Re: (ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

On 8/16/2024 8:40 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On 16 Aug 2024 13:12:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
 

On 2024-08-16, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 8/15/2024 8:51 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

In article <v9jkhg$lr5i$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler  <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

Project 2025, written by Christian Nationalists many of whom were in the
Trump administration and expect to be there again.

>
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation several years
ago.  (2019, I think?)  Calling the Heritage Foundation "Christian
Nationalists" makes the term a useless meaningless devil-word
that means nothing more than you disagree with them.
>

They call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.
>
"Project 2025 Co-Author Says It's Time to ‘Rehabilitate' Christian
Nationalism"
>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/project-2025-co-author-says-it-s-time-to-rehabilitate-christian-nationalism/ar-AA1oSs7k?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=cb712e533c4749269f3e699f1e009df8&ei=33

>
No, they do not call _themselves_ Christian Nationalists.  A couple of
them are, including the person quoted in your article (one of 35+
authors) but that doesn't mean the project is.  That's just like
saying the Democrats are all socialists because Bernie Sanders has a
hand in some of their positions.  Most articles about it are just
political liberal fear-mongering.
>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/08/project-2025-trump-election/
    A tight focus on Trump’s agenda is all the more necessary, some
    Democrats said, amid turmoil over their ticket. One Democratic
    strategist close to the Biden campaign, who spoke on the condition
    of anonymity to speak frankly, said Democrats need to do something
    that, in their view, Republicans have usually done more
    effectively: “Instill fear in the American people.”
>
I've only read a bit of it, but it's a hodge-podge of conservative
positions from many sources, some positions reasonable and some of
them objectionable.  There's some 35 authors, over 300 contributors,
over 60 conservative groups.  As far as I can tell, Jesus or Christ is
not mentioned at all anywhere in its 900+ pages.
>
Very little of it is new, just a collection of conservative thought and
wishlists, ranging from mainstream conservatism to way out there.  It is not a
coherent collection!

 I haven't bothered to read it because it was clear to me from the
first descriptions (which focused on identifying and vetting Trump
appointees) what it was: Trump's buddies doing what he /should/ have
been doing in 2016 -- preparing for the transition. As you may recall,
it took Trump a while to get going because he didn't prepare. Well,
this time he may be prepared. If he pays attention to his buddies,
that is.
 Prepared but still incoherent and weird. And, if anything, less
effective than before as a result.
 And who ever said Chrstian Nationalism had anything to do with Jesus
Christ, who clearly stated that his kingdom is /not/ of this world?

I believe it was in that article I posted a link to but one of the heads of the Heritage Foundation flat out says it is them getting ready to handle Trump's transition if he wins because they know he won't prepare and they can just move in and set everything up themselves.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky dirty old man.