Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 07, 2024

ASHA RANGAPPA: How the Supreme Court pulled a Jedi mind trick to elect and protect Trump.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

"I promised in my immediate hot take after the Trump immunity decision was handed down that I would offer some more detailed thoughts once I had a chance to parse the opinion. All I can say that it is even worse than even what I initially thought at first blush. That's because there are so many implications written between the lines that fundamentally alter the balance of power among the branches, not only making the President effectively a king, but making the Court's conservative majority the kingmakers who rubber stamp or veto what kinds of actions get immunity (thereby ensuring that any potential dictator is symbiotically dependent on the Court to preserve his facade of legitimacy)."

This article contains a thorough but easily understandable analysis of just how corrupt and complicit the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump immunity case really is. It also explains why conservative Judge Michael Luttig said of the decision: "America's democracy and rule of law are this country's heart and soul. Our democracy and the rule of law are what had made America the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years now. The SCOTUS cut that heart and soul out of America."

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 08:47 PM | Reply

The terrifying implication is that the Corrupt 6 seem to know something the rest of us don't know about this coming November.

They would NOT have handed any president this power if they didn't know for a fact it would be handed to a Republican. Keep in mind three justices were appointed by ------- and 2 of the other 3 are insurrectionist/sympathizers.

I fear the fix is in.

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 08:52 PM | Reply

"They would NOT have handed any president this power if they didn't know for a fact it would be handed to a Republican. Keep in mind three justices were appointed by ------- and 2 of the other 3 are insurrectionist/sympathizers."

As Rangappa explains, that's part of the Court's jedi mind trick. They have set themselves up as the final arbitators in these cases, on a case by case basis, which means if Biden (or some other Democrat) becomes president they will reign them in, but if Trump (or some other Republican) becomes president, they won't:

[T]he Court explicitly states that "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives."

This is an astonishing statement, because it effectively means that it does not matter if a President uses the official levers of power with corrupt intent, for personal gain, or as retribution. In other words, the Court engages a sleight of hand where a critical distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct--the heart of criminal law, which rests on whether a person acted with a specific state of mind, or mens rea--ceases to exist when it comes to the President. Once this distinction is erased, the office of the presidency is basically a get out of jail free card, enabling the President to do pretty much anything that could plausibly be characterized as "official."

In other words, the Court has created immunity for the one category of actions where it actually matters-- unlawful official acts--everything else that is left either would have never been prosecuted anyway or was always fair game.

Further, the determination of whether an action is official if left in the hands of the courts. But conveniently, the Court has offered lower courts so little guidance on how to apply its little rubric that it has ensured that the majority will be the final umpire on this question. It's hard not to imagine that the lines will be drawn depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.

#3 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 09:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fifteen Justices on the Court.

Biden should cram it through.

#4 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-07-07 09:20 PM | Reply

@#2 ... They would NOT have handed any president this power if they didn't know for a fact it would be handed to a Republican. ...

That is the aspect of the decision that I am still trying to come to grips with.

The GOP SCOTUS granted POTUS unprecedented powers.

Did they do so knowing those powers would only be used by a POTUS amenable to their political views?

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 09:27 PM | Reply

The GOP SCOTUS granted POTUS unprecedented powers.
Did they do so knowing those powers would only be used by a POTUS amenable to their political views?
#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Their thought process has to be along the lines of obtaining 1 party rule OR being able to thwart any Democratic politician through the definition of "official". They figure they have control of the courts for the next 20 to 30 years (10 years minimum-Alito and/or Thomas can stick around that long, possibly).

They are grabbing power, or so they think. They apparently think that they have the power to control the President by choosing what is an official or unofficial act.

the thing is though, court processes take a long time-even expedited and this power will enable quick dirty deeds.

They will quickly find that ------- won't give 2 farts for anything they decide that runs counter to his desires.

The thing is though that the Courts are part of something way bigger than -------. ------- is only a useful idiot tool for the conservative revolution. He will enable all sorts of fringe conservative policies and theories to be implemented-essentially destroying every liberal/progressive policy passed in the past 100 years. Because ------- has no core values, he will unleash untold disruption and destruction in our society the limits of which cannot be imagined. Project 2025 is a blueprint for the beginning of this revolution-it is what it enables and the court enables that will transform society. The implications of this year's court cases are HUGE.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 09:37 PM | Reply

Did they do so knowing those powers would only be used by a POTUS amenable to their political views?
#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I think that may have been part of it, but they have also conveniently set themselves up as the one who will be the final deciders if in any such cases should come to pass. They will not doubt find for Republican POTUSes and against Democratic ones. Please read post #3.

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 09:37 PM | Reply

Did they do so knowing those powers would only be used by a POTUS amenable to their political views?
#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I am POSITIVE that their calculus is Biden won't take advantage of it, being the honorable man he is, the uncertainty of the reality of the decision and time to accomplish anything meaningful

It is the implication of granting this power to the Executive should ------- NOT win. They have to know that sooner or later a Democratic President with the scruples of ------- will come to power.

They have to know something about what is coming, it is the only thing that makes sense from their perspective.

----, imagine Biden (or another Dem president) simply arresting Thomas, Alito and a few others!

You think ------- would hesitate to arrest Kagan, Sotomayor or Brown-Jackson?

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 09:41 PM | Reply

Remember that Thomas' wife was ---- deep in January 6 and Alito's wife has been an insurrectionist sympathizer since January 6.

You don't think they would know about actions being taken to assure ------- wins?

