What's your opinion about MAGA or Q sites that are run by expats who live outside the US? And the proceeds from those sites are sending money out of the US.
The companies themselves put that there. There's no government mandate that public companies have to do that. So if it's there, the company wants it there. It's their company. They can do whatever they want in that regard.
You can't make an ideology illegal. Any aspect of that ideology that is illegal already has laws in place. So it would be pointless to try to make the entire ideology illegal, anyhow, and only risks pushing more people to it.
When someone is told they can't support something, it just makes people want to support it more due to anti-authoritative stances.
What aspects of communism are you concerned about needing to be made illegal that don't already have laws in place that will address them?
Guess they should have voted in person.
Why does he keep taking stuff like this down from his page?
So....just thoughts and prayers?
Uh-huh.
Yet again, people starting with step 1 (Federal Judge allowing a class action suit) and then skipping right to step 20, where she has lost that class action suit and all the appeals that will surely follow if that happens and her being bankrupt.
That's if it's true to begin with, and based on the track record I've seen around here, it's probably worse than 50/50 odds that it's true or that it's true AND current and not something that already happened years ago.
So, another example of people counting this as a win, before anything has even happened.
Most likely, if it's true, it's going to be held up in court for years, while she gets to enjoy all that money and find ways to hide it, should she actually lose the case. She'll probably die of old age before it ends.
They're doing this because AI is now able to do much of the work. It's not some huge patriotic signal. It's just that AI is now cheaper than paying foreigners.
I understand the "beat them at their own game" idea.
What I still don't understand is the mechanism.
If the rules are legitimate enough that Trump must follow them to achieve a lawful transition, then the rules have authority.
If the rules are illegitimate and fictional, then Trump doesn't need to follow them.
"Fight them on their level" explains a strategy. It doesn't explain why the rules are binding in the first place.
That's the part I'm asking about.
Wait, I thought the whole point was that Trump was beating them at their own game.
If the game is so corrupt that winners are simply ignored, then why would following their rules accomplish anything?
If the Cabal's rules only matter to the Cabal, then Trump doesn't need to follow them.
If Trump must follow them, then those rules have authority outside the Cabal.
I don't see how both can be true at the same time.
This is where I keep getting stuck.
The premise is that the Cabal's system is illegitimate and has no rightful authority. But then the argument becomes that Trump must obey the Cabal's rules in order to leave the system.
If those rules are actually binding, then the system clearly has authority. If the system has no legitimate authority, then its rules don't matter and there would be no need to comply with them.
You can't really have it both ways.
Either the Cabal's legal framework is real enough that everyone, including Trump, must operate within it and follow its procedures, or it's an illegitimate fiction that can simply be rejected.
Saying "the system is fake and illegitimate" while also saying "Trump must follow the system's secret rules to restore sovereignty" seems to concede the legitimacy of the very thing being rejected.
Then we're on the same page. I think I misunderstood your earlier comment. Apologies if that's the case.
That's not really an explanation though. Those are sources of belief, not evidence for a specific claim. If we're talking about whether a UFC event can legally alter sovereignty, "pattern recognition" and "Q" aren't substitutes for showing the actual legal mechanism.
Fair enough. If we're talking about symbolism, that's one discussion. If we're talking about actual legal effects under admiralty law, that's a completely different discussion. The OP is making legal claims, not merely symbolic ones.
Can you point to any actual, real, verifiable cases where anyone has won their court case, using what are considered typical "SovCit" methods?
Not "my best friend's cousin's girlfriend's dog walker proved they weren't a "person" and got their speeding ticket dismissed" or some youtube video of someone talking about it or being overturned because the cops didn't read someone their Miranda rights or some other technicality that has nothing to do with SovCit tactics.
Or show me documentation where banks allowed mortgages to be forgiven, because someone's name was in all caps on the mortgage papers.
An actual, verifiable example of it working in a setting where it matters.
That's damn insightful. I agree
Fair enough. Then which part of the theory are you actually defending? The gold fringe claim? The admiralty jurisdiction claim? The ritual consent claim? The King acting as a legal witness claim? The UFC event creating legal authority claim? I'm happy to discuss specifics.
If you aren't defending those claims, then my criticism wasn't directed at you, so I'm not sure what your point was in that comment to me.
Thanks. The sad thing is that I 100% understand the appeal it has to people. Especially the ones who get sucked into it because they fall for one of those "Have your mortgage erased by using these tactics!" type blog posts.
