Project 2025

[Ivy]

12 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

It is not Trump centered.

Nope.  He is merely a tool for them to get a foot in the door.  Any other "conservative" president would be fine - on the off chance he doesn't actually run.

Trump's "policies" change with his whims.  Look how he's trying to back peddle on abortion.  The only thing he stands for is himself.

[Abigail Genevieve]

1 hour ago, Ivy said:

Nope.  He is merely a tool for them to get a foot in the door.  Any other "conservative" president would be fine - on the off chance he doesn't actually run.

Trump's "policies" change with his whims.  Look how he's trying to back peddle on abortion.  The only thing he stands for is himself.

I think there is some truth in this.  They intend to implement Project 2025, whether or not he spends his energies persecuting the Democrats who have been persecuting him (in his view, a debatable point) and does nothing else.

 

I have seen numerous accusations that the document is about "Trumpism", whatever that is, and is merely a vehicle for him to become dictator.  From what I have read so far, that is the same sort of truth as the Steele Dossier, denying the validity of a certain laptop, Schiff's non-existence evidence of collaboration and a host of other things, many directly from Biden, that are simply not true.

 

I will continue reading it. 

[Abigail Genevieve]

I'm hoping to read the next section today.  Many of the reforms they are calling for are good, such as expediting the military procurement process, and have nothing to do with transgender issues.

[Abigail Genevieve]

Only three, maybe four, sections even mention transgender.  Most is a conservative agenda I have no problem with.

 

In the sections that mention transgender, there are very few lines.  Those lines ARE problematic, in every case. Unequivocally.  I can't see some of them standing up in court.  In one case a recommended policy goes against a court decision, which strongly suggests the implementation of that policy would be stopped in court. 

 

Anyone maintaining that this is written simply to support Trump, to support him becoming a dictator, to crush transgender people is feeding you a line.  Nor is it an attempt to erase transgender people.

 

People will have to decide if the overall goals are worth the few problematic statements.  Overall, I support it.  Of course, I have some reservations.

[Ivy]

31 minutes ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

Only three, maybe four, sections even mention transgender.  Most is a conservative agenda I have no problem with.

 

In the sections that mention transgender, there are very few lines.  Those lines ARE problematic, in every case. Unequivocally.

True, most of it has nothing to do directly with us.  It's the parts that do that are the problem.

 

34 minutes ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

People will have to decide if the overall goals are worth the few problematic statements.

I see the  few problematic statements as being a big problem.  Just because a lot of it may be okay, doesn't change that.

Even supposing the rest of it might be good for the country, it doesn't help me if I'm being "eradicated".  I suppose I should be good with that, because it's for the "greater good".  If me being gone would please a number of people, then it's my civic duty to disappear, and vote to implement that.

[Ivy]

If 9 out of 10 parts are ok, that doesn't mean I need to accept the bad parts (that are aimed directly at me).  That seems suicidal.

[Abigail Genevieve]

13 minutes ago, Ivy said:

If 9 out of 10 parts are ok, that doesn't mean I need to accept the bad parts (that are aimed directly at me).  That seems suicidal.

Nothing about eradicating TG folk. 

[Ivy]

7 minutes ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

Nothing about eradicating TG folk

Not in so many words, therefore it's not there at all.  Excuse my paranoia.

And the states passing laws against us are nothing to worry about either.

Having to change my gender back to male (like in Florida) is reasonable.  I should just accept it, I mean I was born with a dk.  So that "F" is lie, and a fraud.  My delusions need to be dealt with for my own good.

 

I'm just frustrated these days.  Just a bit of a rant.

[Abigail Genevieve]

7 minutes ago, Ivy said:

Not in so many words, therefore it's not there at all.  Excuse my paranoia.

And the states passing laws against us are nothing to worry about either.

Having to change my gender back to male (like in Florida) is reasonable.  I should just accept it, I mean I was born with a dk.  So that "F" is lie, and a fraud.  My delusions need to be dealt with for my own good.

