The Subject is Project 2025

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 6 weeks ago

   
   The American Heritage Foundation wrote a book named Project 2025.  According to the book, there will be an imposition of traditional values, defunding Planned Parenthood- enforce the Comstock Act criminalization contraception & abortion, reversing of LBGTQ rights, no teaching of critical race theory, terminating DEI & other inclusion programs, & ending affirmative action.    What do you think about Project 2025?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Wow, Grace, this is such a vast subject... I love it!
      
      Project 2025 focuses on a conservative agenda that aims to reshape the U.S. federal government based on conservative principles. Although this initiative is designed to align with conservative values, I believe it does not support all Americans, as it prioritizes a specific political ideology over a more inclusive approach to governance. The project includes proposals for significant changes to nearly every government department, such as the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, aiming to align them with what it considers conservative viewpoints on governance and policy.
      
      For instance, it advocates for dismantling parts of the administrative state, which could reduce the size and scope of federal programs that many Americans, particularly those in need of social services, depend on. Additionally, the emphasis on reducing regulations and shifting more power to the states could lead to disparities in policy implementation across different regions, potentially disadvantaging communities that do not align with conservative policies. Thus, Project 2025 seems to present a clear vision of what the Heritage Foundation believes a future conservative nation should look like. However, it appears to focus on ideologies that do not consider the needs and perspectives of all Americans, potentially alienating a significant portion of the population.
      
      Project 2025 exclusivity undermines democratic ideals by prioritizing the preferences of a particular faction over the collective will and interests of the entire nation.  This project's proposed reforms might very well conflict with constitutional principles designed to ensure checks and balances, separation of powers, and the protection of individual rights. In a democratic society, governance should reflect a broad spectrum of perspectives and adhere to constitutional protections that safeguard the rights and freedoms of all citizens, rather than catering to the interests of a select group.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         MizBejabbersposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Sharlee, you are being nice, but I do believe you are "getting down to brass tacks" in your last paragraph. I believe Project 2025 steps on the Constitutional rights of almost every American who does not agree with them. It also steps on the Constitutional rights of some people who do agree with them and may someday find them in a situation in which they require help. Conservatives often forget that bad things do happen to good people through no fault of their own.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I agree with what I said earlier: In a democratic society, governance should represent diverse perspectives and uphold constitutional protections for all citizens, rather than serving the interests of a select few. Project 2025 doesn't align with the Constitution or respect any ideologies that don't fit the distorted beliefs this group is labeling as conservative.  It doesn't reflect the Conservative values I'm familiar with.
            
            I haven't read all 900+ pages yet, but from what I have seen, it's quite alarming and pretty extreme.  I haven't witnessed anyone in the Republican Party except the Heritage Foundation defending or supporting Project 2025.

            replyreport
   2. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is a pipe-dream of people who will never have enough power and control to put those ideas into effect.
      
      This is what is really transforming American (the West) and they DO have the power and control to put all their agendas into effect:
      
      https://www.youtube.com/@wef

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Did Trump mean this or not? Or is this just another flip flop?  You know, just saying what he needs to say at the moment... He talks about Heritage laying the groundwork.  Listen to his slurred speech though also. 
         
         Let's not forget JD Vance's deep ties with Heritage and the undercover interview with Russell Vought
         stating  that Trump has  said he "is very supportive of what we do"
         
         Heritage is “a great group,” Trump goes on, stating that they will create “detailed plans for exactly what our movement will do”
         
         
         Here's the video..
         https://x.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1811402883604050216
         
         https://youtu.be/PY_chqyaRHo

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            That was from 2022 and he was talking at a Heritage dinner as a keynote speaker BEFORE they ever came out with Project 2025.
            
            'shrug'
            
            What exactly do you expect him to say?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Yes, and he clearly stated that Heritage was working on detailed plans for "our movement".  And what of  the Russell Vought commentary? Is he lying?

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  How would I know?
                  
                  Here is a cute little article that will give you a joyful chuckle:
                  
                  Kamala Harris’ Authoritarian ‘Joy’
                  https://www.timesrepublican.com/opinion … arian-joy/

                  replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   Many issues to consider carefully:
   ____________________________
   
   Defund Planned Parenthood.
   "PP has consistently refused to give our children a clear message of "right" and "wrong." It seeks not to educate our children in moral values, but to indoctrinate them into the Humanist philosophy that proclaims there is no objective moral code, and that right and wrong can be decided solely by the individual."
   https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar … hood-12199
   
