Project 2025??

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Happy Lizard said:

@Leo Gura  

I have a meta-idea about your post that I want to share or speak to you about. When you are sharing this post, I get the sense that you are offering a perspective and not fear mongering in your mind. I wonder if I’m right that this is how you preserve it? What I’m saying, or maybe intuiting, is that there is a big gap between your way of thinking and dealing with what you share with us and our way of "getting" it. I suspect the regular followers of your teachings do not get it/grasp it in the same way you meant them to. 

I don’t know if you are so far from us and our way of thinking to this degree, but I thought I would bring it up for discussion. My main idea is that you were not fear mongering with this post, for example, but I suspect that a large percent of people either took it that way or did not appreciate  the pure drop of information. I wonder if you were as "normal" like a lot of us or had had the type of everyday life that a lot of us call regular, then you would have been able to deliver all (not just this post) in a way that we get.

I just want to point out to you that this happens with a lot of your posts. I don't know if you are aware that people can't grasp the idea, like, “Hey, here’s just an idea,” without attaching something to it. I wonder if you work on this or try to lower effectively the level of open-mindedness to meet some of us where we are for more effective communication. 

Maybe this should have been a thread on it’s own lol. 

Well, there is a certain advancedness in my thinking and I assume at this point that folks have come along with me for the ride. I am speaking to folks who watch and contemplate my videos, not to total noobs.

You should fear a Trump dictatorship. People are way too complacent about this. Like it will just some entertaining clown show. No. It will be bad. America could lose its democracy for a long time. Take this matter seriously.

But if you have specific feedback on how I could communicate better I am open to hearing it. It is not clear to me what you wanted me to say differently.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Miguel1]

5 hours ago, Happy Lizard said:

@Miguel1 a large precent of Americans think like third country people while being blessed with a first country economy and geographic resources, it's insane if you ever traveled here, there's also lots of stage orange selfish success types that don't even understand that Trump could be a Hitler type leader, it just doesn't register that a TV type person can be like that. They also wanna vote for the "stronger" candidate not the weak democrat.

The US is a sham that you would not believe, but  it's also a HUGE country, unlike the small countries of Europe, so expect all types of crazy things here.
I've spoken to European trying to explain this to them and some just cannot believe it. It's like they believe the US can be bad but in their mind they have a model of a functional country like their own. Once I try to explain some of the crazy stuff they think I'm trying to fool them or kidding and start dismissing me. 

And then we are supposed to make good money being fully 100% honest, transparent, conscious and ethical.

It’s quite the trick when large percentage of people are like this in a country like the US.

[Happy Lizard]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, there is a certain advancedness in my thinking and I assume at this point that folks have come along with me for the ride. I am speaking to folks who watch and contemplate my videos, not to total noobs.

You should fear a Trump dictatorship. People are way too complacent about this. Like it will just some entertaining clown show. No. It will be bad. America could lose its democracy for a long time. Take this matter seriously.

But if you have specific feedback on how I could communicate better I am open to hearing it. It is not clear to me what you wanted me to say differently.

It was maybe an insight I had in the morning and had to communicate it right away, but after thinking about it, I was wrong I think you do acknowledge a lot lof times that there might be a gap in what you are sharing and how people shouldn’t get it, it just made me think of other post where sometimes I get the feeling that what you share and how people get it could be completely different which is trippy to some. 
 

 

 

 

Edited July 2 by Happy Lizard

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Happy Lizard said:

It was maybe an insight I had in the morning and had to communicate it right away, but after thinking about it, I was wrong I think you do acknowledge a lot lof times that there might be a gap in what you are sharing and how people shouldn’t get it, it just made me think of other post where sometimes I get the feeling that what you share and how people get it could be completely different. 

I don't know what you mean.

How were my posts about Trump difficult to get?

[Leo Gura]

 

[Etherial Cat]

The Biden administration and DOJ have utterly failed by not pursuing every single seditionist who conspired with Trump after he was ousted from power.

Sedition isn't a joke; it's a crime deserving immediate arrest and imprisonment in a high-security facility. I vehemently oppose the death penalty, but there's a reason serious political threats must be neutralized in radical way. As long as they roam free, they can plot a comeback and garner support. Predictably, that's exactly what happened.

Their response has been nothing short of spineless and feeble, utterly inadequate for one of the gravest threats Western democracies have faced since 1945. And I'm being generous—back then, fascist states lacked nuclear weapons and mass destruction capabilities, and couldn't surveil citizens with today's technology.

For nearly four years, I've waited, hoping for a plan. Four years, trusting that a nation with some of the brightest minds would neutralize this absurd, cartoonish villain of a President, who poses a global threat. Yet, there was nothing—absolutely nothing (?!!)—as we all watched the Republican Party's blatant scheme to permanently seize power by corrupting and obstructing every branch of government, playing with as much dignity than an African dictator.

Seriously, even Ray Charles could have seen this coming.

I hope the current Biden administration wakes up and that their survival instinct finally kicks in. If Trump gets re-elected, they'll face a vengeful version of him, and he will act even worse than we can imagine. He consistently surpasses my lowest expectations, which is a very concerning prospect. Their head might be dangling on a spike faster than any of ours. Remember that this is the guy who attempted to get his own VP hanged.

