Project 2025 Review - Forward

[Magic Man]

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

I don't know. That's how I determine all of my personal interactions. I'm only friendly with people who can help my career.

 

[fantome profane]

Each idea is independent of another.

They are not, that is the point. These ideas are not independent of each other. You have a choice. Either you are going to support the people behind this project, or you are not.

But the specific idea you have pulled out, I think is very bad idea. You need to provide aid to countries that need aid. Of course you need to consider how the aid is being used and how you can get the aid to where it needs to go. But the idea of only providing aid to counties that have a positive relationship with the U.S. is a spectacularly bad idea, and it is an ever worse idea under a Trump administration.

Under this scheme all a leader of a nation would need to do is say a few nice things about Donald Trump and the money would flow in their direction, regardless of whether or not they need it or how they are going to use it. We know that Trump will do what will benefit Trump. Everything Trump does is transactional.


But this horrifically bad idea is one of the better ones in Project 2025, the rest are even worse.

 

[Spice]

I don't know. That's how I determine all of my personal interactions. I'm only friendly with people who can help my career.

And who will be there for you after retirement, or if the unexpected should happen to end your career prematurely? And don't think for a minute they won't drop you like a hot potato if you stop feeding their need of you.

 

[Magic Man]

And who will be there for you after retirement, or if the unexpected should happen to end your career prematurely? And don't think for a minute they won't drop you like a hot potato if you stop feeding their need of you.

I don't need anyone there for me in retirement, and I'm not worried about anyone dropping me, because I'm the greatest, most awesomest, coolest, most tremendous country God ever created. I don't think this kind of mindset has ever worked out badly for anyone else in history, especially not that Ebenezer Scrooge guy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They are not saying all families are best. Obviously abuse and neglect need to be dealt with. But I do think the family unit should be supported by society, it provides security, support and stability. I read nowhere in the document so far that requires anyone to have a particular type of family.

What do you think society has to do to "support the family unit?" Give them money? Provide free housing for them? They already get tax reductions based on dependents, so perhaps you could take those reductions away from the single parent? Who would that help? What good would it do for anybody?

They are not saying any of this as far as I can tell. They are making general statement that they believe a home with a supportive father is best. There a many families without fathers that do just fine ane we should support as well. Do you think children need a good male role model growing up?

Okay,it's a "general statement," but what do you think government should do to ensure that homes have a supportive father? Arrest the father who wants a divorce (or perhaps the mother who wants one)? Should government have a stash of "available stand-ins" to take over if a father dies?

And interestingly, you don't seem that interested in the single parent family when it's the father who stuck it out. You don't even mention that a "supportive mother" is a key part, and you don't ask whether children need a good female role model growing up.

For myself, I think it is wrong in the deepest possible sense to even suggest that government has any part to play in family life -- period, end of story.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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".

That is not what it said.

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

You have. But ok.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

I don't get the outweighs comment? We can implement what is good and reject what is bad.

"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.

Then where is it in the document? I am not defending tanyting in the document. I just want to know what it actually says.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

This is what all countries do. It is common sense. Why should we treat Iran the same way we treat Canada?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

They are not, that is the point. These ideas are not independent of each other. You have a choice. Either you are going to support the people behind this project, or you are not.

This makes no sense. Sure the ideas are independent of each other at least what I am reading. Why do they need to be implemented 100% or 0%?

But the specific idea you have pulled out, I think is very bad idea. You need to provide aid to countries that need aid. Of course you need to consider how the aid is being used and how you can get the aid to where it needs to go. But the idea of only providing aid to counties that have a positive relationship with the U.S. is a spectacularly bad idea, and it is an ever worse idea under a Trump administration.

Under this scheme all a leader of a nation would need to do is say a few nice things about Donald Trump and the money would flow in their direction, regardless of whether or not they need it or how they are going to use it. We know that Trump will do what will benefit Trump. Everything Trump does is transactional.

This is not exactly what they are saying. What I quoted says nothing about aid.

But this horrifically bad idea is one of the better ones in Project 2025, the rest are even worse.

I have heard, but few people point out why. I agree some are bad ideas.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What do you think society has to do to "support the family unit?" Give them money? Provide free housing for them? They already get tax reductions based on dependents, so perhaps you could take those reductions away from the single parent? Who would that help? What good would it do for anybody?

No one is saying taking money away from single parents. Families with single parents are families too.

Okay,it's a "general statement," but what do you think government should do to ensure that homes have a supportive father? Arrest the father who wants a divorce (or perhaps the mother who wants one)? Should government have a stash of "available stand-ins" to take over if a father dies?

omg really? Jeeze. Why cannot you have a conversation without going to extremes?

And interestingly, you don't seem that interested in the single parent family when it's the father who stuck it out. You don't even mention that a "supportive mother" is a key part, and you don't ask whether children need a good female role model growing up.

Nope, like I said a single parent household is a family. I think they need both, but fatherlessness is a bigger problem than motherlessness.

For myself, I think it is wrong in the deepest possible sense to even suggest that government has any part to play in family life -- period, end of story.

I tend to agree. But the government should not be hostile to it either. Programs to help families stay together, training on finances, training for parenting etc. should be supported and funded by the government to help families thrive if the want the help.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't need anyone there for me in retirement, and I'm not worried about anyone dropping me, because I'm the greatest, most awesomest, coolest, most tremendous country God ever created. I don't think this kind of mindset has ever worked out badly for anyone else in history, especially not that Ebenezer Scrooge guy.

Retirement can last 20 or more years. Ask me how I know. Sheeze.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No one is saying taking money away from single parents. Families with single parents are families too.

omg really? Jeeze. Why cannot you have a conversation without going to extremes?

Nope, like I said a single parent household is a family. I think they need both, but fatherlessness is a bigger problem than motherlessness.

