Project 2025

[Dill]

(06-17-2024, 08:04 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: If I recall correctly, the centrist, majority opinion, is abortion with a term limit, such as not beyond 15 weeks.
The issue is radicals endorsing full term abortions and killing the child in the case of a botched abortion where the baby survives.
The majority option is not 100% pro-life, or 100% pro-choice, but an amalgam in the middle.
Whichever side is painting it differently is wrong.
Such as you in this instance.
Keep being you.

I am "painting it" according to the most recent 2024 Gallup Poll which shows that 54% of Americans identify as pro-choice and only 41% pro life. (the previously cited 55% was from a different poll). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
Many people who identify as pro-life also think abortion should still be legal.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/14/opinion/focus-group-pro-life-supporters.html

Since the issue is whether Project 2025 signals a minority imposing its will on the majority, two questions: 

1)  Looks to me like Project 2025 is about criminalizing all abortion, not protecting some amalgam majority from "radicals." But can you offer links or some evidence of whom the "radicals" are, especially those who endorse killing a baby who survives a botched abortion? That sounds a bit like previous Sharia and CRT panics. 

2) A majority of Americans also believe that medication abortion should be legal in their state. 
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/11/by-more-than-two-to-one-americans-say-medication-abortion-should-be-legal-in-their-state/

Regarding your "amalgam in the middle," how many do you suppose would go along with a national ban on distributing "Abortion pills" through the mail, as appears to be the intent announced on page 562 of chap 17, Project 2025? 

  Announcing a Campaign to Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail. Federal law prohibits mailing “[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”75 Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is now no federal prohibition on the enforcement of this statute. The Department of Justice in the next conservative Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-17.pdf

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-18-2024, 01:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I am "painting it" according to the most recent 2024 Gallup Poll which shows that 54% of Americans identify as pro-choice and only 41% pro life. (the previously cited 55% was from a different poll). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
Many people who identify as pro-life also think abortion should still be legal.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/14/opinion/focus-group-pro-life-supporters.html


Since the issue is whether Project 2025 signals a minority imposing its will on the majority, two questions: 


1)  Looks to me like Project 2025 is about criminalizing all abortion, not protecting some amalgam majority from "radicals." But can you offer links or some evidence of whom the "radicals" are, especially those who endorse killing a baby who survives a botched abortion? That sounds a bit like previous Sharia and CRT panics. 

2) A majority of Americans also believe that medication abortion should be legal in their state. 
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/11/by-more-than-two-to-one-americans-say-medication-abortion-should-be-legal-in-their-state/

Regarding your "amalgam in the middle," how many do you suppose would go along with a national ban on distributing "Abortion pills" through the mail, as appears to be the intent announced on page 562 of chap 17, Project 2025? 

  Announcing a Campaign to Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail. Federal law prohibits mailing “[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”75 Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is now no federal prohibition on the enforcement of this statute. The Department of Justice in the next conservative Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-17.pdf

That's the problem with all or nothing positions, they allow for no compromise so your opposition is rather forced into an equally strong position.  As pointed out the majority of people who are pro-choice support limits based on time from conception.  I would even venture that some pro-life people would be in favor of such a compromise.  This being the case, why do Dems fight so vigorously against any restrictions, even going to far as to not commit to third trimester elective abortion bans?

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-18-2024, 01:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I am "painting it" according to the most recent 2024 Gallup Poll which shows that 54% of Americans identify as pro-choice and only 41% pro life. (the previously cited 55% was from a different poll). https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
Many people who identify as pro-life also think abortion should still be legal.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/14/opinion/focus-group-pro-life-supporters.html


Since the issue is whether Project 2025 signals a minority imposing its will on the majority, two questions: 


1)  Looks to me like Project 2025 is about criminalizing all abortion, not protecting some amalgam majority from "radicals." But can you offer links or some evidence of whom the "radicals" are, especially those who endorse killing a baby who survives a botched abortion? That sounds a bit like previous Sharia and CRT panics. 

2) A majority of Americans also believe that medication abortion should be legal in their state. 
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/11/by-more-than-two-to-one-americans-say-medication-abortion-should-be-legal-in-their-state/

Regarding your "amalgam in the middle," how many do you suppose would go along with a national ban on distributing "Abortion pills" through the mail, as appears to be the intent announced on page 562 of chap 17, Project 2025? 

