Why do the trump haters get to have all the say??
mysteriouslady said: lepperochan said: some sunglasses emoji smiling......
:Great job telling us how to disrespect all the DUP tortured poets without just coming out and saying it.
what are you even talking about......say what you have to say or GTFO. And mods if me sayin GTFO isnt ok, let me know. Ill delete it. Delete the whole thread if we cant talk about it. shes got tons of threads that are total bullshit so what say you?
I say that my own personal thoughts are these:
1. The saying "Art imitates life" , is the expression of free speech through many forms of media, artistic, music, writing, performance, etc. Where would Bob Dylan Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez and many others, be, if it were not allowed to be able to blow off steam and state your opinion on something?
2. Nothing is entirely free, including free speech--there is always a price. All freedoms must be used with wisdom-- If people believe it's ok to say what you want, when you want, to who you want, then it's also ok for them to receive repercussions if there happens to be rules and guidelines in certain places and instances regarding speech practices.
3. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should--behavior and manners matter as well, as what you (collective "you") think and believe and feel entitled to how you express yourself.
4. There's such a thing as properly expressing one's opinions and beliefs, while interacting with others who are doing the same.
5. There's also such a thing as just being a douche canoe because some can't comprehend that their beliefs and opinions aren't always the correct ones.
6. Any topic is of relevance to discuss, civilly.
7. There should be limits on how many threads, any member here, can create in the forums, during set time periods, say, like 2 per month. That would even out the assortment of topics and not allow for monopolizing the boards. The competition forum doesn't allow for creation of more than 2 comp threads at a time, and I believe the other forum sections should be set up the same. I don't have the functionality to make programming changes to the website, but I can make suggestions, and I have....
Carry on.....
:Great job telling us how to disrespect all the DUP tortured poets without just coming out and saying it.
what are you even talking about......say what you have to say or GTFO. And mods if me sayin GTFO isnt ok, let me know. Ill delete it. Delete the whole thread if we cant talk about it. shes got tons of threads that are total bullshit so what say you?
I say that my own personal thoughts are these:
1. The saying "Art imitates life" , is the expression of free speech through many forms of media, artistic, music, writing, performance, etc. Where would Bob Dylan Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez and many others, be, if it were not allowed to be able to blow off steam and state your opinion on something?
2. Nothing is entirely free, including free speech--there is always a price. All freedoms must be used with wisdom-- If people believe it's ok to say what you want, when you want, to who you want, then it's also ok for them to receive repercussions if there happens to be rules and guidelines in certain places and instances regarding speech practices.
3. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should--behavior and manners matter as well, as what you (collective "you") think and believe and feel entitled to how you express yourself.
4. There's such a thing as properly expressing one's opinions and beliefs, while interacting with others who are doing the same.
5. There's also such a thing as just being a douche canoe because some can't comprehend that their beliefs and opinions aren't always the correct ones.
6. Any topic is of relevance to discuss, civilly.
7. There should be limits on how many threads, any member here, can create in the forums, during set time periods, say, like 2 per month. That would even out the assortment of topics and not allow for monopolizing the boards. The competition forum doesn't allow for creation of more than 2 comp threads at a time, and I believe the other forum sections should be set up the same. I don't have the functionality to make programming changes to the website, but I can make suggestions, and I have....
Carry on.....
MadameLavender said: Av said . . .
Carry on.....
Clarification on the quote: "Av' hasn't been in this thread since February, and that was only to point out the forum guidelines. 'Av' isn't stirring up shit, nor attempting to control what others do because 'Av' doesn't care. 'Av' stays in her own lane.
I keep getting messages ( 3 or 4 now ) that I am being falsely accused of saying things that I have not. I'm unsure if it's a deliberate attempt to engage me or emasculate MS. It doesn't matter, as I have chosen to ignore such. However, with a Moderator quoting an inaccuracy, I feel it's important I set the record straight.
Thank you.
Carry on.
Carry on.....
Clarification on the quote: "Av' hasn't been in this thread since February, and that was only to point out the forum guidelines. 'Av' isn't stirring up shit, nor attempting to control what others do because 'Av' doesn't care. 'Av' stays in her own lane.