Something smells REAL fishy.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 09:43 PM | Reply

The thing is though that the Courts are part of something way bigger than -------. ------- is only a useful idiot tool for the conservative revolution. He will enable all sorts of fringe conservative policies and theories to be implemented-essentially destroying every liberal/progressive policy passed in the past 100 years. Because ------- has no core values, he will unleash untold disruption and destruction in our society the limits of which cannot be imagined. Project 2025 is a blueprint for the beginning of this revolution-it is what it enables and the court enables that will transform society. The implications of this year's court cases are HUGE.
#6 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Yes, I agree with all of this. Conservatives like Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation are using Trump, and Trump is using them. Trump broke down norms with regard to politics and the presidency. The Supreme Court has broken down the norms of established law. Trump's goal is to stay in power as long as possible and to appoint his successor, preferably from his own family. Their goal is to remake America in their image, which is basically Christian nationalism, and to retain conservative power by whatever means necessary, which basically means faux democracy aka fascism in the style of Orban's Hungary. The Republican party is now corrupt and complicit from top to bottom, and the planning for their bloodless coup is very well thought out and very far advanced. Many, including some on the Supreme Court, supported Trump's attempted coup in 2021. Yes, we need to elect a Democratic president in November, but that won't be enough. We also need to elect a Democratic House and Senate as well as state governorships and legislatures. But even that won't be enough. Once elected Democrats will have to take actions that will reign in the Supreme Court. They need to establish ethical guidelines and term limits for the Court. They also need to figure out how to expand it.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 10:00 PM | Reply

Remember that Thomas' wife was ---- deep in January 6 and Alito's wife has been an insurrectionist sympathizer since January 6.
You don't think they would know about actions being taken to assure ------- wins?
Something smells REAL fishy.
#9 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Republicans are literally planning to challenge the election results in every state. They have been setting up teams and devising strategies to do this for several years. Any and/or all of these cases could make their way to the SC where a 6-3 majority can rule in Trump/the GOP's favor in the necessary battlegound states. It will be Florida 2000 all over again. Game, set, match. Bloodless coup achieved. And they will never look back.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2 options I think should be taken but won't.

1. the NY judge should sentence ------- to a year in prison and remand him to custody immediately. Appeal courts should deny his appeals, the SC will demand his release and NY should ignore it.

2. Assuming Dems can win House and Senate and assuming ------- wins, they should refuse to certify him given he is an adjudicated insurrectionist. the SC said congress has to do it, well do it.

start playing hardball

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 10:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 "We have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy!"

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 10:21 PM | Reply

The legal fight over the 2024 election has begun

Former President Trump's team is more focused so far on building a sprawling network of "election integrity" lawyers and poll watchers than on rounding up organizers and door knockers to reach voters.

Why it matters: It's a sign that five months before Election Day, the legal battle over the 2024 race is underway--and that Trump plans to cry "rigged" if he loses, just as it did after the 2020 election and his felony convictions.

www.axios.com

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 10:25 PM | Reply

#12 "We have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy!"
#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The Supreme Court has destroyed democracy with the Trump immunity case ruling. But don't take me word for it. that's why I quoted conservative Judge Michael Luttig earlier: "America's democracy and rule of law are this country's heart and soul. Our democracy and the rule of law are what had made America the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years now. The SCOTUS cut that heart and soul out of America."

The Supreme Court didn't do this to preserve democracy. They did it to make their Christian nationalist ideology the law of the land.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Supreme Court has destroyed democracy with the Trump immunity case ruling."

N0, they didn't. Not at all. And I'm guessing you do understand that ruling offers clarity for FUTURE presidents not named Trump and it came about because no prior president had ever been persecuted in such a manner where this was even an issue, right?

#16 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 10:33 PM | Reply

"They did it to make their Christian nationalist ideology the law of the land.

#15 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2024-07-07 10:29 PM |"

Did someone hack your username? You are not prone to that type of absurd hyperbole.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 10:35 PM | Reply

N0, they didn't. Not at all. And I'm guessing you do understand that ruling offers clarity for FUTURE presidents not named Trump and it came about because no prior president had ever been persecuted in such a manner where this was even an issue, right?
#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Like I said, don't take my word for it (emphasis mine): "America's democracy and rule of law are this country's heart and soul. Our democracy and the rule of law are what had made America the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world for almost 250 years now. The SCOTUS cut that heart and soul out of America."

Did someone hack your username? You are not prone to that type of absurd hyperbole.
#17 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

What would you call the aims of Project 2025 if not the means to install Christian nationalism across the land?

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 10:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

N0, they didn't. Not at all. And I'm guessing you do understand that ruling offers clarity for FUTURE presidents not named Trump and it came about because no prior president had ever been persecuted in such a manner where this was even an issue, right?

#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Ok, I'll try this with a modicum of respect.

You claim to be big on the Constitution.

How can you not be troubled by a ruling that says the President is absolutely immune from the implementation of his core powers and presumptively immune (with a very high bar to cross) for his outer perimeter powers. That and the fact that he can coordinate directly with his DoJ. And his motives cannot be questioned and his actions cannot be used as evidence of crime for non-official powers.

How can that not trouble you? A president is now above the law. Nixon's actions-legal. -------- actions-legal. Obama's actions-legal

With this decision, a President cannot break the law. No matter how corrupt his actions are-selling pardons, giving intelligence to our enemies for profit, manufacturing evidence against his opponents-he cannot be tried for any of it.

War crimes? There are no longer such things.

Would you trust a Democratic President with that power?

----, I am interested in how this will impact the spending power. Can he just ignore Congress and spend the money as he sees fit?

The ramifications are mind-boggling.

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 10:53 PM | Reply

I just heard about Project 2025 a day ago. I don't know what it consists of. I heard Trump denounce affiliation with it (although he could be lying).

Extremism exists everywhere. I'll take it seriously when it has an actual chance of being implemented. Keep in mind, in this country we do have separation of powers and guardrails against all sorts of crazy things coming to pass.

