╌>

Trump denies knowing about Project 2025 | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  drakkonis  •  one week ago  •  162 comments

By:   AP News

Trump denies knowing about Project 2025 | AP News
Donald Trump is seeking to distance himself from a plan for a massive overhaul of the federal government drafted by some of his former administration officials.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump posted on his social media website. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Trump denies knowing about Project 2025, his allies' sweeping plan to transform the US government


MIAMI (AP) — Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from Project 2025, a massive proposed overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former officials in his administration, days after the head of the think tank responsible for the program suggested there would be a second American Revolution.

"I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump posted on his social media website. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists. President Joe Biden's reelection campaign has worked to draw more attention to the agenda, particularly as Biden tries to keep fellow Democrats on board after his disastrous debate.

Trump has outlined his own plans to remake the government if he wins a second term, including staging the largest deportation operation in U.S. history and imposing tariffs on potentially all imports. His campaign has previously warned outside allies not to presume to speak for the former president and suggested their transition-in-waiting efforts were unhelpful.

A conservative leading the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American RevolutionConservative-backed group is creating a list of federal workers it suspects could resist Trump plansConservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump's vision

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said on Steve Bannon's "War Room" podcast Tuesday that Republicans are "in the process of taking this country back." Former U.S. Rep. Dave Brat of Virginia hosted the show for Bannon, who is serving a four-month prison term.

"We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be," Roberts said.

Those comments were widely circulated online and blasted by the Biden campaign, which issued a statement saying Trump and his allies were "dreaming of a violent revolution to destroy the very idea of America."

Some of the people involved in Project 2025 are former senior administration officials. The project's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Trump. Trump's campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt was featured in one of Project 2025's videos.

John McEntee, a former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office in the Trump administration, is a senior adviser. McEntee told the conservative news site The Daily Wire earlier this year that Project 2025's team would integrate a lot of its work with the campaign after the summer when Trump would announce his transition team.

Trump's comments on Project 2025 come ahead of the Republican Party's meetings next week to begin to draft its party platform.

Project 2025 has been preparing its own 180-day agenda for the next administration that it plans to share privately, rather than as part of its public-facing book of priorities for a Republican president. A key Trump ally, Russ Vought, who contributed to Project 2025 and is drafting this final pillar, is also on the Republican National Committee's platform writing committee.

A spokesperson for the plan said Project 2025 is not tied to a specific candidate or campaign.

"We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative president," a statement said. "But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement."

The Democratic National Committee said the plan and the Trump campaign are part of the same "MAGA operation." A Biden campaign spokesperson said that Project 2025 staff members are also leading the Republican policy platform.

"Project 2025 is the extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump's second term that should scare the hell out of the American people," said Ammar Moussa.

On Thursday, as the country celebrated Independence Day and Biden prepared for his television interview after his halting debate performance, the president's campaign posted on X a shot from the dystopian TV drama "The Handmaid's Tale" showing a group of women in the show's red dresses and white hats standing in formation by a reflecting pool with a cross at the far end where the Washington Monument should be. The story revolves around women who are stripped of their identities and forced to give birth to children for other couples in a totalitarian regime.

"Fourth of July under Trump's Project 2025," the post said.

___


Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in New York and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Drakkonis    one week ago

So, now we have a quote from Trump about the 2025 Project. Thoughts?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1  George  replied to  Drakkonis @1    one week ago

I can sum up the responses you will get in spite of the fact that they will have no proof.

Trump supports 2025, he lied about not knowing them and we know this because trump is ……. Insert hyperbolic comment about unfitness here while supporting someone with obvious mental issues.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  George @1.1    one week ago

because trump is ……

… a lying liar who lies.  It’s really that simple.

And does this sound the least bit coherent, or genuine, or sane?

… some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck …

But keep centering the conversation about Biden being incoherent.  😵‍💫

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.1    one week ago
… some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck …

A fine example, also

How if he knew NOTHING about it, does he know it is not the plan for him ? WTF people  ! 

He claims to know nothing about it yet there are many parallels to Trumps stated agenda, and many of its authors were in his previous administration, yet, he knows nothing about it ....?   From the man responsible for telling 30,000 plus lies, I know I believe him

cause i only LIE when sitting up in bed !

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.3  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  George @1.1    one week ago
Trump supports 2025, he lied about not knowing them and we know this because trump is ……. Insert hyperbolic comment about unfitness here while supporting someone with obvious mental issues.

Most likely. The problem we're faced with however, is that we can't know whether he is lying or not. So, it seems to me anyone actually interested in the question would have to go off the likelihood of Trump supporting the 2025 Project based off what they know of the man. Simply saying he's a liar and therefore is lying about this is simply thoughtless. 

In my opinion, Trump isn't likely to support it because it would make him subservient to the will of whoever is ultimately controlling the Project. Trump sees himself as the man with the plan and is unlikely, in the extreme in my opinion, to allow anything else to take his place. 

But it also occurs to me that it's likely that the Project would also require broad support among House and Senate Republicans and, so far, I haven't noticed a lot of talk about it on that front. That may be because most of them aren't interested in it or think it's a pipe dream. It could also be that if there is support for it in those chambers, it seems to me it would be something they would play close to the chest, so to speak.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.3    one week ago

Well, the plan certainly shoots holes in the idiotic theory that Trump would be a dictator, despite him not being one before.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.3    one week ago
is that we can't know whether he is lying or not.

He lies so often, all one has to do is play the odds. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.6  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.2    one week ago
He claims to know nothing about it yet there are many parallels to Trumps stated agenda, and many of its authors were in his previous administration, yet, he knows nothing about it ....?

That he knows little or nothing about it is certainly possible. The Project document is almost 1,000 pages long and we know from his described behavior as president that Trump has little patience for in-depth briefs or actually reading them. There is a difference between hearing someone talk about something and actually listening to it. It's not unlikely that someone has spoken about this to him but did he actually listen to what was said? 

Also, since Trump is basically conservative, there's bound to be parallels. It would be disingenuous for someone to claim he supports the plan simply on that basis. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.1.7  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.3    one week ago
it would be something they would play close to the chest, so to speak.  

Of course they wish to downplay many of their wants, as they are not popular with voters, as it is a far right conservatives wet dream wish list, that Trump absurdly tries to claim he knew nothing about. I believe my mention of this is how you were informed of this project a few days back. It is draconian in it's attempts to effectively change our country as it was envisioned by its founders, and to believe Trump, after his agenda of promoting Big Oil and reducing regulations, along with the executive branch consolidating more power and to be able to reign in or use as a weapon, the DOJ, not sure how anyone can believe Trump knows nothing of this organization and this plan. I will agree Trump will not allow The Heritage Foundation to overshadow his need constantly stroked ego, but the replacement of those not following Trumps agenda in lockstep is exactly what Trump wants. The removal or significant down sizing of the Department of Education, and most of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, much of the EPA, FTC, etc. is much of what Trump was calling for last administration when the damn adults in his orbit talked him out of it. Now, only yes men and women will surround the A dolt, and we will all be regretting this abomination, yet, people will defend and believe this crock of shit, the one who can\t be trusted further than one could ever spit   against hurricane force winds, for to this extent, Trump does blow

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.8  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.7    one week ago
Of course they wish to downplay many of their wants, as they are not popular with voters, as it is a far right conservatives wet dream wish list,

While "of course" is projection, since we don't actually know what Republican members of the House and Senate think about the plan, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Again, simply because those same Republicans have goals that mirror some of the Project's doesn't mean they support it. They're both conservative and so there will be parallels. 

I believe my mention of this is how you were informed of this project a few days back.

That would not be correct. I've known about the Project for a while now. As I stated then, I am not a fan of the plan, although I do agree with some of what they want to achieve. 

It is draconian in it's attempts to effectively change our country as it was envisioned by its founders,

Yes, it is, but it is no less draconian than what Democrats have already done to change what was envisioned by its founders. While there is no published Democratic version of Project 2025, there certainly seems to be one by which they operate. 

The Heritage Foundation to overshadow his need constantly stroked ego, but the replacement of those not following Trumps agenda in lockstep is exactly what Trump wants.

Yes, but that doesn't de facto mean Trump will embrace the Plan to achieve what he wants. Trump was already trying to get rid of those who he felt did not support him long before the Plan was even written. I believe he would see the Project as putting himself in a box he doesn't need to be in to accomplish what he wants on that front. The most I see him doing is selectively choosing who in the Project will best suit his need in a specific area of his choosing, as long as it serves his goal. I doubt he'd care if it served the Projects goal. 

The removal or significant down sizing of the Department of Education, and most of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, much of the EPA, FTC, etc. is much of what Trump was calling for last administration when the damn adults in his orbit talked him out of it.

Something I agree with, to an extent. Right now, many of those agencies are being used as political tools rather than their intended purpose. That doesn't mean my thoughts on what should be done with them aligns with Trump's or the Project, but something certainly needs to be done. 

Now, only yes men and women will surround the A dolt,

If that is Trump's goal, that is, being surrounded by yes men, then that is an argument against Trump supporting the Project. He would necessarily have to be concerned with where their loyalties lie. With him or with the Project?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  cjcold  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.7    one week ago

Trump both blows and sucks!!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @1.1.5    6 days ago

Hell, I can always tell when a con man , politician , or political partisan are lying in person.

