Not a fact as what happened above, but you can keep saying that.

Stone I am sure appreciated his sentence being commuted and Manafort his pardon.

Oh and this
https://apnews.com/article/don...7e28eba135e21fce6ebf

Are you denying it was the DNC that organized and paid for the dossier?

https://x.com/jonathanturley/s...351316773192069?s=46

Doc

That is exactly what the people want. Hence, they elect democrats.

The GOP is no longer a party for the people and no longer a party for Law abiding citizens.

The GOP started pushing to the Far Right once they realised that the demographic trends were against them for the future. The results of 2008 & 2012 were widely analysed to reflect that the GOP was dead in its very soul. So called "Conservative values" had no substance and no empirical benefit for the average person.

This is the reason why the very core of the GOP is so rotten with conspiracy theories, hateful rhetoric and against any democratic institution that would threaten their future.

What you described about Democrats is exactly how politics has worked for a very long time all over the world. What you are trying to defend and justify is the way autocracy and fascism has worked for a very long time.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They negotiated in the senate, not with the house... The senate is controlled by the democrats.

That's not negotiating from a point of shared power.

I get that there are too many in the GOP who refuse to compromise... but the dems play these semantic games and try and come across at the party that is the sane ones, all the while using Machiavellian tactics to ensure they win. Its "smart politics" but its not by any sense a true compromise.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I’ll call myself an idiot.

At least, the Administration negotiated a border legislation w conservatives that could pass the Senate and survive veto.

Unlike the Christian Nationalist in the House who killed it to have a wage issue to run.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Are you denying it was the DNC that organized and paid for the dossier?

https://x.com/jonathanturley/s...351316773192069?s=46

throwing SMOKE, Lane

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

That is exactly what the people want. Hence, they elect democrats.

The GOP is no longer a party for the people and no longer a party for Law abiding citizens.

The GOP started pushing to the Far Right once they realised that the demographic trends were against them for the future. The results of 2008 & 2012 were widely analysed to reflect that the GOP was dead in its very soul. So called "Conservative values" had no substance and no empirical benefit for the average person.

This is the reason why the very core of the GOP is so rotten with conspiracy theories, hateful rhetoric and against any democratic institution that would threaten their future.

What you described about Democrats is exactly how politics has worked for a very long time all over the world. What you are trying to defend and justify is the way autocracy and fascism has worked for a very long time.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
They negotiated in the senate, not with the house... The senate is controlled by the democrats.

That's not negotiating from a point of shared power.

I get that there are too many in the GOP who refuse to compromise... but the dems play these semantic games and try and come across at the party that is the sane ones, all the while using Machiavellian tactics to ensure they win. Its "smart politics" but its not by any sense a true compromise.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I’ll call myself an idiot.

At least, the Administration negotiated a border legislation w conservatives that could pass the Senate and survive veto.

Unlike the Christian Nationalist in the House who killed it to have a wage issue to run.

yeah, all those hours you've visited the US gives you a "unique" perspective ..

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I don’t know anything about the pet eating and don’t have the time to ferret out the actual truth.

There are however many more reports about it than the ones you mention. Usually where there is smoke…there is some fire.

The fact remains that vagrant migrants are increasing in our communities and I AM concerned about it.

Lane,
Do you remember Garcia's in Matamoros, from the 80s? Back when you could wander around in a border town without undue fear of becoming an organ donor? I was wandering around, and one of the "shops" had tanned hides, and a PILE of small pelts ..
"que es?"
"gato"

Remeber a few years back when moms were buying their precious little girls cute kitty plushies made in China? SUPER lifelike! Turns out they were once alive…


China is another country with zero animal cruelty laws. Dog is still on the menu. It’s a “warm” meat that is supposed to be better for you in winter. One Beijing restaurant has a glass floor with apex predators below so diners can watch when a goat or sheep is turned out alive to feed them. Great entertainment.

Mayor has to declare a state of emergency for what Dr. Eater reports to be a hoax.


The threats are being made and have to be taken seriously.

This has happened bc of right wing and racist lies.

I guess the locals are less concerned about the Haitians than wolf crying right wing racists


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...zx?ocid=BingNewsSerp

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I don’t know anything about the pet eating and don’t have the time to ferret out the actual truth.

There are however many more reports about it than the ones you mention. Usually where there is smoke…there is some fire.

