Project 2025 is what will cost Trump the election. - Politics Discussion

[–] BKB (11285) 7 months ago

Look, we get you hate Trump and won't believe him no matter what, so what's the point of this thread?? The man is still winning this in 109 days whether you like it or not?? Oh, and we have alot more on Kamel Toe Harris than just her being weird along with her cackle laugh that's used as a defense mechanism for when she's put on the spot and can't answer the question, she'll laugh and try and throw off the Press hoping they forgot what they asked her and 9 times out of 10, it doesn't work.. Also, Biden appointed her "Border Czar" and not once, NOT ONCE did this woman ever show up to the Southern Border because she knew what a clusterfuck her boss made of it and didn't want to admit that Trump simply had a better handle on it and it's true

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

Not only that, but he acts like the ideas contained in Project 2025 are anathema to all people. In fact there is a not insignificant number of Americans who view its statements as innocuous or desirable.*

They made this same mistake in 2016, believing to their core that the entire country, outside some radical hick enclaves, despised Trump. After all, the Talmudvision told them so!

They never learn.

*For clarity, my views on it are that it's mostly normie-con boilerplate and doesn't go nearly far enough.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. Trump's platform is on his websit for anyone that wants to look. They call it AGENDA 47.

2. Areed. 2025 is mostly pretty good shit, and still is only the first step in fixing this country. IF they get any of it up for consideration.

reply

[–] Switchstar (412) 7 months ago

Sorry, but no sane person wants a bunch of Christian Nationalist fanatics to take over the government.

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

And no normal person wants a continuation of open borders, foreign largesse at the expense of heritage Americans, normalization of sexual deviancy, anti-white pogroms, and the constant gaslighting about it all.

reply

[–] Switchstar (412) 7 months ago

The borders aren't open. And there is no "migrant crisis" like you Trump supporters keep claiming. It doesn't exist. It's a talking point that conservative news outlets and Trump have completely made up. Statistics show that crime has gone down in the past couple of years (including this year).

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

Although you're completely wrong about the brown hordes sweeping over our border, what's more interesting to me is that you didn't offer a defense of my other objections.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

"brown hordes"

Trump's appeal to the racists.

The reason why he told Republicans in Congress not to pass the strong bipartisan border bill.

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

They're nearly all brown skinned, and their numers are accurately described as a "horde". What is it about dictionaries that you hate? Is it because they defy your efforts to craft alternate realities?

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

You're a racist.

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

And you hate not being able to redefine words in service of your lies.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

Christian Nationalism is a pretty far right movement. Trump is completely mainstream.

Is there any point in his actual platform that you think support that, OR failing that, what is there in the 2025 list that justifies your panic mongering?

reply

[–] Switchstar (412) 7 months ago

Oh plenty. Such as:

-Complete ban on abortion with *no* exceptions
-Ban contraceptives
-Additional tax breaks for corporations and the 1%
-Higher taxes for the working class
-Elimination of unions and worker protections
-Raise the retirement age
-Cut Social Security
-Cut Medicare
-End the Affordable Care Act
-Raise prescription drug prices
-Eliminate the Department of Education
-Use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools
-End free and discounted school lunch programs
-End civil rights protections in government
-Ban African American and gender studies in all levels of education
-Ban books and curriculum about slavery
-Ending climate protections
-Deregulate big business and the oil industry
-End marriage equality
-Condemn single mothers while promoting only "traditional families"
-Defund the FBI and Homeland Security
-Use the military to break up domestic protests
-Mass incarceration of immigrants into "camps"
-End birth right citizenship
-Ban Muslims from entering the country
-Eliminate federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, NOAA and more
-Continue to pack the Supreme Court and lower courts with far right judges

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) 7 months ago

LMAO, Trump has nothing to do with P-2025. His platform is Agenda 47.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Trump has everything to do with it.

The Heritage Foundation has been publishing the Mandate for Republican presidents to follow since Reagan. Trump followed 2/3 of the Mandate in 2020. Reagan passed 60%. Many of the advisors were in Trump's administration and Trump welcomed his new updated Mandate.