I keep getting messages ( 3 or 4 now ) that I am being falsely accused of saying things that I have not. I'm unsure if it's a deliberate attempt to engage me or emasculate MS. It doesn't matter, as I have chosen to ignore such. However, with a Moderator quoting an inaccuracy, I feel it's important I set the record straight.
Thank you.
Carry on.
Well, that's that clarified.
I live in Ireland, for the most part what happens in America doesn't really affect me.
That said, when USA started a war in Ukraine way back in 2014 it brought war back into Europe. Trump reckons he'll put a stop to it.
I don't like Kamala. She was literally a token brown/ black person. She is a woman of many contradictions. there have been many u-turns and such
Trump. look, he has his issues also. I don't like he put an embassy in Jerusalem. He can come across as quite crass and certainly a little stupid at times
That said, his tenure did include a drive for better relations with countries which have historically been at odds with each other.
I think the people of America have been given a fire / frying pan choice of candidates the last 3 presidential elections. I think Hillary would have sought war
personally I think Trump would be the better president. Kamala is disingenuous.
I live in Ireland, for the most part what happens in America doesn't really affect me.
That said, when USA started a war in Ukraine way back in 2014 it brought war back into Europe. Trump reckons he'll put a stop to it.
I don't like Kamala. She was literally a token brown/ black person. She is a woman of many contradictions. there have been many u-turns and such
Trump. look, he has his issues also. I don't like he put an embassy in Jerusalem. He can come across as quite crass and certainly a little stupid at times
That said, his tenure did include a drive for better relations with countries which have historically been at odds with each other.
I think the people of America have been given a fire / frying pan choice of candidates the last 3 presidential elections. I think Hillary would have sought war
personally I think Trump would be the better president. Kamala is disingenuous.
Also
These kind of threads are going over a decade and nobody has lost their lives or been physically hurt by them. They are a part of the community and will stay a part of the community.
It is essentially up the the OP if she wants to kill this one.
These kind of threads are going over a decade and nobody has lost their lives or been physically hurt by them. They are a part of the community and will stay a part of the community.
It is essentially up the the OP if she wants to kill this one.
Ahavati said:
Clarification on the quote: "Av' hasn't been in this thread since February, and that was only to point out the forum guidelines. 'Av' isn't stirring up shit, nor attempting to control what others do because 'Av' doesn't care. 'Av' stays in her own lane.
I keep getting messages ( 3 or 4 now ) that I am being falsely accused of saying things that I have not. I'm unsure if it's a deliberate attempt to engage me or emasculate MS. It doesn't matter, as I have chosen to ignore such. However, with a Moderator quoting an inaccuracy, I feel it's important I set the record straight.
Thank you.
Carry on.
Fair enough -- I've edited out the references to you, in the quoted section. And to set the record straight on my end, it was not intentional to have left those in the quote, as I initially wondered about their placement as well .
Carry on
Clarification on the quote: "Av' hasn't been in this thread since February, and that was only to point out the forum guidelines. 'Av' isn't stirring up shit, nor attempting to control what others do because 'Av' doesn't care. 'Av' stays in her own lane.
I keep getting messages ( 3 or 4 now ) that I am being falsely accused of saying things that I have not. I'm unsure if it's a deliberate attempt to engage me or emasculate MS. It doesn't matter, as I have chosen to ignore such. However, with a Moderator quoting an inaccuracy, I feel it's important I set the record straight.
Thank you.
Carry on.
Fair enough -- I've edited out the references to you, in the quoted section. And to set the record straight on my end, it was not intentional to have left those in the quote, as I initially wondered about their placement as well .
Carry on
Anonymity settings are effectively censorship, because they prevent exchanged comments.
This creates a congruity issue for anybody who claims they want no censorship whatsoever, which I agree with.
Same problem with forum bans.
I'm not the one worried about taking the heat, but anybody here that thinks that poetry should never overlap with politics, doesn't have anything like a decent understanding of the history of either poetry or politics. Oh, and right above Speakeasy it actually says...Talk About Anything.
Obviously the abuse flag thing isn't about cussing, since Trumple-thin-skins always have a major emo reaction to at least half of what gets said here.
https://youtu.be/PWSx0bBiNIs?si=yDu5BXJR_HjjhDXL
Carry on.
