Project 2025 Review - Forward

[sun rise]

Like I said I don't agree with all of it , and does it say the establishment of a theocracy?

Say it obvious and out loud. No. But "nudge, nudge, know what I mean, wink, wink" is another matter.

Given the Taliban Christians now trying to shove Christian indoctrination into the schools, the idea is clearly to turn the US into a theocracy not all at once but step-by-step.

 

[Spice]

I'm waiting to see if there is any kind of blow back by Christian Conservative MAGAs when the word gets out more readily, that JD is a newly converted Catholic and that Mrs. Usha Vance is a practicing Hindu. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it doesn't exactly fit in with the big picture that is suppose to be James Donald David Bowman Hamel Vance.

 

[sun rise]

I'm waiting to see if there is any kind of blow back by Christian Conservative MAGAs when the word gets out more readily, that JD is a newly converted Catholic and that Mrs. Usha Vance is a practicing Hindu. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it doesn't exactly fit in with the big picture that is suppose to be James Donald David Bowman Hamel Vance.

It's already happened MAGA makes racist attacks against JD Vance's Wife

 

[Heyo]

Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation. (Page 2)

4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.” (Page 3)

4. Pornography should be made illegal.

Yeah, freedom!

If you don't see the irony/contradiction, I can't help you.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I've read it. It is a manifesto for Christian nationalism. It would eliminate the existing system of checks and balances, centralizing government and placing the presidency at the center of unchecked authority. Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court would be tokens, instruments of whoever is in the White House.

Can you support these claims? This is why I am reading it, I see nothing so far that indicates this is true. Although I am not all that far into it.

 

[Kathryn]

Can you support these claims? This is why I am reading it, I see nothing so far that indicates this is true. Although I am not all that far into it.

Better you than me.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let's just examine one small section: the family.

1. The most important community in each of our lives in the family.

Now, how will government force everyone to be included in a family. For instance, I was taken from a violently abusive family, but because I'd already been traumatized, no other family would adopt me, or could even foster me for long. Should such a child be considered "un-American?" Should the state "appoint" a family for such a child -- and should that be with or without the consent of either the family or the child?

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.

2. Fatherlessness is one of the principle problems of our society.

So if your father dies, or should your mother divorce him because he's boffed every neighbour on your streeet, you should be obliged to get another one? And if not, what action should the state take to ensure that this problem goes away? What if your father is a cruel abuser (as mine was)? Does this count as being a societal good, because at least there's a father?

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?

3. They list some ideas to help the family thrive like eliminating marriage penalties in welfare programs and the tax code and installing work requirements for food stamps. They want to ensure charities and churches have tax exempt status. I agree , however, churches should have the same reporting requirements as all non profit organizations.

Why would you even have welfare programs if you are contemplating work requirements for food stamps? Do you know how hard it is to search for a new job in your field when you have to spend your whole day working, and the rest of it taking care of kids? Do your noble Lords have solutions for these problems, or just hope they'll go quietly away?

And churches are not necessarily charitable (and often quite the opposite). I see no reason whatever that they should be able to hold their collection plates out and gather lots and lots of lovely money, and then not be taxed on it. They are certainly not "non-profit," as several of them profit well enough to provide their execs with fleets of cars and jets. And, after all, the rector, priest, or whoever is working for his living like the rest of us -- and we pay our taxes.

Pastors pay taxes on their incomes. I agree that churches need to have the same reporting requirements as all non profits. Right now they don't and that is how they get away with malfeasance. Many churches do good and taxing them would reduce the resources they have to do good. Most churches are not the megachurches that have million dollar pastors and such. Most are good people trying to do good things for other people.

4. Pornography should be made illegal. They even go as far as saying this:

There are users of pornography who have no other outlet for their needs. There are people who, late in life, have lost a beloved partner, and may be older, unattractive or with disabilities that make looking for a new partner something they just can't bear to do. Porn can help them connect with at least their libido, if not provide the comfort a partner.

In addition, sex workers are workers -- they are earning a living using the talents and attributes they have. I was under the impression that Republicans were massively concerned with "freedom." I think, as you go through much of this document, you will find that what that means is "freedom to do what we want you to do, and to not do what we'd prefer you didn't." And, for the record, that ain't freedom!

Also, I know of no rule that requires anyone to look at pornography, if they are not interested.

I am not for banning pronography. I am for making it harder for minors to access it. But I also acknowledge the negative effects it can have on people like gambling, drugs, etc.

5. Promote parental authority in schools: Schools serve parents,not the other way around (Page 5)

Educators spend years learning their craft. Parents are quite often ignorant of what's really good for kids. Ignorant, bigoted parents can literally suppress any interest in learning in their children. But, hey, what they hell, they should be free to abuse their children thus, right? Just not free to...