I tend to agree. But the government should not be hostile to it either. Programs to help families stay together, training on finances, training for parenting etc. should be supported and funded by the government to help families thrive if the want the help.

I'm not going to extremes -- I am trying to point out that parties making motherhood statements about which they can actually do little or nothing are fooling their supporters.

And you forgot about me -- I was so screwed up by my own near death twice before I was 7 at the hands of the people who were supposed to love and protect me that I could never fit in any family. Nobody would adopt me, nobody could even foster me for very long, so I wound up as a child in institutions. No family at all, so I guess I don't count.

Fred Trump, Donald's nephew, was in the Oval Office 12 times when Trump was president, advocating for people with complex disabilities (this is from testimony from Fred himself online which you can find if you wish). In May, 2020, after meeting with some of them in the Oval Office, Trump called his nephew back and said to him, "these people, all the expenses -- they should just die."

This was not the only time for Fred. Fred also has a son who is severely disabled, supported by a fund which Donald helped set up and contributed to (so, there's an admission, he can do the right thing sometimes). But when the fund started running low, and Fred called him, Donald said, "your son doesn't know you. Let him die and move down to Florida."

Not only that, but I guess we could say Trump -- leader of the "Party of Family Values" was certainly not an absentee father. Just away from his wife and infant son long enough for a shag with porn star. But I forget myself -- deep hypocrisy isn't a concern, is it?

But if hypocrisy isn't a concern, I really do wonder how anyone can tell when they're telling the truth -- or do they just "take it on faith?" In which case, it doesn't even matter whether they have a platform or not, does it?

 

[Spice]

This is what all countries do. It is common sense. Why should we treat Iran the same way we treat Canada?

To my knowledge we don't treat Iran the same as Canada. I can't even comprehend where this comes from. Are we only friendly with Canada because we get something from them? Or is it because we share goals and mutual respect?

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not going to extremes -- I am trying to point out that parties making motherhood statements about which they can actually do little or nothing are fooling their supporters.

And you forgot about me -- I was so screwed up by my own near death twice before I was 7 at the hands of the people who were supposed to love and protect me that I could never fit in any family. Nobody would adopt me, nobody could even foster me for very long, so I wound up as a child in institutions. No family at all, so I guess I don't count.

Fred Trump, Donald's nephew, was in the Oval Office 12 times when Trump was president, advocating for people with complex disabilities (this is from testimony from Fred himself online which you can find if you wish). In May, 2020, after meeting with some of them in the Oval Office, Trump called his nephew back and said to him, "these people, all the expenses -- they should just die."

This was not the only time for Fred. Fred also has a son who is severely disabled, supported by a fund which Donald helped set up and contributed to (so, there's an admission, he can do the right thing sometimes). But when the fund started running low, and Fred called him, Donald said, "your son doesn't know you. Let him die and move down to Florida."

Not only that, but I guess we could say Trump -- leader of the "Party of Family Values" was certainly not an absentee father. Just away from his wife and infant son long enough for a shag with porn star. But I forget myself -- deep hypocrisy isn't a concern, is it?

But if hypocrisy isn't a concern, I really do wonder how anyone can tell when they're telling the truth -- or do they just "take it on faith?" In which case, it doesn't even matter whether they have a platform or not, does it?

 

[fantome profane]

Are we only friendly with Canada because we get something from them?

Poutine and Justine Bieber.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Poutine and Justine Bieber.

Actually, I'd happily give them both away permanently!

 

[Magic Man]

That is not what it said.

That's exactly what it said. If you can't read between the lines, it would be best to let others help you with it.

You have. But ok.

No, I haven't. Please stop. This is silly. What we're talking about is an entire agenda. You're trying to break it down and parse it, as if it makes sense to judge each individual thing separately, even though it's "Project 2025", as in it's one big agenda, all bundled together. I don't care who propose it, Project 2025 is terrible. Because Project 2025 is terrible, not because some specific person suggested it.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't get the outweighs comment? We can implement what is good and reject what is bad.

No, we can't. This is one big agenda that they're trying to get done. It's fine to say "well, this part isn't bad", but we're talking about an agenda as a whole. You either support it or you don't. So, you either think there's enough good stuff to outweigh all that extremely bad stuff, or you don't.

"I agree they shouldn't ban abortion or remake the government to give Trump the opportunity to destroy democracy or get rid of the Department of Education, but hey, they might slightly change how we interact with foreign countries, so..."

Then where is it in the document? I am not defending tanyting in the document. I just want to know what it actually says.

Either read it or read explanations of it. You've been talking about this for days, and you've spent a lot of time here making comments. If you're really that ignorant of what it says, you can take 15 minutes to educate yourself.

But that's not your goal. Your goal is to support and defend conservatives and their agenda, so it's "well, some of it's good", and "but where does it say that bad stuff? I haven't seen it, even though I've had more than plenty of opportunity to educate myself". Stop with the theatrics. Either educate yourself on what it says and then respond, or stop responding.

 

[Magic Man]

This is what all countries do. It is common sense. Why should we treat Iran the same way we treat Canada?

We shouldn't treat Iran the same as Canada. That's a strawman. No, countries don't say "but what can you do for us". Sometimes countries just do things because they're the right thing to do. I know, shocking to conservatives who have no sense of helping other people just to do the right thing.

That passage isn't about the difference between Iran and Canada. It's about the difference between Ukraine and France, because France can give us a return on investment, where Ukraine can't necessarily. Not "the country directly to our north that is much like us and is our partner in a lot of things" vs. "a hostile country we've never gotten along with because they're anti-West, and we're anti-Muslim".

 

[Magic Man]

Retirement can last 20 or more years. Ask me how I know. Sheeze.

I have no idea what that's supposed to have to do with anything.