I'll go partisan here - a federal judge recently slapped down Biden's re-write and slaughter of Title IX.

Are mainstream conservative outlets pumping it up? Not that I've seen. Not at all.

#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 10:54 PM | Reply

Example: Say Congress specifically authorized arms to an Allied country. The President can withhold that money, go on national TV and say he won't send the arms until that country, IDK, allows him to build an apartment tower.

He cannot be prosecuted for that.

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 10:55 PM | Reply

#19 That's not at all the conclusions I've drawn from what Roberts wrote.

I can't even answer those questions because from where I sit they are non-sequiturs.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 10:56 PM | Reply

"I just heard about Project 2025 a day ago."

And you consider yourself well versed on the news of the day?

en.wikipedia.org

I did a primer on it

drudge.com

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 10:57 PM | Reply

"Can he just ignore Congress and spend the money as he sees fit?"

Trump did that when he bypassed congress to fund border wall spending. Biden has done it with student loan debt. This is the result of congress abrogating its powers to the executive over the past few decades.

Setting that aside, this ruling allows the Exectuvite to make tough time-sensitive decisions regarding national security without a decisive paralysis of fear of prosecution.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 11:00 PM | Reply

@#16 ... And I'm guessing you do understand that ruling offers clarity for FUTURE presidents ...

Of course, SCOTUS opinions apply to the future.

But what will that future be like, now that SCOTUS has apparently given a possible re-elected fmr Pres Trump free reign?

#25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 11:00 PM | Reply

#19 That's not at all the conclusions I've drawn from what Roberts wrote.
I can't even answer those questions because from where I sit they are non-sequiturs.

#22 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I am trying to be calm and respectful.

The decision found that there are 3 types of situations:

1. His core constitutional powers-he is absolutely immune
2. His outer perimeter powers, i.e. official powers, i.e. the stuff a president does but is not specifically stated in the Constitution-presumptive immunity meaning a prosecutor has to demonstrate that his actions are actually 3.
3. Non-authorized or personal actions: no immunity

The court gave negligible direction on how to establish an official vs non official power thus overcoming the presumptive immunity.

The court said that the actions ------- took vis a vis the DoJ and the 2020 election are absolutely immune, ie the President directing the DoJ to act corruptly immune is absolutely immune

#26 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:02 PM | Reply

#19 That's not at all the conclusions I've drawn from what Roberts wrote.
I can't even answer those questions because from where I sit they are non-sequiturs.

#22 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Given 26 how did you draw different conclusions.

#27 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:03 PM | Reply

"#23 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS"

I avoid the fringe stuff. NRO, The Federalist, Hot Air and Twitchy are as far as I go in regards to conservative media. And I make sure to keep up with "mainstream" and left-leaning media as well. It's a reason I come to a lefty site like this one - to make sure I am hearing what those on the left are saying.

#28 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 11:03 PM | Reply

"Can he just ignore Congress and spend the money as he sees fit?"
Trump did that when he bypassed congress to fund border wall spending. Biden has done it with student loan debt. This is the result of congress abrogating its powers to the executive over the past few decades.
{SNIP}

#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You understand that this decision means the president is immune from criminal prosecution for these things you term extra legal?

You can't conceive of an action so corrupt by a president that he could be prosecuted?

Do you trust ------- to act in a manner free of even the most egregious corruption?

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:06 PM | Reply

Here's the interview in which Luttig makes the statement I've been quoting and explains why:

Luttig RIPS the Supreme Court's ABOMINATION

www.youtube.com

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 11:11 PM | Reply

I avoid the fringe stuff. NRO, The Federalist, Hot Air and Twitchy are as far as I go in regards to conservative media. And I make sure to keep up with "mainstream" and left-leaning media as well. It's a reason I come to a lefty site like this one - to make sure I am hearing what those on the left are saying.

#28 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The policies spelled out in Project 2025 are a blueprint for -------- 2nd term. They are written by former ------- appointees, members of the RNC, members of -------- inner circle, people who have had a close relationship with ------- during his legal troubles and people have had a major impact on conservative policies for the past 8 years.

Project 2025 follows up on many of the things that ------- did during his 1st term, stuff he tried and failed to achieve due to normal republicans and incompetency.

This blueprint will become a reality. Skin the Drudge link I posted for a summary of many of the policies.

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:12 PM | Reply

To give you an example.

The attorney who defended ------- in the Colorado ballot case, is a former Texas AG and is primed for a high-level position in the DoJ. He has stated publicly that in a second ------- administration they would enforce the Comstock Act. You know what that is, right?

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:13 PM | Reply

www.nytimes.com

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:14 PM | Reply

Now the question is will jeff come back with a more honest position or will he continue to deceive?

#34 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:18 PM | Reply

@#28 .. I avoid the fringe stuff. NRO, ...

NRO?

National Reconnaissance Office
National Review Online
Never Really Over

???


#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 11:25 PM | Reply

Serious question: Are you suggesting that Project 2025 (which I have yet to look into) is kind of like PNAC 2.0 (which actually was implemented)?

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 11:26 PM | Reply

"National Review Online" - This

#37 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 11:27 PM | Reply

PNAC had big hitters on the right as signatories. I'm skeptical of Project 2025 because I am not seeing it touted AT ALL, by sources like NRO, Hot Air or the WSJ editorial pages.

I'm guessing it has some scary stuff, but what kind of backing is it getting?

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-07 11:30 PM | Reply

Serious question: Are you suggesting that Project 2025 (which I have yet to look into) is kind of like PNAC 2.0 (which actually was implemented)?

