夜夜苦读 发表于 2024-08-10 19:15 说China virus就是表示：美国决心要制裁中国关于制造病毒给世界造成的伤害。病毒是武汉出来的，是中国制造的，中国难道不该受到惩罚吗？拜登这个窝囊废，绥靖得很，你能指望他惩罚中国制毒对全世界造成的危害？ 是那个让拜登下台的？拜登说啥管用吗？佩洛西才是真正有话语权的人，佩洛西在哪个地方喊Go back to China 不重要，重要的是她喊了。
夜夜苦读 发表于 2024-08-10 18:39 尊重个P，你眼睛看不见我写的啥吗？佩洛西明确对华人说”Go back to China”.当时有很多华裔学生，没有误解，而你们视而不见 听而不闻，或掩耳盗铃。更该批斗的是你们民主党大佬佩洛西，不要给我说不是她选总统，她的地位话语权可以让现任总统退选，你说民主党哪个说了算？我们华人该恨那个？ 佩洛西就是racist，民主党就是racist，我们华人应该群起而攻之。
我就是做了一个普通人应该做的事，看最原始的信息，做自己的research，得出自己的分析，这个就是common sense吧。 我一直关注，但是时至今日，还没有看到一条民主党的是政纲，这就很懵了。目的是什么？还是觉得选民不需要考虑和了解？does not make sense，it is weird Firelight 发表于 2024-08-10 16:51
别急啦。到底中间换人了不是？ 等DNC 以后再看下，会写出来的。 Biden Harris 组合的时候就有文件。 不会没文件的。 至于为什么老是要钱要钱要钱。 还是因为中间换人了啊。所有竞选政策都要改动，这都是钱啊。钱就是现代竞选必须的ammo 啊。（虽然这点我个人极其反感~~）. 还有你问的为什么RALLY RALLY RALLY ， again 中间换人啦，肯定需要重新去摇摆州混个眼熟，并且第一手资料那里的人民真正要的是什么，才能下笔。 （比如H已经在有些重要政策上改变说法： ban all fracking to no long support the ban , from universal gun buy back plan to no longer support this but continue to support universal gun background check , etc etc etc . 她们的政策纲领也肯定需要根据回馈来改动。没搞清楚大家现在的sentiment 是啥，就下笔，那才是不负责任的表现）. 从这些角度来看她们的行为逻辑现在是通顺的。等DNC 后的几天再去看下吧。 现在对于HW team ticket ， comprehensive presidential agenda 还过早。
我去搜了一下 Section 121A.212 - ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS A school district or charter school must provide students with access to menstrual products at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle. Minn. Stat. § 121A.212 Added by 2023 Minn. Laws, ch. 55,s 1-1, eff. 1/1/2024. 里面压根没提性别，我觉得作为一个法律文件，这个是对的，如果明文规定是女厕所，那那种性别中立厕所并不分男女怎么办呢，就算分男女，我自己就碰到过上厕所，女厕所正在打扫，清洁工让我去上男厕所，我挺震惊地问了一句really?她说没事，我帮你在门口放一个正在打扫的牌子，就不会有别人进了。我们公司的男女洗手间的标志很奇葩，不止一个外来访客走错。立法文件没可能把这么多细节写进去，如果只写了女厕所分分钟会被人告吧。我是觉得这个法案挺好的，或者起码初衷是挺好的。 另外川普和川粉们叫得这么凶，认为未成年人看到卫生巾就会想变性，倒是拿出一个未成年人未经过父母同意变性的例子呀。就连马斯克的大儿子，生活在川粉们认为是万恶之源的加州，也是在18岁成年后的第二天申请变性的，这还是在自己母亲支持的前提下。并且我看新闻上小马斯克的变性要求还要向法院申请，还要开听证会，这可是在罪恶的加州，一个成年人的变性还要经过这么繁杂的手续。我以为按照川粉们的言论，小马斯克想变性，马上就可以走进诊所签个名就能进手术室了呢。
Apple_tree 发表于 2024-08-11 17:05 真是造谣一张嘴，我特意查了一下谁写的前言，哪个是JD Vance？Wiki只敢说说“ many contributors are associated with Trump and his campaign”，到你这就直接“是Trump的团队”了。呵呵。
Read J.D. Vance’s Violent Foreword to Project 2025 Leader’s New Book Trump’s running mate writes that “it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets.”
