assuming you don't get banned for taking the wrong side, not saying his name but there's one common denominator here ... someone who hasn't been on Jon's show in a minute now who is perfectly poised to legally entrap one side of things here
whether or not the claims being made against a few of these groups are true -- regardless of the veracity one thing is certain -- there is an op unfolding against a particular set of influencers here (and not necessarily across the obvious and stated lines by those involved)
this is no high school drama
this is deliberate and designed to setup future events
this much is obvious no matter WHAT side you may personally think may be running this op -- if it even necessarily is a side at all or a side that we may think of at first impressions
I've become a BIG fan of Badlands, primarily because of the quality of DEFECTED. I also think its good to be aware, wary, and knowledgeable, and to realize that the Enemy is always trying to screw up relationships and cause disruption.
I keep being told to hate Jon and his team and hate Badlands, but when I try to follow why, it’s never very clear and gets super convoluted fast. This makes me suspicious. I also notice that the critics never seem to point out anything that was actually said by Jon on his show. I’ve listened to probably 100+ hours of Devolution and Badlands Media now and nothing has seemed shilly or divisive or controlled opposition to me. But I keep being told to hate him. Weird.
I agree with your comment. None of the accusations ever made sense. Neither did the weight attached to such accusations. Saboteurs seemingly arguing on the side of Kash Patel, it really doesn't make sense.
Maybe Badlands growth is the result of a fake theory and everyone has been wasting their time. Alternatively, maybe they are on the money. If they are on the money, the only semi-official attack against them has been the Rothschild journalist. Which did no damage except personal to Jon. If Devolution is true, and the series stands up to scrutiny, then the bad guys in question would have heard about it by now.
So if you were the bad guys, how would you try to discredit Devolution if you couldn't attack the facts?
If you truly believe in 1A there should very few reasons for moderation. The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence.
Calling names and shutting down conversations is nothing more than communist tactics IMO.
How about this? A church is being run by a community. A communist enters and wants to join and be part of the leadership, and to preach to the congregation about the evils of Christianity and all religion, and to advocate for a Marxist utopia.
Is it 1 A violation to decline the communists request? If not, why not? If yes, then why?
How about a lecture being run by a university to teach mathematics, but a student stands up and wants to argue about the political atmosphere of the university and the country, and ignores the lecturer's request to be quiet or leave.
Is this a 1A violation? If not, why not?
What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?
If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.
GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.
Discussions, commentary and activity that does NOT adhere to, align with, or serve that purpose doesn't belong here.
If you want a free speech platform, go find one. GAW has a very clear purpose, but it is not to allow anyone to say anything or whatever they want, whether it is related to uplifting, developing the Q movement or not.
That said, naturally, critical thinking is a very important part of that development. So is discussion, advocating of differing viewpoints, and analysis. But also CRITICAL THINKING can and should have a purpose. If the purpose is destructive, to undermine, divide, discourage, mock or disparage, to inflate ego or vent personal negativity, then it's NOT productive.
In the end, PURPOSE is what determines value and what determines applicability. Failure to recognize PURPOSE is a fatal flaw that often leads to completely erroneous conclusions vis-a-vis how or what something is or should be.
Calling names and shutting down conversations
Obviously, calling names is not moderation. But what is and isn't calling names might easily be open to debate. What exactly constitutes "shutting down conversations" is open to debate (and bias).
The purpose of moderation in ANY forum or discussion venue is to MAINTAIN and uphold the PURPOSE. When something contradicts or violates that purpose, moderation can and should take any required action to ensure the purpose is upheld and preserved.
If someone doesn't believe in the purpose of a particular forum, they are free to leave. And, they should. Engaging with a forum whose purpose one doesn't believe in, or whose purpose one wants to alter, is really the definition of destructive. And yes, Communists certainly practice methods intended to destroy and undermine ANY purpose that doesn't serve or align with theirs. But they pursue that by INVADING other venues and purposes to undermine them.
I have been reading over there the last few days. Man I thought it was bad on the Philadelphia Eagles blog (bleedinggreennation.com) with the cursing and f bombs, but Patriots.win takes the cake. Wow. They get into some pretty amusing “scream” curse fights over there. We are a church group comparatively 😂
a group of people falsely accused Kate Awakening of being Mossad. Its completely untrue and these people wont admit they are wrong so they attack Kate, John and anyone involved in We The Media or Badlands. it screams psyop like Simon Parks/Charlie Ward
I'm inclined to agree, but I like to always consider two dimensions at play: both the conscious and the unconscious.