Their lips are moving and they are making vocal sounds... sometimes gutteral squalling.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    6 days ago
The most I see him doing is selectively choosing who in the Project will best suit his need in a specific area of his choosing, as long as it serves his goal. I doubt he'd care if it served the Projects goal. 

That is Trump in a nutshell. 

The idea that he cares about the desires of a think tank is silly on its face. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.2    6 days ago
How if he knew NOTHING about it, does he know it is not the plan for him ?

He's obviously being guided by the WYDKCHY rule! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

(What You Don't Know Can't Hurt You!)

Or maybe the reverse?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.13  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.11    6 days ago

That comment is an example of gaslighting . Here is how to:

Prevention

By the time you notice you are being gaslighted , a lot of damage may have already been done. There is evidence that prevention is actually better than cure – even in the context of pure disinformation . My colleagues and I have repeatedly shown that people can be  “inoculated” against being misled  if they are taught to recognise misleading rhetorical techniques .

For gaslighting , such techniques include  open disbelief in facts or evidence  and  persistent denial  of having done or said something, no matter what evidence points to the contrary.

Gaslighting also involves diversion, typically by triggering an emotional response. When Trump repeatedly  criticised the cast of a Broadway play  via Twitter after the actors pleaded for a “diverse America” at the end of a show, many people felt outraged and some  rose to defend the actors .

But most people missed the fact that this Twitter event  coincided with Trump agreeing  to a US $25m settlement (including a US $1m penalty) of lawsuits against his defunct Trump University. An analysis of Google Trends  confirmed the success of this diversion , because the public showed far greater interest in the Broadway controversy than the Trump University settlement.

So the next time a politician [or his/her surrogates and supporters] says something outrageous, do not just be outraged – look for the real event that this shiny object is trying to distract you from.

My colleagues and I have recently shown, in an as-yet unpublished paper, that Trump  masterfully diverts the media and the public from information that is threatening to him.  Knowing that is a first step in preventing gaslighting.

You can’t be gaslighted if you don’t get confused and you won’t get confused if you are not misled in the first place .

-----

In her incisive  analysis of totalitarianism , the philosopher and political theorist  Hannah Arendt  warned that in an incomprehensible world created by gaslighting , . . .

people “at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true”.

Truth is at the heart of liberal democracy. No amount of gaslighting should divert us from that.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.3    6 days ago
The problem we're faced with however, is that we can't know whether he is lying or not.

Sure we can.  Are his lips moving? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drakkonis @1    6 days ago

The title is a bit misleading because Trump said he heard about it. Trump said he is not adopting it as a platform because he doesn't agree with everything in it.

There is quite a bit to it.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.1  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 days ago
Trump said he is not adopting it as a platform because he doesn't agree with everything in it.

I think that is likely true. That he doesn't agree with all of it, I mean. 

There is quite a bit to it.

Yes, there is. Personally, I feel there's quite a lot of totalitarian intent behind it. On the other hand, that's nothing that Democrats are already doing according to their own playbook. They've loaded the government with their own people and are carrying out their own "Project" in the same totalitarian mindset, in my opinion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.1    6 days ago
On the other hand, that's nothing that Democrats are already doing according to their own playbook. They've loaded the government with their own people and are carrying out their own "Project" in the same totalitarian mindset, in my opinion. 

Well, that is the essence of the 2025 Project: To finally break down the Deep Blue State. It is a drastic measure for an intolerable situation. I think DeSantis would have adopted it.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.1    6 days ago

Exactamundo, this has happened every single time seats of power have changed from one party to another. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.2.4  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 days ago
There is quite a bit to it.

I totally agree!

(I don't know anything about it, but that doesn't stop me from saying anything about it!)

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Krishna @1.2.4    6 days ago

I had heard of it in passing, but the latest blow up about it I finally went and checked it out to see what it was.

Can't say I follow this heritage foundation,a little too much to the right for me , kinda like the Lincoln logs outfit shining up any new turd they produce. Couple of popcorn farts on a hot day.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.6  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    6 days ago
Well, that is the essence of the 2025 Project: To finally break down the Deep Blue State. It is a drastic measure for an intolerable situation.

I'm not sure replacing it with a deep red state would be the answer, either. Especially on the Heritage Foundations terms, given what I suspect of them. Please see "the two obvious problems" I talked about in 4.1.3

I think DeSantis would have adopted it.

There's a lot to like about DeSantis but, unfortunately, some not to like. He's too all or nothing for me on too many issues. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.6    6 days ago

You may not like their plan, but we do have a problem with the bureaucracy. You want people who play it straight, I'm ok with that, but we can't have any more Comeys or Brennans or Garlands.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.8  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.3    6 days ago

Nobody has 'overhauled' our government from top to bottom (rotor-rooter styled)! Nor does it make sense for an "imperial president" do RESET the entirety of government officials and experts every four years. C'mon now. Especially rebuilding departments that have been wrongfully and regrettably taken out of commission (moth-balled) by a self-indulgent set of politicians wanting all life in the country centered on themselves.

Wake up America! These people mean you great damage to your 'generations'!!!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.2.8    6 days ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.2.10  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    6 days ago
we can't have any more Comeys or Brennans or Garlands.

nah, we need more of your old avatars, as he did such a bang up job

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.11  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    6 days ago
You may not like their plan, but we do have a problem with the bureaucracy. You want people who play it straight, I'm ok with that, but we can't have any more Comeys or Brennans or Garlands.

No argument from me on that score. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.12  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.2.8    6 days ago
Nobody has 'overhauled' our government from top to bottom (rotor-rooter styled)!

You must have missed every time that a different political party takes over the executive branch , thats exactly what happens  a complete overhaul of the government agencies  with new heads , of course the check and balance there is some of those new heads have to be confirmed by the senate .

 most of those heads of the agencies serve at the pleasure of the new sitting president , not the past outgoing president . IF the new president says he is replacing them , thats it .

 i seem to remember a certain person stating that elections have consequences when he thought he held all the cards , only to have that come back and bite him in the ball sack with a mid term "shellacking " i think is the term he used .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.13  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.12    6 days ago

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnb.artstation.com%2Fp%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fimages%2F040%2F748%2F073%2Foriginal%2Fbrigid-whelan-smoke.gif%3F1629775362&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c234f1b472e41456220cc13a2e5f0c9019e04c988c02045ddabae2060a41bf3b&ipo=images That comment is blowing. . . .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.9    6 days ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.15  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.2.13    6 days ago

I know the truth sometimes hurts cb, and i whole heartedly support your right to voice an opinion , i do however reserve the right to my own opinion and to voice it  especially when you tie your response to something i have said .

IF that is something you can not live with then i humbly suggest you voice your opinion in your own stand alone comment  where you will get to direct the course of the discussion in stead of tryng to hijack anothers . 

rather bad form old chap doing such .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    6 days ago

I'd be happy to get rid of all the right wing conspiracy nuts. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
1.2.17  Thomas  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.12    6 days ago

I think that the Heritage Foundation is proposing that all government jobs be answerable to the President or other political person. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.18  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Thomas @1.2.17    6 days ago

Could be.

But who do those people if they are employed by any agency that falls under the executive branch ultimately answer to if need be?

There is a chain of command and who ultimately ends up being the final stopping point , or to turn an old slogan , where the buck stops .

 Now the heritage foundations plan , to me does look an awful lot like micro managing, and I have never been a fan of that , seen it screw up too many times.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
1.2.19  Thomas  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.18    6 days ago
But who do those people if they are employed by any agency that falls under the executive branch ultimately answer to if need be?

The local positions would answer to the local management who in turn answer to someone higher up in the structure of the organization, just like it is now. As we can see from the recent hostile takeover of the Republican Party structure by Trump, fealty to the person is paramount. 

On October 26, 2020, Ronald Sanders, the chair of the   Federal Salary Council , resigned. Writing that he was a "lifelong Republican" who prided himself on having "served three Democratic and three Republican presidents", [38]   Sanders sent a letter to   John D. McEntee , Presidential Personnel Office director, characterizing   Executive Order   13957, which had purported to hold federal employees more accountable, as a transparent attempt to remove long-standing employment protections from federal workers: [39]

On its surface, the president's Executive Order purports to serve a legitimate and laudable purpose ... that is, to hold career Federal employees 'more accountable' for their performance. That is something that I have spent most of my professional life—almost four decades in Federal service (over 20 as a member of the Senior Executive Service)—trying to do. However, it is clear that its stated purpose notwithstanding, the Executive Order is nothing more than a smokescreen for what is clearly an attempt to require the political loyalty of those who advise the President, or failing that, to enable their removal with little if any due process. ... I simply cannot be part of an Administration that seeks ... to replace apolitical expertise with political obeisance. Career Federal employees are legally and duty-bound to be nonpartisan; they take an oath to preserve and protect our Constitution and the rule of law ... not to be loyal to a particular President or Administration. [40]

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.20  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Thomas @1.2.19    6 days ago

I would say then,

It's a good thing I decided not to vote for Trump long ago.

