Elections Project 2025 major right wing groups plan on creating a new super super pack

[Rob Battisti]

Respectfully to both of you, this is incorrect. Project 2025 is not about legislation, and it’s not about recommending legislation. People who thinking that it is, have their minds is the completely wrong framework and aren’t understanding what these people are trying to do.

Project 2025 is about accomplishing what we think of as their “legislative agenda,” without the need for legislation at all—by funneling unprecedented amounts of power to the executive branch to accomplish in a dictatorial fashion what previously would’ve been accomplished through legislation or judiciary. That’s why it’s dangerous.

So what makes it dangerous? If I posted a bunch of recommendations on a website, would they be equally as dangerous?

 

[Barteh]

Your assessment of abortion being a campaign tool for the left is incorrect. Evidently, there was an appreciated solution in the Roe/Wade decision that was dismantled. The outrage stems thereof, and is genuine.

Roe v Wade didn't really place enough reasonable restrictions in practice and was also a mess legally with the whole privacy argument playing a key role in the case.

The outrage is just a political tool and it's misplaced, there's no focus on a solution. Why aren't they trying to codify a solid solution on a federal level instead?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Roe v Wade didn't really place enough reasonable restrictions in practice and was also a mess legally with the whole privacy argument playing a key role in the case.

The outrage is just a political tool and it's misplaced, there's no focus on a solution. Why aren't they trying to codify a solid solution on a federal level instead?

Because then they can’t bitch about it.

 

[filthybliss]

Respectfully to both of you, this is incorrect. Project 2025 is not about legislation, and it’s not about recommending legislation. People who thinking that it is, have their minds is the completely wrong framework and aren’t understanding what these people are trying to do.

Project 2025 is about accomplishing what we think of as their “legislative agenda,” without the need for legislation at all—by funneling unprecedented amounts of power to the executive branch to accomplish in a dictatorial fashion what previously would’ve been accomplished through legislation or judiciary. That’s why it’s dangerous.

It is dangerous because of the new Supreme Court Ruling. It makes ultimately everything under the hands of the President, fair game. He could get expunged in theory of every crime imaginable because it was within his "responsibilites" as President. It is a step towards the direction of "Chyna" or "Russia".

 

[brothir]

So a bunch of ideas on a website is more influential than ideas backed by millions of dollars?

Almost no idea lacking in influence can be forced to be so through money. Many people choose ideas to believe in regardless of money.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is dangerous because of the new Supreme Court Ruling. It makes ultimately everything under the hands of President, fair game. He could get expunged in theory of every crime imaginable because it was within his
"responsibilites" as President. It is a step towards the direction of "Chyna" or "Russia".

It's all connected, yeah. The idea is to put extreme power in the hands of the Executive Branch, and then to use that power to prevent turnovers in the branch, and then to enact policy that wouldn't be possible with more democratic governance.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Almost no idea lacking in influence can be forced to be so through money. Many people choose ideas to believe in regardless of money.

That sounds like a non-answer. You’re of the belief that lobbyists just give away money for free with no expectation in return and that the ideas of a think tank are more influential even if they have no money behind them?

 

[brothir]

Roe v Wade didn't really place enough reasonable restrictions in practice and was also a mess legally with the whole privacy argument playing a key role in the case.

The outrage is just a political tool and it's misplaced, there's no focus on a solution. Why aren't they trying to codify a solid solution on a federal level instead?

Your opinion that the decision on Roe/Wade didn't place enough reasonable restrictions is a rightist mindset not shared by the left. Obviously rightists would use that as an excuse to dismantle it, but it doesn't justify it on an objective level. The solution wanted by the left is just to (re)instate whatever accomplishes the same as Roe/Wade, which will be blocked by Republicans at every turn including the SC.

 

[brothir]

That sounds like a non-answer. You’re of the belief that lobbyists just give away money for free with no expectation in return and that the ideas of a think tank are more influential even if they have no money behind them?

I don't think you know what a non-answer is. I made a direct statement about what I believe regarding money and influential ideas. Lobbyists may very well expect returns on whatever money they give away, but the 1:1 relationship between money donated and legislation being passed has not been demonstrated. Corruption isn't legal either. And the most influential think tanks probably have financial backing, but that implies the relationship between money and influential ideas goes in the opposite direction.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Your opinion that the decision on Roe/Wade didn't place enough reasonable restrictions is a rightist mindset not shared by the left. Obviously rightists would use that as an excuse to dismantle it, but it doesn't justify it on an objective level. The solution wanted by the left is just to (re)instate whatever accomplishes the same as Roe/Wade, which will be blocked by Republicans at every turn including the SC.

Having different opinions is fine, isn’t it?

The democrats could have codified Roe but didn’t. If they did, they’d be left of every European nation.

 

[brothir]

Having different opinions is fine, isn’t it?

Some opinions serve to hurt people, though. I'm not going to lie back and say "fine" to that: instead I'll voice my disagreement and contempt.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I don't think you know what a non-answer is. I made a direct statement about what I believe regarding money and influential ideas. Lobbyists may very well expect returns on whatever money they give away, but the 1:1 relationship between money donated and legislation being passed has not been demonstrated. Corruption isn't legal either. And the most influential think tanks probably have financial backing, but that implies the relationship between money and influential ideas goes in the opposite direction.