The fact remains that vagrant migrants are increasing in our communities and I AM concerned about it.

Lane,
Do you remember Garcia's in Matamoros, from the 80s? Back when you could wander around in a border town without undue fear of becoming an organ donor? I was wandering around, and one of the "shops" had tanned hides, and a PILE of small pelts ..
"que es?"
"gato"

Remeber a few years back when moms were buying their precious little girls cute kitty plushies made in China? SUPER lifelike! Turns out they were once alive…


China is another country with zero animal cruelty laws. Dog is still on the menu. It’s a “warm” meat that is supposed to be better for you in winter. One Beijing restaurant has a glass floor with apex predators below so diners can watch when a goat or sheep is turned out alive to feed them. Great entertainment.

I object to the idea of watching a host killed by a predator while eating as great entertainment. I also object to the implication that what other cultures do to animals means we should treat our domestic animals less than we do.

I support strengthening animal cruelty laws. My side did lose that debate last session.

The problem with animal cruelty laws is they get misused by people with agendas.

PETA would gladly refer you for your hunting.

They would gladly refer farmers for their livestock.

You yourself have pointed out the difficulty in writing a law that covers all versions of a situation.

The same people who feel a human fetus is a clump of cells feel that spaying a pregnant dog is evil.

I’ll be on the side of animal cruelty laws.

Well, now in KY the local government seems to be a threat to the local government.

If Joshua ever tries to tell us again he is a conservative/Republican…we now already know the truth. He is a big government democrat that would love to dictate your life to you.

Animal cruelty is not a KY issue or a far left agenda.

I bet Minnesota and Texas have animal cruelty laws.

I believe in government working to address problems government needs to address.

I get my inspiration from President Theadore Roosevelt. I also do not have a problem with the New Deal.

I am a Republican just like President Roosevelt, Regan ( love his position on gays being permitted to be teachers and following science concerning how people form gender identity, sexual persuasion). I reject this new judicial activism that seeks to overturn precedent going back to 1937.

What I am not is this new right who seeks to impose my cultural views on everyone else.

I am not going to let folks chain down a dog to starve.

I expect soon that cock fighting to be animal cruelty as we currently do not define a chicken as an animal in KY.

Oh, I am not for vilifying legal nationals just trying to make a leaving based on racists assumptions.

I like Theodore Rosevelt and consider myself a Reagan Republican.

Reagan: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

You aren’t a Reagan Republican. You advocate for big government and increasing taxes to pay for it. Those are 2 of the most non-Reagan qualities one could have.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Reagan: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

. . . yet you are fine with the government telling women what they can do with their own healthcare, parents how to raise their children, what books are in libraries, blending church and state (provided it is the Christian faith), etc. I actually think you are perfectly fine with the government telling folks what to do and would prefer that so long as it is your version of a government. Your professed libertarian views just evoke chuckles in most folks these days . . . you are the antithesis of a libertarian.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Reagan: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

. . . yet you are fine with the government telling women what they can do with their own healthcare, parents how to raise their children, what books are in libraries, blending church and state (provided it is the Christian faith), etc. I actually think you are perfectly fine with the government telling folks what to do and would prefer that so long as it is your version of a government. Your professed libertarian views just evoke chuckles in most folks these days . . . you are the antithesis of a libertarian.

Mike-

Have you read "The 5000 Year Leap?"

I have not. I understand, however, that the basic premise of the book is that the foundational principles of our government were largely Biblical. As I recall, the book was written by a Mormon. Assuming that is the case, I would not dispute the premise. At the time our government was formed there was far more social homogeneity than there is today. It was far easier for a group of successful white men, many of whom had come to America to flee religious persecution, to find common ground. While the principles that they were able to align behind undoubtedly made sense at the time, the issue is should those principles be the same guiding principles 200 plus years later? Should we practice medicine today the same way we did in 1776? Should we limit ourselves to the technology that existed in 1776? Point being, society today is far more heterogeneous than it was 200 years ago. While I have no problem acknowledging the foundational principles on which the country was formed, I would question any suggestion that such principles formed in a social context vastly different than the social context that exists today, should be the guiding principles for government today. If I have the premise of the book wrong, my apologies, although I believe my comments above are nevertheless relevant to the theme that comes up here frequently that we should remain slavishly committed to principles of government articulated literally hundreds of years ago in a completely different social context.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have not. I understand, however, that the basic premise of the book is that the foundational principles of our government were largely Biblical. As I recall, the book was written by a Mormon. Assuming that is the case, I would not dispute the premise. At the time our government was formed there was far more social homogeneity than there is today. It was far easier for a group of successful white men, many of whom had come to America to flee religious persecution, to find common ground. While the principles that they were able to align behind undoubtedly made sense at the time, the issue is should those principles be the same guiding principles 200 plus years later? Should we practice medicine today the same way we did in 1776? Should we limit ourselves to the technology that existed in 1776? Point being, society today is far more heterogeneous than it was 200 years ago. While I have no problem acknowledging the foundational principles on which the country was formed, I would question any suggestion that such principles formed in a social context vastly different than the social context that exists today, should be the guiding principles for government today. If I have the premise of the book wrong, my apologies, although I believe my comments above are nevertheless relevant to the theme that comes up here frequently that we should remain slavishly committed to principles of government articulated literally hundreds of years ago in a completely different social context.

