Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

618

e: "incorrectly" I ONLY use that word because NONE of the other options that could work are known, so "incorrectly" is the only one that fits perfectly.

First: I am not saying this for any reason other than to let those of you who weren't aware understand this. The US constitution has a process for voting for, inaugurating and seating a president. The US constitution has NO places in it ANYWHERE for handling an incorrectly (fraudulently, illegally, treasonously (?), whatever) inaugurated POTUS. NONE.

And this is a giant linchpin in the happenings of the situation. The true, legal, and actual ONLY way to resolve this would be for a constitutional congress to successfully modify the constitution and apply it in an ex-post-facto manner. The law and all things legal doesn't usually like ex-post-facto as it strips many basic tenants of legal versus illegal out of the equation. It does happen, but it's rare and generally things which would be ex-post-facto are grandfathered in. Like the drinking age. (Just an example, not a comparison, the two situations are in no way equivalent)

Second: I think everyone can agree with me on this one; There is a lesser chance of a constitutional congress doing the above than there is for (((Q))) to be anything other than a jew-controlled, civ-nat, cuckoldry fetish based piece of propaganda.

e: "incorrectly" I **ONLY** use that word because **NONE** of the other options that could work are known, so "incorrectly" is the only one that fits perfectly. First: I am not saying this for any reason other than to let those of you who weren't aware understand this. The US constitution has a process for voting for, inaugurating and seating a president. The US constitution has NO places in it ANYWHERE for handling an incorrectly (fraudulently, illegally, treasonously (?), whatever) inaugurated POTUS. NONE. And this is a giant linchpin in the happenings of the situation. The true, legal, and actual ONLY way to resolve this would be for a constitutional congress to successfully modify the constitution and apply it in an ex-post-facto manner. The law and all things legal doesn't usually like ex-post-facto as it strips many basic tenants of legal versus illegal out of the equation. It does happen, but it's rare and generally things which would be ex-post-facto are grandfathered in. Like the drinking age. (Just an example, not a comparison, the two situations are in no way equivalent) Second: I think everyone can agree with me on this one; There is a lesser chance of a constitutional congress doing the above than there is for (((Q))) to be anything other than a jew-controlled, civ-nat, cuckoldry fetish based piece of propaganda.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (10).
[–] • 2 pts (edited )

The federal government and governments in general will become impotent, it's not a question of if but when

Just like in the USSR

Look at south africa, the police had to rely on the citizenry to provide for ammunition, and we haven't even reached bottom when it comes to .gov impotence.

Firearm ownership is paramount, not to fire at .gov, but to confront reality when .gov ends up turning into a big nothing, a myth for all practical purposes, and the hordes of retarded murderers start roaming the streets, burning, looting, murdering and raping, all over the place. That's what's in store, that's why they relentlessly push for gun confiscation. They want to render people, and whites more specifically, defenseless against those hordes which will actually carry the physical removal/genocide, on behalf of those ochestarting this disaster behind scene. Because the US is scheduled for termination. We can all see the writing on the wall flickering like a christmas tree; everything under the sun is done to sabotage the nation at pretty much every level. It's not just a series of mere coincidences and accidents, "missmagement", that's called sabotage, there's a concerted effort at work here. And it's no coincidence if the sovereignty of the individual and the collective is relentlessly under attack since decades.

If the tide can be turned, then it's all good. If .gov nuisance can be reduced to the minimum until the inevitable collapse happens, then all the better. In the meantime, prepare accordingly, and don't count on .gov to rescue itself or anybody else.