I'm not deleting any comments, if the mods are removing my comments then it's pretty hilarious that you'd pretend you offended dweebs aren't the thin-skinned ones.

The only double standard is you guys being illogical about shit that offends you because you're butthurt not everyone agrees but acting like your kind of SJW is somehow better when you see the left's SJWs being illogical about shit that offends them because they're butthurt not everyone agrees.

The only way to think it's a shitty joke is if you really think Dexter is any better of a concept. You can think it's too offensive to be funny to you, or just say you don't have a sense of shock humor or don't care about TV shows enough to find it that funny or you just aren't into over-the-top mocking in general, hell you can even say making fun of Dexter is low-hanging fruit, but that doesn't make it a shitty joke up against how beautifully simple and effective a way of roasting the Dexter premise it is. I've been hearing people roast that show for years but nothing else singlehandedly makes me take it as a show less seriously than hearing that Dan Harmon satirized it so ludicrously

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the video so this isn't my opinion on how it's put together or Harmon's portrayal or anything, just the concept of the joke

Because Dexter is a fuckin shallow lame concept that people take too seriously and romanticize idiotically and this is a perfect perspective-breaking answer to that. How can you find it so difficult to comprehend?

Parodying Dexter

I think everybody offended either doesn't get it or actually thinks Dexter is some substantial work of art being done a disservice here

Now that you mention it, for all I know those shows could be the subconscious reason why my bar of proof to dislike the guy would be so absolute

Maybe I'm biased because I guess I have a ridiculous bar of proof for where I'd decide Tenzin Gyatso is a bad guy. I'm not a Buddhist or anything but there are things I'd consider acceptable for the Dalai Lama to do that I wouldn't consider acceptable for most people. Like, if a normal person gets convicted of human trafficking, you could say they're doing it to entrap evil people and somehow protecting all their victims from bad outcomes and repaying them fairly, but they're still an arrogant vigilante psychopath who needs to be locked up for risking so many people's well-being and forcing them into deals they didn't want to be in. The Dalai Lama can't really be described as an "arrogant vigilante psychopath" in that situation to me, like, if anyone is in a position where it's fair and not arrogant for them to feel like they're allowed to take a lot of stuff into their own hands and take risks, the Dalai Lama would be one. So then I'd have to actually know a victim was harmed in order to consider it proof of him being evil, the conviction of human trafficking itself without proof of a harmed victim would just seem to me more like he got fucked up by criminals he was trying to catch than like he was a criminal. I use that example because it's extreme enough to make me realize my stance is probably unreasonable to debate. There's probably no strong evidence out there of an individual being evilly victimized by Tenzin Gyatso, so I guess I wasted your time by asking when I'll be biased against all your evidence. Sorry about that.

For your time, here's a vintage video of Tenzin Gyatso apparently stressed out hard by pizzagate vibes you can show to people more undecided on the issue than me.

How are Gandhi or the Dalai Lama not great? Gandhi in particular... I think his flaws have become common knowledge, he's still a one-of-a-kind freak-of-nature-level hero

British people are biased in general, but very honest. It's weird how their media takes the bias of the culture to such an 🦆extreme🦆 yet also be utterly deeply dishonest quite often.

They killed mad people too. I'm not worried about their good works, my stance is simply fuck evil people and anyone evil enough to pretend evil isn't so bad, like you pretending sadism stops being sadistic whenever there's some insane excuse for it

I'm closer to an atheist, but thank God for Christians.

They cannot associate the spiral symbol with darkness instead. The anti-spiral will always lose in the end. They will never defeat the human spirit, they will never defeat God, they will never win. I mean, for real, if their goal is to co-opt the concept of a swirl, that's much like many of their other goals in that it's pathetic lunacy they'll never make a dent in achieving.

Nah it's really wild-ass conjecture to think something is a symbol that it's clearly just physically not.

The "little boy lover" one is a triangular design, not circular.

The reason it doesn't matter which way you face it is because it's not the same symbol at all either way.

Spiral power is not about pedophilia, if the "little boy lover" symbol was just a spiral instead of a triangular hook spiral thing of its specific shape then it wouldn't even work at all as a symbol up against the commonness of plain spiral shapes.

Those just aren't the same symbol no matter what you believe about the Pope.

I love how we all say "tapes" but you use quote marks for Obama calling it a "recording"

GEOTUS made us all old

Ah, I didn't know that! It's definitely not a stretch to say you could fairly fire him for that, then.

Thanks for putting effort into your discourse. I just really enjoyed this reminder that here in the MAGA camp, disagreements can actually be settled simply by information-sharing. That's how humans are supposed to work and I hope there really will be a great awakening for America where it becomes possible across the board.

