Project 2025

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2024, 06:31 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't have a problem with 15 weeks on an elective basis.  In emergency situations later in the process, I still think there needs to be room for options.  

It's too heated of a subject to discuss in a rational way for most.  It would no longer be a the political football that it is currently.  

Cool and yes with medical conditions on mom/baby after first tri-mester. 

Kind of a no-brainer to most of us.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-18-2024, 05:36 PM)pally Wrote: stop deflecting and answer the original question

Like you did in addressing my question and late term, and full term abortions?

What time limit would you place, if any?

What would you want a doctor to do in the case of a botched abortion, where the baby survives?

[Dill]

(06-18-2024, 05:39 PM)samhain Wrote: If this actually managed to get through, then most of the issues being discussed here are hardly the point.

Enhancing one party's power on a more permanent basis through the executive is more or less putting the current power of the EO on steroids.  Executive orders are, at this point, wielded very heavy-handedly by every single president that takes office.  It's probably not a great practice, but it truly has become a case where both sides literally do it.

What makes these changes (EOs) somewhat tolerable is their temporary nature.  If people dislike them enough, they can put another guy in in 4 years to draft a whole new slate of changes that may or may not last beyond that administration.  Presidents have campaign promises to keep and optics to promote, so I get the temporary circumventing of the legislature for instant gratification.   fundamental change to how our government operates.

Some great points here. 

Speaking to the first bolded, it's not clear that the Trump et al. can accomplish these sweeping changes. This goes way beyond EOs to an attempt to literally reshape government institutions from the ground up in ways that make the changes permanent. Think of the varieties of chaos--regulatory, legislative, foreign policy, school policy, immigration, etc.--that would come down on the nation all at once across many different policy areas. Confusion and resistance would be the order of the day. Trump's desired response to the protests generated would further increase resistance. He had adults around him last time around, hemming him. He'll know not to pick them this time around. So I don't think implementation can be successful. Best case scenario (for them) is to get if partially done before resistance in and outside government becomes too much. It's likely that, as a matter of self-preservation, Trump would stop at some point before the Heritage Foundation can declare "mission accomplished."

As to the second bolded, the prominence of EOs has more to do with Congressional gridlock than anything. There comes a point where, in order to govern, presidents must turn to the EO as a stop gap. 

(06-18-2024, 05:39 PM)samhain Wrote: Trying to be as non partisan as possible here, I'll list why I think this is a huge mistake for any administration or party:  There's always a reaction.  Especially in the current climate.  Any attempt to ban abortion federally will be met with fierce opposition at the polls as will any attempt to ban gay marriage.  I don't feel like this is entirely understood by people who keep working against those things, yet oddly I think Trump himself understands the impact well enough.  

The big issue here is the only question you should ever ask when your party wants to enact sweeping change or enhance the power of one executive:  what would the other side do with this power once this precendent is set?  Would each side significantly re-shape the federal government with the election of a new president?  I don't see why they wouldn't.  I also don't see why they wouldn't continue to go even farther as the practiced continued.  One day there's going to be someone in there, with this power, that you don't trust or like.  That guy is now going to be even more powerful.

As I stated above, Project 2025 is not going to be like changing a few EOs. If Trump wins and seeks to implement the Project, I'm betting the counter reaction will be more like traditional conservatism--restore the balance and function of institutions that were hundreds of years in the making. People will be SICK of radical restructuring of all parts of the executive branch all at once. Biden won campaigning for a "return to normalcy"; whoever follows Trump will have an even better case. 

I get your question. It would apply to, say, getting rid of the filibuster or refusing to hold a confirmation of a SCOTUS appointee. But those are really localized disturbances; they don't involve 10s of thousands of people losing their jobs, leaving a vacuum of regulatory oversight and guidance as "true believers" step into government offices deciding what the new rules are with Trump's blessing. 

(06-18-2024, 05:39 PM)samhain Wrote: The executive branch is not intended to be any more or less powerful than the legislative or judicial.  Any back door attempt to throw this out of balance is a fundamental change to how our government operates.

Pretty sure the legislative is intended to be more powerful than the other two branches.  One goal of Project 2025 is undo traditional checks on presidential power. They are reviving the "Unitary Executive" concept, popularized under Bush II by neocons like Cheney. Another step to autocracy if they are successful.

