Project 2025 impact

[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.

You used the term.

 

[IdahoBeav]

You used the term.

And Fox News did not initially report on the Anthony Weiner scandal.

 

[Q child]

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

What about radio? Conservative news commentators pretty well dominate the radio ratings.
Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Dan Bongino, Mark Levin, Dana Loesch, Ben Shapiro...

Top Talk Audiences | TALKERS magazine

Visit the post for more.

talkers.com

 

[CJ19]

Here is the top priority of the present administration.

Accelerating development of clean energy on public lands and waters.

https://www.doi.gov/ourpriorities

Yet the conservation industry swamp creatures are here to tell us DJT is bad. The conservation lobbyist swamp creatures are desperate to keep getting a steady stream of taxpayer money to "help" hunters.

 

[Q child]

And Fox News did not initially report on the Anthony Weiner scandal.

This website says that Breitbart got 137 Million visits during June, making it one of the 100 most popular of all websites in America. Wild. That is enormous mainstream success.

breitbart.com Website Traffic, Ranking, Analytics [July 2024]

breitbart.com is ranked #87 in US with 136.63M Traffic. Categories: Newspapers. Learn more about website traffic, market share, and more!

www.semrush.com

 

[IdahoBeav]

This website says that Breitbart got 137 Million visits during June, making it one of the 100 most popular of all websites in America. Wild. That is enormous mainstream success.

breitbart.com Website Traffic, Ranking, Analytics [July 2024]

breitbart.com is ranked #87 in US with 136.63M Traffic. Categories: Newspapers. Learn more about website traffic, market share, and more!

www.semrush.com

The ratings aren't what directs the term MSM. It's power. As CNN, Wapo, NYT, MSN, etc. continue to go off the rails farther and farther with a dishonest left wing narrative (The Covid coverage alone was unbelievable), people naturally go to the other side of the spectrum in search of the truth, and it isn't all between absolutes. Bill Maher has been critical of the left's insanity, and he is now the most trusted person on TV, but back to power, a large piece of the left wing bias ("MSM") has to do with social media. All platforms were censoring and silencing as needed in order to push left wing politics. Now there is one major platform that has an equal playing field, and the left has lost their minds over it.

 

[Q child]

The ratings aren't what directs the term MSM. It's power. As CNN, Wapo, NYT, MSN, etc. continue to go off the rails farther and farther with a dishonest left wing narrative (The Covid coverage alone was unbelievable), people naturally go to the other side of the spectrum in search of the truth, and it isn't all between absolutes. Bill Maher has been critical of the left's insanity, and he is now the most trusted person on TV, but back to power, a large piece of the left wing bias ("MSM") has to do with social media. All platforms were censoring and silencing as needed in order to push left wing politics. Now there is one major platform that has an equal playing field, and the left has lost their minds over it.

Ratings is kind of exactly what determines whether or not something is mainstream. That is where my confusion comes from.
Also Breitbart gets more internet traffic than the Washington Post.

 

[Flyjunky]

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

The only comment in this entire thread worth a damn.

Keep arguing over stupid sh*t just like they want you to. While you do that more and more rights are lost, socialism creeps in deeper, the current rot gets deeper, and to top it off we’re still being invaded. This keeps going you might as well forget about hunting.

Although, I guess if you’re one of those 20,000 Haitians in Ohio it’s open season on geese, people’s pets, etc. seems those tags aren’t hard to draw. Maybe you too can start hunting local park geese.

Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.

Btw, we could start a list of at least 15 conspiracies that have literally done irreparable harm and forever changed this country for the worse. All because the corrupt leaders, and those who control them, don’t want their lies out in the open. Care to guess which side of the media propagated those narratives?

 

[Poser]

The ratings aren't what directs the term MSM. It's power. As CNN, Wapo, NYT, MSN, etc. continue to go off the rails farther and farther with a dishonest left wing narrative (The Covid coverage alone was unbelievable), people naturally go to the other side of the spectrum in search of the truth, and it isn't all between absolutes. Bill Maher has been critical of the left's insanity, and he is now the most trusted person on TV, but back to power, a large piece of the left wing bias ("MSM") has to do with social media. All platforms were censoring and silencing as needed in order to push left wing politics. Now there is one major platform that has an equal playing field, and the left has lost their minds over it.

