I say YES. YOU say NO....Numero Tre! Enjoy!

Why you need to use the vote you have w/o fail.

Ah, your stories are a little weird today.

I presume your not concerned your days may be numbered — I'm praying for those numbers.

Soon John, soon.

You will not grow if you sit in a beautiful flower garden, but you will grow if you are sick, if you are in pain, if you experience losses, and if you do not put your head in the sand, but take the pain and learn to accept it, not as a curse or punishment but as a gift to you with a very, very specific purpose.    -Elisabeth Kuebler-Ross

A little something I came across the morning. Since my c and p abilities are limited I've only copied the highly cogent part of the article which has to do with J.D. Vances forward for a new book devoted to Project 2025.

J.D, knows how to make himself a chilling and highly un-appeasing character. Frightening and distasteful to the max.

Here’s the full foreward from JD Vance via New Republic:

In the classic American film Pulp Fiction, John Travolta’s character, recently returned from Amsterdam, observes that Europe has the same consumer goods as America, but there it’s just a “little different.” That’s how I feel about Kevin Roberts’s life. He grew up in a poor family in a corner of the country largely ignored by America’s elites—but his corner was in Louisiana and mine in Ohio and Kentucky. Like me, he’s a Catholic, but unlike me, he was born into it. His grandparents played an outsized role in his life, just as mine did. And now he works far from where he grew up, just a few steps from my office, in Washington, DC: he is the president of one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, and I’m a US senator.

Now he has written the book you hold in your hands, which explores many of the themes I’ve focused on in my own work. Yet he does so profoundly, with a readable style that makes accessible its real intellectual rigor.

Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism. The Heritage Foundation isn’t some random outpost on Capitol Hill; it is and has been the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Yet it is Heritage’s power and influence that makes it easy to avoid risks. Roberts could collect a nice salary, write decent books, and tell donors what they want to hear. But Roberts believes doing the same old thing could lead to the ruin of our nation.

If you’ve read a lot of conservative books or think you have a good sense of the conservative movement, I suspect the pages that follow will be surprising—even jarring. Roberts understands economics and supports basic free market principles, but he doesn’t make an idol out of decades old theories. He argues persuasively that the modern financial corporation was almost entirely foreign to the founders of our nation. The closest eighteenth-century analogue to the modern Apple or Google is the British East India company, a monstrous hybrid of public and private power that would have made its subjects completely unable to access an American sense of liberty. The idea that our founders meant to make their citizens subjects to this kind of hybrid power is ahistorical and preposterous, yet too many modern “conservatives” make such an idol out of the market that they ignore this. A private company that can censor speech, influence elections, and work seamlessly with intelligence services and other federal bureaucrats deserves the scrutiny of the Right, not its support. Roberts not only gets this at an instinctive level; he can articulate a political vision to engage in that scrutiny effectively.

Roberts sees a conservatism that is focused on the family. In this, he borrows from the old American Right that recognized—correctly, in my view—that cultural norms and attitudes matter. We should encourage our kids to get married and have kids. We should teach them that marriage isn’t just a contract, but a sacred—and to the extent possible, lifelong—union. We should discourage them from behaviors that threaten the stability of their families. But we should also do something else: create the material circumstances such that having a family isn’t only for the privileged. That means better jobs at all levels of the income ladder. That means protecting American industries—even if it leads to higher consumer prices in the short term. That means listening to our young people who are telling us they can’t afford to buy a home or start a family, not just criticizing them for a lack of virtue. Roberts is articulating a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics: recognizing that virtue and material progress go hand in hand.

My childhood was not, by any objective measure, easy. Neither was that of Kevin Roberts. Both of us were negatively impacted by family instability, and both of us were saved by the resilience of the thick network of family—grandparents, aunts, uncles—that is often the first and most effective component of our social safety net. Both of us saw how a factory leaving a town could destroy the economic stability that provided the foundation for those families. And both of us learned to love the country that gave both of us and our families second chances, despite some bumps along the way. In these pages, Kevin is trying to figure out how we preserve as much of what worked in his own life, while correcting what didn’t. To do that, we need more than a politics that simply removes the bad policies of the past. We need to rebuild. We need an offensive conservatism, not merely one that tries to prevent the left from doing things we don’t like.

Here’s an analogy I sometimes use to articulate what the previous generation of conservatives got right and wrong. Imagine a well-maintained garden in a patch of sunlight. It has some imperfections of course, and many weeds. The very thing that makes it attractive for the things we try to cultivate makes it attractive for the things we don’t. In an effort to eliminate the bad, a well-meaning gardener treats the garden with a chemical solution. This kills many of the weeds, but it also kills many of the good things. Undeterred, the gardener keeps adding the solution. Eventually, the soil is inhospitable.

