Wouldn't that be interesting?

Nikki has baggage.

50,000 shock troops, per Heritage Foundation and Linkin, at Bannon's command.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Project 2025 is a plan to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.[2][3] Established in 2022, the project seeks to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to Washington, D.C., to replace existing federal civil service workers it characterizes as the "deep state", to further the objectives of the next Republican president.[4] Although participants in the project cannot promote a specific presidential candidate, many have close ties to Donald Trump and the Trump 2024 presidential campaign.[5] The plan would perform a swift takeover of the entire executive branch under a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory — a theory proposing the president of the United States has absolute power over the executive branch — upon inauguration.[6]

The development of the plan is led by the The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, in collaboration with some 80 partners including Turning Point USA led by Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America led by former Trump-appointee Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller.[7][8]

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policy and the role of the federal government and federal agencies. The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.[9] Citing an anonymous source, The Washington Post reported Project 2025 includes immediately invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries.[10] Project Director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, said in September 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."[11]

Project 2025 consists largely of a book of policy recommendations titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and an accompanying personnel database open for submissions. There is also an online course called the Presidential Administration Academy, and a guide to developing transition plans. Reactions to the plan included variously describing it as authoritarian, an attempt by Trump to become a dictator, and a path leading the United States towards autocracy, with several experts in law criticizing it for violating current constitutional laws that would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers.[9] Additionally, some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in relation to climate change.[12]

==========================================================

I cut & pasted the following article entirely because it seems to have a paywall. It's a long article, but important in showing the extent of the baggage I'm talking about, regardless whether Trump is elected or someone else representing the GOP, even Nikki.

It's been said that the GOP doesn't have a platform. That's not true. Here it is:

https://globalextremism.org/pr...0_veE_xoCHmIQAvD_BwE

The Far-Right Playbook for American Authoritarianism
Project 2025
The far right has made public its plans for an ‘ideal’ America if one of their allies wins the 2024 presidential election in its 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Project 2025 is spearheaded by the far-right think tank Heritage Foundation and supported by more than 80 organizations, many well-known for their extreme positions, and for pushing hate and Christian nationalism. The authors and supporters of Project 2025 claim this plan will “rescue the country” from “elite rule and woke cultural warriors.”

Their aims include “bringing together conservative allies with a common goal: to take back our country from the radical Left by developing a robust governing agenda and the right people to implement it.” And it has been reported, though denied, that internal Project 2025 discussions have centered around the next conservative president invoking the Insurrection Act on the first day in office to allow the military to quell civil unrest.

Project 2025 is a threat to our democracy, and we must treat it as such.
That “robust governing agenda” bears the hallmarks of authoritarianism. It threatens Americans’ civil and human rights and our very democracy. The America that Project 2025 wants to create would involve a fundamental reordering of our society. It would greatly enhance the executive branch’s powers and impose on all Americans policies favored by Christian nationalists regarding issues such as sexual health and reproductive rights, education, the family, and the role of religion in our society and government. It would strip rights protections from LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, women, and people of color. It would dismantle much of the federal government and replace our apolitical civil service with far-right partisans it is already training in anticipation of a power shift. It would end attempts to enhance equity and racial justice throughout the government and shut down agencies that track progress on this front. Efforts to tackle issues such as climate change would be ended, and politicized research produced to back the project’s views on environmental policy, the evils of “transgenderism,” and women’s health would take priority.

Even if a Project 2025 favorite doesn’t win in 2024, this plan will continue to drive the thinking of the far right into the future and they will continue to push for these changes wherever possible.

As a country, we can — and we must – reject the far right’s efforts to lead us down the dark path away from an inclusive, vibrant democracy and toward authoritarianism.

The Main Elements of Project 2025
GPAHE’s analysis of Project 2025 focuses on two issues. First, a description of the Project’s Advisory Board’s supportive organizations, outlining their assertions, activities, and beliefs, many of which can be described as extremely far right. Second, it analyzes their plans for a far-right presidential administration as laid out in the project’s main text, Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise. This analysis identifies the aspects of Project 2025 that promote increasing authoritarianism as defined in Protect Democracy’s The Authoritarian Playbook, specifically: the politicizing of independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandizing executive power, weakening checks and balances, quashing criticism or dissent, marginalizing and restricting the rights of specific communities, corrupting elections, and stoking violence.

Project 2025: A Blueprint for Authoritarianism
Authoritarian regimes generally abolish or restrict civil liberties, concentrate political power, and impede and weaken free elections that allow for alternations of power. Authoritarian states might nominally contain democratic institutions such as political parties, legislatures, and elections, which are managed in such a way as to entrench authoritarian rule, for example gerrymandering and a restriction of social services, including education. Authoritarianism’s opposite is liberal democracy, which the bipartisan Freedom House, the oldest American institution defending global democracy, defines as encompassing much more than elections and majority rule. Liberal democracies are typified by governance based on the consent of the governed, accountable institutions, adherence to rule of law and respect for human rights. They have independent courts, an independent press, and a thriving civil society. Liberal democracies are open to changes in power, “with rival candidates or parties competing fairly to govern for the good of the public as a whole, not just themselves or those who voted for them.”

The path to authoritarianism usually first involves democratic backsliding, propelled by political figures and parties with authoritarian instincts who employ specific tactics. These factors are evident in Project 2025, which explicitly advocates politicizing independent institutions by replacing the federal bureaucracy with conservative activists and removing independence for many agencies. It advocates for gutting what it calls the “Deep State,” a conspiracy theory shared by the Project’s authors that blames civil servants for a coordinated effort to undermine a conservative agenda. Project 2025 claims to already be recruiting and training those who would replace career civil servants, with Project Director Paul Dans saying, “We want conservative warriors.”

Trump and many of his supporters have bought into the idea that this Deep State undermined his presidency, particularly regarding his relationship with Russia, and by sabotaging his policies. For example, the Project claims that “bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms” and “bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about ‘intersectionality’ and abortion.” There is no evidence for these claims.