#36 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I am suggesting that it is the stated plan for a 2nd ------- term written by highly influential people who, if you read the Times article the authors are downplaying 2nd term goals for obvious reasons-it's proposals range from unworkable to unpopular to abhorrent.

Look at it's authors, they are a litany of ------- loyalists, inner circle people, people from his first administration, RNC folk and people who have shaped the courts.

The policies are outgrowths of policies ------- tried during his 1st term-immigration, Schedule F employees, stuff the SC has been teeing up-destroying the federal administrative state, moving towards more christian religion in the public sphere and policies that the right is certainly moving on-fetal personhood, suppression of LGBTQ rights.

Many of the policies are things ------- has outright stated he wants to enact.

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:36 PM | Reply

I'm guessing it has some scary stuff, but what kind of backing is it getting?

#38 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The Heritage Foundation

#40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-07 11:37 PM | Reply

After the reichstag fire power was concentrated in one man.

It only grew worse from there.

#41 | Posted by Tor at 2024-07-07 11:38 PM | Reply

Setting that aside, this ruling allows the Exectuvite to make tough time-sensitive decisions regarding national security without a decisive paralysis of fear of prosecution.
#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but unfortunately the SC's ruling goes far beyond those types of national security issues, which is why Luttig calls it "an abomination." The SC had other less sweeping options that it could have and should have taken but didn't. As Rangappa concludes:

The worst part of this case is that it becomes obvious that there was a moderate position that the justices could have taken that would have achieved the majority's purported goals. The Court could have simply said that any official act--even one in the outer perimeter of the president's duties--has presumptive immunity. That presumption can be rebutted if the government shows that the action was taken with a corrupt motive or for personal gain. That would have discouraged politically motivated prosecutions, reinforced the rule of law, and helped protect the executive branch. It also would have preserved the difference between lawful and unlawful acts.

Instead, the Court has decided it will not only protect, but enable, the one class of actions that actually should be deterred, criminalized, and prosecuted. And it does so knowing that we are on the brink of authoritarianism. God help us.

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 11:43 PM | Reply

" no prior president had ever been persecuted"

Persecuted?!? Based on WHAT???

You've yet to point out a single indictment which you or I could do without fear of being "persecuted".

22 times I've asked, ZERO times you've shown "persecution".

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-07 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#40 ... The Heritage Foundation ...

OK, let's go there...

The Heritage Foundation
en.wikipedia.org

...
The Heritage Foundation, sometimes referred to simply as Heritage,[1][2] is an activist American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1973, it took a leading role in the conservative movement in the 1980s during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage Foundation studies, including its Mandate for Leadership.[4]

The Heritage Foundation has had significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and has historically been ranked among the most influential public policy organizations in the United States.[5 ...

Reagan administration

In January 1981, the Heritage Foundation published Mandate for Leadership, a comprehensive report aimed at reducing the size of the federal government. It provided public policy guidance to the incoming Reagan administration, and included over 2,000 specific policy recommendations on how the Reagan administration could utilize the federal government to advance conservative policies. The report was well received by the White House, and several of its authors went on to take positions in the Reagan administration.[16] Ronald Reagan liked the ideas so much that he gave a copy to each member of his cabinet to review.[17] Among the 2,000 Heritage proposals, approximately 60% of them were implemented or initiated by the end of Reagan's first year in office.[16][18] Reagan later called the Heritage Foundation a "vital force" during his presidency.[17]

The Heritage Foundation was influential in developing and advancing the Reagan Doctrine, a key Reagan administration foreign policy initiative under which the U.S. began providing military and other support to anti-communist resistance movements fighting Soviet-aligned governments in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and other nations during the final years of the Cold War.[19]

When Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow in the 1980s, The Wall Street Journal later reported, "the Soviet leader offered a complaint: Reagan was influenced by the Heritage Foundation, Washington's conservative think tank. The outfit lent intellectual energy to the Gipper's agenda, including the Reagan Doctrine"the idea that America should support insurgents resisting communist domination."[20] ...



#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 11:45 PM | Reply

Wow, there's more...

...
George H. W. Bush administration

The Heritage Foundation remained an influential voice on domestic and foreign policy issues during President George H. W. Bush's administration. In 1990 and 1991, the foundation was a leading proponent of Operation Desert Storm designed to liberate Kuwait following Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of Kuwait in August 1990. According to Baltimore Sun Washington bureau chief Frank Starr, the Heritage Foundation's studies "laid much of the groundwork for Bush administration thinking" about post-Soviet foreign policy.[24] In domestic policy, the Bush administration agreed with six of the ten budget reform proposals the Heritage Foundation proposed in its Mandate for Leadership III book, which the administration included in its 1990 budget proposal.

Clinton administration

The Heritage Foundation continued to grow throughout the 1990s. The foundation's flagship journal, Policy Review, reached a circulation of 23,000. In 1993, Heritage was an opponent of the Clinton health care plan, which died in the U.S. Senate the following year, in August 1994.

In the 1994 Congressional elections, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, and Newt Gingrich was elected as the new House Speaker in January 1995, largely based on commitments made in the Contract with America, which was issued six weeks prior to the 1994 elections. The Contract was a pact of principles that directly challenged the political status quo in Washington, D.C. and many of the ideas at the heart of the Clinton administration.[25]

The Heritage Foundation also became engaged in the culture wars, publishing The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators by William Bennett in 1994. The Index documented how crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use, and fourteen other social indicators had worsened measurably since the 1960s.[26]

In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published its first Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication that assesses the state of economic freedom in every country in the world; two years later, in 1997, The Wall Street Journal joined the project as a co-manager and co-author of the annual publication.