In this analogy, modern liberalism is the gardener, the garden is our country, and the voices discouraging the gardener were conservatives. We were right, of course: in an effort to correct problems—some real, some imagined—we made a lot of mistakes as a country in the 1960s and 1970s.

But to bring the garden back to health, it is not enough to undo the mistakes of the past. The garden needs not just to stop adding a terrible solution, though it does need that. It needs to be recultivated. The old conservative movement argued if you just got government out of the way, natural forces would resolve problems—we are no longer in this situation and must take a different approach. As Kevin Roberts writes, “It’s fine to take a laissez-faire approach when you are in the safety of the sunshine. But when the twilight descends and you hear the wolves, you’ve got to circle the wagons and load the muskets.”

We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.

—J.D. Vance

17 hours agoShareSaveMadeline Halpert and Phil McCauslandBBC News, New York

ReutersTrump is accused of working to "exploit" a riot at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021

Donald Trump's alleged criminal efforts to overturn his 2020 US election defeat are described in detail across 165 pages of a new filing from the federal prosecutor investigating him.

The filing, released by a judge on Wednesday, lays out in depth how Special Counsel Jack Smith would pursue his case if it ever comes to trial, which is uncertain. Since Trump is expected to end the prosecution if he returns to the White House, Mr Smith may never be able to make an opening statement or call a witness.

The Supreme Court ruled this summer that Trump cannot be prosecuted for official acts carried out as president, forcing Mr Smith to change the historic case and argue that Trump committed crimes as a private citizen.

Trump denies any wrongdoing in trying to block Joe Biden's certification as the election winner and his campaign called the document "falsehood-ridden".

The judge overseeing the case has given Trump's team until 7 November - two days after the presidential election - to make a response to the latest filing.

Here are five key points detailed in the prosecutor's arguments and evidence released on Wednesday.

1) Trump planned to claim victory no matter what

“It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election," Trump allegedly said at some point after the election. "You still have to fight like hell.”

The filing cites these comments - reported by an unnamed assistant who overheard Trump speaking to his family - as evidence he was trying to overturn the result.

And the document says Trump laid the groundwork for challenging the election even before polling day.

It alleges the Republican had been told that the results would not be known on the day that most Americans voted - but that he might have an early edge before rival Democrats benefited from mail-in voting, which took longer to count.

Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, many voters had voted by mail.

Trump allegedly told advisers that he would "simply declare victory before all the ballots were counted and any winner was projected".

The former president's allies were clear on what that meant, according to the filing.

"He's going to declare victory. That doesn't mean he's the winner, he's just going to say he's the winner," a Trump adviser is quoted telling a private gathering of his supporters.

• Trump 'resorted to crimes' to overturn 2020 election
• A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases

2) He thought others' fraud claims were 'crazy'

The filing shows how Trump allegedly carried out his plan to claim victory in several battleground states before votes were fully tallied by spreading false claims of fraud.

Yet he is said to have characterised fraud claims made by some of his allies as unbelievable.

The filing quotes him telling aides that one unnamed lawyer - who appears to be Sidney Powell - was making "crazy" claims, which he likened to sci-fi series Star Trek.

"Nonetheless, the defendant continued to support and publicise" such claims, the document says.

On another occasion, a White House official reportedly told Trump that his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, would not be able to prove his election fraud theories in court.

"The details don't matter," he reportedly replied.

3) Pence repeatedly told Trump to move on

The world has seen the deep rift between Pence and Trump that developed after the election. The filing includes new details on supposedly how their relationship deteriorated.

Mr Smith argues that since they interacted as election running mates, Trump's communication with his vice-president did not count as an official act.

Pence, according to the filing, "gradually and gently" tried to convince Trump to accept the election results, "even if it meant they lost".

As Trump continued spreading false fraud claims and filing legal challenges, Pence reportedly suggested on 12 November a “face-saving option”: "Don’t concede but recognise the process is over."

Days later, he encouraged Trump to accept the loss and run again in four years, to which Trump supposedly responded: "I don’t know, 2024 is so far off."

Eventually, on 1 January 2021, Trump allegedly told Pence that ''hundreds of thousands" of people "are gonna think you're stupid" for wanting to acknowledge their loss.