Perhaps most ominous, Project 2025 targets the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI. The Project states about the next president that “he will need to decide expeditiously how to handle any major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might present a challenge to his agenda” rather than allowing the DOJ and FBI to act independently to ensure the rule of law. A very real fear with Project 2025’s recommendations for the president to take control of investigations and prosecutions is that a president will abuse that power to target political rivals and those who disagree with their policies. Since Watergate, presidents of both parties have worked to ensure the independence of prosecutions from political influence.

There are several elements of the project that spread disinformation about medical issues including COVID, abortion, sexual and reproductive health rights, sex education, and other issues, including DEI programs, climate change, civil rights, and marginalized communities, especially the LGBTQ+ community. The entire project is devoted to aggrandizing executive power by centralizing authority in the presidency, and a key aspect of democratic backsliding is viewing opposition elements as attempting to destroy the “real” community, an essential aspect to quashing dissent. Project 2025 paints progressives and liberals as outside acceptable politics, and not just ideological opponents, but inherently anti-American and “replacing American values.” Targeting vulnerable communities is a core tenet of Project 2025. Certain populations, in particular the LGBTQ+ community, are treated as deviants with ill intent rather than humans and Americans, and do not appear to exist within the far right’s framework of those deserving of fulsome human rights and protection from discrimination. Perhaps even more frightening, the left, the LGBTQ+ population, and the “woke,” are described as subversive elements aimed at destroying the country and its “real values.” The attack on the LGBTQ+ population is particularly ominous as recent research by UCLA’s Williams Institute has found a correlation between democratic backsliding and diminution in the rights of LGBTQ+ communities. LGBTQ+ people are the canaries in the authoritarian coal mine.

Protect Democracy points to two other factors as key to growing authoritarianism: stoking violence and corrupting elections. Trump was notorious for stoking violence against political opponents, those who upheld Biden’s 2020 election win, and election workers. And during his campaign rallies where supporters violently attacked people, he verbally attacked immigrants and other communities, and even suggested he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Trump’s words and his authoritarian ways have made the U.S. a more dangerous place based on an October 2023 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute. Nearly one in four Americans now believe political violence is justified to “save” the U.S., a higher number than just two years ago. The numbers grow even higher among Americans who believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, to nearly one in every two people; among Americans who like Trump, to 41 percent; among Americans who believe in the white supremacist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, to 41 percent; and among Americans who believe the core tenet of white Christian nationalism, that God intended America to be a new promised land for European Christians, to 39 percent.

This has real world implications. A Reuters investigation published in August 2023 showed that political violence began rising in 2016, in tandem with Trump’s leadership. Research from the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center (NCITE) published that same month found that threats against public officials are growing. And, of course, there was the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, which was encouraged by Trump, and combined stoking mob violence with corrupting elections to prevent certification of the 2020 presidential results. NCITE found that the second most targeted group for political violence were elected officials and those who run or manage elections, who have been abandoning their positions in droves since 2020 due to threats from Trump supporters and the election denial movement that grew in the wake of Trump’s constant barrage of lies about the outcome of the 2020 election. This has profoundly harmed America’s election system.

Trump has been identified as a key factor in American democratic backsliding. The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance found in 2021 that the U.S. “fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself, and was knocked down a significant number of steps on the democratic scale.” The Institute pointed to Trump and called his baseless questioning of the legitimacy of the 2020 election results a “historic turning point” that “undermined fundamental trust in the electoral process” and culminated in the Capitol insurrection. America’s V-Dem democracy index score shows a peak in 2015 and a sharp decline after 2016. In 2018, the U.S. was downgraded to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Intelligence Unit in its annual Democracy Index report and by Freedom House. The Brookings Institute in 2023 pointed to two factors in American democratic decline: election manipulation and executive overreach. It also pointed to a decline in non-governmental institutions critical to a healthy public sphere, including an independent media, a thriving education system, and an engaged civil society, as symptoms of democratic backsliding.

Project 2025 would further advance democratic backsliding in the U.S.

It would politicize key institutions such as the Department of Justice and strip civil rights protections from multiple communities, but particularly the LGBTQ+ community. The Project especially demonizes the transgender community, equating “transgenderism” and “transgender ideology” with “pornography.” Immigrants are demonized with false claims of inherent criminality, turning them into a national security threat that must be dealt with harshly. And anti-Black racism is evident in the Project’s sweeping denunciation of “the noxious tenets” of Critical Race Theory (only taught at the college level and beyond) which it falsely claims is “advocating for more racial discrimination” rather than acknowledging America’s history of racism. Authoritarian states often frame themselves as standing against a mortal threat. Project 2025 appears to describe a two-fold threat. Internationally, it is China, describing it as “the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century.” Domestically, it is the left, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and those advocating for racial and social justice. They too are treated as enemies of the state.

Typical to democratic backsliding, the Project attacks the media and voting. It proposes ending government funding for nonpartisan media such as NPR and PBS, which they describe as “compelling the conservative half of the country to pay for the suppression of its own views” and argues for aggressive investigation of leaks to the media. It describes “mainstream media” as an “anti-U.S. chorus” that is “denigrating the American story.” It would make voting more difficult, and proposes more aggressive prosecution of so-called voter fraud, for instance moving DOJ investigations from its Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division because, “Otherwise, voter registration fraud and unlawful ballot correction will remain federal election offenses that are never appropriately investigated and prosecuted.” It also proposes a full-scale review of DOJ’s election guidance to states on various forms of voting and is adamantly against any efforts the DOJ has engaged in to protect elections, condemning DOJ’s suits against multiple states to enhance election integrity.

Many of the principals involved in Project 2025 are also key players in another effort that is aimed at restricting civil rights and gutting the federal government, the Convention of the States, (COS) whose president Mark Meckler is co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. Among the senior supporters to the Convention of States is ALEC, Michael Farris, former CEO of the rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ Alliance Defending Freedom, and former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Also supporting are far-right extremists Ben Shapiro and Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk.

