API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
JaysonSunshine

Political values, observation of reality, logic: leaders

JaysonSunshine
Nov 10th, 2019
279
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 17.50 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. [4:13:03 PM] <BlackXanthus> I've never wanted someone to loose so baddly, and I remember the trainwreck that was Bush Jr.
  2. [4:13:11 PM] <bradmaj> heh
  3. [4:13:54 PM] <bradmaj> He still hasn't been put on trial for being responsible for the deaths of 3,145 Americans based on a lie
  4. [4:14:02 PM] <CaveGuy> Just think how much better shape we would be in on the climate change fight if the Presidency was not stolen from Gore
  5. [4:14:40 PM] <CaveGuy> bet we wouldnt had got in the Wars either..not Iraq
  6. [4:15:00 PM] <bradmaj> CaveGuy, it's not all bad.Thanks to McConnell, we no longer need a 60-vote majority in the Senate. When the Dems take the Senate in 2020, they'll be able to pass anything they want with just 51 votes
  7. [4:15:11 PM] <bradmaj> Mitch was TOLD this would turn and bite him in the ass
  8. [4:15:12 PM] <CaveGuy> oh
  9. [4:15:54 PM] <CaveGuy> he dont care..he got all the crooked judges he wanted
  10. [4:16:11 PM] <RachelThompson> McConnell is an enemy of the republic.
  11. [4:16:31 PM] <RachelThompson> The next step in the non-violent response to him is have him investigated by Congress or the Judiciary.
  12. [4:16:32 PM] <CaveGuy> agreed
  13. [4:16:34 PM] <RachelThompson> It appears both of those are impossible.
  14. [4:16:49 PM] <RachelThompson> The next non-violent, but now somewhat illegal action would be for the intelligence agencies to go after him.
  15. [4:17:14 PM] <RachelThompson> That might include circumventing US law to hack his electronics, and constantly surveil him, for example.
  16. [4:17:34 PM] <RachelThompson> The next step would be for the IC to plant illegal things on his devices and then leak to courts/journalist.
  17. [4:17:47 PM] <RachelThompson> After that, violent responses become authorized.
  18. [4:18:16 PM] <RachelThompson> Our system doesn't really have any contingencies for this scenarios.
  19. [4:18:24 PM] <RachelThompson> So if you look for justification/authorization in our formal systems, you won't find them.
  20. [4:18:39 PM] <RachelThompson> Surprisingly, our system doesn't create robust systems for holding its leaders accountable, as its leaders don't want that.
  21. [4:18:56 PM] <RachelThompson> So the kind resistance I am describing is always informal, unorthodox, heretical, etc.
  22. [4:18:58 PM] ← MadCatX has left (Ping timeout)
  23. [4:18:59 PM] <RachelThompson> Unless that side wins.
  24. [4:19:07 PM] <RachelThompson> Then it's understood as a brilliant and ethical opposition to power.
  25. [4:19:15 PM] <RachelThompson> But it's still not codified into power, generally, for the next round.
  26. [4:19:17 PM] <RachelThompson> And the cycle repeats.
  27. [4:19:29 PM] <bradmaj> Raven`X, there's a problem with that. Although the COngress has a 3% approval rating, if you look into it, the aprroval ratings of teh guys in the discrict of the ppl being polled is 75%. So what you are getting everywhere is "Everyone in Congress is a crook, except for MY Guy"
  28. [4:19:36 PM] <bradmaj> So teh same jerks keep getting re-elected
  29. [4:20:03 PM] <RachelThompson> You're indicating that 'people are dumb'.
  30. [4:20:10 PM] <bradmaj> they are
  31. [4:20:19 PM] <bradmaj> Look who's in the White House
  32. [4:20:28 PM] <RachelThompson> Humans are generally utterly terrible at understanding or reforming systems.
  33. [4:20:36 PM] <RachelThompson> It's also Joe's fault -- just replace Joe.
  34. [4:20:40 PM] <bradmaj> this is called "Confirmation bias"
  35. [4:20:48 PM] <RachelThompson> Then, the problem doesn't go away, since it's systematic and so you say Ralph did it.