Less than a week later, Trump supporters called for Pence to be hanged as they stormed the US Capitol building in the 6 January riot, because he planned to sign off on Biden's election win. Pence fled to safety in a parking garage.

The filing says that when Trump was informed Pence might be in danger, he allegedly asked: "So what?"

Reuters/Shannon StapletonSupporters of Trump attacked the US Capitol building on 6 January 2021

4) Campaign staff created 'chaos' during vote count

Mr Smith's team alleges Trump's campaign sowed "chaos" in battleground states that risked triggering violence.

When a large batch of ballots in the Democratic stronghold of Detroit, Michigan, seemed to put Biden ahead, a Trump campaign operative allegedly told his colleague to "find a reason" that something was wrong with them.

The colleague then suggested that could cause unrest.

According to the filing, the operative answered: "Make them riot."

Campaign officials in another swing state, Pennsylvania, allegedly provoked confrontations, which were then used to claim that observers were not given proper legal access to the vote counting.

5) Trump sought to 'exploit' the Capitol riot

The prosecutors allege that Trump incited the 6 January Capitol riot by telling a crowd "many of the same lies he had been telling for months".

In a speech in Washington that morning, Trump "made clear that he expected his supporters to take action", according to the filing.

Mr Smith has made this allegation before, but he now contends that Trump fired up supporters as a political candidate, not president, and the speech was part of a rally.

His team argues that Trump "directed his supporters to go to the Capitol and suggested he would go with them" to provoke further action.

Then, Trump and his allies allegedly sought to "exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol" to try to delay the election certification.

Trump watched the riot unfold on Twitter and Fox News, says the filing, citing information from his phone and former White House staff. He also allegedly used social media to target Pence and repeatedly "refused" advisers' requests to "issue a calming message and make efforts to stop the riot".

We have all heard and read a lot of this, so it is not truly new. It is more some of the salient details that have been fleshed out in Jack Smith's filing — and it is all re-worked so that it conforms to the idiotic Supreme Court who tried to soothe FG. The same chgs. as before with the only changes some of the 'flesh' parts before now dropped.

No wonder FG is ALL-CAPPING himself into oblivion almost over it. Headlines are the over-all sketch, but down below that is the story with all the details that are pointing MOST directly to your guilt. FG had his lawyers sent in briefs over and over to stop this from coming. He will say (has already) that it is only out to subvert his election. Democratic fraud he will say. He didn't do anything and certainly nothing illegal. I refer FG to " O what tangled webs we weave,

when first we practice to deceive".

He is a life-long deceiver and will continue on because he was never gifted to begin with to see the error of his ways. Indeed those ways have kept this bulbous entity afloat for the larger portion of his existence and is not second nature to him but first. If he didn't lie he would just wither back onto the rotten dust ball from where he began. While I detest that we were all forced to the endurance of 4 long years of this total and complete mis-fit, I think if there were any question that anyone could run for high office, that question likely is settled once and for all.

The biggest mistake FG ever made was choosing to run for office, and the second biggest was accepting the office. He could have likely lived out the rest of his admittedly failing and fading life, un-encumbered with lawsuits that could be won. The world was not begging for his head then and seemed for the most part happy if he stayed out of the way. He put himself in the only spotlight that stayed on 24/7 and 365. Now I/we want the head, the body, and everything else. Happiness will be when the platter is sitting before all of us — full and spilling over

Just though I would mention that in my news feed I read a small article that stated, despite the fact that while J.D. Vance , polished debater and liar did look good and got a lot of points, the clear winner is still perceived as Tim Walz.

Well, we all know the major reason for that. Vance at the most telling moment and right before the debate was over, and like the coward he really is, gave his allegiance to FG and not our country. If he's like FG and in so many ways the resemblance is there right now, he won't say he has any debate regrets. Well, Vance you know what is said about haste and leisure.

I'm left wondering why he wasn't prepared for the possibility that he would be asked anytime during the debate a super important question that might have the power of destruction behind it. I'm feeling that it was indeed the best time for that question. Many people, especially the night of the debate saw it as a draw with neither side doing much. Even I thought at the time it could end up that way. But now that one DAMNing non-answer from Vance cancelled out the draw. We did get OUR winner.

Your link is not live.

It’s not highlighted on my screen*. I’ll try to make it live but am having some trouble copy/pasting things on bco.
Ugh, still can’t paste URL’s on this site (though I can copy paste text 🤷🏻‍♀️). Is anyone else seeing an unhighlighted link? If so, can you someone else make it “live”, please? Maybe it’s just me.

* Tried it on different devices too.