In 1996, Clinton aligned some of his welfare reforms with the Heritage Foundation's recommendations, incorporating them into the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

George W. Bush administration

Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the Heritage Foundation supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the war on terror.[27][28] The Heritage Foundation challenged opposition to the war.[29] They defended the George W. Bush administration's treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.[27]

The Washington Post wrote in 2005 that the Heritage Foundation softened its criticism of the Malaysian government after Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner initiated a business relationship with Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. "Heritage's new, pro-Malaysian outlook emerged at the same time a Hong Kong consulting firm co-founded by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage's president, began representing Malaysian business interests" through his relationship with Belle Haven Consultants.[30][31] The Heritage Foundation denied a conflict of interest, saying that its views on Malaysia changed following the country's cooperation with the U.S. after the September 11 attacks,[32] and the Malaysian government "moving in the right economic and political direction."[33][34] ...


#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 11:50 PM | Reply

... and more...

...
Obama administration

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead speaking at the Heritage Foundation in May 2010

In March 2010, the Obama administration introduced a health insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, an idea the Heritage Foundation initially developed and supported in "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans", a study the foundation released on October 1, 1989.[35] The mandate proposed in the Heritage Foundation study previously had been incorporated into Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts in 2006, commonly referred to as Romneycare.[36] The Heritage Foundation opposed the Affordable Care Act.[6] ...


I could go on, but you likely should get the picture by now.

#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-07 11:51 PM | Reply

but what kind of backing is it getting?
#38 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You can go here for a list of groups who have contributed to the project:

The Project 2025 Advisory Board (page xi)

Authors (page xv)
static.project2025.org

According to the introduction:

Project 2025 is more than 50 (and growing) of the nation's leading conservative organizations joining forces to prepare and seize the day.

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-07 11:54 PM | Reply

Danforth,

I ask this as someone who cares - are things okay? You've been really cantankerous lately. My concern is that something happened in your personal life, that is bad, and it's flowing into your posts here.

You normally have some snark but recently have seemed more angry. Hopefully your tact has nothing to do with something bad in your personal life spilling over here.

#48 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 12:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gal Tuesday,

National Review is arguably the most mainstream conservative outlet in existence. When I went to their site and searched "Project 2025" this is what I found:

www.nationalreview.com

#49 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 12:05 AM | Reply

Almost nothing there.

Look, I get it. After PNAC....but that was written and signed by the biggest power players on the right.

If you can show me where Project 2025 is getting even remotely the same kind of traction, I'll pay attention.

#50 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 12:07 AM | Reply

no, you wont.

#51 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 12:12 AM | Reply

@#50 ... If you can show me where Project 2025 is getting even remotely the same kind of traction, I'll pay attention. ...

project 2025
trends.google.com


#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-08 12:12 AM | Reply

Look, I get it. After PNAC....but that was written and signed by the biggest power players on the right.
If you can show me where Project 2025 is getting even remotely the same kind of traction, I'll pay attention.
#50 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Here is some of Axios original reporting from April 2022 on the topic:

A radical plan for Trump's second term

No operation of this scale is possible without the machinery to implement it. To that end, Trump has blessed a string of conservative organizations linked to advisers he currently trusts and calls on. Most of these conservative groups host senior figures from the Trump administration on their payroll, including former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

The names are a mix of familiar and new. They include Jeffrey Clark, the controversial lawyer Trump had wanted to install as attorney general in the end days of his presidency. Clark, who advocated a plan to contest the 2020 election results, is now in the crosshairs of the Jan. 6 committee and the FBI. Clark is working at the Center for Renewing America (CRA), the group founded by Russ Vought, the former head of Trump's Office of Management and Budget.

Former Trump administration and transition officials working on personnel, legal or policy projects for a potential 2025 government include names like Vought, Meadows, Stephen Miller, Ed Corrigan, Wesley Denton, Brooke Rollins, James Sherk, Andrew Kloster and Troup Hemenway.

Others, who remain close to Trump and would be in contention for the most senior roles in a second-term administration, include Dan Scavino, John McEntee, Richard Grenell, Kash Patel, Robert O'Brien, David Bernhardt, John Ratcliffe, Peter Navarro and Pam Bondi.

The advocacy groups who have effectively become extensions of the Trump infrastructure include the CRA, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), and the Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI).

Other groups--while not formally connected to Trump's operation--have hired key lieutenants and are effectively serving his ends. The Heritage Foundation, the legacy conservative group, has moved closer to Trump under its new president, Kevin Roberts, and is building links to other parts of the "America First" movement.

www.axios.com

You can pretend Project 2025 isn't real, but you'll just be fooling yourself, not the rest of us.

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-08 12:27 AM | Reply

Lamplighter,

What is that even a picture of?

Maybe it was a bad link?

And, Alexandrite - quit projecting and ankle-biting. It's beneath you.

#54 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 12:27 AM | Reply

Gal Tuesday,

I don't have much trust in Axios. And when I don't see this "scary" thing being promoted by any mainstream conservative outlets......yeah, no.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 12:29 AM | Reply

how is it projecting?

you do not know what that word means. project 2025 has been all over the news, the fact that your right wing exho chamber is ignoring it is irrelevant to the discussion.

#56 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 12:32 AM | Reply

#55 Like I said, you are fooling yourself but not the rest of us.

#57 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-08 12:37 AM | Reply

Project 2025 mentions dotard by name 312 times. Dotard is Project 2025.

#58 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-07-08 12:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What is that even a picture of?

Graph shows web interest in Project 2025 "skyrocketing" around 23 June.

