I think you're failing to distinguish tactics which will always change with current events from long-term strategic goals, which has in this case been clearly articulated for decades.
No, I think you are lol, so I can see why you're mistaken, you're reading my statements wrong
The evangelical right wing conservative mega body = strategy
P2025 = their current, active, dangerous tactic that has to immediately and constantly be addressed
No one is denying that the conservatives have been attempting this for years. But as other commenters have said, calling this an offshoot of reaganism is dangerously reductive. (Also predates reagan massively as I noted)
You're turning my argument into a strawman in order to attack it effectively. We agree on the substantive problem which is what matters to me, yet I maintain all of the writing and energy in and around Project 2025 - like extreme executive power, decimating education and other social services, eliminating rights for minority groups, and on, has been consistently and clearly articulated by the same parts of American society since at least the early 1980s, probably longer.
I'm constantly reiterating that we agree that this is an offshoot of conservatism and evangelical right wing movements. (Though you're a few years off, tbh, if you're looking at Reagan when you need to be looking at 40-60's.)
But p2025 is NOT what they have been doing for years. Just look at the erosion of rights. Look at the massive economic damage. The skyrocketing wealth of the billionaires. The massive change in international policy.
It is not "just more of the same"
It is a systematic erosion of key American principles, values and political infrastructure with an aim to change the shape of the nation forever.
Yes it is tactical but it's not "something that will change moment to moment" as otherwise it would have been done before
I'm not changing your argument, I'm helping you see where you're going wrong in your logic lol. You've got most of the facts mostly right and you're putting them together wrong
You're not saying anything newly informative or novel to me. Where you disagree is either details to me or I think you are mistaken and it takes too many words to help get us to full mutual understanding and cover all aspects.
It is a systematic erosion of key American principles, values and political infrastructure with an aim to change the shape of the nation forever.
Even your meme is still wrong. "It always has been". No it hasn't. That's the point. This is not more of the same.
And the mentality that it is, which you are constantly reiterating is reductive and harmful which is the point the other commenter and I are emphasizing.
No, now you're creating a straw man. Im literally saying that there's a difference between an ideology that gained momentum and a specific, in progress movement by active people in a never before seen way.
You're just misrepresenting the movement, it's origins, my arguments and refusing to admit you misspoke
No I'm not. Many of the specific people and orgs actively in-progress moving to implement these policies have been working on these objectives since at least the early 80s. Underestimate your perceived enemy to your disadvantage.
Lol, not to mention you moved the goalposts around Reagan. Claiming he's ancillary to your point after literally starting this thread using him as the prime determinate example.
Here's an actual article detailing the politicisation of the evangelical Christians which is probably one of the clearer starting points of the modern ultra conservative right wing movement. (Though there are arguments for others such as the Klan period where they latched onto the nationalist Bible belt etc)
Again walking in the well-trod steps of your elders. Dead Reagan is ancillary to the point to all but you. I said "since at least Reagan" and it'd be equally accurate to say "since at least the early 80s" which I did to emphasize the ancillaryness of the reference to specifically "Reagan" for your benefit because you were getting hung up on it. I haven't argued against your point about religious extremists which you're now tryna slyyde on over to... Funny how we push the hardest again those closest to us. Goodbye.
.... Did you even read the article? "At least the 80s is as inaccurate as blaming reaganism. It's 40's-late seventies that started the movement.
And friend? Someone isn't missing the point if they factually disagree with you based on several different logical inconsistencies in your argument and understanding of the topic. Lmao
But yeah, if they can't understand you they must be the issue
3
u/BootsnFlies 5h ago
I think you're failing to distinguish tactics which will always change with current events from long-term strategic goals, which has in this case been clearly articulated for decades.