Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Then, you should mention J Street as well.

I don't think that any organisation which is privately funded and registered by Americans can legally be registered as "foreign agent" under the Foreign Agents Registration Act - but I'm not a legal export in US laws and acts.

The Worst 36 Hours For Democracy Since the 1930s, America on Dictatorship’s Brink, and Civilizational Risk


theissue

https://youtu.be/rGIY5Vyj4YM?si=5Ulmg_5V9l0i9P5P

My ideas are very similar to Umair Haque's, perhaps as a European and German a bit differently focused.

Somehow I have the impression that we are witnessing the return of royalty.

These two countries of all places, the USA and France, the cradles of modern democracy, are on the brink of collapse.
The question arises: Will it end where it began?

In the revolutions of 1776 in the USA and 1789 in France, citizens wanted to free themselves from the arbitrariness and autocracy of kings. They did not want to be at the mercy of people who qualified nothing other than their aristocratic origins. In America this was achieved quickly, in France in a roundabout way. Despite all the setbacks, democracy became a magnificent success story. Now it is under serious threat in the places where it was fought for.

Even in democracies, people remain a risk. Do the right people get into the key positions, do they act wisely and responsibly? In presidential democracies such as the USA and France, this risk is higher because the highest offices of state are modelled on royalty: a lot of power for one person. So far, this has worked reasonably well. But two crucial things have changed in the decade: Politicians are being recruited in a new way. And elections have become more dramatic.

Parties were not important for either Trump or Macron. Trump gained his popularity as a TV star, Macron established a movement that was tailored solely to him. Both used social networks to spread their messages.
For all their differences, Macron and Trump embody the same type of politician in one way: they are ego monsters, the kings of this new age, autocratic and therefore prone to arbitrariness.
This is obvious in Trump's case, but was recently demonstrated in Macron's case when he called new elections without need.

Elections today often have a different meaning than in the past, when it was about people and parties who basically wanted the same thing. Elections were undramatic in this sense because nobody questioned the system.
Recently, however, liberal democracy has been threatened by authoritarian temptation. Trump has proven that he respects neither election results nor law and order. With the judgement of the Supreme Court behind him, he would have a largely free hand for arbitrary rule. He could even face a dynastic temptation: that he wants to secure the presidency for his family in the long term. Kingship 2.0.

Self-importance and electoral drama - that is the fatal political mixture in the cradle countries of democracy.
(German politics is in an even better position at the moment, but for how long. Since:) In the end, it is the mistakes of the liberal democrats that pave the way for the authoritarians.

you are correct: anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism. But antisemites (from where you draw a lot of your points) are also anti-Zionist.

Falsely claiming AIPac has a lobbiest assigned to every Congressman is an antisemite slur. Bringing the Rothschilds into the equation with even more spurious "evidence" is antisemetic.

Not using any other sources, such as al Jazeera or Electronic Inifada - both of which have a proven reputation of factuality makes me doubt your true concern regarding Israel's murderous policies (that even Israelis and Jews here in the US decry).

That you don't even try to vet your own sources is a sign of someone cherry picking quotes with no regard for truth or fact.

Your pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian screevery makes me me doubt your loyalty to this nation - one I've worn a uniform for - and the true intentions of your criticisms.

You're welcome to your free speech, but at least make it factual and true, cut the antisemetic cant and maybe I'll be able to take your argument seriously.

Not just a lie, but a damnable antisemetic lie.

Or Project 2025.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism and mud throwing.

Pointing out Israel's pressure on the ICC to evade charges is legitimate, there's lots of well sourced, proven allegations in the Guardian.

Claiming Mossad control the Democrat Party without anything to back it up is mud throwing.

If the AIPAC handlers didn’t actively seek increased munitions & military hardware for Israel, social media laws to benefit Israel, censure of US elected representatives for supporting Palestine—and many other examples of forceful lobbying for the Zionist state of Israel over the rights and preferences of the American people, you might’ve had a point.

I am one of those who have not read the almost one thousand pages of the "Project 2025" policy paper.

