Project 2025

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 07:20 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: 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.

Why indeed?  You were given access to the medical consensus on medication abortion. Now the problem is "compromised mail"? 
Is that a problem with any other medication? If you keep saying you need to see evidence, get it, and your concerns continue with additions,
that's only a "circle" because evidence is ignored or discounted.

On the Butker thread you positioned yourself as a centrist with all those Americans who don't like extremism of EITHER "left" OR right. 
Similarly, on this thread, post #26 you positioned yourself as a centrist, but flagged only "left" extremism as "the issue."

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.

And positioned me as "painting it differently" and "wrong." 

Trying to get credible evidence of the bolded resulted in a kind of circle. Pally couldn't. I couldn't. You did say the abortion question had been left up to the states, as if there are states somewhere where babies who survive an abortion are killed.   I had to produce the evidence myself, in the form of a crazy Trump speech. I.e., you've produced no evidence there is some national "far left" extremist threat to impose full term abortions and botched abortion infanticide at the on the entire U.S. which should be an "issue" for voters comparable to Project 2025. That "issue" only exists in right wing rhetoric.

But I did produce evidence of a far right plan to impose Texas-style ban on the nation, online and public, one which should qualify as "extremist" given your understanding of an "amalgam" comfortable with abortion during the first trimester.  If you were really right there in the middle rejecting "extremism" from both ends of the political spectrum, why would you reject Trump's imaginary "leftist" botched abortion infanticide threat, but make your peace with an extremist right threat to outlaw abortion, even abortion medication? Why would you take the former seriously but not the latter? 

(06-19-2024, 07:20 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: 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.

What I'm finding is that many people who intend to vote for DJT don't have a very clear idea of what he plans to do as president. And when shown, they brush off public evidence as "leftist rhetoric."  I'm also finding that people who don't believe what Trump and  his team say they will do, DO believe what Trump says Biden will do--e.g., help the "radical far left" impose full term abortion and post-term infanticide on Americans.

So that's how they find DJT the better of two bad options--ignoring what he says he will do, while believing what he says Biden will do. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-19-2024, 07:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Why indeed?  You were given access to the medical consensus on medication abortion. Now the problem is "compromised mail"? 
Is that a problem with any other medication? If you keep saying you need to see evidence, get it, and your concerns continue with additions,
that's only a "circle" because evidence is ignored or discounted.

On the Butker thread you positioned yourself as a centrist with all those Americans who don't like extremism of EITHER "left" OR right. 
Similarly, on this thread, post #26 you positioned yourself as a centrist, but flagged only "left" extremism as "the issue."

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.

And positioned me as "painting it differently" and "wrong." 

Trying to get credible evidence of the bolded resulted in a kind of circle. Pally couldn't. I couldn't. You did say the abortion question had been left up to the states, as if there are states somewhere where babies who survive an abortion are killed.   I had to produce the evidence myself, in the form of a crazy Trump speech. I.e., you've produced no evidence there is some national "far left" extremist threat to impose full term abortions and botched abortion infanticide at the on the entire U.S. which should be an "issue" for voters comparable to Project 2025. That "issue" only exists in right wing rhetoric.

But I did produce evidence of a far right plan to impose Texas-style ban on the nation, online and public, one which should qualify as "extremist" given your understanding of an "amalgam" comfortable with abortion during the first trimester.  If you were really right there in the middle rejecting "extremism" from both ends of the political spectrum, why would you reject Trump's imaginary "leftist" botched abortion infanticide threat, but make your peace with an extremist right threat to outlaw abortion, even abortion medication? Why would you take the former seriously but not the latter? 


What I'm finding is that many people who intend to vote for DJT don't have a very clear idea of what he plans to do as president. And when shown, they brush off public evidence as "leftist rhetoric."  I'm also finding that people who don't believe what Trump and  his team say they will do, DO believe what Trump says Biden will do--e.g., help the "radical far left" impose full term abortion and post-term infanticide on Americans.

So that's how they find DJT the better of two bad options--ignoring what he says he will do, while believing what he says Biden will do. 

Tons of rambling already addressed, so...

[Dill]

(06-18-2024, 06:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote:[/url]??? 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? 

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? 
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.

??? I'm guilty about defending myself?? How? Where? From what??

No one asked you whether LGBTQ were "protected." The question was whether you support equal rights for LGBTQ citizens. 

I'm not getting a clear answer on whether you, having declared yourself "more open-minded" than I, support equal rights for LGBTQ citizens.

(06-18-2024, 06:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Project-2025?pid=1487531#pid1487531]So you agree that Butker is not for equal rights for women? 

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

What we "covered" is that your "perception" differs from what Bukter actually said. Mine does not. 
In post #44 you wrote: If you chose the men over the women, then you are no better than Harrison Butker. 