 

 

[Happy Lizard]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know what you mean.

How were my posts about Trump difficult to get?

The one about Trump is very straight forward. Like I said maybe I should have made a thread to talk about this since OP’s topic here is about Trump.

what I meant was when you sometimes share a post but you dont put too much stocks on it yet people assume that you do, or with the Joseph Campbell one which kind of trippy to me lol. 

I guess my question is if you understood your audience mind better, would you possibly lower the caliber, or do you prefer to speak form your preferred level of sharing things? 
 

 

Edited July 2 by Happy Lizard

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Happy Lizard said:

what I meant was when you sometimes share a post but you dont put too much stocks on it yet people assume that you do, or with the Joseph Campbell one which kind of trippy to me lol. 

Again, I don't know what you mean.

I think my posts are very simple and clear, but if they aren't to you, articulate your issue better.

Quote

I guess my question is if you understood your audience mind better, would you possibly lower the caliber, or do you prefer to speak form your preferred level of sharing things? 

I don't like dumbing myself down.

But I also work hard on making concepts clear and easy to understand.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

The Biden administration and DOJ have utterly failed by not pursuing every single seditionist who conspired with Trump after he was ousted from power.

They've actual done a great job of it. They arrested and tried hundreds of MAGA rioters and they even convicted a couple of top leaders for sedition, which is a very high legal bar which few legal analyists expected to be cleared.

So your point just goes against the legal facts.

Their one big mistake was not going after Trump harder and faster. He's the only one who got away scott free.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Etherial Cat]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They've actual done a great job of it. They arrested and tried hundreds of MAGA rioters and they even convicted a couple of top leaders for sedition, which is a very high legal bar which few legal analyists expected to be cleared.

So your point just goes against the legal facts.

Their one big mistake was not going after Trump harder and faster. He's the only one who got away scott free.

I am aware that a significant number of MAGA rioters have been arrested. This is very well documented.

However, that doesn't go far enough. While these rioters need to be held 100% accountable for their actions, they were instigated by Trump and his closest circle, who have been roaming freely despite pending trials or financial sanctions in somewhat related matters. Where I come from, an instigator can be as guilty as the actual perpetrator.

In my opinion, a truly effective legal system should have measures in place for preventive detention in such serious events. I'm not sure how this works in the USA, but again where I come from, the criminal law system could perhaps be stretched to the point of additionally charging and investigating him for some kind of attempted homicide on his political opponents and even disloyal ally (Pence) through the means of the crowd.

Moreover, I disagree that Trump is the only one who got away scot-free. I suspect there were many more instigators, accomplices, or individuals with knowledge of the scheme who deserved to be at least symbolically sentenced. The moves of the Republican party look too well-coordinated for me to believe he's been operating alone. I am especially suspicious of the links between SCOTUS, various actors/donors, and the Trump circles.

But I surely agree with you that their one big mistake was not going after Trump harder and faster.

I'm leaning heavily towards this viewpoint tonight because my patience is wearing thin. It's frustrating to see things in such a dire state just months away from the election. The only conclusion I can draw is that the Democrats have been far too lenient in addressing the threat posed by Trump & the Republicans.

Edited July 2 by Etherial Cat

[MuadDib]

Big Ben seems to think that a president can't just murder maids and drone Muslims without consequences, which is puzzling to me.
Why has the Supreme Court decided to do all this now, Ben? Why now? Why not when Obama or Bush were in office? Help me understand. I am an ignoramus and a scholar.
What is the actual legal substance behind the ruling? What is the new prescident before the wild left/right interpretations and hypotheticals are considered?

If only I could find a legal expert to help me untangle all these big words...

This is all Claude could tell me: (my notes in red)

Thank you for providing the transcript from Ben Shapiro discussing the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. This is a complex and nuanced legal issue, so I'll do my best to summarize the key points and implications as objectively as possible.

Key takeaways from the Supreme Court decision, based on Shapiro's explanation:

1. The Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office that fall within their core constitutional powers and duties. This would cover things like directing the military, conducting foreign policy, pardoning people, etc.
   • This sounds a lot to me like droning Muslims and murdering maids who are a threat to America.
2. For a president's other official actions outside those core duties, they have presumptive immunity at this stage of legal proceedings. This presumptive immunity could potentially be overcome if prosecutors can show that criminally charging the president for those acts would not impede the functioning of the executive branch.
   • So if a prosecutor can show a maid is not a threat to America, then he could be prosecuted? What if he just has a hunch, you know, and he needs to act fast, and then later finds out his intel was bad?
3. For a president's unofficial actions unrelated to their duties (e.g. personal conduct), they do not have any special immunity and can face criminal charges like any citizen.
   • What if grabbing a maid by the pussy is official presidential business?
4. The Court remanded (sent back) Trump's specific case to lower courts to determine which of his alleged actions fall into which of the above immunity categories. Some charges were dismissed outright, while others will be evaluated by the lower courts.
5. The decision sets a new legal precedent and framework around presidential immunity, but did not rule that presidents have boundless immunity for anything they do in office, despite some of the political spin.