Some people are consciously moved to attack, destroy, undermine. It's their chosen work, either paid or unpaid.
Others are manipulated unconsciously by spiritual forces that exploit their weakness in order to become unwitting instruments of the purpose of those spiritual forces, or to become instruments of disruption.
I assume and believe that there are A) people who are paid operatives whose purpose is to attack and destroy the Great Awakening movement as much as possible, through whatever avenue they can find.
I think B) others can be misinformed, or compromised by their own emotionally driven programming to see bad where there is good, etc.
Both of these are a problem.
So far, I have only seen good fruit from Badlands, but I don't have much time for digging into accusations that smell of either A) or B). Maybe I'm wrong, but I have to trust my own senses and judgment when deciding WHERE to invest my time and effort. And the above two categories usually don't inspire me to invest much (although I despise the disinfo opps BIG time, and for that reason, I'm a fan of Jordan Sather, btw.)
A few days or so ago, a post was made claiming that Patel Patriot might be a "Paytriot". And in typical GAW fashion, opinions were made, stones were cast, and so on.
Ah, the old Paytriot shillism. That cry has been used by more shills than not. An easy inroad for creating division.
And in typical GAW fashion, opinions were made, stones were cast, and so on.
I won't say if that is typical or not, but obviously, if there is an argument to be made it should be made using empirical data, reasoning, logic and balance. More often than not, such assertions tend to come from extremely emotionally driven places, NOT from based, balanced and reasoned arguments.
Yeah, I just checked back into this thread, and you can see what I mean lol.
Either Patel could be a grifter/paytriot, and either could be legit. Either way, I'm not spending money. I'll spend money on the one who is right in the end, if at all.
I cannot see anything wrong with choosing to use or apply your money where you want. Either way.
So I also don't see anything wrong with people who invest time, money, effort receiving support or creating ways to sustain that work or make a living, either.
I do put money to some places, but I get about 100 times more value from those places than value I put in. As a culture, we seem to have become trained in the "I deserve everything for free" mentality.
The thing is, these people (like PP) actually DO put out a lot of value without demanding (selling) it. They offer it freely, then ask, hey, if you want to support, I can use that support, and here's how to do it.
If we want to look at real grifters, we should look at places like this: this is what real grifting looks like: scam central.
I haven’t been on Jon’s show for a hot minute. Am not aware of any controversy or drama. I read devolution series a while back, thought it made sense but didn’t put all my hopes on it.
What would you recommend? DM me if it’s better that way to discuss
Hope you're not referring to Bruce Willis (I swear one of the regulars looks exactly like him)! Although I think Kyle hasn't been on much lately either. I honestly only tune into the power hour about twice a month though.
I'm too busy to keep up with that day-to-day, so I didn't know what was going on until last week. I think you have competing brands and one decided to do an "op" against the other and some people got sucked into the validity of said "op" without knowing the true motivations. My problem with the "op" is this is exactly what MSM and the DS does to us. However, this might be a triple agent play, so who knows. We are in the right place for that. Eyes open.
Assertion/opinion. No convincing argument I can see.
Sorry if if I hurt your feelings there.
Kek. Apology accepted. But no, (my apology) sorry that you didn't (I suspect you would have liked to?)
You seemed to get your angries whirling.
Dunno about that. Seems like a large suitcase of projection there.
What sort of dumb definition or standard is that?
Hehe. That was uncalled for. Emotionally charged response. Even if I disagree with your reasoning, it was preemptive and kinda lame to call the definition "dumb". So, apologies on that score.
Yeah, nah. The fact that you make assertions do not make those assertions facts.
BTW, your argument here is ludicrous, anyway. "If you cannot immediately see X, it means you are in denial, and no argument...."
I mean, seems like an argument specifically designed to NOT present any evidence or even engage in discussion.
I really don't mind, though, because while you appear to get cookie point thrills by making ungrounded assertions about others that shore up your own egotistical preconceptions, I'm not interested. I'm interested in discussion and learning, even if (and especially if) its learning that develops my understanding.
So far, you offer nothing in that regard.
Which makes me really wonder why you are here..... But maybe that's just me.
USA @ WAR cuz Bad People and Virus.
Good POTUS see Bad long time ago.
Good POTUS do good pen/military work.
Good POTUS devolve govnt.
