|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 4:25:02 GMT
He was talking about people that are raping children, killing women and robbing. They ARE animals. That's why you're not seeing a lot of people losing their minds over it, because based on YOUR standards, that would be defending child rapists and murderers. "Stir up his base, yes." is your very biased interpretation. You can NOT have an honest debate when you WON'T admit reality. The reality IS that he was talking about people that are raping children and killing women and robbing. They ARE animals. If you won't admit to reality, you are INCAPABLE of having honest debate. You're ignoring other statements he made about immigrants as rapists and murderers, vermin and poisoning the blood of our country before he started talking about migrant crime. Ignoring his other comments is not reality. I'm not defending convicted rapists or murders. What they did is despicable and unforgivable, but that doesn't make them animals or not human. They are people who did horrible things. Even if he's only referring to criminals, (which he wasn't) it's not OK to refer to people as an animal. It is not OK to dehumanize anyone, regardless of whatever horrible crime they committed. I wouldn't even refer to the J6 insurrectionists as animals. The only reasons that his dehumanizing comments are not getting more attention are 1-the media is focused on the bloodbath comment and 2-we're desensitized to his demeaning, dehumanizing comments because of all of the other despicable things that he's said regarding immigrants. Regrettably, it's nothing new from him. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 18, 2024 4:28:35 GMT
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 18, 2024 4:35:32 GMT
There is a lot of differences between snow and the bs he speels, agreed. That is not at all what I said, so we do not agree with your twisting of what I ACTUALLY said. "and pushing such obvious hoaxes." That is right out of the trump play book that he often spiels, which is what I was referring to. See how good communication and interpretation are so ever important?! |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 4:50:21 GMT
He was talking about people that are raping children, killing women and robbing. They ARE animals. That's why you're not seeing a lot of people losing their minds over it, because based on YOUR standards, that would be defending child rapists and murderers. "Stir up his base, yes." is your very biased interpretation. You can NOT have an honest debate when you WON'T admit reality. The reality IS that he was talking about people that are raping children and killing women and robbing. They ARE animals. If you won't admit to reality, you are INCAPABLE of having honest debate. Even if he's only referring to criminals, (which he wasn't) Back it up. Provide a link to a video WITHOUT the context removed. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 4:52:38 GMT
That is not at all what I said, so we do not agree with your twisting of what I ACTUALLY said. "and pushing such obvious hoaxes." That is right out of the trump play book that he often spiels, which is what I was referring to. See how good communication and interpretation are so ever important?! I'VE been talking about hoaxes ABOUT Trump for a couple of weeks now. I said HOAX from the very beginning of this particular topic. YOUR interpretation is off and is being used to twist the ACTUAL words I said. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 18, 2024 5:32:05 GMT
"and pushing such obvious hoaxes." That is right out of the trump play book that he often spiels, which is what I was referring to. See how good communication and interpretation are so ever important?! I'VE been talking about hoaxes ABOUT Trump for a couple of weeks now. I said HOAX from the very beginning of this particular topic. YOUR interpretation is off and is being used to twist the ACTUAL words I said. OMG take a breath. You seem stressed. It's not all about you. Haven't been paying attention to you for past 2 weeks, sorry. It's about orange Julius, too. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 5:36:06 GMT
I'VE been talking about hoaxes ABOUT Trump for a couple of weeks now. I said HOAX from the very beginning of this particular topic. YOUR interpretation is off and is being used to twist the ACTUAL words I said. OMG take a breath. You seem stressed. It's not all about you. Haven't been paying attention to you for past 2 weeks, sorry. It's about orange Julius, too. Stop frothing. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 18, 2024 6:08:28 GMT
OMG take a breath. You seem stressed. It's not all about you. Haven't been paying attention to you for past 2 weeks, sorry. It's about orange Julius, too. Stop frothing. 😂😂😂 Not frothing. I haven't bolded or enlarged font once. Can't recall last time I frothed. You have amused me though, in a weird sort of way. But I'm over it. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 6:20:58 GMT
😂😂😂 Not frothing. I haven't bolded or enlarged font once. Can't recall last time I frothed. Just as highlighting words is not because someone is stressed. |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,840
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 18, 2024 6:25:46 GMT
😂😂😂 Not frothing. I haven't bolded or enlarged font once. Can't recall last time I frothed. Just as highlighting words is not because someone is stressed. Yet just typing without any is as diagnosed by you. 🤔 Done playing. Bye |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Mar 18, 2024 6:42:02 GMT
Just as highlighting words is not because someone is stressed. Yet just typing without any is as diagnosed by you. 🤔 Done playing. Bye Not at all. I was demonstrating how meaningless yor accusation of being stressed is. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 11:14:17 GMT
This is long but worth reading regarding Project 2025 heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-17-2024March 17, 2024 HEATHER COX RICHARDSON On Friday, journalist Casey Michel, who specializes in the study of kleptocracy, pointed out that reporters had missed an important meeting last week. Michel noted that while reporters covered Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s visit to former president Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, they paid far less attention to the visit Orbán paid to the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Heritage Foundation on Friday, March 8. There, Orbán spoke privately to an audience that included the president of the organization, Kevin Roberts, and, according to a state media printout, “renowned U.S. right-wing politicians, analysts and public personalities.”