  36. [4:20:55 PM] <RachelThompson> Replace Ralph. Repeat for 70 years.
  37. [4:21:26 PM] <RachelThompson> Every aspect of our society has failed us.
  38. [4:21:36 PM] <RachelThompson> The DOJ and FBI should have indicted Trump in the 90s if not earlier.
  39. [4:21:38 PM] <bradmaj> You wonder why assholes like Meadows keep gettign elected? He has a 6% approval rating in a general poll, but 82% in his home district
  40. [4:21:52 PM] <bradmaj> Multiply by 450,a nd the same ppl keep getting elected
  41. [4:21:53 PM] <RachelThompson> That failure, under Robert Mueller, among others, led to Robert Mueller needing to Special Counsel him.
  42. [4:21:56 PM] <RachelThompson> Where he failed again.
  43. [4:22:18 PM] <bradmaj> Mueller listed 10 examples of Obstruction.
  44. [4:22:41 PM] <RachelThompson> Mueller should have indicted Trump on at least 10 felonies.
  45. [4:22:50 PM] <RachelThompson> He failed because he thought some non-justiced memo was a Big Deal.
  46. [4:23:00 PM] <CaveGuy> excatally
  47. [4:23:04 PM] <RachelThompson> A federal court, recently, noted the only truth: There's no reason to think this memo has anything standing in law.
  48. [4:23:31 PM] <RachelThompson> A memo from a branch of government asserting its head cannot be checked by one of the other branches obviously has no standing.
  49. [4:23:49 PM] <RachelThompson> Especially considering both Nixon, Trump, and the entire GOP has been pushing the unitary executive ideology for decades.
  50. [4:23:49 PM] <CaveGuy> they should had locked him up just like they would anyone else
  51. [4:23:56 PM] <RachelThompson> Of course.
  52. [4:24:04 PM] <RachelThompson> You obviously indict the president if you're Mueller.
  53. [4:24:35 PM] <RachelThompson> Trump then challenges that, on the basis of that memo, leading to federal analysis of that memo, ultimately by SCOTUS.
  54. [4:24:42 PM] <CaveGuy> thats what started all this I can do whatever I want
  55. [4:24:43 PM] <RachelThompson> It's so fucking easy.
  56. [4:24:45 PM] <bradmaj> if Trump isn't re-elected, he'll be prosewcutable for everything Mueller uncovered. if he DOES win, hell be immune by 2024.
  57. [4:24:53 PM] <bradmaj> Which is why he's so desperate to stay in
  58. [4:25:02 PM] <RachelThompson> bradmaj: That's unresolved.
  59. [4:25:24 PM] <RachelThompson> It's not clear if the statute of limitations continues to run for the president given the legal theory that he was indicted because of Some Memo.
  60. [4:25:37 PM] <bradmaj> he was never indicted
  61. [4:25:38 PM] <RachelThompson> If some prosecutor is brave enough, they'll challenge that in court and it will be processed by SCOTUS.
  62. [4:25:54 PM] <RachelThompson> bradmaj: Mueller indicated he didn't indict the president because of Some Memo.
  63. [4:26:04 PM] <RachelThompson> He stated that to Congress, and in his report.
  64. [4:26:10 PM] <bradmaj> the DOJ said a sitting prez can't be
  65. [4:26:19 PM] <RachelThompson> I just addressed that.
  66. [4:26:24 PM] <bradmaj> I know
  67. [4:26:34 PM] <RachelThompson> The DOJ doesn't have that power.
  68. [4:26:43 PM] <RachelThompson> Any person who cares about the republic should say, "Fuck you, DOJ".
  69. [4:26:49 PM] <bradmaj> I wodln't put it past him to declare a "Antional emergency" and postpone the election
  70. [4:26:54 PM] <RachelThompson> Then, use their own knowledge to realize the president must be indictable.
  71. [4:26:55 PM] <bradmaj> NAtional even
  72. [4:27:04 PM] <RachelThompson> Then indict the president, then allow SCOTUS to resolve.