Fortunately, there is something about it in a report in the Süddeutsche newspaper:
"The Heritage Foundation's Master Plan for the Next White House Term. "Mandate for Leadership - The Conservative Promise" is the title.

In thirty chapters, it proposes the reorganisation of pretty much all government agencies in detail. More than 400 representatives from science and politics were involved. There are only a few well-known names among them, and they are familiar from Trump's first term in office. The architect of his immigration policy Stephen Miller, for example, or the former head of planning Kiron Skinner. But what is described in thirty chapters is a total reorganisation of the state with a concentration of power in the figure of the president.

The Heritage Foundation is not the only think tank working on the intellectual foundation of the reorganisation. There is the America First Policy Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute. Occasionally, these groups work together. Towards the end, the Trump administration made it possible to dismiss civilian and non-political government employees with the "Schedule F" regulation. This was the brainchild of economist James Sherk, who, like some of his colleagues at the time, is now a member of the America First Policy Institute. Biden's government suspended the order, but it will presumably be the lever that Trump will use to implement a plan that the Heritage Foundation is already actively working on.

They are currently analysing tens of thousands of candidates to see how loyal they would be to a government position. They are using this to create a database of loyalists with whom they want tDie durchleuchtet derzeit Zehntausende Kandidatinnen und Kandidaten, wie loyal sie auf einem Staatsposten wären. Damit erstellen sie eine Datenbank von Loyalisten, mit denen sie rund 50 000 Schlüsselstellen unter den zwei Millionen Staatsbediensteten besetzen wollen. Damit will Trump auch verhindern, dass ihn die unteren Ebenen immer wieder von seinen Vorhaben abbringen, so wie es ihm während der ersten Amtszeit passiert ist. Es waren meist Leute aus dem Mittelbau der Ministerien, Behörden und des Militärs, die ihm die allzu radikalen Vorstöße ausredeten, egal ob gegen Einwanderer, Demonstranten oder militärische Gegner.

Für die Rechtskonservativen ist das aber mehr als Pragmatismus. Zu den vier wichtigsten Punkten, die Kevin Roberts im Vorwort zum Übergangsplan des Project 2025 anführt, gehört neben der Wiederherstellung der Familie als Kern der Gesellschaft, der Verteidigung nationaler Souveränität an und jenseits der Landesgrenzen sowie der Garantie „gottgegebener Rechte, frei zu leben“ auch, „den Verwaltungsstaat abzubauen“.o fill around 50,000 key positions among the two million civil servants. In this way, Trump also wants to prevent the lower levels from repeatedly dissuading him from his plans, as happened to him during his first term of office. It was mostly people from the middle ranks of ministries, authorities and the military who talked him out of his overly radical advances, whether against immigrants, protesters or military opponents.

For the right-wing conservatives, however, this is more than pragmatism. The four most important points listed by Kevin Roberts in the foreword to the Project 2025 transition plan include the restoration of the family as the core of society, the defence of national sovereignty at and beyond the country's borders and the guarantee of "God-given rights to live freely", as well as "dismantling the administrative state".

“Falsely claiming AIPac has a lobbiest assigned to every Congressman is an antisemite slur. Bringing the Rothschilds into the equation with even more spurious "evidence" is antisemetic.”
________________

It’s not a slur if it’s true. It is true.

Thomas Massie made the claim about every member of Congress but him having dedicated AIPAC handlers—and I believe him. He’s one of the most intelligent, well-educated, respected members across both aisles. You don’t have to agree with all of his policy opinions (I don’t) to have confidence in his veracity.

Why do you think the Rothschild family is above scrutiny? All billionaires’ methods of making such an amount of money should be questioned.

That’s fair, but let’s review how I got here.

Years of bringing investigative journalism & reporting here to have it nibbled at in bad faith and discarded, for instance if the writer / interviewer / publisher—isn’t approved MSNBC fare / knew Trump’s dad / voted for Bernie / wrote an article criticizing Democrats—has just changed my mind about the importance
of fleshing out my sources. They’re cheaply dismissed.