This creates a congruity issue for anybody who claims they want no censorship whatsoever, which I agree with.
Same problem with forum bans.
I'm not the one worried about taking the heat, but anybody here that thinks that poetry should never overlap with politics, doesn't have anything like a decent understanding of the history of either poetry or politics. Oh, and right above Speakeasy it actually says...Talk About Anything.
Obviously the abuse flag thing isn't about cussing, since Trumple-thin-skins always have a major emo reaction to at least half of what gets said here.
https://youtu.be/PWSx0bBiNIs?si=yDu5BXJR_HjjhDXL
Carry on.
MadameLavender said:
Fair enough -- I've edited out the references to you, in the quoted section. And to set the record straight on my end, it was not intentional to have left those in the quote, as I initially wondered about their placement as well .
Carry on
Thank you. I didn't feel it was intentional on your part.
MidnightSonneteer said:Anonymity settings are effectively censorship, because they prevent exchanged comments.
This creates a congruity issue for anybody who claims they want no censorship whatsoever, which I agree with.
I detest blocking anyone; however, feel I must with those who won't respect boundaries and demonstrate their vindictive natures by shadowing others and making snide comments on their personal poems or threads/posts of no political consequence. Look at the snide remark runaway_mindtrain just made in The Gathering Place today.
That thread that is supposed to be a safe, judgment free zone for all and any belief to be exercised and discussed.
Same problem with forum bans.
If you're going to delete one side of the conversation then the other should be deleted as well, or you're merely presenting one side of the story - which effectively is selective censorship.
I'm not the one worried about taking the heat, but anybody here that thinks that poetry should never overlap with politics, doesn't have anything like a decent understanding of the history of either poetry or politics. Oh, and right above Speakeasy it actually says...Talk About Anything.
Obviously the abuse flag thing isn't about cussing, since Trumple-thin-skins always have a major emo reaction to at least half of what gets said here.
https://youtu.be/PWSx0bBiNIs?si=yDu5BXJR_HjjhDXL
Carry on.
The issue I take, overall, is that every single member of this website has an individual choice as to what they want to read. Not one forum thread is being forced upon anyone. Until recently, when I began receiving messages that statements were being falsely attributed to me, I haven't looked at this forum thread in months because it doesn't interest me. That's my choice. And even then, I chose to ignore—until today. . .
I keep hearing the word "sanctuary' tossed about in regard to this site. Sanctuary has different meanings for different people. For ME, personally, a sanctuary is where I can come discuss any topic with likeminded poets.
Poets see the world differently. They're a different breed and it's a different energy than someone who isn't a poet or artisan. On this site, regardless of who or what we believe, regardless of race, color, or creed, religion, political beliefs, we are ALL poets.
To deny certain topics that some poets desire to discuss because other poets don't wish to see them ( rather than exercise their right to ignore the topic ) is pure censorship and a lack of control on their part. When a person can't control themselves then they have a need to control others.
That's what's happening here.
Staying in one's own lane has merit. Respecting the choices of others has merit. And it says so much about a person's ability to control themselves more than words ever could.
Fair enough -- I've edited out the references to you, in the quoted section. And to set the record straight on my end, it was not intentional to have left those in the quote, as I initially wondered about their placement as well .
Carry on
Thank you. I didn't feel it was intentional on your part.
MidnightSonneteer said:Anonymity settings are effectively censorship, because they prevent exchanged comments.
This creates a congruity issue for anybody who claims they want no censorship whatsoever, which I agree with.
I detest blocking anyone; however, feel I must with those who won't respect boundaries and demonstrate their vindictive natures by shadowing others and making snide comments on their personal poems or threads/posts of no political consequence. Look at the snide remark runaway_mindtrain just made in The Gathering Place today.
That thread that is supposed to be a safe, judgment free zone for all and any belief to be exercised and discussed.
Same problem with forum bans.
If you're going to delete one side of the conversation then the other should be deleted as well, or you're merely presenting one side of the story - which effectively is selective censorship.
I'm not the one worried about taking the heat, but anybody here that thinks that poetry should never overlap with politics, doesn't have anything like a decent understanding of the history of either poetry or politics. Oh, and right above Speakeasy it actually says...Talk About Anything.
