How is it counterproductive? You think tying 2025 to Trump is going to help him?
Any follower of Trump who tries to wave away Project 2025 is only doing so as a tactic, not because Project 2025 has no relevance to Trump’s actual plans. Trump has told you who he is so many times that no one has any excuse not to see him for who he is.
He believes in giant tax breaks for himself and his wealthy peers.
He believes in stoking fear and hatred to manipulate people.
He blames vulnerable people for America’s perceived problems, some of which he makes up just to assign blame for them.
He has no respect for the law, unless it is a cudgel he can wield against his opponents and the weak.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
How is it counterproductive? You think tying 2025 to Trump is going to help him?
It lets him wiggle out of criticism by not being officially held to it. There’s plenty to criticize on his official platform.
“Project 2025 is the real agenda” is a little too conspiratorial for me. Especially when the more extreme points will probably end up being just talk.
You're making the assumption swing voters are paying that much attention.
"Counterproductive" implies a goal that isn't being met. If the goal is to prevent Trump from gaining office in the first place, tying him to Proj 2025 seems like a great idea. If the goal is holding him accountable after he's elected, well... we've seen how that goes.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
The premise is that TDS causes normally intelligent people to have significant lapses in judgment. Extremist people will be extremist. Moderates will be moderate. Except if they are affected by TDS.
Something like this shooting happens, and suddenly a bunch of otherwise normal people start saying insane extreme things. Even to the point where it negatively impacts their career, like it has here.
That’s the noteworthy phenomenon, in my opinion. And on a macro level, it has turned media outlets like NPR from a moderate level headed news organization into an anti-Trump machine. It’s negatively affected their ability to be objective when they’re so singularly focused on Trump.
Yeah, I would love it if something else were actually grabbing our attention more. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and Project 2025 have rightly concerned us with the threat of losing our democratic republic. I know you and others are not convinced, but, if I were to find plans to rob a bank today in the hands of a criminal, I wouldn't go out to write parking tickets.
The difference between us on that issue is one of degree and not of kind. I think both can be fairly described as threats. For me, the critical question is the magnitude of the threat. I don't think our brains have evolved to accurately assess those threats. In evolutionary history, overreacting to a threat probably has a lot less downside than underreacting (and becoming a predator's lunch).
For now, if a politician, media figure, or influencer says things that make me feel angry or afraid, I'm not listening. I'm not interested in people who want to manipulate my threat response system. I am very interested in well reasoned and evidence based arguments about the real magnitude of perceived threats and how they can be addressed without escalating. I think that a great deal of the extremism we see today is rooted in biology -- which means that our samenesses are much more important than our differences. That's probably true regardless.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
People like Kish likely wouldn’t have gotten the Bush DS label. It was more on blogs and stuff. Not Drudge Report or Instapundit, but I want to say in those spheres. Charles Krauthammer coined it in 2003, but didn’t use it how * derangement syndrome has become, and I think it slowly gained adoption online, but I feel like it was more common late in Bush’s second term.
Thanks Dwight. I couldn't recall who coined the term.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
So it's not the same turd, just a turd from the same ass.
It’s worth knowing which turd we may have to eat.
The way the media is trying to pin Project 2025 on Trump is counterproductive if they can sidestep it and talk about his actual stated agenda.
In the interview I read, it was clear that Trump's campaign managers hate, hate, hate Project 2025. I think they wish the Heritage Foundation would go dark until the election is over. Now, as to the degree that it represents Trump's real agenda, get me some jello, a hammer and a nail.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
The difference between us on that issue is one of degree and not of kind. I think both can be fairly described as threats. For me, the critical question is the magnitude of the threat. I don't think our brains have evolved to accurately assess those threats. In evolutionary history, overreacting to a threat probably has a lot less downside than underreacting (and becoming a predator's lunch).
For now, if a politician, media figure, or influencer says things that make me feel angry or afraid, I'm not listening. I'm not interested in people who want to manipulate my threat response system. I am very interested in well reasoned and evidence based arguments about the real magnitude of perceived threats and how they can be addressed without escalating. I think that a great deal of the extremism we see today is rooted in biology -- which means that our samenesses are much more important than our differences. That's probably true regardless.
I see what you are saying. I count on you to help me moderate my reaction to political concerns. A level-headed, clear-thinking lawyer can be one’s greatest ally in that endeavor.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
The difference between us on that issue is one of degree and not of kind. I think both can be fairly described as threats. For me, the critical question is the magnitude of the threat. I don't think our brains have evolved to accurately assess those threats. In evolutionary history, overreacting to a threat probably has a lot less downside than underreacting (and becoming a predator's lunch).
For now, if a politician, media figure, or influencer says things that make me feel angry or afraid, I'm not listening. I'm not interested in people who want to manipulate my threat response system. I am very interested in well reasoned and evidence based arguments about the real magnitude of perceived threats and how they can be addressed without escalating. I think that a great deal of the extremism we see today is rooted in biology -- which means that our samenesses are much more important than our differences. That's probably true regardless.
I see what you are saying. I count on you to help me moderate my reaction to political concerns. A level-headed, clear-thinking lawyer can be one’s greatest ally in that endeavor.
To the extent that I happen to hit "level-headed" and "clear-thinking," it may be more of the broken clock that is right twice a day. I'm convinced that level headed thinking requires so much time and effort that it's almost impossible to do alone. I use things that you and others post here to help me keep my own head. I think problem solving is most effectively done in groups, but even that is hard.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
To the extent that I happen to hit "level-headed" and "clear-thinking," it may be more of the broken clock that is right twice a day. I'm convinced that level headed thinking requires so much time and effort that it's almost impossible to do alone. I use things that you and others post here to help me keep my own head. I think problem solving is most effectively done in groups, but even that is hard.
If a group is able to tolerate and even constructively exploit differences of opinion, then that is a good sign, in my opinion. I would take big dopamine hits from lots of agreement, but in the end I would be poorer off.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Which shares many of Project2025’s ideology but is not identical to it.
Thanks, drumdude. I inaccurately referred to it as Project 2024, but the correct title is Agenda47. The material that is on that site now is the Republican Platform. The kookier stuff like the American Academies has been cleaned up. I suspect those academies are the "low cost" alternative to our current university and college system.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
To the extent that I happen to hit "level-headed" and "clear-thinking," it may be more of the broken clock that is right twice a day. I'm convinced that level headed thinking requires so much time and effort that it's almost impossible to do alone. I use things that you and others post here to help me keep my own head. I think problem solving is most effectively done in groups, but even that is hard.
If a group is able to tolerate and even constructively exploit differences of opinion, then that is a good sign, in my opinion. I would take big dopamine hits from lots of agreement, but in the end I would be poorer off.
Good point. Honesty without attacking or defensiveness is important. Frankly, it is always more helpful to me when you take a baseball bat to something I post than when we agree.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
