@djsumdogThat 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.

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.

@djsumdogThere'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.

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:

battlepenguin.com/politics/aim…

Aiming for America's Ear

I immediately got messages from friends on Saturday following the assassination attempt on Former President Trump. One friend immediately thought tha...

^{battlepenguin.com}

@djsumdogHere'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.

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 shows that the values of individuals in America and their voting has very little effect on policy, unless the people who are voting are rich:

cambridge.org/core/journals/pe…

Not that being rich gives your 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:

battlepenguin.com/politics/vid…

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:

corbettreport.com/?s=solutions…

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.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Volume 12 Issue 3

^{Cambridge Core}

@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.

Our client had thin clients that where managed via a controller over pxe. We replaced the hyperv with vm's in the cloud and they didn't want to buy new PCs. So we got them small SSDs instead and I set up a debian image with autologin and a script that asks for credentials to launch xfreerdp in fullscreen.
It worked great (until they finally got new hardware).

I can give you some of the code next week if you want.