What if they were vetted by the Q team, and put in place. Now the white hats are completely pulling their strings to control 'devolution'. You'll notice that they go liberal on everything pushing us closer to 'the precipice' ..... EXCEPT 2A.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
I think you're oversimplifying a very complex topic.
Corruption is defined as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".
I'm not sure I buy the theory of this post, but let's say it's true. Do you think the white hats would be doing it to enrich their bank books or their power like black hats?
Again, I don't subscribe to the above theory myself, but there is also a question of which side is breaking the law. Trump was very clear that his side is the part of "law and order". Q posts and the whole white hat strategy went to great lengths to follow the law.
Getting the sealed indictments without letting the enemy know what was going on required a LOT of misinformation and misdirection. It would have been easier just to slash and burn like black hats, but the white hats have been very clear about following the law.
I don't think they'd break that now. It'd be a waste of prior effort.
You're saying that a law (as written) is illegal if it affects the well being of citizens. That is a subjective argument. The bigger question for people in the US is if the law fits within the framework of the constitution. Is it constitutional?
Government surveillance is legal if you go through the proper procedures. The Obama administration skipped that step and then used fake evidence to get FISA warrants to cover up years of illegal surveillance used to gather dirt on political opponents. (Personal enrichment and private gain = corruption).
Does government surveillance negatively affect the well being of the citizens? Depends on how it is used and who it is used on and why it is used. It's not a cut and dry matter.
As for "How could that not be considered corruption?" See the definition of corruption. Do you think it's for private gain and personal enrichment? If not, then no. It would more of a question of ethics.
It is illegal to use a legal name.
"The Law
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It's a pure rant without nuance. All laws are weapons for every kind of greed? That's not true. Some laws are used for abuse, but it's not the "laws", it's the people. You can have the best written laws on the books, but if they aren't enforce they're meaningless. Same is true of badly written laws.
The perversion is how democratic states and cities choose to enforce one law to hurt the citizens, but not another.
The law is not the problem. You've got the wrong target. What's do you do when a leftist mayor in Seattle refuses to enforce laws against looting? That's not a problem of the "law". That's a problem of enforcement.
Choose your target. Think logically.
Also "if this is true". If what is true? Do you mean the post above? It's only a theory. I wouldn't waste emotional energy getting upset over hypotheticals. That's like saying, "I hypothetically had my wallet stolen by my friend and I hate them for that." For... what? Are you sure they did it or are you only speculating?
Lol, read some Bastiat dude..