Wouldn't you agree?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.21  CB  replied to  Thomas @1.2.17    6 days ago

Heritage has drawn up a plan to place all power in Trumpism and conservative politicians for continuous and contiguous generations to come. All the current "watchers" in positions of power and authority will be rooted out and Heritage/Trumpists will be able to root through all the government structures - top to bottom-rummaging and destroying documents/histories/records at will. . . unless they are stopped by a stronger force.

One more thing: Donald will 'learn' from his past blunder with classified documents. Given the chance again, he will declassify 'everything' he ever dreamt of declassifying and did not. For 'obvious' purposes!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.22  CB  replied to  Thomas @1.2.19    6 days ago

If federal pensions are. . . 'disturbed' in any significant way. . . . 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.23  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.15    6 days ago

My position is clear. Project 2025 is not customary or even procedural transition of department heads. . . and any and all readers of this article's comments should be able to discern/determine the gravity of this as being a ''revolutionary' approach to governance. . . that seeks to over the government and recreate it in the image of one school of thought: Conservatism. No liberal/progressive or neutral 'parties' in this country can support such sets of concepts!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.24  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.2.23    6 days ago

Yes, your position on the issue is clear. And your welcome to it.

The rest of it is merely opinion justifying the taken position , which , again your welcome to.

 Since it is a reply, directed at me, I am under no obligation to share the position or opinion.

I just don't give the same importance to the issue at this time that you seem to.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.25  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.24    6 days ago

Well, your 'skin' is not in the game. . . as a liberal mine is. So let me if I give a damn how these matters turn out. :)

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.26  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.2.25    6 days ago

Is that not what I have done?

All I request is you not piggyback your screeds on comments I make in pretense of discussing what I have said .

You want to make a statement, do so standing alone or attatch it to someone else's comments as a reply.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.27  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.26    6 days ago

This is a comment board—I comment like others here. I do not comment here in 'pretense' of anything and that written in this context is a provocation! That stated, I will limit contact.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.28  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.2.27    6 days ago

You are free to view the site as comment board.

 I view it more as a discussion board, there are differences in my view and opinion.

Comment boards easily turn into sermonizing.

Discussions tend to be more of an exchange of thoughts and require each understand what the other is not only saying but thinking and trying to understand the why.

I simply refuse to participate in a discussion that has turned into base comments and sermonizing one way or the other.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.2.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.28    6 days ago

Obviously there are many folks here uninterested in a real discussion.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.2.30  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.29    6 days ago
real discussion

please elaborate

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.31  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.28    6 days ago

 "Ditto." I speak 'my' mind. It's the motto of this site. That is what is REAL here. (I suggest  we get back on topic pronto.)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.2.32  Krishna  replied to  CB @1.2.8    5 days ago
Nobody has 'overhauled' our government from top to bottom (rotor-rooter styled)!

FDR?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.33  CB  replied to  Krishna @1.2.32    5 days ago

Let me ask you a question: Was FDR projects in government positive or negative OVERALL for this country?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.34  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.2.17    5 days ago
I think that the Heritage Foundation is proposing that all government jobs be answerable to the President or other political person.

As opposed to a b ureaucracy  that is comprised on one political party.


Here is the reason for the "2025 Project."

The Injustices of Obama’s Department of Justice

May 13, 2017  by  Jeff Carlson, CFA

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is comprised of  60 Agencies . The organizational view is presented  here . There are  93 U.S District Attorneys  and 94 Districts (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands share a District Attorney). The DOJ employs approximately 115,000 individuals with about 35,000 of these contained within the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In 2015, the DOJ had an operating budget of $31 billion.

And the DOJ is a swamp.

Under Obama, the DOJ was fundamentally pushed to the left by Attorney General Eric Holder and then by his successor, Loretta Lynch. Sally Yates rounded out the Obama appointed DOJ leadership with her famously short stint before being fired by President Trump.

J. Christian Adams—who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush – points to the DOJ’s notoriously left-leaning  Civil Rights Division, saying that “ it touches more parts of American’s lives than any federal agency  and impacts issues like police, voting, schools, transgender, hiring practices, education. It’s not just voting rights, it’s everything.”

Mr. Adams highlights the highly politicized DOJ hiring practices put in place by Obama and Eric Holder in an extensive  series of investigative articles . His conclusion in his final article – located at bottom of the article listing:

“The Justice Department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation. Yet the resumes revealed the following ideological breakdown among the new hires:

Leftist lawyers: 113

Moderate, non-ideological, or conservative lawyers: 0

The matter-of-fact evidence should lead any reasonable observer to believe the DOJ has employed an illegal political litmus test during the interview process.”

He ends with the following:

“Loretta King, while serving as the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the outset of the Obama administration, ordered the resumes of highly qualified applicants to be rejected  only because they didn’t have political or left-wing civil rights experience . Multiple DOJ sources with direct knowledge of hiring committee practices have confirmed this to me.”

And when Mr. Adams says Leftist he really means  Extreme  Leftist. Take a look at the resumes for yourself. It’s disheartening.

I have written about the Department of Justice previously.

Eric Holder was appointed Attorney General by Obama – after serving years earlier as Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton. In 2012, Eric Holder  became the first – and only – Attorney General to be held in Contempt of Congress on both civil and criminal grounds . The vote was 255-67 with 17 Democrats breaking rank to side with the contempt vote.

It was Holder who came up with the process for doling out settlements from the financial crisis to activist groups. Holder presided over the unlawful investigation of certain members of the media. Under Holder’s command, the Department of Justice secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press. The DOJ also monitored the personal email and phone of Fox News reporter James Rosen. And it was Holder who refused to prosecute anyone in the IRS targeting of 426 conservative groups during the Obama Administration. Holder ultimately resigned but was not prosecuted by the Department of Justice – unsurprising since it had been his department. I discuss Holder’s activities a bit more in  The Left’s Russian Hypocrisy .

In  The Department of Justice’s Slush Fund , I discussed the ways in which money levied as fines from the financial crisis were then controlled and disbursed by DOJ officials with little or no accountability. It is disturbing. As noted by Congressional Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte in a  letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch :

“A Judiciary Committee investigation has revealed that, in just the last two years,  DOJ has directed nearly $1 billion to activist groups , entirely outside of Congress’s spending and oversight authority”

“DOJ has used the [$2 billion Volkswagen] settlement to  fund the [Obama’s] Administration’s electric vehicle initiative after Congress has twice refused to pay for it .”

“The Judgement Fund’s use to  pay the interest in a recent settlement with Iran  has also raised concerns.”

The Congressional Committee also noted the Justice Department’s stonewalling tactics:

“For over a year, DOJ provided none of the requested internal communications pertaining to the controversial settlement provisions. Rather, DOJ provided just sixty pages of emails between DOJ and outside parties. Furthermore, because of duplicative email chains, those sixty pages amounted to fewer than ten distinct emails. DOJ claimed in September 2015 not to have understood that internal communications were sought. This contention is difficult to credit in light of the unambiguous language in Committee letters and hearing questions. Finally, on March 18, 2016,  15 months after the initial request , DOJ relented and agreed to let the Committee review the internal documents, but only at DOJ, and subject to restrictions on releasing the documents’ contents.  The internal documents confirm that DOJ conceived of the mandatory donation provision s.”

Then we have the handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton and her email server – discussed in  Comey’s Crimes :

A reminder while reading – the FBI is an agency of the DOJ. The Attorney General is the FBI Director’s boss.

The FBI found Clinton guilty of essentially every act they investigated. Despite these findings, Director Comey cleared Clinton by making a statement that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”. This allowed Loretta Lynch at DOJ to announce the matter closed. It also allowed Clinton to pronounce herself cleared of all wrongdoing. Note, the FBI does not decide who will be prosecuted. They investigate.

The Department of Justice reportedly refused to empanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations.

The FBI – and DOJ – granted immunity to five Clinton staff members – and agreed to destroy the evidence (laptops) when finished. These aides included Cheryl Mills, former Chief of Staff  and  Mrs. Clinton’s personal attorney along with Heather Samuelson, former senior advisor. Both women were present as attorneys for Clinton during the FBI Clinton Interview despite being interviewed as witnesses and offered immunity.

Director Comey did not interview Clinton until the end of the investigation – three days before the press conference where he announced his conclusions. This runs against standard FBI protocol. Typically (always) they get the witness on record early so they can see how the testimony holds against what they find in the investigation.

The FBI ignored direct evidence that Clinton’s aides knew about the server and helped to cover its existence up. This is particularly important in regards to Cheryl Mills. She took on the role of personal attorney to Clinton upon leaving the State Department – since she was able to claim she didn’t know about the server until that time all conversations with Mrs. Clinton are protected by attorney-client privilege. There are emails that were public at the time and in the possession of the FBI that directly show Mills and Huma Abedin discussing the server as far back as 2010.

On March 2, 2015 the NY Times broke the server story. On March 4, 2015 the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued a subpoena for Clinton to produce her emails. On March 31, 2015 an employee of the company that maintained the server deleted the archive mailbox from the server. The FBI found a work ticket related to the deletion that referenced a call with Clinton attorneys David Kendall and Cheryl Mills. This is destruction of evidence under subpoena and somehow the FBI chose not to investigate further.