Michel noted that it was “nothing short of shocking” that Orbán declined to meet with administration officials and instead went to Washington, D.C., to meet with a right-wing think tank. With Roberts’s appointment as head of Heritage in 2021, the conservative organization swung to the position that its role is “institutionalizing Trumpism.”
Roberts has been vocal about his admiration for Orbán, tweeting in 2022 that it was an honor to meet him. At last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Orbán boasted that Hungary is “the place where we didn’t just talk about defeating the progressives and liberals and causing a conservative Christian political turn, but we actually did it.” In January, Roberts told Lulu Garcia-Navarro of the New York Times that Orbán’s statement was “all true” and “should be celebrated.” In a different interview, Garcia-Navarro noted, Roberts had called modern Hungary “not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model.”
Last year, Michel notes, Heritage joined the Hungarian Danube Institute in a formal partnership. The Hungarian think tank is overseen by a foundation that is directly funded by the Hungarian government; as Michel says, it is, “for all intents and purposes, a state-funded front for pushing pro-Orbán rhetoric.” The Danube Institute has given grants to far-right figures in the U.S., and, Michel notes, “we have no idea how much funding may be flowing directly from Orbán’s regime to the Heritage Foundation.”
The tight cooperation between Heritage and Orbán illuminates Project 2025, the plan Heritage has led, along with dozens of other right-wing organizations, to map out a future right-wing presidency. In Hungary, Orbán has undermined democracy, gutting the civil service and filling it with loyalists; attacking immigrants, women, and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals; taking over businesses for friends and family, and moving the country away from the rules-based international order supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
In the January interview, Roberts told Garcia-Navarro that Project 2025 was designed to jump-start a right-wing takeover of the government. “[T]he Trump administration, with the best of intentions, simply got a slow start,” Roberts said. “And Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.”
Project 2025 stands on four principles that it says the country must embrace. In their vision, the U.S. must “[r]estore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”; “[d]ismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people”; “[d]efend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats”; and “ecure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”
In almost 1,000 pages, the document explains what these policies mean for ordinary Americans. Restoring the family and protecting children means making “family authority, formation, and cohesion” a top priority and using “government power…to restore the American family.” That, the document says, means eliminating any words associated with sexual orientation or gender identity, gender, abortion, reproductive health, or reproductive rights from any government rule, regulation, or law. Any reference to transgenderism is “pornography” and must be banned.
The overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion must be gratefully celebrated, but the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision accomplishing that end “is just the beginning.”
Dismantling the administrative state in this document starts from the premise that “people are policy.” Frustrated because nonpartisan civil employees thwarted much of Trump’s agenda in his first term, the authors of Project 2025 call for firing much of the current government workforce—about 2 million people work for the U.S. government—and replacing it with loyalists who will carry out a right-wing president’s demands.
On Friday, journalist Daniel Miller noted that purging the civil service is a hallmark of dictators, whose loyalists then take over media, education, courts, and the military. In a powerful essay today, scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder explained that with the government firmly in the hands of a dictator’s loyalists, “things like water or schools or Social Security checks” depend on your declaration of loyalty, and there is no recourse. “You cannot escape to the bar or the bowling alley, since everything you say is monitored,” and “[e]ven courageous people restrain themselves to protect their children.”
Defending our nation’s sovereignty means ending the rules-based international order hammered out in the years after World War II. This includes organizations like the United Nations and NATO and agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provide an international set of rules and forums for countries to work out their differences without going to war and which offer a system of principles for those abused within countries to assert their rights.
Heritage and Orbán have stood firmly against aid to Ukraine in its struggle to fight off Russian aggression.
Securing “our God-given individual rights to live freely,” hints at religious rule but ultimately focuses on standing against “government control of the economy.” The idea that regulation of business and taxes hampered economic liberty was actually one of the founding ideas of Heritage in the 1980s.
In the U.S. that ideology has since 1981 moved as much as $50 trillion from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.
And, as that concentration of wealth and power among a small group of people reveals, the real plan behind Project 2025 is the rule of a small minority of extremists over the vast majority of Americans.
The plan asserts “the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch”—that is, it calls for a very powerful leader—to dismantle the current government that regulates business, provides a social safety net, and protects civil rights. Instead of the government Americans have built since 1933, the plan says the national government must “decentralize and privatize as much as possible” and leave “the great majority of domestic activities to state, local, and private governance.”