The Convention of the States (COS), like Project 2025, has not received the attention it deserves. The plan is to alter the Constitution through amendments using Article V, which empowers states to call for a constitutional convention. The article reads, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” It should be noted that almost no rules apply to an Article V convention and the consequences could be dire for our democracy and our civil and human rights. So far, 28 states, six shy of the required 34, have called for a constitutional convention aimed at sharply reducing federal powers through the Convention of States campaign or other convention campaigns. COS has passed its resolution in 19 states and has had its legislation introduced in enough states to achieve the convention should they all pass it. On its site, the COS wants to limit the powers of the federal government, achieve “fiscal responsibility,” and impose term limits. In their simulated conventions, they agreed to seek to restrict the federal government’s discretionary spending authority, land ownership rights, and ability to regulate interstate commerce. It would also remove from the federal government the power to enforce any federal law or regulation with which the majority of state legislatures disagree. Unbelievably radical, this would allow a simple majority of states to band together to rescind any act of Congress, the president, or a federal agency. Furthermore, it gives state legislatures exclusive power to nullify federal laws and regulations, making it clear that “state executive and judicial branches shall have no authority or involvement in this process.” COS also adopted a proposal to restrict the Commerce Clause, which is the basis for most federal environmental, labor, consumer, and civil rights protections, and nullify all existing laws and regulations in conflict with COS’ reading of the Constitution.

Make no mistake, democracies can and do succumb to illiberalism, sometimes rather quickly. There is a pattern to democratic backsliding that has played out in formerly democratic countries like Hungary, where civil liberties have been curtailed, marginalized communities have had their rights stripped, media is co-opted by the regime, and elections are not free and fair due to various tactics, including keeping opposition parties from publicizing their proposed policies. This is the path Hungary has taken under the rule of Victor Orbán. Starting with attacks on the LGBTQ+ community and migrants, the Orbán regime progressively undermined independent institutions installing its partisans in the Constitutional Court, the National Media Authority, the Competition Authority, the State Audit Office, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Independent media was gobbled up by Orban allies, academics attacked, and the ability of opposition parties to fairly run in elections stymied. It also redefined “real” Hungarians as Christians. In 2022, the European Commission decided to hold back millions in E.U. funds until Hungary meets conditions related to judicial independence, academic freedom, LGBTQ+ rights and the asylum system. That same year, the European Parliament issued a statement that Hungary could no longer be considered “a full democracy,” but is rather an “electoral autocracy.” The EU money was still on hold as of November 2023. Here in the U.S., the far right applauds Orbán, who has spoken at far-right extremist events like CPAC repeatedly and hosted far-right Americans including Trump and Tucker Carlson in Budapest. Project 2025 would set the U.S. on the Hungarian path if implemented.

The Role of Christian Nationalism
Project 2025 is very clearly on a path to Christian Nationalism as well as authoritarianism. It rejects the constitutional separation of Church and State, rather privileging religious beliefs over civil laws. Religious freedom is referenced throughout the plan and is seen to trump all other civil rights which should be subsumed to an individual’s religious rights. The message that America must remain Christian, that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in society, and that the government must take steps to ensure this is clear in every section of the plan, as is the idea that American identity cannot be separated from Christianity.

As a result, Project 2025 favors a government mandated by biblical principles, which excludes certain communities, particularly the LGBTQ+ community, from civil rights protections.

To accomplish this, the Project relies heavily on interpretations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” It has been described by the Supreme Court as a “kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws [that] might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.” RFRA, passed in 1993 with almost unanimous approval from the House and Senate, was originally intended to protect religious exercise but has over the years been used to erode civil rights and deny healthcare under the guise of religious freedom, as in the case of Burwell v Hobby Lobby, where the Supreme Court ruled that employers could deny certain healthcare services if it went against their religious beliefs. In Bostock v Clayton Country, the Court ruled that discrimination based on sex includes protection for sexual orientation and transgender status which the Project demands be very narrowly interpreted to only include hiring and firing and that all materials in federal agencies that would interpret Bostock more liberally be withdrawn.

This plan is for the next conservative president, but the Project’s sponsors have been working to achieve this vision for years and will continue to do so, regardless of who wins in 2024. Official supporters of Project 2025, specifically the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), have had much success with recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion and a company’s right to refuse service based on religious principles. Little could have been as fortuitous for this movement as the election of Representative Mike Johnson (R-La.), a former employee of the anti-LGBTQ+ ADF, to U.S. House Speaker, second in line to the presidency. He is an election denier who claims his worldview can be ascertained from the Bible, including its denial of evolution and a belief that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, despite all science to the contrary. Former ADF head, Michael Farris, has said that Johnson is the highest-ranking biblically-trained conservative Christian that he and his fellow evangelical Christians have ever seen and that Johnson will usher in the most conservative House of Representatives.

The Project’s Christian Nationalist goals are inherent in its dehumanizing language about LGBTQ+ people, putting them in the same sentence as pornography and pedophilia, rabid rejection of “wokeness,” its promotion of the “traditional family” writing that, “Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society,” its certainty that gender identity is binary and that being LGBTQ+ is an ideology rather than a natural state. It goes on to say that work on the Sabbath should be paid at time and a half, and that the government should protect the “letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection law,” and employers should be able to abide by their religious beliefs regarding marriage, the LGBTQ+ community, women’s healthcare, race, and any other religiously held conviction regardless of anti-discrimination laws. The Project wants a “general statement of policy specifying that it (the government) will not enforce any rules against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by healthcare providers who receive federal funds in the Affordable Healthcare Act, and indeed, the DOJ should aggressively defend a provider’s right to discriminate in court challenges.”

Many of the Project’s recommendations are based on the false idea that the “Left” is determined to rescind religious protections saying, “Today the Left is threatening the tax-exempt status of churches and charities that reject woke progressivism. They will soon turn to Christian schools and clubs with the same totalitarian intent.” And about education, it would upend the accreditation requirements for schools and universities by removing rules the Project sees as biased against religious schools or doctrine, but still allow Title IV funds to be available to these institutions. It also wants an executive order to remove what it calls the “list of shame,” the list of schools that have applied for religious exemptions to Title IX, from the Department of Education website. The Project demands that faith-based adoption and foster care institutions be able to deny a child a home if the home doesn’t meet with their religious tenets.

