The AP removed that article with no explanation which actually makes the whole thing even funnier.

Mostly agree. It's just a list of things conservatives have talked about for decades. And the Heritage Foundation has lost most of its influence in Washington so it's funny to see them being trotted out as a boogeyman.

With that said, it's incredibly fucking stupid to put all your unpopular ideas like that down on a document that can be shared. Can't blame the Democrats for taking advantage of that massive blunder.

someone chaised down the rumor and found the info only went sofa

Bringing back residential schools is pretty wild. So is complaining that the military isn't white enough. And it's not eliminating beauracratic jobs. It's firing non-partisan beauracrats and replacing them with partisan yes men that will ignore regulations and laws that serve as roadblocks for conservative goals.

If you look at each thing individually then, yeah, most of them have been conservative goals for a long time. However, when you put those things together to serve as a playbook for how to create and authoritarian, Christian nationalist regime you take it a bit more seriously.

And more. They have actually created a data bank of people who has sworn allegiance and are willing to step into those jobs. I just can't imagine how people don't see that as alarming.

Same people who cry about DEI and demand a meritocracy.

I don't think Trump has much to do with policy at all. That's Stephen Miller's job.

Trump is actually fairly liberal himself. He just cares more about power and money than any social beliefs. Any time he speaks off the cuff and proposes policy he ends up walking it back because his base hates his ideas. He was pro vax, has been pro abortion, and talked about offering citizenship to non citizen college grads.

I think that's an obscene exaggeration. It also gives me the impression of not really taking seriously how Democrat rhetoric appears to people who are, say, roughly similar to Jon or to the right of him politically. Some of it even to independents. I'm not saying I would expect liberals to like or support the aims of Project 2025; I'm saying there's a massive lack of perspective and proportion going on here.

Let me put it this way: Make two columns. Column A is the stuff Trump has said personally. Column B is Project 2025. Column A is massively worse; it isn't close.

An executive takeover of the FBI, elimination of the dept of education, banning science based education to push biblical teaching, firing government employees and hiring people that have signed a pledge of fealty to the administration, along with the other items would 100% be a Christian national takeover through authoritarian means.

There's a reason the guy that authored it said it's a bloodless civil war if the left allows it.

It's amazing that you have the dems way of selecting Kamala Harris as a deal breaker for voting dem for the foreseeable future but dems shouldn't take what conservatives are saying that they want to do as seriously because that's somehow just Democrat rhetoric.

That's literally not what I said. I think they should take it seriously. I'm saying it's being blown massively out of proportion, esp. in compared to what Trump has already said and done.

I think there's a lot of "look out for the Project 2025 Boogeyman" if Trump gets elected. A lot of the things in that document have been goals by conservatives for years. They just aren't practical and are red meat for the base and that's it. I'm sure Trump would love to abolish term limits, get rid of both congresses and declare himself "King Trump" - but that doesn't make it anymore likely of happening.

I’m not real sure how you fact check if a guy had sex with a sofa anyway. I mean there should only be two witnesses and I don’t think the sofa is talking so at best the headline should be that he denies having sex with a sofa.

From what I can tell, some twitter troll made up story that on a certain page of his book, Vance said he had sex with his sofa. Once someone actually read the book (and the page referenced), they saw it was false. Pretty funny that so many people ran with it without verifying it was true. Then again, it isn't completely unbelievable with Vance on the surface.

The amusing part to me:

- People make false accusations about Harris: disgusting, how dare they (this is the correct response)
- People make false accusations about Vance: lol that's hilarious.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

There certainly was a double standard here. I just can't believe the AP ran with it without atleast checking the book first. But the motto is to be first, not necessarily right.

Come up with something funny about Harris, and I will laugh. I have laughed about stuff with Biden. Having a sense of humor is non-partisan.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

That's how overturning Roe v. Wade used to be described

I don't think a sense of humor applies to false accusations, period.

Satirizing actual things they've done, traits they have, whatever is another matter.

Probably because Vance is already saying horrific shit about Harris.

Karma is funny like that

Nothing is practical until you get the right people in or out of the right places and that's the whole point of Project 2025. To get rid of the impediments and put in the true believers.

Remember

Unless they specifically say they support X

You cannot infer that they might or do

If they end up supporting X you have to be real surprised because they didn't say that they did


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the guy who tells the story of Obama getting blown in a car by another guy at Gurnee Mills is funny. Hillary drinking children's blood is funny.

Then again I grew up with the Richard Gere and gerbils story. They're just dumb things people pass around for a laugh. It's not that serious.

"I don't think a sense of humor applies to false accusations, period."

But it wasn't a real accusation. The whole thing was/is funny because of how stupid it was. There were no couches harmed in the making of this joke.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

It absolutely was a real accusation. All you have to do is look at the links mentioned in this thread (there are many others of course) about how it was covered by the media.

100% irrelevant.

Vance can, and should be, and I do, be criticized for those things he says that are worthy of criticism. That does not justify one scintilla of false accusation towards him. Otherwhise you abandon the moral standing to be offended when anyone falsely accuses 'your candidate' (in this case my candidate as well, but whether that's the case or not).

This whole 'we hate them, so it doesn't matter how we treat them' is wrong no matter who does it, towards who, and in whatever circumstance. It is never appropriate.

Edit: It's the same as when the majority of this board, when Trump was president, said he wasn't owed any credit for anything he did regardless of what it was, because even on those rare occasions when he happened to do something 'good', he was doing it for the wrong reasons. My response was, is, and will continue to be ok, don't be surprised when nobody wants to give Biden or whoever else credit for what they do, since you've established not liking someone is justification for blanket criticism across the board.