The FBI did not pursue “intent” with Mrs. Clinton during the late hour interview. While this may not sound all that important, simple acceptance of the explanation that the server was purely for personal convenience allowed for Mrs. Clinton not to be charged with evading federal statutes. Indeed, lack of intent was one of the primary excuses Comey used in his decision to declare her cleared.

And, of course, there was no investigation regarding Bill Clinton’s famously clandestine meeting with  the head of the Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch on a private plane  in Phoenix just days before the FBI announced its decision.

It was the DOJ that shielded the Clinton Foundation from FBI investigation. According to the  Wall Street Journal , “as the probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy heated up”. But the FBI investigation was continually stymied by DOJ officials. “Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation. Anticorruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity.”

As I note in the  Clinton Global Initiative’s Closing Confirmation , The Clinton Foundation was about financial access to power represented by the Clintons. The Clinton Global Initiative was the primary doorway connecting the Clintons to corporate and foreign donors interested in gaining political entry to Washington. And the Clinton Foundation had been very good at collecting donations. The Wikileaks email dumps provided a stark window into those activities. If you want to infuriate yourself all over again, give  Wiki(d) Leaks  a read.

President Trump has been stymied by DOJ lawyers from the start of his administration. It is likely that senior DOJ and FBI officials colluded against him in the Michael Flynn investigation. I touched on this aspect yesterday.

It is entirely possible that Comey was the one doing the taping referenced in Trump’s now-infamous tweet:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

Consider the following timing of events:

On January 24th, the FBI interviewed Mike Flynn.

On January 25th, the Justice Department receives briefings on Flynn from the FBI.

On January 26th, DOJ Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Assistant Director of Intelligence Bill Priestap rush to the office of White House Council Don McGahn to discuss Flynn.

On January 27th, they return for a second meeting with McGahn. McGahn questions Yates, “ Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?

On the evening of January 27th, President Trump has dinner with FBI Director Comey –  a previously scheduled dinner .

President Trump asks Director Comey if he is under investigation, BUT he wisely does  not  ask about the Flynn investigation. Which could – would – be seen as impeding a federal investigation by the media.

It actually does not matter if it was Comey or Trump who did the taping, but I find it very interesting that President Trump chose to fire Comey when the FBI Director was in Los Angeles – 3,000 miles from his FBI office.

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years | Investor's Business Daily (investors.com)

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.35  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.34    5 days ago

I've got my own version of the 2025 project waiting for christo-fascists ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2.35    4 days ago

I'm sure you do. Stick with the boycott.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.37  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.36    3 days ago

[]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.2.38  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.34    2 days ago

Jeff Carlson is a one man conspiracy generating machine, he should stick to financial management

but even there he continuously complains about liberals and liberalism.

No wonder you love the poison pen of this heritage Foundation wannabe.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.3  Krishna  replied to  Drakkonis @1    6 days ago

Thoughts?

Nope! 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    one week ago

So much for that boogeyman.

Trump is essentially a moderate. He wants compromise and “deals” he can take credit for. If pelosi and scchumer had taken advantage of this instead of going full “ resistance” and Russian conspiracy theory against him from day one they could have achieved a lot of progressive policy goals in exchange for things like increased border security.  In one of th use great unknowables, I’d bet there is a version of his term where he let Schumer influence the Ginsburg replacement as part of a bargain of some sort.

the idea that he’s invested in or even cares about implementing some right wing  tanks ideological doctrine is a total misunderstanding of who trump is. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one week ago
 a total misunderstanding of who trump is. 

yes, one could never misunderstand Trump, and who he is, but perceptions are unique, and if you look closely, who am i kidding, you have been duped, and that is your right, no matter how wrong

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.1  George  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.1    one week ago
you have been duped

irony.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.1    6 days ago

you have been duped,

so trump is qualified to be president and I should vote for him. Okay, if you insist.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.2  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 days ago
Trump is essentially a moderate.

Actually he's a liberal-- a true progressive!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.2    6 days ago
Trump is essentially a moderate.
Actually he's a liberal-- a true progressive!

Remember-- this is The Internet! So we can say anything we want (as long as it doesn't interfere with the COC!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 days ago

Trump is too stupid to be a far right ideologue the way Steve Bannon or Steven Miller is.  But all of Trump's political power emanates from the right wing/white grievance constituency. There are few moderates in MAGA. 

The idea that Trump would inflame his own base by compromising over Ginsburg, or whatever, is at best, wishful thinking. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3  MrFrost    one week ago

800

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3    one week ago

Hey, you need to take Medicare off your list, as Biden has already defeated it!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  MrFrost @3    one week ago

How does this contribute to whether or not Trump supports the Project?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2    one week ago

I bet some  "news" person said this is Trump's plan and no one bothered to fact check him.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.2  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    one week ago
I bet some  "news" person said this is Trump's plan and no one bothered to fact check him.

Many in the media have been doing all they can to claim that Trump endorses the plan and intends to implement it if he becomes president, even though there's never been a direct quote from Trump that I could find that would support it. In other words, they just claim it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.2    6 days ago

Fear mongering taken to a new extreme.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2    6 days ago

How does this contribute to whether or not Trump supports the Project?

Just showing it for reference. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.4    6 days ago
Just showing it for reference. 

So, nothing?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.2.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.2    6 days ago
any in the media have been doing all they can to claim that Trump endorses the plan and intends to implement it if he becomes president, even though there's never been a direct quote from Trump that I could find that would support it. In other words, they just claim it. 

If Trumps former agenda ran very much parallel as does his stated next agenda if again elected, how can you state he doesn't endorse policy, the same as Trump policy, because the policies are one in the same ? Are you implying he will take the Republican route where they disagreed with any thing Obama wanted to do, even if they wanted to do it first ? I don't think you are, but stated to illustrate my point, for i am not an artist, but one needs not be painted every picture with that 1/4" brush to see this is no rush, to judgement, when congruencies are quite obvious, and the fact that so many that were in Trumps orbit, again gravitate right back to Trump while sitting on the boards and after contributing to writing various chapters of the 2025 Projects agenda :

 John McEntee, a former director of White House Presidential Personnel Office is a senior adviser of the Project 2025 and told the Daily Wire that Project 2025's team would integrate much of its work with the Trump campaign when Trump announces his transition team later this summer. 

Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation says he speaks regularly with Trump.

Peter Navarro, who currently sits in prison authored the chapter on Trade

Chris Miller, was Trumps' Secretary of Defense on January 6th and wrote the Projects Department of Defense chapter

Paul Dans Project 2025 Director was former OPM Chief of Staff under Trump

Rick Dearborn Distinguished Visiting Fellow Project 2025 was Trumps Deputy Chief of Staff

Russ Vought Project Contributor OMB chapter was former OMB Director under Trump 

Gene Hamilton Project 2025 Contributor on DOJ chapter from America First wrote chapter on Justice and was a former DOJ official under Trump 

Ken Cuccinelli Project 2025 contributor DHS chapter was a former DHS official under Trump

BEN CARSON Project 2025 contributor HUD chapter was Trumps HUD Secretary and is still often seen with Trump on the campaign trail

Yes, take Trumps' word on Knowing NOTHING, as all these people were with Trump before. Do you suppose he never communicated with them again, please, that is ridiculous, as is the notion Trump knows nothing of this mirrored agenda written by many of his former administration officials.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.6    6 days ago

And what happens if none of these bozos named are in fact on said transition team or selected for advisory or cabinet positions?

Way I have seen trump operate, he holds grudges, if someone was once on his team and he loses( which he did biggly last election) he usually shitcans them .

About the only thing I agree with what you said, don't believe a word coming out of his mouth. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.7    6 days ago

Agreed! 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.2.9  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.7    6 days ago
And what happens if none of these bozos named are in fact on said transition team or selected for advisory or cabinet positions?

That wasn't my point. For one, Ben Carson has been seen with Trump campaigning numerous times, so of course they would NEVER discuss like minded goals that they both wished accomplished, they probably only discussed Hotels and Rural Demolition. 

John Mcentee says that he HAS been in contact with Trumps Campaign to work towards integrating the plan. Are you going to believe Trump would not be aware of this if what John states is accurate, for so many who were in Trumps close circle and attempting to accomplish Trumps stated objective of power collective, it doesn't stand that ones with the same as stated objectives, would have avoided conversing about them, and only reminisced of that one that got away, back in old hindsight 2020, they might say. 

  Kevin Roberts is quoted as saying he speaks regularly to Trump, but we must doubt ever about anything Projected in 2025, for mere coincidental only i'm sure, just as Trumps thoughts, only run pure, of anything considered good for our country tis of thee, cause he'd never make it all about HE, 

and so to get right down to this point, NO, we have not full proof that Trump is going to implement "ALL" of Project 2025 but some for sure if he has the option, but sakes alive people, do any here actually believe Trump puts all his faith into people ruled over by the Steeple, or does he believe they are silly gullible sheeple...? For i'd have to walk under the latter, and state the former, president Trump has got to win this election, irregardless of all of his Supreme protection, and his stated projection screams "believe me , i would never LIE", though i'd have to not be able to believe one who has shown he would prefer the dreams of our Forefathers Die, before anyone could ever believe Trumps stated words on 2025 are not a big fib.