While not all aspects of the desire to infuse far-right interpretations of Christianity are apparent in the wording of Project 2025, they are abundantly clear in the missions and activities of many of the advisory board and the Project leader, Heritage Foundation. Examples include The American Conservative advocating for Christian conversion therapy counseling claiming that a law protecting young people from harmful conversion therapy infringes upon their free speech, the California Family Council whose mission and vision are, “Advancing God’s Design for Life, Family, & Liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, & Culture” and “God’s people living as principled citizens of both heaven and earth: Biblically Faithful, Civically Responsible, Culturally Impactful”, and the Eagle Forum which seeks “to define and defend more effectively the Judeo-Christian worldview of the U.S. Constitution and legal system in today’s Culture War” and refers to supporting LGBTQ+ rights as a religion in itself.

Gutting The Civil Service
One of the Project’s key efforts is to replace as many civil service employees as possible with conservative partisans, and materials indicate that they are already identifying and training those people. The Project portrays the federal bureaucracy as an enemy and part of a “woke” Deep State, working in secret to undermine efforts to install conservative principles in the U.S. For Project 2025’s collective thinking, electoral results favoring the right are systematically undermined by this nefarious cabal. This is particularly the case, the Project alleges, because career staff are often hired due to “membership in certain ideologically aligned groups or based on illegal considerations such as race, religion, or sex,” as opposed to merit and aptitude.

The plan isn’t just to stack the civil service with those who support the far-right agenda; much of Project 2025 is dedicated to eviscerating departments and agencies, essentially gutting the federal government, and investing nearly unfettered power over the executive branch, including the Department of Justice and FBI, in the presidency.

The plan is to assemble “thousands of properly vetted and trained personnel from across the country who will be ready on January 20, 2025, to begin dismantling our unaccountable fourth branch of government, the administrative state.” The end goal is to “gut the federal bureaucracy” and “fight the Deep State,” the latter being a reference to popular right-wing conspiracies that there is a clandestine network of members of the federal government, particularly in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), working to thwart the conservative movement’s goals (versions of this conspiracy theory have existed for decades). Trump popularized this idea, alleging that the federal staffers were literally working to destroy him, and it is a central aspect of other conspiracies such as QAnon, which Trump openly embraced. Trump’s conspiracist talk has had an effect; more than one in three Americans have come to believe the deep state really was undermining Trump.

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, where the project’s plans are laid out in detail, explains how to gut the civil service. It features sections on “how to fire supposedly ‘un-fireable’ federal bureaucrats; how to shutter ‘wasteful and corrupt bureaus and offices’; how to muzzle woke propaganda at every level of government; how to restore the American people’s constitutional authority over the Administrative State; and how to save untold taxpayer dollars in the process.” It proposes that any employee that has been involved in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts and did not object “on constitutional or moral grounds” should be subject to “per se grounds for termination of employment.”

The Project lays out what it calls the “the specific deficiencies of the federal bureaucracy,” meaning its size, levels of organization, inefficiency, expense, and lack of responsiveness to political appointees. It claims that this Deep State is far too influenced by “the progressive ideology that unelected experts can and should be trusted to promote the general welfare in just about every area of social life.” Thus an essential reordering is required to conform with the Project’s far-right principles.

The kinds of people Project 2025 is looking to install in the civil service becomes clear in the project’s personnel questionnaire. The application is prefaced, “With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, we will take back our government.” For the most part, the survey is filled with leading questions that would clearly screen in candidates who are far right, anti-LGBTQ+, and against international institutions. Some of the questions applicants are asked to agree or disagree with include: “The federal government should recognize only two unchanging sexes, male and female, as a matter of policy,” “The U.N. should have authority over the citizens or public policies of sovereign nations,” “The President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hindrance from unelected federal officials,” “The police in America are systemically racist,” and “The permanent institutions of family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good.”

Project 2025 is already training, though an academy, “aspiring appointees with the insight, background knowledge, and expertise in governance to immediately begin rolling back destructive policy and advancing conservative ideas in the federal government.” They will be armed with knowledge for “recognizing and addressing the dangers of the administrative state.”

Ending Racial Equity Efforts
A particular target of Project 2025 are efforts to improve racial equity, especially through diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The Project views these efforts as hostile attacks, as “affirmative discrimination,” alleging that DEI efforts “have become the vehicles for this unlawful discrimination, and all departments and agencies have created ‘equity’ plans to carry out these invidious schemes.” Delving further, the Project views DEI efforts as part of a “managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology, [where] every aspect of labor policy became a vehicle with which to advance race, sex, and other classifications and discriminate against conservative and religious viewpoints on these subjects and others, including pro-life views.” In the upside down world of Project 2025, efforts to improve equity are actually a form of “racist policymaking” that must be “forcefully opposed and reversed.” Project 2025 generally sees ending DEI and equity programs as a way to stop “woke revolutionaries…who believe America is–and always has been–‘systematically racist’ and not worth celebrating.” They also frame these attacks as a way to return to “American ideals, American families, and American culture—all things in which, thankfully, most Americans still believe.”

There are multiple calls to undermine the “DEI agenda” by dismissing or barring any “implementers and grantees that engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda.” The Project would end efforts to improve racial equity, which it says the Biden administration “has pushed…in every area of our national life, including in employment, and has condoned the use of racial classifications and racial preferences under the guise of DEI and critical race theory, which categorizes individuals as oppressors and victims based on race.” The Project calls for an end to “Racial Classifications and Critical Race Theory (CRT) Trainings,” and advocates for an executive order that would ban CRT training, a new law barring the use of taxpayer dollars to fund CRT trainings, and the elimination of all Equal Employment Opportunity data collection, which is used to assess the diversity of the workforce.

The Project advocates that the next Administration “should take affirmative steps to expose and eradicate the practice of critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) throughout the Treasury Department,” and all other departments. The plan further wants the Department of Education to end “anti-American ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms.” And for those who might persist in DEI efforts, it calls for termination of their employment.

Eviscerating LGBTQ+ Rights and Equality
Under the banner of “Restoring the Family,” Project 2025 aims to gut protections for the LGBTQ+ community, which is negatively contrasted with the “traditional American family” and whose civil rights are seen as opposed to the Project’s religious tenets. The Project would privilege “family authority, formation, and cohesion as their top priority and even use government power, including the tax code” to favor traditional families. The project says, “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.” The Project claims falsely that only heterosexual, two-parent families are safe for children, and that “All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; and poor behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes.” (Their data on the length of marriages is false).