I think the Harris campaign is attacking Vance because they know that will actually disrupt Trump more than attacks on Trump.

"It absolutely was a real accusation. All you have to do is look at the links mentioned in this thread (there are many others of course) about how it was covered by the media."

You mean the article they literally said it didn't happen? That article?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Politics ain't beanbag.

Among others, yes. What I posted had a bad implication, and I apologize for that. I should have considered the way I phrased it more.

To back up a bit, I think we may have a difference on what a 'real accusation' is. In modern media, it's literally anything that achieves a certain amount of circulation. The whole Mark Twain line about a lie getting halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on. There are no watchdogs, Big Media doesn't control this anymore. I.e. the more extreme Q/Deep State/whatever stuff isn't any less a 'real accusation' just because the legacy media isn't parroting it.

I'm not blaming AP or similar for leveling or spreading it. A sizable amount of people regularly get their news from social media. The fact that it grew to a point where the AP felt means it was already a real accusation. I don't blame the media, I blame modern society in general and the desperate search for anything that makes one's opponent look bad, no matter how absurd it is. You've even got that going on in this thread, a la 'it's Vance, so who knows'. Which is exactly the wrong way to evaluate these things.

Or you could lighten up. I never even for half a second took it seriously, and even if say someone would, so what? What happens between a man and his vouch us his own business. Absolutely no law against furniture love.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

The so what is evidenced in:

- the response to it in this thread, as I've discussed, which mirrors the response is many other places.

- the fact that false information spreading and people taking it seriously is always a problem.

This is not something where IMO it is appropriate to lighten up. The opposite is appropriate.

Boy, you must be a blast at parties.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I heard Kamala couldn't stop laughing at the couch joke.

Man you never miss a chance to display you moral superiority.

You wouldn't last 90 seconds with my friends...They may not even let you in to Jersey.

Honestly I’m not convinced of anything until we hear from the couch. In the absence of the couch coming out and clearing Vance I will just form my own opinion. The AP is fake news anyway.

I don't think I'm morally superior. I think I'm someone with a different opinion, and that's all.

By contrast, your posts recently have called people assholes for having a different opinion, said they aren't paying attention if they disagree with you, etc.

We all need to do our own research

I never called anyone an asshole and not paying attention isn't a different opinion. At best it is making an uninformed opinion

I'd like to see Column A.

I just want to get things straight. We are not supposed to take what Trump and his ally put down in writing as their plans for a second term seriously, but some random poster saying J.D. Vance had sex with a couch we must take as gospel? Right.

Facts are stubborn things.



One of multiple examples.

In my opinion, neither: You absolutely should take what's in writing seriously as I've already said, and I definitely don't advocate taking what anyone says as gospel.

Indeed.

2005


2008



But I'm sure none of the stuff on the Project 2025 list will come to pass....

She fucked over most of what she fought for, in a clear example of how too many Democrats/progressives value "being right" over "winning".

At the beginning of Obama's second term, in 2012, RBG was 79. Well past retirement age, a cancer survivor, and right at average U.S. life expectancy. Rehnquist, the first Justice to die on the bench in 50 years, was 81 when he passed in 2005.

Since FDR, it is not common for a two-term President to be succeeded by a President from his own party. Only George H.W. Bush has done it.

In addition, while Democrats gained a couple of seats in 2012 (for a majority of 53), they had lost 6 in 2010.

Absolutely the most prudent thing to do, should she have wanted to preserve the legacy of civil rights she fought for over decades, would have been to retire at that point. Indeed, two very recent examples showed the way: both John Paul Stevens & David Souter retired early in Obama's first term, to be replaced by Justices who shared their outlook.


Yes, RBG's accomplishments are extremely significant. But equally significant is that through self-interest, ego, naivete (or other, take your pick), her inability to understand the above and assure a like-minded successor will likely result in the rolling back of much of that body of work, an effort that spanned decades.


Lastly, there's also an argument out there that with her husband dead (he died in 2010), her life was her work. Again, she had a recent example to go on. Retired Supreme Court Justices are entitled to sit by designation on lower courts. Souter continued to sit for a couple of months each year on the 1st District for years after his retirement. For years after her retirement from the SCOTUS, Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits. Both had active memberships on boards of a wide variety of organizations close to their hearts.

Imagine what a self-admitted workaholic RBG could have done in those last 8 years to mentor and inspire a new generation of jurists in her image, while retaining a voice in the law.

All of that, now lost.

I apologize. I thought you meant in the context of the current discussion.

I'm from Jersey. We call a lot of people assholes.

Trump backs out of the debate. Not surprising but good lord. They were picking out cabinet members a couple weeks ago to this.

Doing the debate so early with Biden and picking Vance as VP will go down as two of the biggest blunders in American political history.

Apology not necessary, but accepted.

My point was, it not news that we disagree, or that most other people on this board disagree with me. I do get very sick of this moral superiority accusation when I think many on the board, yourself included, do that far more than I do, and when it's directed at a post where it simply does not apply. I'm definitely a flawed human being/poster/community member. Some things I should post differently, others I probably shouldn't post at all. But am I going to defend myself when unfairly and IMO hypocritically attacked.

JD Vance pauses the video here pic.twitter.com/zQOk0ffg5G

— Clue Heywood (@ClueHeywood) July 25, 2024