.

So stretch all of your imaginations near and far, but everyone commenting here I believe knows, deep state down inside, POS Trump, has up and done lied, again

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.9    6 days ago

Sounds like you don't like the plan.

Mayvd don't vote for Trump then.

crisis averted!

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.2.11  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    6 days ago

my, arent we perceptive today

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.12  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.6    6 days ago
If Trumps former agenda ran very much parallel as does his stated next agenda if again elected, how can you state he doesn't endorse policy, the same as Trump policy, because the policies are one in the same ?

I'm not sure I understand the question but, as I have stated before, just because some policies align doesn't mean Trump intends the Project to be the blueprint for his next administration, assuming he wins. Proponents of the Project seem to have a vision of what a future America would look like under their plan. Trump has his own ideas on an America based on his own plans. I can't see Trump having the same motives for what he wants to do as the proponents of the Project. I don't see him sharing their vision, in other words.  

Are you implying he will take the Republican route where they disagreed with any thing Obama wanted to do, even if they wanted to do it first ?

Again, I don't think I understand what you're asking. Are you asking if Trump will be obstructionist towards the Democrats or with the proponents of the Project if they are in disagreement? 

Yes, take Trumps' word on Knowing NOTHING, as all these people were with Trump before. Do you suppose he never communicated with them again, please, that is ridiculous, as is the notion Trump knows nothing of this mirrored agenda written by many of his former administration officials.

I'm not really concerned with debating whether Trump is lying about this. I don't believe he knows nothing about this at all, although I have doubts he actually knows much about it. Instead, my purpose here is to discuss the likelihood of Trump being swayed into doing what the proponents of the Project want him to do. These proponents speak as if Trump will naturally accept their vision for America and that all Trump has to do is get their people in and they'll take care of the rest. According to them, Trump would be nothing more than a facilitator, much like people now think Biden isn't really in charge but, rather, someone else is pulling the strings and he's just a figurehead. I don't see Trump being on board with such a notion, especially since he doesn't share their values. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.13  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    6 days ago

I might need to slow down my day drinking a little today,some of what he said started to make sense....almost

But that somewhat patriotic tenor towards the end, dreams of out forefathers and yada yada , made me want to tip my glass , salute the flag, and fart towards the left in a general direction,to ward off enemies of the state.....always cropdust into on coming traffic, not the pedestrians...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.9    6 days ago
Kevin Roberts is quoted as saying he speaks regularly to Trump, but we must doubt ever about anything Projected in 2025, for mere coincidental only i'm sure, just as Trumps thoughts, only run pure, of anything considered good for our country tis of thee, cause he'd never make it all about HE, 

you are making too much sense for some here

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.2.15  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.14    6 days ago
too much sense for some here

thus Y i feel the need to poke fun at some who by any and all means, will defend what has got to be so obvious to even the staunchest Trump defenders, and there is only so much we can do till blues, get a clues, and take for pause, and scratch the storm door

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.11    6 days ago

we???

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.2.17  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.16    6 days ago

Oui'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.18  CB  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.6    6 days ago

It is OVERTIME to retire the foolish liar Donald to the private sector and his henchmen to the wilderness of ideas of folly!

Remember: The three constitutionalists who stated they will protect/guard/honor PRECEDENT and today are changing/neutering every liberal/progress law that they can (secret) get up to the high court. Even making 'imperial' Donald himself ahead of a hope he will win this fall's presidential election.  Donald applause them for their subterfuge and stealth opinions. 

Yes, Donald knows about Project 2025, there is no plausible reason for him not! The "damn" project can not happen next year without him in part or in whole. Yes, it is easy to believe the Heritage Foundation and former Donald officials brought him into the inner circle. Donald track record of lying does not warrant giving him benefit of the doubt! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.2.17    6 days ago

wee

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.2.20  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.19    6 days ago

If you need to use the lavatory, please do

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3    6 days ago

He's not running on it, so what's the point?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.3.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    6 days ago
He's not running on it, so what's the point?

Same old run of the mill is again tread upon, for we do not yet know how much of it he is running on as there are policies overlapped or, duplicated, thus why double hated, and if he's not running on the treadmill working on lying again about it, the point would be on the pen man ship sunken to create treasure, where as project 2025 would need to have to serve under Trump, yet Trump consistently acts as one over served 

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
4  Thomas    one week ago
"I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump posted on his social media website. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

Par for the course: Lies, pure and simple.

I have no idea who is behind it

Bullshit. He has given the keynote address at Heritage Foundation's event.

And how exactly can you read the quoted text and not realize that it is internally inconsistent? 

I know nothing about Project 2025

Is followed very closely with 

I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal

How does he know what they are saying if he knows nothing about it?

And of course there is the tacit admission of guilt that comes with every good Trump quote

Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.

LMFAO

Just like January 6th: We love you. Now go home. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Thomas @4    6 days ago
And how exactly can you read the quoted text and not realize that it is internally inconsistent?

I noticed that, too. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that he has much knowledge of the Project. "I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal" is rather vague, since we don't know who "they" are. Does it mean he has a good, working knowledge of the Project, is he speaking about conversations he's had, news articles on the Plan or some other source? In fact, we can't even tell if he's referring to the plan at all in that quote. He may be referring to what people are saying about him concerning the Project. 

Of course, some are going to say I'm trying to make excuses for Trump, but I know that isn't what I am doing. It's actually called critical thinking. To many here, Trump is a liar, and that can certainly be backed up easily enough, but it is not critical thinking to dismiss everything simply as a lie. 

Further, I am not making excuses for Trump in this because not only do I plan on not voting for Trump, his support for the Project would just reinforce that. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
4.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1    6 days ago

Well, it is like most Trump statements: Vague enough so that some can say, "Look. He disavows all knowledge."
 while at the same time giving the nudge and wink to those of his supporters who are actually for the plan. 

To the symbolic logician in us all parsing the statement, we are left wanting, because he did not really say much of anything.

What we could do if we had the time is look at the people who comprise the Heritage Foundation and compare/contrast the overlap of ideas and people with the Trump campaign and its organizers. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Thomas @4.1.1    6 days ago
What we could do if we had the time is look at the people who comprise the Heritage Foundation and compare/contrast the overlap of ideas and people with the Trump campaign and its organizers.

Possibly a lot, if one had the time, as there possibly could be some overlap, and just because there has already proven to be, doesn't mean he would implement all that Project 2025 has brought up to offer, but, knowing this POS, he already has exceeded it, as in too much anti American opposition to our founders visions and our Constitutions' stated positions, i'd lay book he has, and so many , again, for what the fck ever reason, would give Trump the benefit of a doubt, that I doubt, he would ever give they, but just like Stormy to Trump did say, 'go daddy go' !  What a fckn country...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.1.3  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Thomas @4.1.1    6 days ago
Well, it is like most Trump statements: Vague enough so that some can say, "Look. He disavows all knowledge." while at the same time giving the nudge and wink to those of his supporters who are actually for the plan.

Yes, but that's pretty standard of any politician. It certainly isn't unique to Trump. 

What we could do if we had the time is look at the people who comprise the Heritage Foundation and compare/contrast the overlap of ideas and people with the Trump campaign and its organizers.

I suppose, but one would essentially be writing a pretty big book; one that could not be completed in time to be useful for the upcoming election. And it may not be all that helpful. Simply having overlap in goals doesn't mean anything by itself, as what really matters is why those goals are there and what they hope to achieve with them. 

In my opinion, the Federal government is overwhelmingly blue. While the Project has a list of stated policies it wishes to enact, its main goal, which they do not hide, is to turn the government overwhelmingly red. Ignore the elected officials. They don't care as much about them as they do career bureaucrats that will still be there when administrations change. They want those on board with the Projects goals there to support their version of Republicans when they are in power and resisting the Dems when they are. 

Two obvious problems with the Project's plans and part of why I don't support it. First, if for the sake of argument we assume the Project achieved all of its goals and were able to put all of their desired people in place, we'd likely end up with two governments, at least for a while. One that was the traditional one we have now and one where its operatives essentially served the Project. That would be bad. I think we've already got that as it is now, only on the Democrat side. This can be seen by how political most of the three-letter agencies have become. The ATF and the EPA are two examples. 

The other obvious problem is that every time an administration changed to the other party, there's nothing to prevent them from  doing the same thing the Project did. Fire everyone and replace them with their own people. That would be a disaster. I'm sure this has occurred to the proponents of the Project. The only way I could see them avoiding it is if, once having achieved what they wanted, they enacted a plan that would keep them in power. I don't even want to think about how they might achieve that. 

