Serial sex abuser and convicted felon Donald Trump (SSACFT) has made all manner of statements about what he wants to do if he should be re-elected in November. But while he was erratic and chaotic during his first term, there is a well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement. It is called Project 2025 and it calls for the steady dismantling of many of the checks and balances that prevent ideologues from using the government as if it were a private company run by a CEO who can make unilateral decisions that will affect the entire population.
On his show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver looks at who is behind Project 2025 and what they seek to achieve. It is not good.
One of those posts.
So it’s not actually “Trump’s second term agenda”, thus belying the post title.
It’s the agenda that is being created by a well-organized group that they want him to implement.
—
Well, we know it’s not Trump who is behind Project 2025, but rather a well-organized group.
That misleading headline again.
BTW, we in Oz don’t get to legally see that video, it being geoblocked.
I started reading the document a couple of weeks ago. It is not easy reading and I highly recommend that anyone choosing to do so not jump over the front matter because it gives you a clear picture of the people (in many case the same people who provided a similar roadmap for Ronald Wilson Reagan) financing and adding their voices to this 900 page plus manifesto. You can download the whole work as a PDF from the Project 2025 website. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
I see this as a must read for all Americans.
So it’s not actually “Trump’s second term agenda”, thus belying the post title.
Has Trump himself said it’s not his agenda? No? Then it’s his agenda.
An interesting approach to inference.
Let me essay it.
“Has Trump himself said it’s not his agenda?”
Has Trump himself said supporting gay rights it not his agenda?
No? Then it’s his agenda.
“Has Trump himself said imprisoning anyone who earns less than $1,000,000,000 is not his agenda?”
No? Then it’s his agenda.
Hey, perhaps I can generalise.
“Has Trump himself said [anything at all] is not his agenda?”
No? Then it’s his agenda.
Good job there, RB.
[so weak!]
But wait! There’s still drollery to be squeezed.
Fridge moment there. I can do better.
So… if Trump says something is his agenda, then perhaps it’s his agenda.
(That would be a collection of agendums)
Now, it is bruited that what e does not himself say is also his agenda.
It follows that there is nothing at all that is not in his agenda, right, Raging Bee?
(Is that truly what you intended to express?)
What kind of logic is it, John Morales?
This agenda is being prepared explicitly to be implemented during Trump’s second term. That much is very public and very well known fact. Trump hasn’t denounced it nor has he distanced himself from it. Ergo, he is a willing participant in this agenda. This is not a Tom, Dick and Harry effort. This is an agenda put together by some of the most influential people on the right. THERE IS NO WAY TRUMP CAN CLAIM HE DIDN’T KNOW, SO HE COULDN’T DENOUNCE THE AGENDA BEING PUT OUT IN HIS NAME.
What makes you imagine it’s some sort of logic, then?
Prepared by whom?
The nature of factuality is that it matters not whether it’s public or private, known or unknown.
Well, I’m hereby making it public that Trump wants to torture to death every single puppy in existence.
That’s the plan.
Ergo, he is a willing participant in this agenda.
(Whatshername only shoots puppies to death, nothing like Trump’s second term agenda.
So, no Tom, Dicks or Harry to be seen.
(There are thousand more names you have not excluded)
So, not put together by Trump.
So, this is an agenda put together by people other than Trump.
That is, not Trump’s agenda.
Why you attempt to seem to dispute my claim when you yourself make the same kind is left to psychologists to determine.
<snicker>
He ain’t denouncing it, so it’s therefore his agenda?
(THE AGENDA BEING PUT OUT IN HIS NAME!
such a loud collection of agendums!)
It’s comment chains like this that make me marvel at the fact that Morales hasn’t been banned yet.
I am marvellous. Thanks.
I suppose I could look at what John Oliver has to say in that show; it will mean breaking the law, of course.
(What do you reckon, cubist? Should I break the law?)