[Dill]

(06-18-2024, 05:36 PM)pally Wrote: stop deflecting and answer the original question

Looks like you are not going to get an answer to the question about late and post term abortion

Just so there is at least some specific reference to the origin of these questions about Dem views up front and visible for discussion, 
I post one source I found: Trump's distortion of Virginia governor Northam's comments on a VA House bill back in 2019.

Politifact explains:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/

The story begins on Jan. 28 when a subcommittee of the Virginia's House of Delegates was considering a Democrat-backed bill that would have loosened the state’s abortion laws in all stages of pregnancy. Much of the debate, however, focused on late-term abortions.

Virginia allows third-trimester abortions in hospitals if three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy would "likely" kill the woman or "substantially and irremediably" harm her mental or physical health. The proposed bill, which was defeated, would have lowered the authorization from three physicians to one. That doctor only would have to certify that the pregnancy would damage a woman’s health. The "substantial and irremediable" threshold would have been repealed.

The bill’s sponsor - Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax - faced tough questioning from Republicans on the third-trimester proposals. Asked if the legislation would allow a woman who is dilating to get an abortion, she said, "My bill would allow that. Yes."

. . . her statement went viral, drawing partisan charges that Democrats were endorsing "infanticide." Democrats accused the GOP of launching a stunt during an election year when all 140 General Assembly seats are on the ballot. Virginia Department of Health records show two third-trimester abortions have been performed in Virginia since 2000, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Northam’s comments

Trump’s lambasting of Northam is based on confusing comments the governor made on Jan. 30 - two days after the hearing - during a radio interview on WTOP in Washington. Northam, an abortion-rights advocate, was asked to explain Tran’s statement.

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved," Northam said. "When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.

"So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he added. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

A number of conservative media outlets and national Republican leaders quickly accused Northam of sanctioning killing babies. Trump predicted Northam's words will "lift up the whole pro-life movement like maybe it's never been lifted up before."...

Our ruling

Trump says Northam "stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world and wrap the baby, and make the baby comfortable, and then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby. Execute the baby."

Northam, a physician, never said he would sanction the execution of newborns. What he did say during a radio interview is that in rare, late-pregnancy cases when fetuses are nonviable, doctors deliver the baby, keep it comfortable, resuscitate it if the mother wishes, and then have a "discussion" with the mother.

The issue is that Northam declines to say what that discussion would entail. Trump puts words in the governor’s mouth, saying doctors would urge the mother to let them forcibly kill the newborn, which is a felony in Virginia punishable by a long prison sentence or death.

Trump misstates and exaggerates Northam’s words in ways that fan division. Often, that’s enough for us to torch someone’s pants. But Northam left himself open to some interpretation by declining to clarify his confusing remarks.

So we rate Trump’s statement False.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-18-2024, 05:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you would not be for a nation-wide Texas-style ban on all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, regardless of age.


The question was, can you link me to some evidence of "far left radicals" who endorse killing babies who survive abortions. Pretty sure I would be against that, but I'd just like to know if that's really a thing. Have radical far leftists managed to get this into law somewhere? 

If it is "up to the state," then which states do this? 


Right now there is good reason to believe that if Trump is elected, his team will do everything in their power to impose Texas-style abortion bans on the nation. Even in vitro fertilization might be outlawed. If I understand you, that would not reflect your views on abortion.

Is there any reason to believe that if Biden is elected, he will work to further what you call the "radical far left" abortion agenda? 

Is the choice between a national ban on abortions and "the insiane idea that full term abortion should be legal"?
Or is the choice between a national ban on abortions and a return to pre-Dobbs reproductive rights for women? 

BTW Apparently the consensus of medical professionals is that abortion pills are safe. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/abortion-pills-are-very-safe-and-effective-yet-government-rules-still-hinder-access/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/01/health/abortion-pill-safety.html
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/medication-abortion-your-questions-answered

I am pro choice, with some restrictions, as previously stated, I think. If not, no worries, but that is my position.

It was kicked back to the states, so I guess it depends on what the voters in the state want.

I am not playing future games at guessing what someone may want, only stating my position and where most Americans align themselves, with abortions within the first 15 weeks.

I agree some abortion pills may be safe, but still will not comment until the exact medications are specified, some the exact side effects and responses can be weighed. To do otherwise is reckless. As we are now seeing with complaints and lawsuits against the covid vaccines.