Agenda 47 is a shorter version of Project 2025.

"Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.

"Mandate for Leadership was published in January 1981—the same month Ronald Reagan was sworn into his presidency. By the end of that year, more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy"

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

"Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State."

Sounds like a great counterpoint to the WEF's Young Global Leaders. And with you opposing it, it's already almost certainly a good thing.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

You hate the U.S.A. and Constitution. I don't.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

That was unexpected. Please tell me more.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Trump = Project 2025 = extremism = danger to American way of life

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

Project 25 = media sensationalism = distraction = nothing new and on and on.

You'd have just as much success arguing Q-Anon is a factor, though granted you'd have less establishment backed media pieces to backup your argument.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

"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."
https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/

"One year after taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have embraced nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from The Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership.”
https://www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations

"JD Vance writes foreword for Project 2025 leader’s upcoming book"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/24/jd-vance-project-2025-book-kevin-roberts

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

I only looked at the first few. This gish gallop logical fallacy, does not look good on you. Makes you look like you know your claim is nonsense.

1. Connect the dots, on how you see being PRO-LIFE as Christian Natinalism. Please focus on why you assume that such a policy position is a violation of the existing constitution or can't be done under normal policy procedures.

2. Ditto for "higher taxes for the working class". Also, back that one up. That's a surprising claim, I have not heard that one before.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

You only looked at the first few because you knew you couldn't dispute the rest. Funny how you support project 2025 but you have not even read all of it. So you sign off on something you don't know fully about? Funny wouldn't you make fun of the left for doing this?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

i only bothered with the first few becasue what the guy did was retarded.

He seems to not really know what Christian Nationalism is, other than a handful of poo to throw at people he doesn't like.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

No you did that because you knew you couldn't dispute the other stuff. So tell me why do you support project 2025 when you haven't read it fully? You afraid if you read it, it might expose how corrupt the right is?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

Becuase one of the main points is that they want to replace the supposed neutral civil servants who are actually dem partisans.

That is a huge problem that is causing great harm to the people of this nation and the nation as a whole.

Address that, fixing it, is vital.

(and let's see how you respond. YOu asked a serious question. I gave you a serious answer. Now, you will not respond to my point. You will instead shit talk. )

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

You support replacing them yes but just because you agree with one thing is a dumb reason to not look fully into what project 2025 entails. Your hatred for Democrats blinds you. Basically getting back at them is your main and only objective. Even if I agree with you and said let's fix this aspect I still don't support project 2025 because there are many things which will damage this country.

Anytime someone points out the other things which project 2025 entails you dismiss it and only focus on what you want to hear. That's something you constantly criticize the left for. You are a cherry picking prick who needs to leave this country and move to Russia.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. I think it's a very important problem that needs fixed.

2. What do you mean I "dismiss it"?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Yes you said that. I get that. So since you agree with that one thing you stop reading there? Shouldn't you read all of what project 2025 entails? I could cherry pick like you, you realize that right?

You only focus on the one thing you agree with. You don't address anything else. I have you openly admitting you haven't even read all of what project 2025 entails. The guy posted a gigantic list of what project 2025 entails and you completely dismissed it. Do you want a a ban on all contraceptives?

You did this because you are an evasive weasel and a coward.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. I've been happy to discuss other points of it, as it comes up in conversation. Would you like to discuss one of the other points?

2. Posting a big list and having a hissy fit is not a real attempt at discussion. It is an attempt at Gish Galloping, which is a logical fallacy.

The proper response to that is to pick one point and address it seriously and demonstrate that the list is not pure evil as the leftard in question was pretending.

When that happens, I have so far focused in on what I think is the most important point, ie replacing the lefty partisan that have infiltrated the civil service.

3. You are a coward, because you only get into people's faces like this online. In person, one on one, you would not do this.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

No because you asked for a point that warranted panic mongering. He gave you an entire list and you bypassed it. Sure I will pick one though. Do you think we should ban all contraceptives?

No bullshit. You just know you can't address the points. You asked and he provided the list.

Ok I brought up one pont now address it.

Yeah you think the most important thing is to get back at the left. We know you value this beyond anything.

