6 ms·

You'd first have to drop the pretence of neutrality that most voting advocacy efforts lead with. Only one party has a policy platform of gutting state and feder

by rchaud 2y ago

You'd first have to drop the pretence of neutrality that most voting advocacy efforts lead with. Only one party has a policy platform of gutting state and federal bodies that are thorns in their climate change denialism. People who need encouragement to vote aren't going to do their own research and dont have the ability to analyze the repercussions of their vote. NOAA policy isn't going to be mentioned on the campaign trail.

tivert 2y ago
> You'd first have to drop the pretence of neutrality that most voting advocacy efforts lead with. I bet there are legal and practical requirements for that. For instance, a lack of a pretense of neutrality would probably undermine the voters' feeling that they're exercising their voice, and instead make many of them less likely to vote because feel like they're being used to serve someone else's goals.
skissane 2y ago
> Only one party has a policy platform of gutting state and federal bodies that are thorns in their climate change denialism. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have such a policy platform. The official 2024 Republican Party Platform [0] doesn't mention anything about gutting the NOAA. Project 2025 isn't part of the Republican platform–it isn't an official Republican Party document. It is just a wishlist from a coalition of conservative thinktanks. While those thinktanks are Republican-aligned, it would be a mistake to think any given GOP politician (Trump included) necessarily agrees with any or all of their proposals (or is even aware of them), and their proposals have no official status in the Republican Party. From time to time, Democratic-aligned thinktanks and groups publish their own "wishlists", and those aren't official Democratic Party policies either. [0] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa...
- vel0city 2y ago
  > 2. Rein in Wasteful Federal Spending > Republicans will immediately stabilize the Economy by slashing wasteful Government spending and promoting Economic Growth. Just need to read between the lines. Project 2025 argues NOAA is wasteful and ineffective public spending. The party platform is to eliminate wasteful public spending. Hmm...I wonder what'll get cut... It is incredible to see people argue policy documents pushed by most of the largest conservative think tanks will probably have no bearing on anything the GOP will do. As if the Heritage Foundation has little to no influence over the modern GOP. What a joker. And especially when it comes with neutering NOAA, its like everyone just forgot they were pretty close to doing it a few years ago. And have tried it in the past as well. You're essentially arguing for people to not trust what their eyes are seeing. This isn't some random one-off policy document spun this year, this is stuff the GOP has been trying to do for twenty fucking years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_Duties_Act_of_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_Dutie... https://apnews.com/united-states-government-00158c5aac494e0e917d5f046b29d5b2 https://apnews.com/united-states-government-00158c5aac494e0e...
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    They've been trying for 20 years? Not very effectively, then. In particular, haven't they owned both houses of Congress and the presidency in that time? So either they're all talk (on this subject), or they're incompetent at doing what they want.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      They put forward the legislation. It got called out for how obviously corrupt Santorum was being in that case (Santorm got $2k literally two days before he submitted it!). That bill is still there, waiting to be called up. There hasn't been a vote either way on it. They tried appointing the Accuweather CEO, which they didn't call to a final vote (for unknown reasons). That Senate was pretty incompenent and barely able to function though and only had majority briefly, so its not really a surprise they didn't pass something they claimed to want to do. After two years the nomination was rescinded. I'd put it at being too obviously corrupt and too incompetent instead of all talk on the subject. And even if it is supposedly all talk, why would you vote for the guy who's talking about hurting you all the time? Hey this guy's been swinging a knife at me for a while now. He's probably not going to stab me though; I'll ask him to hang around.
      - skissane 2y ago
        > They put forward the legislation. Not “they”, he. Santorum’s bill had zero cosponsors. You are misrepresenting the policy proposal of a single GOP Senator as something that GOP Senate Caucus as a whole supported. > That bill is still there, waiting to be called up. There hasn't been a vote either way on it. That bill is almost 20 years old now, and Santorum is no longer a Senator. The bill is expired, no longer under consideration-they can’t call a vote on it. If a Senator wanted to pursue this, they’d have to introduce a brand new bill in their own name. Sure, they could copy and paste the exact same text if they wanted, just change the 2005 to 2025 [0]. But officially, the Senate would consider it a new and separate bill, with a different bill number But I’d be surprised if any of them will - Santorum’s bill was very unpopular with his colleagues, he couldn’t convince any of them to cosponsor it. I don’t think anything has changed > And even if it is supposedly all talk, why would you vote for the guy who's talking about hurting you all the time? Hey this guy's been swinging a knife at me for a while now. He's probably not going to stab me though; I'll ask him to hang around. I’m not an American so I’m not voting either way on this. But I have American friends/colleagues, who’ve expressed positive enough opinions of Trump, some of them may actually vote for him. (Not that their vote really counts, since I don’t believe any of them lives in a “swing state”.) And I can understand some of their logic. Trump has never said anything about abolishing the National Weather Service, he’s said he hasn’t even read Project 2025 and people believe him (you don’t need to be a Trump supporter to do so-does Trump have the attention span to read 900+ pages of thinktank blather?) Most Americans deciding whether or not to vote for him are thinking about other issues than this one. [0] Actually probably not - they’d need to get the drafting lawyers to review it because 20 years of subsequent legislation may have introduced changes to the laws being amended, requiring updates to Santorum’s bill text to resolve conflicts - the legal equivalent of rebasing your Git branch

by rchaud 2y ago

tivert 2y ago

> You'd first have to drop the pretence of neutrality that most voting advocacy efforts lead with. I bet there are legal and practical requirements for that. For instance, a lack of a pretense of neutrality would probably undermine the voters' feeling that they're exercising their voice, and instead make many of them less likely to vote because feel like they're being used to serve someone else's goals.