Speaking of dishonest narrative, "Non mainstream" right wing media influencers who the DOJ says accepted payments from a Russian media company to indirectly spread disinformation:

Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Lauren Southern, Tayler Hansen, Matt Christiansen, and Dave Rubin.

The indictment accuses these individuals of overseeing funding and editorial operations while secretly directing Tenet Media's output to advance Russian interests. Despite the influencers' claims of independence, federal prosecutors assert that much of the content was strategically aligned with Russian efforts to amplify divisions within the US.

The indictment also alleges elaborate lengths to which the Russian operation went, including the creation of a fake Hungarian investor to mask RT's involvement and the high salaries paid to the influencers allegedly receiving up to $100,000 per video.

Any reasonable assessment or critique of an opposing narrative should also include a critique of the "agreeable" narrative.

 

[Atoka Man]

The Project 2025 Handbook is detailed here. With commentary on other pressing topics I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted yet.

• The discussion of federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and more can be found on pages 363-41
• Fire management on 308
• ⁠⁠climate protections are on. 417
• ⁠⁠Increase Arctic drilling on page363
• ⁠⁠Deregulate big business and the oil industry discussed on 363

What are people thinking about how this could impact public lands? Pros, cons, and everything in between.

Personally it concerns me. We have had constant attacks on our public land and the quality of our environment and nothing in Project 2025 stands to improve this, in fact it looks to accelerate these attacks. Both sides have some ideas that put public land recreation at risk (ex. solar farms on BLM land), but Project 2025 is the most dangerous. In my opinion this puts us at risk of losing this incredible resource that so many of us on this forum rely on which is public land.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Speaking of dishonest narrative, "Non mainstream" right wing media influencers who the DOJ says accepted payments from a Russian media company to indirectly spread disinformation:

Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Lauren Southern, Tayler Hansen, Matt Christiansen, and Dave Rubin.

The indictment accuses these individuals of overseeing funding and editorial operations while secretly directing Tenet Media's output to advance Russian interests. Despite the influencers' claims of independence, federal prosecutors assert that much of the content was strategically aligned with Russian efforts to amplify divisions within the US.

The indictment also alleges elaborate lengths to which the Russian operation went, including the creation of a fake Hungarian investor to mask RT's involvement and the high salaries paid to the influencers allegedly receiving up to $100,000 per video.

Any reasonable assessment or critique of an opposing narrative should also include a critique of the "agreeable" narrative.

It's interesting how anyone that questions the US being involved in a conflict that not only costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars but also has the potential to become a world war, that person is automatically a Russian propagandist.

I miss the days when the people that claimed to be liberal were anti-war.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Flyjunky]

Speaking of dishonest narrative, "Non mainstream" right wing media influencers who the DOJ says accepted payments from a Russian media company to indirectly spread disinformation:

Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Lauren Southern, Tayler Hansen, Matt Christiansen, and Dave Rubin.

The indictment accuses these individuals of overseeing funding and editorial operations while secretly directing Tenet Media's output to advance Russian interests. Despite the influencers' claims of independence, federal prosecutors assert that much of the content was strategically aligned with Russian efforts to amplify divisions within the US.

The indictment also alleges elaborate lengths to which the Russian operation went, including the creation of a fake Hungarian investor to mask RT's involvement and the high salaries paid to the influencers allegedly receiving up to $100,000 per video.

Any reasonable assessment or critique of an opposing narrative should also include a critique of the "agreeable" narrative.

I’m still waiting for a critique and assessment on the DOJ. Seems to me that whole organization doesn’t have a single bit of credibility when it comes to anything about misinformation, especially in regards to Russia. To that end, the biggest propaganda pushers in this world all reside in the US. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Poser]

It's interesting how anyone that questions the US being involved in a conflict that not only costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars but also has the potential to become a world war, that person is automatically a Russian propagandist.

I miss the days when the people that claimed to be liberal were anti-war.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Its interesting that you seemingly take the position of defending the people who took a position that they were paid $100,000 to take? (read their statements on the subject matter, none of them deny working with this media company nor accepting payment for the deal).

I mean, in what reality is a person who accepts payment from a Russian agent to propagate and influence a position favorable to Russia NOT in fact qualify as a Russian propagandist?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Its interesting that you seemingly take the position of defending the people who took a position that they were paid $100,000 to take? (read their statements on the subject matter, none of them deny working with this media company nor accepting payment for the deal).

I mean, in what reality is a person who accepts payment from a Russian agent to propagate and influence a position favorable to Russia NOT in fact qualify as a Russian propagandist?

Even a read through CNN and NPR reporting show that you're leaving out a ton of information and context.

The US not contributing to a foreign conflict that could lead to a world war is good for everyone except the military industrial complex tycoons, who strangely enough, are the people pushing and funding the accusations of Russian propaganda.

Do you not find it strange that the Bush era Republican warmongers are all on the same page as the left?

Imagine if someone told you 15-20 years ago that one day the Democratic presidential nominee would be using Dick Cheney's endorsement to tout herself on the campaign trail.

 

[Flyjunky]

Its interesting that you seemingly take the position of defending the people who took a position that they were paid $100,000 to take? (read their statements on the subject matter, none of them deny working with this media company nor accepting payment for the deal).

I mean, in what reality is a person who accepts payment from a Russian agent to propagate and influence a position favorable to Russia NOT in fact qualify as a Russian propagandist?

Correct, and the DOJ from what I read is not prosecuting them because they were doing it unknowingly.

I’m sure you feel the same way about Hunter and our current president, Hillary, the 51 intelligence officers, Page, Strok, etc?

Are we going to hold the current admin responsible for using the tech industry to spread/suppress misinformation? Kind of interesting our FBI used Zuckerberg in the same way, correct? Or our CIA spreading misinformation to our own citizens using Russian propaganda. Shall I keep going?

 

[CJ19]

Its interesting that you seemingly take the position of defending the people who took a position that they were paid $100,000 to take? (read their statements on the subject matter, none of them deny working with this media company nor accepting payment for the deal).

I mean, in what reality is a person who accepts payment from a Russian agent to propagate and influence a position favorable to Russia NOT in fact qualify as a Russian propagandist?

The Russians arent the ones attacking our hunting rights in washington, CA, CO and other dem run states, attacking our 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, ammo bans, reintroducing wolves in CO, trying to ban Mtn Lion hunting, building 100000s of acres of high fenced renewables on public waters and lands, and proposing 50 cents of every dollar spent on conservation goes to woke DEI causes?

Thats the democrat party platform. Both Biden Harris and Harris Walz administrations fully on board.

but muh project 2025...

 

[Poser]

Even a read through CNN and NPR reporting show that you're leaving out a ton of information and context.

The US not contributing to a foreign conflict that could lead to a world war is good for everyone except the military industrial complex tycoons, who strangely enough, are the people pushing and funding the accusations of Russian propaganda.

Do you not find it strange that the Bush era Republican warmongers are all on the same page as the left?

Imagine if someone told you 15-20 years ago that one day the Democratic presidential nominee would be using Dick Cheney's endorsement to tout herself on the campaign trail.

Its extraordinarily interesting. I made a statement that was almost verbatim of your last sentence when I read about Cheney last week.

On the front of pondering WW3, it seems to be the case that WW3 is either going to pop off or it is not. If it does pop off, its not going to be because of the use of US weaponry. If it were hinged on proxy of US supplies, we would already be in WW3. Since we're not privy to Sec of Defense Austin's call with his Russian counterpart to lay out US response to nuclear escalation, nobody without security clearance knows what the line in the sand is, but clearly Russia has not crossed it.

With that in mind, the US supplying arms to Ukraine will apparently not be the cause of WW3. What will be the cause of WW3 is Russia executing its next steps beyond reclaiming the territory that is Ukraine, which seems painfully clear is their goal. From the 40,000 foot view, one could argue this was a war that was always going to happen since the stage was set when Russian did not withdraw from East Germany following WW2. And I tend to agree that General McArthur was of the correct opinion that the Allies, who were already primed and mobilized and possessed "the bomb" should have smashed the Red Army then and there and settled the matter once and for all. Some years later, Kennedy closely considered a preemptive strike when Russian did not yet have nuclear launch capabilities. A 2nd opportunity was missed to end this before it started. 80 years later, here we are and Russia is wasting its military away on a daily basis in addition to providing all of the intel about one's enemy that any adversary could possibly desire including the utter inability to do logistics or obtain air superiority. There is a perspective here that any reasonable person must entertain and that is that the US is getting a basement-bargain deal on letting Russia waste itself into being a non threat and possibly avoiding WW3 due to the severely weakened state that results.