  73. [4:27:11 PM] <bradmaj> Look who runs the DOJ
  74. [4:27:17 PM] <BlackXanthus> bradmaj: National Emergency, a blurry war, then emergency powers, then a disolving of parliment.
  75. [4:27:25 PM] <CaveGuy> trump's personal atty
  76. [4:27:28 PM] <bradmaj> they even opened a criminal investigatio into THEMSELVES. Just because Trump told them to
  77. [4:27:43 PM] <RachelThompson> bradmaj: Donald Trump is light years beyond the ethical standard of being executed by the American people.
  78. [4:27:59 PM] <RachelThompson> All of this talk is largely quant and academic.
  79. [4:28:24 PM] <bradmaj> I was never called "quaint" before
  80. [4:28:25 PM] <RachelThompson> The only argument that it's invalid to execute him, ethically, is that there's an ongoing impeachment inquiry, which is the formal, legal mechanism in our system.
  81. [4:28:27 PM] <bradmaj> so thanks for that
  82. [4:28:29 PM] <Dreams2X> CBS News: Nikki Haley: I was asked by Cabinet members to take sides against the president.
  83. [4:28:29 PM] <Dreams2X> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikki-haley-i-was-asked-by-cabinet-members-to-take-sides-against-the-president/?ftag=CNM-00-10aag7e
  84. [4:28:51 PM] <RachelThompson> Trump has threatened the American people with violence from the military and biker gangs.
  85. [4:28:54 PM] <RachelThompson> That's an executable offense.
  86. [4:29:03 PM] <CaveGuy> At least some have tried to stop him
  87. [4:29:04 PM] <RachelThompson> It was justified on that day for any American to kill him.
  88. [4:29:26 PM] <RachelThompson> To the intelligence agencies listening, remember, we're discussing what is justified from a field of knowledge called 'philosophy'.
  89. [4:29:34 PM] <CaveGuy> the bullet vest wont stop a good head shot
  90. [4:29:41 PM] <RachelThompson> Watts v. United States clearly renders this conversation protected speech.
  91. [4:29:50 PM] <RachelThompson> Furthermore, your duty is to the American people, not to the traitor Trump.
  92. [4:30:05 PM] <RachelThompson> Any president who threatens the American people with violence should be immediately killed.
  93. [4:30:18 PM] <RachelThompson> Fear of that will keep presidents in check from making those threats in the future beyond that.
  94. [4:30:29 PM] <YourMom> oh good, Lania is ban-evading agaoin
  95. [4:30:32 PM] <YourMom> again
  96. [4:30:34 PM] Ignoring YourMom
  97. [4:30:48 PM] <bradmaj> this is true
  98. [4:31:08 PM] <RachelThompson> What is true?
  99. [4:31:31 PM] <RachelThompson> bradmaj: Do you find anything I've said controversial?
  100. [4:31:53 PM] <CaveGuy> i was thinking most was the truth
  101. [4:32:27 PM] <RachelThompson> Imagine thinking that an American stating that "It's ethically justified to kill a president in response to them threatening the American people with violence from the military and biker gangs." is controversial, given human history.
  102. [4:32:48 PM] <RachelThompson> Imagine how enslave a person would have to be to feel that way.
  103. [4:32:50 PM] <RachelThompson> enslaved*
  104. [4:33:27 PM] <RachelThompson> The person with no power, discussing the philosophy of counter-violence in response to a threat from a person with all the power making the initial, unprovoked threat is the real threat.
  105. [4:33:32 PM] <RachelThompson> That's what some people believe.
  106. [4:34:23 PM] <RachelThompson> bradmaj: You appear to have run away.
  107. [4:35:47 PM] <bradmaj> I never run
  108. [4:35:56 PM] <bradmaj> I walk in a stately and dignified manner
  109. [4:36:41 PM] <RachelThompson> bradmaj: So, you're going to self-censor in ignorance of the law for self-interest?
