2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

[BlueTiki]

Regarding corporations:

...you just identified (and according to your premise) a potential and critical “moving part”, but fail to give any explanation to why, once a country controls all the corporations, they would now yield this incredible power and control, to another?

How do you get from this:

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement.

--> To me implying that a country could gain control of "all the corporations"?

I referenced subordinates within the globalist hierarchy -- a great deal of which is listed in the WEF partner list I linked to. You will not find any nations in that list.

Your question is akin to asking me if I'm still beating my wife and children, when I don't have a wife and children, and then criticizing me for not answering your question.

Because that was not the the entire statement upon which I based my premise.  Let me refresh your memory, from your Post #194, where YOU stated:

"How is "the populous" -- which is rife with divisions -- of serious consequence when they're dependant on corporations for their survival -- which is, and will continue to be, leveraged for maximum coercion?

If "too many moving parts" is indeed a fact, perhaps you could quantify it and provide a brief explanation of why they're an insurmountable obstacle.

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement."

I used your three lines (not just the one you offered as an explanation) for my disagreement and basis for my question.

Your third line made no sense as to who were the subordinates and the globalist hierarchy.

"The populous" and corporations are BOTH global AND subordinate.  "Emergency Management" is declared, ordered, and imposed by governments . . . not by the populous or corporations. 

It was a logical assumption (on my part), as you did not specify who or what was the "globalist hierarchy", I presumed you were referring to governments as the "globalist hierarchy".  If you were suggesting a Corporatocracy scenario, you failed miserably . . . by conspicuously being vague.

You never raised the issue that I was mistaken or misunderstood, your position, until I called you out.

However, you had an opportunity to raise this issue when you replied to me, in your post #196, and chose not to do so . . . either by design or oversight . . . and continued an attempt to support your position, as an answer to my question.

Instead (it bears repeating), you attempted to support your position . . . never stating or considering that I (possibly) misunderstood your position. 

So . . . what did you do?

You ignored my direct question and instead, directed me to an "explanation" IN YOUR POST #189 about the "corporations" Blackrock and Vanguard, as an answer . . . remember, I was specifically addressing statements IN YOUR POST #194.  YOUR POST #189 was irrelevant, to me, as it wasn't the basis for me to reject your premise or pose my questions.

(Just out of curiosity . . . what type of corporations are Blackrock and Vanguard?  Are they publicly traded?)

Remember . . . I was specifically referencing statements you made IN YOUR POST #194 . . . NOT YOUR POST #189.

If I misunderstood your rambling, it was unintentional.  If you're pushing a Corporatocracy theory, then just say it.  

Additionally, I noticed you still failed to answer or acknowledge my other questions, in your response.  There's really no need.  

I don't want to read rambling bullshit, that beats around the bush, and avoids a direct and coherent response.