[Dill]

(06-18-2024, 09:13 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I am pro choice, with some restrictions, as previously stated, I think. If not, no worries, but that is my position.
It was kicked back to the states, so I guess it depends on what the voters in the state want.
I am not playing future games at guessing what someone may want, only stating my position and where most Americans align themselves, with abortions within the first 15 weeks.

Who's "guessing"?  The Project 2025 people have stated their goals to replace the Dept. of HHS with a "Department of Life," which will be focused on ending abortion, Texas style.  Your stated views on abortion do not align with Texas law. Looks like Project 2025 does not represent your views on this matter, or those of the majority.

At this point, there is no state that allows post-birth "abortions" of any sort. Six and DC have no limits. 14 effectively ban abortion; exceptions for the life of the mother, like Texas', have proved very dangerous for the mother. https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court

If Project 2025 is successful, the nation will be Texas.

(06-18-2024, 09:13 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree some abortion pills may be safe, but still will not comment until the exact medications are specified, some the exact side effects and responses can be weighed. To do otherwise is reckless. As we are now seeing with complaints and lawsuits against the covid vaccines.

All that is done in the links I gave you. The waiting is over.  But the issue is how the Project 2025 folks will view abortion pills. Safety concerns are not their motivation for banning them. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2024, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like you are not going to get an answer to the question about late and post term abortion

Just so there is at least some specific reference to the origin of these questions about Dem views up front and visible for discussion, 
I post one source I found: Trump's distortion of Virginia governor Northam's comments on a VA House bill back in 2019.

Kinda like how we will never get an answer out of you about Title IX. Which is actually covered in the Dept of Education part of Project 2025. So I guess you didn't really read it all, so I am actually keeping on Topic. 

They intend to make the Sex part revert back to their Biological Status at birth. 

Now that i have pointed out that I AM ON TOPIC, will you answer the question? 

Which group will you defend? LGBTQ or Women in Women only Athletics? 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-18-2024, 09:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Who's "guessing"?  The Project 2025 people have stated their goals to replace the Dept. of HHS with a "Department of Life," which will be focused on ending abortion, Texas style.  Your stated views on abortion do not align with Texas law. Looks like Project 2025 does not represent your views on this matter, or those of the majority.

At this point, there is no state that allows post-birth "abortions" of any sort. Six and DC have no limits. 14 effectively ban abortion; exceptions for the life of the mother, like Texas', have proved very dangerous for the mother. https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court

If Project 2025 is successful, the nation will be Texas.


All that is done in the links I gave you. The waiting is over.  But the issue is how the Project 2025 folks will view abortion pills. Safety concerns are not their motivation for banning them. 

Why are we going in circles?

I stated my position, and the position of the majority of US citizens, along with my concerns regarding medication without touching on potential issues with shipping it across state lines and mail potentially being compromised.

Sounds like another issue I may not agree with DJT on.

I think you will find that many people who intend to vote for DJT are not lockstep with everything he is about, but are voting for him anyways because DJT is the better of two bad options.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-16-2024, 11:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyway, at some point people should address Project 2025 https://www.project2025.org/policy/ 

The first Trump administration was older pre-Trump GOP politicians who had a little more sanity, some old corrupt cronies of his, and a bunch of people he saw on TV.

If he gets a next one, yikes, what are we going to get? 

I'm not a fan of somebody coming in trying to rule over us with an iron fist and indoctrinate. Cut down on military leadership and take over the schools. FFS.

"Audit all curricula and health policies in DOD schools for
military families, remove all inappropriate materials, and reverse
inappropriate policies."

"Reduce the number of generals. Rank creep is pervasive. The number
of 0-6 to 0-9 officers is at an all-time high across the armed services
(above World War II levels), and the actual battlefield experience of this
officer corps is at an all-time low. The next President should limit the
continued advancement of many of the existing cadre, many of whom
have been advanced by prior Administrations for reasons other than their
warfighting prowess."

[Luvnit2]

I have not read the thread, just Project 2025.

I see liberals creating a plan to attack Democracy if Trump is elected.

The Democrats are planning to disrespect the will of the voters (not accept the results).