Pulitzer Prize Journalist Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Aaron Matè, Matt Taibbi, Max Blumenthal are brilliant, giving up lucrative careers because they won’t write with the pack. They won’t follow the approved narrative.

I know the drill and I don’t care to go through those motions with the same result ad nauseum.

I’m not going to perform the ritual anymore.

Here's a video of Cynthia Mckinney validating your claim that Israel has undue influence in the White House. This is her experience with AIPAC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-eaC3_Itqw

Strangley enough, about a decade back, I had someone explain to me what how the US Presidency worked, and I said to them "So, like an elected King?" They were a bit offended by this, but that was what the description sounded like. Now, it seems like it will be exactly that.

Thanks, Glennn. This was a new testimony for me.

Prove that antisemetic slur. Cite some facts, that's a pure opinion.

It is a slur when you can't prove it. What you cited is a RW Turk video. With a reputation of being a Turkish Government mouthpiece with highly unreliable stories factually.

And again, you just claim it without proof. Just as if I were to claim you don't pay your income taxes. It may be true. But I certainly don't know that to be true and can cite no source of proof.

Let's take a look at Cynthia McKinney:

-snip-

After her 2002 loss, McKinney became a vocal supporter of conspiracy theories about the September 11 terrorist attacks, blaming her loss and the 9/11 attacks on "Zionists."[11] McKinney was re-elected to the House in November 2004, following her successor's run for Senate. In Congress, she unsuccessfully tried to unseal FBI records on the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the murder of Tupac Shakur. She continued to criticize the Bush administration over the 9/11 attacks. She supported anti-war legislation and introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

-snip-

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Johnson that the 11th District was an unconstitutional gerrymander because the boundaries were drawn based on the racial composition of the constituents.[2] McKinney's district was subsequently renumbered as the 4th and redrawn to take in almost all of DeKalb County, prompting outrage from McKinney. She asserted that it was a racially discriminatory ruling, given the fact that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that Texas's 6th District, which is 91% white, was unconstitutional.[2] The new 4th, however, was no less Democratic than the 11th. McKinney was easily elected from this district in 1996. She was re-elected two more times with no substantive opposition.

In her first period in Congress, she served on several committees, including the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Banking and Finance, and Armed Services. She eventually ascended to the top Democratic spot on the International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, serving as ranking member. In that role, she became a frequent critic of American foreign policy. Examples include her vocal opposition to President Bill Clinton’s interventionist policies in Kosovo, U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and other policies related to the Middle East.[26

-snip-

During the 2000 presidential campaign, McKinney wrote that "Al Gore's Negro tolerance level has never been too high. I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time." Gore's campaign pointed out that its manager, Donna Brazile, was black.[28]

-snip-

McKinney gained national attention for her remarks following the September 11 attacks in 2001. She asserted that the United States had "numerous warnings of the events to come" and called for an investigation. She enquired in a radio interview: "What did this administration know and when did it know it?"[31] She said that US President George W. Bush may have been aware and allowed them to happen.[32] She made allegations about the earlier president, George H. W. Bush: "It is known that President Bush's father, through The Carlyle Group, had—at the time of the attacks—joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since September 11."[32] A spokesman for the Carlyle Group rejected her hypothesis. In a statement in April 2002, McKinney told The Washington Post: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."[31]

-snip-

In 2002, McKinney was defeated in the Democratic primary by DeKalb County judge Denise Majette.[36] Majette defeated McKinney with 58% of the vote to McKinney's 42%.[37]

McKinney protested the result in court, claiming that thousands of Republicans had voted in the Democratic primary, the real contest in the district, in revenge for her anti-Bush administration views and her allegations of voter fraud in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. Like 20 other states, Georgia operates an open primary: voters do not align with a political party when they register to vote and may participate in whichever party's primary election they choose. Thus, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones, which had held that California's blanket primary violated the First Amendment (despite the fact that the Court explicitly differentiated—albeit in dicta—the blanket primary from the open primary in Jones), on McKinney's behalf, five voters claimed that the open primary system was unconstitutional, operating in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the associational right protected by the First Amendment, and various statutory rights protected by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[38]

