Trump Presidency

[Cackalacky2.0]

Which of these if not all, do you see happening if Trump is elected?
1. Issues EO stating that he is president for the rest of his life or until he quits.
2. Issues EO stating that he makes all decisions for the country.
3. Issues EO saying there will be no more elections.
4. Issues EO where he gets to pick the next POTUS.
5. Issues orders to imprison Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.
6. Issues EO allowing him to replace anyone on the SC at his discretion.

What is to stop him or any president from doing any of those things. He won’t need to issue a EO. He can issue verbal commands to his cabinet level positions to make whatever happen. He can order the military to support any endeavor he chooses. Immune because these are official acts even if considered the outer boundary of his official duties and he can justify it however he wants because no one will have the ability to question his motive or use any other official acts as evidence let alone have the ability to procure evidence of official acts be cause he is immune and his subordinates he authorized to do said acts are similarly protected by immunity.

You tell me. Did you watch the video I posted to you? He explains it pretty well why we should be very concerned.

Can states sue to intervene or stop a President?? Who knows. The SCOTUS didn’t address that. Point being it will be a long time before acts taken can be held accountable if at all through the legal system and there is no real way to find out about these acts or steps taken to authorize the acts.

 

[RDU Irish]

Damn BlueAnon is something else. At least Qanon gets one right every once in a while.

 

[RDU Irish]

According to snopes this claim about MFF and Kamala is mostly false. So what should I be upset about? She promoted a Fund started well before Floyd case and rioting?

I’m all for locking guilty violent offenders up. I’m also for them being able to avail themselves of the criminal justice system including release and bail options as determined by the judge(s). I’m also supportive of protestors that are non violent and all the freedoms they supposedly enjoy. If you engage in violence get wrecked son. To be clear I do not condone any violence in protesting. At all times.

If you engage in violence FAFO. Many of the Jan 6 people were allowed bail, time to travel and be with their family etc… so what? Pretty sure the judge allowed them to walk not Kamala. lol. 😂. Good lord. lol

Did Kamala Harris Bail Out 'Violent Rioters' During George Floyd Protests?

The claim appeared to stem from a June 2020 tweet from Harris.

www.snopes.com

Despite Trump claim and 2020 tweet showing support, Harris never donated to Minnesota Freedom Fund

Former President Donald Trump is using a 2022 Minnesota murder case to attack Vice President Kamala Harris.

www.cbsnews.com

Fact Check: Did Kamala Harris Back Bail Fund For "Murderers And Rapists"?

The Vice President has denied "misinformation" surrounding her support of the Minnesota Freedom Fund

www.newsweek.com

In June of 2020, just after George Floyd's death, then-California Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted, "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."

Nearly two years later, on April 25, 2022, Tillman was arrested in St. Paul on a gross misdemeanor indecent exposure charge. Bail is set at $2,000 dollars and he is put in jail.

On May 3, 2022, the Minnesota Freedom Fund paid his $2,000 bail and he was released. On May 20, 2022, Tillman murdered a man at the light rail station in downtown St. Paul. He is now serving a life sentence for that crime.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund said, "It is not correct that then-Sen. Harris has donated to our organization. We have no relationship with Harris beyond a single four-year-old tweet."

😂 explain to me why a tweet in 2020 regarding the George Floyd protestors is at all applicable to the release of a 2022 murder availing themselves of the judicial system.

That's a lot of tripe when the first degree source is still on the line.


Classic shitlib defense - "she didn't donate you liar!" She didn't physically arrest them herself and wasn't the ACTUAL judge who released them, blah blah blah. Then act totally retarded when pretending to decipher Trump's 88th degree free mason hidden messages out of his ramblings.

 

[Irish#1]

What is to stop him or any president from doing any of those things. He won’t need to issue a EO. He can issue verbal commands to his cabinet level positions to make whatever happen. He can order the military to support any endeavor he chooses. Immune because these are official acts even if considered the outer boundary of his official duties and he can justify it however he wants because no one will have the ability to question his motive or use any other official acts as evidence let alone have the ability to procure evidence of official acts be cause he is immune and his subordinates he authorized to do said acts are similarly protected by immunity.

You tell me. Did you watch the video I posted to you? He explains it pretty well why we should be very concerned.