Bad People are in trouble.
LOL, maybe dial back on the snarkyism, both youse guys?
CQ, are you making the assertion that PP's theorizings are all 100% correct? Because he's been mistaken on certain things, which he admits himself.
PP's Opinion: "I don’t think he ever “left”...He is still President, and we’re in a state of devolution at the moment."
However, as I understand it, devolution theory is essentially about devolution of authority in govt as a means to maintain govt continuity. Thus, devolution theory ALSO includes the possibility that there is NO president, that DJT devolved the executive authority over to a devolved military authority.
A similar scenario or situation would be in a country where there is a fraudulent election, the military steps in or does a coup, and executes military rule while there is no actual president in the country, with the purpose of having "proper" elections at a later date. There are historical incidents of such as far as I know, nations where there has been a "military junta" being examples....
The difference between the above situation and what devolution potentially implies is that such a transference of power from civilian to military is initiated by the military in the former, whereas in devolution theory, IF it takes place, it is initiated by the civilian executive authority.
In conclusion, devolution of govt (for continuity of govt) does NOT necessarily mean that DJT is president. It is also possible, and I believe PP mentioned this point on several occasions I have listened to him, that there is currently NO president.
What I like about commentators like PP is that they make a lot of effort to distinguish between theorizing on one hand, speculation on the other, and opinions on a third. We do well to do likewise.
Kek. After dumping all over Keep the Faith for by and large saying exactly this: "Pro tip for the future: Read first, then comment." you go around and say the same thing!
Lol. It's completely unnecessary, unproductive and not helpful. I strongly urge keeping such unsolicited advice to one's self. But maybe that's just me.
now, to the substance of your comment.
As I wrote in the comment above in a separate branch of the thread,
CQ, are you making the assertion that PP's theorizings are all 100% correct? Because he's been mistaken on certain things, which he admits himself.
PP's Opinion: "I don’t think he ever “left”...He is still President, and we’re in a state of devolution at the moment."
I stated that "Devolution EQUALS Trump is still president" is incorrect. In other words one does NOT equal the other.
Devolution = the possibility that Trump is still president is a correct statement, imo.
Also, devolution = the possibility that there is no president currently is also correct.
As far as I understand Dev theory. I base this view in large part on commentary by PP himself in discussions with other anons, and discussions by other anons of devolution theory.
While I think that PP's dev theory is probably the best developed Dev theory out there, it's a theory, and what that theory says ABOUT devolution should NOT be taken as fact, as in "Devolution = Fact".
That's how I see it, anyway.
you get corrected but not flamed. I think that's only fair.
yeah, nah. Save the self-aggrandizing commentary for others. I'm not really interested. I'm interested in ideas and discussion, but not personality-based competitions.
Oh this thread should be good considering then recent controversy..
assuming you don't get banned for taking the wrong side, not saying his name but there's one common denominator here ... someone who hasn't been on Jon's show in a minute now who is perfectly poised to legally entrap one side of things here
whether or not the claims being made against a few of these groups are true -- regardless of the veracity one thing is certain -- there is an op unfolding against a particular set of influencers here (and not necessarily across the obvious and stated lines by those involved)
this is no high school drama
this is deliberate and designed to setup future events
this much is obvious no matter WHAT side you may personally think may be running this op -- if it even necessarily is a side at all or a side that we may think of at first impressions
Taking what side? I like the devolution series, but evidently, Patel Patriot did a no-no.
Feel like elaborating on that?
I've become a BIG fan of Badlands, primarily because of the quality of DEFECTED. I also think its good to be aware, wary, and knowledgeable, and to realize that the Enemy is always trying to screw up relationships and cause disruption.
I keep being told to hate Jon and his team and hate Badlands, but when I try to follow why, it’s never very clear and gets super convoluted fast. This makes me suspicious. I also notice that the critics never seem to point out anything that was actually said by Jon on his show. I’ve listened to probably 100+ hours of Devolution and Badlands Media now and nothing has seemed shilly or divisive or controlled opposition to me. But I keep being told to hate him. Weird.
Thanks for the data leads, Baggins.
Here's Jon's side. https://patelpatriot.substack.com/p/transparency
I agree with your comment. None of the accusations ever made sense. Neither did the weight attached to such accusations. Saboteurs seemingly arguing on the side of Kash Patel, it really doesn't make sense.