We have in front of us examples of what such governance means. Because state legislatures control who can vote and how the state’s districts are carved up, Republican-dominated state legislatures have taken absolute control of a number of states. There they have banned abortion without exceptions and defined a fertilized human egg as a person; discriminated against LGBTQ+ people and immigrants, banned books, attacked public education, and gutted business regulation, including child labor laws. They have also attacked voting rights.
Project 2025 presents an apocalyptic vision of a United States whose dark problems can be fixed only by a minority assuming power under a strongman and imposing their values on the rest of the country. And yet the authors of the document assert that it is not them but their opponents who do “not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else.”
In 1776 the Founders were quite clear about the relationship between rights and government, and their vision was quite different than that of the authors of Project 2025. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they wrote.
They continued, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” and that those governments were not legitimate unless they derived power “from the consent of the governed.” |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 11:19:13 GMT
And the realities of living under a dictatorship, which is exactly what would happen if Trump gets elected snyder.substack.com/p/the-strongman-fantasyThe Strongman Fantasy And Dictatorship in Real Life TIMOTHY SNYDER Quite a few Americans like the idea of strongman rule. Why not a dictator who will get things done?
I lived in eastern Europe when memories of communism were fresh. I have visited regions in Ukraine where Russia imposed its occupation regime. I have spent decades reading testimonies of people who lived under Nazi or Stalinist rule. I have seen death pits, some old, some freshly dug. And I have friends who have lived under authoritarian regimes, including political prisoners and survivors of torture. Some of the people I trusted most have been assassinated.
So I think that there is an answer to this question.
Strongman rule is a fantasy. Essential to it is the idea that a strongman will be your strongman. He won't. In a democracy, elected representatives listen to constituents. We take this for granted, and imagine that a dictator would owe us something. But the vote you cast for him affirms your irrelevance. The whole point is that the strongman owes us nothing. We get abused and we get used to it.
Another pleasant illusion is that the strongman will unite the nation. But an aspiring dictator will always claim that some belong and others don't. He will define one group after another as the enemy. This might feel good, so long as you feel that you are on the right side of the line. But now fear is the essence of life. The politics of us-and-them, once begun, never ends.
We dream that a strongman will let us focus on America. But dictatorship opens our country to the worst the world has to offer. An American strongman will measure himself by the wealth and power of other dictators. He will befriend them and compete with them. From them he will learn new ways to oppress and to exploit his own people.
At least, the fantasy goes, the strongman will get things done. But dictatorial power today is not about achieving anything positive. It is about preventing anyone else from achieving anything. The strongman is really the weak man: his secret is that he makes everyone else weaker.
Unaccountable to the law and to voters, the dictator has no reason to consider anything beyond his own personal interests. In the twenty-first century, those are simple: dying in bed as a billionaire. To enrich himself and to stay out of prison, the strongman dismantles the justice system and replaces civil servants with loyalists.
The new bureaucrats will have no sense of accountability. Basic government functions will break down. Citizens who want access will learn to pay bribes. Bureaucrats in office thanks to patronage will be corrupt, and citizens will be desperate. Quickly the corruption becomes normal, even unquestioned.
As the fantasy of strongman rule fades into everyday dictatorship, people realize that they need things like water or schools or Social Security checks. Insofar as such goods are available under a dictatorship, they come with a moral as well as a financial price. When you go to a government office, you will be expected to declare your personal loyalty to the strongman.
If you have a complaint about these practices, too bad. Americans are litigious people, and many of us assume that we can go to the police or sue. But when you vote a strong man in, you vote out the rule of law. In court, only loyalism and wealth will matter. Americans who do not fear the police will learn to do so. Those who wear the uniform must either resign or become the enforcers of the whims of one man.
Everybody (except the dictator and his family and friends) gets poorer. The market system depends upon competition. Under a strongman, there will be no such thing. The strongman's clan will be favored by government. Our wealth inequality, bad enough already, will get worse. Anyone hoping for prosperity will have to seek the patronage of the official oligarchs. Running a small business will become impossible. As soon as you achieve any sort of success, someone who wants your business denounces you.
In the fantasy of the strongman, politics vanishes and all is clear and bright. In fact, a dreary politics penetrates everything. You can't run a business without the threat of denunciation. You can't get basic services without humiliation. You feel bad about yourself. You think about what you say, since it can be used against you later. What you do on the internet is recorded forever, and can land you in prison.
Public space closes down around you. You cannot escape to the bar or the bowling alley, since everything you say is monitored. The person on the next stool or in the next lane might not turn you in, but you have to assume they will. If you have a t-shirt or a bumper sticker with a message, someone will report you. Even if you just repeat the dictator's words, someone can lie about you and denounce you. And then, if you voted for the strongman, you will be confused. But you should not be. This is what you voted for.