Ha no. I offered to meet you in person. You declined. Yet I am the coward? Nice way to turn that around bro.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. Correct. I asked for a single point so that it could be seriously discussed. He presented a large list so that it could NOT be seriously discussed. So, I ignored his logical fallacy games and selected ONE point for serious discussion, that refuting his shit talk.

2. No, I do not support banning all contraceptives. IMO, that point being included shows that this is a simple wish list were everyone was allowed to "participate". There is no chance of that being seriously considered as policy. That being included undermines the seriousness and formality of the list as a whole. Which is disappointing because some of the points, such as the one on the civil servants, really are important and need to be adressed.

3. Yes, you are the coward. I have never met a leftard in real life who dares to talk like you leftards do online. That is you people being cowards who only reveal what pieces of shit you are, when you are safe in your mom's basement.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Nope. You did that because you knew you couldn't refute it. You cherry picked and went with one of the points you agree with. That was cowardly and fits you since you are a weasel.

So anything you don't like gets omitted and isn't to be taken seriously? Nice logic there. That's on the list the point stands.

Because when offered you declined. You don't meet people so that's why you say that. I offered to meet you and you declined. So no you haven't shit talked to anyone in person about politics. You only do it I get the Internet. I am sure you've never met anyone in person as you won't do it. You are the coward.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. You can't have a serious discussion about a big list of points, especially in a format like this. You know that. He knows that. That is why he did it. Because he knows that he panic mongering is shit talk. As is yours.

2. That point will not even be presented to Trump or Trump's team for consideration. If it is, it will NOT be written into a bill, and presented to congress. That it was on the list is probably due to some hard core pro-lifers doing a lot of the grunt work and getting a pat on the head.

3. "SHARED TALKED"? I don't know that you mean by that. I would love to meet you in person and see you fail to talk such shit to my face. But I am not going to tell you were I live.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Nope I listed one and like clockwork you bypassed it.

You have no way of knowing that. That's why you should read project 2025 fully.

Typo I meant shit talk. You haven't shit talked anyone to their face like you do on here. I offered to meet you somewhere and you declined. I didn't ask where you lived. So spare me the tough guy shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. We were talking about the other poster a second ago. Are you agreeing that I answered your previous question, or did you get confused and forget what we were talking about?

2. Yes, I do. I know that some policies are politcally possible and some are not. Replacing partisan civil servants is possible, though hard. Banning all contraceptives is not.

3. I'm not trying to talk tough. YOU are the one that is a huge asshole online, not me. YOU.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

It is possible to bring a list if issues and discuss them. All you had to do was say okay which one do you want to discuss out of your list? You didn't do that.

Anything I believe is possible. So is anything else in project 2025 possible? It seems like anything you don't personally disagree with isn't possible and everything you agree with is possible.

Yeah you are. You threatened to get in my face and laugh in it if we met. Which you wouldn't do that I guarantee it. You made the threat not me. You are an asshole.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. I asked for a single example so we could discuss it seriously. He choose to ignore my request and present a big list to avoid discussion.

2. I think most of what I have seen is POSSIBLE. NO, my judgement of what is possible is not based on what I like. That would be the type of retarded game a lefty like yourself would play.

3. I did that in response to months of you being a complete asshole. And some of the stupid shit you say? Laughing in your face would be the correct response.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

I don't believe he did that to avoid discussion. I believe you wouldn't address any point he made seriously.

Which you haven't seen all of project 2025. So since most of it is possible do you fully support project 2025?

You wouldn't do it. I bet cash money you couldn't be paid to do it. You only talk that shit on here. You also realize that's a crime right? I would be justified in self defense if you did that.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. Several lefties like yourself, including yourself, have brought up points, from the project and I have discussed them seriously and honestly, so your claim is... nonsense.

2. I support it, generally speaking. Certainly as a point of beginning policy discussion, which is how such a wish list is actually used in real life.

3. Laughing in your face if you say something retarded is a crime? I don't think so.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Nope you didn't. All you said was you didn't believe in banning contraceptives and that it wasn't possible for it to happen. That's you dismissing it.