#59 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-07-08 12:50 AM | Reply

Gal Tuesday,
National Review is arguably the most mainstream conservative outlet in existence. When I went to their site and searched "Project 2025" this is what I found:
www.nationalreview.com
#49 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

They may not be writing about Project 2025 per se, but if you search for topics within the Project 2025 Handbook and then look for them at the National Review you may find the information that way. For example:

Trump and his allies plan on restoring Schedule F if he is elected to a second term and using it to remove lifetime bureaucrats opposed to Trump's presidency. The Heritage Foundation is leading a coalition of conservative organizations involved in building "Project 2025," a personnel development effort intended to staff the next Trump administration. These efforts are being conducted with the purpose of removing the anti-Trump "deep state" that plagued the former president throughout his first term.

www.nationalreview.com

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-08 01:12 AM | Reply

Breaking up the dept of education (or eliminating it), overhauling DOJ, cracking down on illegal immigration, replacing civil servants with Trump loyalists and are all things Trump has says he plans to do. He's hedged recently on some social issues like abortion, for example, because he knows a strong anti-abortion stance does not poll well, but he has previously taken full credit for overturn Roe:


Last year, the Heritage Foundation released Project 2025's mandate for leadership, a roughly 900-page policy book for the next administration to follow. Dozens of conservative policy experts contributed to the book.

The book's policy proposals include plans to break up the Department of Education, overhaul the Justice Department, strongly crack down on illegal immigration, replace longtime federal employees with pro-Trump personnel, and pass a slate of socially conservative legislation.

Trump and his supporters often criticize the perceived disloyalty of Trump's political appointments throughout his first term. The former president's personnel issues last time around formed the basis for Project 2025 to begin preparing ahead of time for another Trump term.

www.nationalreview.com

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-07-08 01:27 AM | Reply

Gal Tuesday,

Thank you for the links and the explanation. It helps to understand your position.

Keep in mind that POTUS is singular according to our constitution. We aren't voting for an agency, we are voting for an individual. The real problem is that over the past few decades congress has ceded powers to the executive branch. All of these alphabet agencies are supposed to represent and implement the agenda of whomever is voted as POTUS. That is the essence of a representative democratic republic. This has gone on for decades. Maybe it will take Trump to do all of these things for congress to re-assert powers they have given away but still have within the Constitution.

#62 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 01:39 AM | Reply

Gal Tuesday,

Under our form of constitutional government, who should bureaucrats report to - to whose policies should they represent? A dutifully elected president, or some other entity?

#63 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-08 01:43 AM | Reply

Replacing 2.7 million people every time there is a change in POTUS doesn't sound very practical.

#64 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-07-08 02:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#54 ... What is that even a picture of? ...

If your current alias cannot understand a simple trend graph, I am not sure I can help it.

But that does say something regarding the credibility of the data analyses your current alias presents.

:)

#65 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-08 02:19 AM | Reply

@#59 ... Graph shows web interest in Project 2025 "skyrocketing" around 23 June. ...

Yup.

And that may be why the Bellringer current alias seems to feign an inability to comprehend that trend.

That is, the trend shown in the google trend graph goes against it's narrative.


#66 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-08 02:23 AM | Reply

@#63 ... who should bureaucrats report to ..

Simple answer...

The people of the Country.

As they do now.

#67 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-08 02:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've said this about username BellRinger before, he's the perfect example of how conservative Germans allowed the Nazis Party to take over the nation.

Willfully blind.

Defending the indefensible.

Useful idiot.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 04:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

There is an obvious reason the conservative outlets haven't been covering it. The policies are incredibly unpopular

They know that

They are intentionally hiding their intentions

Read the NYT article I posted. The obfuscation is stated directly

#69 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 06:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy!"

#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Your party is literally taking us to 1930s Germany and all you can whine about is speculative pushback?

GFY idiot.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-08 05:08 PM | Reply

and it came about because no prior president had ever been persecuted in such a manner where this was even an issue, right?

#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I'm sorry, but it takes a serious level of stupidity to say this with a straight face.

Some of us have seen exactly what Trump was up to from the beginning and you always told us, wrongly, that it wasn't happening.

You continue to deny the reality that's right in front of your face

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-08 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I just heard about Project 2025 a day ago.

Play stupid is the current tactic for the Good Germans.

Jeff will be one of those mouthing I don't think it could be that bad' in ten years.

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2024-07-08 05:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"project 2025 has been all over the news,"

Then how come the right pretends it's irrelevant?

Was this thing leaked? Is anybody running on it?

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 06:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump is distancing himself from project 2025.

Believe him or not? I'm guessing not?

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

eberly- his name is in the document 312 times.

#75 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 07:05 PM | Reply

And yet he claims to no little to nothing about it.

Why?

#76 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

trump lies about everything.

he knows project 2025 is toxic to the average person, so of course hes gonna distance himself from it.

#77 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 07:12 PM | Reply

"project 2025 is toxic to the average person"

IOW, republican voters he needs?

The authors of 2025 knew it would be toxic. Even to republicans and moderates.

So why put it out there?

#78 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

71% of Americans said a president should not have immunity for official acts.

#79 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 07:18 PM | Reply

The authors of 2025 knew it would be toxic.

Did they?

#80 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-07-08 07:23 PM | Reply

Then how come the right pretends it's irrelevant?

Telling people what's in the recipe may cause them to rethink their purchase.

Was this thing leaked?

There's a website: www.project2025.org

Also, there's a lot of analysis about its impact available.

#81 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:34 PM | Reply

Trump is distancing himself from project 2025.

You'd understand why he's claiming to be if you understood what it is.

He'd lose a lot of moderates and he's going to need their votes.

#82 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:36 PM | Reply

82

okay...I'm following you.

so...why release it? why leak it? If your candidate for office has to run away from it because it hurts his election efforts....WTF is it doing out there?