Maybe Badlands growth is the result of a fake theory and everyone has been wasting their time. Alternatively, maybe they are on the money. If they are on the money, the only semi-official attack against them has been the Rothschild journalist. Which did no damage except personal to Jon. If Devolution is true, and the series stands up to scrutiny, then the bad guys in question would have heard about it by now.
So if you were the bad guys, how would you try to discredit Devolution if you couldn't attack the facts?
I have found that the truth is usually very simple and it's bullshit that is complicated. I sympathize with your failure to find a simple reason.
This place is weird 90% of the time.
Oddly enough, people are calling out Patriots.win for this same shit.
Claim people want talk, ban, remove, call out those that talk. Whether you like it or not.
Deleting of post with no clear reasoning as to why.
With half the time it simply offended the mods.
Dont' believe me, check it out? https://patriots.win/p/16ZXepeeak/house-republicans-release-their-/c/
Mods are getting too antsy banning people and pushing them out.
The forums are dying because no conversation is allowed. The ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS AGREE
Lest you be called Doomer, Shill, Whatever word makes them feel good.
If you truly believe in 1A there should very few reasons for moderation. The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence. Calling names and shutting down conversations is nothing more than communist tactics IMO.
That's a completely erroneous perspective. IMO.
How about this? A church is being run by a community. A communist enters and wants to join and be part of the leadership, and to preach to the congregation about the evils of Christianity and all religion, and to advocate for a Marxist utopia.
Is it 1 A violation to decline the communists request? If not, why not? If yes, then why?
How about a lecture being run by a university to teach mathematics, but a student stands up and wants to argue about the political atmosphere of the university and the country, and ignores the lecturer's request to be quiet or leave.
Is this a 1A violation? If not, why not?
What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?
If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.
GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.
Discussions, commentary and activity that does NOT adhere to, align with, or serve that purpose doesn't belong here.
If you want a free speech platform, go find one. GAW has a very clear purpose, but it is not to allow anyone to say anything or whatever they want, whether it is related to uplifting, developing the Q movement or not.
That said, naturally, critical thinking is a very important part of that development. So is discussion, advocating of differing viewpoints, and analysis. But also CRITICAL THINKING can and should have a purpose. If the purpose is destructive, to undermine, divide, discourage, mock or disparage, to inflate ego or vent personal negativity, then it's NOT productive.
In the end, PURPOSE is what determines value and what determines applicability. Failure to recognize PURPOSE is a fatal flaw that often leads to completely erroneous conclusions vis-a-vis how or what something is or should be.
Obviously, calling names is not moderation. But what is and isn't calling names might easily be open to debate. What exactly constitutes "shutting down conversations" is open to debate (and bias).
The purpose of moderation in ANY forum or discussion venue is to MAINTAIN and uphold the PURPOSE. When something contradicts or violates that purpose, moderation can and should take any required action to ensure the purpose is upheld and preserved.
If someone doesn't believe in the purpose of a particular forum, they are free to leave. And, they should. Engaging with a forum whose purpose one doesn't believe in, or whose purpose one wants to alter, is really the definition of destructive. And yes, Communists certainly practice methods intended to destroy and undermine ANY purpose that doesn't serve or align with theirs. But they pursue that by INVADING other venues and purposes to undermine them.
I have been reading over there the last few days. Man I thought it was bad on the Philadelphia Eagles blog (bleedinggreennation.com) with the cursing and f bombs, but Patriots.win takes the cake. Wow. They get into some pretty amusing “scream” curse fights over there. We are a church group comparatively 😂
a group of people falsely accused Kate Awakening of being Mossad. Its completely untrue and these people wont admit they are wrong so they attack Kate, John and anyone involved in We The Media or Badlands. it screams psyop like Simon Parks/Charlie Ward
I'm inclined to agree, but I like to always consider two dimensions at play: both the conscious and the unconscious.
Some people are consciously moved to attack, destroy, undermine. It's their chosen work, either paid or unpaid.
Others are manipulated unconsciously by spiritual forces that exploit their weakness in order to become unwitting instruments of the purpose of those spiritual forces, or to become instruments of disruption.
I assume and believe that there are A) people who are paid operatives whose purpose is to attack and destroy the Great Awakening movement as much as possible, through whatever avenue they can find.
I think B) others can be misinformed, or compromised by their own emotionally driven programming to see bad where there is good, etc.
Both of these are a problem.