I first came across this stuff about 10-15 years ago when one of my co-workers got deep into it and thought they were going to get out of having to pay their mortgage and credit card bills because their name on their birth certifcate was in capital letters and all sorts of other such nonsense.
Desperation really can make people believe the most ridiculous things.
PS, my co-worker lost their house to foreclosure and had to declare bankruptcy due to all the credit card debt they racked up, thinking they wouldn't have to pay it back. Not surprising in the least.
Then identify them specifically. Which legal chains? Which statutes, cases, treaties, or doctrines are you referring to? Because the discussion wasn't about whether governments exercise authority. It was about claims regarding admiralty law, fringe on flags, and ritual consent through public spectacles.
"There are real legal chains" is a different claim from "a UFC fight creates national consent under admiralty law." I'm asking for evidence of the latter.
That's not Ignoratio Elenchi. The claim being made is that spiritual warfare, national sovereignty, and God's jurisdiction are somehow dependent on fringe on flags, admiralty symbolism, and ritual spectacle. I'm questioning the connection itself.
If the mechanism matters, explain the mechanism. How does decorative trim on a flag affect a spiritual battle? Simply naming a fallacy isn't an argument.
Spiritual battles don't hinge on if a flag has fringe or not.
One of the issues with sovcit stuff is that it's basically non-falsifiable. No matter what, it's always going to be proof of whatever someone wants it to be proof of.
On one hand, the argument is being made that all of this has been planned by powerful forces/people and that all of these things going on are hugely important.
So if the event actually occurs, then great, they call that a win. It's proof we're winning, God/White Hats are in control. Yay.
But what happens if it's canceled due to the various lawsuits going on against it, the fighters pull out like all the musical acts did, or it just being DC in summer and has a heat index of 110 degrees and people realize that having UFC fights in those conditions is stupid, or there are severe thunderstorms that day?
Will they take this as a sign they're wrong? Of course not. It will be evidence that there are evil forces out there trying to stop the awakening.
This is what I can't stand about sovcit stuff. All the obvious psycholigical issues with people going full on self delusional, and no matter what, they'll use mental gymnastics to try to make reality conform to what they want things to mean.
SovCit stuff is just a bunch of misinterpretations, wishful/magical thinking, and tons of conflicting messaging.
None of it has ever actually been upheld in a court of law. The few times someone has been able to point to an example of some sovcit person "winning" a case, it's usually either a technicality that has nothing to do with sovcit stuff, or is just the court saying it's not worth their time.
There's a whole psychology going on with people that get heavily invested in this, but it basically boils down to a) it feels like a fun game finding all these super secret clues b) it makes people feel like they're smarter than everyone else for finding them c) it gives them the sense that there is actually some sort of sense to the universe and that what is happening is being planned. There are many people who seriously can not cope with the idea that shit just happens and we don't really have control of much of what is going on with our lives.
And there's just the very basic logical contradictions that seem to fly right over their heads.
How do you call yourself a Patriot, fly the flag, and celebrate American greatness while at the same time believing America has secretly been under British corporate control for 150 years?
If it's all fraudulent foreign jurisdiction, participating legitimizes and funds the "enemy." Consistent patriots would fully withdraw (which sovcits sometimes try, and usually fail spectacularly in court).
If the Revolution was meaningless and Britain still rules, why wave the flag, sing the anthem, or call yourself a patriot for a "fake" nation? True patriots wouldn't concede eternal subjugation.
Real sovereignty wouldn't require playing by the oppressor's rules or staging cage fights for "acquiescence." The Founders didn't consult British maritime law or Freemasonic rituals to declare independence. They asserted natural rights and fought. Needing the King's witnesses or G7 acknowledgment concedes ongoing legitimacy to the very system being rejected.
If individual sovereignty is real and the Constitution/law of the land still exists for some, why doesn't it apply nationally? Why wait for Trump, UFC, or prayers? The Founders didn't need personal "redemption" schemes.
An all powerful God needing UFC fights, octagon symbolism, or Masonic countermeasures to reclaim a nation strains credulity. The Founders relied on reason, arms, and faith, not hidden admiralty loopholes.
The contradictions are tough for me to overlook.
I don't understand how that happens. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't understand it.
If you're voting in person on election day, what do they need your signature for? And obviously you have your ID. So why the need for a signature? I know some states have you sign a poll book or voter roster, but those are just for record keeping to show someone voted, not to establish identity.
Was it a provisional ballot? Because just plain regular voting in person, there should be no need to verify someone's identity via a signature unless there was some extenuating circumstances you haven't mentioned.