   Criminalize contraception and abortion.
   "On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos were 'children' under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. While this was a decision about in vitro fertilization (IVF), Alabama’s recognition of embryos as persons is simply a logical extension of the anti-abortion movement’s long-time commitment to the notion of fetal personhood, an idea now animating the post-Dobbs criminalization of reproductive care. A number of state legislatures have already granted personhood status to fertilized eggs or unborn children in utero at any stage of development."
   https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- … bbs-world/
   
   
   Reverse LBGTQ rights.
   "Discussion and political disputes regarding gender identity ... continue, particularly regarding bathroom access, athletics, and transgender-related healthcare for minors."
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ … ted_States
   
   End Critical Race Theory indoctrination in schools.
   "As more stories about critical race theory have emerged in recent months, they have sparked intense backlash from parents and some lawmakers concerned that critical race theory is itself a form of racism — one that provides a distorted view of America and its history.
   
   In Iowa, critical race theory has been labeled a form of “discriminatory indoctrination,” and Florida’s Department of Education banned critical race theory in mid-June.
   
   Although there are many reasons schools should avoid critical race theory, as well as various other “critical” theories that promote similar ideas, perhaps the most important is that many forms of critical race theory teaching are likely in violation of federal or state law."
   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … rpEALw_wcB
   
   Terminate DEI & other inclusion programs.
   “DEI doesn’t promote diversity of thought or merit-based employment and promotion. It divides people rather than focusing on our inherent equality as Americans."
   https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom … overnment/
   
   End Affirmative Action.
   Opponents of affirmative action have argued that it is a form of reverse discrimination, that it tends to benefit the most privileged within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups, or that—when applied to universities—it can hinder minority students by placing them in courses for which they have not been adequately prepared.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
   
   Enforce the Comstock Act. 
   Comstock Act. 
   https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article … t-of-1873/

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      My view regarding the Comstock Act. I have not run across any mention of it in Project 2025.
      
      I argue that enforcing the Comstock Act infringes on individual rights and freedom of speech. I view the act as outdated, reflecting a 19th-century understanding of morality that is not aligned with modern views. In my view,  I argue that enforcing the Comstock Act infringes on individual rights and freedom of speech. I argue that the view of the act is outdated, reflecting a 19th-century understanding of morality that is not aligned with modern views on personal autonomy and reproductive rights.   
      
      Does not the act's vague definition of "obscenity" allow for overreach, potentially censoring legitimate information and discussions about sexual health and reproductive choices?  Additionally, one could argue that the act's enforcement could disproportionately affect marginalized communities by limiting access to crucial health information and services.
      
      The debate thus hinges on balancing the protection of public morality with the safeguarding of individual freedoms and the right to access information. In my view, I contend that the act's vague definition of "obscenity" allows for overreach, potentially censoring legitimate information and discussions about sexual health and reproductive choices.  The battle goes on regarding these subjects, but in my view, we need to realize that many do not share conservative views at this point in our nation's growth. Do we have the right to attempt to subvert other's freedoms on the subject of On the other hand, I could argue that enforcing the Comstock Act infringes on individual rights and freedom of speech.
      
      They view the act as outdated, reflecting a 19th-century understanding of morality that is not aligned with modern views on personal autonomy and reproductive rights. Critics contend that the act's vague definition of "obscenity" allows for overreach, potentially censoring legitimate information and discussions about sexual health and reproductive choices. Additionally, they argue that the act's enforcement could disproportionately affect marginalized communities by limiting access to crucial health information and services. The debate thus hinges on balancing the protection of public morality with the safeguarding of individual freedoms and the right to access information.
      
      Additionally, they argue that the act's enforcement could disproportionately affect marginalized communities by limiting access to crucial health information and services. The debate thus hinges on balancing the protection of public morality with the safeguarding of individual freedoms and the right to access information.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Yes.
         Thank you.
         But like alcohol, wouldn't it be great if we could ban it / all that corrupting stuff.
         People are so hard to direct toward what is good and wholesome.
         Gotta have the freedom to be "perfectly bad" to become perfectly good at some point down the road, I suppose.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            MizBejabbersposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            "...wouldn't it be great if we could ban it / all that corrupting stuff.?"
            
            But Kathryn, your idea of what is bad may not be someone else's idea of what is bad. Sin, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Examples of this are dancing and Blue Laws that were enacted strictly by religionists.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Yes, we cannot legislate morality.

               replyreport
         2. 85

            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Kathryn,
            
            In my opinion, the word 'ban' is intimidating. It's so definitive and leaves no room for questioning or dissent for those who don't agree with it.
            
            Legislating or bans based on the values of a single group can lead to the exclusion and marginalization of other groups whose beliefs and ideologies may differ. When the government enacts laws that primarily reflect the perspectives of one community, it overlooks the diverse viewpoints and needs of the broader population.  It stifles one group's freedoms. This approach can not only discriminate against those who do not share the dominant group's values but also creates a sense of alienation and dissatisfaction among them.
            