Obviously the abuse flag thing isn't about cussing, since Trumple-thin-skins always have a major emo reaction to at least half of what gets said here.
https://youtu.be/PWSx0bBiNIs?si=yDu5BXJR_HjjhDXL
Carry on.
The issue I take, overall, is that every single member of this website has an individual choice as to what they want to read. Not one forum thread is being forced upon anyone. Until recently, when I began receiving messages that statements were being falsely attributed to me, I haven't looked at this forum thread in months because it doesn't interest me. That's my choice. And even then, I chose to ignore—until today. . .
I keep hearing the word "sanctuary' tossed about in regard to this site. Sanctuary has different meanings for different people. For ME, personally, a sanctuary is where I can come discuss any topic with likeminded poets.
Poets see the world differently. They're a different breed and it's a different energy than someone who isn't a poet or artisan. On this site, regardless of who or what we believe, regardless of race, color, or creed, religion, political beliefs, we are ALL poets.
To deny certain topics that some poets desire to discuss because other poets don't wish to see them ( rather than exercise their right to ignore the topic ) is pure censorship and a lack of control on their part. When a person can't control themselves then they have a need to control others.
That's what's happening here.
Staying in one's own lane has merit. Respecting the choices of others has merit. And it says so much about a person's ability to control themselves more than words ever could.
Ahavati said:
The issue I take, overall, is that every single member of this website has an individual choice as to what they want to read. Not one forum thread is being forced upon anyone. Until recently, when I began receiving messages that statements were being falsely attributed to me, I haven't looked at this forum thread in months because it doesn't interest me. That's my choice. And even then, I chose to ignore—until today. . .
I keep hearing the word "sanctuary' tossed about in regard to this site. Sanctuary has different meanings for different people. For ME, personally, a sanctuary is where I can come discuss any topic with likeminded poets.
Poets see the world differently. They're a different breed and it's a different energy than someone who isn't a poet or artisan. On this site, regardless of who or what we believe, regardless of race, color, or creed, religion, political beliefs, we are ALL poets.
To deny certain topics that some poets desire to discuss because other poets don't wish to see them ( rather than exercise their right to ignore the topic ) is pure censorship and a lack of control on their part. When a person can't control themselves then they have a need to control others.
That's what's happening here.
Staying in one's own lane has merit. Respecting the choices of others has merit. And it says so much about a person's ability to control themselves more than words ever could.
Respect is crucial for most folks, of course, but MAGA prides themselves on NOT staying in their own lanes (Jan. 6th comes to mind here), and when a rude behavior, equivalent to their own, is directed at them, they are the first to squeal. Conversational parity isn't a characteristic that MAGA strives for, and therefore THEY need to see what THEIR brand of disparity is like when deployed against THEM. It is their very own inconsideration that instigates.
I know you understand this, but when will they catch up with the rest of humanity?
They don't even want to try, because of double down pride.
The issue I take, overall, is that every single member of this website has an individual choice as to what they want to read. Not one forum thread is being forced upon anyone. Until recently, when I began receiving messages that statements were being falsely attributed to me, I haven't looked at this forum thread in months because it doesn't interest me. That's my choice. And even then, I chose to ignore—until today. . .
I keep hearing the word "sanctuary' tossed about in regard to this site. Sanctuary has different meanings for different people. For ME, personally, a sanctuary is where I can come discuss any topic with likeminded poets.
Poets see the world differently. They're a different breed and it's a different energy than someone who isn't a poet or artisan. On this site, regardless of who or what we believe, regardless of race, color, or creed, religion, political beliefs, we are ALL poets.
To deny certain topics that some poets desire to discuss because other poets don't wish to see them ( rather than exercise their right to ignore the topic ) is pure censorship and a lack of control on their part. When a person can't control themselves then they have a need to control others.
That's what's happening here.
Staying in one's own lane has merit. Respecting the choices of others has merit. And it says so much about a person's ability to control themselves more than words ever could.
Respect is crucial for most folks, of course, but MAGA prides themselves on NOT staying in their own lanes (Jan. 6th comes to mind here), and when a rude behavior, equivalent to their own, is directed at them, they are the first to squeal. Conversational parity isn't a characteristic that MAGA strives for, and therefore THEY need to see what THEIR brand of disparity is like when deployed against THEM. It is their very own inconsideration that instigates.