The plan calls on the next president to “make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors.” To do so, it advocates “deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” And it calls for the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) “antidiscrimination policy statements” to “never conflate sex with gender identity or sexual orientation.” It demands changes to Title VII, calling for a restriction of Bostock’s [Bostock v. Clayton County] “application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing” and to rescind “regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.” Sex discrimination should be restricted to a “biological binary meaning.” Further, it calls on the HHS secretary to “proudly state that men and women are biological realities that are crucial to the advancement of life sciences and medical care and that married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.”

The Project dehumanizes the transgender community by making unfounded, hyperbolic claims that “children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries,” repeatedly linking transgender people to pornography, writing, “Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare.” At one point, the Project attacks the Department of Justice (DOJ) for undermin[ing] girls’ sports and caving on the issue to “satisfy transgender extremists.” The Project also likens gender-affirming healthcare to child abuse (this position is rejected by the medical establishment). It calls on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to reissue a stronger transgender national coverage determination, which would restrict medical care for the community.

In pursuit of “promoting life and strengthening the family,” the Project would abolish the Gender Policy Council, which “would eliminate central promotion of abortion (‘health services’); comprehensive sexuality education (‘education’); and the new woke gender ideology, which has as a principal tenet ‘gender affirming care’ and ‘sex-change’ surgeries on minors.” Claiming the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science,” a conservative HHS secretary should immediately put “an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.” Instead, NIH should “fund studies into the short-term and long-term negative effects of cross-sex interventions, including ‘affirmation,’ puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries, and the likelihood of desistence [sic] if young people are given counseling that does not include medical or social interventions.” An emphasis must also be put on efforts “to affirm the role fathers play in the lives of their children” and “must teach fathers based on a biological and sociological understanding of what it means to be a father–not a gender neutral parent.”

Finally, the Project calls for the Department of State to abandon pro-LGBTQ+ initiatives in Africa, where punishing laws against the community are being proposed or have been enacted, such as Uganda’s recent passage of a law that criminalizes same-sex conduct, including potentially the death penalty for those convicted of “aggravated homosexuality.”

Restricting Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
It is in the realm of women’s health that the Christian nationalist views of Project 2025’s creators come to full fruition.

It should not be surprising that such a far-right effort would unequivocally want to ban all abortions and restrict people’s bodily autonomy and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The project reads, “The next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion.” But it goes farther than that, calling for a ban on “abortion pills” and tasks the Department of Justice (DOJ) to criminally prosecute providers and distributors of such medications.

It claims the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has “failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women. It never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.” It would end Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood health services, remove abortion from healthcare plans, and transform the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into, “the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.” HHS must “pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.” It contends that “abortion [is]… not healthcare,” and no federal agency should treat it as such. In addition, it calls for new legislation, the Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act, to “defund abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.” It would treat sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, “with a focus on strengthening marriage and sexual risk avoidance,” rather than medically advised treatments. And it calls on federal agencies to produce politicized “research” that backs the Project’s beliefs about the negative health effects of abortion (The American Psychological Association reports that scientific research from around the world shows having an abortion is not linked to mental health issues but restricting access to the procedure is).

The Project would force all Americans, in contrast with the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe that left abortion policy to the states, to abide by the wishes of those Americans for whom abortion “violates the conscience and religious freedom rights.” The project would ban “abortion travel funding” for all Americans, and overturn Biden’s executive order that allows the HHS Secretary to “use his authority under Section 1115 to waive certain provisions of the law in order to use taxpayer funds to achieve the Administration’s goal of helping women to travel out of state to obtain abortions.” It claims that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ OLC) issued a politicized legal opinion declaring Biden’s order is not in conflict with the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion services but does not restrict states from doing so.

It calls on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to eliminate projects that “do not respect human life and conscience rights and that undermine family formation.” The CDC should back studies “into the risks and complications of abortion and ensure that it corrects and does not promote misinformation regarding the comparative health and psychological benefits of childbirth versus the health and psychological risk of intentionally taking a human life through abortion.” It also tasks the CDC with collecting data from states used for “abortion tourism,” and data on medical outcomes related to abortion. And the Office of Refugee Resettlement is accused of “transporting [pregnant] minors across state lines from pro-life states to abortion-friendly states” apparently “to be victimized by the abortion industry.”

Finally, the project actually attacks contraception in many different ways, pushing for example to eliminate the morning after pill, and suggests instead that, “fertility awareness–based methods of family planning [the rhythm method, which is much less effective than birth control] are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA [Affordable Care Act].” In sum, the Project would restrict as much as is possible any access to services it views as related to abortion, even contraception if necessary, even in those states that have elected to keep the procedure legal.

Hardline Immigration Policies
One of the pillars of Project 2025 is “Defend Our Borders,” and it demonizes immigrants as a crime-ridden plague. The Project writes, “Thousands of illegal aliens are allowed to bond out of immigration detention only to disappear into the interior of the United States where many commit crimes.” It proposes incredibly harsh immigration policies, including tent cities and restricting asylum for those fleeing gang violence and domestic violence. It would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and place all immigration-related activities across the administration in one agency. Eliminating DHS wouldn’t just address its perceived immigration failures, but also would eliminate the problem of DHS being affected by “the Left’s wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents.” While not spelled out, this is likely a repudiation of DHS’s work against far-right domestic terrorists, largely white supremacists and antigovernment militias, whom the FBI and most federal agencies have determined are the top threat for domestic terrorism in the U.S. The call to shutter the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which the Project describes as having been “weaponized for domestic political purposes” supports that conjecture, as that is where monitoring of far-right domestic extremist threats lives in DHS.

Project 2025 wants to restrict asylum, end “chain migration,” and authorize state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration and border security. They characterize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as “help[ing] migrants criminally enter our country with impunity.” The plan would expand U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, create a “single nationwide detention standard,” and draw local police forces into the immigration system, which weakens trust between law enforcement and communities. The project advocates for “the flexibility to use large numbers of temporary facilities such as tents” to house migrants and the restriction of T visas, given to the victims of human trafficking, and U visas, meant to help crime victims suffering from mental or physical abuse, asserting that, “Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit.” Asylum would become harder, and sanctuary cities banned.

