I call it this as “The Voter’s Wager”, essentially they believe less bad things will happen than promised, and more good things, because people are too confident in the “politicians just say things sometimes they don’t mean”.
I was a little shocked that they used Project 2025 so thoroughly, I though they’d just pull a few key things and try them out at first. Instead they do like half of it in 6 months. It’s astonishing for people on both sides, it’s definitely not what we’re used to. Obama had 8 years and tons of political capital and only got a couple signature initiatives done, nothing like Trump’s dozens and dozens.
The wealthy are in favor of Project 2025, so there is no real opposition to it. The wealthy did not want healthcare reform, so it had to be fought for tooth and nail only to end up with a compromise of handing tax money directly to insurance companies.
Maybe part of it is that, as a Queer person, I’ve been keenly aware of the Heritage Foundation (and similar org.s like Focus on the Family) and following their moves since the 2000s.
They’ve been angling for these types of societal changes for decades and, like those who were intent on overturning Roe and were willing to work for it for a near century – slowly peeling off wins until they got it –, I knew they knew this was their moment and they were going to go for all of it, whatever it took to do it.
I thought we’d nearly buried them and all the homophobic attempts and moves I’d watched them make throughout the previous 2 decades with Obergefell v. Hodges (the Overton window had finally moved in a way that was downright surreal compared to the for-granted and implicit apathy (at best) and disdain of the 2000s and early 2010s) which made the 2024 election particularly existential.
If you were to guess, regarding the Heritage Foundation leaders, what do you think is the main driving forces for their relentless pursuit of the different changes? People can be fanatics and enact changes from the bottom-up, but in the last two decades there’s always been a sustained push from the top-down.
For example, on abortion, I feel like HF leaders are looking for control of women (via increasing risk and punishment for unsanctioned sex) ofc, but my impression is that the ends are for racial purity.
I’m sure it’s multifaceted and inter-related, but basically to what degree do they believe in what they profess for the agenda? Particularly, how much of it do you think it’s for capitalistic greed? Like do they expect standard of living to go down? What about for themselves?
Drumpy’s not doing those things, he’s incapable, and besides, he’s got an interior decorating thing going on with his golden office and golden ballroom… He does however, allow his dick riders and owners to do those things.
But that’s such a backwards way of looking at it. Can they really be that naive? I think similarly: politicians say things they don’t mean all the time.
However I assume many of them mean the bad things but don’t mean a lot of good things. Politicians can be narcissistic, corrupt, power hungry individuals: of course they’ll promise the moon but deliver what benefits them personally or do the minimum to get themselves reelected. How can you be foolish enough to think the opposite?
I call it this as “The Voter’s Wager”, essentially they believe less bad things will happen than promised, and more good things, because people are too confident in the “politicians just say things sometimes they don’t mean”.
I was a little shocked that they used Project 2025 so thoroughly, I though they’d just pull a few key things and try them out at first. Instead they do like half of it in 6 months. It’s astonishing for people on both sides, it’s definitely not what we’re used to. Obama had 8 years and tons of political capital and only got a couple signature initiatives done, nothing like Trump’s dozens and dozens.
The wealthy are in favor of Project 2025, so there is no real opposition to it. The wealthy did not want healthcare reform, so it had to be fought for tooth and nail only to end up with a compromise of handing tax money directly to insurance companies.
If you don’t like Project 2025 then vote DNC. If you don’t like money in politics then vote DNC. If you want the rich taxed then vote DNC.
Let me be really really clear: DNC are the “real opposition” you’re searching for.
Maybe part of it is that, as a Queer person, I’ve been keenly aware of the Heritage Foundation (and similar org.s like Focus on the Family) and following their moves since the 2000s.
They’ve been angling for these types of societal changes for decades and, like those who were intent on overturning Roe and were willing to work for it for a near century – slowly peeling off wins until they got it –, I knew they knew this was their moment and they were going to go for all of it, whatever it took to do it.
I thought we’d nearly buried them and all the homophobic attempts and moves I’d watched them make throughout the previous 2 decades with Obergefell v. Hodges (the Overton window had finally moved in a way that was downright surreal compared to the for-granted and implicit apathy (at best) and disdain of the 2000s and early 2010s) which made the 2024 election particularly existential.
If you were to guess, regarding the Heritage Foundation leaders, what do you think is the main driving forces for their relentless pursuit of the different changes? People can be fanatics and enact changes from the bottom-up, but in the last two decades there’s always been a sustained push from the top-down.
For example, on abortion, I feel like HF leaders are looking for control of women (via increasing risk and punishment for unsanctioned sex) ofc, but my impression is that the ends are for racial purity.
I’m sure it’s multifaceted and inter-related, but basically to what degree do they believe in what they profess for the agenda? Particularly, how much of it do you think it’s for capitalistic greed? Like do they expect standard of living to go down? What about for themselves?
Drumpy’s not doing those things, he’s incapable, and besides, he’s got an interior decorating thing going on with his golden office and golden ballroom… He does however, allow his dick riders and owners to do those things.
But that’s such a backwards way of looking at it. Can they really be that naive? I think similarly: politicians say things they don’t mean all the time.
However I assume many of them mean the bad things but don’t mean a lot of good things. Politicians can be narcissistic, corrupt, power hungry individuals: of course they’ll promise the moon but deliver what benefits them personally or do the minimum to get themselves reelected. How can you be foolish enough to think the opposite?
Yes. Source: I was like that, and my mother is still like that.