Project 2025 - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +--- Thread: Project 2025 (/Thread-Project-2025) |
RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (06-19-2024, 07:20 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Why are we going in circles? 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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-19-2024 (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"? Tons of rambling already addressed, so... RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (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 ??? 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? 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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (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. RE: Project 2025 - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-19-2024 (06-19-2024, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL The meme dodge has become your brand. 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 RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-19-2024 (06-19-2024, 07:45 PM)Dill Wrote: How do you know it's "circular" if you cannot even follow it? RE: Project 2025 - samhain - 06-19-2024 (06-18-2024, 08:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Some great points here. 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. RE: Project 2025 - samhain - 06-19-2024 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. RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (06-19-2024, 08:22 PM)samhain Wrote: Oof. I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues. That's just "far left" rhetoric!!! RE: Project 2025 - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-19-2024 (06-19-2024, 08:22 PM)samhain Wrote: Oof. I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues. 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 RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-19-2024 (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. 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 RE: Project 2025 - samhain - 06-19-2024 (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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - Nately120 - 06-19-2024 (06-19-2024, 08:22 PM)samhain Wrote: Oof. I just read through the Project 2025 stances on issues. 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. RE: Project 2025 - pally - 06-20-2024 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 RE: Project 2025 - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-20-2024 (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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - Mike M (the other one) - 06-20-2024 (06-19-2024, 07:25 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? I'm guilty about defending myself?? How? Where? From what?? So are Trans women aren't really women then? That's what you are saying. RE: Project 2025 - Dill - 06-21-2024 (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. 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. RE: Project 2025 - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-21-2024 (06-21-2024, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: To Christian Nationalists, and more on the right, that looks like far left indoctrination. 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. |