Additional agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), would be made to assist DHS in enforcing immigration policies and shutting down “sanctuary” jurisdictions. The Project would also reorder the bureaucratic design of certain immigration departments, moving the Office of Refugee Resettlement from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review from DOJ to DHS, in addition to consolidating departments related to immigration in DHS into one entity. The project alleges that “HHS and ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) have forgotten their original refugee-resettlement mission and instead have provided a panoply of free programs that incentivize people to come to the U.S. illegally.”

The Project also proposes

Of the current options on the table, from either side, Nikki seems far and away the most sensible choice. Not a prefect one maybe but head and shoulders above the alternatives.

quote:

Not a prefect one maybe but head and shoulders above the alternatives.

Nonetheless, she carries the Heritage Foundation's agenda in her head and on her shoulders.

No viable GOP candidate can avoid it. Trump says some parts out loud.

I wonder if you recognise that you are relying on what is fundamentaly a left wing think tanks opinion of a right wing think tank?

Also I cant find anything linking her too the project?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if you recognise that you are relying on what is fundamentaly a left wing think tanks opinion of a right wing think tank?

Also I cant find anything linking her too the project?

Ideologues don’t think, they BELIEVE.

That’s how you get ISIS, Taliban, BokoHaram, Zionists, Trumpists, Evangelicals …thinking is no longer in fashion it seems, it’s been replaced by virulent propaganda and aggressive brainwashing. Welcome to the dystopian future, Citizen 2743.

Kamala would win in a walk.

Assuming both Biden and Trump dropped out Kamala would start with a war chest of $130 million, wouldn't lose any Biden voters and would energize the black vote that seated Ossoff and Warnock.

Meanwhile, Haley starts with little money, an RNC that's nearly broke and she has alienated a lot of MAGAts by saying mean things about their Orange Jesus.

She might well win by a bigger margin than Biden will.

Quick question, of all 4 which do you guys think is closest to the centre ground?

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Quick question, of all 4 which do you guys think is closest to the centre ground?

Harris. When she was Attorney General a LOT of liberals thought she was too far to the right.

But in today's political climate both she and Joe are center-left. Haley is flirting with being far right and trump is just insane, probably from the syphillis.

Haley is probably more centrist from a U.S. point of view.

Harris is more centrist from a European point of view.

Haley would probably come across better in public.


I think Haley would win in a Haley/Harris matchup, probably by a notable margin, but not as much as she would beat Biden by, for the reasons that Jeffive mentions.

I do think it would be a low key change of administration regardless. None of the Trump behavioral issues.

I will admit I don't know a huge amount about Harris but I would view Haley as centrist. She is certainly sane, and an adult compared to Trump.

Much as I think he is a repellant human I think Haley pardoning Trump should he be convicted and locked up, would be the right thing to do to try to bring the country together.

Harris is much more of an opportunist than she is a centrist. Just ask Willi Brown….

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if you recognise that you are relying on what is fundamentaly a left wing think tanks opinion of a right wing think tank?

Also I cant find anything linking her too the project?

That's BS. I recognize exactly what Heritage Foundation promotes. It's not opinion. They have a plan and spell it out. Sure, they try to clean it up for promotion. It's Trumpism.

Her link to the project is as strong as the GOP's link, and that's a fact. She can't avoid it, no matter how centrist she may be. The GOP, Trumpism and Project 25 are integral.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I will admit I don't know a huge amount about Harris but I would view Haley as centrist. She is certainly sane, and an adult compared to Trump.

Much as I think he is a repellant human I think Haley pardoning Trump should he be convicted and locked up, would be the right thing to do to try to bring the country together.

How would pardoning Trump do that?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if you recognise that you are relying on what is fundamentaly a left wing think tanks opinion of a right wing think tank?

Also I cant find anything linking her too the project?

That's BS. I recognize exactly what Heritage Foundation promotes. It's not opinion. They have a plan and spell it out. Sure, they try to clean it up for promotion. It's Trumpism.

Her link to the project is as strong as the GOP's link, and that's a fact. She can't avoid it, no matter how centrist she may be. The GOP, Trumpism and Project 25 are integral.

No, you are wrong. You posted an opinion of a left wing think tank/policy exponent. It is an opinion. I never made a comment on that opinions validity.
You also have showed no link too Hailey and the right wing org. Your Proposition is flawed.

According to you then, no republican can govern because of this. There is no stepping back from the brink then and a more centrist republican is not a move away from trumpism. So why bother?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if you recognise that you are relying on what is fundamentaly a left wing think tanks opinion of a right wing think tank?

Also I cant find anything linking her too the project?

That's BS. I recognize exactly what Heritage Foundation promotes. It's not opinion. They have a plan and spell it out. Sure, they try to clean it up for promotion. It's Trumpism.

Her link to the project is as strong as the GOP's link, and that's a fact. She can't avoid it, no matter how centrist she may be. The GOP, Trumpism and Project 25 are integral.

No, you are wrong. You posted an opinion of a left wing think tank/policy exponent. It is an opinion. I never made a comment on that opinions validity.
You also have showed no link too Hailey and the right wing org. Your Proposition is flawed.

According to you then, no republican can govern because of this. There is no stepping back from the brink then and a more centrist republican is not a move away from trumpism. So why bother?

The first thing any centrist Republican has to do to move away from Trumpism is denounce Trumpism, reiterate that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and not try to suck up to Trumpists by promising to subvert the Law and pardon his criminal ass.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
You posted an opinion of a left wing think tank/policy exponent. It is an opinion. I never made a comment on that opinions validity.

You also have showed no link too Hailey and the right wing org. Your Proposition is flawed.

According to you then, no republican can govern because of this. There is no stepping back from the brink then and a more centrist republican is not a move away from trumpism. So why bother?

I don't see where the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is a leftist think tank. Yes, they are activists.

And the article is far more than opinion. It's an analysis of what Project 25 is all about, considering the big picture.