 

I'm just frustrated these days.  Just a bit of a rant.

Rants are not a problem.  My favorite hobby! :)

 

What's out there is bad enough that I wonder why some people feel they need to embellish it.  Be alert.

 

Some of this will need to be fought in court if they try to implement it. If people are out to get me, paranoia is justified.  And this may not be the only document.

 

Abby

[Abigail Genevieve]

Over here muttering about "a new Jim Crow against a persecuted minority."

 

 

[MaeBe]

It is the made up ideology they believe trans people are pushing on the world, those “poor young girls who are being coerced into believing they are men” and the “perverts who put on dresses and think they’re girls”. The anti-LGBTQ+ movement came up with the term. Being trans = you believe in trans ideology/transgenderism, supporting trans people = the same.

 

In the end anyone that acts on or thinks gender is anything but what is in your pants is a “transgenderist”, why not make it a word if it’s not, there is no real grey area. Unless you acknowledge there is transgenderism, but use your knowledge to “correct it”.  So I guess there could be transgenderist conversion “therapists”. 

Face it, we deface the America they want. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave? I think being out and queer is pretty brave. And freedom shouldn’t just be for those who push a narrow “Christian ideology” as the “true” governing model.

[MaeBe]

4 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

Anyone maintaining that this is written simply to support Trump, to support him becoming a dictator, to crush transgender people is feeding you a line.  Nor is it an attempt to erase transgender people.

It’s never been about him, but he is the Presidential nominee for the Presidency that starts in…2025. I don’t see a lot of conflation that this is a “Trump doctrine”, it a doctrine that benefits him surely, but it is a plan to instill crony governance and enact very Christian conservative (if not purely Christian nationalist) “order” on the country. If you don’t see this as the Right doubling down on Big G government, I don’t know what to tell them. Getting rid of agencies and giving the authority directly to the Executive isn’t shrinking government. It’s consolidation power. 

[Abigail Genevieve]

3 minutes ago, MaeBe said:

 Getting rid of agencies and giving the authority directly to the Executive isn’t shrinking government. It’s consolidation power. 

The agencies are supposed to work for him.  The problem, as conservatives found out in Trump 1, was they will ignore the president and do their own thing.  The agencies are supposed to be under his control.

 

Congress delegated some of its law making authority to the agencies, which is another problem.

 

The bloated federal government needs to be trimmed.  Dept Education is worthless - test scores have dropped since it was instituted in the Carter administration consistently, and it is currently implementing Biden's woke agenda more than doing anything else.

[Abigail Genevieve]

17 minutes ago, MaeBe said:

And freedom shouldn’t just be for those who push a narrow “Christian ideology” as the “true” governing model.

I don't think it should be.  Nor do I see Project 2025 as pushing Christian nationalism.

[Ivy]

Biden's woke agenda?

[Abigail Genevieve]

55 minutes ago, Ivy said:

Biden's woke agenda?

What about it?

[Abigail Genevieve]

I am not sure why people are in favor of unaccountable agencies with bloated budgets and wasteful spending. 

[Abigail Genevieve]

1 hour ago, Ivy said:

Biden's woke agenda?

For one thing, the practice of putting into office wholly unqualified people simply because of racial, sexual or national characteristics.  It is no accident that Karine is a Haitian immigrant, Black and lesbian.  Kamala Harris is a Black female. Pete Buttigieg is gay.  Often you find that Biden explicitly stated that this is why he hired them, not because of competence, but because they checked so many boxes on his little list.  It makes a mockery of people and is a disservice to the US. 