…
Well. Not too many retorts to handle, I see. 🙂
Again: “there is a well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement”.
(So it is written)
So, there is a well-organized group (that’s presumably not Trump himself) that is working to create a detailed agenda (no agenda is yet worked out) that will provide a blueprint (surely it will, some time into the future) that they want him to implement (ah, there’s the rub).
How that is supposedly “Trump’s second term agenda” is yet unstated.
People have told me that it’s public and Trump has not repudiated it, so therefore it is that.
“What kind of logic is it, John Morales?” I was asked.
Heh. I did answer.
John Morales, jesus fucking christ please stop embarrassing yourself! If you can manage it….
John, several of the talking points from Project 2025 have made it into Trump’s speeches.
While that only proves that his speechwriters have read the document (because I’m pretty certain Trump would not read it), there is pretty good evidence that Team Trump endorses the ideas in Project 2025 and is trying to use those concepts to help get Trump elected. Beau of the Fifth Column also did a video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op0yk50uMlQ, maybe you can watch this video.
A lot of the provisions in Project 2025 are nonsense. It is a wish-list of ultra-conservative talking points including turning the USA into an explicitly Christian nation. It proposes implementing the Unitary Executive theory which changes the nature of government, effectively eviscerating the power of Congress and the US Supreme Court and places most of the power to control government into the hands of the executive branch. Previously in the US we would expect the courts to throw out a lot of the provisions of Project 2025 if there was a serious attempt to implement them. But after Roe v. Wade was overturned, we can no longer rely on the USSC to oppose the implementation of something like Project 2025.
By Trump’s actions and speeches, Trump is aware of Project 2025 and clearly likes this idea. It also aligns with his own conception that the office of the US President has unlimited power. It is no stretch to say that Trump endorses this proposal.
Three full stops for an ellipsis, invivoMark.
Fucking Jeezus Christy! Please stop embarrassing yourself!
(You got nothing to say about Trump’s purported second term agenda, obs)
So? ‘Stand back and stand by’ is a thing.
Trump bobs in the waves of right-wing culture. So?
Already have. So?
He likes a lot of ideas, until he doesn’t. So?
Oh, right. It’s the vibe, right?
—
How does any of that entail that this is in fact “Trump’s second term agenda”?
His tacitly-endorsed agenda? His unofficial agenda?
Again: “there is a well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement”.
But, hey!
“Trump’s proposed draft second term agenda proposal by others which he has not yet repudiated” seems like the sort of title to which I might not have objected. Shame it’s not what’s at hand, eh?
Obs, I am quite familiar with the whole thing.
Been around for a while. Mentioned a lot, not just by Beau.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
—
None of that entails that it is, in fact, “Trump’s second term agenda”.
[meta]
Huh. I used to think “invivoMark” had half-a-clue.
Ah well.
Um, “we” excludes me. I never relied on the USSC.
(That’s the mob who are explicitly either conservative or liberal according to who appointed them, right?)
Seriously, you mob — USAnians who call themselves ‘Americans’ — have a shitload of right-wing ‘think tanks’ and ‘institutes’ and whatnot that are way out there. It’s a thing.
The Heritage Foundation is just one of them, and currently the most visible.
But none of them are Trump himself.
His agenda is pretty darn obvious: Be the Man.
(Policies, well… that shit is whatever is convenient at the time)
So much good faith in this discussion.
>_>
They can’t help themselves, Holms.
Yeah, I too find it funny to be told I should stop embarrassing myself by being 100% correct.
I know I’m probably acting the fool to engage John further, because he seems to be slightly more aggressive than usual, but it is possible that other people would appreciate reading this.
@19, John Morales wrote,
If you are able to read with any comprehension, you will notice that the “we” in my sentence is prefaced by the words, “In the US”, which explicitly identities which collection of people the “we” refers to. That “we” explicitly excludes people from other countries, including Australia. Please try to keep up.