Okay, so like I said, you’re of the opinion that ideas recommended by a think tank have more influence than than ideas recommended with millions donated behind them.

 

[filthybliss]

Roe v Wade didn't really place enough reasonable restrictions in practice and was also a mess legally with the whole privacy argument playing a key role in the case.

The outrage is just a political tool and it's misplaced, there's no focus on a solution. Why aren't they trying to codify a solid solution on a federal level instead?

Good luck doing that with a 50:50 senate now....If you actually look at how the cards were stacked in the past 40 yrs, you would realize that codifying such a solution on the federal level was damn near impossible.

Trump and Reagan had republicans loaded to the gills on the senate and house so no opening there.
Bush Sr. was hated by his party for lifting taxes, you think the religious nuts on the right would be able to swallow a federal level message on abortion. Bush Jr. was weird about stem cell research, he had no interest in doing anything in the realm of "pro-choice".

Obama did not have a list of 60 votes in the senate to bypass a filibuster. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were out. Al Franken came in late. So Obama did not have the votes of them to bypass the filibuster.

So yeah, the outrage is justified. It threw back rights 40 yrs. To act like its another episode of the "left" overreacting is just copium. We are the only first world country having a debate about abortion still to put things into context.

 

[Barteh]

Your opinion that the decision on Roe/Wade didn't place enough reasonable restrictions is a rightist mindset not shared by the left. Obviously rightists would use that as an excuse to dismantle it, but it doesn't justify it on an objective level. The solution wanted by the left is just to (re)instate whatever accomplishes the same as Roe/Wade, which will be blocked by Republicans at every turn including the SC.

I struggle to follow this line of hyper partisan thinking. There's a lot more people than just your imaginary left and right where you put two ideas into a box, there's an entire spectrum of opinion.

My opinions are widely shared by people across the entire left and right wing spectrum worldwide, as demonstrated by most civilized countries worldwide who have abortion laws in place that are barely controversial.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Okay, so like I said, you’re of the opinion that ideas recommended by a think tank have more influence than than ideas recommended with millions donated behind them.

Think tanks have money donated behind them. But generally you're misunderstanding the relationship here. GOP politicians often have trouble attracting talented staff, and Republican think tanks cover the skills gap there, providing legislators with ways to put their policy preferences into action. In this case, it's not just the top Republican policy people working on a plan; they're doing it with the assistance of a lot of Trump's top advisers to come up with a plan tailored to what his team wants.

There's no need for Heritage to bribe Republicans to go along with them because there's no daylight between what they're doing and what the party wants.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Some opinions serve to hurt people, though. I'm not going to lie back and say "fine" to that: instead I'll voice my disagreement and contempt.

you don’t think people can disagree with abortion?

 

[Rob Battisti]

I struggle to follow this line of hyper partisan thinking. There's a lot more people than just your imaginary left and right where you put two ideas into a box, there's an entire spectrum of opinion.

My opinions are widely shared by people across the entire left and right wing spectrum worldwide, as demonstrated by most civilized countries worldwide who have abortion laws in place that are barely controversial.

Well said.

 

[brothir]

Okay, so like I said, you’re of the opinion that ideas recommended by a think tank have more influence than than ideas recommended with millions donated behind them.

Depends entirely on the think tank. In this particular case, the basic impulse behind what Republicans want to do seems so basic that I have to question the necessity of any think tanks. If they want to dismantle democracy, they can just look at what the Nazis did. Doesn't require immense intelligence to understand that, especially when the SC will do whatever they want.

 

[BFoe]

So what makes it dangerous? If I posted a bunch of recommendations on a website, would they be equally as dangerous?

There are 2 things that make this particularly dangerous. The first is that I would wager that you’d never make the “recommendations” these people are making. I highly doubt that your recommendations would be the type that literally subverts and bypasses the system of government our Founders laid out. But Project 2025 does. We are used to the old way: “Omg, they’re recommending a federal abortion ban (for example)! We can’t let that happen, get and and vote, yadda yadda…”
That is not what is happening here, and people need to wake up and understand this ASAP. This is entirely different than anything else I’ve ever seen in my years of following politics.

The second thing is that with Trump, they actually have a candidate that will enact this. Trump enacted more than 2/3 of their recommendations in his last term.

I just saw this post of yours:

Okay, so like I said, you’re of the opinion that ideas recommended by a think tank have more influence than than ideas recommended with millions donated behind them.

You’ve got to understand that Project 2025 is put together by an absolutely massive coalition of over 100 conservative groups. The Heritage Foundation themselves had a record-breaking year of fundraising in 2023, taking in 150 million dollars. Project 2025 is not some tinfoil shit from a little lobbyist group: this is an absolutely massive effort backed by hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[brothir]

you don’t think people can disagree with abortion?

Of course they can. I'm unhappy if they do, and I'm especially disgusted with how the SC did it.