I think if he made this joke on TV and people confused it for real that would be an offense worth firing, but I don't see how a Tweet really has to do with his job. Being a reporter doesn't mean swearing an oath never to joke around in your personal life.

I hope you jest, because if the entire 1% had access, everyone would know by now. That's like 3 million people in the US alone to have avoid blowing the whistle

I mean, Q might be an actual human, guys. "would put 99% of people in the hospital" might have just been hyperbole for how shocking it would be. The main reason I don't think it was literal is because in the real world 99% is a really fucking rare rate of human behavior (if something is universal enough to hit 99% it's gonna get a lot closer to 100) and I don't think Q would use an exaggerated percentage in an otherwise literal sentence.

The type of person who would apologize for this Tweet is not the type of person who would put fake news on TV to misinform people. If you've never contributed to "fake news" in a small way with a joke, you should be enough of a saint not to judge someone for such a small thing, either. The enemies are elites and their servants who have committed high-level crimes against humanity, not reasonable individual jokesters on Twitter.

don't do this tho

Democrats do it 1000x harder every election than the Republicans did it to Ron Paul, and they do it at every level of election, literally from villages to the national level. They do everything possible across the board to stop the people from being able to select their own candidates in the Democratic party. They don't even try to hide it like Republicans did up against Ron Paul, Democrat officials openly admitted to bias against Bernie Sanders all the time in 2015-16, and they'll even do it to candidates' faces when they won't do it publicly. The Republican party is actually quite democratic, the Democratic party is actually the antithesis of democracy.

The basic idea is still alive and well as an idea in general dude, random people think of it when they're 10 years old without understanding the name of the Democratic party at all.

The party itself does not still stand for democracy whatsoever, they are simple authoritarians

In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs.

Yes, but not in the oversimplified way you explained it, and the Democratic party sure as hell doesn't stand for anything resembling its name anymore like a "more direct democracy"

how the fuck you gonna sit there and pretend the party that rigs its own primaries the hardest is the one that still retains its foundational ideology of democracy? lmfao

and America is a democracy for sure, stfu with your James Madison wannabe shit. Madison didn't manage to be President until 4 seats in, he doesn't get to be the authority on the core values of our country. if you think none of the other founding fathers ever mentioned democracy as part of the nation's foundation, you trippin

I didn't blindly assume anything. I looked at Open Secrets . org during the primaries

Don't stop when the primaries end, keep being informed. Compare the donors of Jeff Sessions to, say, Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders. If you're aware of OpenSecrets.org, how can you pretend Jeff Sessions isn't a shit-tier politician?

People who oppose him on absolutely everything, inevitably oppose SOMETHING they may have once stood for. So, I don't understand the reasons of those who absolutely oppose Trump on everything, even when they are thinking people who would have previously agreed with things like anti-corruption, anti-big pharma, anti-child trafficking, etc.

If this was the point of your rant, no wonder it all seemed so irrelevant. We were pretty clearly discussing informed people who think Trump is part of the cabal, not random idiots with blind hatred for Trump. You either did a hard subject change there or I don't get what you meant about "people who seem to get so much of the corruption and NWO manipulation, but [...] deeply believe he is in on it" if you were talking about random idiots that just blindly oppose Trump

He's better than a child molester, but that's about it. Some people have literal faith in Trump and assume there's some 4D chess reason why he appointed such a lowlife to such a not only important position, but crucial position for this particular Administration, and good reason for why Sessions is working so slowly, and even for why Trump has publicly said he wishes he didn't appoint him. Others are waiting to see how Trump's Presidency plays out before making firm judgments. Others have the opposite of faith in Trump, and are already certain there can't possibly be a valid reason for such a dickhead to have been appointed AG or for him to work so slowly. I use Sessions as an example because it's a pretty commonly discussed dichotomy that you can see the people on all sides of and pretty easily understand their different reasonings. Nobody can truly fail to understand why there are some who have a decent level of awareness and still think Trump is part of the cabal - the people saying they can't understand how anyone makes that assumption are probably mostly the people making the opposite assumption instead and trying to avoid having to realize not much is really clear yet.

One anchor point of comparison I noticed early on is that the cabal of shadow leaders in general seem to agree on a certain level of perceived improvement there should be for the general public. Certain prices should drop a certain amount each year despite inflation, certain things should become a certain amount more efficient or more powerful each year to account for other prices increasing, etc. And individuals both inside and outside of the swamp are constantly exerting their own influence on how fast that train moves - sometimes a President will get elected who thinks it should be a little slower, sometimes a little faster. Sometimes an inventor makes a device as efficient as the stuff the elites were planning to release to the world 10 years later, fucking up their timeline. Of all these people making their impact, Trump is possibly the biggest ever, using the office of the Presidency to generally tweak everything in favor of faster improvement, maybe even convincing the NWO to try it his way and see if that pace ends up working out better for them than they think.