But on a more serious note, regardless of how they are portrayed in the media and how many people perceive them (including, apparently, Australians) the USSC is not generally explicitly liberal or conservative based on the people who appointed them. Since the Marshall Court in the early 19th century, there has been a general trend of Supreme Court Justices to actually become more liberal over their term as they are exposed to the more difficult questions which are brought to the court and to the arguments presented by either side. There are exceptions, of course, and two of the exceptions are on the court right now. But with all his faults I see Kavanaugh starting to write opinions which do not rely on the spurious doctrine of “originalism” and I think he is starting to recognize that many of the arguments brought to the Supreme Court deal are not easily decided on liberal/conservative lines. Over time I think others of the new justices will also come to that realization, they probably already are. AS an example, in the four justices which were appointed by Reagan, three of them became more liberal the longer they served. Only Scalia became more conservative, but that may be a miss-reading. I think Scalia became more power-conscious and used his position and opinions to try to create an oligarchy which included him. Scalia saw people as things to be manipulated, which is neither liberal or conservative but psychotic.
The USSC has always been somewhat political, but they have generally tried to uphold law, or strike down laws which cause harm to people regardless of whether they were appointed by liberal or conservative presidents and congress. Again, there are plenty of specific examples where they made poor decisions, many of those are famous. But there are also a lot of decisions which were aimed at protecting citizens or limiting harm. The USSC decides between 150-200 cases a year, most do not have oral arguments. The general public generally hears about 10 of the most contentious cases, those are the ones which are discussed in the news. The public generally forms their opinion of the political beliefs of the USSC from around 5% of the cases they decide.
The process of learning that they are responsible for the welfare of all the citizens in the US, and that they have to think about the effects of their decisions on the citizens, that process takes time. The overturn of Roe v. Wade was made with three justices who are novices to the USSC. If the case had been brought up 20 years from now, I don’t know that these three justices would have made the same decision. They might have, but they also might not. People do change their beliefs over time.
The conservatives in the US managed to get three justices appointed who agreed with them, and then before they could figure out that many people in the US not only disagree with the conservative viewpoint, that those people even have some good, cogent, arguments for their disagreement, they brought the case to overturn Roe v. Wade to the court. The new justices toed the political line, in doubt in part because they agree with it, but also because they have not been on the court for very long.
But, at this time, because of these novice justices, the USSC is more vulnerable to accepting fascism then it has been in a long time. Possibly since John Adams. This is why I wrote that in the US we cannot rely on the USSC.
John Morales is obviously trolling, but I’m compelled not to let this one go.
Three periods for an ellipsis, plus one period for the end of the sentence, is grammatically accurate. Even your snark is stupid.
What? When did expressing one’s personal opinion about the topic at hand become trolling in your worldview?
I am very compelling. I know.
“Don’t use a full stop, comma or semicolon after an ellipsis.”
(https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation-and-capitalisation/ellipses)
You imagined that was snark? Heh.
And therefore that ‘we’ excludes me, which is what I wrote.
You realise you are endorsing rather than disputing my claim, right?
Please try to keep up.
The court as a whole, no; individual judges, yes.
“Justices are nominated by the president in power, and receive confirmation by the Senate, historically holding many of the views of the nominating president’s political party. While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches, organizations such as the Federalist Society do officially filter and endorse judges that have a sufficiently conservative view of the law. Jurists are often informally categorized in the media as being conservatives or liberal. Attempts to quantify the ideologies of jurists include the Segal–Cover score, Martin-Quinn score, and Judicial Common Space score.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)
Well, the people who wanted abortion rights to vanish sure relied on them, and they came through.
(Bad example? Want the one about the bump stocks?)
But since that was already implicit, your comment “Um, “we” excludes me. I never relied on the USSC” was not only redundant, it was just pure dickishness. You sure do get peevish when that is pointed out.
