Yet another Project 2025 progression thread

[DeePow]

So TenBears wrote, “
am sorry but this thread hasn’t had much to do with public lands. It’s just more of the same handful of characters complaining about things that haven’t happened, never happened, could possibly happen, or just flat out lies involving the current administration they clearly don’t like.

Everyone on this site has the commonality about loving public lands and has always stepped up if threatened. I am sure that will continue regardless of politics”

I disagree wholeheartedly. Vought has laid his plan out to dismantle government systems effectively rendering them useless. Eventually this will garner further support for reducing funding. This has already been applied to the forest service, EPA, and others directly affecting our public lands.

Here is a stellar resource that lays out objectives found directly in the Project 2025 Handbook.

I know other threads have been locked down because discussion has deterred from the overarching topic, Mods, is there a way to restrict certain individuals who drive the discussion off topic rather than locking it down? Because while I’m sure we all care that Trump has spent 1/3 of his time in office at his private resort / golf course, it’s irrelevant.

 

[fngTony]

So TenBears wrote, “
am sorry but this thread hasn’t had much to do with public lands. It’s just more of the same handful of characters complaining about things that haven’t happened, never happened, could possibly happen, or just flat out lies involving the current administration they clearly don’t like.

Everyone on this site has the commonality about loving public lands and has always stepped up if threatened. I am sure that will continue regardless of politics”

I disagree wholeheartedly. Vought has laid his plan out to dismantle government systems effectively rendering them useless. Eventually this will garner further support for reducing funding. This has already been applied to the forest service, EPA, and others directly affecting our public lands.

Here is a stellar resource that lays out objectives found directly in the Project 2025 Handbook.

I know other threads have been locked down because discussion has deterred from the overarching topic, Mods, is there a way to restrict certain individuals who drive the discussion off topic rather than locking it down? Because while I’m sure we all care that Trump has spent 1/3 of his time in office at his private resort / golf course, it’s irrelevant.

To proactively restrict feels like over moderation to me. I posted a thread a few days ago reminding everyone that politics need to stay civil and on topic of hunting or related topics. That being said let’s see where this goes.

 

[Ten Bears]

To proactively restrict feels like over moderation to me. I posted a thread a few days ago reminding everyone that politics need to stay civil and on topic of hunting or related topics. That being said let’s see where this goes.

see where this goes ?

read the past paragraph of his post. it’s just TDS wearing a conservation dress to the party.

literally a post with some random links about project 2025 again.

 

[Marbles]

America voted for this, it was clearly declared before the election. People get what they asked for and far be it from me to get in the way at this point.

Time will tell if my expectations come to pass, I hope they don't in this and many things. I fully expect denial even as public land shifts to private.

 

[Maverick1]

To proactively restrict feels like over moderation to me. I posted a thread a few days ago reminding everyone that politics need to stay civil and on topic of hunting or related topics. That being said let’s see where this goes.

Please close this thread. It is predictably going to become political.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

see where this goes ?

read the past paragraph of his post. it’s just TDS wearing a conservation dress to the party.

literally a post with some random links about project 2025 again.

They just can't help themselves, masking their conspiracy theory posts in somewhat relevant content attempting to skirt by. I clicked the first link, it's a Facebook post by some Democrat party page.

 

[fngTony]

Please close this thread. It is predictably going to become political.

It’s hunting/public land related. Short leash.

 

[realunlucky]

Undoubtedly some members will get long vacations before everyone else takes notice that political banter won't be tolerated.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Lando]

Nobody voted for Project 2025; it wasn't on the ballot. It came from the Heritage Foundation, not the Trump campaign, and asserting otherwise is baseless fearmongering.

 

[CJ19]

TCRP has established this public access website. It may be an avenue for action for those concerned specifically about public land transfer.

Public Land Access | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

www.trcp.org

 

[2buffalo]

Mods, is there a way to restrict certain individuals who drive the discussion off topic rather than locking it down? Because while I’m sure we all care that Trump has spent 1/3 of his time in office at his private resort / golf course, it’s irrelevant.

Looks like you should be the first "certain individual".

 

[Poser]

Nobody voted for Project 2025; it wasn't on the ballot. It came from the Heritage Foundation, not the Trump campaign, and asserting otherwise is baseless fearmongering.

What exactly is the argument that you are presenting here?

"I did not vote for Project 2025, so if it is in fact being carried out in part or in whole (including dumping public lands) by the Trump administration (which I do support), I am indifferent?"

 

[2buffalo]

What exactly is the argument that you are presenting here?

"I did not vote for Project 2025, so if it is in fact being carried out in part or in whole (including dumping public lands) by the Trump administration (which I do support), I am indifferent?"

Can you show me the lines that show "dumping of public lands" and evidence that Trump has said he wants to sell off all the public land? Of you can't provide this evidence then it is a fear mongering, hair on fire thread as the last one was.

 

[DeePow]

Can you show me the lines that show "dumping of public lands" and evidence that Trump has said he wants to sell off all the public land? Of you can't provide this evidence then it is a fear mongering, hair on fire thread as the last one was.

Not every step needs to be done outright. If you watch the video of Vought speaking, he clearly states that he wants to remove individuals from programs. Doing this makes them ineffective because their jobs are far too large for the amount of people. Since the firing of a massive amount of people working in the forest service, this is a step in the direction of making the federal program incapable of completing tasks from trail maintenance to cleaning porter potties. This would result in complaints and provide an argument to transfer land to states or potentially sell them off to create manageable acreage.

 

[Maverick1]

Only took eleven posts before the back and forth of “you” and “I” started.

From observation, once a thread turns the corner and heads down the back and forth bickerings of "can you show me" - "I never said" - "your idea" - "you are" - "I didn't say" - "tell me" - "you are wrong" - - - it just turns into a dumpster fire, heading down the ultimate path of being locked. Wonder how many posts that will take for this thread?

-----------

"Arguing by saying 'you'" means using a tactic in an argument where you constantly deflect blame or criticism back onto the other person by saying "you did this" or "you made me feel this way," essentially avoiding taking responsibility for your own actions or perspective, and instead focusing on the other person's perceived faults.
Key points about this argument style:

• Defensive posture:
  It often comes from a defensive mindset where someone feels attacked and immediately counters with accusations against the other person, rather than addressing the issue at hand.
• Shifting blame:
  The core mechanism is to shift the focus of the argument away from oneself and onto the other person, even if it means distorting the situation or taking things out of context.
• Lack of accountability:
  By constantly saying "you" and not acknowledging your own role in the situation, it can prevent productive conversation and resolution.

Example:

• Situation: "You never listen to me when I try to talk about my problems."
• "You" argument response: "Well, you always interrupt me when I'm trying to explain myself!"

 

[Poser]

Can you show me the lines that show "dumping of public lands" and evidence that Trump has said he wants to sell off all the public land? Of you can't provide this evidence then it is a fear mongering, hair on fire thread as the last one was.

Nope. What we're looking at here is interpretation: Interpretation of recent events, compounded by the "Elon Musk effect", which no one voted for either, BTW.

Your suggestion seems to be reliant on Trump stating his direct intention. So far, many of us would (perhaps) tend agree that his actions have been unpredictable (some would say that is good, other might say that is bad) at best and some would even describe these actions as erratic.

With that in mind, best we can do is anticipate worst possible outcomes for public lands and potentially be out in front of any unpredictable, unanticipated or erratic actions. Taking Trump at his lack of direct talking point on this matter + factoring in the remarkable influence of Elon Musk, the role of William Pendealay + a certain taxpayers contingency that exists who firmly believes that there should be no public land (a handful of such believers are members of this forum) would easily lead one to conclude that there, at a minimum, should be some level concern about the future of public lands, whether that includes "dumping" them, exploiting them to their detriment or otherwise unpredictable/erratic application.

It would appear that my perspective and your perspective differ in a manner that comes down to literal vs. interpretation. You are seeming to suggest that if there is no literal threat, then there is no concern for the future of public lands. I am suggesting that if we wait for an unpredictable or erratic action, it will then be too late since recent actions suggest that the Trump admin does not perceive themselves as beholden to congressional funding decisions or judicial application.

 

[2buffalo]

Not every step needs to be done outright. If you watch the video of Vought speaking, he clearly states that he wants to remove individuals from programs. Doing this makes them ineffective because their jobs are far too large for the amount of people. Since the firing of a massive amount of people working in the forest service, this is a step in the direction of making the federal program incapable of completing tasks from trail maintenance to cleaning porter potties. This would result in complaints and provide an argument to transfer land to states or potentially sell them off to create manageable acreage.

The problem with this argument is you are basing it totally on assumptions. How many people have been fired from forest service? What is the head count on how many are still there? If one person is let go is that too many? If not how many could be layed off and still be able to function? If you can't answer these questions you have no argument.

 

[2buffalo]

Nope. What we're looking at here is interpretation: Interpretation of recent events, compounded by the "Elon Musk effect", which no one voted for either, BTW.

Your suggestion seems to be reliant on Trump stating his direct intention. So far, many of us would (perhaps) tend agree that his actions have been unpredictable (some would say that is good, other might say that is bad) at best and some would even describe these actions as erratic.

With that in mind, best we can do is anticipate worst possible outcomes for public lands and potentially be out in front of any unpredictable, unanticipated or erratic actions. Taking Trump at his lack of direct talking point on this matter + factoring in the remarkable influence of Elon Musk, the role of William Pendealay + a certain taxpayers contingency that exists who firmly believes that there should be no public land (a handful of such believers are members of this forum) would easily lead one to conclude that there, at a minimum, should be some level concern about the future of public lands, whether that includes "dumping" them, exploiting them to their detriment or otherwise unpredictable/erratic application.

It would appear that my perspective and your perspective differ in a manner that comes down to literal vs. interpretation. You are seeming to suggest that if there is no literal threat, then there is no concern for the future of public lands. I am suggesting that if we wait for an unpredictable or erratic action, it will then be too late since recent actions suggest that the Trump admin does not perceive themselves as beholden to congressional funding decisions or judicial application.

Listen to yourself. You are basing everything you are saying on the worst possible outcome for you individually not on anything that has actually been stated or has actually happened. He was already president for 4 years. Did he sell off a single acre of public land in his first 4 years? The emotional intelligence it takes to be a democrat is 0.

 

[cmahoney]

I’m willing to bet there were some jobs worth cutting at the USFS

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[2buffalo]

Only took eleven posts before the back and forth of “you” and “I” started.

From observation, once a thread turns the corner and heads down the back and forth bickerings of "can you show me" - "I never said" - "your idea" - "you are" - "I didn't say" - "tell me" - "you are wrong" - - - it just turns into a dumpster fire, heading down the ultimate path of being locked. Wonder how many posts that will take for this thread?

-----------

"Arguing by saying 'you'" means using a tactic in an argument where you constantly deflect blame or criticism back onto the other person by saying "you did this" or "you made me feel this way," essentially avoiding taking responsibility for your own actions or perspective, and instead focusing on the other person's perceived faults.
Key points about this argument style:

• Defensive posture:
  It often comes from a defensive mindset where someone feels attacked and immediately counters with accusations against the other person, rather than addressing the issue at hand.
• Shifting blame:
  The core mechanism is to shift the focus of the argument away from oneself and onto the other person, even if it means distorting the situation or taking things out of context.
• Lack of accountability:
  By constantly saying "you" and not acknowledging your own role in the situation, it can prevent productive conversation and resolution.

Example:

• Situation: "You never listen to me when I try to talk about my problems."
• "You" argument response: "Well, you always interrupt me when I'm trying to explain myself!"

Look again it started in post #1. Would they/them make you feel better?