Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Whether that manifesto's "reliable", well, we'll have to see. That recent immunity move by the SC is already a big step in the direction that Project 2025 wants to take the US in with their "unitary executive theory" bullshit – everything doesn't hinge on Trump.
Far as Trump's disavowals go, I'll believe it when I see it – that man lies as easily as he breathes. I'll be happily surprised if it does turn out he wasn't lying, but that's not going to be my default assumption. And it's not like Project 2025 hinges on his enthusiastic support of the Project, just its goals – if Trump gets elected he is the one choosing which recommendations he'll follow, and I don't find it very believable that he wouldn't be interested in eg. expanding executive power.
That's going to be what they publish every time the sources don't want anyone to know it was them, but it's not like the reporters don't know their sources or don't vet them –this "anonymous source bad" trope frankly reeks of the classic populist Lying press / Lügenpresse rhetoric. I really don't understand how people think things should work if anonymous sources are bad