No one said they are free to abuse their children. But parents are responsible for their children and get to decide how to raise them and what values they want to teach and helping them learn. The government schools do not get to teach them those things. Most parents are trying to do what is right by their kids and the left constantly uses extreme cases calling us bigoted and stupid like you just did here. They are not your kids, this is why my son is homeschooled now. The schools, even in Texas have become terrible now due to politics.

6. Abortion should be illegal across the country.

And there's that "freedom" thing again. Men in government, trained in how to get elected and often not a lot else, know much better than any woman what is good for her. Admit it -- you really think men should control women's lives.

Oh, and rape quite often creates a fatherless child -- which they insist must be born. And then I suppose it's on that poor kid to go and acquire herself a daddy.

I see no productive comments here. There are women in government that oppose abortion, and no I don't think men should control women. That is a slur and unproductive to the conversation.

Why can't you have a conversation without insulting others?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yeah, freedom!

If you don't see the irony/contradiction, I can't help you.

I never said I support Project 2025 as a whole or any of these ideas. I am just trying to figure out what it actually says.

 

[F1fan]

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.

So I take it youoppose the Trump administration's efforts to separate migrant children from their families, well over a 1000? It's called trafficing. The administration did not keep good records and many children are still unaccounted for.

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?

What measures are there to weed out bad father figures? Or teach men to be good fathers? Does the plan just expect men to be mature and stable? It all sounds superfical and naive.

Pastors pay taxes on their incomes. I agree that churches need to have the same reporting requirements as all non profits. Right now they don't and that is how they get away with malfeasance. Many churches do good and taxing them would reduce the resources they have to do good. Most churches are not the megachurches that have million dollar pastors and such. Most are good people trying to do good things for other people.

Since we can't trust the ethics of many groups, especially conservatives, it would be a good faith effort to require transparency, especially the conservative megachurches who get involved in politics when they shouldn't.

I am not for banning pronography. I am for making it harder for minors to access it. But I also acknowledge the negative effects it can have on people like gambling, drugs, etc.

That should be something the government regulates and parents monitor. Smaller government will be less able to regulate businesses that provide internet access.

No one said they are free to abuse their children. But parents are responsible for their children and get to decide how to raise them and what values they want to teach and helping them learn. The government schools do not get to teach them those things. Most parents are trying to do what is right by their kids and the left constantly uses extreme cases calling us bigoted and stupid like you just did here. They are not your kids, this is why my son is homeschooled now. The schools, even in Texas have become terrible now due to politics.

If only parents were required to go to classes to be optimal parents. The parental rights movement is not a bad idea until it is immature and emotionally unstable parents who want some bad things for their kids. No doubt parents have the right to be bad parents, as long as it isn't abuse.

 

[Altfish]

As has been stated, you have to read between the lines and what is not said is equally important.
I don't remember the previous Trump presidency saying they would scrap Roe v Wade by loading the Supreme Court

 

[anna.]

Detailed policy recommendations which includes increasing taxes on the poor while cutting them for the wealthy so they can build bigger yachts.


Ultimately, the right and especially Trump believes that the wealthy should rule because they are special being wealthy in a classic case of psychological projection by the authoritarian right that seeks to emulate Xi, Putin and Kim Jong Un.

Speaking about the rule of the wealthy Christian conservatives (like the family who runs Hobby Lobby):

Inside Ziklag, the Secret Organization of Wealthy Christians Trying to Sway the Election and Change the Country

The little-known charity is backed by famous conservative donors, including the families behind Hobby Lobby and Uline. It’s spending millions to make a big political push for this election — but it may be violating the law.

www.propublica.org

ProPublica and Documented obtained thousands of Ziklag’s members-only email newsletters, internal videos, strategy documents and fundraising pitches, none of which has been previously made public. They reveal the group’s 2024 plans and its long-term goal to underpin every major sphere of influence in American society with Christianity. In the Bible, the city of Ziklag was where David and his soldiers found refuge during their war with King Saul.​

​

“We are in a spiritual battle and locked in a terrible conflict with the powers of darkness,” says a strategy document that lays out Ziklag’s 30-year vision to “redirect the trajectory of American culture toward Christ by bringing back Biblical structure, order and truth to our Nation.”​

​

Ziklag’s 2024 agenda reads like the work of a political organization. It plans to pour money into mobilizing voters in Arizona who are “sympathetic to Republicans” in order to secure “10,640 additional unique votes” — almost the exact margin of President Joe Biden’s win there in 2020. The group also intends to use controversial AI software to enable mass challenges to the eligibility of hundreds of thousands of voters in competitive states.​

​

In a recording of a 2023 internal strategy discussion, a Ziklag official stressed that the objective was the same in other swing states. “The goal is to win,” the official said. “If 75,000 people wins the White House, then how do we get 150,000 people so we make sure we win?”​

​

According to the Ziklag files, the group has divided its 2024 activities into three different operations targeting voters in battleground states: Checkmate, focused on funding so-called election integrity groups; Steeplechase, concentrated on using churches and pastors to get out the vote; and Watchtower, aimed at galvanizing voters around the issues of “parental rights” and opposition to transgender rights and policies supporting health care for trans people.​

​

In a member briefing video, one of Ziklag’s spiritual advisers outlined a plan to “deliver swing states” by using an anti-transgender message to motivate conservative voters who are exhausted with Trump.​

​

But Ziklag is not a political organization: It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity, the same legal designation as the United Way or Boys and Girls Club. Such organizations do not have to publicly disclose their funders, and donations are tax deductible. In exchange, they are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office,” according to the IRS.​

​

 

[Heyo]

I never said I support Project 2025 as a whole or any of these ideas. I am just trying to figure out what it actually says.