  Announcing a Campaign to Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail. Federal law prohibits mailing “[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”75 Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is now no federal prohibition on the enforcement of this statute. The Department of Justice in the next conservative Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-17.pdf

Most (66%) support a three month limit for abortions, which is a vast majority of abortions. I believe that is a reasonable line to draw.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1171863775/poll-americans-want-abortion-restrictions-but-not-as-far-as-red-states-are-going

The issue many have is with the far left radicals who want no limit on abortions and will not answer questions directly when ask regarding such, as they know howfar that is off the reservation.

1. It is currently up to the state. I support abortions up to a point, as most do, in accordance with where they likely think it is more a baby than a clump of cells.

2. I am not against abortion. I am against the insane idea that full term abortion should be legal, or legal under all circumstance, which is a vast minority, or at least it should be.

Banning abortion pills? Depends on the access, assessment, and potential damage done by sending the pills out versus not doing so. I have not read up on the pill and potential side effects, so I will hold back from putting an opinion out on that, as I am not educated on the medicine and overall effects.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2024, 12:22 PM)Dill Wrote: First off, I have a problem with the way you deploy demographic categories monolithically, as if gender and sexuality are reliable guides to voters' beliefs.

All LGBTQ aren't liberal voting Democrats, just as all the rest of the population isn't Republican. 

E.g., 71% of Americans believe that gay marriage should be legal. That's a clear majority, not a tiny minority imposing its will on the nation.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx

Not in the beginning, in the beginning it was only a small minority that pushed and pushed til most people were indifferent.

(06-18-2024, 12:22 PM)Dill Wrote: And I'm not sure what Biden just did again. You need to link me to your news sources, to see how they frame whatever issue you reference.
Tack your answer back towards discussion of Project 2025 if you can. Will it save us from trans dressing rooms or whatever? 

Answering my question with another question, and now You of all people want to claim the "Let's Stay on topic" card?

(06-18-2024, 12:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Well on the Butker thread you asked me a seemingly collegial question about my marriage, only to leverage the answer into an attack on my character.

So expect me to vet your questions more carefully in the future. 

LOL I knew you couldn't answer that one. It's a no win for you.

If you chose the women, then you are not for Equal rights for all, if you chose the men over the women, then you are no better than Harrison Butker. 

And you are the one that has put yourself into this position. It's not always possible to have equal rights all the way around, sometimes you have to draw lines.

There's a reason why Men and Women have their own classes of sports. But go ahead avoid the Subject, I'm 90% certain you will chose the Men over the Women. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-18-2024, 12:15 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Are you having to beat off multiple LGBTQ dudes daily just to maintain your heterosexuality?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-18-2024, 04:12 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote:

[SunsetBengal]

(06-18-2024, 12:15 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:  Are you having to beat off multiple LGBTQ dudes daily? 

Stewey Giffin approves this message!

[Dill]

(06-18-2024, 04:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not in the beginning, in the beginning it was only a small minority that pushed and pushed til most people were indifferent.

??? So you agree a majority of Americans do favor gay marriage?  Are you saying that most people are just "indifferent" and not
really behind civil rights for gays?  Or should not be? You said you were more open-minded than I am. Should LGBTQ citizens have equal rights? 

(06-18-2024, 04:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And I'm not sure what Biden just did again. You need to link me to your news sources, to see how they frame whatever issue you reference.
Tack your answer back towards discussion of Project 2025 if you can. Will it save us from trans dressing rooms or whatever? 

Answering my question with another question, and now You of all people want to claim the "Let's Stay on topic" card?. 

Yes. I don't know what "Biden just did," so I am asking another question--what are your referring to, specifically? Whence comes your info?
How's that a dodge or off topic? Why style that a problem if you really want your initial question answered?

(06-18-2024, 04:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well on the Butker thread you asked me a seemingly collegial question about my marriage, only to leverage the answer into an attack on my character.
So expect me to vet your questions more carefully in the future. 