ANY GOPer politician will tow the line, including Hailey. Just look, open your eyes, at what's happened in congress - mostly Trump loyalists. And those who dissent are leaving.

Not only will a GOPer candidate have to denounce Trumpism, promise to not pardon Trump, but also denounce Project 25, before such person(s) are deemed to NOT be all-in on Trumpism and Project 25.

Otherwise, they are ALL part of the plan by default. It's a setup with no escape, by design.

https://youtu.be/N-vza0lE4y8?si=yzfC_6hQyhENaDyk

Stop Pretending

Stop Denying

https://youtu.be/diCScqfSE8M?si=-86HwAXUmAXZ4mHg

Last Week in the Republican Party - February 20, 2024

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Wouldn't that be interesting?

Not at all.

It is almost beyond imagination, that a great country as the US is, has to put up with this home made political system

TOTALLY CORRUPT!

Every single person in power is bought!

Saeed, I have to agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
You posted an opinion of a left wing think tank/policy exponent. It is an opinion. I never made a comment on that opinions validity.

You also have showed no link too Hailey and the right wing org. Your Proposition is flawed.

According to you then, no republican can govern because of this. There is no stepping back from the brink then and a more centrist republican is not a move away from trumpism. So why bother?

I don't see where the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is a leftist think tank. Yes, they are activists.

And the article is far more than opinion. It's an analysis of what Project 25 is all about, considering the big picture.

ANY GOPer politician will tow the line, including Hailey. Just look, open your eyes, at what's happened in congress - mostly Trump loyalists. And those who dissent are leaving.

Not only will a GOPer candidate have to denounce Trumpism, promise to not pardon Trump, but also denounce Project 25, before such person(s) are deemed to NOT be all-in on Trumpism and Project 25.

Otherwise, they are ALL part of the plan by default. It's a setup with no escape, by design.

Open your eyes and google with out partizan thought, Heidi Beirich.

Now I know you will not agree with me here, but the worst thing you could do, is demand any republican candidate denounce out loud, trumpism. And for jeff, you dont understand why it might be a good idea to lay out a pardon for Trump. Honestly sometimes I think you guys would cut off your nose to spite your face.
Now I dont like it any more than you. But I do understand, I think, that walking back the republican party to about where it was when Mitt romney was running is going to mean having to forgive quite a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
You posted an opinion of a left wing think tank/policy exponent. It is an opinion. I never made a comment on that opinions validity.

You also have showed no link too Hailey and the right wing org. Your Proposition is flawed.

According to you then, no republican can govern because of this. There is no stepping back from the brink then and a more centrist republican is not a move away from trumpism. So why bother?

I don't see where the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is a leftist think tank. Yes, they are activists.

And the article is far more than opinion. It's an analysis of what Project 25 is all about, considering the big picture.

ANY GOPer politician will tow the line, including Hailey. Just look, open your eyes, at what's happened in congress - mostly Trump loyalists. And those who dissent are leaving.

Not only will a GOPer candidate have to denounce Trumpism, promise to not pardon Trump, but also denounce Project 25, before such person(s) are deemed to NOT be all-in on Trumpism and Project 25.

Otherwise, they are ALL part of the plan by default. It's a setup with no escape, by design.

Open your eyes and google with out partizan thought, Heidi Beirich.

Now I know you will not agree with me here, but the worst thing you could do, is demand any republican candidate denounce out loud, trumpism. And for jeff, you dont understand why it might be a good idea to lay out a pardon for Trump. Honestly sometimes I think you guys would cut off your nose to spite your face.
Now I dont like it any more than you. But I do understand, I think, that walking back the republican party to about where it was when Mitt romney was running is going to mean having to forgive quite a bit.

I think it better to burn the Republican Party to the ground and allow a loyal opposition to rebuild on the ashes. Their participation in a Russian disinformation campaign is a bridge too far.

And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

quote:

Originally posted by Norman Conquest:
Saeed, I have to agree with you.

It may be true, but I just refuse to believe it simply because that's what "they" want you to believe.

"They" win when "we" accept that as truth.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

quote:

Open your eyes and google with out partizan thought, Heidi Beirich.

I suggest you do the same.

What I see is her self-declaration, then in some cases I see opinion about her.

I think you are relying on the opinion of others which coincidentally affirms yours.

I would rather rely on her self-declaration, until shown otherwise.

Granted, I'm bias against the Heritage Foundation simply because it's a far right think tank. I'm also bias against Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, etc.

A thorough, well founded analysis, far beyond opinion, based on facts and evidence, easily affirms my bias.

That's what my post represents. So, just saying stuff isn't going to sway me at all. You will need to go through the analysis, pick out the facts, and refute them.

I know you can't do that, and you do too.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

I think that quote is also BS.

I think you and many others are in denial.

And some of your comments are projections.

Other comments and opinions are so far out they just don't merit rebuttal.

You can't add kindling to a fascist movement by calling it out and opposing it, and it won't go away by appeasement or watering it down.

What we are witnessing, IMO, is what ideology does to critical thinking. They actually think they can't be wrong - it's righteous.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

quote:

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

So, you can call it now that Trump won't be convicted before the election?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Open your eyes and google with out partizan thought, Heidi Beirich.

I suggest you do the same.

What I see is her self-declaration, then in some cases I see opinion about her.

I think you are relying on the opinion of others which coincidentally affirms yours.

I would rather rely on her self-declaration, until shown otherwise.

Granted, I'm bias against the Heritage Foundation simply because it's a far right think tank. I'm also bias against Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, etc.

A thorough, well founded analysis, far beyond opinion, based on facts and evidence, easily affirms my bias.

That's what my post represents. So, just saying stuff isn't going to sway me at all. You will need to go through the analysis, pick out the facts, and refute them.

I know you can't do that, and you do too.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

I think that quote is also BS.

I think you and many others are in denial.

And some of your comments are projections.

Other comments and opinions are so far out they just don't merit rebuttal.

What we are witnessing, IMO, is what ideology does to critical thinking. They actually think they can't be wrong - it's righteous.