The district court dismissed the case, in the judgement stating the plaintiffs had presented no evidence in support of the 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act claims, and lacked standing to bring the First Amendment claim. It interpreted the Supreme Court's Jones ruling to hold that the right to association involved in a dispute over a primary—and thus, standing to sue—belongs to a political party, not an individual voter. On appeal in May 2004, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this result in Osburn v. Cox,[39] assessing that not only were the plaintiffs' claims meritless, but the remedy they requested would likely be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut. On October 18, 2004, the Supreme Court brought an end to the litigation, denying certiorari without comment.[40][41]

Other factors in McKinney's defeat included her allegations of Bush's involvement in 9/11,[32][42] her opposition to aid to Israel, a perceived support of Palestinian and Arab causes, and open antisemitism in her comments.[43][44][45][46] On the night before the primary election, McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S."[32] Cynthia McKinney had been through a long contentious relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).[47] Georgia political analyst Bill Shipp addressed McKinney's defeat saying: "voters sent a message: 'We're tired of these over-the-top congressmen dealing in great international and national interests. How about somebody looking out for our interests?'"[48]
2003-2005

-snip-

McKinney was one of the 31 House Democrats who voted not to count the 20 electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, despite Republican President George W. Bush winning the state by 118,457 votes.[56][57] Without Ohio's electoral votes, the election would have been decided by the U.S. House of Representatives, with each state having one vote in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.



On July 22, 2005, the first anniversary of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, McKinney held a briefing on Capitol Hill about the attacks. The day-long briefing featured family members of victims, scholars, former intelligence officers and others who critiqued the 9/11 Commission account of 9/11 and its recommendations. The four morning panels addressed flaws, omissions, and a lack of historical and political analysis in the commission's report. Three afternoon panels critiqued the commission's recommendations in the areas of foreign and domestic policy and intelligence reform. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial[58] said that the purpose of the event was to discuss whether or not the Bush administration was involved in the 9/11 attacks, expressing surprise that McKinney was once again taking on the issue that was believed to have cost her House seat.[58] The Journal-Constitution declined to publish McKinney's reply.[59] The 9/11 Commission has sealed all the notes and transcripts of some 2,000 interviews, all the forensic evidence, and both classified and non-classified documents used in compiling its final report until January 2, 2009. McKinney's interest in 9/11 relates specifically to what she expresses as her opposition to excessive government secrecy,[60] which she has challenged with numerous pieces of legislation.

-snip-

On the morning of March 29, 2006, McKinney entered the Longworth House Office Building's southeast entrance and proceeded past the security checkpoint, walking around the metal detector. Members of Congress have identifying lapel pins and were not required to pass through metal detectors at the time. The officers present failed to recognize McKinney as a member of Congress because she was not wearing the appropriate lapel pin and had recently changed her hairstyle. She proceeded westward down the ground floor hallway and about halfway down the hallway was stopped by United States Capitol Police officer Paul McKenna, who states that he had been calling after her: "Ma'am, Ma'am!"; at that time it is reported that McKinney struck the officer. Two days later, Officer McKenna filed a police report claiming that McKinney had struck "his chest with a closed fist".

In the midst of a media frenzy, McKinney made an apology[77] on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 6, 2006, neither admitting to nor denying the charge, stating only that: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident."

Though McKinney was not indicted for criminal charges or subjected to disciplinary action by the House, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police said of Officer McKenna, "We're going to make sure the officer won't be harassed. We want the officer to be able talk to experts, who can look at his legal recourses, if he needed to."[78]

In the wake of the March 2006 incident with the Capitol Police officer, McKinney was in the news, and her office invited the media to attend one of her monthly "District Days," where she spends one full day meeting with constituents to discuss issues of concern. At her April 23, 2006, "District Days" event, McKinney was being interviewed by WGCL's Renee Starzyk, who repeatedly questioned her about the March 29 scuffle with a Capitol police officer. Frustrated, McKinney stood up and apparently forgot she was still wearing the microphone. Her offscreen comments were captured on tape. She was heard saying, "Oh, crap, now you know what ... they lied to [McKinney's senior aide Coz Carson], and Coz is a fool."[79] McKinney returned on screen with the microphone, this time with instructions on what parts of the interview the station was allowed to use: "anything that is captured by your audio ... that is captured while I'm not seated in this chair is off the record and is not permissible to be used ... is that understood?"[80]

-snip-

McKinney finished first in the July 18, 2006 Democratic primary, edging DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson 47.1% to 44.4%, with a third candidate receiving 8.5%.[84] However, as McKinney failed to get at least 50% of the vote, she and Johnson were forced into a runoff.