Denunciation becomes normal behavior. Without law and voting, denouncing others helps people to feel safe. Under strongman rule, you cannot trust your colleagues or your friends or even your family. Political fear not only takes away all public space; it also corrupts all private relationships. And soon it consumes your thoughts. If you cannot say what you think, you lose track of what you believe. You cease to be yourself.
If you have a heart attack and go to the hospital, you have to worry that your name is on a list. Care of elderly parents is suddenly in jeopardy. That hospital bed or place in a retirement home is no longer assured. If you draw attention to yourself, aged relatives will be dumped in the street. This is not how America works now, but it is how authoritarian regimes always work.
In the strongman fantasy, no one thinks about children. But fear around children is the essence of dictatorial power. Even courageous people restrain themselves to protect their children. Parents know that children can be singled out and beaten up. If parents step out of line, children lose any chance of going to university, or lose their jobs.
Schools collapse anyway, since a dictator only wants myths that justify his power. Children learn in school to denounce one another. Each coming generation must be more tame and ignorant than the prior one. Time with young children stresses parents. Either your children repeat propaganda and tell you things you know are wrong, or you worry that they will find out what is right and get in trouble.
In a dictatorship, parents no longer say what they think to their children, because they fear that their children will repeat it in public. And once parents no longer speak their minds at home, they can no longer create a trusting family. Even parents who give up on honesty have to fear that their children will one day learn the truth, take action, and get imprisoned.
Once this process begins, it is hard to stop. At the present stage of the strongman fantasy, people imagine an exciting experiment. If they don't like strongman rule, they think, they can just elect someone else the next time. This misses the point. If you help a strongman come to power, you are eliminating democracy. You burn that bridge behind you. The strongman fantasy dissolves, and real dictatorship remains.
Most likely you won’t be killed or be required to kill. But amid the dreariness of life under dictatorship is dark responsibility for others’ death. By the time the killing starts, you will know that it is not about unity, or the nation, or getting things done. The best Americans, betrayed by you when you cast your vote, will be murdered at the whim and for the wealth of a dictator. Your tragedy will be living long enough to understand this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 18, 2024 13:37:58 GMT
This is long but worth reading regarding Project 2025 heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-17-2024March 17, 2024 HEATHER COX RICHARDSON On Friday, journalist Casey Michel, who specializes in the study of kleptocracy, pointed out that reporters had missed an important meeting last week. Michel noted that while reporters covered Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s visit to former president Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, they paid far less attention to the visit Orbán paid to the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Heritage Foundation on Friday, March 8. There, Orbán spoke privately to an audience that included the president of the organization, Kevin Roberts, and, according to a state media printout, “renowned U.S. right-wing politicians, analysts and public personalities.” Michel noted that it was “nothing short of shocking” that Orbán declined to meet with administration officials and instead went to Washington, D.C., to meet with a right-wing think tank. With Roberts’s appointment as head of Heritage in 2021, the conservative organization swung to the position that its role is “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Roberts has been vocal about his admiration for Orbán, tweeting in 2022 that it was an honor to meet him. At last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Orbán boasted that Hungary is “the place where we didn’t just talk about defeating the progressives and liberals and causing a conservative Christian political turn, but we actually did it.” In January, Roberts told Lulu Garcia-Navarro of the New York Times that Orbán’s statement was “all true” and “should be celebrated.” In a different interview, Garcia-Navarro noted, Roberts had called modern Hungary “not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model.” Last year, Michel notes, Heritage joined the Hungarian Danube Institute in a formal partnership. The Hungarian think tank is overseen by a foundation that is directly funded by the Hungarian government; as Michel says, it is, “for all intents and purposes, a state-funded front for pushing pro-Orbán rhetoric.” The Danube Institute has given grants to far-right figures in the U.S., and, Michel notes, “we have no idea how much funding may be flowing directly from Orbán’s regime to the Heritage Foundation.” The tight cooperation between Heritage and Orbán illuminates Project 2025, the plan Heritage has led, along with dozens of other right-wing organizations, to map out a future right-wing presidency. In Hungary, Orbán has undermined democracy, gutting the civil service and filling it with loyalists; attacking immigrants, women, and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals; taking over businesses for friends and family, and moving the country away from the rules-based international order supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In the January interview, Roberts told Garcia-Navarro that Project 2025 was designed to jump-start a right-wing takeover of the government. “[T]he Trump administration, with the best of intentions, simply got a slow start,” Roberts said. “And Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.” Project 2025 stands on four principles that it says the country must embrace. In their vision, the U.S. must “[r]estore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”; “[d]ismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people”; “[d]efend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats”; and “ ecure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”
In almost 1,000 pages, the document explains what these policies mean for ordinary Americans. Restoring the family and protecting children means making “family authority, formation, and cohesion” a top priority and using “government power…to restore the American family.” That, the document says, means eliminating any words associated with sexual orientation or gender identity, gender, abortion, reproductive health, or reproductive rights from any government rule, regulation, or law. Any reference to transgenderism is “pornography” and must be banned.
The overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion must be gratefully celebrated, but the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision accomplishing that end “is just the beginning.”
Dismantling the administrative state in this document starts from the premise that “people are policy.” Frustrated because nonpartisan civil employees thwarted much of Trump’s agenda in his first term, the authors of Project 2025 call for firing much of the current government workforce—about 2 million people work for the U.S. government—and replacing it with loyalists who will carry out a right-wing president’s demands.
On Friday, journalist Daniel Miller noted that purging the civil service is a hallmark of dictators, whose loyalists then take over media, education, courts, and the military. In a powerful essay today, scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder explained that with the government firmly in the hands of a dictator’s loyalists, “things like water or schools or Social Security checks” depend on your declaration of loyalty, and there is no recourse. “You cannot escape to the bar or the bowling alley, since everything you say is monitored,” and “[e]ven courageous people restrain themselves to protect their children.”
Defending our nation’s sovereignty means ending the rules-based international order hammered out in the years after World War II. This includes organizations like the United Nations and NATO and agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provide an international set of rules and forums for countries to work out their differences without going to war and which offer a system of principles for those abused within countries to assert their rights.
Heritage and Orbán have stood firmly against aid to Ukraine in its struggle to fight off Russian aggression.
Securing “our God-given individual rights to live freely,” hints at religious rule but ultimately focuses on standing against “government control of the economy.” The idea that regulation of business and taxes hampered economic liberty was actually one of the founding ideas of Heritage in the 1980s.
In the U.S. that ideology has since 1981 moved as much as $50 trillion from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.
And, as that concentration of wealth and power among a small group of people reveals, the real plan behind Project 2025 is the rule of a small minority of extremists over the vast majority of Americans.
The plan asserts “the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch”—that is, it calls for a very powerful leader—to dismantle the current government that regulates business, provides a social safety net, and protects civil rights. Instead of the government Americans have built since 1933, the plan says the national government must “decentralize and privatize as much as possible” and leave “the great majority of domestic activities to state, local, and private governance.”
We have in front of us examples of what such governance means. Because state legislatures control who can vote and how the state’s districts are carved up, Republican-dominated state legislatures have taken absolute control of a number of states. There they have banned abortion without exceptions and defined a fertilized human egg as a person; discriminated against LGBTQ+ people and immigrants, banned books, attacked public education, and gutted business regulation, including child labor laws. They have also attacked voting rights.
Project 2025 presents an apocalyptic vision of a United States whose dark problems can be fixed only by a minority assuming power under a strongman and imposing their values on the rest of the country. And yet the authors of the document assert that it is not them but their opponents who do “not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else.”
In 1776 the Founders were quite clear about the relationship between rights and government, and their vision was quite different than that of the authors of Project 2025. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they wrote.
They continued, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” and that those governments were not legitimate unless they derived power “from the consent of the governed.”
But of course our friend up there sees no problem with the goals stated in Project 2025. 🙄 I really don’t know how you get to the point that a religious dictatorship sounds like a good idea. These people are warped at their core. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 18, 2024 15:53:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 18, 2024 16:21:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 18, 2024 16:45:03 GMT
link. From the Heritage Foundation…. ” Priject 2025”KEY TAKEAWAYS It’s past time to lay the groundwork for a White House more friendly to the right. The policy book Mandate for Leadership represents the work of more than 350 leading conservatives and outlines a vision of conservative success. The usual suspects in the permanent political class will be ready for the next conservative administration. Will we be ready for them? With the Biden administration half over and with the immediate dangers inherent to one-party rule in Washington behind us for now, it’s past time to lay the groundwork for a White House more friendly to the right. For decades, as the left has continued its march through America’s institutions, conservatives have been outgunned and outmatched when it comes to the art of government. One reason is because the Republican establishment never moved on from the 1980s. Beltway conservatives still prioritize supply-side economics and a bellicose foreign policy above all else. Belief in small government, strangely enough, has manifested itself in a belief among some conservatives that we should lead by example and not fill all political appointments. Belief in the primacy of the national security state has caused conservative administrations to defer political decisions to the generals and the intelligence community. The result has been decades of disappointment. Fortunately, this situation is changing. The conservative movement increasingly knows what time it is in America. More and more of our politicians are willing to use the government to achieve our vision, because the neutrality of “keeping the government out of it” will lose every time to the left’s vast power. The calls for a “new Church Committee” represent a momentous shift in energy; while conservatives used to lament liberal Sen. Frank Church’s original project as a kooky leftist attack against “The Brave Men And Women of Our Intelligence Community,” we’re now the ones agitating for Congress to go after the three-letter agencies.This new vigor of the right can be found at Project 2025. Organized by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 has brought together 45 (and counting) right-of-center organizations that are ready to get into the business of restoring this