In the news:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-reviews-plan-halt-us-military-aid-ukraine-unless-it-negotiates-peace-with-2024-06-25/
So, now we know about Trump’s second term Ukraine war agenda, right? 🙂
In your O so very judicious and unbiased estimation.
Not like you’ve exhibited personal animus towards me for years on end by now, right?
You sure do make many, many comments in various threads about what you think of me and about me and how I comment and how it’s “dickish” (I am very phallic, as has been noted).
The topic at hand? Well, not as interesting as me.
You so very often (as here) just ignore the topic and focus on me.
Which is fair enough, after all I am told people find me compelling and marvellous.
(Tell me more about me, Holms. You’ve got a bunch of comments in your quota for this thread still available)
@25, John Morales opined,
I made no comment on the truthfulness or falsehood of your statement. I made a comment about your reading comprehension.
Which you apparently also miss-understood, or deliberately attempted to obfuscate.
No.
You made a comment about what you imagined was my reading comprehension.
I can read perfectly well, you know. I know what you wrote.
BTW: “realise (sic)” — first, normal use is to use brackets rather than parentheses, and secondly, did you notice my citation? Australian English here. Like, you know, honor [sic] vs. honour.
Heh, such complacence in the face of irony.
Typical fare from such as you, though.
You made up some story based on imagining I misunderstood what you wrote, and then corrected me to tell me that what I wrote is actually already correct, though it’s based on what you perceive as a misapprehension due to incomprehension.
Dare you to consider that perhaps you’ve misunderstood me, rather than the other way around?
Anyway, to what attempted obfuscation (as you see it) do you intend to refer?
Care to try to quote me obfuscating?
Because I’ve been clear as day about what I’ve written.
PS
“John Morales opined, opined flex”
(When you attempt accusations, best to consider the reflexive case, no?)
On-topic, this exists:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
@19, John Morales wrote,
Let’s break this down.
The
part of the sentence is not in dispute. I know you live in Australia and I know that the actions of the USSC have little, or no, impact on you. I deliberately wrote the original sentences in question as
Those two uses of the work “we” clearly are related and refer to the same group of people, specifically people in the US.
Good so far? It seems pretty straightforward to me. If that was what you had written it would have sounded arrogant, but not with a suggestion that you thought I was wrong.
However, let’s look at the “Um,” you started your sentence with. There are a couple of ways that could be interpreted, and maybe I was wrong in my interpretation. But a typical interpretation of an “Um,” written in that manner is shorthand for, “I’m about to say that a mistake was made, and I’m going to correct it.”
Another interpretation could be, “what I’m about to say is an attempt to clarify my position in this discussion.” If you were just trying to say that the USSC doesn’t really have much impact on your life, and there are even US citizens who feel this way, the rest of the sentence manages that without the “Um,”.
If you were trying to correct me, as your response implies, it’s pretty clear you skipped reading the first sentence and assumed an undefined “we” in the second. That would be a reading comprehension failure. Which isn’t a big deal, except that you take perverse pleasure in correcting others who are less precise in their language than you are. I know you take pleasure in doing so, because you’ve said as much in previous comments. I can call it perverse because communication is about the transmission of ideas, but most of the time your comments do not help clarify any of the ideas being expressed in the OP or by other commenters. Instead of contributing to a discussion of the ideas in the thread, you look for trivial errors and claim those errors result in multiple conflicting interpretations when to all the other readers the ideas expressed in the OP or other comments is clear. You are not interested in communication, you are not interested in a discussion, you are interested in deliberate miss-interpretation and then complaining about it. And you never admit that you might be wrong.
Your effort to focus on the accuracy of your overall statement rather than the implications from your use of “Um,” which suggested that I was incorrect also hints that have recognized the implications of that “Um,” and you are embarrassed to admit you made a mistake. Hence the suggestion of obfuscation.
I’ll show you how it’s done. I apologize for not knowing that the Australian spelling of realise is different than the American spelling. That was my mistake and I should not have suggested that spelling was incorrect.
