Project 2025 Review - Forward

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because it's a far right agenda that lacks a connection with reality.

So nothing in the 922 page document is based on reality? Is there nothing good in it?

It's possible there are a few things in there that aren't completely ridiculous, but that matters little when there is so much that is completely ridiculous.

Because it promotes the idea of "a family with a married father and mother", it's anti-LGBTQ+ and against mothers having boyfriends. And it promotes falsehoods in an attempt to push its agenda.

I agree it is against the LGBTQ+ agenda.

 

[Kathryn]

I can't find any sort of list describing whether or not Trump fired anyone who is now serving at the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Kathryn]

Because it promotes the idea of "a family with a married father and mother", it's anti-LGBTQ+ and against mothers having boyfriends. And it promotes falsehoods in an attempt to push its agenda.

Is it opposed to daddies having girlfriends?

 

[Magic Man]

So nothing in the 922 page document is based on reality? Is there nothing good in it?

Maybe some is, but it's not a good sign when you have to hedge with "nothing in the whole thing is based on reality"? The important sections either lack connection to reality or try to subvert democracy, or both.

I agree it is against the LGBTQ+ agenda.

To be clear, it is anti-LGBTQ+. "The LGBTQ+ agenda" is just to promote an end to discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and equality for them. It would be better not to use that dog whistle term.

 

[Magic Man]

Is it opposed to daddies having girlfriends?

It doesn't mention that. This is what it says:

Working fathers are essential to the well-being and development of their
children, but the United States is experiencing a crisis of fatherlessness that is
ruining our children’s futures. In the overwhelming number of cases, fathers
insulate children from physical and sexual abuse, financial difficulty or poverty,
incarceration, teen pregnancy, poor educational outcomes, high school failure,
and a host of behavioral and psychological problems. By contrast, homes with
non-related “boyfriends” present are among the most dangerous place for a child
to be. HHS should prioritize married father engagement in its messaging, health,
and welfare policies.

In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies
should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by
the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them. In cases involving biological
parents who are found by a court to be unfit because of abuse or neglect, the
process of adoption should be speedy, certain, and supported generously by HHS.

It's peddling baseless tired narratives regarding fathers and married couples. Instead of addressing facts and reality, it targets emotions, as is typical of right-wing arguments these days.

 

[Kathryn]

It doesn't mention that. This is what it says:

Working fathers are essential to the well-being and development of their
children, but the United States is experiencing a crisis of fatherlessness that is
ruining our children’s futures. In the overwhelming number of cases, fathers
insulate children from physical and sexual abuse, financial difficulty or poverty,
incarceration, teen pregnancy, poor educational outcomes, high school failure,
and a host of behavioral and psychological problems. By contrast, homes with
non-related “boyfriends” present are among the most dangerous place for a child
to be. HHS should prioritize married father engagement in its messaging, health,
and welfare policies.

In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies
should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by
the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them. In cases involving biological
parents who are found by a court to be unfit because of abuse or neglect, the
process of adoption should be speedy, certain, and supported generously by HHS.

It's peddling baseless tired narratives regarding fathers and married couples. Instead of addressing facts and reality, it targets emotions, as is typical of right-wing.

Well, I am not for it anyway, but ugh. Thanks for clarifying it. But I am pretty much opposed to anything put out by the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Maybe some is, but it's not a good sign when you have to hedge with "nothing in the whole thing is based on reality"? The important sections either lack connection to reality or try to subvert democracy, or both.

To be clear, it is anti-LGBTQ+. "The LGBTQ+ agenda" is just to promote an end to discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and equality for them. It would be better not to use that dog whistle term.

I am for people doing what they want with their lives as long as they are adults. I don't care.

 

[Magic Man]

I am for people doing what they want with their lives as long as they are adults. I don't care.

Good, then you should be against Project 2025.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not going to read it. (tl;dr) Trump knows nothing about it and that what he knows, he doesn't like, partially. I.e. it is a wish list from a Christian nationalist think tank. It has some relevancy, but it is not going to be on the agenda or likely to become policy. And I don't expect to find something new or even revolutionary in it. If there were anything, someone would have found it already.

Wow! You never see the news, do you? Trump's cronies from his days in office, and supporters since, are all over Project 2025. Trump himself has lavished considerable praise on the Heritage Foundation, and all his choices for judge positions were provided by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Many, many analysts have studied Project 2025 and have written publicly about the dangers they've found. You can find a comprehensive overview on Wikipedia:

Project 2025 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Good, then you should be against Project 2025.

I am against parts of it and I agree with parts of it. If an ideas is a good one it is good no matter who proposes it.

 

[Magic Man]

I am against parts of it and I agree with parts of it. If an ideas is a good one it is good no matter who proposes it.

But since the bad parts are extremely bad and the largest part of it, they heavily outweigh any potential "not bad" parts.

It's a myth that Mussolini "made the trains run on time", but even if it was true, him doing that one thing that was actually good doesn't come close to equaling, much less outweighing, all the bad he did.

 

[Heyo]

Wow! You never see the news, do you? Trump's cronies from his days in office, and supporters since, are all over Project 2025.

Yep, and they've only summarized the same BS they are promoting for years, with a little more emphasis on how to destroy democracy this time.

Trump himself has lavished considerable praise on the Heritage Foundation, and all his choices for judge positions were provided by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Many, many analysts have studied Project 2025 and have written publicly about the dangers they've found.

Good. They have read it, and they have more expertise than I have, so I don't have to read it.

 

[Yerda]

Ooft. Put that right in the bin

 

[sun rise]

This is particularly damning. They are against "reproductive health", and "equity" because they want a dictatorial and all powerful autocracy to control especially women. And that's just a small segment of their odious and unAmerican plan that lies about the First Amendment. This crap is causing me to do something I have never done before since I became eligible to vote in the mid-1960's - give money to a presidential candidate. So in a perverse way I thank them for pushing me into donating to our next president, Kamala Harris.

The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I am not giving a bit of money to either candidate but you do you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is particularly damning. They are against "reproductive health", and "equity" because they want a dictatorial and all powerful autocracy to control especially women. And that's just a small segment of their odious and unAmerican plan that lies about the First Amendment. This crap is causing me to do something I have never done before since I became eligible to vote in the mid-1960's - give money to a presidential candidate. So in a perverse way I thank them for pushing me into donating to our next president, Kamala Harris.

The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

Oh, c'mon! They're just trying to return to Christian Americans their right to gang up on hated minorities, and deprive them of jobs, homes and other comforts they probably wouldn't enjoy, anyway! What could possibly be wrong with that? Rights, after all, should only belong to the deserving -- ask any of them, they'll tell you.


Loose screws...

 

[Argentbear]

So nothing in the 922 page document is based on reality? Is there nothing good in it?

I agree it is against the LGBTQ+ agenda.

what agenda?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

what agenda?

To have the same rights (and obligations) as everybody else. That's asking a lot for the Christian right!

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But since the bad parts are extremely bad and the largest part of it, they heavily outweigh any potential "not bad" parts.

It's a myth that Mussolini "made the trains run on time", but even if it was true, him doing that one thing that was actually good doesn't come close to equaling, much less outweighing, all the bad he did.

I am not saying anyone should accept all of it because some of it is good. We should reject the bad and accept the good. An idea may be good or bad but it does not depend on who promotes that idea. To say feeding hungry children is bad because a rapist promotes that idea is illogical.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

what agenda?

I have no idea. I should have just said it is against LGBTQ+ people in general.