Can states sue to intervene or stop a President?? Who knows. The SCOTUS didn’t address that. Point being it will be a long time before acts taken can be held accountable if at all through the legal system and there is no real way to find out about these acts or steps taken to authorize the acts.

Forget the video. That's not what I'm asking about. Let's also forget any EO's. Let's say you are 100% correct. I've rephrased the statement and questions.

Through whatever means you believe he will use, which of these if not all, do you see happening if Trump is elected?
1. Makes himself president for the rest of his life or until he quits.
2. He makes all decisions for the country.
3. He says there will be no more elections.
4. He gets to pick the next POTUS.
5. Issues orders to imprison Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.
6. Says he can replace anyone on the SC at his discretion.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Forget the video. That's not what I'm asking about. Let's also forget any EO's. Let's say you are 100% correct. I've rephrased the statement and questions.

Through whatever means you believe he will use, which of these if not all, do you see happening if Trump is elected?
1. Makes himself president for the rest of his life or until he quits.
2. He makes all decisions for the country.
3. He says there will be no more elections.
4. He gets to pick the next POTUS.
5. Issues orders to imprison Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.
6. Says he can replace anyone on the SC at his discretion.

The video is important in your understanding. EOs dont matter. This isn’t about Trump. It’s any president moving forward. Have you read the ruling at least? Do you understand the extent of immunity given to president by the SCOTUs?
Summary:
President has sbsolute immunity for core acts. This includes ANY USE OF THE MILITARY AND DOJ. I MEAN ANY USE. This isn’t fear mongering or pearl clutching. It is literally what the SCOTUs ruled. Imagine the worst thing any president can do with the DOJ or the DOD and that is all good per the SCOTUS. Complete and absolute immunity.

Official acts that are on the outer perimeter of core acts. This is undefined but is so broad as to include nearly any act or directive given while the president is a president. But per the SCOTUs any questionable act must also be presumed to be official and then determined to not be official via an extremely limited type of evidence. They limit the actual evidence available to make this determination and also state explicitly the motive of the president cannot be questioned. This makes determining what an unofficial act is nearly impossible. Again the guy in the video makes this point citing the ruling and I’m not going to do that.

If you haven’t read the ruling or watched the video there is no point in proceeding. That’s why I posted the video for you. That guy goes into great detail about the ruling and what it means.

The simplest and clearest thing is that the DOJ and military are under the executive branches direct control. He can order them to do anything. Anything per the SCOTUs. He could absolutely order an investigation be done into his political enemies. He can then use that to bring charges to Pelosi or Schumer and he could have them jailed and then use the full might of the DOj to prosecute them. With immunity we can never question his motive. Never investigate the actions taken by him or directed by him to the DOj to even determine if it’s illegal or violates the constitution or can be undone. If someone fights back he could initiate the military to enforce. The DOJs intent. This isn’t hard.

 

[Redbar]

Forget the video. That's not what I'm asking about. Let's also forget any EO's. Let's say you are 100% correct. I've rephrased the statement and questions.

Through whatever means you believe he will use, which of these if not all, do you see happening if Trump is elected?
1. Makes himself president for the rest of his life or until he quits.
2. He makes all decisions for the country.
3. He says there will be no more elections.
4. He gets to pick the next POTUS.
5. Issues orders to imprison Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.
6. Says he can replace anyone on the SC at his discretion.

Look at the crap he pulled in his first term, list it and tell me what of that you knew or expected him to do. Tell me how you expected all his “best people” to quit, get fired, get indicted. You expected all the batshit crazy. Tell me based off his first term why it is irrational to expect any of those things you listed. Tell me what he has done to earn your support and what he would have to do to lose your support.
Of course it’s all rhetorical, I already know the answers, so what am I doing in this thread…??

 

[Bishop2b5]

Can somebody throw some cold water on Cack before he strokes out?

 

[ulukinatme]

That is ulk’s go to as well. It biased because I said so so I’m not going to acknowledge it.

I mean, when you guys go and post stuff from propaganda accounts and pretend like they're Walter Cronkite, yeah...I'm going to say something. I'll admit there can be nuggets of truth in there at times, but with that there's loads of spin and hogwash. I'm not going to pretend I haven't done it at times myself, I've tried to do better lately. It's not hard to see what journalists are unbiased and which ones have an agenda to push, there are multiple websites out there that rank a publications or pundit's reliability and bias.