LOL I knew you couldn't answer that one. It's a no win for you.
If you chose the women, then you are not for Equal rights for all, if you chose the men over the women, then you are no better than Harrison Butker. 
And you are the one that has put yourself into this position. It's not always possible to have equal rights all the way around, sometimes you have to draw lines.
There's a reason why Men and Women have their own classes of sports. But go ahead avoid the Subject, I'm 90% certain you will chose the Men over the Women. 

I'm referring to your claim that I left "honor and obey" in my marriage vows. I said I did not remember. You said I did. 
I don't recall any point during our discussion on that thread where I had to choose between men and women's rights. 
So no idea what you think I'm "avoiding" here. And on that thread I kept referring you back to Butker's original words
--the "ladies," not the men, have been fed "diabolical lies." You called it my "perception" that he meant women, not "people" in general.

Just as on this thread I try to direct you back to the text of Project 2025.

(06-18-2024, 04:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If you chose the women, then you are not for Equal rights for all, if you chose the men over the women, then you are no better than Harrison Butker. 

So you agree that Butker is not for equal rights for women? 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-18-2024, 12:15 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Oh how terrible. Tell me more about Biden forcing his LGBTQ beliefs on you. It must be a massive burden on your everyday life considering your concern. Is your neighborhood or workplace under assault? Are you having to beat off multiple LGBTQ dudes daily just to maintain your heterosexuality? Or is it something like Buttigieg driving around shooting rainbow lasers and if you get hit it’s instant gay drag queen? I’m sure it has been terrifying navigating through the frontlines of the right wing culture wars.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2024, 10:33 AM)pally Wrote: show me where anyone on the left has proposed anything close to what you claim?

So do you agree with a ban after the first tri-mester? (barring medical issues ofc).

[Dill]

(06-18-2024, 03:39 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Most (66%) support a three month limit for abortions, which is a vast majority of abortions. I believe that is a reasonable line to draw.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1171863775/poll-americans-want-abortion-restrictions-but-not-as-far-as-red-states-are-going

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.

(06-18-2024, 03:39 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Since the issue is whether Project 2025 signals a minority imposing its will on the majority, two questions: 
1)  Looks to me like Project 2025 is about criminalizing all abortion, not protecting some amalgam majority from "radicals." But can you offer links or some evidence of whom the "radicals" are, especially those who endorse killing a baby who survives a botched abortion? That sounds a bit like previous Sharia and CRT panics. 

The issue many have is with the far left radicals who want no limit on abortions and will not answer questions directly when ask regarding such, as they know howfar that is off the reservation.

1. It is currently up to the state. I support abortions up to a point, as most do, in accordance with where they likely think it is more a baby than a clump of cells.

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? 

(06-18-2024, 03:39 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Regarding your "amalgam in the middle," how many do you suppose would go along with a national ban on distributing "Abortion pills" through the mail, as appears to be the intent announced on page 562 of chap 17, Project 2025? 

2. I am not against abortion. I am against the insane idea that full term abortion should be legal, or legal under all circumstance, which is a vast minority, or at least it should be.
Banning abortion pills? Depends on the access, assessment, and potential damage done by sending the pills out versus not doing so. I have not read up on the pill and potential side effects, so I will hold back from putting an opinion out on that, as I am not educated on the medicine and overall effects.

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

[*pally*]

(06-18-2024, 05:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So do you agree with a ban after the first tri-mester? (barring medical issues ofc).

stop deflecting and answer the original question

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

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

This statement coming from you is hilarious.  

[samhain]

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.

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.

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.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2024, 04:50 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? So you agree a majority of Americans do favor gay marriage?  Are you saying that most people are just "indifferent" and not
really behind civil rights for gays?  Or should not be? You said you were more open-minded than I am. Should LGBTQ citizens have equal rights? 


Yes. I don't know what "Biden just did," so I am asking another question--what are your referring to, specifically? Whence comes your info?
How's that a dodge or off topic? Why style that a problem if you really want your initial question answered?


I'm referring to your claim that I left "honor and obey" in my marriage vows. I said I did not remember. You said I did. 
I don't recall any point during our discussion on that thread where I had to choose between men and women's rights. 
So no idea what you think I'm "avoiding" here. And on that thread I kept referring you back to Butker's original words
--the "ladies," not the men, have been fed "diabolical lies." You called it my "perception" that he meant women, not "people" in general.