  110. [4:36:50 PM] <RachelThompson> That sounds incredibly unethical.
  111. [4:37:14 PM] <bradmaj> RachelThompson, I guess?
  112. [4:37:20 PM] <RachelThompson> That's what you're doing.
  113. [4:37:24 PM] <RachelThompson> Let's be honest about what you're doing.
  114. [4:37:32 PM] <RachelThompson> https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/707/watts-v-united-states
  115. [4:37:37 PM] <RachelThompson> In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the Supreme Court held, without the benefit of oral argument, that the First Amendment does not protect true threats. The Court also explained that political hyperbole does not qualify as such a threat.
  116. [4:37:46 PM] <RachelThompson> 'If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.'
  117. [4:38:00 PM] <RachelThompson> An American citizens said he would directly put the president at the other end of his rifle, if something happened.
  118. [4:38:06 PM] <bradmaj> He's kinda dead
  119. [4:38:07 PM] <RachelThompson> That was ruled as 'political hyperbole'.
  120. [4:38:16 PM] <RachelThompson> Who is he?
  121. [4:38:22 PM] <RachelThompson> You appear to be cognitively collapsing.
  122. [4:38:52 PM] <RachelThompson> So, SCOTUS has ruled that you can state that you'll kill the president, including a rifle gesture, and that is "political hyperbole".
  123. [4:38:59 PM] <RachelThompson> Stating you, yourself, will take an action.
  124. [4:39:03 PM] <RachelThompson> I am discussing ethics and philosophy.
  125. [4:39:13 PM] <RachelThompson> Any president who threatens the American people with violence should be killed..
  126. [4:39:20 PM] <RachelThompson> The American president is Donald Trump.
  127. [4:39:30 PM] <RachelThompson> Donald Trump, while president, threatened the American people with violence.
  128. [4:39:51 PM] <RachelThompson> The rest is syllogistic inference.
  129. [4:39:58 PM] <RachelThompson> There's no mention of my taking an action.
  130. [4:40:08 PM] <RachelThompson> This obviously less than the Watts Standard.
  131. [4:40:23 PM] <RachelThompson> So, stop being a coward who self-enslaves and avoid obvious facts and history.
  132. [4:40:38 PM] <RachelThompson> Any leader which threatens the people of the system they're leading with unjustified violence is worthy of death.
  133. [4:40:41 PM] <RachelThompson> That's obvious.
  134. [4:41:04 PM] <bradmaj> you're welcome to think whatever you want of me
  135. [4:41:13 PM] <RachelThompson> Defense mechanism.
  136. [4:41:13 PM] <bradmaj> knock yerself out
  137. [4:41:21 PM] <RachelThompson> Do you see why that's a defense mechanism?
  138. [4:41:38 PM] <bradmaj> nah
  139. [4:41:41 PM] <bradmaj> too much trouble
  140. [4:42:13 PM] <RachelThompson> Okay.
  141. [4:42:15 PM] Ignoring bradmaj
  142. [4:42:24 PM] <RachelThompson> I put you on ignore for one month, bradmaj, for cognitive collapse and moral cowardice.
  143. [4:44:21 PM] <RachelThompson> For any of you out there that self-censor on this topic, if you have a multi-year history of discussing these topics, including public records, then that's evidence your speech is philosophical, and not indicating future action.
  144. [4:44:33 PM] <RachelThompson> That is, the more you do it, the stronger a case you have.
  145. [4:44:59 PM] <RachelThompson> 'So you're worried that speech action X is evidence of a pending action Y?'
  146. [4:45:03 PM] <RachelThompson> 'Yes, your honor.'
  147. [4:45:19 PM] <RachelThompson> 'But here are records of them doing speech action X three years ago. Did they do action Y?'
  148. [4:45:23 PM] <RachelThompson> 'No, your honor.'
  149. [4:46:25 PM] <RachelThompson> It's clear that in a case like this you have to censor, directly, political speech.
  150. [4:46:30 PM] <RachelThompson> It doesn't seem a close call.