country through the combination of the right policies and well-trained people. The Project’s foundation is built on four interconnected pillars. >>> Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project The first pillar, the upcoming production of the policy book Mandate for Leadership, represents the work of more than 350 leading conservatives and outlines a vision of conservative success at each federal agency during the next administration. Presidential candidates won’t be able to ignore what the conservative movement demands in this book. The second is our online personnel database. This “Conservative LinkedIn” will launch in March and will provide an opportunity for rock-solid conservatives to place themselves in contention for roles in the next administration. This pillar will bring Mr. (and Mrs.) Smith to Washington. The third is our Presidential Administration Academy. When conservatives do finally make it into an administration, they often don’t know what to do or how to seize the gears of power effectively. Through their action, inaction, and their encyclopedic knowledge of volumes of technicalities about the federal workforce, certain career federal employees are masterful in tripping us up. Our interactive, on-demand training sessions will change that. They will turn future conservative political appointees into experts in governmental effectiveness. The fourth and final pillar of Project 2025 is our Playbook, which will take the policy ideas expressed in Mandate for Leadership and transform them into an implementation plan for each agency to advocate to the incoming administration. What regulations and executive orders must be signed on Day One? Where are the greatest needs for more political appointees? How can we effectively use the mechanisms of government to face our most challenging problems? Our Playbook will put our movement to work answering questions like these. In November 2016, American conservatives stood on the verge of greatness. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency was a triumph that offered the best chance to reverse the left’s incessant march of progress for its own sake. Many of the best accomplishments, though, happened only in the last year of the Trump administration, after our political appointees had finally figured out the policies and process of different agencies, and after the right personnel were finally in place. The usual suspects in the permanent political class will be ready for the next conservative administration. Will we be ready for them? That’s where Project 2025 comes in. We have two years, and one chance, to get this right.”
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 18, 2024 17:06:44 GMT
trump fumbled in his attempt to “take over the government “. What he did do though is show people like these guys and those suppressing voters what they needed to do to literally take over the country and force their conservative agenda on the American People. Since the 2020 election the conservative right has been laying the ground work via voter suppression laws, putting the “right” people in state agencies that stopped trump from “finding votes” in 2020.
From Project 2025 website…
“About Project 2025”
Building now for a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training.
The actions of liberal politicians in Washington have created a desperate need and unique opportunity for conservatives to start undoing the damage the Left has wrought and build a better country for all Americans in 2025. Me: I’m curious what exactly is the “damage the left had wrought”. Anyone?
It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.
This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. The project will build on four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook.
The project is the effort of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025. With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, we will take back our government.
The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is being organized by The Heritage Foundation and builds off Heritage’s longstanding “Mandate for Leadership,” which has been highly influential for presidential administrations since the Reagan era. Most recently, the Trump administration relied heavily on Heritage’s “Mandate” for policy guidance, embracing nearly two-thirds of Heritage’s proposals within just one year in office.
Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project.”
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 18, 2024 17:42:14 GMT
No kidding… Biden Harris HQ… ”.@beschlossdc: When Trump talks about a bloodbath, suspending the Constitution, migrants as animals, we've never seen anything remotely like this as America. He's saying, you elect me, there's going to be dictatorship, bloodbath, violence, retribution against my political enemies.” x.com/bidenhq/status/1769776072147525723?s=61&t=j45uMgNk1i8O0YllKF58nw |
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Mar 18, 2024 17:44:24 GMT
Re: trump and his "bloodbath". His supporters are backsplaining and offering what-he-really-meants. Again. If it is that innocent (it's not) then at best he's an awful communicator seeing > half the country (and probably world) "misunderstands" him. That's a huge part of the job he seeks. If elected again, his "miscommunications" could cause havoc to say the least. Been there, done that, not again, thanks. This times 100. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 20:21:32 GMT
Trump basically doubled down in defending himself and repeated the statement that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country. All immigrants, not just migrant criminals. Which is more evidence that he wasn't really making a distinction on Saturday. What the hell do you have to lose? So many things if Trump wins. Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, civil rights, reproductive rights, voting rights www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/18/us/trump-biden-electionTrump defends his warning of a ‘blood bath for the country.’ Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday sought to defend his declaration over the weekend that the country would face a “blood bath” if he lost in November, saying that he had been referring only to the auto industry.
“The Fake News Media, and their Democrat Partners in the destruction of our Nation, pretended to be shocked at my use of the word BLOODBATH, even though they fully understood that I was simply referring to imports allowed by Crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry,” he wrote on his social media platform.
He made the remarks in Ohio on Saturday, in a speech delivered on behalf of Bernie Moreno, whom he has endorsed in Tuesday’s Republican Senate primary. After vowing to impose tariffs on cars manufactured outside the United States, he then said: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a blood bath for the country.”
