Project 2025 Review - Forward

[Magic Man]

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.

But there aren't any good ideas, only some not-that-bad ones. This isn't a case of "not feeding hungry children", and it's not a case of opposing something because of who said it. It's a case of an agenda that includes many things.

And you either support Project 2025, or you reject it. You can point out some specifics that you might support, if you want, but in this case, it's all or nothing.

 

[crossfire]

Read chapter 14 Dept of Health & Human Services. In mentions abortion 140 times in 54 pages, starting out with "Abortion is not health care," and then goes on for most of the 54 pages about using the Dept of Health & Human Services to try to attack abortion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But there aren't any good ideas, only some not-that-bad ones. This isn't a case of "not feeding hungry children", and it's not a case of opposing something because of who said it. It's a case of an agenda that includes many things.

And you either support Project 2025, or you reject it. You can point out some specifics that you might support, if you want, but in this case, it's all or nothing.

How about this? This seems like a good idea?

Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal
resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are
unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration
should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually
beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the
State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American
engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a
baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has lessthan-
fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and
to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How about this? This seems like a good idea?

Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal
resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are
unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration
should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually
beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the
State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American
engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a
baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has lessthan-
fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and
to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise.

Okay, but how do you rate it overall, the full package of all proposals?
If all were implemented, how would you fell about that?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Okay, but how do you rate it overall, the full package of all proposals?
If all were implemented, how would you fell about that?

I have not read it all. My sense so far is it has good and bad things in it.

 

[Heyo]

I have not read it all. My sense so far is it has good and bad things in it.

Let's talk about the good things, as nobody else seems to do. All the political commentators I've heard condemn the project wholesale, but they are on the left. Right wing commentators seem to be suspiciously silent when it comes to defend the "good things".

 

[Argentbear]

How about this? This seems like a good idea?

Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal
resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are
unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration
should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually
beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the
State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American
engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a
baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has lessthan-
fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and
to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise.

what constitutes a mutually beneficial relationship?
Would that include an oil rich country that engages in massive violations of human rights?

 

[Magic Man]

How about this? This seems like a good idea?

Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal
resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are
unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration
should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually
beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the
State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American
engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a
baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has lessthan-
fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and
to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise.

No. And even if it did, again, it doesn't come close to outweighing the bad.

 

[Magic Man]

I have not read it all. My sense so far is it has good and bad things in it.

Which good things do you think outweigh the effort to end abortion, including abortion drugs, remake the government to the point that Trump could appoint civil servants at all levels who will be loyal to him, giving him enough control to overturn an election (the control he lacked the last time when he tried it), ending all efforts against climate change, and disbanding the Dept. of Education?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Last edited by...Esowteric!

 

[Spice]

How about this? This seems like a good idea?

Build a coalition of the cooperative. Rather than thinning limited federal
resources by spreading funds across all countries (including some that are
unsupportive or even hostile to the United States,) the next Administration
should focus on those countries with which the U.S. can expect a mutually
beneficial relationship. After being designated focus countries by the
State Department, such nations should receive a full suite of American
engagement. That said, the next Administration should still maintain a
baseline level of contact even with those countries with which it has lessthan-
fruitful relationships in order to encourage positive developments and
to be in position to seize unexpected diplomatic opportunities as they arise.

Please expand -- I mean we're members of the UN, we're members of NATO, we attend many, many G-Summits, so what is "this" co-op directive?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

what constitutes a mutually beneficial relationship?
Would that include an oil rich country that engages in massive violations of human rights?

So you can read into it all you want and then decide not to like it. But what is actually says is we should support financially countries that benefit the US and stay in contact with all countries to try to encourage positive relationships in the future.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No. And even if it did, again, it doesn't come close to outweighing the bad.

Why is it not a good idea? Again, an idea is not good or bad based on who proposes it.

 

[Argentbear]

So you can read into it all you want and then decide not to like it. But what is actually says is we should support financially countries that benefit the US and stay in contact with all countries to try to encourage positive relationships in the future.

we already support many of the worlds worst abusers of human rights.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Which good things do you think outweigh the effort to end abortion, including abortion drugs, remake the government to the point that Trump could appoint civil servants at all levels who will be loyal to him, giving him enough control to overturn an election (the control he lacked the last time when he tried it), ending all efforts against climate change, and disbanding the Dept. of Education?

Each idea is independent of another. I am not saying to implement it all or nothing. I am saying some things I agree with and some things I disagree with. And, all I hear is claims like yours so that is why I am reading it.

 

[Magic Man]

Why is it not a good idea?

Mostly because it's very vague, but also because it's basically saying we should only cultivate relationships with other countries that give us a big enough "return on investment", meaning "let's stop helping countries like Ukraine".

Again, an idea is not good or bad based on who proposes it.

Again, stop saying this. No one has said an idea is good or bad based on who is proposing it.

 

[Magic Man]

Each idea is independent of another. I am not saying to implement it all or nothing. I am saying some things I agree with and some things I disagree with.

That's great. Now, what in Project 2025 do you see that outweighs those things I mentioned.

And, all I hear is claims like yours so that is why I am reading it.

"Claims like mine"? You mean, pointing out the stuff that's in Project 2025? You're welcome to read it, but you'll be disappointed to find out that these aren't "claims", they're stuff in the agenda.

 

[Spice]

So you can read into it all you want and then decide not to like it. But what is actually says is we should support financially countries that benefit the US and stay in contact with all countries to try to encourage positive relationships in the future.

Encouraging friendly relationships is fantastic. Determining who those friends are by what they can do for the US, as the top priority, is not. We are distrusted enough as it is.

 

[Magic Man]

Encouraging friendly relationships is fantastic. Determining who those friends are by what they can do for the US, as the top priority, is not. We are distrusted enough as it is.

You don't like the idea of us determining foreign policy by always saying "But what can you do for us?"

 

[Spice]

You don't like the idea of us determining foreign policy by always saying "But what can you do for us?"

No. Those are sunny day friendships. Those kinds of friends are known to flip without hesitation when it starts to cloud up.