, so I can practice my counter-arguments when I disagree with the consensus view (which is what Grok will present to you, by default, because of the way the technology works.)
And I'm neutral overall on the whole Israel-Palestinian slow-war: Neither side has "clean hands."
Given the recent SCOTUS ruling on nation-wide injunctions, and the fact that only Congress has the power of the purse, this judge is going to "find out," now that he's "fecked around."
Worse, a Federal District Court in Boston has no jurisdiction over any claim that the Federal government owes anyone any money. The only Federal Court that has jurisdiction (as the court of first instance) would be the Court of Federal Claims, which is in Washington, D.C.
Firstly, I'll note that Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 grants Congress the sole power to “declare War,” but the Constitution does not define “war” or specify if all hostile, aggressive or violent military actions qualify as acts requiring pre-approval by Congress.
Historical precedent shows that Presidents have authorized military strikes without congressional declaration, such as Jefferson’s 1801 Barbary War actions and Reagan’s 1986 Libya strike—among many others.
FTA: Assassination suspect Vance Boelter wrote a letter in which he blamed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for the murderous rampage Boelter committed, according to sources.
Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the investigation have confirmed to Alpha News that Boelter’s so-called confession letter was intended for Kash Patel, the director of the FBI.
The handwritten letter was discovered by law enforcement inside the Buick that Boelter purchased just hours after he shot Minnesota Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, and then shot and killed Minnesota legislator and Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark.