The adults are in charge now
- Thread starter GeneralKathy758
- Start date
GeneralKathy758
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Location
- United States
GeneralKathy758
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Location
- United States
Trump's been acquitted.
No surprise there. I've been trying to figure out what he even did.
"HE WAS INCITING VIOLENCE! THE TV AND MY FAVORITE CHECKMARKS TOLD ME SO!"
Trying to figure that out too. One of his last tweets was specifically telling people to not storm the capitol, but of course, if he's fully banned and not just muted, no one could go on his profile to personally look at his tweets in context and form their own conclusions.
It's 2021...we don't need cOnTeXt and we especially don't need to be fOrMiNg oUr OwN cOnCLuSiOns.
The journalists are here to make sure we get t h e t r u t h because we are just serfs who are too stupid to figure that out on our own.
By the way, Antifa has only started committing unacceptable acts of violence since January 20th. They were peacefully protesting before. It's kind of hard for me to tell what's a riot and what's a peaceful protest, but then again I'm just a dumb serf. Can a journalist please instruct me what to think?
This video played in the impeachment hearing was not a "montage of democrats condoning violence and making threats". They're just speaking their truth against Trumpist fascism.
No surprise there. I've been trying to figure out what he even did.
"HE WAS INCITING VIOLENCE! THE TV AND MY FAVORITE CHECKMARKS TOLD ME SO!"
Trying to figure that out too. One of his last tweets was specifically telling people to not storm the capitol, but of course, if he's fully banned and not just muted, no one could go on his profile to personally look at his tweets in context and form their own conclusions.
It's 2021...we don't need cOnTeXt and we especially don't need to be fOrMiNg oUr OwN cOnCLuSiOns.
The journalists are here to make sure we get t h e t r u t h because we are just serfs who are too stupid to figure that out on our own.
By the way, Antifa has only started committing unacceptable acts of violence since January 20th. They were peacefully protesting before. It's kind of hard for me to tell what's a riot and what's a peaceful protest, but then again I'm just a dumb serf. Can a journalist please instruct me what to think?
This video played in the impeachment hearing was not a "montage of democrats condoning violence and making threats". They're just speaking their truth against Trumpist fascism.
GeneralKathy758
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Location
- United States
"Who TF is destroying my life's investme-"
"FIRST AND FOREMOASTLY SHE HAS A BAHJYENUH"
This administration has put women's progress back like 40 years in the past month with this shit. The Bible-thumpers are already making references to "weaker vessels" and "being lead by their emotions". When the left is all "YASS KWEEN" and the far-right is saying women have no place in the public sphere and don't experience complex thoughts, there's not really a significant moderate voice that's saying, "This has nothing to do with being women, they're just losers and opportunists who are just pushing the 'YASS KWEEN' thing to manipulate people into viewing highly nuanced issues as a simple binary of 'good' vs 'evil'. Also, you're falling for a psyop designed to divide men and women and distract from the real sources of strife and oppression."
By the end of this, someone's gonna be able to run on a "repeal the 19th" platform and promise shit like witch burnings and legalizing "Christian domestic discipline" and it's gonna look good to some people after four years of this bullshit.
Last edited:
You might even say... Islam is right about women
It seems a bit like calling tech support. The first person to answer your call has a set of scripts to go through to answer your question.
- Step 1: Determine what voting demographic the caller identifies as
- If it's one of the party's target groups, answer: "Don't worry, we have appointed one of you people to represent your interests"
- If it's the enemy group, remind them of their privilege and that's why they need to shut up and fuck off
- If it's in a target group but the person is taking the Enemy's position, insist that they have internalized white supremacy
*Remember: Our Father Below wants food, not thinking humans. Independent thought is the quickest path to the Enemy's camp! You must discourage it at all times.
It seems a bit like calling tech support. The first person to answer your call has a set of scripts to go through to answer your question.
- Step 1: Determine what voting demographic the caller identifies as
- If it's one of the party's target groups, answer: "Don't worry, we have appointed one of you people to represent your interests"
- If it's the enemy group, remind them of their privilege and that's why they need to shut up and fuck off
- If it's in a target group but the person is taking the Enemy's position, insist that they have internalized white supremacy
*Remember: Our Father Below wants food, not thinking humans. Independent thought is the quickest path to the Enemy's camp! You must discourage it at all times.
GeneralKathy758
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Location
- United States
> Islam is right about women
Ehhh...Is Islam right about child marriage too?
I get that the meme exists to cause a logic error in NPCs who profess to be both pro-Islam and pro-Feminism despite the two things being near irreconcilable -- you either agree that Islam is "based and trad" and women are chattel, or that women should be equal under the law and this contradicts patriarchal religion.
It was funny to post it for the lulz and watch normies get confused by it, but people who unironically think Islam is right about women have bought into the sex wars bullshit lock, stock, and barrel.
According to the manosphere/right/teenage boy zone, when a man fucks up, it has nothing to do with his sex and has everything to do, accurately, with his characteristics like incompetence, malevolence, greed, etc. When a woman fucks up, the reason is just "WAHMEN BAD".
The feminists do the same thing to men. Everything Trump did was "toxic masculinity" and "muh patriarchy", even when there was no actual problem, but they cast female villains as victims. Kameltoe and Hillary are pretty evil and incompetent, but listening to the left and feminists, they're angels who can do no wrong.
At the end of the day, people are influenced heavily by their environments. You can acknowledge that "soyboys" are cringe and annoying while also acknowledging they're a product of helicopter parenting that makes them a bunch of fucking nerds and indoor kids, such that the most interesting thing they can do with their time is hoard plastic and play "internet hall monitor". It used to be that everything about an average boy's upbringing was preparing him to be productive, enter the public sphere and have leadership traits. There are a few personality differences, depending on the person, but boys don't automatically know how to become men in the classical sense. They have to be taught.
Everything about girls' upbringing prepared them to be domesticated natural resources, and obedient blank slates with no personality, such that they could be paired with most every eligible man without compatibility being a huge concern. People like Aristotle and Schopenhauer** were basically like, "Wow, women are really naive, childlike, and small-minded. That definitely has nothing to do with the fact they're kept inside with nothing but children to socialize with and never educated or forced to develop through the same trials of adversity that boys get through their upbringing." Modern girl-upbringing has remained roughly the same, except with additional emphasis placed on being a show pony and less on domestic skills, and it doesn't impose boy-like trials on girls. Would you not expect that if girls were raised similarly to how typical boys were (ex. Hypatia, Mary Shelly, Christina of Sweden, Spartan woman, the sworn virgins of Albania, and bacha posh of Afghanistan, etc.) that they would have the same level of public sphere competence as men?
Additionally, blaming female malevolence or incompetence on "WAHMEN BAD" shields women from accountability. Assuming women, as a group, are incompetent and stupid is the same kind of thought that causes women to get lighter sentences, that headlines say "female teacher had sex with 13 year old boy" and not "female teacher raped 13 year old boy", and the old law that men were sent to jail if their wife committed a crime on the grounds that they, not the wife, were responsible for her actions.
This "battle of the sexes" shit is exactly that -- shit.
It's a psyop.
It, like the race war, is a distraction from the class war, and the war of individuals against the government.
3rd/4th wave feminism and MGTOW have not improved anything at all and have arguably made things worse.
**I initially wrote Heidegger for some reason. I blame it on the a-aaa-a-alcohol
Ehhh...Is Islam right about child marriage too?
I get that the meme exists to cause a logic error in NPCs who profess to be both pro-Islam and pro-Feminism despite the two things being near irreconcilable -- you either agree that Islam is "based and trad" and women are chattel, or that women should be equal under the law and this contradicts patriarchal religion.
It was funny to post it for the lulz and watch normies get confused by it, but people who unironically think Islam is right about women have bought into the sex wars bullshit lock, stock, and barrel.
According to the manosphere/right/teenage boy zone, when a man fucks up, it has nothing to do with his sex and has everything to do, accurately, with his characteristics like incompetence, malevolence, greed, etc. When a woman fucks up, the reason is just "WAHMEN BAD".
The feminists do the same thing to men. Everything Trump did was "toxic masculinity" and "muh patriarchy", even when there was no actual problem, but they cast female villains as victims. Kameltoe and Hillary are pretty evil and incompetent, but listening to the left and feminists, they're angels who can do no wrong.
At the end of the day, people are influenced heavily by their environments. You can acknowledge that "soyboys" are cringe and annoying while also acknowledging they're a product of helicopter parenting that makes them a bunch of fucking nerds and indoor kids, such that the most interesting thing they can do with their time is hoard plastic and play "internet hall monitor". It used to be that everything about an average boy's upbringing was preparing him to be productive, enter the public sphere and have leadership traits. There are a few personality differences, depending on the person, but boys don't automatically know how to become men in the classical sense. They have to be taught.
Everything about girls' upbringing prepared them to be domesticated natural resources, and obedient blank slates with no personality, such that they could be paired with most every eligible man without compatibility being a huge concern. People like Aristotle and Schopenhauer** were basically like, "Wow, women are really naive, childlike, and small-minded. That definitely has nothing to do with the fact they're kept inside with nothing but children to socialize with and never educated or forced to develop through the same trials of adversity that boys get through their upbringing." Modern girl-upbringing has remained roughly the same, except with additional emphasis placed on being a show pony and less on domestic skills, and it doesn't impose boy-like trials on girls. Would you not expect that if girls were raised similarly to how typical boys were (ex. Hypatia, Mary Shelly, Christina of Sweden, Spartan woman, the sworn virgins of Albania, and bacha posh of Afghanistan, etc.) that they would have the same level of public sphere competence as men?
Additionally, blaming female malevolence or incompetence on "WAHMEN BAD" shields women from accountability. Assuming women, as a group, are incompetent and stupid is the same kind of thought that causes women to get lighter sentences, that headlines say "female teacher had sex with 13 year old boy" and not "female teacher raped 13 year old boy", and the old law that men were sent to jail if their wife committed a crime on the grounds that they, not the wife, were responsible for her actions.
This "battle of the sexes" shit is exactly that -- shit.
It's a psyop.
It, like the race war, is a distraction from the class war, and the war of individuals against the government.
3rd/4th wave feminism and MGTOW have not improved anything at all and have arguably made things worse.
**I initially wrote Heidegger for some reason. I blame it on the a-aaa-a-alcohol
Last edited:
GeneralKathy758
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Location
- United States
ANYWAY...
The Democrats are still tormented by TDS. Trump's been out of office for basically a month at this point and they won't let it go.
Enter the "No Glory for Hate" act, which would prohibit any president who's been impeached exactly twice or convicted of a State or Federal crime from being represented or commemorated on public land using Federal funds. They cannot retain any "perks" of being a former president or be interned at Arlington National Cemetery.
Trump's second impeachment was essentially political theatre. He wasn't found guilty, of course, of the charges that might as well have been fabricated.
"Impeachment" refers to the process, not the outcome. It's like being indicted for a crime -- you can be indicted and be later found to be innocent, or you can be found guilty and that is the point at which you will receive some sort of punishment and have the event put on your criminal record. Punishing impeached presidents regardless of trial outcome is like sending someone to jail simply for being arrested and put on trial.
The impeachment itself requires only a simple majority. Being that Democrats are 50% of the Senate and they're all suffering from TDS, that's not exactly difficult. The actual conviction after initial impeachment requires a supermajority which IIRC is 60%. There are not enough vehement Never-Trump Republicans to make said supermajority.
Why twice? Why not once? Why not make it a three-strikes kind of thing?
Presidents have only been impeached 4 times: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Evil Orange KKK Nazi Man twice. All four times, they were acquitted of their charges. It would be a lot of pointless work to exhume Johnson's grave and take down all references to him, and Bill Clinton is both a Democrat and - for fuck's sake - a Clinton, so they wouldn't do that to him. Trump is the only one to be impeached twice and it wouldn't suit their agenda to give him a third strike, or to write the bill in such a way that it punishes presidents found guilty after impeachment.
"The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative-executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office."
-- Wikipedia probably
Well...so much for that...
Why is it called "No Glory for Hate" and not "No Glory for War Crimes", "No Glory for Un-Constitutional Douchebaggery", or "No Glory for 'Not Having Sexual Relations With That Woman...Monica Lewinsky'"?
Clearly this is simply a general law that would solely exist to promote overall integrity for whoever happens to be POTUS - so they behave in a Constitutional and fair, honest, non-tyrannical way - and it's not targeting anyone in particular, and there's no political agenda whatsoever behind it...
Somehow I get the sense that Democrats don't intend to play ball with the competition for long enough for there to be a possibility of one of their own getting impeached twice and then affected by this law. The way they talk, it seems to be part of a larger plan to take over all three branches of the government and make it impossible for Republicans or anyone else for that matter, to gain any significant share of control.
But hey...uNiTy
The Democrats are still tormented by TDS. Trump's been out of office for basically a month at this point and they won't let it go.
Enter the "No Glory for Hate" act, which would prohibit any president who's been impeached exactly twice or convicted of a State or Federal crime from being represented or commemorated on public land using Federal funds. They cannot retain any "perks" of being a former president or be interned at Arlington National Cemetery.
Trump's second impeachment was essentially political theatre. He wasn't found guilty, of course, of the charges that might as well have been fabricated.
"Impeachment" refers to the process, not the outcome. It's like being indicted for a crime -- you can be indicted and be later found to be innocent, or you can be found guilty and that is the point at which you will receive some sort of punishment and have the event put on your criminal record. Punishing impeached presidents regardless of trial outcome is like sending someone to jail simply for being arrested and put on trial.
The impeachment itself requires only a simple majority. Being that Democrats are 50% of the Senate and they're all suffering from TDS, that's not exactly difficult. The actual conviction after initial impeachment requires a supermajority which IIRC is 60%. There are not enough vehement Never-Trump Republicans to make said supermajority.
Why twice? Why not once? Why not make it a three-strikes kind of thing?
Presidents have only been impeached 4 times: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Evil Orange KKK Nazi Man twice. All four times, they were acquitted of their charges. It would be a lot of pointless work to exhume Johnson's grave and take down all references to him, and Bill Clinton is both a Democrat and - for fuck's sake - a Clinton, so they wouldn't do that to him. Trump is the only one to be impeached twice and it wouldn't suit their agenda to give him a third strike, or to write the bill in such a way that it punishes presidents found guilty after impeachment.
"The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative-executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office."
-- Wikipedia probably
Well...so much for that...
Why is it called "No Glory for Hate" and not "No Glory for War Crimes", "No Glory for Un-Constitutional Douchebaggery", or "No Glory for 'Not Having Sexual Relations With That Woman...Monica Lewinsky'"?
Clearly this is simply a general law that would solely exist to promote overall integrity for whoever happens to be POTUS - so they behave in a Constitutional and fair, honest, non-tyrannical way - and it's not targeting anyone in particular, and there's no political agenda whatsoever behind it...
Somehow I get the sense that Democrats don't intend to play ball with the competition for long enough for there to be a possibility of one of their own getting impeached twice and then affected by this law. The way they talk, it seems to be part of a larger plan to take over all three branches of the government and make it impossible for Republicans or anyone else for that matter, to gain any significant share of control.
But hey...uNiTy
Last edited:
I could easily see the house flipping in two years, and then frivolous impeachments being rammed through just to punish whoever happens to be president in that year. Thus, Obama will be the last president ever commemorated on public land (or maybe they'll impeach him too... retroactively). I keep thinking of that one year in Roman history that was called the year of four emperors, because three assassinations took place that year. If they had succeeded in removing Trump just before he left office, 2021 could have been the year of four presidents. They used to say during the cold war that any weapon you invent will be used by your enemies 15 years from now. As we get closer to the singularity these time frames are shortening drastically, and 2 years doesn't seem like much of a stretch now.
Should rename the act "No Glory for People We Hate"
Part of me wonders if it's just about taking away his secret service protection so they can Epstein him. Or it could be just about stopping him from running again. Or it could be as petty as just wanting to completely erase him from history; the same motivation as for toppling statues. I wonder if they will also airbrush Trump out of photos with New York elites. They kind of did that already with Home Alone 2. Just putting that out there.
Should rename the act "No Glory for People We Hate"
Part of me wonders if it's just about taking away his secret service protection so they can Epstein him. Or it could be just about stopping him from running again. Or it could be as petty as just wanting to completely erase him from history; the same motivation as for toppling statues. I wonder if they will also airbrush Trump out of photos with New York elites. They kind of did that already with Home Alone 2. Just putting that out there.
Nailkaiser
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
I see the impeachment as more of smokescreen for the woketards to keep them tranquilized from the real issue which is the Dark Winter and the upcoming blackouts. The power outages and food and water scarcity happening in Texas is the new testing ground after the c-virus
Kaiser, I didn't know what you were talking about at first with Texas, but I'm hearing now there was an ice storm or something? You can't really say that a freak weather event was planned by anyone. Looks more like bad luck to me (didn't even know Texas could get freezing rain). My area had a bad ice storm around five years ago, the power was out in some neighbourhoods for days while they scrambled to fix the lines. These things happen, and it's hard to really be prepared for them. All you can do is have resources in place to respond quickly when it does happen.
Nailkaiser
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
Well you are in Canada so its common for you to see ice but Texas is America's armpit because thats the hottest region of the country and now its getting blizzard like its arctic. As for me I don't believe in coincidences and the very first thing I would avoid is the official narrative.
This dark winter reminds me of a quote I once heard.
"You will live to see man made horrors beyond your comprehension" - Nikola Tesla
This dark winter reminds me of a quote I once heard.
"You will live to see man made horrors beyond your comprehension" - Nikola Tesla
When it comes to weather events, I don't think it's possible to fit any narrative to it. Weather is a chaotic system, there's no way to predict it beyond observing general patterns and extrapolating from there. I don't know what the official narrative is, though, since I don't watch news from Texas. But if you're suggesting that someone out there has the ability to control the weather...? Then you've lost me. Or if it's not that, then it must be climate change, but I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims too. Or is it just a matter of unpreparedness, like how Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans because corruption in the local government prevented them from building stronger levies. I could buy that, but then nobody in Texas could have predicted an ice storm, as you say.