In the runoff of August 8, 2006, McKinney received about the same number of votes as in the July primary, even though there were about 8,000 more votes cast in the runoff than in the primary. Johnson won with 41,178 votes (59%) to McKinney's 28,832 (41%).[12] McKinney's loss was attributed to a mid-decade redistricting, in which the 4th had absorbed portions of Gwinnett and Rockdale Counties, as well as her run-in with a police officer in the March 29, 2006, Capitol Hill police incident.

CNN reported that during her concession speech, McKinney hardly mentioned her opponent but praised the leftist political leaders elected in South America. She also questioned the efficacy of voting machines and criticized the media.[85]
-snip-

In March 2009, McKinney was present at a gathering of Holocaust deniers in London. In postings on the Green Party website, she said former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad was "one of my heroes". She described David Pidcock as "my London friend". Pidcock is an individual whom the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have described as an "anti-Semitic writer".[93][94] In one post she related the conspiracy theory that individuals such as George Soros and Alan Greenspan (both Jewish) have plotted to create a "one-world government". In discussing this notion, she was drawing on a book entitled, The Shadow Money-Lenders by Matthias Chang, an advisor to Mahathir. McKinney praised the work.[93]

On December 30, 2008, McKinney was aboard the ship Dignity when it attempted to enter the Gaza Strip, which had its coastal area declared a "closed military zone" by Israel, while on a humanitarian mission by the Free Gaza Movement from Cyprus. Aboard were physicians, medical supplies, and activists, including Caoimhe Butterly. The Israeli Navy confronted the ship at night in international waters. Members of the crew claimed that the ship was rammed, gunfire was directed at the water, and the ship was forced to dock in Lebanon after taking on water.[95][96] Israeli officials claimed that the collision was accidental and occurred after the ship was informed they would not be allowed to enter Gaza and tried to outmaneuver the patrol boat; they decried McKinney's actions as being irresponsible and provocative for the sake of propaganda.[96][97]

On June 30, 2009, McKinney was aboard the Greek-flagged Free Gaza Movement's ship Spirit of Humanity carrying 21 activists including Irish peace activist Mairead McGuire, medical supplies, a symbolic bag of cement, olive trees and toys, when it was seized by the Israeli Navy 18 mi (29 km) off the Gaza coast. It was unclear whether they were in international waters or in Gazan waters, which is subject to the Israeli blockade of Gaza.[98][99] Although both the Cypriot and Israeli authorities were officially informed the destination was Gaza before the vessel's departure, according to the Cypriot government the ship "was given permission by the competent Authorities of the Republic of Cyprus to sail off the port of Larnaca in Cyprus on the basis of its declaration that its intended destination was the port of Port Said in Egypt."[99]

McKinney was held at the Givon immigration detention center in Ramle, until her release on July 5.[100] McKinney initially refused to sign the deportation papers because they were written in Hebrew and that the papers would require them to admit that they were in violation of Israel's blockade, which they denied.[101][102][103][104][105] According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Israeli officials stated that the "Palestinian Authority and the rest of the international community had agreed to the off-shore blockade to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza."[103] The Palestinian Chronicle reports that such an agreement to the off-shore blockade never happened. "No Palestinians have agreed nor did the international community agree to a blockade of Gaza by land or Sea."[106] On June 17, 2009, a group of United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) called for an end to Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.[107]

On July 7, 2009, McKinney was deported to the United States.[108] The Israeli government indicated it would deliver the supplies via land.[103]
Libya, Iran and Hugo Chávez