Of course, there is no certainty in any of this and much information that none of us are privy to, but it seems clear that the US taking the position of isolation is not in anyway a guarantee of avoiding WW3 and it also seems clear, at least thus far, that the US supplying arms will not trigger WW3.

Yes, China wants Taiwan and they want it bad, but their economy is too tied to that of the US and, from a statistical standpoint, China's economic trajectory ends come 2040 due to their birthrate which cannot be corrected at this point. They simply will not have the labor force to proceed. So that kicks it back to Russia. I don't know exactly what outcome avoids WW3, but we do that the US supplying arms does not apparently trigger it and Russia rolling over the former block countries, some of whom will absolutely not go gently into the night will (looking at you, Poland), by default triggers WW3. IMHO, the best case scenario for avoiding WW3 is Russia losing the will to continue to fight and that only happens with weapons from the West.

That's my perspective on it. I don't know everything and I fully acknowledge that there are other perspectives and I'm willing to change my position as new information, developments and perspectives emerge.

 

[Poser]

Shall I keep going?

The Russians arent the ones attacking our hunting rights in washington, CA, CO and other dem run states, attacking our 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, ammo bans, reintroducing wolves in CO, trying to ban Mtn Lion hunting, building 100000s of acres of high fenced renewables on public waters and lands, and proposing 50 cents of every dollar spent on conservation goes to woke DEI causes?

Thats the democrat party platform. Both Biden Harris and Harris Walz administrations fully on board.

but muh project 2025...

Well, that's thing. This thread started on the discussion of Project 2025 as it relates to hunting, public lands, conservation etc. Here's what happened

1. Some folks were critical of Project 2025 in general
2. Some folks were critical of Project 2025 as it relates to hunting/public lands/conservation
3. Some folks suggest want it known that Trump and Project 2025 are not one in the same
4. Some folks suggests that we shouldn't be critical of Project 2025 because the Left Wing ideas are comparably bad
5. Some folks suggests that members should not criticize Project 2025 because the border is not secure.
6. Some folks suggests that members should not criticize Project 2025 because by not supporting Project 2025, members are by default supporting WW3.
7. Some folks suggests that Project 2025 doesn't really matter and that members have bigger fish to fry.

If we strip everything that is is peripheral and we just take it back to Project 2025, specifically as it relates to hunting/fishing/conservation and public lands and we remove every other aspect of political complexities, many seem to agree that Project 2025 is bad for these things even if there is disagreement at the next tier.

So, let's just ask the simple question: Should hunters support or not support the ideas and goals as presented in Project 2025?

 

[Customweld]

Imagine if someone told you 15-20 years ago that one day the Democratic presidential nominee would be using Dick Cheney's endorsement to tout herself on the campaign trail.

That one really boggles the mind doesn't it?!

 

[CJ19]

Well, that's thing. This thread started on the discussion of Project 2025 as it relates to hunting, public lands, conservation etc. Here's what happened

1. Some folks were critical of Project 2025 in general
2. Some folks were critical of Project 2025 as it relates to hunting/public lands/conservation
3. Some folks suggest want it known that Trump and Project 2025 are not one in the same
4. Some folks suggests that we shouldn't be critical of Project 2025 because the Left Wing ideas are comparably bad
5. Some folks suggests that members should not criticize Project 2025 because the border is not secure.
6. Some folks suggests that members should not criticize Project 2025 because by not supporting Project 2025, members are by default supporting WW3.
7. Some folks suggests that Project 2025 doesn't really matter and that members have bigger fish to fry.

If we strip everything that is is peripheral and we just take it back to Project 2025, specifically as it relates to hunting/fishing/conservation and public lands and we remove every other aspect of political complexities, many seem to agree that Project 2025 is bad for these things even if there is disagreement at the next tier.

So, let's just ask the simple question: Should hunters support or not support the ideas and goals as presented in Project 2025?

i think you are looking for hunttalk. Thats more your crowd if there is even any one left posting there that randy hasnt banned.