I know you understand this, but when will they catch up with the rest of humanity?
They don't even want to try, because of double down pride.
As an ally country we're expected to follow your lead. So if war breaks out our troops go in too. After 9/11 Iraq was hit then Afghanistan, then a series of other countries that had leaders that were proclaimed to be problematic. I likely have O.D.D. I hate being told what to do therefore I always found people in power to be annoying. After learning about a few things involving how things are in this world I decided to look up how many countries had world banks and wouldn't you know it every country on that list was eventually invaded in subsequent years, funny that. Also the Taliban didn't like the poppy fields in their country so they got rid of them, strange how after America invaded they now produce about 90% of the world's opium. Plus Osama bin laden was a C.I.A asset at one point I think that was to do with the Russian invasion though if I'm wrong on that it doesn't matter because he still was an asset. Weird how every country is talking about digital IDs and digital currency. And that Kenya is going to start chipping people soon (not sure if its just infants but still beside the point). These are all happening and will happen regardless of who wins any elections anywhere. These people you're arguing about aren't there to help anyone you're all arguing and neither side tries to quell it, Why? Wouldn't matter if they were they're not the people in power they're the people we see. That Epstein list just vanished the Diddy list probably will too. Apparently none of that matters though its better to just be divided. John D. Rockefeller. Said "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers". Why did he get to decide that? Probably because of his family line. He wasn't elected he was a rich guy.
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to say there are common enemies. None of which care who's in charge.
Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild said this for example "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". These families haven't gone anywhere. They're just two examples. There's a few families, they run things. They want out right control of everything and everyone.
They'll seemingly get it because most people aren't paying attention.
Agian, I'm not trying to annoy people or start a different argument. I'm just saying, there is a far bigger picture.
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to say there are common enemies. None of which care who's in charge.
Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild said this for example "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". These families haven't gone anywhere. They're just two examples. There's a few families, they run things. They want out right control of everything and everyone.
They'll seemingly get it because most people aren't paying attention.
Agian, I'm not trying to annoy people or start a different argument. I'm just saying, there is a far bigger picture.
MidnightSonneteer said:
Respect is crucial for most folks, of course, but MAGA prides themselves on NOT staying in their own lanes (Jan. 6th comes to mind here), and when a rude behavior, equivalent to their own, is directed at them, they are the first to squeal. Conversational parity isn't a characteristic that MAGA strives for, and therefore THEY need to see what THEIR brand of disparity is like when deployed against THEM. It is their very own inconsideration that instigates.
I know you understand this, but when will they catch up with the rest of humanity?
They don't even want to try, because of double down pride.
Nothing wrong with being white"
Uh, yeah dude, I already figured you were a white supremacist but thanks for making your major malfunction totally obvious and beyond any shadow of a doubt. That's gonna make things a lot easier for the prosecution.
"Nothing wrong with being white"
Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist.
Your comments neatly fit the very vertex of Nazi parameters,.
This you Mr cant answer a simple yes or no question.
At least AJ, as far as I can see here, is genuine in the discourse he is offering in this thread.
You on the other hand are the POLAR opposite.
Respect is crucial for most folks, of course, but MAGA prides themselves on NOT staying in their own lanes (Jan. 6th comes to mind here), and when a rude behavior, equivalent to their own, is directed at them, they are the first to squeal. Conversational parity isn't a characteristic that MAGA strives for, and therefore THEY need to see what THEIR brand of disparity is like when deployed against THEM. It is their very own inconsideration that instigates.
I know you understand this, but when will they catch up with the rest of humanity?
They don't even want to try, because of double down pride.
Nothing wrong with being white"
Uh, yeah dude, I already figured you were a white supremacist but thanks for making your major malfunction totally obvious and beyond any shadow of a doubt. That's gonna make things a lot easier for the prosecution.
"Nothing wrong with being white"
Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist.
Your comments neatly fit the very vertex of Nazi parameters,.
This you Mr cant answer a simple yes or no question.
At least AJ, as far as I can see here, is genuine in the discourse he is offering in this thread.
You on the other hand are the POLAR opposite.
