Project 2025 and Conservation

[Bonasababy]

Why hasn't Tester endorsed Harris? Too extreme? She wants to ban off shore oil leases. That would put a crimp LWCF revenue, wouldn't it?

Doubt that would occur although there's zero question the republicans are talking that up--they of course would greatly restrict if not eliminate permitting needs for them. And even if they did ban, existing leases would still be producing money.

I might guess waiting for more confirmation and who she picks as a running mate.

Remember, despite popular opinion she is not yet the Dem's candidate. Might be wisful thinking but I hope they fully vet--rather than anointing. That means getting her desires on all kinds of issues. She has had some that won't play well (and many here including me may not like) in the past and they need to think more about winning than policy IMO.

Might also be waiting to see more poll results, initial Reuters poll I sad had her leading Trump by a 2 percent. Not that anyone should trust any results now there's bound to be a pulse of support after a late change like this. Early extreme attacks on here from the Trump camp might be backfiring.

IMO she still needs a strong running mate to have a better chance. If the country could vote for two women I think she and Witmer would work--Mark Kelly might have a chance too. He would create some gun concerns but any more extreme control measures would likely still be unable to get through congress.

 

[Bonasababy]

Yes, but:

Heritage is not just a think tank. It's a major financial influencer in elections and they demand loyalty to the agenda for those they prop up. It's a think tank that's also a major PAC. Their influence on the party is not insignificant.

Agreed. I said this earlier I think, but we have noted in my state how closely they work with republican state legislators. They draft bills that they carry verbatim all the time. HUGE influence--I have strong beliefs that is the same issue across the country. They are kind of like what the NRA used to be--right leaning legislators ignore them at their own peril. If you dont go along , you won't get out of a primary. Seen that directly here--great republican legislators with a lot of voter support who do a good even great job of looking out for hunter and angler interests suddenly can't run for re-election because they lost a primary to some extreme candidate.

 

[BigHornRam]

Doubt that would occur although there's zero question the republicans are talking that up--they of course would greatly restrict if not eliminate permitting needs for them. And even if they did ban, existing leases would still be producing money.

I might guess waiting for more confirmation and who she picks as a running mate.

Remember, despite popular opinion she is not yet the Dem's candidate. Might be wisful thinking but I hope they fully vet--rather than anointing. That means getting her desires on all kinds of issues. She has had some that won't play well (and many here including me may not like) in the past and they need to think more about winning than policy IMO.

Might also be waiting to see more poll results, initial Reuters poll I sad had her leading Trump by a 2 percent. Not that anyone should trust any results now there's bound to be a pulse of support after a late change like this. Early extreme attacks on here from the Trump camp might be backfiring.

IMO she still needs a strong running mate to have a better chance. If the country could vote for two women I think she and Witmer would work--Mark Kelly might have a chance too. He would create some gun concerns but any more extreme control measures would likely still be unable to get through congress.

So what you are saying is, if Harris crashes and burns, your party will replace her with a new nominee? How many mulligans before you find the right one?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Doubt that would occur although there's zero question the republicans are talking that up--they of course would greatly restrict if not eliminate permitting needs for them. And even if they did ban, existing leases would still be producing money.

I might guess waiting for more confirmation and who she picks as a running mate.

Remember, despite popular opinion she is not yet the Dem's candidate. Might be wisful thinking but I hope they fully vet--rather than anointing. That means getting her desires on all kinds of issues. She has had some that won't play well (and many here including me may not like) in the past and they need to think more about winning than policy IMO.

Might also be waiting to see more poll results, initial Reuters poll I sad had her leading Trump by a 2 percent. Not that anyone should trust any results now there's bound to be a pulse of support after a late change like this. Early extreme attacks on here from the Trump camp might be backfiring.

IMO she still needs a strong running mate to have a better chance. If the country could vote for two women I think she and Witmer would work--Mark Kelly might have a chance too. He would create some gun concerns but any more extreme control measures would likely still be unable to get through congress.

Some early indications suggest that "move forward, not backward" messaging she seems to be adopting is getting much more traction than the dead horse of "save democracy". I think the new verbiage will be much more interesting to undecided and never trumpers that she needs to win in swing states.

 

[noharleyyet]

Trigger Warning: This post contains information that could be construed as political or partisan in nature. It's not. I don't really want a bunch of people to point out how much the former and likely future president has been trying to distance himself from this effort. Instead, please take this at face value and assess what the drafters of this document want, and what that could mean.

As Project 2025 has come into focus in the news cycle, and was drafted by many former or future advisors to a president, it is worth looking specifically at what this blueprint would seek to accomplish. Whether it ultimately becomes a politician or party's platform, there are still many, many people that espouse the ideas contained in this document, and this response gives a good overview of issues we, as people who care about public lands, waters, and wildlife, will need to watch with vigilance:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what_project_2025_means_for_public_lands_and_waters

 

[Bonasababy]

Hard to get more right leaning as a source than this:

Trump Adviser Says Project 2025 Is “Pain in the Ass” for Campaign

Chris LaCivita freaked out when he was asked about the far-right policy plan.

newrepublic.com

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has claimed the project has already “trained and vetted” more than 10,000 people to replace executive branch employees should the presumptive GOP presidential candidate win in November.

But they may have more on the way—in November 2023, Trump allies claimed they were looking to install as many as 54,000 pre-vetted Trump loyalists to the executive branch via a “Schedule F” executive order.

But Trump’s sudden pushback didn’t rattle people involved with Project 2025—instead, they felt confident that his turn of favor wouldn’t stand in the way of their ability to implement the far-right agenda come Inauguration Day.

“The general sense is this is a P.R. gesture for him to provide himself maximum room to maneuver and avoid making any commitments at this point,” one source on Project 2025’s advisory board told NBC News. “He wants to avoid having to answer questions about anything he doesn’t want to answer questions about. Most people I know who are involved with it don’t seem overly worried that this actually constitutes a repudiation and is going to mean anything on Jan. 20.”

 

[Archer86]

It's difficult to discuss Project 2025 ramifications when extreme irrational responses to messages and name-calling is common rhetoric.

Yeah it's crazy out there sone get so far sucked into one or the other and this stuff happens

ATV driver found dead after allegedly running over 80-year-old man putting up Trump sign

Police in Hancock, Michigan responded to three separate incidents they suspect were politically motivated

www.usatoday.com

 

[noharleyyet]

The 'threat to democracy' idiom is catchy isn't it?...for emphasis add 'existential'...

 

[longbow51]

I don't have a candidate right now either. Hoping for Bobby at the convention, but doubt it; the corporations which fund both parties would never stand for it.

And, @Ben Lamb, don't eat candy, and am well supplied with hugs.

A bottle of gin would not go unappreciated

 

[Archer86]

You seem like you need a hug and a piece of hard candy.

I prefer steak particularly Deer elk and antelope steak.

 

[noharleyyet]

You seem like you need a hug and a piece of hard candy.

You own the van with the illegal tint?

 

[ismith]

The 'threat to democracy' idiom is catchy isn't it?...for emphasis add 'existential'...

"Threat to OUR democracy". Biden himself quoted the ol' "A Republic, if you can keep it" line, so I don't have to point out what kind of government we are supposed to have. If you see or hear "Our democracy", you can be damn sure it has nothing to do with democracy.

 

[SAJ-99]

Their influence on the party is not insignificant.

I think you could argue that at this point they are the party.

So what you are saying is, if Harris crashes and burns, your party will replace her with a new nominee? How many mulligans before you find the right one?

Uncle Joe said he wasn't running. Are you upset that you don't get to pick the other party's candidate?

 

[ismith]

I think you could argue that at this point they are the party.

Uncle Joe said he wasn't running. Are you upset that you don't get to pick the other party's candidate?

I think what is being pointed out is the hypocrisy of the party screaming about saving "our democracy" nonstop for eight years is selecting their candidate the same way the Chinese Communist Party does. I would be willing to bet RFK would have won the primary over the current VP.

 

[noharleyyet]

I think you could argue that at this point they are the party.

Uncle Joe said he wasn't running. Are you upset that you don't get to pick the other party's candidate?

I thin BHR is probably asking some of the same questions many in the DNC are wondering about.

 

[BigHornRam]

Uncle Joe said he wasn't running. Are you upset that you don't get to pick the other party's candidate?

Not at all. Your circus, your monkey.

 

[SAJ-99]

I thin BHR is probably asking some of the same questions many in the DNC are wondering about.

If a candidate dies after winning the primary is the party SOL? There is a process. The party conventions actually have a reason not just for speeches that cure insomnia.

Not at all. Your circus, your monkey.

Exactly, but you sure seem to be upset about how it works. We now return you to regularly scheduled speeches about sharks and Hannibal Lecter...

 

[BigHornRam]

If a candidate dies after winning the primary is the party SOL? There is a process. The party conventions actually have a reason not just for speeches that cure insomnia.


Exactly, but you sure seem to be upset about how it works. We now return you to regularly scheduled speeches about sharks and Hannibal Lecter...

Not upset. Amused.

 

[noharleyyet]

If a candidate dies after winning the primary is the party SOL? There is a process. The party conventions actually have a reason not just for speeches that cure insomnia.

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/21S35iv1C67ns2g458" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="

">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[noharleyyet]

I think what is being pointed out is the hypocrisy of the party screaming about saving "our democracy" nonstop for eight years is selecting their candidate the same way the Chinese Communist Party does. I would be willing to bet RFK would have won the primary over the current VP.

Re-read this @SAJ-99