Donald Trump has been desperate lately to distance himself from Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s radical plan to remake the federal government under his presidency. “I have no idea who is behind it,” he said in early July about the plan, which would replace thousands of federal workers with partisan loyalists, ban abortion, and disband the Department of Education. A couple of weeks later, he said of the people behind Project 2025, “They are extreme, they’re seriously extreme, but I don’t know anything about it.” Vance has deep ties to the Heritage Foundation, and in particular to Kevin Roberts, who has been president of the right-wing think tank since 2021 and is the architect of Project 2025. Vance has praised Roberts for helping to turn the organization “into the de facto institutional home of Trumpism” and has endorsed elements of Project 2025. Vance is also the author of the foreword to Roberts’s upcoming book, Dawn’s Early Light, which The New Republic has obtained in full even though the book’s publisher, HarperCollins’s Broadside Books, has apparently tried to suppress it amid the scrutiny of Project 2025 and Vance’s ties to Roberts. The subtitle and cover of Roberts’s book were softened as scrutiny of the Trump campaign’s ties to Project 2025 grew. The book, which is scheduled to be published on September 24, was originally announced with the subtitle “Burning Down Washington to Save America” and featured a match on the center of its cover. The subtitle is now “Taking Back Washington to Save America,” and the match is nowhere to be seen. Promotional language invoking conservatives on the “warpath” to “burn down … institutions” like the FBI, the Department of Justice, and universities has also been removed or toned down, though it is still present in some sales pages. But the inspiration for that extreme language can be found in Vance’s foreword, which ends with a call for followers to “circle the wagons and load the muskets,” and describes Roberts’s ideas as an “essential weapon” in the “fights that lay [sic] ahead.” (The New Republic downloaded Dawn’s Early Light earlier this month from NetGalley, which provides advance copies of books to reviewers and booksellers. Copies were removed from the platform earlier this month.) Vance does not explicitly mention Project 2025 in his foreword. He does, however, make clear that he is extremely close with Roberts and that he sees him as a strong ally in a shared political project. The foreword opens with the parallels in their biographies: Both are from poor families and had difficult childhoods, both are Catholic, and both are now working in Washington, D.C., to remake the country. Over the three-page foreword, Vance singles out Roberts in the areas where the two most strongly align politically. First, he praises Roberts for his willingness to criticize corporations and break with the GOP’s free-market orthodoxy; then, for his strong emphasis on the family. “Roberts is articulating a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics,” Vance writes, by “recognizing that virtue and material progress go hand in hand.” Vance’s foreword is also, notably, a call for revolution. “The old conservative movement argued if you just got government out of the way, natural forces would resolve problems,” he writes. “We are no longer in this situation and must take a different approach.” That is where the muskets come in: As Kevin Roberts writes, “It’s fine to take a laissez-faire approach when you are in the safety of the sunshine. But when the twilight descends and you hear the wolves, you’ve got to circle the wagons and load the muskets.” We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon. On Tuesday, the Trump campaign’s public attacks on Project 2025 bore fruit: The project is shuttering its policy operations, and its director, Paul Dans, is stepping down. “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you,” the Trump campaign said in a statement. But it’s not clear that Project 2025 itself is ending, as Roberts reportedly is taking over its operations. (The Heritage Foundation, the Trump campaign, and HarperCollins did not respond to multiple requests for comment before publication.) Whether Vance’s foreword to Dawn’s Early Light survives this dustup is anyone’s guess. Here’s the text in full: In the classic American film Pulp Fiction, John Travolta’s character, recently returned from Amsterdam, observes that Europe has the same consumer goods as America, but there it’s just a “little different.” That’s how I feel about Kevin Roberts’s life. He grew up in a poor family in a corner of the country largely ignored by America’s elites—but his corner was in Louisiana and mine in Ohio and Kentucky. Like me, he’s a Catholic, but unlike me, he was born into it. His grandparents played an outsized role in his life, just as mine did. And now he works far from where he grew up, just a few steps from my office, in Washington, DC: he is the president of one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, and I’m a US senator. Now he has written the book you hold in your hands, which explores many of the themes I’ve focused on in my own work. Yet he does so profoundly, with a readable style that makes accessible its real intellectual rigor. Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism. The Heritage Foundation isn’t some random outpost on Capitol Hill; it is and has been the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Yet it is Heritage’s power and influence that makes it easy to avoid risks. Roberts could collect a nice salary, write decent books, and tell donors what they want to hear. But Roberts believes doing the same old thing could lead to the ruin of our nation. If you’ve read a lot of conservative books or think you have a good sense of the conservative movement, I suspect the pages that follow will be surprising—even jarring. Roberts understands economics and supports basic free market principles, but he doesn’t make an idol out of decades old theories. He argues persuasively that the modern financial corporation was almost entirely foreign to the founders of our nation. The closest eighteenth-century analogue to the modern Apple or Google is the British East India company, a monstrous hybrid of public and private power that would have made its subjects completely unable to access an American sense of liberty. The idea that our founders meant to make their citizens subjects to this kind of hybrid power is ahistorical and preposterous, yet too many modern “conservatives” make such an idol out of the market that they ignore this. A private company that can censor speech, influence elections, and work seamlessly with intelligence services and other federal bureaucrats deserves the scrutiny of the Right, not its support. Roberts not only gets this at an instinctive level; he can articulate a political vision to engage in that scrutiny effectively. Roberts sees a conservatism that is focused on the family. In this, he borrows from the old American Right that recognized—correctly, in my view—that cultural norms and attitudes matter. We should encourage our kids to get married and have kids. We should teach them that marriage isn’t just a contract, but a sacred—and to the extent possible, lifelong—union. We should discourage them from behaviors that threaten the stability of their families. But we should also do something else: create the material circumstances such that having a family isn’t only for the privileged. That means better jobs at all levels of the income ladder. That means protecting American industries—even if it leads to higher consumer prices in the short term. That means listening to our young people who are telling us they can’t afford to buy a home or start a family, not just criticizing them for a lack of virtue. Roberts is articulating a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics: recognizing that virtue and material progress go hand in hand. My childhood was not, by any objective measure, easy. Neither was that of Kevin Roberts. Both of us were negatively impacted by family instability, and both of us were saved by the resilience of the thick network of family—grandparents, aunts, uncles—that is often the first and most effective component of our social safety net. Both of us saw how a factory leaving a town could destroy the economic stability that provided the foundation for those families. And both of us learned to love the country that gave both of us and our families second chances, despite some bumps along the way. In these pages, Kevin is trying to figure out how we preserve as much of what worked in his own life, while correcting what didn’t. To do that, we need more than a politics that simply removes the bad policies of the past. We need to rebuild. We need an offensive conservatism, not merely one that tries to prevent the left from doing things we don’t like. Here’s an analogy I sometimes use to articulate what the previous generation of conservatives got right and wrong. Imagine a well-maintained garden in a patch of sunlight. It has some imperfections of course, and many weeds. The very thing that makes it attractive for the things we try to cultivate makes it attractive for the things we don’t. In an effort to eliminate the bad, a well-meaning gardener treats the garden with a chemical solution. This kills many of the weeds, but it also kills many of the good things. Undeterred, the gardener keeps adding the solution. Eventually, the soil is inhospitable. In this analogy, modern liberalism is the gardener, the garden is our country, and the voices discouraging the gardener were conservatives. We were right, of course: in an effort to correct problems—some real, some imagined—we made a lot of mistakes as a country in the 1960s and 1970s. But to bring the garden back to health, it is not enough to undo the mistakes of the past. The garden needs not just to stop adding a terrible solution, though it does need that. It needs to be recultivated. The old conservative movement argued if you just got government out of the way, natural forces would resolve problems—we are no longer in this situation and must take a different approach. As Kevin Roberts writes, “It’s fine to take a laissez-faire approach when you are in the safety of the sunshine. But when the twilight descends and you hear the wolves, you’ve got to circle the wagons and load the muskets.” We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon. —J.D. Vance
没错，跟猪党，以后投票都不用了，scandals没经过初选，一票未得，被大佬财团直接推上，直接把拜登拉下台，这叫民主？这个制度你支持，真是笑掉大牙，别忘了几年前哈里斯参加过初选，还指责拜登是racist， 她初选民调得了1%，没到Iowa就狼狈推出，现在成了候选人，是民意吗？搞笑
而且没错我就是never Trump. Trump 这个是我见过最没下限的politician. 比起他小布什都成了saint.
