Project 2025 impact

[IdahoBeav]

Trump already said he has nothing to do with it. Are there things in it he may try to put in place, maybe. It's like saying all white supremacists are voting for Trump. Like he has anything to do with that. Of course they are, so are the five remaining members of the Nazi party.

Not true, Richard Spencer has repeatedly stated that he will not be voting for Trump. Biden earned his endorsement in the last election, and he has shown to be favoring Kamala now.

 

[Yoder]

Not true, Richard Spencer has repeatedly stated that he will not be voting for Trump. Biden earned his endorsement in the last election, and he has shown to be favoring Kamala now.

So, the white supremacist is voting for the "black" woman. Makes sense. Maybe she identifies as an old white man.

 

[IdahoBeav]

So, the white supremacist is voting for the "black" woman. Makes sense. Maybe she identifies as an old white man.

Or maybe her policy on Israel is more favorable to a neo Nazi than Trump's policy is.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Only one President in the last 16 years has open up more hunting on public AND private. 45

I can’t believe people allow the media to eat their brains, instead of just looking at facts they buy a subscription service to the progressive brain rot

 

[CJ19]

Only one President in the last 16 years has open up more hunting on public AND private. 45

I can’t believe people allow the media to eat their brains, instead of just looking at facts they buy a subscription service to the progressive brain rot

Spot on.

 

[Poser]

Only one President in the last 16 years has open up more hunting on public AND private. 45

I can’t believe people allow the media to eat their brains, instead of just looking at facts they buy a subscription service to the progressive brain rot

The appointment of Pendlay to head the BLM, with plans to dispose of many of these same BLM lands, if played out as intended, would have held only negative impacts for public land hunting. Pendlay simply didn't end up having enough time (2 years) to get this all in order.

Of interest, Pendlay is also one of the authors of Project 2025.
Here is a recent Op-Ed Pendlay published: Solve the housing crisis by selling government land

 

[CJ19]

The appointment of Pendlay to head the BLM, with plans to dispose of many of these same BLM lands, if played out as intended, would have held only negative impacts for public land hunting. Pendlay simply didn't end up having enough time (2 years) to get this all in order.

Of interest, Pendlay is also one of the authors of Project 2025.
Here is a recent Op-Ed Pendlay published: Solve the housing crisis by selling government land

Maybe the conservation community should have spent less time attacking Zinke to get him out. Pretty short sited from all these supposed "conservation" groups at the time since Zinke was a stated public land ally that wanted to hold public lands.

 

[Q child]

I think my mind goes to two different considerations. First, in any administration, it's not so much what the "plans" or policy of the administration is, it's more the who of appointments to carry out the policy of the administration. If, for instance, you take Deb Haaland and David Bernhardt, the last two appointees for the Secretary of the Interior (arguably the most relevant cabinet position for hunters and anglers, overseeing UWFWS and BLM), there are ample reasons to both applaud and be skeptical about them from the standpoint of hunters and anglers.

In the event of a new administration in 2025, we can almost be assured cabinet turnover. I guess the case I'm making is that hunters and anglers really need to pay attention to the appointment process and weigh in. It's not enough to just trust that "your candidate picked someone, I must agree", we need to dig in to the details and be sure they're going to uphold our values. If the Senate approves them, it becomes critical to make sure they continue to do so.

The second consideration that I think is both relevant and somewhat fuzzy as to the implications is the recent reversal of the Chevron doctrine (worth looking into in detail if you have a moment). Essentially, in the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled that agencies with expertise were in charge of filling in the particulars in the implementation of laws (as a crude example, the EPA would be in charge of making specific rules to implement the general law of Clean Water Act). In a recent case, this was reversed.

I don't think any of us yet know the particulars of what this will mean in practice. I think there is an equally compelling argument that this will mean courts will ultimately decide the particulars of policy, while others believe that it will allow specific administrations more latitude in directing policy with their appointees. In either case, I'm not a huge fan because one completely removes technical experts (differing instead to legal experts) and the other is subject to the whims of different administrations (pendulum swings). Time will tell how it ultimately plays out, but definitely curious to see what other folks think.

Please correct me if I've butchered any of these details too - I'm no legal nor policy scholar, so I could be wildly mistaken.

Nuance? Reason? Patience? Humility? What is this sorcery?

 

[Broomd]

What is truly disturbing is that no matter what is written in Project 2025 or being proposed...it still can not be as loony as the actual policy or proposal of the current administration and its party platform. The Green New Deal forms the basis of environmental policy for instance and driving green energy policy including industrial renewable developmemt of wildlife habitat and public land. Or DEI as a conservation funding policy. Or bathroom policy. Or race base hiring policy. We are currently experiencing woke clown world and its not bc project 2025.

Yep, guys here bitching about 2025 bullshit, meanwhile Rome burns. Defies actual sanity.