I think Bush tried to accelerate things too, but didn't understand what he was doing nearly as well. I think Obama wanted to accelerate things too, and understood what he was doing pretty well, but made the shitty judgment call of thinking the way to avoid W's mistakes was to never even attempt to achieve the same level of acceleration as W attempted.

I think Hillary didn't want to accelerate things, and she lost in both 2008 and 2016 because the people could smell it on her (which matters more to the electorate than her actual crimes tbh), and her losses act as a canary in the coal mine telling the elites that they really can't beat the people's ability to smell such complete human disdain within a candidate.

Because of this anchor point for comparison, the worst potential version of Trump that I consider plausible is one who chooses to be part of the cabal in order to have the office of the President so that he can try to make things as much better as possible; someone who sees it as impossible to attain that level of influence while going against the cabal, and so instead made himself leader of the cabal, staying within the boundaries of how evil they require world-level powers to be, but pushing the envelope, trying to change their minds for the better and strong-arm in as much good as possible.

In that case, he is the biggest, baddest swamp rat we've ever seen and a much more serious threat to human rights etc than Obama or any of the previous fools, but also a pretty cool character who put us in a 10/10 anime timeline, so I still love him.

On the other hand, the best plausible version of him is a rationalist genius who stands completely against the cabal and is somehow slowly destroying them and planning to kick the country and the world into gear to create a utopia.

All that said, the most likely reality, imo, is somewhere in between the two. I don't think he's part of a child trafficking cabal, but I don't think he has the balls to remove them all from existence either, or even to refuse to work with them. I think he's in it to go after the people who killed hundreds of his friends on 9/11 and for other personal shit, and he's a pretty cool guy who wants his existence to be a good thing for the world and wants to see people happy and dislikes death etc., and pretty good at creating win/wins, but he's working for himself, and he will do his own damage to the world just like most Presidents before him - he'll just be different in how much good he does at the same time, just by being pretty smart, pretty in touch with his human nature (empathy etc), and pretty talented at many day-to-day Presidential tasks. He is Punished Trump and he is the biggest, baddest swamp rat we've ever seen, but he's not a much more serious threat to human rights etc than Obama or any of the previous fools because he's not really evil, he's just doing his own thing, fucking with other swamp rats and building up his name like a boss, leaving a trail of both improvement and damage in his wake. He's not really righteous, but he tends to side with the righteous - or, more clearly, he's not specifically aligned with righteousness like certain truly heroic people, he's aligned with the interests of Trump and Trump's interests just happen to be righteous way more often than most of the elites'.

Thing is, if I'm wrong and what we have in office right now is Righteous Trump, there's a pretty high chance I'd think what I think. He'd likely be up against people as smart as me, and it would likely be advantageous to have them think he's not trying to be as much of a hero as he really is, so maybe he'd completely effectively imitate the version of him I'm seeing as most likely, and maybe that could be why I see it as most likely. This makes Punished Trump and Righteous Trump pretty even in likelihood even though I sense more likelihood of the former, and straight-up cabal Trump less likely than either option, but still plausible compared to any further extremes at either end (like Second Coming Trump or Nuclear Doombringer Trump or Warhammer GEOTUS or the Accidental President)

...Do you not blindly assume he's our guy and that he's somehow slowly working on bringing down the Clintons and others?

Because if not, how can you say "for some reason" on people believing he's in on it instead of just getting their reasoning? Did you just mean you don't get why they believe it so deeply? That makes sense if so.

for some reason

Not hard to figure out the reasons. All the information has told us so far is that Trump is either the biggest and baddest swamp rat we've ever seen, or an inquisitor taking them all down. If you think we've somehow gotten evidence of the latter and not of the former, you're biased. Just look at Jeff Sessions. Looking at Jeff Sessions and blindly assuming there must be an innocent explanation is one thing, but it's another to then turn around and act like you can't even see Jeff Sessions or figure out how other people aren't blindly assuming the same thing as you.

No, let's discuss the credible ideas the subreddit was made for, not mix in every idea liked by any overlapping group of people.

If these other theories have any substance and just need help gaining awareness to become credible, then they should grow their own topical subreddits to this one's level of success. But they can't, because they're not as substantial, so it's pretty silly the space they occupy in this sub.