看着你还挺忧国忧民的样子， 好吧，如果你真的是在美黄川粉， 为了你自己的信仰， 为了maga的大业，请响应trump号召，自己买机票回去，好走不送
就冲着川普敢喊出china virus, 任何一个有点血性和脑子的华人，甚至亚裔，都不该给这个垃圾投票。
真诚建议，你为了你自己的信仰， 为了maga的大业，请响应trump号召，自己买机票回去，好走不送
就问你中美两国敌对你一个在美华裔能得到啥好处？ 甚至整个亚裔能得到啥好处？ 西班牙流感时期，西班牙被制裁了吗？ 埃博拉，非洲被制裁了吗？ 你这么哭着喊着求制裁，我真的很怀疑你的精神状态。是不是夜夜苦读缺觉导致的？
很多TRUMP集会上的人，被问到1/6咋看的时候，都装傻。没看过，不要看。没发生过一样。
因为他们真的急死了。Harris和Walz的黑料真的不是太多太好用。说出来都显得自己好像脑子有点问题。但是又不能不说。
again，那只是你的认知。
手动点赞👍
民主党已经实施的政策（零元购，开放边境，搞激进的DEI，AA。。。）条条都和美国利益相矛盾，也没见你清新指出。
你票买了吗，咋还在这瞎混，你家黄毛maga大业，难道不值得你支持一下
你不是呼吁理性对话不要人身攻击吗，这会给人身攻击骂街的点赞？果然跟川普一路货色
别替我们操心了，我们对美国的零元购，开放边境，激进的DEI，AA都可以接受，就是不接受别人喊china virus， 倒是你是不是应该相应trump号召，自行清理门户？
虽然但是， 双方都有骂街的。你说的好像只有never trumper骂街也别太bias了。
我也没那么闲。
反正不管ID谁多谁少又说明了啥？ 历届政客中川普最low那是板上钉钉了。
没什么不可理喻的， 你怎么知道人家是不是带着任务来美国的第五纵队呢
都笑嘻嘻进去的，那你来说说那女怎么就被一枪爆头了呢。
美国人爱怎么折腾自己国家不关别国人的事，别天天比叨逼叨中国就行，我们还很乐于看你们的戏
要说racist, 川普说第一没人敢说第二的
川大统领不是添油加醋，他是蓄谋挑起仇视华人！
楼主问得好！手动点赞！
“川普的竞选纲领就是project 2025，他自己都承认的，连上台以后的杀人名单都准备好了，”
造谣一张嘴，你听过Trump的演讲，他们团队的回答吗？project 2025跟他没关系。现在不提集中营，开始用“杀人”继续恐吓华人了。
是因为演讲听不懂，网页可以用谷歌翻译吗？
那你列举呗。 倒是你们，人少，但是马甲多啊。
连沃斯都被人怀疑是中国间谍，就不知道现实生活中长着华人面孔的恨中党们多卖力骂中国造谣中国向Maga们表忠心才能得到信任，就怕适得其反越卖力越被当成卧底
Rally当然有用， 这不让川大嘴及其支持者跳脚了？对比一下大嘴的演讲“他最厉害，他是宇宙第一，全世界的领导人都是他的好朋友...."，其它都空洞无物，甚至不会说什么完整的句子，老百姓看到了还是有正常人的，这个国家还是有希望的。
西班牙流感是西班牙制造的吗？埃博拉病毒是埃博拉制造的吗？
那你有什么铁证COVID 是中国制造的吗？ 哦又是你家川皇说的？ 只听说过别人扣屎盆子在头上赶快洗干净的，没听说过自己抢来扣上的。真是大开眼界。 下次川皇rally, 记得做个牌子China made the Covid plz punish PRC 然后顶着中国脸去哈。
还真是应景啊👏
DEM的national convention 都还没开呢，platform还没finalize，不过草稿早公布了。有川粉去看吗？