In the same speech, Mr. Trump called some migrants “animals” and “not people, in my opinion”; described people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as “hostages”; and suggested that American democracy would end if he lost. “I don’t think you’re going to have another election, or certainly not an election that’s meaningful,” he said.
Mr. Trump has embraced violent messaging since he first ran for president, at one point telling his supporters that he would pay their legal expenses if they attacked a protester at one of his rallies. He escalated his rhetoric after he lost in 2020, encouraging his supporters who ended up storming the Capitol. He still describes them as persecuted patriots.
Now in his third presidential run, he has become more explicit.
He said in September that shoplifters should be shot and that Mark Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed. He urged his supporters to “go after” the attorney general of New York, whose office filed a lawsuit against him for fraud. In January, he warned of “bedlam in this country” if the legal cases against him hurt him electorally.
And on Sunday, the day after the Ohio rally, Fox News broadcast an interview with Mr. Trump in which he repeated his past assertions that migrants were “poisoning the blood” of the country.
Supporters of Mr. Trump, including the mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have over time responded to his words with action, even when his language is ambiguous. Law enforcement officials and prosecutors involved in the criminal cases against the former president have received threats. So have election workers, election administrators and officials who refused to go along with Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr. Trump and his supporters objected to blowback over his latest remarks, saying that they had been taken out of context by those who ignored his references to the auto industry and decried the comments as a direct call for violence.
President Biden’s campaign responded to that objection with a video montage that included the “blood bath” comment alongside footage of Mr. Trump saying there were “very fine people on both sides” of the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” and pledging to pardon Jan. 6 defendants. “MAGA wanted context, so we gave them context,” a Biden spokesman, Parker Butler, wrote on social media on Monday.
Many Republicans responded to Mr. Trump’s latest comments by defending him or equivocating. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Representative Michael R. Turner of Ohio, who were both asked about the “blood bath” remark on Sunday morning talk shows, indicated that they didn’t believe Mr. Trump had been calling for violence.
“The president’s statements concerning ‘blood bath’ were about what would happen in the auto industry if actually the Chinese manufacturers who are coming into Mexico were permitted to import into the United States,” Mr. Turner said.
But Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who voted to convict Mr. Trump in his impeachment trial after Jan. 6, said on “Meet the Press” that “the general tone” of Mr. Trump’s Saturday speech was “why many Americans continue to wonder, ‘Should President Trump be president?’”
“That kind of rhetoric, it’s always on the edge — maybe doesn’t cross, maybe does, depending upon your perspective,” Mr. Cassidy said.
Mr. Trump, for his part, on Monday followed up his post defending his remarks with another visceral all-caps appeal: “Our once great country is going down the drain. We are a nation in decline! Vote for Trump, what the hell do you have to lose?” |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 20:33:00 GMT
www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/18/us/trump-biden-electionJennifer Mercieca, author of “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,” noted that in his weekend speech, Mr. Trump jumped from complaining about the failure of the United Auto Workers to endorse him to making claims about the auto manufacturing industry leaving the United States for Mexico to the blood bath comment and then back to car sales.
“Because his speech was so disjointed it makes it difficult to know if he was threatening the U.A.W. workers, the U.S. auto manufacturers, or the nation as a whole,” Ms. Mercieca said. But, she added, “In a sense, it doesn’t matter because Trump was threatening all at once.”
Ms. Mercieca, who teaches communications at Texas A&M University, called Mr. Trump’s rhetoric a strategy of “ad baculum,” which is using threats of force or intimidation to coerce behavior.
“Trump paints a dire picture of the nation, threatening economic ruin if he isn’t put in charge,” she said. “Using threats of force to gain power over a nation is authoritarian,” she added, “not democratic.”
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 20:51:04 GMT
Trump's history of making statements in support of political violence is really clear. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/18/bloodbath-aside-trumps-violent-rhetoric-is-unambiguous/‘Bloodbath’ aside, Trump’s violent rhetoric is unambiguous Trump has already warned of “riots,” “violence in the streets” and “death & destruction” if he’s wronged. All of that context is vital. Analysis by Aaron Blake In an interview with Donald Trump that aired over the weekend, Fox News host Howard Kurtz presented Trump with a not-exactly-novel theory: that Trump uses “over the top, sometimes inflammatory language” to draw attention.
Trump conceded that “if you don’t use certain words, that maybe are not very nice words, nothing will happen.”
The weekend provided ample evidence of that dynamic, particularly when Trump invited yet another tempest with his violent rhetoric. This time, he warned of a “bloodbath” if he loses in November. Trump’s allies claim he’s being taken out of context and unfairly attacked.
To recap: Appearing at a rally in Ohio, Trump riffed on his proposal for a 100 percent tariff on Chinese-made cars to protect the U.S. auto industry.
