The naivete on display is quite something. Some people still believe in the government as being an honest actor with pure intentions. Quite shocking to see. The programming is strong. Simply look at the voting data from elections and you can see that Manhattan and DC are overwhelmingly liberal. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Even with a voir dire process, the jury pool remains exceedingly liberal. Trump, Stone, Manafort, Bannon, etc were ONLY prosecuted because they were Republicans -- no chance a bookkeeping charge that is past the statute of limitations is brought against any other human being on the planet today other than Donald Trump... and to use a novel legal theory to turn a misdemeanor into 34 felonies is just laughable. They tried to take his money with Judge Engoron's real estate valuation case (the bank testified that they did not even use Trump's valuation), they try to take his reputation with 8 years of daily non-stop media attacks and then the Jean Carroll fake "rape" case, and now they try to imprison him on a bookkeeping charge. Do you honestly believe none of this was politically motivated? If so -- then WOW, you are quite naive. In a strange way, I'm proud that we have created a society where such gullible people can lead productive lives.
https://omny.fm/shows/it-could-happen-here/agenda-47-trumps-plan-to-invade-mexico?t=1m20s A good listen on the bat **** things Trump's campaign has said about how to fight cartels in Mexico. It's rather bat **** insane.
BTW, Project 2025 seeks to ban p*rn. The logic and reasoning sounds like 'the lord made us do it'. In the foreword of Project 2025's Mandate, Kevin Roberts argues that p*rnography amounts to promoting sexual deviancy, the sexualization of children, and the exploitation of women. For Roberts, it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and as such should be banned. He recommends the criminal prosecution of individuals and companies producing p*rnography, which he compares to addictive drugs.[22] When he was nominated as the official presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2016, Donald Trump signed a pledge to examine the "public health impact of Internet p*rnography on youth, families and the American culture." However, he did not fulfill this promise. But despite former President Trump's connection to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, Roberts is unconcerned. "We understand our lord works with imperfect instruments, including us. While on the surface it seems like a contradiction, on the whole, it may make him a more powerful messenger if he embraces it," he explained to CNN.[128]
If I still believe in the government it's because I'm an actual patriot who appreciates the ideals the country was founded upon, unlike the guys who wave American flags and criticize football players for kneeling and then turn around and storm the Capitol. I've already explained to you why the political leanings of juries is not very important to the outcome of cases. But it's also nothing to be sorry for anyway. People are allowed to have their political opinions. This thread is about Project 2025, an effort to replace civil servants in executive agency positions, not really about the criminals from the last Admin who were brought to account. I didn't pluck you out of the ignore list to rehash the prosecutions. Which, no, I don't consider politically motivated. But, I am happy to discuss how replacing pencil-pushers with ideologues will help anything. My prediction is that the efficiency of the federal government will falter from the loss of expertise and that politically-motivated attempts to use compliant and ideological new bureaucrats will still ultimately be thwarted in the courts as impacted parties sue over capricious policy changes made without sufficient process. The whole effort is built on a false premise that the bureaucrats who resisted Trump were politically motivated to do so. In truth, they were bureaucratically motivated, applying the same fealty to process for Trump that they did for every president that came before. Previous presidents understood the system. Trump may or may not understand it, but he wants to break it.