In terms of practical implications:

• This will likely stretch out the timeline of any potential criminal charges against Trump beyond the 2024 election.
• It restricts which actions taken by a president can be criminally prosecuted after leaving office but does not eliminate that possibility entirely.
• Much depends on how lower courts apply this framework to Trump's case and future cases involving alleged presidential misconduct.

Both sides are putting political spins on the implications, with critics claiming it puts the president above the law, and supporters claiming it's a measured approach to protecting executive powers.

I would encourage looking at analyses from left-leaning legal scholars as well to get a balanced perspective.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I suspect there were many more instigators, accomplices, or individuals with knowledge of the scheme who deserved to be at least symbolically sentenced.

It's a function of evidence. I think they tried everyone they had sufficient evidence for. The law is never close to trying 100% of crimes. This is just how law works.

Of course I would love to see more of Trump's stooges charged.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Husseinisdoingfine]

 

[Etherial Cat]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The law is never close to trying 100% of crimes. This is just how law works.

Of course I would love to see more of Trump's stooges charged.

Yes, of course, you're right about that. The law, including its enforcement, is an imperfect tool we rely on to discern truth and regulate behaviors. The image of justice represented by a blindfolded woman, striving to balance scales, beautifully captures this point. We cannot monitor all facts, nor can we create a perfect legal framework to categorize them or impose flawless sanctions. Man-made justice will never be perfect.

From afar, I can't help but notice that the current American democracy is in need of serious legal reform across various areas. However, its design often resembles a massive ship that is too slow and heavy to make necessary turns. Federal systems frequently exhibit these flaws. While this design typically guarantees stability, its heaviness when it comes to reforms can become quite dramatic due to its lack of flexibility, especially when corruption is involved. It's akin to a ship with parts of its hull flooded, making it difficult to manage and navigate effectively. Biden inherited a seriously flooded ship last term. His primary concern should have been a deep sanitation.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a function of evidence. I think they tried everyone they had sufficient evidence for.

Yes, of course. By definition, a criminal will try their best to leave as little evidence as possible. Trump, his circle and allies seem to operate similarly to a mafia. They work to protect each other when it comes to testimonies and other evidence, as long as they can do it with measured risks. Additionally, they have access to the best resources and experienced individuals capable of advising them and optimizing the evidence system before and after the fact.

Not to mention, they could have cultivated potential discreet allies to support them in some administration (that is more often the case than people are aware of).

Moreover, they have significant influence over the law through Congress, and the courts up to the SCOTUS.

And talking about SCOTUS: I'm quite certain that these conservative Supreme Court judges must have powerful allies reassuring them about their actions. There's nothing more risk-averse than a conservative judge. Most lawyers are already risk-averse people who simply want a good life with enough money. There's no way these judges aren't part of a political agenda involving the Republican network. I've also heard about the groups you mentioned on your blog when I started investigating ACB. Clearly, there are influential and wealthy figures at play who are seeking to have things go their way. These people are connected with all branches.

Edited July 2 by Etherial Cat

[TheAlchemist]

The progressives reactions to Project 2025 remind me a lot of the conservatives reactions to the WEF "Great Reset" thing. Both the Great Reset idea and the Project 2025 idea are seen by some as a fundamental change in existing governance structures and day to day life. 

Of course, it seems there are more well founded  epistemic reasons to see the "Project 2025" as a legitimate issue, compared to the Great Reset idea, which remained extremely vague and full of assumptions. 

I think it is a good exercise to think about why exactly something like a the WEF Great Reset hype looked like something silly to you (which I believe it mostly was), whereas this looks like a real issue.

I think we can identify some of the epistemic practices that happen on either side. What is required for a progressive to take on a potential  danger in the future seriously, and what is required for a conservative? (Generally speaking ofc)

Edited July 3 by TheAlchemist

[Leo Gura]

@TheAlchemist The difference is very simple: Trump said he would be a dicatator on day one and already staged a coup. And his stooges on the Supreme Court gave him absolute immunity.

The playbook for authoritrians is well-known. This is it. It does not get any more obvious.

Edited July 3 by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

Good times to review this one :

 

[TheAlchemist]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@TheAlchemist The difference is very simple: Trump said he would be a dicatator on day one and already staged a coup. And his stooges on the Supreme Court gave him absolute immunity.

The playbook for authoritrians is well-known. This is it. It does not get any more obvious.

Good point, it's just baffling how this doesn't register as an actual issue for so many people. Even though there is 100x more historical, sociological, geopolitical reason to be seriously concerned about this than some "Great Reset" hype. It's just fascinating (and scary) what kind of stuff gets masses of people panicked and concerned (Great Reset, WEF, conspiracy theories), and how when actual shit goes down it just doesn't seem to click. 

Edited July 3 by TheAlchemist

[Rafael Thundercat]

 

[abundance]

This is an excellent resource for understanding the consequences of a 2nd Trump presidency in conjunction with Project 2025. I encourage everyone to read the PDF provided on the site. 

It's pretty scary folks

https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/

 

 

Edited July 3 by abundance