That assumes Butker chooses men over women, doesn't it? Or is that only my "perception" again? 

(06-18-2024, 06:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 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? 

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. 

I'll "own" that I don't think trans people with muscular-skeletal frames that developed as masculine should be allowed to compete in women's sports, though I think women should be allowed to compete in some men's sports--football, soccer, wrestling, basketball, baseball, hockey--if they can make the team. No one can claim they have a special advantage. 

As far as the legal challenge to Title IX, that's 96 pages and I'm still reading it. On the surface the "gender" addition is certainly parallel to other kinds of discrimination. The question is whether and the degree to which its imposition harms another group.  

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 07:18 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Tons of rambling already addressed, so...

LOL The meme dodge has become your brand. 

Likely you followed that careful reconstruction of your position just fine, but in case you didn't here's the short version of my finding, 
which you definitely haven't "addressed."  

... many people who intend to vote for DJT don't have a very clear idea of what he plans to do as president. And when shown, they brush off public evidence as "leftist rhetoric."  I'm also finding that 
people who don't believe what Trump and  his team say they will do, DO believe what Trump says Biden will do
--e.g., help the "radical far left" impose full term abortion and post-term infanticide on Americans. 

Even shorter. 

So that's how they find DJT the better of two bad options--
ignoring what he says he will do, while believing what he says Biden will do.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-19-2024, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL The meme dodge has become your brand. 

If you were unable to follow the careful reconstruction of your position, here's the short version of my finding. 

What I'm finding is that many people who intend to vote for DJT don't have a very clear idea of what he plans to do as president. And when shown, they brush off public evidence as "leftist rhetoric."  I'm also finding that people who don't believe what Trump and  his team say they will do, DO believe what Trump says Biden will do--e.g., help the "radical far left" impose full term abortion and post-term infanticide on Americans.

Even shorter. 

So that's how they find DJT the better of two bad options--ignoring what he says he will do, while believing what he says Biden will do. 

No, ignoring your circular argument and you moving away from the main point is why you earn meme responses.

Your brand is lockstep, circular, and minutia of a discussion.

Thus

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 07:33 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: No, ignoring your circular argument and you moving away from the main point is why you earn meme responses.

Your brand is lockstep, circular, and minutia of a discussion.

Thus

The conclusion didn't arrive until #81. How is that "circular"" How would you know if you cannot follow the argument?  

"Lockstep" with what?  Odd charge from someone uncritically repeating disinformation from the Dear Leader.

So far as I know, I'm the only one who has said that Trump voters disbelieve what Trump says he will do and believe what he says Biden will do. 

And I used quotations from your posts to illustrate the point. Quotes are more effective than memes. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-19-2024, 07:45 PM)Dill Wrote: How do you know it's "circular" if you cannot even follow it? 

"Lockstep" with what?  Odd charge from someone uncritically repeating disinformation from the Dear Leader.

So far as I know, I'm the only one who has said that Trump voters disbelieve what Trump says he will do and believe what he says Biden will do. 

And I used quotations from your posts to illustrate the point. Quotes are more effective than memes. 

[samhain]

(06-18-2024, 08:44 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 


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. 


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.

IMO the executive should be limited no matter who they are.  I think it was Hamilton that came up with a lot of the powers/limits of the executive branch.  Most of his plan was to prevent an overpowered president from having enough authority to run over the legislature as King George had to British Parliament.  I also semi-understand that many of the founders didn't even want an executive to exist in the new government.  It just became too messy to go without.  

Gridlock is good and bad.  It sucks that desired change is slow.  It's good that change we don't like is stifled.  Balance.  

The only way a US president should have meaningful, enhanced power is by having a legislature in place that allows it.  At that point, enough voters have decided that he/she  gets a little more leash to run with.  Then they have to survive challenges in court.  Any think tank drafting plans to expand executive power never really believed in the US Constitution anyway.  This wouldn't be changing a social policy or 2 to piss off the libz.  It would be a rejection of how this country has been governed since the beginning.

[samhain]

Oof. I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues.

Might be a bit of a reach. One of the goals was to get rid of Tik Tok. Another was to ban porn. Real Jerry Falwell shit, here.

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 08:02 PM)samhain Wrote: IMO the executive should be limited no matter who they are.  I think it was Hamilton that came up with a lot of the powers/limits of the executive branch.  Most of his plan was to prevent an overpowered president from having enough authority to run over the legislature as King George had to British Parliament.  I also semi-understand that many of the founders didn't even want an executive to exist in the new government.  It just became too messy to go without.  

Gridlock is good and bad.  It sucks that desired change is slow.  It's good that change we don't like is stifled.  Balance.  