 

[Irish#1]

The video is important in your understanding. EOs dont matter. This isn’t about Trump. It’s any president moving forward. Have you read the ruling at least? Do you understand the extent of immunity given to president by the SCOTUs?
Summary:
President has sbsolute immunity for core acts. This includes ANY USE OF THE MILITARY AND DOJ. I MEAN ANY USE. This isn’t fear mongering or pearl clutching. It is literally what the SCOTUs ruled. Imagine the worst thing any president can do with the DOJ or the DOD and that is all good per the SCOTUS. Complete and absolute immunity.

Official acts that are on the outer perimeter of core acts. This is undefined but is so broad as to include nearly any act or directive given while the president is a president. But per the SCOTUs any questionable act must also be presumed to be official and then determined to not be official via an extremely limited type of evidence. They limit the actual evidence available to make this determination and also state explicitly the motive of the president cannot be questioned. This makes determining what an unofficial act is nearly impossible. Again the guy in the video makes this point citing the ruling and I’m not going to do that.

If you haven’t read the ruling or watched the video there is no point in proceeding. That’s why I posted the video for you. That guy goes into great detail about the ruling and what it means.

The simplest and clearest thing is that the DOJ and military are under the executive branches direct control. He can order them to do anything. Anything per the SCOTUs. He could absolutely order an investigation be done into his political enemies. He can then use that to bring charges to Pelosi or Schumer and he could have them jailed and then use the full might of the DOj to prosecute them. With immunity we can never question his motive. Never investigate the actions taken by him or directed by him to the DOj to even determine if it’s illegal or violates the constitution or can be undone. If someone fights back he could initiate the military to enforce. The DOJs intent. This isn’t hard.

Understand completely. Now which of those do you believe he will perform?

 

[Irish#1]

Look at the crap he pulled in his first term, list it and tell me what of that you knew or expected him to do. Tell me how you expected all his “best people” to quit, get fired, get indicted. You expected all the batshit crazy. Tell me based off his first term why it is irrational to expect any of those things you listed. Tell me what he has done to earn your support and what he would have to do to lose your support.
Of course it’s all rhetorical, I already know the answers, so what am I doing in this thread…??

Not asking you to, but if you were to go back in the Trump thread, you'll see I've never voted for Trump. I didn't condone his lack of professionalism while in the office. I also said if he was found guilty, send him to jail. I did like that we had low gas, food, housing costs, inflation was low as was unemployment. I did like that he used EO's early to get things moving as opposed to waiting on congress to quit having pissing matches.

Do you honestly believe Trump will do any of those things I asked Cack? He doesn't either and is why he won't answer.

 

[NDVirginia19]

The funny thing about Cack's video source he used to learn about the immunity ruling is that he thinks that he's a very fair arbiter of constitutional law when you look at all of his other videos and personal twitter feed, Legal Eagle is very clearly a living constitutionalist that hates originalism and hates Trump lmao.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The funny thing about Cack's video source he used to learn about the immunity ruling is that he thinks that he's a very fair arbiter of constitutional law when you look at all of his other videos and personal twitter feed, Legal Eagle is very clearly a living constitutionalist that hates originalism and hates Trump lmao.

That's almost as good as the time he quoted Mother Jones as a legit news source.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Not asking you to, but if you were to go back in the Trump thread, you'll see I've never voted for Trump. I didn't condone his lack of professionalism while in the office. I also said if he was found guilty, send him to jail. I did like that we had low gas, food, housing costs, inflation was low as was unemployment. I did like that he used EO's early to get things moving as opposed to waiting on congress to quit having pissing matches.

Do you honestly believe Trump will do any of those things I asked Cack? He doesn't either and is why he won't answer.

I believe any president cloaked in the immense power of absolute immunity is capable of doing anything they want. Not just Trump. Any president in the future and for the ages as the SCOTUS specifically said they made this ruling in mind with. I’ve answered this four times now. You don’t seem to grasp the unlimited nature of the immunity. You won’t achlnowlesge the immunity granted to outer perimeter acts and the inability to prosecute unofficial acts based on the ruling. How is being obtuse here? It’s not me. I have read the ruling. I have read conservative judge opinions. I have done a good deal of effort to understand this ruling as I am not a lawyer. I’m moving on.