Nice dodge. I asked if you fully supported it not generally. See how you evade?

Getting in anyone's is a crime. Especially if the person feels you are a threat. If you get up in someone's face that is a crime. You could have a virus or all kinds of stuff. You wouldn't do that to me. I guarantee you would not dare pull that bullshit. Real tough guys don't have to advertise it they don't talk shit online like you do. You can laugh but you wouldn't get in my face to do it. If you did then self defense would follow.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. What more is there to say? Did you want to take an opposing view? Do you think it could pass into law?

2. I already gave you one example of a point I don't support, so asking me if I support it "fully"; is retarded of you. Furthermore, I pointed out, again, that it is a wish list not a formal policy platform. NOt that policy platforms have the rule of law either. So, as I said, it is a beginning point of debate. So... what is your whine?

3. YOu are talking shit to try to justify violence. Typical of a leftard.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

I do think it is possible for it to pass into law.

Then you just say no. Instead you dodged and said generally when that's not what I asked. Also how do you know if you generally support something when you openly skit you have not read through the entire thing?

Defending yourself is totally permitted. You don't want me to do self defense then don't get in my personal space. Even you gun crazed hill billies can respect that.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. Bullshit. YOu are panic mongering. It will never even be considered.

2. A simple no would have been vague and misleading. So I gave you a full answer. How do I know? To some extent I have gone out on a limb. So, if you were able to back up your panic mongering, that could be embarrassing to me. So, instead of whining, how about you support your panic mongering and post what is so scary.

3. YOur shit talk is noted. I suspect that when you saw me, that you would calm the fuck down.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

No you just disagree with me. You didn't even know what project 2025 was until I told you.

Nah I will just make a claim like you and not back it up. You asking me to prove it is you playing troll boi games.

Yeah no. I offered to meet you and you declined. So no you don't scare anybody you clown. Calm your middle aged ass down. Even in your prime I bet you didn't strike fear in anybody you bitch.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. The nation is not going to ban all contraceptives. YOu are panic mongering.

2. What claim are you making?

3. Tell me again how you would be justifed to committ violence if I laughed in your face.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Project 2025 is basically the Koch Brothers agenda and they were both nuts. They wanted to get rid of much of the federal government and programs like social security, medicare, public school education, agencies that protect consumers like the EPA, FDA, etc., no libraries, no public hospitals, no post office, etc.. Everything privately held by rich people who could then make Americans pay whatever they charge.

"Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State."

"Mandate for Leadership was published in January 1981—the same month Ronald Reagan was sworn into his presidency. By the end of that year, more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy"

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. Don't dismiss the contributions of all the other conservatives invovled in this. THe koch brothers likely supported it, but they are not the conservative movement any more than Soros is the leftard movement.

2. So, one wish list was used successfully to push for it's goals forty years ago, to you that means that all wish lists come true?

Note how you don't actually SAY what you mean, because if you SAID it clearly, it would clearly be retarded bullshit. So you snidely IMPLY it, so that when your point is refuted, instead of dealing with that, you can weasle word your way out of admitting how retarded what you just said was.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Trump = Project 2025 = Extremism

"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."
https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

OMG, you're citing the consultants pushing the program about how likely their program is to be successfull?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Can you be any more absurd?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Nope I think it's a possibility. I don't believe you.

Read through the posts again. I am not doing your job for you. You are playing troll boi games.

If you get in someone's face that is a crime. Self defense is a completely legal action. That's how. I don't threaten to get in anyone's face, that is a crime.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. The nation is not going to ban all contraceptives. You are wrong.

2. i'm not the troll boi here, you are. What assertion do you wish to make?

3. What crime is it?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

I disagree I think it's a possibility.

I already made them. Happy reading troll boi.

Disorderly conduct. If you get in someone's face how do I know it's not with ill intent it, what if I feel threatened? You also realize you could have a virus right? I could list more charges as well. You don't get in people's faces bro especially in a condescending threatening manner. That's a good way to get your ass knocked out.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. Only a liar or a fool would claim to believe that this nation might ban all contraceptives. You are a liar.