Carpe_Noctem said:
Nothing wrong with being white"
Uh, yeah dude, I already figured you were a white supremacist but thanks for making your major malfunction totally obvious and beyond any shadow of a doubt. That's gonna make things a lot easier for the prosecution.
"Nothing wrong with being white"
Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist.
Your comments neatly fit the very vertex of Nazi parameters,.
This you Mr cant answer a simple yes or no question.
At least AJ, as far as I can see here, is genuine in the discourse he is offering in this thread.
You on the other hand are the POLAR opposite.
Nice try, but you were the one owning the ethnonationalism. Don't try to get that stink on me.
Apparently..."as far as I can see here"... isn't very far at all, because if it was then you wouldn't be a racist to begin with.
Nothing wrong with being white"
Uh, yeah dude, I already figured you were a white supremacist but thanks for making your major malfunction totally obvious and beyond any shadow of a doubt. That's gonna make things a lot easier for the prosecution.
"Nothing wrong with being white"
Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist. Ethno-nationalist.
Your comments neatly fit the very vertex of Nazi parameters,.
This you Mr cant answer a simple yes or no question.
At least AJ, as far as I can see here, is genuine in the discourse he is offering in this thread.
You on the other hand are the POLAR opposite.
Nice try, but you were the one owning the ethnonationalism. Don't try to get that stink on me.
Apparently..."as far as I can see here"... isn't very far at all, because if it was then you wouldn't be a racist to begin with.
[quote-589537-Carpe_Noctem
"Nothing wrong with being white" [/quote]
Your comment, not mine.
A sober critique of Caucasian history tells us that white folks are as prone to error as any human, and therefore your statement is patently false.
And don't forget about susceptibility to sunburn...duh.
"Nothing wrong with being white" [/quote]
Your comment, not mine.
A sober critique of Caucasian history tells us that white folks are as prone to error as any human, and therefore your statement is patently false.
And don't forget about susceptibility to sunburn...duh.
RyanBlackborough said:As an ally country we're expected to follow your lead. So if war breaks out our troops go in too. After 9/11 Iraq was hit then Afghanistan, then a series of other countries that had leaders that were proclaimed to be problematic. I likely have O.D.D. I hate being told what to do therefore I always found people in power to be annoying. After learning about a few things involving how things are in this world I decided to look up how many countries had world banks and wouldn't you know it every country on that list was eventually invaded in subsequent years, funny that. Also the Taliban didn't like the poppy fields in their country so they got rid of them, strange how after America invaded they now produce about 90% of the world's opium. Plus Osama bin laden was a C.I.A asset at one point I think that was to do with the Russian invasion though if I'm wrong on that it doesn't matter because he still was an asset. Weird how every country is talking about digital IDs and digital currency. And that Kenya is going to start chipping people soon (not sure if its just infants but still beside the point). These are all happening and will happen regardless of who wins any elections anywhere. These people you're arguing about aren't there to help anyone you're all arguing and neither side tries to quell it, Why? Wouldn't matter if they were they're not the people in power they're the people we see. That Epstein list just vanished the Diddy list probably will too. Apparently none of that matters though its better to just be divided. John D. Rockefeller. Said "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers". Why did he get to decide that? Probably because of his family line. He wasn't elected he was a rich guy.
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to say there are common enemies. None of which care who's in charge.
Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild said this for example "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". These families haven't gone anywhere. They're just two examples. There's a few families, they run things. They want out right control of everything and everyone.
They'll seemingly get it because most people aren't paying attention.
Agian, I'm not trying to annoy people or start a different argument. I'm just saying, there is a far bigger picture.
You're on the right path-- keep researching... here's more food for thought:
All that banking stuff was done on Jekyll Island by the elites back in 1910:
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference
Trump put executive order 13848 in place regarding election interference from a foreign entity:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13848-imposing-certain-sanctions-the-event-foreign-interference-united
Why was that executive order put in place? Because Washington DC is a district not a state and is technically "foreign"
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained
The Vatican and one square mile of London are also foreign entites within their countries:
https://music.amazon.com/es-ar/podcasts/d8cabee1-2ca0-4e1a-bfc1-c5f9c6a78c07/episodes/4d677918-3d22-42c9-a2d2-407918325338/keeping-it-real-with-jay-scott-who-owns-the-usa-dc-the-vatican-the-city-of-london-are-independent-states
Why are our Congress people's salaries 174K per year, yet many of them are multi millionaires? Where is all that money coming from?
https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenateSalariesSince1789.htm
America ceased to be a Republic and became a corporation in 1861:
https://www.youhavetheright.com/tour1/
Other questions to research are:
Is America truly independent or does Britain still financially rule us via the IRS?
