Trump rejects Project 2025

[dannno]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...vative-promise

Sabbath Rest. God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Rest. God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers. l Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)9 to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers. l Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)9 to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. Houses of worship (to the limited extent they may have FLSA-covered employees) and employers legally required to operate around the clock (such as hospitals and first responders) would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime.

Straight up violation of the non establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. That's a hard no for me the same was an assault weapons ban would be a hard no for everybody else on this forum. The fact that they make an allowance for Saturday observance is irrelevant.

There you go again, throwing out the baby with the bathwater..

Obviously that will never happen... although ironically you may have picked the single portion that you could probably get democrats on board with.

[jmdrake]

There you go again, throwing out the baby with the bathwater..

Obviously that will never happen... although ironically you may have picked the single portion that you could probably get democrats on board with.

What you call the "bathwater" is to me the most important issue in the document. You're not me so you wouldn't understand. But if there was a document that you agreed with (and I don't agree with much of Project 2025) and it said "Confiscate all guns" you'd be against it. Violating the constitution is a hard no. I don't even own a gun and I would be against gun confiscation. And if I was non religious or a Sunday observer I hope I would still be against Project 2025. It's about principles. Either you have them or you don't.

[dannno]

What you call the "bathwater" is to me the most important issue in the document. You're not me so you wouldn't understand. But if there was a document that you agreed with (and I don't agree with much of Project 2025) and it said "Confiscate all guns" you'd be against it. Violating the constitution is a hard no. I don't even own a gun and I would be against gun confiscation. And if I was non religious or a Sunday observer I hope I would still be against Project 2025. It's about principles. Either you have them or you don't.

If the most important issue in the document to you is something Trump would never consider and would never happen, then I think you are not very good at prioritizing.

I'm not for or against the document, I'm for a lot of the things in the document and against others. Many of the things in the document don't go far enough, imo.

[acptulsa]

It's about principles. Either you have them or you don't.

Apparently you don't need principles if you have blind faith in people who aren't trustworthy, but are famous...

If the most important issue in the document to you is something Trump would never consider and would never happen, then I think you are not very good at prioritizing.

Yeah, Ron Paul had the problem of prioritizing principle too.

[jmdrake]

If the most important issue in the document to you is something Trump would never consider and would never happen, then I think you are not very good at prioritizing.

You're not even making any fvcking sense. 1) You do not know whether Trump would consider it or not. Trump has no principles. He is an empty suit that will go whichever way he needs to at the moment for his own ends. Operation Warp Speed proves that. Trump putting face scanning cameras in airports proves that. The fact that Trump when from being against an assault weapons ban to being for an assault weapons ban to being against it proves that. 2) Whether Trump would agree to it or not is irrelevant just like the fact that whether Dubya agreed with PNAC in its entirety is irrelevant. Agendas don't get enacted by presidents but rather the people presidents appoint. And Trump has a record of appointing some doozies.

I'm not for or against the document, I'm for a lot of the things in the document and against others. Many of the things in the document don't go far enough, imo.

And I am simply pointing out something that is bad enough for me to be against the entire document because it shows the evil intent of the men who wrote it. Again, this is no different than if the document said "Confiscate all guns." I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand. Gutting any part of the constitution being a part of a policy paper should be a hard no for the policy paper because it shows the evil intent of the people who wrote the policy paper. It's not like the "good parts" of the policy paper can't be drafted in an entirely new document by trustworthy people.

[jmdrake]

Apparently you don't need principles if you have blind faith in people who aren't trustworthy, but are famous...



Yeah, Ron Paul had the problem of prioritizing principle too.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.
@dannno has taken mental gymnastics to a new low. So now I should be comforted by a document that guts an important part of the constitution because "Trump would never consider" that part? That doesn't even make any fvcking sense! The title of this thread is "Trump rejects Project 2025" not "Trump is okay with the baby part of Project 2025 and wants to throw out part of the bathwater." If Trump rejects it (which I'm not sure if he really has or if he's just saying what he thinks people want to hear), then shouldn't the Trumpskiites want everyone to reject it? Like WTF?

[acptulsa]

Gutting any part of the constitution being a part of a policy paper should be a hard no for the policy paper because it shows the evil intent of the people who wrote the policy paper.

This whole psyop is designed to get Republicans, the self-styled defenders of the document, to gut the Constitution.

"Well, I suppose it's possible there are half a dozen well armed Achaeans in its belly. But I just love giant wooden hobby horses, so I'm going to call you a conspiracy theorist and bring it in the gate!"

[oyarde]

Not the CIA? I’d add that one. Plus, get us out of the UN, NATO, World Bank, BIS, and every other international organization.

all sounds good to me , i was just cherry picking off the list

[Invisible Man]

Just wanted to check and make sure you knew Ron Paul wasn’t in favor of globalism. Because he knows it would be the latter. How do I know that? Because Ron Paul spoke at the Birch Society’s annual gala for years, took their magazine and has said he never found anything he disagreed with. Dr. Paul isn’t a globalist.

The quote that you replied to is Ron Paul's own words.

[Todd]

This reads like the wet dream of everything that is the extreme of a right wing theocratic authoritarian. It’s like they are confused about some good things and government overreach on so much of it. It’s schizophrenia

[LibertyEagle]

The quote that you replied to is Ron Paul's own words.

Uh huh. That is why it is important to have read his writings over 20+ years. Because if you had, you’d know what I told you was fact.

[Invisible Man]

Uh huh. That is why it is important to have read his writings over 20+ years. Because if you had, you’d know what I told you was fact.

Is there something in that quote you disagree with?

[LibertyEagle]

Is there something in that quote you disagree with?