就是这么一回事儿
以后还是要男女分校，最好女生都把头蒙起来。商店里女性用品部分也只能女生逛。进去都要查DNA，以免有变性人进去。
大家把心巴肝的对他们说了多少话了。正常人应该能明白的。就是不知道那些川粉跟中了什么邪一样，车轱辘话一边一边，就是听不进去你说的。 我现在放弃了，觉得大脑回路不一样。
Harris复读得眉飞色舞，下面comments都是hey，你的day one是三百多天前哦，why don’t you do it now? 😂😂😂😂😓
民主党应该是代表working class，可是现在的民主党已经面目全非，极度虚伪极度傲慢，已成为一个分裂和仇恨的党派。
是啊。一个纵容暗杀的政党，不能再low了。 一计不成，再生一计。换个人，不管纲领不管能赢得多少选民，只为了给大众营造一个“change"的氛围，这样以后任何结果都可以解释。
等着看辩论吧。 辩论是没有稿子的。
再说一遍，枪手是registered republican. 换人难道不是川普希望的？毕竟他一口一个crooked Joe。当时论坛上不少川党还说是elder abuse 呢。 现在换了怎么口风又变了？
另一边就是lier, 满口谎言，没有decency ,没有integrity，选这样的leader，呵呵。
我不想再看到中国老人/妇女/儿童，被大总统喊chinese virus, 被恶意袭击
那你说说靠睡上位的天天磕了药似的大笑狂Harris在位三年实际为美国干了什么好事？她过去在加州的政绩你欣赏不？
Harris正常在哪里？一个脑袋空空天天和嗑了药似的狂笑hooker. Are you kidding me?!这是正常人的定义？
所以现在“我不是民主党”跟“我不是川粉”， 其实是一样的？
真是忍不住插一嘴，所以你家的女性卫生巾是需要藏起来的吗？要不然你老公或者儿子看到就会觉醒变性了？路过商店肯定也绝对不能去女性用品部的对吗…🫣
真是奇怪，象Trump这样的张口就撒谎的蠢材，居然有人相信他有“施政纲领”？
这样的川粉好creepy。
这就是邪教的力量了，你见过大脑正常的邪教教徒么？说了多少次了，现在没有共和党，共和党已经被川普借壳搞死了，现在是川普邪教
川普是个malignant narcissist，这类精神病患者最擅长的事情之一就是建立邪教，去了解一下咯
weird
现在还在拜拜大选作弊的真的不是蠢了，就是坏。
那个朱利安尼还有女律师西德尼自己承认，他们散发的大选舞弊的所有，记住是所有，证据都是他们编出来的，他们没有犯法哦，只是川粉太蠢，自己要信，他们也没办法哦。
对骂她的华人，不算无辜吧。川普那种泼妇骂街可是殃及无辜的。
你这个观点我同意。 但是卫生巾放男厕，就有些类似将卫生巾专门放到儿子用的卫生间或者摆在儿子的房间里面，难道不奇怪？
民主党这边不管候选人还是新闻媒体，都还能像个正常人的思维，川党徒们就low到了天际。
如果你家儿子其实出生是女孩正在经历换装期（没有任何生理性改变，仅仅以男性身份生活，仍然会来例假），卫生巾是必须的吧？
学校里这种孩子肯定是极少数，但是有可能有，他们的需要也是真实的需要，对不对？
别急啦。到底中间换人了不是？ 等DNC 以后再看下，会写出来的。 Biden Harris 组合的时候就有文件。 不会没文件的。
至于为什么老是要钱要钱要钱。 还是因为中间换人了啊。所有竞选政策都要改动，这都是钱啊。钱就是现代竞选必须的ammo 啊。（虽然这点我个人极其反感~~）.