ME, Nothing will sway you except pages and pages of argument where your twists and turn eventually catch you out. thats been proven time and again.
Its obvious too see, even from what you have posted, where Heidi and her orgs lay. And Im am not saying she is completely wrong. But she docent represent the truth either.
Im going to segway for a second- John Stewart has come back too the daily show. He immediately got chastised by the left after his first show. which brings me back to there is a blindness in you guys, as there is the left that prevents a real conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

So, you can call it now that Trump won't be convicted before the election?

Answer the question before asking me in reply.

But il reply, no I cant. I hope he is. But I dont think its something to rely on.

quote:

ME, Nothing will sway you

I'm easily swayed by facts and evidence.

You are lame and slack in that regard.

It's so evident that I think you actually don't know the difference.

Bullshit

ME, can you call the election for Biden now?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

In my opinion, yes, easily.

I see nowhere Trump has picked up voters from his failed campaign in 2020, while he has lost a considerable number, most notably women. Between his Supreme Court nominees overturning Roe and the Court in New York confirming that the "Access Hollywood" tape wasn't "locker room talk", as it was dismissed as, but rather represented what he both felt entitled to do to women and did, I suspect he has shed a minimum of 25% of the women's votes from 2020.

Meanwhile, Biden has steadily gained both disaffected Republicans not in the MAGA cult and young voters who will be voting in their first election.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

In my opinion, yes, easily.

I see nowhere Trump has picked up voters from his failed campaign in 2020, while he has lost a considerable number, most notably women. Between his Supreme Court nominees overturning Roe and the Court in New York confirming that the "Access Hollywood" tape wasn't "locker room talk", as it was dismissed as, but rather represented what he both felt entitled to do to women and did, I suspect he has shed a minimum of 25% of the women's votes from 2020.

Meanwhile, Biden has steadily gained both disaffected Republicans not in the MAGA cult and young voters who will be voting in their first election.

I hope you are right. But I think you are very brave to take the risk. Now Id likely prefer Haley to biden, and Biden to trump, but my view is that if I was in your shoes, id be supportive of haley as the best of the alternative options.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

In my opinion, yes, easily.

I see nowhere Trump has picked up voters from his failed campaign in 2020, while he has lost a considerable number, most notably women. Between his Supreme Court nominees overturning Roe and the Court in New York confirming that the "Access Hollywood" tape wasn't "locker room talk", as it was dismissed as, but rather represented what he both felt entitled to do to women and did, I suspect he has shed a minimum of 25% of the women's votes from 2020.

Meanwhile, Biden has steadily gained both disaffected Republicans not in the MAGA cult and young voters who will be voting in their first election.

I hope you are right. But I think you are very brave to take the risk. Now Id likely prefer Haley to biden, and Biden to trump, but my view is that if I was in your shoes, id be supportive of haley as the best of the alternative options.

I happen to think the Biden Administration has done a very good job in spite of Republican obstruction, reviving the economy despite all predictions to the contrary and restoring our alliances that Trump worked to weaken, and look forward to seeing what they can do with a Democratic House and Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

In my opinion, yes, easily.

I see nowhere Trump has picked up voters from his failed campaign in 2020, while he has lost a considerable number, most notably women. Between his Supreme Court nominees overturning Roe and the Court in New York confirming that the "Access Hollywood" tape wasn't "locker room talk", as it was dismissed as, but rather represented what he both felt entitled to do to women and did, I suspect he has shed a minimum of 25% of the women's votes from 2020.

Meanwhile, Biden has steadily gained both disaffected Republicans not in the MAGA cult and young voters who will be voting in their first election.

I hope you are right. But I think you are very brave to take the risk. Now Id likely prefer Haley to biden, and Biden to trump, but my view is that if I was in your shoes, id be supportive of haley as the best of the alternative options.

I happen to think the Biden Administration has done a very good job in spite of Republican obstruction, reviving the economy despite all predictions to the contrary and restoring our alliances that Trump worked to weaken, and look forward to seeing what they can do with a Democratic House and Senate.

The reason I said likely prefer haley is im traditionally a libertarian/ right voter here. But I do know that American politics is generally further right than ours, so you dems might well sit closer too where i vote now. But I must confess Id have real trouble with the same crazy ultra left nut jobs that the dems have that infect politics here too.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
And what if they don't burn? because the left has been trying to light that fire for quite a while and yet it looks like the GOP eats fire.
If truely the goal you guys state is to prevent facism taking hold, then adding kindling seems like a dumb idea. better to let things water down.

Honestly I think revenge is driving some of you.more than desire for a better nation.

They are burning themselves to the ground. Since the election of Trump they have consistently lost elections, even when the pundits confidently predicted a "Red Wave".

And that was when women voters weren't pissed about Roe.

So you can call it now that biden will win the election?

In my opinion, yes, easily.

I see nowhere Trump has picked up voters from his failed campaign in 2020, while he has lost a considerable number, most notably women. Between his Supreme Court nominees overturning Roe and the Court in New York confirming that the "Access Hollywood" tape wasn't "locker room talk", as it was dismissed as, but rather represented what he both felt entitled to do to women and did, I suspect he has shed a minimum of 25% of the women's votes from 2020.

Meanwhile, Biden has steadily gained both disaffected Republicans not in the MAGA cult and young voters who will be voting in their first election.

I hope you are right. But I think you are very brave to take the risk. Now Id likely prefer Haley to biden, and Biden to trump, but my view is that if I was in your shoes, id be supportive of haley as the best of the alternative options.

I happen to think the Biden Administration has done a very good job in spite of Republican obstruction, reviving the economy despite all predictions to the contrary and restoring our alliances that Trump worked to weaken, and look forward to seeing what they can do with a Democratic House and Senate.

The reason I said likely prefer haley is im traditionally a libertarian/ right voter here. But I do know that American politics is generally further right than ours, so you dems might well sit closer too where i vote now. But I must confess Id have real trouble with the same crazy ultra left nut jobs that the dems have that infect politics here too.

They are a noisy minority.

Yep, well that noisy minority got some pretty stupid law passed and attitude accepted in this country, and threatened to go for even sillier stuff. that might be a symptom of our form of democracy and its rules. But from the outside I can see the same influence percolating through your democrats.
But you are consistent on both sides in your risk assessment, which I dont mean as an insult.

Nikki can actually string two sentences together, but you should never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.