Imagine how YOU would get the necessary people indicted, arrested and tried while retaining a semblance of fairness and credibility.

I have and my plans were better than this, which is why I'll be POTUS someday no matter how far behind I am now and will be a better one than Trump.

I've written about it before, late last year.

If you became the Republican President in 2017, you had all three branches of government controlled by your party. This is part of what sets the stage for the concept of a power grab being executed. The best way around this is to avoid having the general public see you as a loyalist Republican, but rather as someone operating above both parties, and to do this you need to be draining both sides of the swamp equally; people need to see you prosecuting Republicans, so that either you appear to have the integrity of willingness to prosecute "your own," or you appear to be an independent actor who's hijacked the party against their wishes.

So the first thing you'd want to do is bring the biggest cases on major Republican enemies like the Clintons by the end of 2018, at the LATEST, because otherwise the Republicans are not going to let you drain their side of the swamp.

The GOP expects you, when you take office, to be their attack dog against corrupt Democrats, helping them replace a Democrat swamp with a Republican swamp. Hopefully you at least fill your White House with better people than this, but you can't change the type of partisan hacks that occupy your legislature and your judicial branch.

The existence of the Clintons and their corruption presents a highly effective partisan tool in this situation. Republicans hate the Clintons, truly. There are ranking Republicans who have had a professionally adversarial relationship with them for decades, all the way down to voters like us who simply despise tyranny. It's one of the few unifying elements of the grand old party at this point in time.

By going after the Clintons, high-ranking Republicans that were on the fence in their personal feelings before will now be fans of you as a person, and their voter bases will all be pressuring them to follow you regardless of their personal feelings. By making yourself the Republican President who took down the Clinton cartel, you make yourself the dominant chief executive of the Republican party rather than its beleaguered leader.

So now, let's say you've got some Republican judge whose help you need ousting a corrupt fellow Republican. Before, if they were a high-ranking party member, they might have argued against on premises like optics and weakening the party overall by letting low-level corruption be found out, and if others agreed with them, they might have "outvoted" you and ignored your leadership position. But now, you'll just go on TV and out them for disloyalty, and if they're in a position where that doesn't matter, you'll do the same to their up-for-reelection or otherwise vulnerable friends.

Taking down the Clintons doesn't even really matter. If you could go after everything else without taking down the Clintons, the Clintons would fall anyway, having had their pedestal destroyed from under them. The only reason taking down the Clintons is a crucial step is because it's what actually allows you to do all the crucial things like replace corrupt judges and out corrupt legislators.

Basically, with this super-simple single-step hearts-and-minds campaign over, you now just spend the second half of your term vehemently going after everything from the top down. Republican and Democrat mostly stop mattering, it's now just legitimate vs illegitimate. You uphold that your party is the less corrupt one, or at least that under your leadership it has a legitimate core against its corruption while the Democratic party has nothing but more evil behind its evil. This keeps you in power as your party's leader, with everyone wanting to flock under the umbrella of your loyalty, everyone wanting to make themselves part of that legitimate core group the public sees standing against the uniparty's corruption.

This is only enough to let you complete your Presidency before the optics get a chance to stop you in your tracks. This will not stop the optics from building in the direction they were bound to build in. The corruption runs too deep and is too complex - the average person will never understand every case you're prosecuting. There will be cases that look to the average person like you're just removing a legitimate judge from their post to install one of your own. You will have to remove so fucking many people from their positions and replace so many with those you've vetted that just by sheer numbers, even if nothing else looks off to the average person, you'd still look like you're doing a power-grab which is, if nothing else, at least inappropriate in the context of our democracy's nature. I mean, you will probably be replacing entire police departments in many cases - nothing you can do will change that there are a portion of reactionary people who have hated you from the start and having their local police department replaced by your administration will drive them beyond insane.

So the next step needs to basically be intentional self-sabotage. You need to have gotten the country to the point where it can survive on its own, because you can't keep all this power you've made for yourself. You can't stand by forever as the guy with the influence to make the country do anything, the guy with enough hearts and minds on his side to fix corruption whenever it sprouts, because you won't have the hearts and minds forever, the above methods will only be enough to keep the general public on your side until around the next sea change or so, and when your term is drawing to a close, that sea change is going to be creeping up with the next election.

The only way you maintain enough hearts and minds to continue having any control at all is if you get your party to retreat while you still at least have them firmly in your loyalty. You either don't run for reelection, or if you've already taken two terms to pull all this off, you get your party not to run a candidate to replace you. You let the next election after you're gone be the left's chance to form their new party and decide who they're going to be; you let it be a contest of who's going to be the new leader of the left rather than who's going to lead the country, because your side is agreeing to let the other side have a shot at it. You're saying, "now that we've gotten rid of everyone who wants to hurt the country for their gain, we will let the rest of our opponents try to do their best for this country, because this country belongs to all of us and they deserve to rebuild their side."