skissane 2y ago

> Only one party has a policy platform of gutting state and federal bodies that are thorns in their climate change denialism. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have such a policy platform. The official 2024 Republican Party Platform [0] doesn't mention anything about gutting the NOAA. Project 2025 isn't part of the Republican platform–it isn't an official Republican Party document. It is just a wishlist from a coalition of conservative thinktanks. While those thinktanks are Republican-aligned, it would be a mistake to think any given GOP politician (Trump included) necessarily agrees with any or all of their proposals (or is even aware of them), and their proposals have no official status in the Republican Party. From time to time, Democratic-aligned thinktanks and groups publish their own "wishlists", and those aren't official Democratic Party policies either. [0] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa...

vel0city 2y ago
> 2. Rein in Wasteful Federal Spending > Republicans will immediately stabilize the Economy by slashing wasteful Government spending and promoting Economic Growth. Just need to read between the lines. Project 2025 argues NOAA is wasteful and ineffective public spending. The party platform is to eliminate wasteful public spending. Hmm...I wonder what'll get cut... It is incredible to see people argue policy documents pushed by most of the largest conservative think tanks will probably have no bearing on anything the GOP will do. As if the Heritage Foundation has little to no influence over the modern GOP. What a joker. And especially when it comes with neutering NOAA, its like everyone just forgot they were pretty close to doing it a few years ago. And have tried it in the past as well. You're essentially arguing for people to not trust what their eyes are seeing. This isn't some random one-off policy document spun this year, this is stuff the GOP has been trying to do for twenty fucking years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_Duties_Act_of_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_Dutie... https://apnews.com/united-states-government-00158c5aac494e0e917d5f046b29d5b2 https://apnews.com/united-states-government-00158c5aac494e0e...
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  They've been trying for 20 years? Not very effectively, then. In particular, haven't they owned both houses of Congress and the presidency in that time? So either they're all talk (on this subject), or they're incompetent at doing what they want.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    They put forward the legislation. It got called out for how obviously corrupt Santorum was being in that case (Santorm got $2k literally two days before he submitted it!). That bill is still there, waiting to be called up. There hasn't been a vote either way on it. They tried appointing the Accuweather CEO, which they didn't call to a final vote (for unknown reasons). That Senate was pretty incompenent and barely able to function though and only had majority briefly, so its not really a surprise they didn't pass something they claimed to want to do. After two years the nomination was rescinded. I'd put it at being too obviously corrupt and too incompetent instead of all talk on the subject. And even if it is supposedly all talk, why would you vote for the guy who's talking about hurting you all the time? Hey this guy's been swinging a knife at me for a while now. He's probably not going to stab me though; I'll ask him to hang around.
    - skissane 2y ago
      > They put forward the legislation. Not “they”, he. Santorum’s bill had zero cosponsors. You are misrepresenting the policy proposal of a single GOP Senator as something that GOP Senate Caucus as a whole supported. > That bill is still there, waiting to be called up. There hasn't been a vote either way on it. That bill is almost 20 years old now, and Santorum is no longer a Senator. The bill is expired, no longer under consideration-they can’t call a vote on it. If a Senator wanted to pursue this, they’d have to introduce a brand new bill in their own name. Sure, they could copy and paste the exact same text if they wanted, just change the 2005 to 2025 [0]. But officially, the Senate would consider it a new and separate bill, with a different bill number But I’d be surprised if any of them will - Santorum’s bill was very unpopular with his colleagues, he couldn’t convince any of them to cosponsor it. I don’t think anything has changed > And even if it is supposedly all talk, why would you vote for the guy who's talking about hurting you all the time? Hey this guy's been swinging a knife at me for a while now. He's probably not going to stab me though; I'll ask him to hang around. I’m not an American so I’m not voting either way on this. But I have American friends/colleagues, who’ve expressed positive enough opinions of Trump, some of them may actually vote for him. (Not that their vote really counts, since I don’t believe any of them lives in a “swing state”.) And I can understand some of their logic. Trump has never said anything about abolishing the National Weather Service, he’s said he hasn’t even read Project 2025 and people believe him (you don’t need to be a Trump supporter to do so-does Trump have the attention span to read 900+ pages of thinktank blather?) Most Americans deciding whether or not to vote for him are thinking about other issues than this one. [0] Actually probably not - they’d need to get the drafting lawyers to review it because 20 years of subsequent legislation may have introduced changes to the laws being amended, requiring updates to Santorum’s bill text to resolve conflicts - the legal equivalent of rebasing your Git branch