It would not surprise me that Trump could see the same sorts of problems with that idea. For myself, that still leaves a deeply blue, unelected Deep State which basically is running the country, which is what the term actually means. That has to be solved and why I support the SCOTUS ruling on curtailing government agencies power to essentially enact laws. It is ridiculous that the ATF can turn citizens who are law abiding into criminals overnight on their say so alone. It's ridiculous a homeowner/landowner who's not near any rivers or streams being denied building permits or getting fined by the EPA using the Navigable Waters Act as a pretext simply because they have standing water on part of their property part of the year.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.4  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1    6 days ago
Of course, some are going to say I'm trying to make excuses for Trump, but I know that isn't what I am doing. It's actually called critical thinking. To many here, Trump is a liar, and that can certainly be backed up easily enough, but it is not critical thinking to dismiss everything simply as a lie. 

No sir! What you are doing isn't critical thinking, it is giving Donald the benefit of YOUR doubt. What others here are doing is critically-recalling up prior statements Donald has made about his 'amnesia' over people he does wish to recognize when its inconvenient to his purposes, pulling articles where he has attempted to use weasel words about people he does not wish to own: "I don't know who E. Jean Carroll is"* and then we use our powers of RECALL and experience to call: Bull!

Sir, maybe more exposure to the real world and the 'working' media where facts reside is needed, because facts are out there archived for all who wish to learn.

* “This woman,” Trump said of E. Jean Carroll, when moderator Kaitlan Collins asked for his response to the verdict. “I don’t know her, I never met her, I have no idea who she is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.5  CB  replied to  Thomas @4.1.1    6 days ago

Donald is lying. It's his 'calling card.' But, like a good salesman. . . he can deliver a 'pitch' with weasel words, plausible deniability, gaslighting, "WWE-ism" (each new show offering is bigger/better/more spectacular - than the last show-buy ME/now!'), gullibles, suckers and suckees, manipulations, and finally, benefit of the doubters. 

That is what Donald means when he says he is "highly intelligent." (We just have to know what to look for about the man!)

Donald, you sir, are a liar's liar!

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.1.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  CB @4.1.4    6 days ago
* “This woman,” Trump said of E. Jean Carroll, when moderator Kaitlan Collins asked for his response to the verdict. “I don’t know her, I never met her, I have no idea who she is.

c'mon Don, remember ? You just grab em buy the pussy, and they let you, lighten your load by some $80 plus million dollars or so, and as i write that RIDICULOUS TRUE FCKN STATEMENT, it is just so unbelievable how many are still attempting to defend this damn creepshow peep show Stormy weathering playmate cooler than LL or Jj walker down 5th avenue for a shot to the face he can't, a shock to this place, n'ant, we've all become immune and far to tolerant of the maga miscreant who has US talking what just a few years prior, we could not ever in our lifetimes consider, cause Trump is the pick of the worse litter that could be found in the bottom of that ole swampy shitter, Trump said he was gonna drain right after he took the reigns that do not replenish the rather severe drought brought about when our morals and ethics did depart, in full, for it has become void and null, like that of a skull, as vacancy signs aren't home like a good apparent, watching sunrise, from the imbedded, they ran off, both apparently, and as far as neither could see how blind we all had become, i declare,, these parents apparently did not care for the son who would rise from the in bed, it, seems we see things the way we see, and it benefits neither you, or anyone else

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.7  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.3    6 days ago

frog-in-hot-water.gif?resize=300%2C166&ssl=1 Speaking volumes! 

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
4.1.8  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.3    6 days ago
In my opinion, the Federal government is overwhelmingly blue.

Well, in my opinion, it is not. I do not think that it is either blue nor black nor purple. People are hired to do jobs and those jobs require a set of skills and expertise in certain areas. I do not believe (ie. I know) on an application there is any check box indicating party affiliation. 

For myself, that still leaves a deeply blue, unelected Deep State which basically is running the country, which is what the term actually means. That has to be solved and why I support the SCOTUS ruling on curtailing government agencies power to essentially enact laws

There are laws and there are regulations based on those laws. The regulations put the laws into practical use.  An over-reach, real or imagined, of any one particular agency does not justify the wholesale dismantling of entire agency structures. The reason that they are set up like they are is to prevent just the scenario which you envision with the whole of the staff of an agency put to a political litmus test. What a cluster that would be. Already we have the various heads and upper levels of the various agencies that are filled by appointment. The appointment process and the regulation creation/revision process is where the people need to be involved. We don't need to be hiring/firing people on who they voted for. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.1.9  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Thomas @4.1.8    6 days ago
We don't need to be hiring/firing people on who they voted for. 

but it seems and sounds so American, like Baseball and Apple Pie

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.10  CB  replied to  Thomas @4.1.8    6 days ago
We don't need to be hiring/firing people on who they voted for.

The Heritage Foundation is a think-tank. These people are not simpletons or complete fools. They fully comprehend the federal systems commitment to diversification and to fidelity to service for all the citizenry. They are not interest in that. They want government programs that feature and 'run' their ideology throughout the system free and clear. It's a takeover. It's why Heritage President Roberts . . . cautioned, 'The Left should surrender. . . without blood spillage (next year).'Just lay down and accept that "the Heritage/Trumpism coalition shall be rule of law going forward. 

These people are not fools, they're a think-tank, and by definition they put great thought in what they say, write, and strategize to do.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2  CB  replied to  Thomas @4    6 days ago

Just like:

'I don't know who the Proud Boys are' - Trump

Donald Trump has said a far-right group should "stand down" and let law enforcement do their work, after his refusal to condemn white supremacist groups in the US presidential debate sparked a backlash.

Mr Trump said "I don't know who the Proud Boys are" on Wednesday - despite urging them to "stand back and stand by" on Tuesday night.


Just like: 

Trump’s David Duke Amnesia

By  Eugene Kiely

Posted on March 1, 2016

Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, “I just don’t know anything about him.” That’s nonsense:

  • Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
  • In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

For several days, Trump has had trouble handling questions about Duke, ever since  Duke said  on his radio show Feb. 24 that “voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage.” BuzzFeed on Feb. 25 reported Duke’s statement of support.


Why does the public let a sick liar like Donald get away with this kind of nonsense. Donald, you're lying yet again!

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.2.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  CB @4.2    6 days ago
Why does the public let a sick liar like Donald get away with this kind of nonsense

because they are afraid to depart a cult, and that is disturbing found, and i'll stand my ground, as my argument as is yours , begs the answer how good people can still defend and support this Cancer, attempting to eat away, at the Truth , Justice, and the American Way left a Mark, so stay up wind, before it winds down a spiral path to the base, at the bottom as an about face, some might wish to realize, cause real lies aren't takin US too far, in a 'right' direction, as the dire election, results are worth much introspexction,  that we'd all to not see, prefer,  yet the ugly truth need be faced, not abouted 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5  CB    one week ago

Of course, he knows about it. It's right up his 'imperial presidency' - A-hole. (In my opinion, there are plenty 'backdoor' discussions, agreements, and 'problem-solvings'  going on that come to the light of day in due time). Donald is lying. An evidence of this knowledge of it. He says he disagrees with portions of it. . . I am skeptical of that. . . since it is 99.99 percent up his alley and talking points. But okay, maybe he differs on points of the font, color of the text, stationary binding, project name. . . the insignificant crapola.

More later, I need a break.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
6  Krishna    6 days ago

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump posted on his social media website.

OK.

I disagree with some of the things they’re saying.

Knows nothing about it--- and disagrees with some of the things he knows nothing about!

We must-- absolutely must-- re-elect him as president!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
6.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @6    6 days ago

Knows nothing about it--- and disagrees with some of the things he knows nothing about!

We must-- absolutely must-- re-elect him as president!

Whoa-- wait a minute! Why do I say we must re-elect him?

It's quite simple, really-- its because I know nothing about him!

(So therefore you must take my advice!!!!)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    6 days ago

This reminds me a lot of when Trump denied knowing anything about Q Anon except that they liked him, that he knew. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @7    6 days ago

Or Trump falsely denying that he knew anything about David Duke.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
8  Jeremy Retired in NC    6 days ago

So we are back to "Trump's a liar".  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
8.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8    6 days ago

yea, who would have thought, he was capable.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @8.1    5 days ago

Thanks for verifying the hypocrisy stands.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
8.2  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8    4 days ago
 

So we are back to "Trump's a liar".  

I would say that we are still-on Trump's a Liar.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @8.2    4 days ago

No.  For a while the claim was "Trump is telling the truth".  Although it's all been based around leftist schizophrenia.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    6 days ago

GR0kgTaXYAEHWXu?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
10  Snuffy    5 days ago

So much uproar over a partisan lobbyist group. When a new president comes in, a lot of agency heads are changed, all with the approval of the Senate as the President cannot do it all alone. Title V authorizes the President to eliminate, consolidate, transfer and rename executive agencies outside of the legislative process but Congress does get veto privileges on any such changes. Also, Congress must fund said agencies so if they provide no funding it's rather difficult for the President to keep his changes should Congress disagree.

Seems to me the only way this could be implemented would be if first Republicans hold the majority in both the House and the Senate AND only if a majority of Republicans in the House agreed with the changes (cannot expect ALL of them to agree) AND a majority in the Senate agreed with all the changes (again expecting 51 Senate members to agree to said change seems a high bar)  AND Trump wins the Oval Office. Seems there's a lot of requirements for this to be enacted.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.1  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @10    4 days ago
Seems there's a lot of requirements for this to be enacted.