The only way a US president should have meaningful, enhanced power is by having a legislature in place that allows it.  At that point, enough voters have decided that he/she  gets a little more leash to run with.  Then they have to survive challenges in court.  Any think tank drafting plans to expand executive power never really believed in the US Constitution anyway.  This wouldn't be changing a social policy or 2 to piss off the libz.  It would be a rejection of how this country has been governed since the beginning.

Yeah. The Articles of Confederation had no exec. What a mess! 

That's why they decided that simple majority was better than gridlock. 

I totally agree with your take on the Unitary Executive. I think it reveals an authoritarian yearning for a powerful leader.
But those supporting are going to argue that they are following the Constitution and the deep state has changed 
government so this is the necessary solution etc.

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 08:22 PM)samhain Wrote: Oof.  I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues.  

Might be a big of a reach.  One of the goals was to get rid of Tik Tok.  Another was to ban porn.  Real Jerry Falwell shit, here.

That's just "far left" rhetoric!!!  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-19-2024, 08:22 PM)samhain Wrote: Oof.  I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues.  

Might be a big of a reach.  One of the goals was to get rid of Tik Tok.  Another was to ban porn.  Real Jerry Falwell shit, here.

The pron thing, sure.  Although there are certainly issues with pornography addition etc.  But banning TikTok is not reactionary.  It is absolutely loaded with spyware, to pretty much unprecedented levels.  They also are a Chinese company who absolutely share their data with the CCP.  To be concerned about the use of that app to manipulate US public perception and to monitor US users is far from Alex Jones territory. 

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/senators-briefing-tiktok-spy-data-tracking-security

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 08:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The pron thing, sure.  Although there are certainly issues with pornography addition etc.  But banning TikTok is not reactionary.  It is absolutely loaded with spyware, to pretty much unprecedented levels.  They also are a Chinese company who absolutely share their data with the CCP.  To be concerned about the use of that app to manipulate US public perception and to monitor US users is far from Alex Jones territory. 

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/senators-briefing-tiktok-spy-data-tracking-security

I think you are right about that. I'm not up on that subject. 

I have a feeling there will be a lot of resistance to this, unless a "safe" buyer steps forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/tiktok-ban.html

[samhain]

(06-19-2024, 08:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The pron thing, sure.  Although there are certainly issues with pornography addition etc.  But banning TikTok is not reactionary.  It is absolutely loaded with spyware, to pretty much unprecedented levels.  They also are a Chinese company who absolutely share their data with the CCP.  To be concerned about the use of that app to manipulate US public perception and to monitor US users is far from Alex Jones territory. 

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/senators-briefing-tiktok-spy-data-tracking-security

I'm not LOLing about banning it.  I have zero use for it.  I'm LOLing that Trump already relented on it. As a father of a preteen, I'd love to see it gone.

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2024, 08:22 PM)samhain Wrote: Oof.  I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues.  

Might be a bit of a reach.  One of the goals was to get rid of Tik Tok.  Another was to ban porn.  Real Jerry Falwell shit, here.

I have to admit, voting for the only president who gave us a first lady who has done porn so we can ban porn is some 4d chess by the morality police.

[*pally*]

You know if conservatives are serious about being pro life as opposed to just being pro birth, they need to actually work to solve the issues that lead to abortion in the first place.

They can not legislate abortion out of existence so work to change the condions leading to it. In no particular order

-universal age appropriate sex education
-paid parental leave
-affordable accessible pre and post natal care
-access to a variety of affordable birth control
-affordable safe housing
-affordable daycare
-domestic violence and other acts of violence against women
-support services for families with disabled children

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-20-2024, 02:13 AM)pally Wrote: You know if conservatives are serious about being pro life as opposed to just being pro birth, they need to actually work to solve the issues that lead to abortion in the first place.

They can not legislate abortion out of existence so work to change the condions leading to it. In no particular order

-universal age appropriate sex education
-paid parental leave
-affordable accessible pre and post natal care
-access to a variety of affordable birth control
-affordable safe housing
-affordable daycare
-domestic violence and other acts of violence against women
-support services for families with disabled children

I believe it was already demonstrated the majority favors abortion with limits on how far along the mother is, and the more extreme favor, basically, no abortions or abortions up until birth. The false binary choice is a old tactic the media plays out and people run with. It never fails...

As you have read on here, not all people with conservative leanings are on the "no abortions" train. In fact, very few, if any, appear to be.

Now the left, they do not seem to even want to answer the question about how far along a mother can be before abortion should not be legal, with the obvious exception to posing a serious risk to the mother's health of course.

Is there a time in the pregnancy after which abortion should be illegal, in your opinion?

3 months?

6 months?

after the mother's water breaks?

I gave my honest opinion, and would just like to hear the opinions of those on the left as well to see if common ground can be found instead of posters raging at the sky.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-19-2024, 07:25 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? I'm guilty about defending myself?? How? Where? From what??