Why does Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street own about 20 trillion in assets?
Who are the 13 families that rule the world?
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to say there are common enemies. None of which care who's in charge.
Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild said this for example "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". These families haven't gone anywhere. They're just two examples. There's a few families, they run things. They want out right control of everything and everyone.
They'll seemingly get it because most people aren't paying attention.
Agian, I'm not trying to annoy people or start a different argument. I'm just saying, there is a far bigger picture.
You're on the right path-- keep researching... here's more food for thought:
All that banking stuff was done on Jekyll Island by the elites back in 1910:
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference
Trump put executive order 13848 in place regarding election interference from a foreign entity:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13848-imposing-certain-sanctions-the-event-foreign-interference-united
Why was that executive order put in place? Because Washington DC is a district not a state and is technically "foreign"
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained
The Vatican and one square mile of London are also foreign entites within their countries:
https://music.amazon.com/es-ar/podcasts/d8cabee1-2ca0-4e1a-bfc1-c5f9c6a78c07/episodes/4d677918-3d22-42c9-a2d2-407918325338/keeping-it-real-with-jay-scott-who-owns-the-usa-dc-the-vatican-the-city-of-london-are-independent-states
Why are our Congress people's salaries 174K per year, yet many of them are multi millionaires? Where is all that money coming from?
https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenateSalariesSince1789.htm
America ceased to be a Republic and became a corporation in 1861:
https://www.youhavetheright.com/tour1/
Other questions to research are:
Is America truly independent or does Britain still financially rule us via the IRS?
Why does Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street own about 20 trillion in assets?
Who are the 13 families that rule the world?
Thank you for that information. I have heard of Jekyll Island though I had forgotten why so that was very helpful. After reading a fair way in it started to sound familiar. There's a YouTube channel by Aaron and Melissa Dykes (Truthstream media) that go deeply into this.
I only got a couple of episodes in because it very information heavy and as they said, confusing by design. They do their due diligence and are exceptional at what they do. There a couple if familiar names in that article mainly Vanderbilt and Morgan and I some thought of Woodrow Wilson oddly enough though wasn't sure If he was president at the time. I'm going to save that link for future reference.
I'm wondering just because I'm annoying like that. Could the next president invalidate that executive order? I'm not entirely sure how all that works. Also couldn't the C.I.A just do something nefarious and pretend it never happened in regards to assisting foreign interference? It's well with their capabilities, plus all the compartmentalising. (I probably sound stupid saying this but I'm ok with that).
It comes across as pretty air tight but there's seems to be wiggle room(?) I'm very unfamiliar with such documents so I could be way off with my assessment. Feel free to inform me further, if I missed something crucial.
None the less very interesting and again, thank you.
(Sorry, my grammar is terrible).
I'm going to have read the rest of those at some point. For some they didn't show up until after I answered. It got cut off at the executive order bit, weird?
I only got a couple of episodes in because it very information heavy and as they said, confusing by design. They do their due diligence and are exceptional at what they do. There a couple if familiar names in that article mainly Vanderbilt and Morgan and I some thought of Woodrow Wilson oddly enough though wasn't sure If he was president at the time. I'm going to save that link for future reference.
I'm wondering just because I'm annoying like that. Could the next president invalidate that executive order? I'm not entirely sure how all that works. Also couldn't the C.I.A just do something nefarious and pretend it never happened in regards to assisting foreign interference? It's well with their capabilities, plus all the compartmentalising. (I probably sound stupid saying this but I'm ok with that).
It comes across as pretty air tight but there's seems to be wiggle room(?) I'm very unfamiliar with such documents so I could be way off with my assessment. Feel free to inform me further, if I missed something crucial.
None the less very interesting and again, thank you.
(Sorry, my grammar is terrible).
I'm going to have read the rest of those at some point. For some they didn't show up until after I answered. It got cut off at the executive order bit, weird?