As Obama said, elections have consequences. As Biden said, watch me. Well, the voters are and have watched Biden destroy our economy, destroy our borders, destroy our foreign policy by enriching Iran and China. The list goes on and on. In contrast Democrats want voters to believe Trump will totally change course in his 2nd term and use the DOJ to put them in detention camps and pass laws for a nationwide abortion ban. It is ludicrous and only morons believe such rhetoric coming from the left.

It is ludicrous the left is already planning to disrupt a Trump Presidency. The group claiming they are for Democracy, once again proves they are not for it. They are for power and hatred and to control what you think and how you vote. If Biden and Democrats lose in November, accept the results and help unite the country.

I will accept it if Biden or his replacement wins. I will go on with my life and pray for great things for our country.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-16-2024, 11:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyway, at some point people should address Project 2025 https://www.project2025.org/policy/  

(06-19-2024, 10:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The first Trump administration was older pre-Trump GOP politicians who had a little more sanity, some old corrupt cronies of his, and a bunch of people he saw on TV.

If he gets a next one, yikes, what are we going to get? 

I'm not a fan of somebody coming in trying to rule over us with an iron fist and indoctrinate. Cut down on military leadership and take over the schools. FFS.

"Audit all curricula and health policies in DOD schools for
military families, remove all inappropriate materials, and reverse
inappropriate policies."

"Reduce the number of generals. Rank creep is pervasive. The number
of 0-6 to 0-9 officers is at an all-time high across the armed services
(above World War II levels), and the actual battlefield experience of this
officer corps is at an all-time low. The next President should limit the
continued advancement of many of the existing cadre, many of whom
have been advanced by prior Administrations for reasons other than their
warfighting prowess."

Way to address Project 25 with nothing but a bunch of paranoid, hyperbolic rambling. 

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 01:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Way to address Project 25 with nothing but a bunch of paranoid, hyperbolic rambling. 

I think Nati was quoting Project 2025 to suggest why he was worried about cutting down on
military leadership and taking over schools. 

Why is it "paranoid"? Is he making up the quotes? 

In your view, what could Nati, or anyone, do to improve their commentary on the Project?

I'm listening.  A little less emoting? I'd be for that.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-19-2024, 01:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I think Nati was quoting Project 2025 to suggest why he was worried about cutting down on
military leadership and taking over schools. 

Why is it "paranoid"? Is he making up the quotes? 

In your view, what could Nati, or anyone, do to improve their commentary on the Project?

I'm listening.  A little less emoting? I'd be for that.

Quote: The next President should limit the

continued advancement of many of the existing cadre, many of whom
have been advanced by prior Administrations for reasons other than their
warfighting prowess."

Having lived in a State with a high Military population for most of my adult life, I've heard more than one serviceman opine similar sentiments. Just like with a business, being overly top heavy is costly in nature, especially when I keep hearing about enlistment numbers being down. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-19-2024, 01:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Way to address Project 25 with nothing but a bunch of paranoid, hyperbolic rambling. 

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 12:51 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have not read the thread, just Project 2025.
I see liberals creating a plan to attack Democracy if Trump is elected.

I agree "liberals" will attack Trump if elected. But I don't see an attack on democracy coming.

How do you see their plan unfolding? Will Biden call state officials to "find votes" during the vote count?
Will Dem operatives in swing states claim computers were programmed to miscount votes?

(06-19-2024, 12:51 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The Democrats are planning to disrespect the will of the voters (not accept the results).

How will this play out? Will Biden claim the election was rigged and refuse to concede?
I agree that would be a terrible thing to do and a threat to democracy.

(06-19-2024, 12:51 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: As Obama said, elections have consequences. As Biden said, watch me. Well, the voters are and have watched Biden destroy our economy, destroy our borders, destroy our foreign policy by enriching Iran and China. The list goes on and on. In contrast Democrats want voters to believe Trump will totally change course in his 2nd term and use the DOJ to put them in detention camps and pass laws for a nationwide abortion ban. It is ludicrous and only morons believe such rhetoric coming from the left.

You know, it is not "the left" who wants to rename the Dept. of HHS the "Department of Life" and set about banning abortion nationwide. And I think the detention camps will be for the millions of undocumented immigrants Trump wants to round up.

One of us is certainly confused here. If Trump and his Project 2025 friends put their plans on paper to show us all, and you call that "rhetoric coming from the left," how do you know what Trump really wants? Has the Heritage Foundation, with their millions of right wing supporters, misread Trump? 