还有你问的为什么RALLY RALLY RALLY ， again 中间换人啦，肯定需要重新去摇摆州混个眼熟，并且第一手资料那里的人民真正要的是什么，才能下笔。 （比如H已经在有些重要政策上改变说法： ban all fracking to no long support the ban , from universal gun buy back plan to no longer support this but continue to support universal gun background check , etc etc etc . 她们的政策纲领也肯定需要根据回馈来改动。没搞清楚大家现在的sentiment 是啥，就下笔，那才是不负责任的表现）.
从这些角度来看她们的行为逻辑现在是通顺的。等DNC 后的几天再去看下吧。 现在对于HW team ticket ， comprehensive presidential agenda 还过早。
你说的毁掉美国指的是Trump 对吧？
只有Trump 在加剧矛盾 - Chinese Virus 搞国家分裂 - 1.6 capital riot
谢谢楼主，你一语道破了我最近的感觉，前几天还在和给民主党捐过大钱的一个tech老板聊天，他这次也是格外纠结，说没法说服他自己。没错，现在猪党还有他们的左派媒体，就是觉得我们傻，可以给我们无限制的洗脑。
你可以认为是为了让做客的女性也可以有tampon 用 不是必须的 但是是kind gesture。 虽然客人不会用你儿子的卫生间，保不齐哪天别的卫生间不能用或者客人多。都备上体现你的好客之情
美国那个党派都不在乎华人这点选票，咋咋呼呼的很多，能投票的非常少，啥都左右不了。
这个说的我同意
我去搜了一下 Section 121A.212 - ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS A school district or charter school must provide students with access to menstrual products at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle. Minn. Stat. § 121A.212 Added by 2023 Minn. Laws, ch. 55,s 1-1, eff. 1/1/2024. 里面压根没提性别，我觉得作为一个法律文件，这个是对的，如果明文规定是女厕所，那那种性别中立厕所并不分男女怎么办呢，就算分男女，我自己就碰到过上厕所，女厕所正在打扫，清洁工让我去上男厕所，我挺震惊地问了一句really?她说没事，我帮你在门口放一个正在打扫的牌子，就不会有别人进了。我们公司的男女洗手间的标志很奇葩，不止一个外来访客走错。立法文件没可能把这么多细节写进去，如果只写了女厕所分分钟会被人告吧。我是觉得这个法案挺好的，或者起码初衷是挺好的。 另外川普和川粉们叫得这么凶，认为未成年人看到卫生巾就会想变性，倒是拿出一个未成年人未经过父母同意变性的例子呀。就连马斯克的大儿子，生活在川粉们认为是万恶之源的加州，也是在18岁成年后的第二天申请变性的，这还是在自己母亲支持的前提下。并且我看新闻上小马斯克的变性要求还要向法院申请，还要开听证会，这可是在罪恶的加州，一个成年人的变性还要经过这么繁杂的手续。我以为按照川粉们的言论，小马斯克想变性，马上就可以走进诊所签个名就能进手术室了呢。
trump Project 2025都有什么呢？
所以你连他们想做什么都知道？你有什么特意神功呢？
我还觉得你想开枪杀人呢，我能叫警察把你抓起来吗？就因为我觉得你想？
被发现了，你说皇帝没穿衣服，他们说，你家里人睡觉不穿衣服你怎么没说。这就是他们的办法。所以，心里知道就可以了。网络上各种颠倒黑白的人多了去了。
你胡说八道个啥啊，我们男女很清楚！也知道有少数人和我们不一样，并且尊重他们和我们的不同。
如果美国白人都和你一样，不同的就视为另类，你没有今天的生活！
说一个职场女性靠睡上位是有多厌女？她没有qualification, 或者有证据权色交易大可举报起诉。
就是性别不是天生的，而是你觉得你是什么性别就是什么 生下来是女的，可以去男厕所 反之亦然…
真是造谣一张嘴，我特意查了一下谁写的前言，哪个是JD Vance？Wiki只敢说说“ many contributors are associated with Trump and his campaign”，到你这就直接“是Trump的团队”了。呵呵。
你以为fox把你们当什么？
Read J.D. Vance’s Violent Foreword to Project 2025 Leader’s New Book Trump’s running mate writes that “it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets.”