For those who may think Trump = dovish or less military spending... @HTM https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/tru...n-for-the-country-gearing-up-for-nuclear-war/ In condensed and translated form, Project 2025 proposes that a second Trump administration: Prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs. Accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs. Reject any congressional efforts to find more cost-effective alternatives to current plans. Increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads, including the B61-12, W80-4, W87-1 Mod, and W88 Alt 370. Develop a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile, even though neither the administration nor the Navy has requested such a weapon, and the Navy has not fielded this type of weapon since they were retired by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. Increase the number of nuclear weapons above current treaty limits and program goals, including buying more intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) than currently planned. Expand the capabilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s weapons production complex, including vastly increasing budgets, shedding non-nuclear weapons programs at the national laboratories (such as those devoted to the climate crisis) and accelerating production of the plutonium pits that are the cores of nuclear weapons. Prepare to test new nuclear weapons, even though the United States has signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that prohibits such tests and has not tested a full-scale nuclear device since 1992. Reject current arms control treaties that the coalition considers being “contrary to the goal of bolstering nuclear deterrence” and “prepare to compete in order to secure US interests should arms control efforts continue to fail.” Dramatically expand the current national missile defense programs, including deploying as-yet-unproven directed energy and space-based weapons, or as the report puts it: “Abandon the existing policy of not defending the homeland against Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles.” Invest in a sweeping, untested “cruise missile defense of the homeland.” Accelerate all missile defense programs, national and regional. Implementation plan. In March, the Heritage Foundation detailed the steps necessary to implement these proposals in asking the president to “revitalize the US strategic arsenal.” The authors propose that the next US president—meaning Donald Trump, but never mentioning him—immediately upon assuming office: Make a major speech soon after inauguration to “make the case to the American people that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of their freedom and prosperity.” Direct the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is charged with producing all nuclear weapons fissile materials and the manufacture of all warheads, to provide monthly briefings in the Oval Office and to submit its budgets separately from the Energy Department, within which department the agency resides. Direct the Office of Management and Budget to submit to Congress a supplemental budget request to accelerate key NNSA projects and Defense Department nuclear weapons delivery systems (missiles, bombers, and submarines). Increase the number of deployed nuclear warheads by directing the placement of multiple warheads on each of the currently deployed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. (Each missile in the current fleet of 400 ICBMs holds one warhead. Under this plan, the next president would order each missile to deploy multiple warheads by 2026. The new, replacement ICBM, the Sentinel, would also be fielded with multiple warheads.) Direct the production and deployment of new nuclear weapon types, including the sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and putting nuclear warheads on Army ground-launched missiles. (Both capabilities were eliminated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.) Add nuclear capabilities to several hypersonic systems currently under development as non-nuclear missiles. Direct the Air Force to examine a road-mobile version of the Sentinel ICBM. (President Reagan investigated such a program in the early 1980s and found it to be highly controversial, expensive, and impractical.) Direct the expansion and enhancement of US nuclear weapons capability across the globe, including by pre-positioning nuclear bombs and aircraft in Europe and Asia. (The United States currently deploys 100 nuclear bombs abroad at five bases in NATO Europe.) Direct the NNSA to “transition to a wartime footing,” including the expansion and construction of facilities to produce plutonium and plutonium cores for nuclear weapons. Implications for national security. Should these recommendations be implemented, they will result in a sharp decline in the security of Americans and a dramatic increase in the risk of regional and global conflicts. At the very least, the proposed programs will explode the national debt. With the defense budget already at $850 billion for Fiscal Year 2025 and the budget for nuclear weapons and related programs at over $100 billion, these new projects could add hundreds of billions of dollars to weapons development, production, and deployment costs. The Heritage Foundation estimates that these additional programs will cost “tens of billions,” but this is a gross underestimate. Increasing the US arsenal at the scale recommended by the Project 2025 would likely compel rival nations—including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—to increase their defense budgets, warfighting plans, and nuclear weapons developments and deployments to match what they will see as an increasing threat from the United States. Allied nations will also be caught up in the competition, fueling an already existing nuclear arms race: Japan, South Korea, and even Germany could be pushed over the nuclear line. This would be the unintended consequence of an unleashed nuclear modernization. While each nuclear-armed state sees its programs as defensive, their adversaries see them as offensive programs striving for a military advantage. Each move engenders a countermove; each nation believes it is responding to the other. That’s how the security dilemma has spiraled since World War II. But the Project 2025’s recommendations go one step further: They are based on the belief that the United States would win any arms contest through superior technology, resources, and political will. In 2019, former President Trump’s arms control negotiator Marshall Billingslea said: “We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion. If we have to, we will.” But such programs would further weaken nuclear guardrails that are already gutted by the withdrawals from major arms control agreements—including most significantly, Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that reduced, contained, and controlled the Iranian nuclear program and his withdrawal again from Reagan’s Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement that eliminated most nuclear weapons deployed by the United States and Russia in Europe. The erosion of the arms control and non-proliferation regime is not a defect of the proposals; it is one of its central goals. The Project 2025 authors believe that arms control has failed, and that treaties negotiated with both allies and rivals weaken Americans, rather than are protecting them. These views are not shared by most US allies. Those allied nations committed to restraining or eliminating nuclear risks will, therefore, increasingly doubt US leadership in international relations, weakening the alliance system so essential to US national security since the end of World War II. Importantly, these proposed programs and activities will almost certainly have the United States abandon its commitment not to test nuclear weapons under the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Should the United States conduct new nuclear tests, other nations will almost immediately follow suit, adding more fuel to the nuclear fire. Taken together, the policies and programs advocated by the Project 2025’s self-proclaimed “mandate for leadership” would push the United States onto the precipice of an expensive, dangerous, and destabilizing nuclear confrontation—something not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War.