Unemployment is the lowest it’s ever been in over 50 years under Biden. lol. WTH? I can’t…..I guess making up your own reality truly is great.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The funny thing about Cack's video source he used to learn about the immunity ruling is that he thinks that he's a very fair arbiter of constitutional law when you look at all of his other videos and personal twitter feed, Legal Eagle is very clearly a living constitutionalist that hates originalism and hates Trump lmao.

Forgive me I forgot that you post in Fox Chirons so you are totally accurate here.

So you disagree with his stance that the conservative justices completely ignored the original text of the Constitution? If so please tell me where the Constituion explicitly provides in the text immunity for the President and where it provides immunity for congress. Hint it’s silent on one and explicit on another which means the people who wrote the constitution were well aware they were giving this right to one and not the other.

Now go and look at Gorsuch, Roberts, Kav, Barret Alito and Thomas during their confirmations when they were asked about immunity and they ALL said no man was above the law and continuously referenced Madisons opinion on this matter. Now in the ruling how many times was this mentioned? Not once.

 

[ulukinatme]

The funny thing about Cack's video source he used to learn about the immunity ruling is that he thinks that he's a very fair arbiter of constitutional law when you look at all of his other videos and personal twitter feed, Legal Eagle is very clearly a living constitutionalist that hates originalism and hates Trump lmao.

I will say, to Cack's credit, that Legal Eagle is at least more unbiased than some of the sources posted in the past. From what I read he did try to pursue a frivolous lawsuit against Trump that had no chance of going anywhere, and he pushed some ideology over sensibility/law during the Rittenhouse incident. That said, while I haven't watched a lot of their stuff, the information tends to be decent and more or less they try to stick to the law's perspective.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I will say, to Cack's credit, that Legal Eagle is at least more unbiased than some of the sources posted in the past. From what I read he did try to pursue a frivolous lawsuit against Trump that had no chance of going anywhere, and he pushed some ideology over sensibility/law during the Rittenhouse incident. That said, while I haven't watched a lot of their stuff, the information tends to be decent and more or less they try to stick to the law's perspective.

Yes in the video he literally reads the text and explains its significance without much opining. His minimal opinions are echoed by many other judges that I have read their op Ed’s on. He isn’t alone in his opinion even with Federalist judges like Luttig. The broad consensus is that this ruling is completely untethered from any proper application of the constitution literal or historical.

 

[Redbar]

Yes in the video he literally reads the text and explains its significance without much opining. His minimal opinions are echoed by many other judges that I have read their op Ed’s on. He isn’t alone in his opinion even with Federalist judges like Luttig. The broad consensus is that this ruling is completely untethered from any proper application of the constitution literal or historical.

The problem is people brand themselves i.e. “Conservative“ and use terms like “strict constructionist” or “originalist” or ”no judicial activism”, or I believe in ”stare decisis” and repeat it, wrap themselves in it, then they do whatever the f they want to get the outcome they want. And the congregation says amen!

 

[Irish#1]

I believe any president cloaked in the immense power of absolute immunity is capable of doing anything they want. Not just Trump. Any president in the future and for the ages as the SCOTUS specifically said they made this ruling in mind with. I’ve answered this four times now. You don’t seem to grasp the unlimited nature of the immunity. You won’t achlnowlesge the immunity granted to outer perimeter acts and the inability to prosecute unofficial acts based on the ruling. How is being obtuse here? It’s not me. I have read the ruling. I have read conservative judge opinions. I have done a good deal of effort to understand this ruling as I am not a lawyer. I’m moving on.

Unemployment is the lowest it’s ever been in over 50 years under Biden. lol. WTH? I can’t…..I guess making up your own reality truly is great.

You are 100% correct in what you posted. Can I make that any clearer?

Now, I'm curious as to why you keep avoiding the questions? I'm asking specifically about Trump in Trump's thread. Not generalizations or what any other future president is capable of. You have been the bell tower of Trump is going to use this ruling and go dictatorship (generalization), so why not answer the questions?

Where did I say unemployment was bad under Biden? Talk about your own reality. lol

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You are 100% correct in what you posted. Can I make that any clearer?

Now, I'm curious as to why you keep avoiding the questions? I'm asking specifically about Trump in Trump's thread. Not generalizations or what any other future president is capable of. You have been the bell tower of Trump is going to use this ruling and go dictatorship (generalization), so why not answer the questions?