@31, John Morales,
So, you realize that on the website you linked about Trump’s agenda, there are many topics which are covered in Project 2025?
Like:
Defunding any school which teaches Critical Race Theory,
Getting rid of the reduction of prescription drugs prices under the Inflation Reduction Act,
Making children born in the US to illegal immigrants not US Citizens (which violates the US Federal Constitution),
Encouraging more oil drilling and coal mining,
Eliminating any and all transgender medical treatments to minors,
Ending the Affordable Care Act,
Etc.
These are all in Project 2025 and also all on the website you linked to.
The compulsion holds, I see.
If you need to, sure.
I know that part is not in dispute. I was the one who pointed that out.
Yes, just like the “me” part refers to me.
I get all that.
Um, a suggestion in your imagination.
There was no such suggestion.
Care to clarify how you thought that meant I was suggesting that you were wrong?
True. Typically.
That follows.
So, basically, to you it is indeed a big deal, because you think that I take perverse pleasure in correcting others who are less precise in their language than I am.
An interesting viewpoint. I always like hearing what people imagine about me.
Nope. I’ve said I take pleasure in engaging in substantive arguments, and even in playful arguments.
Different thing, but of course in your own imagination, that’s what I’ve said (or as much as).
Surely you can therefore quote me so saying, right?
You don’t think that pointing out that this is an agenda that is a work in progress by people other than Trump who hope to convince Trump to adopt it means it is not actually Trump’s agenda do not help clarify any of the ideas being expressed in the OP.
I do.
So, care to be honest? Is it or is it not his agenda, in your estimable estimation?
It is not a trivial error to claim an agenda is Trump’s agenda when it is, in fact, not Trump’s agenda.
Additionally, I O so unhelpfully cited an actual site actually endorsed by Trump @31, which you believe was instead of contributing to a discussion of the ideas in the thread.
(Jaundiced perceptions are fine, but be aware that is what they are)
In your imagination, perhaps.
Also, I make sure it is quite rare for me to admit I am wrong, since I am careful in regards to the claims I make.
Now, if you think I might be wrong about not being an USA citizen, fine. Go for it.
Um, you should perhaps look up to what ‘obfuscation’ refers.
When do you plan to start?
You are wrong; it is not incorrect usage, and I myself tailor it to the recipient as required.
Like, say, with ‘skeptic’ vs ‘sceptic’.
It is not a biggie, but it merits no apology. It’s just your ignorance.
Besides, it was your inopportune “sic” that led me to point that out to you; you want to apologise, apologise for that.
Well, you want to imagine they’re the same thing and even the same agenda, I can’t stop you.
Same thing, really.
Weird how the OP is about prospective, in-work, hopeful Project 2025 rather than about Agenda47, no?
Heh. You don’t even see how weak your justification is, do ya?
[meta]
Ooo.. a mistake!
I admit I was wrong in my expression.
Double negative, basically. Got distracted whilst composing.
What I should have written is “You don’t think that pointing out that this is an agenda that is a work in progress by people other than Trump who hope to convince Trump to adopt it means it is not actually Trump’s agenda helps clarify any of the ideas being expressed in the OP.”
Oddly, most of my comments contain such mistakes. Handy for just these sorts of occasion, no?
(So convenient!)
John,
Both Project2025 and Agenda47 topics are aspirational. You cannot make the claim that, “… OP is about prospective, in-work, hopeful Project 2025 rather than about Agenda47, …”. Project2025 is not an in-work project, it’s a published document. It may go through some future revision, but that does not make it an in-work document today.
Both Project2025 and Agenda47 are changes things the conservative movement wants to make. Both are plans/goals they have for when Trump gets in office. Considering there is a large overlap between the topics in Project2025 and Agenda47, and both are generated by conservative planners, and there is overlap between the Project2025 writers and Trump’s campaign team, to say that Trump’s agenda (Agenda47 on the campaign website) includes Project2025 is not a stretch. You seem to want to see every topic in Project2025 is on Agenda47 (and no additional topics are on Agenda47), in order to say that Trump’s second term agenda includes Project2025. If that is your expectation you are politically naïve.