Pretty close. The text as to the religious nature of the Founding Fathers (FF) dispels the statement the "They were deists." They ALL believed that America should be grounded in faith. (I am not religious).

The written and natural laws of our society were based on the Leviticus. Yes, things are different, but the basis was that of the Leviticus.

And to your point, "should we observe 200 year old doctrine?" I don't have the answer. but as a moral society, we need to have a common observation of something, or else we live in Anarchy. We can't just pick and choose which laws we are ok with, and which ones we do not.

The problem is, which group decides? That in essence, is where we find ourselves today.

A very very interesting read. Its facial in that the federalist papers are listed and shown as proof of the FF intent when written.

One that I find particularly meaningful today, is the need to have an educated electorate.

They at times internally struggled with balance between Tyranny and Anarchy. Knowing that was two ends of the spectrum.

You comment was you want to enlarge/strengthen animal cruelty laws.

I think the current laws are there. I don’t see an overwhelming reason to strengthen or extend them.

I am not in favor of trying up a dog and leaving it to die… but should a guy who tied up his dog, gets in a MVA and is knocked unconscious for a week be put in prison?

How about flushing an aquarium fish?

Fish are animals, after all.

You object to boiling lobster?

You realize that “freeing Willy” has resulted in huge issues with invasive species in our waters.

You yourself have admitted that the law does not do a good job covering for all contingencies.

As to dog fighting/cock fighting, while I am not in favor of them, I’m also understanding that other cultures view it differently, and would not want to see prison sentences for some guy who watches a bullfight in Mexico or such.

By the way, didn’t you just vilify foreign born US nationals with your cockfighting comments?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Animal cruelty is not a KY issue or a far left agenda.

I bet Minnesota and Texas have animal cruelty laws.

I believe in government working to address problems government needs to address.

I get my inspiration from President Theadore Roosevelt. I also do not have a problem with the New Deal.

I am a Republican just like President Roosevelt, Regan ( love his position on gays being permitted to be teachers and following science concerning how people form gender identity, sexual persuasion). I reject this new judicial activism that seeks to overturn precedent going back to 1937.

What I am not is this new right who seeks to impose my cultural views on everyone else.

I am not going to let folks chain down a dog to starve.

I expect soon that cock fighting to be animal cruelty as we currently do not define a chicken as an animal in KY.

Oh, I am not for vilifying legal nationals just trying to make a leaving based on racists assumptions.

Yes I do.
As I said, in KY chickens are not considered animals per the statute. A blight used for cock fighting.

Yeah, I am for the advancements to the KRS we advanced.

We will keep trying. That is democracy.

Also a Reagan republican,here

Have you ever been around free range chickens?

They will kill a member of the flock with some regularity. Do you want to charge free range chicken farmers with animal cruelty?

You can ban cockfighting without using animal cruelty as the methodology.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yes I do.
As I said, in KY chickens are not considered animals per the statute. A blight used for cock fighting.

Yeah, I am for the advancements to the KRS we advanced.

