ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Meanwhile, time for all you Pointy-Haired Leftists to burn your collected volumes of Dilbert comics. From Dilbert creator Scott Adams' blog:

"

The “Fine People” Hoax Funnel

https://blog.dilbert.com/2019/04/30/the-fine-people-hoax-funnel/?utm_source=dilbert.com&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=brand-engagement&utm_content=shelf-space-0-blog-title

A pretty detailed debunking of the lies and explanation of what President Trump said about Charlottesville (with complete quotes) along with further explanation of how such lies develop. ='[.]'=

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Re: Venezuela

What we should do is stop playing Team America: World Police and let other countries work out their politics for themselves.

I really wish they had made a follow up to that movie.

"

Xavderion wrote:

So Putin wants Trump to go to war with Putin's ally Maduro? Is this what they call TDS?

Trump is Putin's tool/forced ally. You haven't been paying any attention.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

So Putin wants Trump to go to war with Putin's ally Maduro? Is this what they call TDS?

Trump is Putin's tool/forced ally. You haven't been paying any attention.

In Xav's defense, it's quite difficult to pay attention to other people's hallucinations.

Greetings, comrades. As you probably already know, I am the ghost of Karl Marx. My lecture today will be on using identity politics to implement global communism.

As I'm sure you've noticed, Americans are highly resistant to the concept of equality of outcome, a concept central to the utopia we will bring about. This resistance is because they believe in the illusion of free will rather than the reality of determinism. They see one man make a greater effort than another and delude themselves into thinking the man who made the greater effort chose to be more responsible, and therefore deserves more than the person who chose otherwise.

I understand you have tried to remedy this problem by directly arguing that a person's "merit" is merely a deterministic condition of the circumstances of nature and nurture, but the Americans cling stubbornly to the ideologies of self-determination. But I am here to tell you that you don't need to fight that battle. You can choose to avoid it entirely.

Even the most zealous false prophet of free will will admit there are certain states of human affairs that follow our deterministic model. One cannot choose what race or ethnicity they are born into. One cannot choose what gender one is born into. Using those characteristics, we can divide people into different groups in the minds of Americans, groups defined by membership one cannot choose to accept and cannot choose to decline. As this strategy progresses, we can slowly add more such groups, as the Americans begin to see the truth that no membership can be accepted or declined, and all is deterministic — but at first, they will only accept groups based on those characteristics most obviously deterministic.

The next phase is to elevate the importance of the these groups. Make the American black man define himself by his blackness, and all traits he foolishly considers to be free will to be secondary. Make the American woman define herself by her sex, and all traits she foolishly considers to be free will to be secondary. Shift the focus off all things not obviously deterministic, and onto all that which obviously is.

The last step almost completes itself: make them accept equality of outcome not on an individual level, but on a group level. Whether one is white or black is not based on any choice the person made; therefore, the white group should have the same average outcome as the black group. Implement racist and sexist discrimination against whomever happens to be winning, and in favor of whomever happens to be losing. Go ahead and let them play at meritocracy within any particular identity group, but viciously attack the idea of a meritocracy that encompasses multiple groups simultaneously. If one group receives a better outcome than another, force that group to give until all the groups are equal.

In this way you'll quickly achieve a rough equality of outcome, imperfect but perfectable. From then on it's just about eroding the remaining vestiges of the myth of merit, as a piece of sandpaper might smooth a surface of freshly cut wood. Identity politics is the saw that makes that first cut.

This is the way forward, comrades. We must embrace the racism of equality.

But comrade explain to me, how shall we convince them that say we are striving for perfection and utopia.

Those who claim such a goal is autoritarian in principle and doomed to result in moral depravity.

Surely when our goal is heaven, any means are justified are they not comrade?

And surely when we compare reality to heaven itself we clearly see how inadequate we have performed and the work that must be done to rectify this.

Our intentions are pure and our motives divine, surely comrade you see this to be true so tell me how shall we deal with those in the opposition?

Peace,

-Boem-

In response to comrade Marx' manifesto above, I offer a video segment of a speech by a self-identified Left-wing member of the comic book publishing industry:

https://youtu.be/oOQcbtJRNSY?t=62

It's a snippet taken from a longer video by a YouTube content producer who specializes in sociopolitical trends in popular culture (with a focus on comic books). However, what the speaker in the video (Brett Weinstein) says is basically that, there is what was traditionally the Left, and then there are Progressive "bad actors" who don't merely seek equality of opportunity, but to "turn the tables of oppression," and to punish those they deem outside their own political camp by controlling the dialog. They achieve this by means of setting semantic traps in order to draw people into their orbit, and taking control of them by snaring them in social stigma.

Watch the rest of the video if you want (it's pretty good, with thread relevant observations about President Trump), but Mr. Weinstein's short speech is quite revelatory of Progressive thought and game theory. ='[.]'=

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

snip

You said, and I quote, "Obstruction of Justice is prosecuted all the time without there being an underlying crime". So far you couldn't provide evidence of that, because there isn't any. Without an underlying crime, an obstruction case is weak as fuck and pretty much no prosecutor would want to go through with it. All you got is some legal scholars talking about what would maybe be possible in theory. That's like a theoretical physicist talking about how it's possible that there are endless amounts of parallel universes, and in one of those TDS_Reporter is actually a reasonable person. I mean, it's possible in theory, but it's still worthless if we're talking about everyday reality.

I know that you aren't interested in reality when it doesn't fit your desires. Rather than quibbling with you as to what "all the time" could mean, here's this. The Washington Post article mentioned 2 or 3 instances of obstruction of justice in the past year or so that were successfully prosecuted without there being an underlying crime. And the two more well known cases mentioned in politicfact that are older cases.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I know that you aren't interested in reality when it doesn't fit your desires. Rather than quibbling with you as to what "all the time" could mean, here's this. The Washington Post article mentioned 2 or 3 instances of obstruction of justice in the past year or so that were successfully prosecuted without there being an underlying crime. And the two more well known cases mentioned in politicfact that are older cases.

I read the article, all of the examples had underlying crimes. 2 examples had perjury and 1 example had a guy who assisted a murder get immunity and then the dude refused to testify despite immunity. All the Politifake examples had perjury and the Martha Stewart one also had conspiracy. You gotta deal with the reality that people don't get convicted of obstruction if they don't do any other crimes. 1 in a million chance at best. All the fake news couldn't find a single example and I bet they tried really hard lmao.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I know that you aren't interested in reality when it doesn't fit your desires. Rather than quibbling with you as to what "all the time" could mean, here's this. The Washington Post article mentioned 2 or 3 instances of obstruction of justice in the past year or so that were successfully prosecuted without there being an underlying crime. And the two more well known cases mentioned in politicfact that are older cases.

I read the article, all of the examples had underlying crimes. 2 examples had perjury and 1 example had a guy who assisted a murder get immunity and then the dude refused to testify despite immunity. All the Politifake examples had perjury and the Martha Stewart one also had conspiracy. You gotta deal with the reality that people don't get convicted of obstruction if they don't do any other crimes. 1 in a million chance at best. All the fake news couldn't find a single example and I bet they tried really hard lmao.

They do, I will believe the news articles WAY before I'll believe the nonsense that you spew.

Perhaps, what you seem to be missing is that generally the law officers don't go out to investigate Obstruction of Justice. More often they run across it while doing other investigations.