If you can’t read, “President’s Trump Plan to Protect Children from Left-Wing Insanity: President Trump today announced his plan to stop the chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation of our youth.” and not understand that the topic is ending transgender care then you haven’t been paying attention to the conservative talking points and how the conservative’s frame these topics. Many of the other topics in Agenda47 are the same.
flex, you make a most satisfactory chew-toy.
So… neither is Trump’s second term agenda, since both are aspirational, right?
Therefore, it follows that Project2025 is not Trump’s second term agenda.
No need to tell me that, that was my very first comment.
My only one, actually — until people took an interest and pretended to dispute me.
Well, sure. Political naivety, that’s my thing.
Point being: where am I actually wrong? As in, incorrect?
Many of them, eh? Whoohoo!
(That means not all of them, right? As in, they are not the same thing)
[BTW, you also did the double-negative stuff-up thingie, FWTW. No biggie, I myself do it all the time]
#28 John
Finally, something agreeable from you! What a pleasant surprise.
You mean, I make many, many comments pointing out your bad faith argumentation. I’ve told you about that habit myself, and I know you’ve read those comments as you’ve replied to them. Why you seem to forget this fact is a mystery to me.
Folks, ignore the blog-maggot. Mano tolerates the bored retiree and so it seems must we.
I just don’t read his posts. It’s easy. Give it a go, you’ll be glad you did.
Nope. I mean what I wrote, and I wrote what I mean, Holms.
You can keep interpreting all you want, but there it is in black and white.
You can speculate about my motives and disposition every bit as much, but since you work on the caricature you create instead of the actual person, you are always wrong.
Why you persist with that little fantasy is best left to a psychiatrist to determine.
It is not a fact, and therefore not a fact I can forget.
—
Maggots thrive on dead things and rotting flesh; you sure that’s what you intended to convey?
(Still, and again: way to ignore me, badland!)
John Morales wrote,
No. Both are both. And there is overlap.
Did it never cross your mind that an agenda, an “underlying often ideological plan or program”, can also be aspirational, as in a “strong desire for something”? Or don’t they use the word “agenda” in that sense in Australia?
That must be where the spittle is coming from, but I haven’t felt any teeth.
Ah, so Trump has two agendas, which overlap, and one of which is from (and I quote) “a well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement”.
(Is that anything like the hypostasis?)
—
Hey, is this you trying to (heh) obfuscate?
(I don’t think that means what you think it means, flex)
It’s not the adjectives that might possibly plausibly apply to the agenda, it’s the agenda’s ownership.
Whose agenda it is.
Please try to keep up.
I am amusing myself at your expense, much as a puppy enjoys playing with a chew-toy.
It’s a metaphor.
You know, how “footage” is not actual length of reel, but a generic term.
Please try to keep up.
Hey, flex, someone you presumably respect wrote “I know I’m probably acting the fool to engage John further”, just before repeatedly engaging John further.
So, are you (as you see it) acting the fool, or is that a now-deprecated opinion?
(Hey, just trying to keep up, as we are each exhorting the other to do!)
Oh, look: https://www.45office.com/
That’s the Trinity, beyond the Hypostasis, no?
(Three agenda!)
How will it now go?
Lemme guess: “No. All three are triadic. And there is overlap. All different, but all one”: the Agenda!
How am I doing, flex?
(Engagement, that’s the thing!)
[I see invivoMark’s compulsion has apparentlyworn off. Maybe there was a successful saving throw?]
John Morales wrote,
So you do acknowledge that something can be both an agenda and aspirational. Good, we make progress.