 

[NevadaMike]

I am a moderate R but becoming less moderate after the last few years of the Ds. What I think is interesting is I had never heard of Project 2025 nor had anyone I know. First hearing of it from a liberal friend and his hair was on fire over it. All I could say is "I have no idea what you are talking about." He looked at me in disbelief knowing I have become solidly in the R camp. I still think he believes I was lying to him. That is also how I learned about Breitbart. I was on a long run with an extremely liberal friend of mine and he proceeded to imply that I somehow knew what Breitbart was and I was heavily influenced by it. I had absolutely never heard of it before. There has been more of these scenarios too.

Point being is my liberal friends seemingly know of all the angry hard right wing nut ideas and publications and fret over them while my conservative friends have not even heard about them. IDK YMMV

 

[cuerro viejo]

The appointment of Pendlay to head the BLM, with plans to dispose of many of these same BLM lands, if played out as intended, would have held only negative impacts for public land hunting. Pendlay simply didn't end up having enough time (2 years) to get this all in order.

Of interest, Pendlay is also one of the authors of Project 2025.
Here is a recent Op-Ed Pendlay published: Solve the housing crisis by selling government land

BLM land sell off has steep criteria to be met in order to happen …if circumventing Congress. So the head of BLM can’t do much on selling. Now leasing yes.

What President increased funding for hunter walk-In access and opened more public lands to hunting….

 

[IdahoBeav]

That is also how I learned about Breitbart. I was on a long run with an extremely liberal friend of mine and he proceeded to imply that I somehow knew what Breitbart was and I was heavily influenced by it. I had absolutely never heard of it before.

Breitbart broke the Anthony Weiner scandal when mainstream media and even the White House at the time did everything possible in attempt to dismiss the story and protect the dems. As Andrew Breitbart put it "the president's protectors", and boy was he right. Breitbart News has a heavy right bias, but they are not completely uncredible.

 

[Q child]

Breitbart broke the Anthony Weiner scandal when mainstream media and even the White House at the time did everything possible in attempt to dismiss the story and protect the dems. As Andrew Breitbart put it "the president's protectors", and boy was he right. Breitbart News has a heavy right bias, but they are not completely uncredible.

Breitbart has comedically poor journalistic standards. Their heavy right wing bias disqualifies them as a news source. It is ideology. That is kind of the point. Credibility would be if Breitbart also reported on scandals that conflict with their ideology.
I'm continually confused by right-wing news sources complaining about the "mainstream media." Fox is the most watched cable news network. Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are some of the most listened to radio hosts in the country. What is mainstream if not the most popular stuff out there?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Breitbart has comedically poor journalistic standards. Their heavy right wing bias disqualifies them as a news source. It is ideology. That is kind of the point. Credibility would be if Breitbart also reported on scandals that conflict with their ideology.
I'm continually confused by right-wing news sources complaining about the "mainstream media." Fox is the most watched cable news network. Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are some of the most listened to radio hosts in the country. What is mainstream if not the most popular stuff out there?

Fox News, CNN, NYT, Wapo, etc. all have bias, and they have withheld information and misreported to serve their agenda. There is no such thing as a news provider with 100% credibility. You have to search out through different outlets to find the truth. Breitbart and Fox are not the locations to find news that may negatively impact right wing politics. The same is true for CNN, NYT, Wapo. etc and left wing politics. Unfortunately, there is no single location reporting only the truth.

 

[IdahoBeav]

I'm continually confused by right-wing news sources complaining about the "mainstream media." Fox is the most watched cable news network. Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are some of the most listened to radio hosts in the country. What is mainstream if not the most popular stuff out there?

Fox is the only mainstream conservative news media. The rest of the mainstream all have left bias.

 

[TaperPin]

Prod 2025 is just one more reason the current GOP is costing us yet another election. People love Maga like this is a reality tv show, or talk radio, but until the party goes back to actual conservative positions, real adult leadership, we’ll keep losing. Go ahead, stay with the tired old horse until he’s drained all the money out of the party, oh wait, that’s already happened - all the legal fees alone could fund an entire party.

 

[IdahoBeav]

. . . but until the party goes back to actual conservative positions, real adult leadership, we’ll keep losing.

When was that?

 

[Q child]

Fox is the only mainstream conservative news media. The rest of the mainstream all have left bias.

Fox is the most popular cable television news network. Literally the most mainstream cable television network.
Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are some of the most listened to radio hosts in the country. What is mainstream if not the most popular stuff out there?

 

[Q child]

Rush Limbaugh was an absolute ratings juggernaut. He complained about the "mainstream" media until the end.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Fox is the most popular cable television news network. Literally the most mainstream cable television network.
Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are some of the most listened to radio hosts in the country. What is mainstream if not the most popular stuff out there?

Yes, and there is information they withhold and stories they don't cover in order to serve their agenda.

If you're asking why people on Fox use the term MSM to distinguish themselves from the rest, I cannot answer that.