No one asked you whether LGBTQ were "protected." The question was whether you support equal rights for LGBTQ citizens. 

I'm not getting a clear answer on whether you, having declared yourself "more open-minded" than I, support equal rights for LGBTQ citizens.


What we "covered" is that your "perception" differs from what Bukter actually said. Mine does not. 
In post #44 you wrote: If you chose the men over the women, then you are no better than Harrison Butker. 

That assumes Butker chooses men over women, doesn't it? Or is that only my "perception" again? 


I'll "own" that I don't think trans people with muscular-skeletal frames that developed as masculine should be allowed to compete in women's sports, though I think women should be allowed to compete in some men's sports--football, soccer, wrestling, basketball, baseball, hockey--if they can make the team. No one can claim they have a special advantage. 

As far as the legal challenge to Title IX, that's 96 pages and I'm still reading it. On the surface the "gender" addition is certainly parallel to other kinds of discrimination. The question is whether and the degree to which its imposition harms another group.  

So are Trans women aren't really women then? That's what you are saying. 

[Dill]

(06-20-2024, 02:13 AM)pally Wrote: You know if conservatives are serious about being pro life as opposed to just being pro birth, they need to actually work to solve the issues that lead to abortion in the first place.

They can not legislate abortion out of existence so work to change the condions leading to it. In no particular order

-universal age appropriate sex education
-paid parental leave
-affordable accessible pre and post natal care
-access to a variety of affordable birth control
-affordable safe housing
-affordable daycare
-domestic violence and other acts of violence against women
-support services for families with disabled children

To Christian Nationalists, and more on the right, that looks like far left indoctrination.

My rightest friends might respond: Sex ed should be up to parents. And they are responsible for providing housing and care for their children, not the government. Domestic violence is already against the law and anyway it can't be legislated out of existence. Acts of violence against women are perpetrated by individuals who should be held accountable for their behavior if proven to violate the law. 

If I'm on the far right, the only social "conditions" that degrade families which I can acknolwedge are "far left" social policies. Otherwise, there is no effective or affectable connection between social environment (e.g., poverty, crime, lack of educational/employment/housing opportunity)  and the family problems you'd address above. Those are all traced to individuals who make bad choices, which begins with ignoring the Bible and flouting traditional role models and family ideals.  From this perspective, a reaffirmation of Christian lifestyle, affirmed and supported by federal and state government, is the more practical solution, as they believe our deist founders intended. 

So you are dealing with a total world view here, in which inquiry into social problems stops with "personal accountability," except where government polices are concerned.  And in practice, only divinely chosen leaders can be excepted from that accountability. Your proposals only make sense to parents who are already more secular, science-oriented types.  I think one aspect of Project 2025 is that it is a concerted effort to alter the social conditions which have allowed that secular, science-oriented world view to thrive in the U.S. Hence the special foci on HHs, Dept. of Ed--the DOJ needed to enforce the required changes. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2024, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: To Christian Nationalists, and more on the right, that looks like far left indoctrination.

My rightest friends might respond: Sex ed should be up to parents. And they are responsible for providing housing and care for their children, not the government. Domestic violence is already against the law and anyway it can't be legislated out of existence. Acts of violence against women are perpetrated by individuals who should be held accountable for their behavior if proven to violate the law. 

If I'm on the far right, the only social "conditions" that degrade families which I can acknolwedge are "far left" social policies. Otherwise, there is no effective or affectable connection between social environment (e.g., poverty, crime, lack of educational/employment/housing opportunity)  and the family problems you'd address above. Those are all traced to individuals who make bad choices, which begins with ignoring the Bible and flouting traditional role models and family ideals.  From this perspective, a reaffirmation of Christian lifestyle, affirmed and supported by federal and state government, is the more practical solution, as they believe our deist founders intended. 

So you are dealing with a total world view here, in which inquiry into social problems stops with "personal accountability," except where government polices are concerned.  And in practice, only divinely chosen leaders can be excepted from that accountability. Your proposals only make sense to parents who are already more secular, science-oriented types.  I think one aspect of Project 2025 is that it is a concerted effort to alter the social conditions which have allowed that secular, science-oriented world view to thrive in the U.S. Hence the special foci on HHs, Dept. of Ed--the DOJ needed to enforce the required changes. 

Actually, there is very much a social condition that is not contingent on acknowledging any of the above, the fatherless household.  As previously mentioned children do significantly better throughout life when a father is present in the house.  Even in single parent households, the results are statistically better if that single parent is the father.  Now, one might argue that the "far left" has been rather dismissive of the role of fathers in child development.  One might even argue that third wave feminism has actively denigrated that role.  But one thing can be said with absolute certainty, a fatherless household is most assuredly not a conservative position.  And, I'm sorry to say, personal accountability absolutely plays a role in this problem.