Where did I say unemployment was bad under Biden? Talk about your own reality. lol

What do you want me to say. We already know what he has done in the past ie the crimes he currently being prosecuted with. I can’t say specifically what will do. No one can. Can I imagine more? Absolutely. He has already said he is gonna use the DOJ to go after his political rivals. Hell, he maliciously fired Peter Strok so he couldn’t get his retirement and By the way that case just settled and Strok was awarded a shitTom of money for the wrongful and malicious termination because of Trump. Now under the current ruling there is NO WAY Strok could even bring this to court because of Trumps immunity and limitations on evidence for unofficial acts. What do want me to say? Will he go after Pelosi? Sure he could and would be able to do so! Will he use the DOJ to stay in power and overturn elections? Absolutely he could through a great many ways. Could he order the DOj and military to seize voting records? He already wanted to do it his first time around. Will he use the military or DOJ to stop the certification process? He absolute could.

Onto of this if they cancel schedule F civil servant positions and replace them with loyalists like Project 2025 clearly lays out they will… you now have whole departments ready to do the bidding with none of the people who previously stood in his way his first term. Again this isn’t pearl clutching. I’m speaking for m things that are publically available knowledge.


“Trump said: ‘If I happen to be president and I see somebody doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict”

 

[Irish#1]

 

[NDVirginia19]

Forgive me I forgot that you post in Fox Chirons so you are totally accurate here.

So you disagree with his stance that the conservative justices completely ignored the original text of the Constitution? If so please tell me where the Constituion explicitly provides in the text immunity for the President and where it provides immunity for congress. Hint it’s silent on one and explicit on another which means the people who wrote the constitution were well aware they were giving this right to one and not the other.

Now go and look at Gorsuch, Roberts, Kav, Barret Alito and Thomas during their confirmations when they were asked about immunity and they ALL said no man was above the law and continuously referenced Madisons opinion on this matter. Now in the ruling how many times was this mentioned? Not once.

Yes, I disagree that they ignored the original text of the constitution, because that would assume that there is a clause the constitution that says "the President is not immune from being charged with crimes when conducting official acts"

The entire basis of presidential stems from the principle of separated powers. The ability for a President to be criminally charged for conducting an official duty of the office has the potential to curtail the President to wield his or her constitutionally granted executive powers. Even then, the majority opinion does not grant blanket immunity for official acts granted by the President, as the dissenting opinions and liberal pundits claim.

For example, Roberts states in the majority opinion, "But of course not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. As Justice Robert Jackson recognized in Youngstown, the President sometimes “acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” or in a “zone of twilight” where “he and Congress may have concurrent authority.” 343 U. S., at 635, 637 (concurring opinion). The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress."

So if the President used military force to kill a political opponent in the United States, he would not be immune.

However, if a President made public statements about the administration of the federal election, communicated with senior Justice Department officials about investigating election fraud and about choosing the leadership of the Department, communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and their exercise of official duties with respect to it, communicated with the Vice President and with Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties regarding the election certification, and authorized or directed others to organize contingent slates of electors in furtherance of his attempts to convince the Vice President to exercise his official authority, you would be immune. You might say that you disagree with the President in those attempts, as I do myself, but that doesn't mean that the president can be held criminally liable.

Roberts further went on to write " At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754."

Again, the president can be held criminally liable for official acts if the following is done.

Again, disproving the notion that the President can use Seal team Six to assassinate a political opponent.

I recommend actually reading the majority opinion in Trump V. United States as the best means to actually formulate your own unbiased opinion.

 

[RDU Irish]

Didn't take long for the immunity ruling to lead to that assassination attempt on Trump that looks pretty fishy for SS. That level of incompetence is pretty difficult to comprehend.

Projection is the #1 tool of Cack and friends.

 

[Redbar]

Yes, I disagree that they ignored the original text of the constitution, because that would assume that there is a clause the constitution that says "the President is not immune from being charged with crimes when conducting official acts"

The entire basis of presidential stems from the principle of separated powers. The ability for a President to be criminally charged for conducting an official duty of the office has the potential to curtail the President to wield his or her constitutionally granted executive powers. Even then, the majority opinion does not grant blanket immunity for official acts granted by the President, as the dissenting opinions and liberal pundits claim.

For example, Roberts states in the majority opinion, "But of course not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. As Justice Robert Jackson recognized in Youngstown, the President sometimes “acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” or in a “zone of twilight” where “he and Congress may have concurrent authority.” 343 U. S., at 635, 637 (concurring opinion). The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress."