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:38 PM | Reply

Here's a cheat sheet:

Project 2025

Purpose:
Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of next Republican president

Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project,[2] is a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican nominee win the 2024 presidential election.[3][4] It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies.[5] It seeks to infuse the government and society with Christian values.[6][7] Proponents have framed the plan as a means to dismantle a purportedly vast, unaccountable government bureaucracy.[8] Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to transform the U.S. into an autocracy.[9][6] Many legal experts have said it would undermine the rule of law,[10] the separation of powers,[4] the separation of church and state,[11] and civil liberties,[4][10][12] including the civil rights of women, persons of color, and the LGBTQ community.[13]

en.m.wikipedia.org

#84 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:39 PM | Reply

Did they?

#80 | POSTED BY REDIAL

It scares the living ---- out of everyone who's read it.

Yes, I'm confident they knew it would be toxic.

Sort of like the final solution...pretty sure those guys knew it would be toxic.

so it was a little more covert...........why isn't this more covert?

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

WTF is it doing out there?

#83 | POSTED BY EBERLY

My guess would be, created by provocateurs to stroke fears in the Lumpers voting block.

No one is deporting that many people, not happening.

#86 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-08 07:41 PM | Reply

why release it?

Because a lot of republicans are proud of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it polls well in red states.

Posters, like BlueWaffles, have posted their full support for it.

#87 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:42 PM | Reply

Because a lot of republicans are proud of it.
- clownshack

So proud it's url is registered under...

DomainsByProxy.com

#88 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-08 07:45 PM | Reply

No one is deporting that many people, not happening.

Then there are idiots, like the poster who wrote that gem, who believe they're not being serious.

"No way they're actually going to do what they're saying they will."

Of course not.

Abortion is still protected federally, right?

Or maybe you actually believed Donald Trump when he said "Everyone was against Roe v Wade."

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:46 PM | Reply

87

But republicans like winning. Trump has to run from it. Other republicans as well, I imagine.

Is Fox News bragging about it or ignoring it?

Trump doesn't need project 2025 to win red states. If anything, this put swing states he won last time in jeopardy.

This lacks logic....unless there is another explanation for it.

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

trump is kinda stuck having to placate the extreme religious right while pretending hes not to independents.

#91 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 07:48 PM | Reply

-Posters, like BlueWaffles, have posted their full support for it.

Otherwise his support wasn't assured? --------. The Bluewaffles of the world didn't need this to get them to support Trump.

Trump's trying to win a general election...not beat another republican by running to the right.

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So why put it out there?"

Arrogance? it's reminiscent of PNAC in my
mind.

#93 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 07:49 PM | Reply

FFS most of Project 2025 are policies ------- has explicitly stated he will implement or tried to implement during his first term:

1. Immigration expulsion
2. Use of military for protest and crime suppression
3. Tax cuts and tarriffs
4. Elimination of Dept. of Ed
5. Use of DoJ to pursue political rivals
6. Promotion of Christian nationalism
7. Adding citizen question to census
8. Abolition of protections for LGBTQ's including students
9. Use of Schedule to fire federal employees and replace them with loyalists
and more

The authors are former ------- staff, RNC members (remember the RNC is now a fully controlled subsidiary of his campaign, FULLY), attorneys who have helped with -------'s legal problems. All people who will hold high office in his 2nd term

This is not theoretic concepts this IS the blueprint ------- will use once in office.

#94 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 07:51 PM | Reply

" My guess would be, created by provocateurs to stroke fears in the Lumpers voting block."

we know the names attached to this and none of them are democrats you conspiracy goof.

#95 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 07:53 PM | Reply

If your candidate for office has to run away from it because it hurts his election efforts....WTF is it doing out there?
#83 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Somethings hurting Donald Trump's election effort?

What is it? The rape conviction? The 34 felony convictions? The immunity the Supreme Court handed him? The fact he's incompetent? The damage he did to the nation in his first presidency?

Give me a break. Trump is playing dumb because he needs votes.

#96 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:54 PM | Reply

truth-

they also want to end no fault divorce. its insane.

#97 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 07:54 PM | Reply

republicans like winning.
#90 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Haven't you been reading the DR lately?

Biden already lost.

Trump has nothing to gain by acknowledging project 2025.

Therefore, he won't.

Not sure how that's so complicated for you.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 07:56 PM | Reply

When ------- took office in 2017, he was surrounded by traditional republicans, lifelong government employees and incompetents. Thus, the majority of what he attempted failed, either thwarted by traditional republicans, the courts or his own incompetence.

There will be NO repetition of that. The courts have been stacked to his benefit. The SC has signaled they will protect this agenda OR have explicitly issued decisions designed to further this agenda-immunity, political coordination with the DoJ, destroying the administrative state. He will not be populating his office with traditional republicans, he has learned to empower loyalists. He has succeeded in bending the republican party to his will, gone are those whose loyalty was questionable (to him).

These people will come to Washington with an agenda and a plan to enact it.

Do not fool yourself they WILL enact Project 2025.

Our nation will be unrecognizable a year from now if ------- wins.

Whole departments eliminated.

Whole bureaucracies dismantled resulting in upheaval throughout society as the regulatory and administration of much of daily life is thrown out the window.

Executive orders being issued to destroy many of the rights we think we still hold, ex. enforcing the Comstock Act and poof reproductive rights are GONE for the entire nation.

Rounding up of millions of immigrants-imagine the disruption this will cause!

All of this disruption WILL result in protests and he WILL use the National Guard to suppress dissent.

2025 will be UGLY should he be re-elected.

#99 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 07:59 PM | Reply

truth-
they also want to end no fault divorce. its insane.

#97 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

They want to outlaw porn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can take my porn when they pry it from my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!!!

#100 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 08:00 PM | Reply

-Haven't you been reading the DR lately?

not much.