We will keep trying. That is democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have not. I understand, however, that the basic premise of the book is that the foundational principles of our government were largely Biblical. As I recall, the book was written by a Mormon. Assuming that is the case, I would not dispute the premise. At the time our government was formed there was far more social homogeneity than there is today. It was far easier for a group of successful white men, many of whom had come to America to flee religious persecution, to find common ground. While the principles that they were able to align behind undoubtedly made sense at the time, the issue is should those principles be the same guiding principles 200 plus years later? Should we practice medicine today the same way we did in 1776? Should we limit ourselves to the technology that existed in 1776? Point being, society today is far more heterogeneous than it was 200 years ago. While I have no problem acknowledging the foundational principles on which the country was formed, I would question any suggestion that such principles formed in a social context vastly different than the social context that exists today, should be the guiding principles for government today. If I have the premise of the book wrong, my apologies, although I believe my comments above are nevertheless relevant to the theme that comes up here frequently that we should remain slavishly committed to principles of government articulated literally hundreds of years ago in a completely different social context.

Pretty close. The text as to the religious nature of the Founding Fathers (FF) dispels the statement the "They were deists." They ALL believed that America should be grounded in faith. (I am not religious).

The written and natural laws of our society were based on the Leviticus. Yes, things are different, but the basis was that of the Leviticus.

And to your point, "should we observe 200 year old doctrine?" I don't have the answer. but as a moral society, we need to have a common observation of something, or else we live in Anarchy. We can't just pick and choose which laws we are ok with, and which ones we do not.

The problem is, which group decides? That in essence, is where we find ourselves today.

A very very interesting read. Its facial in that the federalist papers are listed and shown as proof of the FF intent when written.

One that I find particularly meaningful today, is the need to have an educated electorate.

They at times internally struggled with balance between Tyranny and Anarchy. Knowing that was two ends of the spectrum.

Neither group has the right to decide. We have to recognize that we are a heterogeneous society and without the willingness and ability to compromise nothing can be done. So today, we move further and further to the extremes on both the left and the right, when in truth we need to be moving to the middle. I will speak from the perspective of the right. Today we condemn people like Bush, Romney, McCain, Cheney (Liz), et al. because they were too willing to compromise, too willing to work with the other side, too willing to set aside individual bias and try to explore consensus. Today we applaud people like Cruz, Cotton, Jordan, et al. because they stake out fringe positions and refuse to try and explore consensus, use inflammatory language, pander to an audience and try to find ways to divide people. As a consequence nothing gets done and the level of rhetoric and vitriol escalates.

As a passing aside, I cannot but smile at the reference to a moral society yet one of our Presidential candidates embodies not a single virtue that most would consider moral.

Great response Mjines.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have not. I understand, however, that the basic premise of the book is that the foundational principles of our government were largely Biblical. As I recall, the book was written by a Mormon. Assuming that is the case, I would not dispute the premise. At the time our government was formed there was far more social homogeneity than there is today. It was far easier for a group of successful white men, many of whom had come to America to flee religious persecution, to find common ground. While the principles that they were able to align behind undoubtedly made sense at the time, the issue is should those principles be the same guiding principles 200 plus years later? Should we practice medicine today the same way we did in 1776? Should we limit ourselves to the technology that existed in 1776? Point being, society today is far more heterogeneous than it was 200 years ago. While I have no problem acknowledging the foundational principles on which the country was formed, I would question any suggestion that such principles formed in a social context vastly different than the social context that exists today, should be the guiding principles for government today. If I have the premise of the book wrong, my apologies, although I believe my comments above are nevertheless relevant to the theme that comes up here frequently that we should remain slavishly committed to principles of government articulated literally hundreds of years ago in a completely different social context.

Pretty close. The text as to the religious nature of the Founding Fathers (FF) dispels the statement the "They were deists." They ALL believed that America should be grounded in faith. (I am not religious).

The written and natural laws of our society were based on the Leviticus. Yes, things are different, but the basis was that of the Leviticus.

And to your point, "should we observe 200 year old doctrine?" I don't have the answer. but as a moral society, we need to have a common observation of something, or else we live in Anarchy. We can't just pick and choose which laws we are ok with, and which ones we do not.

The problem is, which group decides? That in essence, is where we find ourselves today.

A very very interesting read. Its facial in that the federalist papers are listed and shown as proof of the FF intent when written.

One that I find particularly meaningful today, is the need to have an educated electorate.

They at times internally struggled with balance between Tyranny and Anarchy. Knowing that was two ends of the spectrum.