“Now, if I don’t get elected,” he continued, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
Here’s what we can say: Trump might indeed have been speaking metaphorically in this case. But the broader context here is vital. And that context is that Trump has repeatedly invoked the prospect of actual violence by his supporters while speaking about similar circumstances — his losing or facing criminal accountability, for example. We also saw a pronounced example of his supporters seizing on his rhetoric when they stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Which makes it much more difficult to dismiss the “bloodbath” comment as overheated rhetoric. Trump is, at the very least, deliberately playing with fire. And this is merely the most recent example.
Trump backers and even some conservative Trump critics dismissed the comment as, more or less, standard-issue political rhetoric. Some suggested that Trump was merely talking about a “bloodbath” for the auto industry (even though he was clearly saying the “bloodbath” would extend beyond that industry).
Regardless, a focus on the one word misses the point. It’s not that this isolated comment is particularly egregious; it’s that it is merely the latest example of this kind of rhetoric.
And the rhetoric is often more direct:
Trump in 2016 said that if he were denied the presidential nomination at the GOP convention, “I think you’d have riots.”
Trump in November 2020 responded to an adverse ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by saying it would “induce violence in the streets.” (Trump later expanded, saying, “Bad things will happen, and bad things lead to other type things. It’s a very dangerous thing for our country.”)
Trump warned last March of “potential death & destruction” if he were charged by the Manhattan district attorney. He also mocked those who urged his supporters to stay peaceful, saying, “OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!”
Trump warned in August, after the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate, that “terrible things are going to happen.” He later promoted a comment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump were charged.
Trump in January warned of “bedlam in the country” if the criminal charges against him succeeded. Days earlier, he targeted efforts to remove him from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, saying: “Because if we don’t [get treated fairly], our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying? I think so.”
And this doesn’t even account for the many, many examples of his alluding more suggestively to righteous violence by his supporters. He does this a lot. Sometimes it’s direct; sometimes it’s veiled and carries with it the plausible deniability that he craves.
But is it really ridiculous to suggest that the guy who warned of “riots,” “violence in the streets” and “death & destruction” if he were wronged might be gesturing in that direction again? Of course not.
More than that, history gives weight to comments like these. And that history includes Trump’s supporters turning violent after the 2020 election — and after they appeared to interpret his comments as encouragement.
At a 2020 presidential debate, Trump was asked to repudiate violence by white supremacists and the Proud Boys, a far-right group. Trump responded by telling the Proud Boys not to “stand down,” as had been suggested, but to “stand back and stand by.” That set off a fuss similar to the one we see today, with Trump allies and media critics asserting that this was much ado about nothing — just some awkward phrasing! For days, Trump and his White House resisted calls to clarify.
Months later, the Proud Boys — who in real time appeared to interpret Trump’s comments as a call to action — played a central role in the Capitol insurrection.
Also interpreting Trump’s various comments as a call to action, according to their legal defenses: many other Jan. 6 defendants.
With that kind of history, it’s certainly a choice for Trump to keep talking like this. And there was even a time when Republicans worried about what Trump might be fomenting.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said explicitly in April 2016 that Trump, even at that point, had “a consistent pattern of inciting violence.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), in dropping out of the race, directly linked Trump’s rhetoric to violent clashes in Chicago after a Trump rally was postponed.
“The broader anger that now exists in the American political discourse is a direct result of the fact that words have consequences,” Rubio said. “That when you run for President of the United States or if you are President of the United States … you can’t just take on the attitude that I’m going to say whatever I want.”
Rubio added: “You can’t say whatever you want. It has real-life consequences for people in this country, and all over the world. And we’re starting to see it bear out.”
Rubio’s warning, in particular, is applicable to what we see today. Trump has shown no sign of moderating his rhetoric despite the example of Jan. 6. Whether he’s doing it to merely provoke, because he wants to warn his critics, or because he actually wants his supporters to be ready to rise up, that doesn’t change the fact that it can be dangerous — in a way that Trump, those around him and even his many defenders must know.
You can argue that one comment is being blown out of proportion. But the track record here is clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 21:09:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 21:11:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 21:26:44 GMT
Calling for the prosecution of political enemies is an authoritarian move. And typical of Trump, based on a lie. fake news |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 18, 2024 21:37:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Mar 18, 2024 23:13:59 GMT
I wonder if the number of guns sold has been going up. I’m in a leaving California FB group and people brag that once they leave California they can just go into a store and within 5-10 minutes they can walk out of a store with guns and ammo. With all the threats of violence it’s really scary to think that these people that are so angry about California and the current government are stocking up.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 18, 2024 23:26:21 GMT
What did TFG mean when he said... It will be wild...
They showed up, some armed.
This time they will all be armed, heavily at that!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Mar 18, 2024 23:34:48 GMT
What did TFG mean when he said... It will be wild... They showed up, some armed. This time they will all be armed, heavily at that!! This is what we are afraid of. That snd all the whispers or maybe it’s shouts of civil war. |
|