Yes, this has been your idee fixe from the start. That we shouldn’t be calling it “Trump’s Agenda” because Trump doesn’t have an agenda other than, “Make Trump feel important”. I’ve been avoiding mentioning it because I have indulged myself in watching you founder around.
As you well know, it is a convenient shorthand to attribute the actions and goals of any part of a large organization to the head of that organization. That is, the head of an organization is presumed to be responsible for the organization. That’s why they are the head. Thus Biden is often accused of goals and desires which he may not share, or are required by acts of congress. “Genocide Joe” is a pretty good example of this, Biden clearly is not rooting for Israel to slaughter the Palestinians. But there are treaties the US has signed, and acts of congress which are in place, which require the US to provide weapons to Israel. The power of the purse held by congress stipulated that certain funds are to be spent providing weapons to Israel, and Biden, as head of the executive branch is obligated to provide them. There are treaty obligations saying the same thing. But because Biden is the head of the executive branch, Biden gets the blame for the US government proving weapons to Israel. This doesn’t absolve Biden of all guilt, some of those treaties were ratified by the senate when he was a senator, some of the funding was too. But the guilt of providing weapons to Israel while Israel is in the process of genocide belongs, rightfully, to the US Government as a whole, especially to executive and legislative branches who make the decisions where to spend funds. Biden, as the head of the executive branch, is assumed to bear the lion’s share of that responsibility and that guilt. Just like we would assume that if GM had a recall, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM, would bear the responsibility of the recall.
Trump is the head of the republican party. Which makes him responsible for agendas which are proposed by republican party members. Whether he personally believes in the various agendas floating out of conservative think tanks, it is the responsibility of Trump (or the upper-leadership of the republican party and the team of people trying to elect Trump), to repudiate those ideas and proposals they do not agree with. Instead of decrying the fact that the result of Project2025 is to establish unitary executive power, republican operatives have disseminated it. Trump is the head of the republican party. Trump is responsible for the republican operatives using Project2025 as a source of ideas, and Trump is responsible for allowing these ideas to be used as part of the republican party platform, as part of his Agenda47. This is true even if Trump isn’t aware of it, just like the CEO of GM is responsible for a recall even if it happened prior to them becoming CEO. When you are the head of an organization, you are given the responsibility for actions taken by that organization. Trump, or Trump’s team, could issue statements saying that Project2025 does not reflect the platform of the republican party. That hasn’t happened, and some of the ideas from Project2025 have made it into Trump’s speeches. Which suggests Trump’s speechwriters are aware of Project2025, and think that having Trump promote those ideas in his speeches will help Trump get elected. Trump still bears responsibility, because Trump is the head of the republican party. I’m certain he doesn’t want that responsibility, he wants the power and prestige but he has never appeared to want responsibility. Unfortunately for him, by being the head of an organization he is responsible for the activities of that organization. Notwithstanding your ultra-literalism It’s not a stretch to say that Trump’s agenda includes Project2025. Everyone, and I have to believe even you, understands what Mano meant when he wrote the title. You just wanted to be snarky about it.
For what it’s worth, I find it humorous that you are repeating a phrase I wrote once multiple times as if that repetition would irritate me. I mention it now only to let you know that it doesn’t irritate me and I instead find it funny, as clearly do you.
Finally,
Oh, I’m well aware that I’ve been acting the fool. I enjoy doing so at times. I don’t think you’ve made any convincing rebuttals, but the engagement has been enjoyable.
Yet, I think we’ve gone about as far as we can on this comment thread. Challenging your deliberate miss-understanding is fun for only so long. Tootles.
Third person.
<snicker>
You mean “I”, not we.
I’m miles ahead, you gotta catch up before “we” can progress.
More to the point, I never denied that.
It’s a borrowing, so idée fixe. Were it that, you might have a point.
But no, it’s my very first comment, the only one that is native to the topic.
After that, they are all responses to people such as you, who cannot accept that for something to be Trump’s agenda, it has to be Trump’s agenda.