[MaeBe]

Let’s stick to cite-able fact. Most of my posts have been directly in relation to LGBTQ+ rights as it pertains to P2025 and I have drawn direct links between people, their quotes, and their agenda. I have made reference to the cronyism that P2025 would entail as well, by gutting, not cutting, broad swathes of government and replacing it with “conservative warriors” (I can get you the direct quote, but rest assured it’s a quote). All this does is constantly force the cogs to be refitted, not their movement. To say that agencies have directly defied a President is a bit much, the EPA did what Trump told them to do at the direct harm to the environment, the department of agriculture did the same by enacting the administrations forced move to KC which decimated the USDA. 
 

 

54 minutes ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

It makes a mockery of people and is a disservice to the US. 

How about Betsy DeVoss for Education? Or Bannon for anything? What about the revolving Chief of Staff position that Trump couldn’t stay filled? Or the Postmaster General, who did much to make the USPS worse?

 

Let’s not mix politics with racism, sexism, or any other ism. Because Trump made mainly white, male, appointments—many of them not, arguably, people fit for service—or unwilling to commit to term. I can argue this because, again, he’s up for election and will do what he did before (and more of the same, his words).

 

Please delineate how the selected diversity appointments have negatively affected the US, other than being black, women, or queer? Representation matters and America benefits when its people are inspired and empowered.

[Abigail Genevieve]

How about if we get back on topic?

[Ivy]

Our government is huge and could, and probably should, be streamlined.

But we are living in 2024, and not the late 18th century.  The founders did provide for updating the Sacred Constitution.  And it has been done on occasion.

 

There is a lot going on, and I don't want to be a single issue voter.  But I feel that it is being forced on me as a matter of my survival.

[Abigail Genevieve]

This suggests some of the problematic policies would be unenforceable if implementation were attempted. 

 

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/4th-circuit-gender-identity-is-a?publication_id=994764&post_id=144139815&isFreemail=true&r=rebf4&triedRedirect=true

[awkward-yet-sweet]

15 minutes ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

This suggests some of the problematic policies would be unenforceable if implementation were attempted. 

 

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/4th-circuit-gender-identity-is-a?publication_id=994764&post_id=144139815&isFreemail=true&r=rebf4&triedRedirect=true

 

That's a Circuit (Circus) court ruling.  Which is essentially temporary.  Most everything right now is temporary, as the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to dealing with all the various trans-related issues from the last few years.  I really, really wish they would just bite the bullet and do their thing.  It would save us from the constant tug-of-war. "The sky is falling!".... "No it isn't.".... "But there's crap coming down."....."It landed east of here"  Whether it ends up being good or bad, I wish they'd just lance the boil and let us either have a tyranny we can fight against or a republic we don't mind living in.  Mediocrity is irritating.

[Abigail Genevieve]

9 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

That's a Circuit (Circus) court ruling.  Which is essentially temporary.  Most everything right now is temporary, as the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to dealing with all the various trans-related issues from the last few years.  I really, really wish they would just bite the bullet and do their thing.  It would save us from the constant tug-of-war. "The sky is falling!".... "No it isn't.".... "But there's crap coming down."....."It landed east of here"  Whether it ends up being good or bad, I wish they'd just lance the boil and let us either have a tyranny we can fight against or a republic we don't mind living in.  Mediocrity is irritating.

I fenced my posting of the link.  Yep.

[MaeBe]

4 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

This suggests some of the problematic policies would be unenforceable if implementation were attempted. 

 

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/4th-circuit-gender-identity-is-a?publication_id=994764&post_id=144139815&isFreemail=true&r=rebf4&triedRedirect=true

Or they could live and let live and not clog the courts with games of roulette? To absolve the attempt based on a perceived chance of success is gambling in another guise.

 

Sure, it could all be marketing to gin up the base, but we see it constantly getting pushed at the local, State, and Federal levels. Don’t we want lawmakers focused on issues of import? Maybe we’re a distraction, but that means we become social targets. If we’re really just a side show game to them, they obviously don’t give a damn what the repercussions are for us; we’re just lambs for slaughter. So why support people or adjacent policies that do that to us? Why believe these jaguars won’t eat your face when they tell you that, if they can, they will?