Ok, hear me out ...... let's start off with 2 datums .... 1. We are watching a movie and 2. Trump is currently the "real" president acting as such.
So, if we are watching a movie and all the important actors are playing their parts well under control, why would any plan depend upon the variability of an election at this point? Why depend upon a single individual staying healthy etc. (i.e. Trump). It would seem if we are watching a movie then all important variables can be accounted for a coped with if it falls "wrong", an actor/controlled asset replaced etc. Also if the next election is vital, wouldn't Q be communicating to us to assist as such? Q has gone dark because we did most all thats needed of us until the normies awaken.
Secondly if Trump is actually doing his 2nd term, he does not get 3 per the rules (assuming we playing fair in that case).
If we are watching a movie, then we can assume most all individuals with power to affect real outcomes are under control (maybe the blackmail material is in white hats hands and they do what they are told like how RICO is run). It seems like Trumps first term was to put various last steps in place Space force, various EO's etc. and now he may only have a small part to play in the final stretch. Q did say they have plans "beyond Trump".
If we are "watching a movie", all vital variables must be under control at a probably impressive scale.
This is what happens when there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the conversation is. You started with not agreeing on what a "corporation" is. I thought that was what we were talking about. Since you later said you agree with me, and responded in such a way that made me think you understood, I have since not addressed it.
That's how things work. If you give me feedback that makes sense, I won't belabor it. If you give me feedback that suggests a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear. My "multiple posts" in response were trying to address it in a way that addressed your perceived misapprehension (even if you did understand, I didn't understand that you did).
Its OK that I didn't understand the question... I said I didn't several times. I'm still not sure, since you haven't said "yes, your reformation of the 'right answer I expected' is what I meant."
While I didn't say it in that sentence, I made it clear in other areas that the word "applied" meant "who could participate in decisions." And it wasn't just a "right to vote," it was also a limit on who could become a representative within the governing body, even in theory. In practice the limits were much more stringent.
As for your "constitutional protections," there is no such thing within the document we got. The Bill of Rights was one of the greatest feats of fuckery ever imagined. You can't make non-fuckery lists of "protected Rights*. You can only make statements that limit Rights. Here is all that is necessary to legitimately protect all individuals Rights.
Any "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery, since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) and the Jurisdiction of that Sovereignty makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.
Here is my humble feedback. You tend to get lost in terminology and splitting the hair to the point where you miss the big picture.
The best analogy I can give you is this. Say someone tells you that they have upgraded from a bicycle to a vehicle and you spend the next 3 hours arguing with them whether a "bicycle" is a "vehicle" or not.
Sure, you can argue bicycle is a vehicle, but the big picture you are missing is that they are now commuting in an entirely different mode of transport which completely alters their quality of life.
We are talking about an understanding of what a government really is, what a corporation is, and what law is. A population wide misunderstanding of these things is why we are where we are. Being clear about them in conversation, to everyone's satisfaction, is essential to a victory condition for We The People. It is also essential to even get to the point where we can reasonably talk about "the big picture."
In this case, I believe your analogy does not apply. You did not give me feedback to suggest you understood, on the contrary, you gave me feedback that suggests you didn't. I belabored the issue (from your perspective) in an attempt to get on the same page, nothing more.
If you feel I've gotten "lost in the weeds," so be it. You are welcome to that opinion, but understanding the real fuckery is the most important thing we can engage in. I suggest that is exactly what Q is all about. I will continue to try to help people understand what that is until everyone understands, or I'm dead, whichever comes first.
I already gave you that feed back here
Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on, and making long winded points where it is not necessary.
The point we disagree on is simple. You believe that there was no reason to change the "corporate" structure of US since it has been as such since inception, while I sidagree.
You make your point with things such as "only a few people signed the declaration of independance", "there has been fuckery all around", "US was created by the bad people, there was no mitigation of that (I am paraphrasing this)"
I am simply pointing out that NONE of those arguments proves that there was no change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change.
And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.
Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you. Assuming that my timeline is the same as your timeline in a situation where I don't press "reload" every five seconds (or even every minute) may be causing some consternation.
Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.
Fair points. Let me address it.
First "proof" is probably not the right word, since that is a statement that the evidence has reached a certain threshold for you (preponderance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, e.g.). It would be better to say that I have not addressed those points with evidence. That is not entirely true, but I have not addressed those points directly, since I didn't really understand that that was the main point of contention.
There was no need for such a change because the Constitution (the actual law we got), in contradiction to the DoI (the supposed "spirit" of the Govt), did not address the Sovereignty of the individual, and by not addressing it, subverted it. This is a point that you are not appreciating. THERE IS SO MUCH FUCKERY contained in that omission. Because, by the Law of the Constitution, the individual is a subject of the Sovereign government, any future fuckery of subversion is possible. All it takes is a law. A constitutional amendment is not required. Because the government is, within its own definition, Sovereign to a group of vassals, it can do anything it wants, whenever it wants.
What laws have subverted our rights? Jesus, where to begin. How about I start with infringements on the 1st amendment.
Let's look at Schenck v. United States, 1919. From wikipedia:
What does this do? First, the "draft," which Mr. Schenck was speaking against is an infringement on the rights of the individual. "You must kill people and die for us because we said so." The Constitution (specifically the fifth amendment) gives the Sovereign Government the right to claim ownership of the lives of anyone under the guise of "national security." What is National Security? Whatever the Sovereign Government (or rather the Aristocracy that runs the Sovereign Government) says it is. More fuckery has been done under the guise of "national security" than you would believe until you dig into the evidence. Indeed, there has be NO WAR, in the history of the United States that was not designed and run, both sides, by the same bankers, specifically to further subjugate the people, including the Revolutionary war.
Oliver Wendell Holmes btw was an agent of Rockefeller/Rothschild, and a huge zionist, the goals of which were the real reason for WWI.
Second this leads to further justifications for "exceptions for the first amendment," all of which are fuckery, while at the same time further justifying all people as subjects to the Sovereign Government (again, created as such in 1787).
Third, since it was based on the Sedition Act, it makes clear that dissenters will not be tolerated. The US Govt. was ostensibly created by dissenters, but words of dissention if they cross the line into "incitement" are not allowed, nor if someone in charge felt they crossed the line, such as the seditious words of Mr. Scheck, "don't go die for the corrupt corporation controlled government." But this was always the case. The government tolerated no dissention if it went to the point of actual rebellion. I mean, "obviously," but also, "totally against the DoI."
There is more, there is so much more, but to be succinct (lol), the enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.
You can't escape. You are a citizen. You are a subject to the Sovereign government. You have no choice but to do what we say.
If you believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the government that you have gone so far as to do something about it, you can't participate in the government. NO INSURRECTION ALLOWED. Again, "obviously," yet, "not the DoI," and certainly not an appreciation of the Sovereign Individual, rather, it is a subversion of it. We aren't talking about violence here. We aren't talking about killing innocent people. We are talking about "participation in rebellion," which is subject to the definition of the people who are currently in charge of the government, and that is exactly how it has always been applied, including in the above case of "not actually protected speech."
Then there's this one. This, along with the first quote (we are all "citizens," thus responsible for the debt) ensured that ALL INDIVIDUALS will be forever indebted to the banks, which is to say, we have an indenture in perpetuity (AKA slavery). This was coming off the end of the Civil War, when our debt increased to so much that it became impossible to pay it off without taxing the people (stealing their property) to the point that the entire nation would have been impoverished. By the end of the Civil War, the banks (specifically Rothschild) had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."