So far, I have only seen good fruit from Badlands, but I don't have much time for digging into accusations that smell of either A) or B). Maybe I'm wrong, but I have to trust my own senses and judgment when deciding WHERE to invest my time and effort. And the above two categories usually don't inspire me to invest much (although I despise the disinfo opps BIG time, and for that reason, I'm a fan of Jordan Sather, btw.)
A few days or so ago, a post was made claiming that Patel Patriot might be a "Paytriot". And in typical GAW fashion, opinions were made, stones were cast, and so on.
"BE CAREFUL WHO YOU FOLLOW"
Ah, the old Paytriot shillism. That cry has been used by more shills than not. An easy inroad for creating division.
And in typical GAW fashion, opinions were made, stones were cast, and so on.
I won't say if that is typical or not, but obviously, if there is an argument to be made it should be made using empirical data, reasoning, logic and balance. More often than not, such assertions tend to come from extremely emotionally driven places, NOT from based, balanced and reasoned arguments.
More often than not.
PS thanks for the response!
Yeah, I just checked back into this thread, and you can see what I mean lol.
Either Patel could be a grifter/paytriot, and either could be legit. Either way, I'm not spending money. I'll spend money on the one who is right in the end, if at all.
I cannot see anything wrong with choosing to use or apply your money where you want. Either way.
So I also don't see anything wrong with people who invest time, money, effort receiving support or creating ways to sustain that work or make a living, either.
I do put money to some places, but I get about 100 times more value from those places than value I put in. As a culture, we seem to have become trained in the "I deserve everything for free" mentality.
The thing is, these people (like PP) actually DO put out a lot of value without demanding (selling) it. They offer it freely, then ask, hey, if you want to support, I can use that support, and here's how to do it.
If we want to look at real grifters, we should look at places like this: this is what real grifting looks like: scam central.
https://amg-news.com/cia-top-secret-list-of-8-million-names-who-will-be-rounded-up-when-martial-law-is-imposed-video/
Definitely more than your typical drama.
I haven’t been on Jon’s show for a hot minute. Am not aware of any controversy or drama. I read devolution series a while back, thought it made sense but didn’t put all my hopes on it.
What would you recommend? DM me if it’s better that way to discuss
Check this out big time. IMO, best new high quality anonism seen for a long while.
https://rumble.com/v205e6s-defected-ep-5-sun-900-pm-et-.html
I don't tune in to PP much these days, but the emergence of Badlands makes me want to highly rate his work.
Defected is great! Both JH and BB take that 40,000 foot narrative view, which is a nice change from almost anything else out there.
Hope you're not referring to Bruce Willis (I swear one of the regulars looks exactly like him)! Although I think Kyle hasn't been on much lately either. I honestly only tune into the power hour about twice a month though.
I'm too busy to keep up with that day-to-day, so I didn't know what was going on until last week. I think you have competing brands and one decided to do an "op" against the other and some people got sucked into the validity of said "op" without knowing the true motivations. My problem with the "op" is this is exactly what MSM and the DS does to us. However, this might be a triple agent play, so who knows. We are in the right place for that. Eyes open.
Why was this stickied in less than 5 min? Can someone TLDR me?
Nothing major, just a news recap and some insightful discussion.
PP is a 🤡
WTM are 🤡s
100% moss ahd 🤡s
The Authority has damning evidence on all the WTM 🤡s.
And the ones who left WTM after realizing what was happening are ratting them out.
Same here, I’m just watching. Enough has been brought up to raise suspicions on both sides. Now to digest and discern.
Paytriot. Just admit it. He is worshipped, but if he’s more legit than anyone here (aside from glow fags and shills), then i’m a monkey’s uncle.
"more legit"
What sort of dumb definition or standard is that?
What the heck do you think is "more legit", and why on earth would you apply that as a standard to evaluating value people bring to the table.
Is there some competition to be "more legit" that no one told me about?
Uh… he is illegitimate. Legitimate is more legit than illegitimate. Sorry if if I hurt your feelings there. You seemed to get your angries whirling.
Assertion/opinion. No convincing argument I can see.
Kek. Apology accepted. But no, (my apology) sorry that you didn't (I suspect you would have liked to?)
Dunno about that. Seems like a large suitcase of projection there.
Hehe. That was uncalled for. Emotionally charged response. Even if I disagree with your reasoning, it was preemptive and kinda lame to call the definition "dumb". So, apologies on that score.
If you can’t immediately see that he’s a paytriot, no explanation or argument could ever ‘convince’ you, because you’re in denial.