Neither group has the right to decide. We have to recognize that we are a heterogeneous society and without the willingness and ability to compromise nothing can be done. So today, we move further and further to the extremes on both the left and the right, when in truth we need to be moving to the middle. I will speak from the perspective of the right. Today we condemn people like Bush, Romney, McCain, Cheney (Liz), et al. because they were too willing to compromise, too willing to work with the other side, too willing to set aside individual bias and try to explore consensus. Today we applaud people like Cruz, Cotton, Jordan, et al. because they stake out fringe positions and refuse to try and explore consensus, use inflammatory language, pander to an audience and try to find ways to divide people. As a consequence nothing gets done and the level of rhetoric and vitriol escalates.

As a passing aside, I cannot but smile at the reference to a moral society yet one of our Presidential candidates embodies not a single virtue that most would consider moral.

I'd not argue those points. However, "we" ran McCain, Romney and Dole, all moderates and we lost...Bigly.

Your point about morality isn't lost on me. It seems nobody, NOBODY is willing to believe me at my word that I find Trump morally bankrupt. But I'm not voting for a Boy Scout, I want a man that can keep America prosperous and safe. In my opinion, we are neither.

He's no different morally than Clinton or Biden. the media covers for Biden, no matter what. Showering with your daughter? really? Did you find Clinton a moral reprobate?

That's when Joe Manchin was tossing around the idea of running, I commented that I could vote for him. Even if he was a D. His message was one of unity.

I want America healed, I want national unity, I want national pride again. It's our political parties that divide us. Most Americans have far more in common, than that which divides us. We are on the brink of civil conflict. If this forum is a snapshot of national division, we're fucked.

The problem is that the political Right sees "unity" as something Project 2025 will produce. All they ask for is the opportunity to show us and for Trump to lead the way.

So, we may have a lot in common, but it looks to me like the Right has made it their specialty to force reconciliation.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civi...pian-view-of-america

Anyone who cares about the people, should also care about the dire impact that the Trump-backed Project 2025 will have on our civil liberties and civil rights.

https://youtu.be/FznbfmZ0JZE?si=Mk03MWdpFaalp7gJ

Pro-Trump think tank leader makes ominous threat about ‘second American Revolution’

https://youtu.be/Z2IF5CJARP8?si=q4FTLHX2aR5AtI7D

Jasmine Crockett CONFRONTS Trumper, Project 2025 Contributor Gene Hamilton: Playbook For A Dictator

https://youtube.com/shorts/iti...?si=NY4_eoH_yJGld9so

Crockett PERFECTLY EXPOSES Trump Ties to Project 2025 During Hearing

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The problem is that the political Right sees "unity" as something Project 2025 will produce. All they ask for is the opportunity to show us and for Trump to lead the way.

So, we may have a lot in common, but it looks to me like the Right has made it their specialty to force reconciliation.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civi...pian-view-of-america

Anyone who cares about the people, should also care about the dire impact that the Trump-backed Project 2025 will have on our civil liberties and civil rights.

https://youtu.be/FznbfmZ0JZE?si=Mk03MWdpFaalp7gJ

Pro-Trump think tank leader makes ominous threat about ‘second American Revolution’

https://youtu.be/Z2IF5CJARP8?si=q4FTLHX2aR5AtI7D

Jasmine Crockett CONFRONTS Trumper, Project 2025 Contributor Gene Hamilton: Playbook For A Dictator

https://youtube.com/shorts/iti...?si=NY4_eoH_yJGld9so

Crockett PERFECTLY EXPOSES Trump Ties to Project 2025 During Hearing

You're smart guy. You know the Trump has denounced project 2025.

Has Harris denounced project 1619?

I don't know and don't care. Why? Because it's all dog whistles on both sides.

quote:

Your point about morality isn't lost on me. It seems nobody, NOBODY is willing to believe me at my word that I find Trump morally bankrupt. But I'm not voting for a Boy Scout, I want a man that can keep America prosperous and safe. In my opinion, we are neither.

Well, I think an ex-Boy Scout would make an excellent president, probably.

I don't understand your reasoning. You admit Trump is morally bankrupt...yet you're willing to give him the most powerful job in the world. How does that compute?

A man who puts his own interests first, ahead of the country's. How do you know he won't sell national secrets to Russia in exchange for a Moscow hotel? As he may have sold us out before when he held private meetings with Putin and ordered all notes destroyed.

How can you trust him? Don't you think it's important to be able to trust our president? There are many reasons not to vote for Trump... and not a single good one to vote for him.