2. What assertion would you like to make?

3, Laughing in your when you say something absurdly retarded and/or faggot, is not unreasonable or disorderly. It is completely reasonable. YOu take a swing at me for laughing in your face, I would be completely justified in beating you down like the fag you are.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Agree to disagree.

Already made them.

Yeah it can be. If someone gets in someone's face in a threatening manner they are legally allowed to defend themselves. Which I would do if you got in my face. Don't threaten me again you understand me?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. America is not going to pass a law banning all contraceptives. The inclusion of that point, undermines the credibility of the 2015 wish list.

2. What assertion do you wish to make?

3. Your shit talk about "threatening manner" is you talking shit and trying to justify violence. IF I laugh in your face, it is not a threat, it is me laughing at the stupid shit you say. My next step would be to look you in the eye to see if there was any humanity in that, that felt any shame at the stupid shit you say online. But i am not a thug like you people are. NOr a coward who talks differently online than I do in real life. In point one, right above, you are claiming that you think that this country might ban all contraceptives. That is you talking shit. Anyone that would say that in person, would deserve to be laughed at, like the pathetic pussy that they are.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Agree to disagree.

Already made them.

I don't know you. How am I supposed to know that you getting in my face isn't a threatening manner? Do you allow people you don't know to get in your face? I don't allow anyone I don't know to get in my personal space. I'm the thug? No I'm not the one who said I would get in anyone's face. That was you tough guy.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

1. America is not going to ban all contraceptives. Your panic mongering is stupid.

2. What assertion do you want to make?

3. YOur talk of personal space is you being a fag. You talk shit to me like you do online, in real life, I will laugh at the faggot shit you say, right into your face. You will take it like the bitch you are.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

Whooooaaaa!! Another keyboard tough guy flexes his "muscles"! Ha ha ha!

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

Yeah, grift is talking a lot of shit.

He thinks he is a tough guy.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Nope I'm not the one who threatened to get in someone's face. That was you. All I did was state I would act in self defense. Nothing tough guy wannabe about that. You don't get in people's faces. You pull that with the wrong guy and it will be a huge regret. I don't get in anyone's face. I never have done it as I'm not a bully like you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 7 months ago

I said I would laugh in your face if you said something as retarded as the shit you say online.

YOU'RE the one that said you would then start violence.

That makes you the thug, not me.

Oh, and I doubt you actually would do that. I've called shit on a lot of lefties over my life, none ever got ballsy and took a swing at me.

So, that's just more shit talk from you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Correct, which is getting in someone's face genius! I wouldn't get in anyone's face over words. If you get in my face self defense would follow.

Go get in enough people's s faces and that's a good way to get your ass knocked out. Someone who doesn't know you has no idea what your intentions are has a right to self defense. You don't get in someone's personal space. That is a crime. Disorderly conduct. Not to mention you could have done kind of illness or virus. You keep your distance or ride they have a right to self defense.

Oh no I would remove you from my personal space trust me. I sm no stranger from defending myself against bullies. Every republican I've met is a fake tough guy. You are no different I bet my entire bank account.

You are not tough bro, quit while you are behind. You are some dumb middle aged incel is all you are. Go fuck yourself. I offered to meet you and you chickened out. Don't try and play tough now.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1407) 7 months ago

Disagreed.

Already made them. This will be my response everytime you ask it.

Nope it's common knowledge. You wouldn't get in my face trust me. You do and self defense would occur. You better settle your middle aged ass down. No more threats.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17821) 7 months ago

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-project-2025-republicans-2024-election-republicans-1921636

Find a new boogeyman.

-Defund the FBI and Homeland Security
-End birth right citizenship

These need to happen regardless tho

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Why do you support terrorism?

Trump's Project 2025 is so bad that Trump is afraid to admit it was created by his team and rich ally donors for him.

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

You sound like a Sean Hannity listener, circa 2003.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

"Mandate for Leadership was published in January 1981—the same month Ronald Reagan was sworn into his presidency. By the end of that year, more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy."