These people haven't thought their way around the whole, yet. It doesn't mean they won't try. If they do, there is no reason to expect things not to get violent before it's over. There has been talk by these people to get Trump to declare Martial Law to suspend Congress during an emergency and use red state National Guard troops as law enforcement in blue cities and states.

Like you, I don't think they will succeed at much of anything but making noise, but again they seem willing to try.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
10.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  evilone @10.1    4 days ago

“…willing to try.”

At some point the rhetoric will lead to action,  particularly when the divisiveness and the hostility and the hatred is being expressed and inculcated by a supposed ‘leader’.

Hopefully anyone who swallows such garbage will be as big a chickenshit as their candidate and disavow any evil intentions when his desperation reaches its peak. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.2  CB  replied to  afrayedknot @10.1.1    4 days ago

There is an article 'loose' on NT about the Heritage Foundation president's declaration, that in summation utters: 'Liberals better stand down and let conservatives take-over the country in 2025's election cycle or else.' (Paraphrase.)

More to the point: No republican has called for Roberts of the Heritage Foundation to step down or condemned his remarks about "Leftists allowing for a bloodless (coup this fall)." 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11  TᵢG    4 days ago

Trump claims he knows nothing about Project 2025 but wishes them good luck.

He is either lying or stupid.

Further, who would post this admitted ignorance when one can do a simple Google search to get an easy to understand profile?   Or, maybe, ask someone.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @11    4 days ago

I'll pick C. lying and stupid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @11.1    4 days ago

I almost included that.   

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.1    4 days ago

It's the obvious choice.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.2  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @11    4 days ago
He is either lying or stupid.

Considering these people are in his campaign staff, bankrolling it AND now a part of the RNC leadership he's lying AND he's stupid. I've said it multiple times here, Trump is the useful idiot in this plot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @11.2    4 days ago

I find it hard to believe Trump could be that stupid.   I think he knows and is just lying (poorly).   But for other reasons, he is clearly stupid.   He is great at the art of the con, but largely not the brightest bulb outside of that arena.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.2.2  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.1    4 days ago
I find it hard to believe Trump could be that stupid.

The more I learn of him the more convinced he must be. He thought he could nuke the Middle East and he's posted national security info from his personal smart phone to social media...

He is great at the art of the con...

He's a one trick pony - selling his name. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @11.2.2    4 days ago

The one trick pony has about 70-80 million voters believing that he will be good for this nation in spite of all his wrongdoings, his demeanor, his character, etc.  

This is like a bad movie script where the story is so illogical that it is difficult to suspend disbelief.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.2.4  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.3    4 days ago
This is like a bad movie script where the story is so illogical that it is difficult to suspend disbelief.

Yes. It could well end up a dystopian horror movie before it's all said and done, but I'm a glass half full kind of guy and think it will play itself out with an equal measure of folly. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.5  Gsquared  replied to  evilone @11.2    4 days ago
Trump is the useful idiot

There is also a good argument to be made that Trump is a useless idiot.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.6  Gsquared  replied to  evilone @11.2.2    4 days ago
He thought he could nuke the Middle East

He thought we should nuke hurricanes, too.  A stable genius.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.5    4 days ago

Albeit a dangerous one ... and thanks to the SCotUS, even more so.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
11.2.8  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.1    4 days ago
 I think he knows and is just lying (poorly).

No. He does not care. He has gone on record saying he knows nothing about the Project. That is good enough for his supporters. He has established plausible deniability. He does not care what the rest of the statement is. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
11.2.9  Split Personality  replied to  evilone @11.2    2 days ago

Grover Norquist said quite plainly that they do not need a GOP POTUS that needs to lead them or provide direction;

he just needs enough digits to hold a pen.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @11    4 days ago
Trump claims he knows nothing about Project 2025

FALSE

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.3.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3    4 days ago

Explain Trump just saying, "I know nothing about Project 2025".

Which was actually FALSE, butt that is what Trump truly claims!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
11.3.2  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @11.3.1    4 days ago

As a candidate for a major party, he should know about any organization that threatens our democracy, particularly if he has been tied to their philosophy and has relationships with their supporters. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @11.3.1    4 days ago

It is right in the article:

 "I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

He may not know everything in the 922 pages, but he clearly knows something about it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3    4 days ago
"I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump posted on his social media website. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

False?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.3    4 days ago

See, this is how one gets things wrong.   You omitted the part where Trump claimed "I know nothing about Project 2025".

So when someone says Trump claimed he knew nothing of the Project 2025, that is a true statement.   He really did make that claim.

Hello?

I doubt anyone believes Trump's bullshit.   In this case, you too do not believe his bullshit.

But he did in fact make the claim.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.3    4 days ago
He may not know everything in the 922 pages, but he clearly knows something about it.

I think he actually does know something.   He would have to be incredibly stupid to not know at least a little.

But this reminds me of Trump's Gettysburg story where he took a little bit of information, expanded on it (getting it wrong) and then repeated like a 5th grader trying to bullshit his way through a book report where all he knows is the title and the author.

"Gettysburg, ..., wow"

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.7  CB  replied to  afrayedknot @11.3.2    4 days ago

1.

Steve Bannon Vows Purge if Donald Trump Wins Election

Published   May 29, 2024 at 7:34 AM EDT
Updated   May 29, 2024 at 7:38 AM EDT

"Steve Bannon on Project 2025: We are going to purge the federal government of those who don't support Trump. We will restructure the Justice Department to prosecute our political opponents," Biden's team  posted  on X, formerly  Twitter .

In reply,  The Lincoln Project , an anti-Donald Trump Republican super PAC,  wrote : "Project 2025 isn't a threat, it's a promise. It's the MAGA extremists' plan to purge and replace the government with Trump loyalists who will enable Trump to act out his worst authoritarian tendencies."

The Lincoln Project also shared an ad that called Project 2025 "Trump's plan to make America different, less free, less fair, less America. It's a roadmap for total control, Trump's control."

In November 2023, Trump's campaign told Axios that it is not following Project 2025's initiative and that the package of proposals known as Agenda47 is the "only official comprehensive and detailed look at what President Trump will do when he returns to the White House."

Axios suggested that Project 2025 is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation" and noted that former Trump White House aide Johnny McEntee is a senior adviser to it.

"Donald Trump is running on the extreme and unpopular Project 2025 agenda, plain and simple—and there is nothing Trump or his allies can say to distance themselves from this losing platform," DNC Rapid Response Director Alex Floyd said in an April statement.

"Project 2025 is being run by Trump allies, modeled after Trump's words, and designed to allow Trump to enact his dangerous agenda to be a 'dictator on day one.' The truth is, Trump will have nobody to blame but himself—and his out-of-touch MAGA allies like the Heritage Foundation—when the American people make him a loser again this November."


2.

Developed by right-wing policy group The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025   proposes to install Republican loyalists   at every level of federal departments, if   Trump   is reelected in November.

The 900-page document has contributions from more than 30 authors and 50   conservative-leaning campaign groups , other think tanks, educational institutions and publications. Project 2025 also proposes repealing policies of the previous administration within the first six months of a second Trump administration, including environmental regulations and social policies.

On Friday, Trump   appeared to criticize   the plan while denying his involvement in it.

donald-trump.jpg?w=1200&f=c6cbd73b38667680811f138df80a4387
Former president Donald Trump. He has denied involvement in Project 2025, but multiple supporters of Trump are linked with it.   AP PHOTO/GERALD HERBERT, FILE

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday.



(Personal note: Donald's 'pie-hole' is open and there is no plate of food nearby. . . he's lying yet again!)

3.

Post 

lp6pHQAG_normal.jpg

Morgan J. Freeman
Here is Project 2025 leader Kevin Roberts saying Donald Trump gets full “credit” for creating Project 2025 and will enact it if he wins

 Video on X  here:

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.5    4 days ago

Context matters. 

George Stephanopoulos asked Biden if he would take a cognitive test. Biden said, "he takes one every day."  Then he went on to add I take it via the problems I deal with daily as president. I have yet to see any reporter seize onto Biden's first five words and call him a liar.

The 2025 Project is 922 pages long. I'm sure many have heard about it but few really "know about it."  I deal with people every day without ever knowing them.

Why don't we treat Trump the way we treat others.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.3.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.6    4 days ago
I think he actually does know something. 

He said that he knew enough of it to not like certain things in it.

Here is what I think: Donald Trump has not only learned about politics but since the debate he has mastered it. In the debate he was forced to keep quiet while Biden stumbled. Since then, Trump has been golfing and avoiding the limelight, as his opponent, Joe Biden is mired down in trying to prove that he isn't what many of us knew right along. Shortly before that, Trump finally taught Republicans how to pivot away from the abortion issue. Did you know that the RNC is not going to have any mention of national restrictions on abortion mentioned in their platform?  And of course, Trump is distancing himself from the poison pill for the deep blue state known as the 2025 Project. 

I give him an A.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.8    4 days ago
Why don't we treat Trump the way we treat others.

That would be preferable to allowing him to delay trials, secure historical levels of immunity, and not be held accountable (like other candidates) for his many failings.