I don't foresee either party substantially degrading the MIC and I have never said Republicans would. But, you know, ok.
When I said "MAY think," that means I don't know (what you thought about Trump's 2nd term as it relates to dovishness and military spending). But I do remember you care about military spending, and that's why I tagged you. Nothing else. The article is from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. FWIW, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Wikipedia The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nonprofit organization concerning science and global security issues resulting from accelerating technological advances that have negative consequences for humanity. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists began as an emergency action undertaken by scientists who saw urgent need for an immediate educational program about atomic weapons.[14] The intention was to educate fellow scientists about the relationship between their world of science and the world of national and international politics. A second was to help the American people understand what nuclear energy and its possible applications to war meant. The Bulletin contributors believed the atom bomb would only be the first of many dangers.[14] The aim of the Bulletin was to carry out the long, sustained effort of educating people about the realities of the scientific age. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seeks to educate citizens, policy makers, scientists, and journalists by providing non-technical, scientifically sound and policy-relevant information about nuclear weapons, climate change, and other global security issues. The Bulletin also serves as a reliable, high-quality global forum for diverse international opinions on the best means of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.[15] Since its inception in 1945, the Bulletin has sought to educate the American public of the continual danger posed by nuclear weapons and other global dangers, most recently adding climate change and disruptive technologies in the life sciences to the list of concerns. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER Factual Reporting: HIGH Country: USA MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Organization/Foundation Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Trump says he has ‘nothing to do’ with Project 2025, disagrees with some of its elements https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4756602-trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation/
Excellent. That means he knows the people are against it and is running away from it. Democrats should continue to publicize and use it as a weapon against Trump.
Great, Trump knows people are against it and despite Trump clearing the fact that he has nothing to do with it and is against it we should lie to voters and continue fear mongering in order to hurt Trump..... Atleast you were honest, very rare in Democrats....
I briefly looked at 2025 when it was mentioned before. They're mostly signed by former Trumpers who will still form human centipedes behind each and every one of his tweets. I don't remember any Adult in the Room, might be one or two... In the original Mandate for Leadership heritage wrote for Reagan, he used almost half of it, which Heritage touted as a success. It's like a wishlist and instruction set, and way to telegraph plays his tried and true Cultists believe would be needed for their Second Coming. Many of the things rely on a republican controlled Congress or an increasingly pliant judicial to bless some awful EOs. So it's accurate that it isn't Trump's policies but if they're aligned and need suggestions to break bureaucratic resistance, I wouldn't be surprised if he rehires the cronies who signed those particular positions, once thought to be blacklisted for public service. In a sense, this acts like an updated resume
Meh Just like those Republicans in that Kentucky county being against Government Handouts but 98% of them are receiving Government Handouts Rocket River
Let me get this straight and correct me if I'm wrong. You want the Democrat party to continue to lie.
