President Biden's State of the Union

The problem is not my interpretation when every link I provided including reputable, relatively neutral sources reached the same conclusion.

As Merge pointed out, project 2025 is a solution in search of problems that don’t exist. The entire premise is false.

In addition, as Merge also pointed out, this document does not exist in a vacuum. Looking at this in light of extreme Republicans’ proposed bills, statements, conservative justices’ opinions etc provides really clear objectives.



Eliminating the Department of Education is problematic.  No, I definitely do not think getting rid of the federal Department of Education is a good idea.  You only have to look at Florida and Texas to see what Republican governors can do to public education.  The Department of Education is necessary to protect the rights of students with disabilities to ensure access to a free and appropriate education.  The Department of Education also oversees federal financial aid, distributes and monitors the funds.  

Shrinking the federal government and eliminating departments like Commerce, Education, FBI, ATF, IRS and Nuclear Regulatory Commission is problematic.   Among other responsibilities, NOAA, the census bureau and the Patent and Trademark Office all fall under the Department of Commerce.  

Changing career service employees to at will is problematic.  Giving any president, Republican or Democrat that much control is dangerous.  This is not about firing people who are not doing their jobs.  This is about a loyalty pledge to Trump.  The Heritage Foundation has already started screening potential employees so they will be ready on day 1 if Trump is re-elected.  The questions are centered around your personal ideology vs experience and background.  We're not talking about political appointees.  There are about 2 million people that work for the federal government across all of the agencies.  

Prioritizing married heterosexual relationships is problematic to anyone in any other relationship. The extreme conservative agenda is to undo marriage equality. Just look at Alito and Thomas’ opinions. They believe religious freedom is more important than civil rights. This plan is is really problematic for the LGBTQ community and anyone that cares about them.

Protecting life from conception is a path to extreme abortion bans and blocking conception like IUDs. Conservatives have been really open and clear about this agenda, it’s not hidden.

If you don’t have a problem with Project 2025 or anything I posted, that’s fine , but I’m not going to argue with you. We can agree to disagree.

Exactly. What he said last night was intentional and deliberate. He wanted his supporters to hear there will be a blood bath if I lose and they did. He consistently uses apocalyptic and violent language. He riled up his supporters and catastrophizes everything to justify political violence.

Saying he was just talking about the car industry is simply a cover, just like stand back and stand by and there are very fine people on both sides.

Trump's words were intentionally chosen and deliberate.  He was not talking about the car industry.  It was not a misunderstanding, an accident, a joke, a hoax, the fault of fake news, just locker room talk or any other excuse that's been used in his defense.  No one says blood bath by accident.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, answered questions in good faith and provided links and articles that you apparently have not read. I quoted Merge because I happen to agree with her and she eloquently made the same points that I wanted to make. There's nothing wrong with using someone else's words to make a stronger point. It does not mean that I didn't give my thoughts or that somehow my post wan't original if I included her words. You didn't actually respond to the points that we made about the document not existing In a vacuum. You just deflected. I'm not the one not operating in bad faith.

First, the problem was my interpretation. Now the problem is my application of someone else's interpretation? Do you have problem with any of the interpretations that I posted? If you have a problem with my application, what exactly did I say that is inaccurate?



I keep saying I don't want to argue with you because I don't want to get sidetracked down your little rabbit holes about interpretation and semantics. And some things like civil rights for the LGBTQ community are not negotiable or debatable.

Promoting a nuclear family would be fine if that's all that they wanted to do.  But they won't stop there.  Thomas and Alito have made it clear that they would like to undo marriage equality and conservatives will not stop until they achieve that.  Project 2025 makes it clear that they will remove protections for the LGBTQ community against discrimination.

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf.  - page 451

Goal #3: Promoting Stable and Flourishing Married Families. Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.


https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-18.pdf. page 584

Sex Discrimination. The Biden Administration, LGBT advocates, and some federal courts have attempted to expand the scope and definition of sex discrimination, based in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Bostock held that “an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender” violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the hiring/firing context in Title VII and did not purport to address other Title VII issues, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes, or other laws prohibiting sex discrimination. Notably, the Court focused on the status of the employees and used the term “transgender status” rather than the broader and amorphous term “gender identity.”

Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.

Withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances.” The President should direct agencies to withdraw unlawful “notices” and “guidances” purporting to apply Bostock’s reasoning broadly outside hiring and firing.

Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basisof sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.





Abortion is not a slippery slope. Conservatives have been very clear about their plans for total abortion bans and voted against protecting access to contraception.  Under project 2025, abortion medications would be banned and contraception and insurance companies would no longer be required to cover contraception.

I'll ask the question again.

Are you disagreeing and saying that abortion is health care?

Or, are you agreeing with the Heritage foundation and the other conservatives that abortion is not health care? Because women being denied medically necessary abortions and women denied medical care for miscarriages would disagree. Women in Alabama trying to conceive through IVF would also disagree. All of these tragic situations are predictable outcomes of a policy that recognizes life at conception.


https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf. page 458

Since its approval more than 20 years ago, mifepristone has been associated with 26 deaths of pregnant mothers, over a thousand hospitalizations, and thousands more adverse events, but that number does not account for all complications. Of course, this does not count the hundreds of thousands to millions of babies whose lives have been unjustly taken through chemical abortion. FDA should therefore:

Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start.




Are you OK with the plans to consolidate executive power?  Are you OK with dramatically reshaping and shrinking the federal government?  Are you OK with eliminating entire departments?

Eliminating the Department of Education is problematic. No, I definitely do not think getting rid of the federal Department of Education is a good idea. You only have to look at Florida and Texas to see what Republican governors can do to public education. The Department of Education is necessary to protect the rights of students with disabilities to ensure access to a free and appropriate education. The Department of Education also oversees federal financial aid, distributes and monitors the funds.

Shrinking the federal government and eliminating departments like Commerce, Education, FBI, ATF, IRS and Nuclear Regulatory Commission is problematic. Among other responsibilities, NOAA, the census bureau and the Patent and Trademark Office all fall under the Department of Commerce.

Changing career service employees to at will is problematic. Giving any president, Republican or Democrat that much control is dangerous. This is not about firing people who are not doing their jobs. This is about a loyalty pledge to Trump. The Heritage Foundation has already started screening potential employees so they will be ready on day 1 if Trump is re-elected. The questions are centered around your personal ideology vs experience and background. We're not talking about political appointees. There are about 2 million people that work for the federal government across all of the agencies.



Are you actually defending project 2025? You don't have problem with any of this?  It's OK to say you disagree with something that Trump or the Republicans are doing.  And some things shouldn't be that hard to say.