Too many people have fallen into a cultish support for this con-man.   The planet thinks we are nuts; hard to make an argument to the contrary.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
11.3.11  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.9    4 days ago

“…the deep blue state known as the 2025 Project.”

???

And you get an F…fatuous, frivolous and frankly frightening. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
11.3.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @11.3.11    4 days ago
Trump is distancing himself from the poison pill for

You forgot the rest of the statement which should have not necessitated your ???

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.13  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.3.8    3 days ago
George Stephanopoulos asked Biden if he would take a cognitive test. Biden said, "he takes one every day."  Then he went on to add I take it via the problems I deal with daily as president. I have yet to see any reporter seize onto Biden's first five words and call him a liar.

You have not heard commentators speak about how Biden dodged the question??   

The 2025 Project is 922 pages long. I'm sure many have heard about it but few really "know about it." 

Nobody claimed that Trump said he was an expert on Project 2025 or even that he claimed he was familiar with it.   You really need to pay closer attention to what is written here to avoid making a strawman argument.

Real simple, Trump, delivered the typical Trump bullshit.   Claiming ignorance when we all know that is not true.   There is no way that anyone should believe that Trump is not at least familiar at a profile level with Project 2025.   And if he does not know (bullshit!), he is an idiot since it directly affects his campaign.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.3.14  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.13    3 days ago
You have not heard commentators speak about how Biden dodged the question?? 

Have they called Biden's answer a lie yet?

His comment clearly indicates he hasn't seen any calling Biden a liar, not that they said he dodged the question.

11.3.8

I have yet to see any reporter seize onto Biden's first five words and call him a liar.

Perhaps these words are pertinent:

You really need to pay closer attention to what is written here to avoid making a strawman argument.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.15  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.13    3 days ago

Project 2025 Presidential Administration Academy

Steven Miller, senior advisor to former president Donald , is caught in this ad supporting "Project 2025" and then LYING (like Donald has done too—LYING ABOUT IT) that he knows nothing about it. 

IMPORTANT:  Pause the video and NOTE the stack of two RED bound books on the table behind Steven Miller.

See Steven Miller at 43 SECONDS in the video above!

How do you know when any Trumpists is telling the truth? You don't!  T hese people are not good enough to run a great country like ours!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.3.14    3 days ago
Have they called Biden's answer a lie yet?

Oh, do you require specific language?   Do they have to explicitly call him a liar?   Or must they state:  "Bullshit!"?

There are many ways in English to connote that someone is not being truthful / forthright or is dodging the question.   

Importantly, Biden has indeed been called out on his dodge.  

Always attacking Biden, never attacking Trump ....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.16    3 days ago
Oh, do you require specific language?

Why, no, I don't require anything.

Do they have to explicitly call him a liar?   Or must they state:  "Bullshit!"?

Just going by what was actually written, sorry.

Are 'lie' and 'dodge' synonyms?

Or two distinctly different words with different meanings?

Importantly, Biden has indeed been called out on his dodge.  

But not his lies.

Always attacking Biden, never attacking Trump ....

Well, gee, imagine me responding to a post about Biden and talking about Biden.

Why should I criticize only who YOU want me to criticize?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
11.4  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @11    2 days ago
He is either lying or stupid.

Yes, yes he is. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB    4 days ago

Donald Trump is an unredeemable liar. He is highly probably somewhere right this moment, if awake, lying his you know what off! It is disgusting to the 'high heaven' that there are people who want this vile ugliness in a man to represent us here and internationally. And to make an offer of "supreme" immunity power available in his name, to such a loathsome human being. . . I have no words that could encompass such Justices.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
12.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @12    4 days ago

Both have lied to the public, both have made mistakes. Both have the same level of immunity. (And based on the many speculative comments from the left, you don't fully understand what that immunity means.)

You blather on about Trump but make excuses for Biden.[]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.1  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1    3 days ago

That comment is emotionally-charged ignorance. Donald has about as much in common with Joe Biden politically as puke does to sweat.

Moreover a false equivalency. I am pretty sure Trumpists cannot, with a straight-face anyway, tell a, well -er'. . .  disinformation  (it will start a new separate  count category  for Trumpists lies about Donald's lies) that Biden has uttered daily lies that reach the proportions of Donald, a world-class SUPREME LIAR: 

Here read  ravenously  : (Do take stock of the date! Donald's been 'hard' at work lying since.)

Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years
Analysis by Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly

January 24, 20 21  

When The Washington Post Fact Checker team first started cataloguing President Donald Trump’s false or misleading claims, we recorded 492 suspect claims in the first 100 days of his presidency. On Nov. 2 alone, the day before the 2020 vote, Trump made 503 false or misleading claims as he barnstormed across the country in a desperate effort to win reelection.

This astonishing jump in falsehoods is the story of Trump’s tumultuous reign. By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency — averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day. What is especially striking is how the tsunami of untruths kept rising the longer he served as president and became increasingly unmoored from the truth. 

Trump averaged about six claims a day in his first year as president, 16 claims day in his second year, 22 claims day in this third year — and 39 claims a day in his final year. Put another way, it took him 27 months to reach 10,000 claims and an additional 14 months to reach 20,000. He then exceeded the 30,000 mark less than five months later.

Read our full report on the database.
See the pace of Trump’s false claims in this amazing visual graphic.
Visit the Trump claims database website and explore it. The database has an extremely fast search engine that will quickly locate suspect statements made by Trump.

Readers can also isolate claims by time period, subject or venue.

The fact checks in the database amount to about 5 million words and many include links to sources that debunk T rump’s statements.

[GO HERE NOW>>>>>]     Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years - The Washington Post (house.gov)


There is no decent excuse to foist Donald off on the decent, truth-seeking people of this country; except greed, selfish indulgences, and hatred of the so-called, "Others." 

If ever we need a God on our side; it's now! God! We need positive intervention now!

Even in 2021, this tracker was called, "An Untruth Tracker For The Ages!"  

How The Washington Post Fact Checker tracked Trump?s false and misleading claims during his presidency - The Washington Post

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @12.1.1    3 days ago
That comment is emotionally-charged ignorance.

If you take off the blinders and look at reality there is nothing emotional or ignorant about the comment.  

Donald has about as much in common with Joe Biden politically as puke does to sweat

Maybe to the partisan.  Now, take a step back from the TDS and take a closer look.

The Washington Post Fact Checker

Now THAT is funny.  Bloggers fact checking.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1    3 days ago
Both have the same level of immunity. 

Correct.   The new immunity ruling relies upon the character and integrity of the PotUS.   That is dangerous given the USA has already shown that we will elect a scoundrel as PotUS.

(And based on the many speculative comments from the left, you don't fully understand what that immunity means.)

Those who claim that the new immunity ruling does not increase the power of the presidency do not comprehend the ruling.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.4  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.2    3 days ago

Always searching for the deflection, I see. The date of the article is 2021,' everybody' was tracking Donald's daily lies back then to the tune of 30,000 plus and counting. But keep cuddling the lies. . . and that Spectacular Liar we all have unfortunately come to know so well. Today, I reckon Donald is somewhere in the country lying about not being well-informed about Project 2025—pretty sure you have heard about it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
12.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @12.1.4    3 days ago
Always searching for the deflection, I see

See what you want.  Whining about it isn't going to change my mind. 

But keep cuddling the lies. . . and that Spectacular Liar we all have unfortunately come to know so well.

And yet you support him.

I reckon Donald is somewhere in the country lying

As is Biden.  But you are silent about that.  Why?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.6  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.5    3 days ago
The Fact Checker’s database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump while in office.

“We also built the greatest economy in the history of the world…Powered by these policies, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world.”

FACT CHECK:

This is Trump’s favorite false claim, so there should be no surprise he said it twice in his farewell address. (In this database, we only count a falsehood once per venue.) By just about any key measure in the modern era, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton presided over stronger economic growth than Trump. The gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2019, slipping from 2.9 percent in 2018 and 2.4 percent in 2017. But in 1997, 1998 and 1999, GDP grew 4.5 percent, 4.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively. Yet even that period paled in comparison with the postwar boom in the 1950s or the 1960s. Growth between 1962 and 1966 ranged from 4.4 percent to 6.6 percent. In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate reached a low of 3.5 percent under Trump, but it dipped as low as 2.5 percent in 1953. (After the novel coronavirus tanked the economy, Trump jacked up his claim even more, falsely saying it had been the greatest economy in the history of the world.) This marks the  493rd time  that Trump used a variation of this line, meaning he said it on average every other day.

REPEATED 493 TIMES :

The thing speaks for itself! 
As for Biden, I am not sure that he has his own database to house lies! If so, you can share it with us..
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
12.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @12.1.6    3 days ago

Cool.  Now do sleepy Joe

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.8  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.7    3 days ago

No snark, I see. Nope. You do 'Joe' —it is not fair that I should do 'all' the work on this.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
12.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @12.1.8    3 days ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13  Krishna    3 days ago

Look at the picture accompanying this article-- Trump is obviously a "neo-Liberal" trying to fool us into pretending he's not!

 
 

Who is online





43 visitors