You are taking one statement completely out of context. Dr. Paul is big on getting out of all foreign entanglements. He certainly isn’t for entering into the biggest one of all; world government. Because that is the goal of globalism.

Dude, Ron Paul issued legislation to get us out of the UN several times. He has also spoken about the dangers of multilateral trade deals, since they include a legislative body that is over our own Congress. You probably read where I listed all the international organizations that I would like us out of. Where do you think I got that? Ron Paul, that’s where.

I am probably older than you are. My Mother supported Ron Paul when he first ran for Congress. She was a Bircher. I still remember the bumper sticker for Ron Paul on her car. And my family didn’t put bumper stickers on cars. He was the first and only. So I have read his writings since I was young. And then there was the Ron Paul monetary conference many years ago now in New Hampshire that she drug me to. Murray Rothbard was there too.

Honestly, the selective grabbing that you did looks to me as him trying to explain to those who have fallen for the globalism siren, why it won’t work.

I wish that database of sorts that one supporter put together still existed, where you could click on a subject and then read all of his many articles and speeches. It got too difficult to maintain I think. But, when Dr Paul was running for President, it sure was great.

[Invisible Man]

You are taking one statement completely out of context.

Is there something in the quote that you disagree with?

And have you read it in context? If so, how does the context change your understanding of what he meant?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up JBS. I've never said a bad word about them.

Nor have I ever said a word in favor of the UN or any other international organizations.

[LibertyEagle]

Is there something in the quote that you disagree with?

And have you read it in context? If so, how does the context change your understanding of what he meant?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up JBS. I've never said a bad word about them.

He is saying we would end up with the latter.

I mention the JBS and Dr. Paul’s close association with them, because if you knew anything about them at all, they have been warning about a push to world government since the JBS was first started.

[Invisible Man]

He is saying we would end up with the latter.

I mention the JBS and Dr. Paul’s close association with them, because if you knew anything about them at all, they have been warning about a push to world government since it first began.

I'm not sure what prompted this.

Is there something in the quote that you disagree with?

The quote is clearly anti-world government. As am I.

[Anti Federalist]

I wish that database of sorts that one supporter put together still existed, where you could click on a subject and then read all of his many articles and speeches. It got too difficult to maintain I think. But, when Dr Paul was running for President, it sure was great.

I remember that...it was good.

There is this, not the same one, but pretty comprehensive.

https://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNxuSP2j5Tg

[dannno]

This reads like the wet dream of everything that is the extreme of a right wing theocratic authoritarian. It’s like they are confused about some good things and government overreach on so much of it. It’s schizophrenia

Which version? The media version or the actual version? They are 100% polar opposites..

The real version is mostly pretty good, I don't think it goes far enough to gut agencies, but it's pretty good. Clearly it's made by social conservatives, so the whole thing about giving people 1.5x pay on the sabbath is kinda silly, maybe some other parts, I'm not on board with the death penalty for example, but for the most part it looks pretty good.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1811233684315361753

The Democrat strategy of lying about what is in Project 25 to scare their base, while their lapdog media backs them on the hoax, is a solid play.

They have successfully sold to their voters every hoax they concocted, no matter how absurd, with a 100% success rate, for decades.

Remember, Biden ran his 2020 campaign on the Fine People Hoax and the Jan6th Insurrection Hoax. His voters will literally believe anything. The Project 25 Hoax already worked.

They are good at this.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1811168747723350351

[Brian4Liberty]

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1811077106992132491

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not sure what prompted this.

Is there something in the quote that you disagree with?

The quote is clearly anti-world government. As am I.

My apologies then. I misunderstood. Seems like I have been doing that a lot lately.

[LibertyEagle]

I remember that...it was good.

There is this, not the same one, but pretty comprehensive.

https://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Thank you. I would +rep you, but it won’t let me.

[Anti Federalist]

Thank you. I would +rep you, but it won’t let me.

No problem...

[Anti Federalist]

I'm in!

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm in!

Not to nitpick, but the classic Smokey and the Bandit Trans Am was 1977-1978...

[Anti Federalist]

Not to nitpick, but the classic Smokey and the Bandit Trans Am was 1977-1978...

Yeah, but he never mention Smokey and the Bandit.

Just that every American would have a 1975 Pontiac Trans Am.

And who would not want that, other than soy drinking, tofu eating commie bastards?



What the government did to cars in the 70s was criminal, the first time they tried to kill off ICE vehicles for the masses.

The most power you could get in that TA was a 455 cid V8 with a Borg Warner 4 speed.

It made 200 hp 330 ft/lbs of torque and took 16.2 seconds to do a 1/4 mile run and 7.7 seconds for 0-60 mph.

My 2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo, with a 3.6L bog stock V6, clunky, heavier and more boxy, can do 0-60 in 7.2 seconds and a 1/4 mile in 15.5.

[oyarde]

https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1811168747723350351

Im excited to end jeffries democracy

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, but he never mention Smokey and the Bandit.

Just that every American would have a 1975 Pontiac Trans Am.

And who would not want that, other than soy drinking, tofu eating commie bastards?



What the government did to cars in the 70s was criminal, the first time they tried to kill off ICE vehicles for the masses.

The most power you could get in that TA was a 455 cid V8 with a Borg Warner 4 speed.

It made 200 hp 330 ft/lbs of torque and took 16.2 seconds to do a 1/4 mile run and 7.7 seconds for 0-60 mph.

My 2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo, with a 3.6L bog stock V6, clunky, heavier and more boxy, can do 0-60 in 7.2 seconds and a 1/4 mile in 15.5.

Yeah, the 75-76 might be my second choice. The last years you could get the 455 IIRC. But like it or not, the Bandit version was the most famous version, and the 77-78 was the apex in style (IMHO). Look at that front end...