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.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So I take it youoppose the Trump administration's efforts to separate migrant children from their families, well over a 1000? It's called trafficing. The administration did not keep good records and many children are still unaccounted for.

Yes

What measures are there to weed out bad father figures? Or teach men to be good fathers? Does the plan just expect men to be mature and stable? It all sounds superfical and naive.

No one is talking about weeding out bad fathers or installing good fathers. We will see what their plan is.

Since we can't trust the ethics of many groups, especially conservatives, it would be a good faith effort to require transparency, especially the conservative megachurches who get involved in politics when they shouldn't.

I agree with all non profits being treated the same.

That should be something the government regulates and parents monitor. Smaller government will be less able to regulate businesses that provide internet access.

I agree that it is on the parents to regulate, however it would be nice to have some help.

If only parents were required to go to classes to be optimal parents. The parental rights movement is not a bad idea until it is immature and emotionally unstable parents who want some bad things for their kids. No doubt parents have the right to be bad parents, as long as it isn't abuse.

I support programs to help parents do better. Most parents try to do good and of course abuse needs to be dealt with.

 

[Argentbear]

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.

Page 451 “Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society.”

"policies enacted under President Biden that focus on “LGBTQ+ equity should be repealed,”

The authors want federal grants to be provided for “state-level high school education… on healthy marriages.” They also want to require that federally-funded family planning clinics “provide information to customers about the importance of marriage to family and personal well-being.” A healthy marriage and family is a stable, married, nuclear family..”
Project 2025 argues the recipients of these funds should include religious institutions that only recognize heterosexual marriages.



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?

Pastors pay taxes on their incomes. I agree that churches need to have the same reporting requirements as all non profits. Right now they don't and that is how they get away with malfeasance. Many churches do good and taxing them would reduce the resources they have to do good. Most churches are not the megachurches that have million dollar pastors and such. Most are good people trying to do good things for other people.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Page 451 “Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society.”

"policies enacted under President Biden that focus on “LGBTQ+ equity should be repealed,”

The authors want federal grants to be provided for “state-level high school education… on healthy marriages.” They also want to require that federally-funded family planning clinics “provide information to customers about the importance of marriage to family and personal well-being.” A healthy marriage and family is a stable, married, nuclear family..”
Project 2025 argues the recipients of these funds should include religious institutions that only recognize heterosexual marriages.

This is the entire section on page 151, where does it say want grants to be provided for state level education? or that grants are only for institution that only recognize heterosexual marriages?

Goal #3: Promoting Stable and Flourishing Married Families. Families
comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of
a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and
programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing
on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and
penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies
that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.

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.

 

[Magic Man]

This is the entire section on page 151, where does it say want grants to be provided for state level education? or that grants are only for institution that only recognize heterosexual marriages?

Goal #3: Promoting Stable and Flourishing Married Families. Families
comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of
a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and
programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing
on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and
penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies
that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.

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.

If this isn't enough to make you adamantly against Project 2025, it's a lost cause.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If this isn't enough to make you adamantly against Project 2025, it's a lost cause.

Why do we have to be for or against all of it? I will probably find things I agree with and things I disagree with. Why are you against what is proposed in this section?

 

[Argentbear]

This is the entire section on page 151, where does it say want grants to be provided for state level education? or that grants are only for institution that only recognize heterosexual marriages?

Goal #3: Promoting Stable and Flourishing Married Families. Families
comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of
a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and
programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing
on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and
penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies
that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.

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.

Page 481 "program grants should be available to faith-based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman."

 

[Magic Man]

Why do we have to be for or against all of it?

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

I will probably find things I agree with and things I disagree with.

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.

Why are you against what is proposed in this section?

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.

 

[Spice]

Can you support these claims? This is why I am reading it, I see nothing so far that indicates this is true. Although I am not all that far into it.

Try pages 477 - 479:

Unfortunately, many of the faithbased adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father. HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation61 that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children........
Child support in the United States should strengthen marriage as the norm, restore broken homes, and encourage unmarried couples to commit to marriage.

And beyond:
Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) Program. The HMRE program is part of the ACF Office of Family Assistance. The following policies should be implemented.

Keep reading...