On May 21, 2011, McKinney appeared on state-run television in Libya and stated that United States participation in military intervention in the 2011 Libyan civil war was "not what the people of the United States stand for and it's not what African-Americans stand for".[109] In the same interview, McKinney stated: "On a previous visit to Libya, I was able to learn about The Green Book, and the form of direct democracy that is advocated in The Green Book."[110]

Around the same time, during her first visit to Iran, McKinney was interviewed by Iran's state-run channel, Press TV: "it is clear that the people of Iran have one thing in mind, and that is that they are a revolutionary state. And as a revolutionary state, they understand colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism. They understand being under the foot of oppression and occupation—even if it is mental occupation—from an outside force or outside power, and that is what centers the resistance".[111]

-snip-

In 2016, McKinney released a statement via Twitter accusing Israelis of conducting the 2016 Nice truck attack in France and the Würzburg train attack in Germany, she did not provide any evidence for either claim.[114] In May 2020, The Algemeiner Journal and other medial outlets reported that McKinney released a series of statements via Twitter questioning the true number of Jewish people murdered during The Holocaust. In the tweets (in which she misrepresented an article from Haaretz) she stated: "So, the figure wasn't six million after all?? What about those punished and even imprisoned for saying so?? Is this a "You can't say, but I can" kind of thing??".[115][116]

The Jerusalem Post reported that on June 28, 2021, McKinney posted a meme to Twitter that depicted the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center as a puzzle with the "final piece of the puzzle" having the word "Zionists" on it. When adding that piece to the puzzle, the image read: "Zionists did it." New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman condemned McKinney's post as anti-semitic.[117] The ADL in a tweet objected to McKinney continuing "to repeat an offensive #antisemitic trope falsely blaming Jews/Zionists for the terrorist attacks on 9/11."[11] The Washington Post noted that, amid a sitewide increase in hate speech following Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, McKinney had prominently amplified and made tweets in 2022 containing an antisemitic hashtag mainly used by neo-Nazis to imply a conspiracy of Jewish people in positions of power.[118]

On February 19, 2023, McKinney participated in the Rage Against the War Machine rally.[119][120] She gave remarks at the rally by video, where she claimed that there are "criminal elements" within the federal government of the United States, that the Democratic Party had become a "war party," that the Federal Election Commission can "control U.S. election outcomes," and more.[121]

On September 11, 2023, McKinney promoted a livestream called "Can Black People and White People Work Together to Defeat Our Common Enemy" with the Star of David, indicating that the "common enemy" is the Jewish people. The livestream was to be hosted by Ayo Kimathi, the author of Jews Are the Problem and described by the ADL as "antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ+ Black nationalist extremist"[122] and David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and anti-semite.[123] In the livestream, Kimathi explicitly advocated for ties with White nationalists to actively eradicate "the Jew."[124]


Up front. I support 75 - 80% of her "issues". Not because she does but because I learn about my issues. I don't believe anything McKinney says because she says it, but because I learn the facts and truth about my what I believe. I think she became conspiracy bound because of her losses running for Congress. But being conspiracy bound as she's become she spouts a lot of unfounded, unproven cant. In the interview she never cites fact, she cites a cause - Palestinian abuse by the state of Isreal (something I've researched enough to know is true) and then makes some unfounded claim: AIPac owns Congress.

You and Lash do that with each other: you pass this unfounded garbage back and forth as if its information and it's not. It is conspiracy muck. You aren't educating each other, you are cheer-leading each other. And that is a crying shame. Stop confusing sound-byte slogans for founded positions.

She's an antisemite by her own words and if you can't see it, it's because you either embrace antisemitism yourselves or you choose to conveniantly choose to overlook it.

I guess they're on the money. king Charles was basically unemployed until his ascension, and has zero experience running anything except for his inherited property.

Biden bluffed and bullshitted his way through college, and has been sucking on the taxpayer's teat for his whole life, too.

I actually meant a King from the times when being a King meant something, and King & Parliament battled for power. The big difference being the US president maintains control of the Army, congress maintains control of the treasury.