This makes me wonder if you got it right about the economy and China, etc. 

(06-19-2024, 12:51 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is ludicrous the left is already planning to disrupt a Trump Presidency. The group claiming they are for Democracy, once again proves they are not for it. They are for power and hatred and to control what you think and how you vote. If Biden and Democrats lose in November, accept the results and help unite the country.

I will accept it if Biden or his replacement wins. I will go on with my life and pray for great things for our country.

What indications do you see of planning for disruption? Is the evidence available to others?

Expanding access and leaving elections up to voters rather than, say, state legislators or forged lists of electors, seems a piss poor way to go about controlling how people vote.  

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-19-2024, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree "liberals" will attack Trump if elected. But I don't see an attack on democracy coming.

How do you see their plan unfolding? Will Biden call state officials to "find votes" during the vote count?
Will Dem operatives in swing states claim computers were programmed to miscount votes?



How will this play out? Will Biden claim the election was rigged and refuse to concede?
I agree that would be a terrible thing to do and a threat to democracy.


[quote pid='1487671' dateline='1718812306']
Luvnit2As Obama said, elections have consequences. As Biden said, watch me. Well, the voters are and have watched Biden destroy our economy, destroy our borders, destroy our foreign policy by enriching Iran and China. The list goes on and on. In contrast Democrats want voters to believe Trump will totally change course in his 2nd term and use the DOJ to put them in detention camps and pass laws for a nationwide abortion ban. It is ludicrous and only morons believe such rhetoric coming from the left.

You know, it is not "the left" who wants to rename the Dept. of HHS the "Department of Life" and set about banning abortion nationwide. And I think the detention camps will be for the millions of undocumented immigrants Trump wants to round up.

One of us is certainly confused here. If Trump and his Project 2025 friends put their plans on paper to show us all, and you call that "rhetoric coming from the left," how do you know what Trump really wants? Has the Heritage Foundation, with their millions of right wing supporters, misread Trump? 

This makes me wonder if you got it right about the economy and China, etc. 


What indications do you see of planning for disruption? Is the evidence available to others?

Expanding access and leaving elections up to voters rather than, say, state legislators or forged lists of electors, seems a piss poor way to go about controlling how people vote.  
[/quote]

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 01:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Having lived in a State with a high Military population for most of my adult life, I've heard more than one serviceman opine similar sentiments. Just like with a business, being overly top heavy is costly in nature, especially when I keep hearing about enlistment numbers being down. 

I can agree with that. Though I don't agree that all military advancement must be directly related to "warfighting prowess". 

Some other comments in this section of project are odd, like the claim O6-O9 who have "actual battlefield experience" is at 
an all time low. Seems they could only get that in a war, which we supposedly don't want and don't have at the moment.

Also in Afghanistan, so far as I know, they only let company grade officers lead combat missions.  Colonels only left base
for big meetings with local head men or in Bagram or Kabul. I don't know if they count command of a FOB in a war zone 
to be actual battlefield experience. 

I do have a concern that legitimate trimming might be cover for re-shaping the military according to right wing or even
Christian Nationalist ideology. The Project makes of point using their more direct control of the DOD school system to
select what is "appropriate" for the curriculum. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-19-2024, 02:16 PM)Dill Wrote: I can agree with that. Though I don't agree that all military advancement must be directly related to "warfighting prowess". 

Some other comments in this section of project are odd, like the claim O6-O9 who have "actual battlefield experience" is at 
an all time low. Seems they could only get that in a war, which we supposedly don't want and don't have at the moment.

Also in Afghanistan, so far as I know, they only let company grade officers lead combat missions.  Colonels only left base
for big meetings with local head men or in Bagram or Kabul. I don't know if they count command of a FOB in a war zone 
to be actual battlefield experience.

Commanding troops in combat counts as combat experience.  Once you get to O6 and above you're not going to be directly involved in combat unless something has gone very wrong.

Quote:I do have a concern that legitimate trimming might be cover for re-shaping the military according to right wing or even
Christian Nationalist ideology. The Project makes of point using their more direct control of the DOD school system to
select what is "appropriate" for the curriculum. 

Does you concern extend to a similar thing happening as we speak?