I think you're just voting R out of habit or self-image, and are really struggling to rationalize it in this case.

quote:

You know the Trump has denounced project 2025.

You shouldn't have any trouble finding a quote to back up that claim, if Trump really did denounce it.

Trump says he has nothing to do with it.

I he Ed every reason not to believe him.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
You know the Trump has denounced project 2025.

Has Harris denounced project 1619?

I don't know and don't care. Why? Because it's all dog whistles on both sides.

Trump hasn't "denounced" Project 2025. But he did lie about it.

Why should Harris denounce project 1619?

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...america-slavery.html

And I thought Doc Butler was the king of false equivalences.

Project 2025 is not a dog whistle. Objection to it is not a dog whistle either. But making a big deal out of project 1619 might be a dog whistle.

Don't worry, project 2025 has you covered with a plan by controlling or banning journalism like project 1619, favoring of course another revisionist of history.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

You know the Trump has denounced project 2025.

You shouldn't have any trouble finding a quote to back up that claim, if Trump really did denounce it.

Go watch the debate, Roland. He out right denies it. Not my job to fetch it for you. First 30 minutes

"Disavow" and "distance himself" are the terms used re Trump's relationship with Project 2025. Why should anyone believe him? It was written for him.

=====================================

https://www.nytimes.com/articl...m6GuT&smid=url-share

What Is Project 2025, and Why Did Trump Disavow It at the Debate?
Democrats have attacked Donald J. Trump’s ties to the conservative policy plan that would amass power in the executive branch. He has distanced himself from it, and claimed that “I’m not going to read it.”

I watched the debate, and never heard him denounce it.

I'm not going searching for something that doesn't exist.

https://youtube.com/shorts/D7t...i=Zle739pkmc9l3Nxg++

Debate Fact Check

Oh yeah, if Trump denied it you can take that the bank. Never a false word uttered.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I watched the debate, and never heard him denounce it.

I'm not going searching for something that doesn't exist.

WOW --it was a really sophisticated google search
"presidential debate trump denies 2025"

first hit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUnunvxzpgE

i won't speculate why you didn't hear it

quote:

You shouldn't have any trouble finding a quote to back up that claim, if Trump really did denounce it.

conditions met, can the collective "we", for once, not move the goals posts?

Trump: "Everybody knows I'm an open book".

Yea, we know.

That little rant about Project 2025 was an open book too, transparent as all his other lies, except this one was anticipated and rehearsed.

For a reason, Trump wants very much to distance himself from project 2025 the manifesto but not the plan. Could that reason be that it's too explicit as a fascist manifesto?

What if he said - "I'm not a fascist, nor have fascist intent, nor is/does anyone on my team. Everybody knows that I'm an open book"? Would you have believed him?

I figure he will deny its influence even while he's actively implementing it. That's an open book too.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Are you denying it was the DNC that organized and paid for the dossier?

https://x.com/jonathanturley/s...351316773192069?s=46

I wonder who paid Wikileaks?

https://apnews.com/article/tru...33a8ead484109b8a89f6

Trump is ordered to pay legal fees after failed lawsuit over the Steele dossier

Updated 2:42 PM EDT, March 7, 2024

There is much, perhaps too much, info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...f_Trump_through_time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ussia_supports_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...mittee_cyber_attacks

Interesting excerpts:

These intelligence organizations additionally concluded Russia hacked the Republican National Committee (RNC) as well as the DNC, but chose not to leak information obtained from the RNC.[8]

In a joint statement on October 7, 2016, the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that the US intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the breaches and the release of the obtained material in an attempt to "… interfere with the US election process."[17][18][19]

SecureWorks, a cybersecurity firm headquartered in the United States, concluded that from March 2015 to May 2016, the "Fancy Bear" target list included not merely the DNC, but tens of thousands of foes of Putin and the Kremlin in the United States, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, and Syria. Only a handful of Republicans were targeted, however.[22]

The CIA said the foreign intelligence agents were Russian operatives previously known to the U.S.[7] CIA officials told U.S. Senators it was "quite clear" Russia's intentions were to help Trump.[40] Trump released a statement December 9, and disregarded the CIA conclusions.[7]

Republican U.S. Senators stated they planned to hold hearings and investigate Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. elections.[48] By doing so they went against the preference of incoming Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who downplayed any potential Russian meddling in the election.[48]