  151. [4:46:55 PM] <RachelThompson> 1. Leaders which threaten their people with violence from the military and paramilitary groups should be kill.
  152. [4:47:14 PM] <RachelThompson> This is obviously protected speech, as there's no named individuals, no plan, and no immediacy.
  153. [4:47:37 PM] <RachelThompson> 2. Donald Trump has threatened 'his people' with violence from the military and paramilitary groups.
  154. [4:47:59 PM] <RachelThompson> This is a factual description of reality. It's impossible to make this illegal, either.
  155. [4:48:36 PM] <RachelThompson> 3. Therefore, due to the rules of logic, Donald Trump should be killed for his threatening people with violence from the military and paramilitary groups.
  156. [4:49:05 PM] <RachelThompson> That's the step that a lot of people are uncomfortable stating out loud. It's a general rule of logic applied in a specific case. It's obviously protected speech.
  157. [4:49:29 PM] <RachelThompson> Therefore, to regulate (3) is to regulate (1).
  158. [4:49:53 PM] <RachelThompson> It's okay if you don't believe in (1) -- the 1st Amendment allows you to have whatever political thoughts and speech you prefer.
  159. [4:50:59 PM] <CaveGuy> https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rand-paul-inciting-violence-whistleblower-identity-1469753
  160. [4:51:09 PM] <CaveGuy> 'THIS IS ILLEGAL': DONALD TRUMP AND RAND PAUL ARE INCITING VIOLENCE BY CALLING FOR WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY, FORMER GOP STRATEGIST SAYS
  161. [4:51:21 PM] <RachelThompson> Really, though, the interest of the corrupt state, in situations like these, is in regulating those individuals who de-slave themselves and are willing to speak truthfully about those areas of reality the state has a self-interesting in owning/regulating.
  162. [4:51:33 PM] <RachelThompson> As such individuals cannot be controlled by the state.
  163. [4:56:33 PM] <RachelThompson> What does Winston mean by, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows"?
  164. [5:01:11 PM] <RachelThompson> I'll now discuss why bradmaj comment was an invalid defense mechanism.
  165. [5:01:13 PM] → kiwi88 has joined
  166. [5:01:13 PM] ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to kiwi88
  167. [5:01:44 PM] <RachelThompson> Contrary to some self-help books, you do want to care what others thing about you, but only to the right amount, at the right time, and in the right way, etc.
  168. [5:02:14 PM] <RachelThompson> The goal is to have truthful views on all topics for which you have views. If you have invalid mental processes about your self-image, or actions you've taken are invalid, you should desire to learn that.
  169. [5:02:30 PM] <RachelThompson> One way to acquire that knowledge is from other people who are observing you who sometimes have insight into you that you don't have into yourself.
  170. [5:02:43 PM] <RachelThompson> Surrounding those valuable signals you're supposed to learn from, are meanness, lies, gaslighting, confusion, etc.
  171. [5:02:53 PM] <RachelThompson> You shouldn't care about learn from those signals, in regards to modifying yourself.
  172. [5:03:00 PM] <RachelThompson> Though, you might care about them in regards to understanding that person better.
  173. [5:03:25 PM] <RachelThompson> So when bradmaj said, "you're welcome to think whatever you want of me" the implication is that "and it won't matter to me".
  174. [5:03:42 PM] <RachelThompson> But, again, from the above, bradmaj is supposed to care about what I think about him -- sometimes.
  175. [5:03:52 PM] <RachelThompson> Is this one of those times? Or, am I confused?
  176. [5:04:24 PM] <RachelThompson> You only know that by having a clear mind that is emotionally capable of hearing the evidence coupled with a philosophically powerful mind that knows how to process that evidence given everything you know.
  177. [5:04:31 PM] <RachelThompson> You got the sense bradmaj had zero interest in that.
  178. [5:04:43 PM] <RachelThompson> He just wanted to feel good, and I was possibly going to make him feel bad, and so he shut down.
  179. [5:04:53 PM] <RachelThompson> That's the textbook definition of a defense mechanism that prevents growth.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!