So if the President used military force to kill a political opponent in the United States, he would not be immune.

However, if a President made public statements about the administration of the federal election, communicated with senior Justice Department officials about investigating election fraud and about choosing the leadership of the Department, communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and their exercise of official duties with respect to it, communicated with the Vice President and with Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties regarding the election certification, and authorized or directed others to organize contingent slates of electors in furtherance of his attempts to convince the Vice President to exercise his official authority, you would be immune. You might say that you disagree with the President in those attempts, as I do myself, but that doesn't mean that the president can be held criminally liable.

Roberts further went on to write " At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754."

Again, the president can be held criminally liable for official acts if the following is done.

Again, disproving the notion that the President can use Seal team Six to assassinate a political opponent.

I recommend actually reading the majority opinion in Trump V. United States as the best means to actually formulate your own unbiased opinion.

Thank you, thank Trump, thank Thomas, Alito, Roberts and all of the clearly non partisan titans of constitutional law for clearing this up for the country and the host of other constitutional scholars. Correcting what we all including Nixon and his attorneys have clearly had wrong since and including the founding. Not everyone is equal before the law and lady justice can peek around that blindfold for the anointed. #patriots

 

[NDVirginia19]

Thank you, thank Trump, thank Thomas, Alito, Roberts and all of the clearly non partisan titans of constitutional law for clearing this up for the country and the host of other constitutional scholars. Correcting what we all including Nixon and his attorneys have clearly had wrong since and including the founding. Not everyone is equal before the law and lady justice can peek around that blindfold for the anointed. #patriots

It is very apparent that not everybody is equal before the law. The President and the government gets to do things that ordinary citizens cannot do. For example, the government can seize your private land for public use if they see fit, which is not something that I, a public citizen can do.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

I mean, when you guys go and post stuff from propaganda accounts and pretend like they're Walter Cronkite…

This is everything that Drayer’s ever posted.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

…there are multiple websites out there that rank a publications or pundit's reliability and bias.

And they’re all unreliable and biased!😉

 

[ulukinatme]

And they’re all unreliable and biased!😉

If we're talking publications and pundits, I would say yes. Very few these days bring just the facts without the spin.
As far as sites that list the factual reporting grades and biases of these media groups, they generally don't deviate too much from each other and they typically cite sources to backup the grades.

 

[GATTACA!]

Weirdo is the perfect word.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

https://meidasnews.com/news/unearthed-audio-project-2025-leader-kevin-roberts-says-trump-is-purposefully-lying-to-america-about-not-being-involved-in-project-2025

The 78 year old felon is lying about his involvement in Project 2025? I'm intrigued. Must learn more.

People are starting to see what's in it and they no likey. GDI/Moderates in swing states too. It's trash and it should getting shouted from the rooftops.

 

[ulukinatme]

https://meidasnews.com/news/unearthed-audio-project-2025-leader-kevin-roberts-says-trump-is-purposefully-lying-to-america-about-not-being-involved-in-project-2025

The 78 year old felon is lying about his involvement in Project 2025? I'm intrigued. Must learn more.

People are starting to see what's in it and they no likey. GDI/Moderates in swing states too. It's trash and it should getting shouted from the rooftops.

lolMeidasTouch again

Checking your browser...

Their little audio snippet doesn't even support the headline. If Trump has ever supported Project 25, it's never been publicly from what I've seen. He's denied any involvement in it, despite the fact Democrats are desperately pushing it on him like it's Russia. They've been pushing this disinformation for awhile now, it's not new. Trash indeed. Biden even has a page up on his website pushing it: Project 2025 - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
Fear mongering at it's best "Trump’s plan to take your power, your control, and your money." Yes, trash indeed that's getting shouted from the rooftops.

Fact check from left-center USA Today on Trump and Project 25.

Project 2025 is an effort by the Heritage Foundation, not Donald Trump | Fact check

Though the project includes people in Trump's orbit, he said he is not involved with the effort. Project 2025 said it doesn't speak for any candidate.

www.usatoday.com

Project 2025 said it “does not speak for any candidate or campaign” in a July 5 post on X, formerly Twitter. Its playbook is comprised of suggestions the coalition believes will benefit the "next conservative president."