Interesting how you were quick about Butker's Speech, but now you have no idea what Title IX is that Biden just tried to push thru that's all over the news. 
Pretty sure i made a post in here about it already Title IX. But I'll give you a link this time so you can't bring it up again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/us/politics/new-title-ix-rules-blocked.html

The LGBTQ are Protected, but there has to be some limits. Those limits come in the form of Protecting other Classes rights. 

I know exactly what i said, If it's not true, then why so much guilt about defending yourself? 

(06-18-2024, 04:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Just as on this thread I try to direct you back to the text of Project 2025.

It's annoying as hell isn't when someone won't stay on topic by bringing up non-related issues in the current thread?  Almost as bad as people that can't answer a direct question.

(06-18-2024, 04:50 PM)Dill Wrote: So you agree that Butker is not for equal rights for women? 

We've already covered this, that's YOUR perception. Mine is different.


But in regards to allowing Men to into the women's lockers rooms and competing against women in women only sports. 
Are you going to defend the biological women's rights or chose to defend the Men over the Women when it comes to Women Only ATHLETICS? 
I'm being very clear and specific so there isn't any need for you to ask questions. Give you stance and own it. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-18-2024, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement coming from you is hilarious.  

What's saddest is i have brought up the compromise before in several of these Abortion threads, and usually none of them agree but it's a thread killer when i do bring it up, or the Subject gets rapidly changed.

I'm just curious if any of our Left leaning posters have actually agreed to the No Abortions after the first Tri-Mester (Hollerdo doesn't count, he's the only Left leaning poster I can recall that's in favor of the compromise). 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-18-2024, 06:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What's saddest is i have brought up the compromise before in several of these Abortion threads, and usually none of them agree but it's a thread killer when i do bring it up, or the Subject gets rapidly changed.

I'm just curious if any of our Left leaning posters have actually agreed to the No Abortions after the first Tri-Mester (Hollerdo doesn't count, he's the only Left leaning poster I can recall that's in favor of the compromise). 

Hollo is of that opinion because the three month elective abortion cut off is pretty much the standard in the Western world.  The US was a very radical outlier in this regard, on par only with China's laws on this subject.  The reason it's a conversation ender is because they know how radical the left wing position on abortion tends to be.  It's why you won't see a single Dem of prominence stating that elective abortions in the third trimester should be illegal, always parroting the "that's a conversation between a woman and her doctor" line.  I'm very pro-choice, but an elective abortion on a viable fetus is a monstrous act.  

[samhain]

(06-18-2024, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hollo is of that opinion because the three month elective abortion cut off is pretty much the standard in the Western world.  The US was a very radical outlier in this regard, on par only with China's laws on this subject.  The reason it's a conversation ender is because they know how radical the left wing position on abortion tends to be.  It's why you won't see a single Dem of prominence stating that elective abortions in the third trimester should be illegal, always parroting the "that's a conversation between a woman and her doctor" line.  I'm very pro-choice, but an elective abortion on a viable fetus is a monstrous act.  

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.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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.

That's because you're a rational person and I agree.  I used the term elective specifically for that very reason.  Medical reasons should always be allowable.  

Quote: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.  

I don't have a lot of sympathy for an adult who can't have a rational discussion on any topic.  One of my bests friends is like that though, at a mutual friend's bachelor party weekend he literally blew up at a guy there because the dude hated AOC.

[samhain]

(06-18-2024, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's because you're a rational person and I agree.  I used the term elective specifically for that very reason.  Medical reasons should always be allowable.  



I don't have a lot of sympathy for an adult who can't have a rational discussion on any topic.  One of my bests friends is like that though, at a mutual friend's bachelor party weekend he literally blew up at a guy there because the dude hated AOC.

Maybe.  

Many political conversations are a giant waste of time.  You can see how they are going to go before it gets heated.  If you can, it's best to avoid it if you want to remain on cordial terms.  

It's kind of odd that people just can't resist engaging in them, particularly at events like the one you just mentioned.  It will be unimaginable in 10 years that we once lived in a society in which we weren't constantly made aware of the political opinions of basically everyone.