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/06/hundreds-troops-complain-about-woke-racism-extremism-training-cotton-claims/174672/

I realize the issues in the article are not directly substantiated, but I can say from personal experience with guys in the service, or have recently left (lots of my colleagues are/were reservists) that this is a common complaint.  That training on actual military matters is taking a backseat to these types of courses.  Wonder why recruitment levels are so low?  Because no one signs up to join the military to be hammered over the head with this type of crap.

I already know your counter will be this is all anecdotal, which is fair.  But it's also ignoring a very real problem.

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also in Afghanistan, so far as I know, they only let company grade officers lead combat missions.  Colonels only left base

for big meetings with local head men or in Bagram or Kabul. I don't know if they count command of a FOB in a war zone 
to be actual battlefield experience.

Commanding troops in combat counts as combat experience.  Once you get to O6 and above you're not going to be directly involved in combat unless something has gone very wrong.

My question was not whether commanding troops in combat counts as "combat experience." The language used in Project 2025 is "actual battlefield experience."

E.g., a Colonel in charge of a FOB who does not lead combat missions, but directs them from a command center in war zone. Is that "actual battlefield experience"? 

(06-19-2024, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do have a concern that legitimate trimming might be cover for re-shaping the military according to right wing or even

Christian Nationalist ideology. The Project makes of point using their more direct control of the DOD school system to
select what is "appropriate" for the curriculum. 

Does you concern extend to a similar thing happening as we speak?
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/06/hundreds-troops-complain-about-woke-racism-extremism-training-cotton-claims/174672/
I realize the issues in the article are not directly substantiated, but I can say from personal experience with guys in the service, or have recently left (lots of my colleagues are/were reservists) that this is a common complaint.  That training on actual military matters is taking a backseat to these types of courses.  Wonder why recruitment levels are so low?  Because no one signs up to join the military to be hammered over the head with this type of crap.

I already know your counter will be this is all anecdotal, which is fair.  But it's also ignoring a very real problem.

Tom Cotton calls for complaints about "woke training" and gets some. 

According to the most recent study, right wing extremism is not greater among people IN the military than in the general population. Among veterans it's a different story though. https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/extremism-disinformation/2024/01/05/troops-do-not-have-an-extremism-problem-but-veterans-do-study-finds/

Not meeting recruiting goals is "a very real problem."  But it's rather a jump to suppose people are staying out of the military for fear of "woke training" when recruiting is still strongest in red states and weakest in the wokest blue states. There are so many other factors, like high standards for admission, a strong economy, an ever smaller percentage of the population with military parents, etc. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-recruiting-and-confidence-in-americas-armed-forces-is-so-low-right-now

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-19-2024, 06:09 PM)Dill Wrote: My question was not whether commanding troops in combat counts as "combat experience." The language used in Project 2025 is "actual battlefield experience."

E.g., a Colonel in charge of a FOB who does not lead combat missions, but directs them from a command center in war zone. Is that "actual battlefield experience"?

Yes.

Quote:Tom Cotton calls for complaints about "woke training" and gets some. 

According to the most recent study, right wing extremism is not greater among people IN the military than in the general population. Among veterans it's a different story though. https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/extremism-disinformation/2024/01/05/troops-do-not-have-an-extremism-problem-but-veterans-do-study-finds/

Possibly because vets are treated like shit and left to deal with their very real problems on their own.  I've got power of attorney for my father and dealing with the VA makes me want to lose my mind.  I can only imagine how frustrating it is for someone who really needs their assistance.

Quote:Not meeting recruiting goals is "a very real problem."  But it's rather a jump to suppose people are staying out of the military for fear of "woke training" when recruiting is still strongest in red states and weakest in the wokest blue states. There are so many other factors, like high standards for admission, a strong economy, an ever smaller percentage of the population with military parents, etc. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-recruiting-and-confidence-in-americas-armed-forces-is-so-low-right-now

Gee, you mean more conservative leaning areas generate people more willing to risk their lives for this nation?  Whoever would have thunk it?  That's literally always been the case.  The standards for admission are higher than they were in the early 2k's when they were taking everyone.  I think the whole finding gang graffiti in Baghdad and on military equipment kind of soured them on that.  Also, a "strong economy?"  What country have you been living in the past four years?  Also, your link is an interview with a reporter from Vice, a far left garbage rag that makes Fox news look impartial.