Are we seeing what COULD/WOULD/WON'T happen 2022 had 2016 election been unsuccessfully sufficiently unrigged?
The SCOTUS would have become assimilated in the nwo neoplatonic 'division' logic. Stacked by now, 2nd amendment gone, open borders, revising constitution, kill economy…
Massive inconsistencies in what they say vs. what they do.
That would have been a catastrophic failure in the Republic's logic base.
So instead of that, we're Maga king 'showing' a multi thread set of plans 'operation warpspeed' sped up what was supposed to happen much later, but in the present but it's an also real GIVEN the reciprocality or mutual cancellation of opposites that might be occurring where 'all' we 'see' is…radical left attack on the institutions of civilization and our way of life in a Republic.
Republic still best form of government YET designed.
The three branches 'resonate' at the same logic as the nwo's 'power brokers' tri structure, strong beliefs of what's really REALLY true on the deepest 'eternal' questions, how much of what has happened been isolated and independent from us today 100% or are there common threads that have remained stable in meaning/comprehension over time is ONE way to look at reality.
Anon can pretend to have 'exhausted' all possible outcomes between the two extremes, of radical ('completist') 'eternal/always/connected' one end to 'historical/unique/disconnected' at the other, where all possible futures must be at or 'between' such extreme dual 'look no past here look no past there' interface.
OK, thanks for offering that api, but there are more if the reason the above is true is demonstrated from itself at least, and ask what patterns each of us could engage with without being stopped from what the system promised it would do and why it would be intimidating the families of the justices?
Anon wonders about the leaked draft.
Internal drafts of written opinions may not necessarily have been AUTHORED by any of the scotus justices.
But they could agree more or less, and perhaps add a few commas here and there…
I am sure those threatening scotus would agree that it would be a error for Anon to impute to their minds the idea to criticize statements you have NOT actively communicated with Anon?
Anon would likely hear 'stop straw manning me'..
So Anon say Anon AGREE with those attacking scotus by voice and body that their souls would agree it is an error to 'impute' 'action' and 'threats' to WORDS NOT VOICED but referenced and invoked and wrap up smear circle logic of reference then reference the reference as reference to the supposed truth the information referenced/echoed…