Donald Trump has been desperate lately to distance himself from Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s radical plan to remake the federal government under his presidency. “I have no idea who is behind it,” he said in early July about the plan, which would replace thousands of federal workers with partisan loyalists, ban abortion, and disband the Department of Education. A couple of weeks later, he said of the people behind Project 2025, “They are extreme, they’re seriously extreme, but I don’t know anything about it.”
Vance has deep ties to the Heritage Foundation, and in particular to Kevin Roberts, who has been president of the right-wing think tank since 2021 and is the architect of Project 2025. Vance has praised Roberts for helping to turn the organization “into the de facto institutional home of Trumpism” and has endorsed elements of Project 2025. Vance is also the author of the foreword to Roberts’s upcoming book, Dawn’s Early Light, which The New Republic has obtained in full even though the book’s publisher, HarperCollins’s Broadside Books, has apparently tried to suppress it amid the scrutiny of Project 2025 and Vance’s ties to Roberts.
The subtitle and cover of Roberts’s book were softened as scrutiny of the Trump campaign’s ties to Project 2025 grew. The book, which is scheduled to be published on September 24, was originally announced with the subtitle “Burning Down Washington to Save America” and featured a match on the center of its cover. The subtitle is now “Taking Back Washington to Save America,” and the match is nowhere to be seen. Promotional language invoking conservatives on the “warpath” to “burn down … institutions” like the FBI, the Department of Justice, and universities has also been removed or toned down, though it is still present in some sales pages.
But the inspiration for that extreme language can be found in Vance’s foreword, which ends with a call for followers to “circle the wagons and load the muskets,” and describes Roberts’s ideas as an “essential weapon” in the “fights that lay [sic] ahead.” (The New Republic downloaded Dawn’s Early Light earlier this month from NetGalley, which provides advance copies of books to reviewers and booksellers. Copies were removed from the platform earlier this month.)
Vance does not explicitly mention Project 2025 in his foreword. He does, however, make clear that he is extremely close with Roberts and that he sees him as a strong ally in a shared political project. The foreword opens with the parallels in their biographies: Both are from poor families and had difficult childhoods, both are Catholic, and both are now working in Washington, D.C., to remake the country. Over the three-page foreword, Vance singles out Roberts in the areas where the two most strongly align politically. First, he praises Roberts for his willingness to criticize corporations and break with the GOP’s free-market orthodoxy; then, for his strong emphasis on the family. “Roberts is articulating a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics,” Vance writes, by “recognizing that virtue and material progress go hand in hand.”
Vance’s foreword is also, notably, a call for revolution. “The old conservative movement argued if you just got government out of the way, natural forces would resolve problems,” he writes. “We are no longer in this situation and must take a different approach.” That is where the muskets come in:
As Kevin Roberts writes, “It’s fine to take a laissez-faire approach when you are in the safety of the sunshine. But when the twilight descends and you hear the wolves, you’ve got to circle the wagons and load the muskets.” We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.
On Tuesday, the Trump campaign’s public attacks on Project 2025 bore fruit: The project is shuttering its policy operations, and its director, Paul Dans, is stepping down. “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you,” the Trump campaign said in a statement. But it’s not clear that Project 2025 itself is ending, as Roberts reportedly is taking over its operations. (The Heritage Foundation, the Trump campaign, and HarperCollins did not respond to multiple requests for comment before publication.)
