bigMouthCommie

Democrats actually have power. The heritage foundation just hopes the Republicans listen to them.

>The Heritage Foundation has published new editions in its Mandate for Leadership series coinciding with each presidential election since 1981. Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise is the ninth report in the series and was published in April 2023, earlier than any past releases. Heritage refers to the publication as a "policy bible"

they've been doing the same shit for 40 years. calling it project 2025 was just a way of staying in Vogue. many think tanks are making projects and naming them after future years.

The heritage foundation don't scare me, at least not anymore than the Democrats.

it seems like your going to vote for someone. I say vote for who you think you should.

so I will make you a deal: I'll vote my conscience, and you vote yours.

and in the meantime we organize, and after, we organize

>think asking what you personally risk from a Trump vs Biden presidency speaks to whether your insufferable self-righteousness is gambling with other people’s lives at no cost to you.

appealing to emotion doesn't change the truth values of any of your claims, either.

my identity doesn't change the truth of anything i've said. it has no bearing on this conversation, but your attempt to raise it implies you are going to be attempting to use my identity rhetorically. that's called "ad hominem", when you attack the speaker instead of what they have said.

no, no... i think they're onto something

>I assume you haven’t seen enough elections to understand that yet.

condescension and baseless attacks on my identity wont get me to vote for fascists

this is an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal

on the one hand there is gerrymandering which has the effect of splitting up voting blocks.

on the other hand there is the lie that votes are owned by or owed to only two parties, and any vote outside of those two parties is stolen by the so-called third parties.

in fact, the votes belong to voters, and it is up to them to decide who they want to vote for, and it is up to the politicians to try to win those votes.

>Voting is a practical, strategic act, not an ideological one.

every act is morally good, amoral, or immoral. it's immoral to vote for bad people.

you may think ends justify the means. you may think your strategy is better or more moral. i disagree.

>If splitting votes didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be so much effort put into gerrymandering.

you're falling prey here to a logical fallacy called equivocation. splitting is used in two distinct senses in electoral politics, and you are taking one of its uses and purporting that it supports the validity of the other use. it does not AND the other use is misleading at best, but i believe it's genuinely dishonest and manipulative.