You're saying that since the debate performance, Trump has no need for it?

Fair enough.

But releasing this should be for the purpose of generating more voters...not scare the potential voters.

And whatever subversive, Naxi-like strategy the GOP has in place should Trump win.......I can't imagine why they would share it with anybody.

Whatever Trump really has up his sleeve.....he isn't telling us about it.

#101 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 08:00 PM | Reply

www.bbc.com

#102 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-08 08:07 PM | Reply

Eberly,

You consider yourself relatively aware of politics, correct?

Yet you are completely unaware about what project 2025 is, despite there being a lot of information available about it.

You really think the average American has any clue wtf project 2025 is? You think they care?

#103 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Yet you are completely unaware about what project 2025 is, despite there being a lot of information available about it.

I don't understand the strategy of releasing it

#104 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 08:32 PM | Reply

I don't understand the strategy of releasing it

They know "Real Americans" will lap it up.

#105 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-07-08 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

why release it?

to make money, ah DUH

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 08:41 PM | Reply

FWIW, my personal experience is that low information voters who are aware of Project 2025 take at face value the denial by -------.

#107 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-08 08:43 PM | Reply

I don't understand the strategy of releasing it

You can't see the positives?

We're from a generation where racism hate and intolerance were looked down on. Shunned.

But it's now 2024 and actively encouraged these days.

The GOP fundraisers with it.

#108 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 08:49 PM | Reply

-You can't see the positives?

No

You're calling it the minutes from the Wannsee convention.

It's so hostile even Trump pretends it's not real.

So no ... ..I don't see the positives if trump can't own it

I'm sure there are positives

I just don't see them.

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 08:52 PM | Reply

-to make money

Who?

#110 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 08:54 PM | Reply

Are you trolling?

#111 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 08:55 PM | Reply

I don't understand the strategy of releasing it

The authors are arrogantly proud AF over it. They are self-righteous zealots. The Koch Brothers are ecstatic over it. Dr. (don't care to look up what kind) Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation went on TV bragging about Project 2025:

"SANDERS-TOWNSEND: I just wanna, no if I may though"
ROBERTS: Why aren't we talking about the people who"
SANDERS-TOWNSEND: I just wanna know, do you believe"
ROBERTS: "are supporting legislation that abortion can happen until three days after the person's born. This is an absurd framing by this network.
SANDERS-TOWNSEND: That is absurd and an absurd assertion! As a person with an actual womb, I'm telling you, that does not happen.
[CROSSTALK]
SANDERS-TOWNSEND: Dr. Roberts, does Heritage and Project 2025 believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her doctor says she needs one? This is a yes or no question.
ROBERTS: Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is the murder of a human being.
SANDERS-TOWNSEND: All right, well, I disagree thoroughly, Dr. Kevin Roberts. But I am so glad that you were here"

It was episodes like that one and more that made ------- s**t his pants and act like Judas Iscariot denying he knew anything about it while at the same time pointing out things in it he disagreed. (Do you see the problem with that? - LMAO!)

#112 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-08 09:16 PM | Reply

#113 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-08 09:16 PM | Reply

111

Admittedly I haven't followed this issue and my questions are trolling in part.

#114 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 09:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ah. "Roberts earned his PhD in American History from the University of Texas."

#115 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-08 09:17 PM | Reply

So "Not a Medical Doctor" is making health care decisions for a woman over what her Doctor says is needed.
Perfect representation of the GOP and SCOTUS Sharia Majority.

#116 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-08 09:19 PM | Reply

Just remember your philosophy in 2016.

None of this will effect you, regardless.

#117 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 09:20 PM | Reply

117

Was that directed at me?

#118 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 09:29 PM | Reply

Yes.

Wasn't that what you said?

#119 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-07-08 09:35 PM | Reply

First of all, did you mean 2026?

Second, I've only commented on the campaign strategy.

Not the implementation or that the authors aren't serious. Or that it doesn't have a chance to advance if trump is elected.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2024-07-08 09:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jeezus.

#121 | Posted by YAV at 2024-07-08 10:00 PM | Reply

"are things okay? You've been really cantankerous lately. My concern is that something happened in your personal life, that is bad, and it's flowing into your posts here."

Well...

Since you asked...

It's YOU, Dude. I'm frankly fed up with your bullschittt. I ask for proof of a claim, or boil things down to a salient point, and you either run away, lie about it, or both. Then you come back, and lie about answering the question. It wouldn't take much just to say, "Yeah, I don't have any examples of Lawfare on Trump"...but that would take some actual dignity on your part.

I used to think you had at least SOME class. Tough to think that any more. I've been on the edge about plonking your ass.

Thanks for noticing!

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-07-09 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I just heard about Project 2025 a day ago."

It's been available online since April 2023.

If you didn't know about it then it's because you live in a bubble and you didn't want to know.

I have personally mentioned it numerous times in numerous threads you were in as have many others.

#123 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-07-09 12:53 PM | Reply

Well said Mr. 122. I am glad more people are catching up to my perception of jeff.

He is a lying PoS troll nothing more nothing less.

#124 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 01:00 PM | Reply

"I just heard about Project 2025 a day ago."
It's been available online since April 2023.
If you didn't know about it then it's because you live in a bubble and you didn't want to know.
I have personally mentioned it numerous times in numerous threads you were in as have many others.
#123 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

With jeff, like -------, you should START from the position that what they state is a lie, that the opposite of their statement is the truth.

My bet is Jeff WAS familiar with Project 2025. Evidence being it has been a fairly regular topic around here for months.

#125 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-09 01:01 PM | Reply

Don't discount how dumb jeff is. He still can't figure out the definitions of strawman or projection.

#126 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-07-09 01:24 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort