In four years, you don’t have to vote again.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
... Project 2025, gets done!

For the love of God put a sock in it already.
Trump isn't involved with Project 2025.
Project 2025 is a right wing think tank.
The left wing has them too.
You keep pushing the left wing fear agenda.
It's retarded.

Project 2025 was written specifically as advisory to be implemented by Trump if he is elected in 2024. And he has personally, and officially been briefed on it on two separate occasions.

If he is claiming he has no knowledge of it. He is lying.

If he were to claim that he does not agree with it, that would be a different matter.

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
... Project 2025, gets done!

For the love of God put a sock in it already.
Trump isn't involved with Project 2025.
Project 2025 is a right wing think tank.
The left wing has them too.
You keep pushing the left wing fear agenda.
It's retarded.

Project 2025 was written specifically as advisory to be implemented by Trump if he is elected in 2024. And he has personally, and officially been briefed on it on two separate occasions.

If he is claiming he has no knowledge of it. He is lying.

If he were to claim that he does not agree with it, that would be a different matter.

got a link?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
... Project 2025, gets done!

For the love of God put a sock in it already.
Trump isn't involved with Project 2025.
Project 2025 is a right wing think tank.
The left wing has them too.
You keep pushing the left wing fear agenda.
It's retarded.

Project 2025 was written specifically as advisory to be implemented by Trump if he is elected in 2024. And he has personally, and officially been briefed on it on two separate occasions.

If he is claiming he has no knowledge of it. He is lying.

If he were to claim that he does not agree with it, that would be a different matter.

got a link?

You don't believe him? He lives in New Zealand, they have all the facts Jack.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

It also promotes penalties be implemented for "anti-white racism" (as if that were a problem in America).

It’s a giant problem.
It’s called DEI, it is racist AND against the law.

Lets look at some real-world numbers to see if that opinion is true in fact:

For instance the US population is 75.49% Caucasian. That would mean that we could expect that out of every job role available, there should be one non-Caucasian for every three Caucasians. In terms of Politics, where the roles are taken to be representative of the people, how many non Caucasians are there in Congress, or the Senate? One in three?

Resident population of the United States by race from 2000 to 2022

How Diverse Is Congress?

What about at the other end of things when you look at population statistics that are incarcerated?

Updated data and charts: Incarceration stats by race, ethnicity, and gender for all 50 states and D.C.

It is clearly a fallacy that Caucasians are disadvantaged in the USA.

Just as much as it is a fallacy that DEI is against the law:

No, SCOTUS Did Not Make Your Company’s DEI Programs Illegal

Additionally, all who were deemed to have been 'illegal immigrants' and their descendants would be arrested and either deported, or 'removed' in some other way.

What should we do with trespassers?
If some stranger walks into your house, would you not deport them to off your property?

Are you suggesting that they are coming into your house? There's already trespass law to deal with that.

I would think that people who have been living and working in the USA for decades, and some even born there, who have not already registered, should be allowed to register as citizens and there be simple and affordable schemes to ease the way, especially if they have not committed any crimes.

It would be cheaper than trying to systematically disrupt existing businesses and communities by arresting and then shipping tens of millions of people, most of them with families, to what is to them a foreign country.

And how would authorities identify them? Would everyone be expected to present citizenship papers at all times or risk being deported?

They'd probably need large increases to numbers of enforcement officers to enact this. It sounds very anti-freedom and police statey to me.

And how do you deal with millions of 'cattleized' people? I wonder what might be the final solution?

Additionally, it removes some of the power of the Congress Senate and Judiciary, and invests those powers in the President destroying the balance of power of the multi branch system and making the President an emperor with virtually unchecked power.

Which branch of the government are they getting rid of?

They aren't suggesting removing branches from the government, they are suggesting disempowering them and placing supreme authority under a single autocrat.

We appreciate you continuing to tell Americans BS about their own country and we are glad you have exactly zero votes.

Well, you seem to be consistently misreading what the consequences are. Under ineffectual governments SARS-CoV-2 was allowed to incubate and spread without any early mitigation implemented. Remember that the original SARS and MERS both had outbreaks in the US and were dealt with by health authorities of the time and were stopped.

When you get a written constitution, please feel free to get back to us.
Maybe it’ll make sense then.
Thanks in advance.

New Zealand has written constitutional documents. It is a Constitutional Monarchy. Many of New Zealand's constitutional documents pre-exist, and are far more comprehensive legally, than the US Constitution, integrating into the whole of British Common Law and the Westminster system of government better than the US Constitution.

The Constitution of New Zealand

a reply to: chr0naut

Jussie sayin Your responses have become Thesis's

Friends don't let friends use AI to chat
Science shocker: Real BFFs understand authenticity and sincerity can't be machine-generated

Turns out people don't like it when they suspect a machine's talking to them
Misinformation tracker warns 'new generation' of AI-scribed content farms on the rise
OpenAI's ChatGPT is a morally corrupting influence

a reply to: chr0naut

Is there any propaganda that you won't full throat and regurgitate?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

So I can chalk you up as yet another who hasn't read it.

Cool.

Your lack of comprehension is astounding.

I have read it. My suspicion is that you haven't.

Here's a link to their official website: Project 2025 Policy Agenda its stated policy is "to deconstruct the administrative state".

a reply to: chr0naut

That's a good thing

Do you comprehend why?

Or do you see it as a bad thing because of your authoritarian disposition?

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: chr0naut

Jussie sayin

Your responses have become Thesis's

Friends don't let friends use AI to chat
Science shocker: Real BFFs understand authenticity and sincerity can't be machine-generated

Turns out people don't like it when they suspect a machine's talking to them
Misinformation tracker warns 'new generation' of AI-scribed content farms on the rise
OpenAI's ChatGPT is a morally corrupting influence

You can rest assured that I have not, and do not, use an AI to write my posts.

I think if you access my posting history going way back to when I first joined ATS, before the rise in popularity of LLM's last year, that you will find that my posting style has been quite similar for the last 12 or so years. It would be trivial to have verified my writing style prior to posting what is clearly a lie.

I consider the use of unfounded and unevidenced accusation a totally dishonest debate strategy. One that completely identifies the unethical extents that its user will devolve to.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

That's a good thing

Do you comprehend why?

Or do you see it as a bad thing because of your authoritarian disposition?

The US Constitution defined government broken into three branches, with a separate Congress and Senate, and that did not impinge upon existing state legislatures. At no stage was this ever 'small efficient government' it is an administrative behemoth from the outset and based on the electoral college and duplication of representatives electorally selected.

The small government centred in a single leadership is dictatorial and autocratic, and cannot represent the people as well as a large and varied government system.

You can only achieve that 'small government' by abandoning the principles and systems written into the Constitution.

There are 330 million people, spread over 50 states, served and represented by the current government. It is not unreasonable to scale government to population.

The Conservatives who wrote the 2025 agenda want a "Red-Caesar", ruling over a fascist state. They talk as if the Constitution were important to them, but are advocating at the removal of many of its protections.

You cannot create and enforce new laws without being more authoritarian.

You accuse me of being authoritarian based upon false reporting about what happened in my country during the pandemic. Your government did all the same things and took longer to roll back the changes than the NZ government did. Our Prime Minister even voluntarily left her job before the end of her term when the pandemic was over. None of peoples personal freedoms have been permanently altered. They just did what was necessary in a time of national emergency, like your country did.

The historic inability of your leadership to respond to multiple actual dangers is where your political system falls down.

a reply to: chr0naut

While you were reading, where did you find the administrative state in the constitution please?

I do love it when your mask slips....

a reply to: chr0naut

Just as much as it is a fallacy that DEI is against the law: No, SCOTUS Did Not Make Your Company’s DEI Programs Illegal

You post an opinion piece by a DEI activist pimp which basically tells you how to circumvent anti-racism laws (civil rights act) to promote DEI in a company and not go to prison for violating people’s rights.
Ridiculous.

Do you pimp degenerate and racist ideals in your own country too, or just mine?

So ... What's Donald Trump going to do in order to remain president forever?