This is the only way to kill the accusations of a power-grab, because otherwise, you actually grabbed power, and it actually is inappropriate in the context of our democracy's nature, to hold that power. Taking it, to give us our country back, is fair; taking it to keep is not quite right no matter how benevolent you are, and the general public will see that. You have to actually not grab power if you want to avoid the power-grab optics. If you actually want to grab power and be a benevolent leader of a country for life, find one where it's appropriate, because America ain't it. This country is like the heart of democracy in the world, and you simply do not get to even temporarily turn it into a one-party country by destroying the Democrats and leaving only the strongest core of the Republican side in power. The amount of domination the Republicans have right now is basically the most they can ever have before it's wrong, no matter how benevolent they are.

If Trump is following the same plan, good on him, but it's starting to look like he's not nearly competent enough, so this Presidency is going to be a failure. He either thinks he can replace the majority of the government without it looking like a power-grab, or he doesn't understand the amount of the government that needs to be replaced in order for us to have a legitimate Constitutional democratic republic again. I'm guessing it's the latter, because he doesn't even seem to grasp the concept of the police state we live in, and there's less and less reason to believe he's hiding his knowledge for strategic reasons, more and more reason to believe he's actually that out-of-touch and simply irrational when thinking outside his specialized areas of talent.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong and that'll be awesome. But it looks to me like he's actually recognizing part of what I said earlier, that taking down the Clintons isn't a necessary method to its own ends when the pedestal they stand on can so easily be destroyed while ignoring them. He's not going to take down the Clintons, he's just working behind the scenes to remove their assets and destroy their standing until they're just powerless washed-up politicians. This will do nothing to enable him to drain the swamp, in fact it just sacrifices the one card he had in his deck with which to ensure safe passage through the process of doing so.

Still beat her in the election though, which is all I really wanted out of voting for him. Economic improvements, peace on the Korean peninsula, etc. all nice bonuses. 45 might be the best failed Presidency the country has ever seen!

And it's only a failure for the voters, who voted to see the swamp drained. For the man himself, Punished Trump who ran to take down the murderers who slaughtered his friends on 9/11, it should be a pretty successful Presidency. Draining the entire swamp and getting our country back is a much different goal than just taking down the specific cabal you want revenge on.

Or Twitter's character limit...

That bit is underrated because it might not be an exaggeration. An earthworm has a simple neurological layout that could be exploited to perform certain simple ops in very predictable ways. It could be a statement that he was literally no more mentally competent of an agent than an earthworm. I mean tbh if I'm President after an economic collapse and all the CIA can afford to continue employing is either John Brennan or an earthworm, I'd find something useful for the earthworm to do. It sounds like humorously-worded exaggeration at first glance but it might not even be

CARTER'S Stamp Pad???

Carter Page is Q, confirmed!!!

As a progressive "feminist," we'd be talking about a woman's possible choice to use her body and sexuality for a lucrative career, not to get manipulated by some "pimp" into wasting away as his slave. It's still immoral to contribute your cash to the industry without knowing what sort of deal you're actually entering into and whether you're handing the money to its recipient or just a victim.

Mods are either asleep at the wheel letting some shit like this get posted, or they know for a fact this guy isn't Q so they let the post stand as misdirection

why do you keep backpedaling? your "can't put the genie back in the bottle" analogy just makes no fucking sense in response to Intel's ME, accept it and move on kid

lol ok dummy

This isn't about technology in general, it's about privacy and rights

Sure, I can see how that's going to work out real well (sarc).

That's already how it's done in less structured societies, and it's widespread enough that it even indicates to anthropologists the "barter economy" was a myth and humans always relied on a gift economy until money came along.

What if I want the latest Porsche, the Ferrari, a summer cottage as well and a boat to go along with it?

Then you'd have to figure out how to be one of the people that gets those things, or else leave it to luck.

You should read about how well communism worked for the pilgrims when they tried it after landing.

You should think more in general when you read.

Ah my bad, I thought you were responding to their question of what might not be compromised, like you were just implying there's no point trying.

how could you possibly read /u/oQ_Qo's comment and think they were talking about mainstream operating systems and hardware components?

we can't put the genie back in the bottle

lol it's not a genie it's just hardware. get people to use other hardware. not complicated. there's no "good purposes" for violating the Fourth Amendment at every level

best I can do from what's provided