I quote from the OP: “But while he was erratic and chaotic during his first term, there is a well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement.”
So, you are now suggesting that Trump is the head of an well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement, right?
Mmmhmm.
Heh. Nice belabouring.
So, you are now suggesting that Trump is the head of an well-organized group that is working to create a detailed agenda that will provide a blueprint that they want him to implement, right?
Um, Biden is not the topic at hand.
The topic is (and I quote) Trump’s second term agenda.
Do try to keep up!
You are as verbose as I am terse.
Um. I understand what Mano wrote.
Now, he may have meant something different to what he wrote, but what he wrote is what he wrote.
I’m forever plagued by people who tell me how I supposedly think and what I supposedly want, and who ignore what I actually write.
Heh.
So, am I keeping up? I can see you back there, in the distance, running in circles.
Heh heh.
Rebuttal of what?
I thought you were supposed to be the one rebutting me?
(cf. comment #1)
Your flounce is adorable.
[FWIW, I do think you’re a pretty good commenter, flex. Usually.
But that keeping up bit effort was not your best rhetorical moment, was it?
Trying to patronise me is never fun for whoever attempts it]
/eyeroll
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/22/trump-policy-flip-flop-00164538
(A very fluid agenda!)
Huh.
1. “The USSC has always been somewhat political, but they have generally tried to uphold law, or strike down laws which cause harm to people regardless of whether they were appointed by liberal or conservative presidents and congress. Again, there are plenty of specific examples where they made poor decisions, many of those are famous. But there are also a lot of decisions which were aimed at protecting citizens or limiting harm. The USSC decides between 150-200 cases a year, most do not have oral arguments. The general public generally hears about 10 of the most contentious cases, those are the ones which are discussed in the news. The public generally forms their opinion of the political beliefs of the USSC from around 5% of the cases they decide.”
2. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/
(Is this one of the five-percenters?)
Oops, forgot the quotation:
“The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court’s decision that had rejected Trump’s claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented.”
That last sentence kinda sorta in a vague way perhaps indicates that the court as a whole may in some subtle manner be perhaps influenced by whether its constituent members are adjudicated to be either liberal or conservative.
Or so I think.
(Am I mistaken?)
Hey, Holms, here’s an opportunity for you to exercise your eyeball-rolling muscles:
Right.
So, your thesis is that the trend has been as Supreme Court Justices age, exceptions aside.
So, we can look forward to the currently-adjudged (heh) 6 conservative judges to become liberal judges towards the end of their careers, if your thesis is correct.
(Yay?)
“My” thesis…? Rub the sleep out of your eyes and read again.
<snicker;gt;
My comments were directed at the person I quoted; I merely drew your attention to them.
(I was waiting with baited breath, and Lo!)
You didn’t notice the trio of comments were thematically linked?
All were to the same person, but someone (ahem) did not rub the sleep out of their eyes.
So, are your eyeball-muscles duly exercised, Holms?
The one I referred to wasn’t, as it referred to me by name.
That was an aside, obviously.
Rub the sleep out of your eyes and read again.
Even the Beeb gets in on the act: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crg4rz6zedyo
Pullquote:
Sure, you expect a person to know you have internally changed your dialogue despite your writing giving no indication of such.
Heh.
Not you, Holms.
^ In which you accept the description of your writing.
Heh.
In which I essay a bon mot.
(How is your eye-swivelling going?)
Heh.
In the news: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-tries-to-claim-he-has-no-idea-what-the-deal-is-with-project-2025
(Via TET by way of Lynna
Oh, right.
—
In a post on Truth Social on Friday, Trump claimed that he knows “nothing about Project 2025.”
He added: “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
The liar paradox or merely plausible deniability?
Whaddayareckn, Holms?
Hey, I hear noises about a Republican Party Platform.
Is that also Trump’s agenda?
(cardinal numbers ever grow, if monotonously)