For the sake of argument lets assume Donald Trump wins back the presidency and leds a remarkable bad administration.

It's now January 20th 2029; the Democrat candidate for president won a unanimous 538 sweep; but she is prevented from taking office because Donald Trump declares himself dictator for life.


How did it happen? What plausible set of events occurred over the next four years that allow Trump to declare himself as the King of the United States of America ... and then hold it long enough to prevent the president elect from taking office?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

That's a good thing

Do you comprehend why?

Or do you see it as a bad thing because of your authoritarian disposition?

The Conservatives who wrote the 2025 agenda want a "Red-Caesar", ruling over a fascist state. They talk as if the Constitution were important to them, but are advocating at the removal of many of its protections.

My gawd, enough of the 2025 nonsense. Trump has his own agenda, Agenda 47.

Are you at all aware that most policies in 2025 would have to go through congress? Some of them would never even get through the house let alone the senate, even if the R’s had every branch of gov they’d never see the light of day.

The 2025 fear mongering is ridiculous and those that keep spouting the propaganda are either shills or brainwashed beyond repair.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

While you were reading, where did you find the administrative state in the constitution please?

I do love it when your mask slips....

The US Constitution lays out the limitations upon Federal government; with respect to state governments, itself, and the populace in general. I would think that there isn't a single clause that does not involve the administrative state.

The current government and its structures comprise the administrative state, it isn't something different, like a separate party or 'elite'.

For example, under the Trump administration, the whole of government, state, federal and local, and including the executive branch right up to the President, were 'the administrative state'.

If you were to demolish that, there'd be nothing Constitutional or 'traditional' left. The people who want to destroy everything American about its system of government and replace it with something else are traitors, not patriots.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

Just as much as it is a fallacy that DEI is against the law: No, SCOTUS Did Not Make Your Company’s DEI Programs Illegal

You post an opinion piece by a DEI activist pimp which basically tells you how to circumvent anti-racism laws (civil rights act) to promote DEI in a company and not go to prison for violating people’s rights.
Ridiculous.

Do you pimp degenerate and racist ideals in your own country too, or just mine?

Are you saying that the Op Ed in the Harvard Business Review was wrong in fact?

And we have racism in New Zealand too. Our current right-wing coalition government is trying to remove Maori (our indiginous peoples) wording and names from government documents and departments, and to denigrate the Treaty of Waitangi (one of our Constitutional documents) and to remove any Maori voice from government or public authority (they oppose co-governance which gives traditional Maori organizations a voice in government projects).

a reply to: Dandandat3

Have a look how Putin did it. The Russian Federation had term limits, and a Constitution, just like the US does, and yet it seems that Putin has been dictator for decades.

You don't have to have a revolt to overthrow government and become a dictator. Usually it has been as a result of some sort of (manufactured) national 'emergency' and the dictator claims to be the hero who will 'save' them.

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

That's a good thing

Do you comprehend why?

Or do you see it as a bad thing because of your authoritarian disposition?

The Conservatives who wrote the 2025 agenda want a "Red-Caesar", ruling over a fascist state. They talk as if the Constitution were important to them, but are advocating at the removal of many of its protections.

My gawd, enough of the 2025 nonsense. Trump has his own agenda, Agenda 47.

Are you at all aware that most policies in 2025 would have to go through congress? Some of them would never even get through the house let alone the senate, even if the R’s had every branch of gov they’d never see the light of day.

The 2025 fear mongering is ridiculous and those that keep spouting the propaganda are either shills or brainwashed beyond repair.

And yet Trump suggests that if he gets elected this one last time, that there won't be a vote anymore?

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you saying that the Op Ed in the Harvard Business Review was wrong in fact?

It’s an opinion piece by a far left progressive activist.
It’s a “how to push racist policies under the guise of equality without getting sued” or simply “how to be a racist and not get caught”.
It even tells the reader this up front:

Summary. The most effective approach to DEI is also the best for controlling legal risk:

So when it comes to your country then you’re against racism, but not when it comes to mine.
I am of course not surprised, yet I appreciate your honesty in this one instance.
It begs the question: Why are you for racism in America but not in New Zealand?