They created a Mandate for Leadership for Trump to follow in 2016:

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.
https://www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) 7 months ago

Drill. Defund. Deport.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 7 months ago

" alot [sic] more on Kamel Toe Harris than just her being weird along with her cackle laugh "

More than silly names and laughter? You mean, plastic straws?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

Fear Mongering.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

The truth. And Project 2025 is scary.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

P2025 is a Just-In-Time ingredient for the Left tasting tactics. Thats all it is. Fear Mongering.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

"Mandate for Leadership was published in January 1981—the same month Ronald Reagan was sworn into his presidency. By the end of that year, more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy."

They created a Mandate for Leadership for Trump to follow in 2016:

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.
https://www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

You'll have to do better than that if your goal is to convince me this isn't classic left fear mongering 101. Sorry.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 7 months ago

Would anything convince you?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

Yes, but not that.

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) 7 months ago

Another P-2025 post?

You people are so easily mind controlled by the mockingbird media, but then again, this only works on the weak-minded.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18425) 7 months ago

That plus abortion. Doesn't help that he picked J.D. Vance who's an anti-choice nutjob. As for Project 2025, it was pretty stupid of them to actually print out a NINE HUNDRED PAGE OUTLINE of their Christofascist agenda BEFORE Trump wins the election for the PUBLIC to read.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17821) 7 months ago

Doesn't matter... Trump has disavowed it.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Trump = Pathological liar.

BTW, he followed their mandate during his 1st term in office. He'll follow it, again.

reply

[–] jriley555 (8541) 7 months ago

They're not that smart. They think their fascist agenda is a selling point. They think degrading women and minorities shows 'strenf'. They are the dunning-kruger faction.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

"it was pretty stupid of them to actually print out a NINE HUNDRED PAGE OUTLINE of their...."

MSM is the one bringing all this stuff up. Who are you trying to fool?

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17821) 7 months ago

Trump has disavowed P25...already a thread about this.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-project-2025-republicans-2024-election-republicans-1921636

reply

[–] elprimitivo (378) 7 months ago

Yeah it's not like he would lie about something.

reply

[–] maixiu (2847) 7 months ago

They're all liars. What's your point?

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

Donnie never lies. But his dementia often acts up and then "he says things that he doesn't really mean."

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

Interesting take.

And hi, Tina. So why did you stop posting on the Tina account anyway? Was it banned?

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

Sorry, senor, no comprende. Who is Tina?

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

Oh come on, Tina. Your post content, language and most of all the timing between your Tina account's last post and this account's first, is a dead give away.

So why did you switch?

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

I've been accused of being a few different sock accounts, but this is the first time someone has explicitly named a "Tina." But it does read as if you have had some type of relationship with "Tina." Was it/is it a sexual tension thing that started online and then may have evolved (or devolved) into something beyond that?

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

Whatever you say, Tina.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

Okay, I guess I can be your "Tina" if you want. However, earlier today I was propositioned on MC forums by another latent homosexual (besides you) whose identity it probably isn't fair to share just yet, and I will tell you the same thing I told him--I am going to be the pitcher and you are going to be the catcher. Are we clear on that?

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

That sounds like something Tina would say.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

Okay, then. You are going to have to tell me how you want 'this thing" to work between you and "Tina," keeping in mind, however, that you are always going to be doing the catching.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (3258) 7 months ago

Unless you can go back in time and change the span between your Tina account's last post and this account's first, you've been exposed.

But hey, I'll take it over pun posts.

Have a good night, Tina.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

It's your fetish/fantasy, but I'll play a long. But I am the designated hitter and you are relegated to catcher.

reply

[–] Keelai (36125) 7 months ago

Trump never lies. ROTFLMAO!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

How come no one can admit that P2025 is just an In-Time ingredient for the Left tasting pancake batter? come on man! im serious! No joke!

This is another manufactured manipulation tactic.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 7 months ago

“Project 2025's a tremendous project Really tremendous. Unbelievably tremendous.
But we're doing a lot. A lot of stuff. Tremendous stuff. And we're doing it quickly. Really quickly. It's going to be great project. Really great. Believe me.”

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

whats wrong with christian nationalism? it's what our country was built on.

Libs never seen to have a problem with the islamization of america. but thats diversity isnt it?

reply