            As a result, many people feel that their voices are not heard and their rights are not respected, leading to widespread discontent with the government and its ability to represent and serve all its citizens fairly.
            
            America is a constantly evolving project, founded on the principles of freedom and rights. Throughout our relatively short history, we've often struggled to balance these ideals. It seems we may have reached a point where we're unwilling to consider multiple perspectives when creating laws, leading to a form of gridlock driven by conflicting ideologies. Can our nation continue to grow and progress if we don't find a way to overcome this ideological stalemate?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               If only people could see the simplicity of freedom protected by boundaries.
               
               Do they value freedom?
               
               What is freedom?
               
               Freedom is experiencing all the beneficial and amazing things that life offers.
               
               It is freedom of speech, for the sake of itself and something else.
               Not just for the sake of itself.
               
               What is that something else?
               
               For all that is good, such as self-protection, revealing history and scientific discoveries, creativity in writing, literature, drama, beauty in art, joy or truth in self-expression, humor, public and private debate, etc.
               
               Not falsities, slander, liable, idle gossip, false accusations, destruction and evil in literature and drama/movies/social media.
               
               What we have today is corruption of the youth.
               Too much freedom has destroyed our society. It is a very evil place for children.
               
               Great going with all that freedom, people.

               replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   Freedom within boundaries is the ideal. The American Heritage Foundation is concerned with the consequences of an excess of freedom.
   
   Freedom requires boundaries.
   Two sides of one coin.
   
   ~ do you want the coin?... or just a mushy mess of metal dust?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Just my view, first this issue is very complicated, and most likely will draw out conflicting views. In my view, Project 2025 would stifle democracy, as its extreme conservative stance could undermine our values and further divide the nation. If we adopt such rigid viewpoints, wouldn’t we be guilty of the same divisiveness we criticize in others? -- My reasoning
      
      Your comment supporting "freedom within boundaries" as promoted by the American Heritage Foundation raises several important concerns about the potential implications of this concept. One issue is the criticism of not fully appreciating the role of the majority in a democratic society. Have we not all valued our democratic principles?  Dismissing the majority's will can undermine democratic principles, potentially infringing on freedom of choice, which is a core element of individual liberty. If boundaries on freedom are imposed too strictly by the government, it could lead to an overreach of power and more government intervention in citizens' lives.
      
      This outcome contradicts the principles of conservatism, which traditionally values limited government and individual freedoms. Instead of reducing government control, an emphasis on "boundaries" might ironically expand the government's role, creating more rules and regulations that restrict personal liberties. The idea that freedom and boundaries are "two sides of one coin" suggests that restrictions are necessary to prevent chaos, but this framing can be misleading.
      
      It risks implying that too much freedom inherently leads to disorder when, in reality, a well-functioning democracy thrives on the balance of freedom and the rule of law, not on an excess of government control. Thus, while some boundaries are necessary to maintain order and protect rights, overemphasizing them could erode the very freedoms conservatism seeks to protect.

      replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   Specifically speaking, the arguments I have listed should be discussed.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I took on "Freedom within boundaries is the ideal. The American Heritage Foundation is concerned with the consequences of an excess of freedom."
      
      Hopefully, others will join in and discuss some of your other concerns, all your concerns are very relevant, and they must be addressed.

      replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   The boundaries are set for the sake of freedom. When behavior and practices, especially when laid out as policies, become offensive, either as abuses or injustices, they need to be curtailed.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I understand your perspective and agree that boundaries are important to protect freedom. However, not everyone will always agree on what behaviors and policies might be considered offensive. Is it right for one set of values to completely override another? Project 2025 seems to take an all-or-nothing approach, insisting on its way or no way at all. Have you read a bit of Project 2025?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         The injustice to the majority is what they are addressing.

         replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   Boundaries to freedom of speech:
   
   https://www.thebusinesslitigators.com/l … ences.html

   replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   The Heritage Foundation is interested in goodness. Sorry if goodness is offensive.
   The blueprint is really only a suggestion at this point, making clear positive goals that could make a better future: A happy society and a prosperous nation.
   
   Its a never-mind, of course, when it comes to being voted upon, since we are a democratic republic where the majority of each state, which is one half plus one, gets its say, (unless a minority is negatively affected with some type of un-inclusive injustice.)
   
   Most people support what the Constitution set forth: How would Project 2025 detract from constitutional principles regarding Domestic Tranquility, General Welfare and Blessings of Liberty?

   replyreport