Yeah, nah. The fact that you make assertions do not make those assertions facts.
BTW, your argument here is ludicrous, anyway. "If you cannot immediately see X, it means you are in denial, and no argument...."
I mean, seems like an argument specifically designed to NOT present any evidence or even engage in discussion.
I really don't mind, though, because while you appear to get cookie point thrills by making ungrounded assertions about others that shore up your own egotistical preconceptions, I'm not interested. I'm interested in discussion and learning, even if (and especially if) its learning that develops my understanding.
So far, you offer nothing in that regard.
Which makes me really wonder why you are here..... But maybe that's just me.
Why does that guy do anonymity, his reputation is lame.
He works at a place that would fire him if he went public. I think that is his fear.
Unconditional updoodle for anything Badlands and that goes double for anything with Burning Bright.
Jon and Tiger picture!
Show starts around 18:50.
Devolution = Trump is still president
But even when he was actually still president, I wonder why didn't he pardon the Jan 6 protesters before he left office
Devolution = Trump is still president
Not true. Please go read the series/theory before being a faggot.
do you have a very brief summary of the 'series'?
anything I see is convoluted/too much text.
George Washington's 2nd inaugural address was 135 words, surely a concept like 'devolution' can be summed up using less words...
USA @ WAR cuz Bad People and Virus.
Good POTUS see Bad long time ago.
Good POTUS do good pen/military work.
Good POTUS devolve govnt.
Bad People are in trouble.
awesome! that's all I need to know;) doesn't sound like something i need to put too much effort into. I prefer the Biblical/historical aspect of Q.
for example; maybe someone else can 'see' the clues in picture for #10
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-revolutionary-war/washingtons-revolutionary-war-battles/the-trenton-princeton-campaign/10-facts-about-the-battle-of-princeton/
LOL, maybe dial back on the snarkyism, both youse guys?
CQ, are you making the assertion that PP's theorizings are all 100% correct? Because he's been mistaken on certain things, which he admits himself.
PP's Opinion: "I don’t think he ever “left”...He is still President, and we’re in a state of devolution at the moment."
However, as I understand it, devolution theory is essentially about devolution of authority in govt as a means to maintain govt continuity. Thus, devolution theory ALSO includes the possibility that there is NO president, that DJT devolved the executive authority over to a devolved military authority.
A similar scenario or situation would be in a country where there is a fraudulent election, the military steps in or does a coup, and executes military rule while there is no actual president in the country, with the purpose of having "proper" elections at a later date. There are historical incidents of such as far as I know, nations where there has been a "military junta" being examples....
The difference between the above situation and what devolution potentially implies is that such a transference of power from civilian to military is initiated by the military in the former, whereas in devolution theory, IF it takes place, it is initiated by the civilian executive authority.
In conclusion, devolution of govt (for continuity of govt) does NOT necessarily mean that DJT is president. It is also possible, and I believe PP mentioned this point on several occasions I have listened to him, that there is currently NO president.
What I like about commentators like PP is that they make a lot of effort to distinguish between theorizing on one hand, speculation on the other, and opinions on a third. We do well to do likewise.
False. Incorrect statement.
Kek. After dumping all over Keep the Faith for by and large saying exactly this: "Pro tip for the future: Read first, then comment." you go around and say the same thing!
Lol. It's completely unnecessary, unproductive and not helpful. I strongly urge keeping such unsolicited advice to one's self. But maybe that's just me.
now, to the substance of your comment.
As I wrote in the comment above in a separate branch of the thread,
PP's Opinion: "I don’t think he ever “left”...He is still President, and we’re in a state of devolution at the moment."
I stated that "Devolution EQUALS Trump is still president" is incorrect. In other words one does NOT equal the other.
Devolution = the possibility that Trump is still president is a correct statement, imo.
Also, devolution = the possibility that there is no president currently is also correct.
As far as I understand Dev theory. I base this view in large part on commentary by PP himself in discussions with other anons, and discussions by other anons of devolution theory.
While I think that PP's dev theory is probably the best developed Dev theory out there, it's a theory, and what that theory says ABOUT devolution should NOT be taken as fact, as in "Devolution = Fact".
That's how I see it, anyway.
yeah, nah. Save the self-aggrandizing commentary for others. I'm not really interested. I'm interested in ideas and discussion, but not personality-based competitions.
Absolutely common knowledge at this point. Catch up.