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.
That's what amendments are for.
It was created under common law, but it was created BY a subset of people, who convinced the rest of the people that it was "for their protection." Thinking that everyone was happy with it is not what actually happened. It was fuckery from the very beginning, subverting the majority populace.
With regards to a "new system of financial control," that was accomplished through the amendments, notably the 14th. It is amazing how much fuckery can be placed in a few paragraphs that present themselves as the opposite of what they are.
So wait, you are saying that amendments cover every possible change in circumstances, no matter how big and no one has ever switched from, say, an LLC to a Inc ?
Yeah, I am being facetious because, seriously, I dont think you are even keeping track of what exactly you are arguing at this point.
Yep, this is what I thought. You are confusing the fact that the constitution was signed by a "subset of people" to "US has always been controlled by private entities"
In reality, founding US, just like all major systemic changes in the world order, was the final result of multiple forces fighting against each other trying to take control of the new system. Some of these forces were "good" and some were "bad" in very simplistic terms/
Did the good guys get a perfect republic? Nope. Did the bad guys take control? Not by a long shot. They just managed to put in enough loop holes that, with a couple wars and a LOT of other major shenanigans, finally managed to get to the point of just being within the reach of full enslavement, 250 years later.
You are just being obtuse. I'm not sure why, but it is obvious you don't want to engage in what I am actually saying.
I am "confusing" nothing. Those are two separate issues (though they are related in that they both have the same origin). It was both created by a subset of people on behalf of everyone, in a way that they had no choice but to agree, AND it has always been controlled by private entities (thus my note on the difference between "in theory," and "in practice").
Maybe, maybe not. My research suggests that all such entities (British parliament, French revolution, etc.) were all done specifically to create the exact entities we got, to lead us out of the Monarchies, into a One World Government. The "good" and "bad" were really just "worse" and "worser." It was designed by an aristocracy for the aristocracy. It was about the Aristocracy over The Crown. It was never about "We The People," that was the pretense.
I suggest there is a great deal you are missing. I highly recommend reading the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Regardless of it's origin, it lays out very clearly that what we think of as "good" was not "good" at all, rather it was subversive by a subtle fuckery so insidious that it is difficult to appreciate until you really dig in. And just in case you didn't know, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was "debunked" by Allen Dulles. If you know who Allen Dulles is, you will appreciate the irony there.
Lol, I thought I had already explained it in the very next line!
There is a fundamental misconception about what makes something "good" and "bad". Its not just the intent. Its not just the actions. Its not even the combination of both.
It is what the people themselves do with it.
If we cannot learn this simple lesson from all the suffering of billions throughout history, there is no saving humanity. I think this is the lesson that the current plan is enforcing. To hold up a mirror to each individual and show them how they themselves made the system into evil, just by focusing on a narrow goal.
The scientists who did not vocally object fraudulent papers, the doctors who refused to read and understand the pfizer clinical trials for themselves and instead kept pushing the vaccines, your company boss who does not question the execs when they ask him to do something slightly immoral, your friend working at facebook who writes the very lines of code for censorship and claims if he didnt write it someone else would, or the parents who encourage their kids to write about climate change as the English essay because they know they would get better grades .. and on and on. This is what makes something good or evil.
You do not need to go to a work like Protocols to know there is fuckery going on. We can see it with our own eyes. Illuminati was created the very same year the US was founded, just one month prior to the declaration of independance. Yes, there is fuckery afoot in every direction, but at the same time if that was all that was there then they didnt need to operate from the shadows and they wouldnt have needed 250 years to get to this point. You gotta see things not as black or white but for the shades of grey that it is.