Whether Vance’s foreword to Dawn’s Early Light survives this dustup is anyone’s guess. Here’s the text in full:
In the classic American film Pulp Fiction, John Travolta’s character, recently returned from Amsterdam, observes that Europe has the same consumer goods as America, but there it’s just a “little different.” That’s how I feel about Kevin Roberts’s life. He grew up in a poor family in a corner of the country largely ignored by America’s elites—but his corner was in Louisiana and mine in Ohio and Kentucky. Like me, he’s a Catholic, but unlike me, he was born into it. His grandparents played an outsized role in his life, just as mine did. And now he works far from where he grew up, just a few steps from my office, in Washington, DC: he is the president of one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, and I’m a US senator. Now he has written the book you hold in your hands, which explores many of the themes I’ve focused on in my own work. Yet he does so profoundly, with a readable style that makes accessible its real intellectual rigor. Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism. The Heritage Foundation isn’t some random outpost on Capitol Hill; it is and has been the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Yet it is Heritage’s power and influence that makes it easy to avoid risks. Roberts could collect a nice salary, write decent books, and tell donors what they want to hear. But Roberts believes doing the same old thing could lead to the ruin of our nation. If you’ve read a lot of conservative books or think you have a good sense of the conservative movement, I suspect the pages that follow will be surprising—even jarring. Roberts understands economics and supports basic free market principles, but he doesn’t make an idol out of decades old theories. He argues persuasively that the modern financial corporation was almost entirely foreign to the founders of our nation. The closest eighteenth-century analogue to the modern Apple or Google is the British East India company, a monstrous hybrid of public and private power that would have made its subjects completely unable to access an American sense of liberty. The idea that our founders meant to make their citizens subjects to this kind of hybrid power is ahistorical and preposterous, yet too many modern “conservatives” make such an idol out of the market that they ignore this. A private company that can censor speech, influence elections, and work seamlessly with intelligence services and other federal bureaucrats deserves the scrutiny of the Right, not its support. Roberts not only gets this at an instinctive level; he can articulate a political vision to engage in that scrutiny effectively. Roberts sees a conservatism that is focused on the family. In this, he borrows from the old American Right that recognized—correctly, in my view—that cultural norms and attitudes matter. We should encourage our kids to get married and have kids. We should teach them that marriage isn’t just a contract, but a sacred—and to the extent possible, lifelong—union. We should discourage them from behaviors that threaten the stability of their families. But we should also do something else: create the material circumstances such that having a family isn’t only for the privileged. That means better jobs at all levels of the income ladder. That means protecting American industries—even if it leads to higher consumer prices in the short term. That means listening to our young people who are telling us they can’t afford to buy a home or start a family, not just criticizing them for a lack of virtue. Roberts is articulating a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics: recognizing that virtue and material progress go hand in hand. My childhood was not, by any objective measure, easy. Neither was that of Kevin Roberts. Both of us were negatively impacted by family instability, and both of us were saved by the resilience of the thick network of family—grandparents, aunts, uncles—that is often the first and most effective component of our social safety net. Both of us saw how a factory leaving a town could destroy the economic stability that provided the foundation for those families. And both of us learned to love the country that gave both of us and our families second chances, despite some bumps along the way. In these pages, Kevin is trying to figure out how we preserve as much of what worked in his own life, while correcting what didn’t. To do that, we need more than a politics that simply removes the bad policies of the past. We need to rebuild. We need an offensive conservatism, not merely one that tries to prevent the left from doing things we don’t like. Here’s an analogy I sometimes use to articulate what the previous generation of conservatives got right and wrong. Imagine a well-maintained garden in a patch of sunlight. It has some imperfections of course, and many weeds. The very thing that makes it attractive for the things we try to cultivate makes it attractive for the things we don’t. In an effort to eliminate the bad, a well-meaning gardener treats the garden with a chemical solution. This kills many of the weeds, but it also kills many of the good things. Undeterred, the gardener keeps adding the solution. Eventually, the soil is inhospitable. In this analogy, modern liberalism is the gardener, the garden is our country, and the voices discouraging the gardener were conservatives. We were right, of course: in an effort to correct problems—some real, some imagined—we made a lot of mistakes as a country in the 1960s and 1970s. But to bring the garden back to health, it is not enough to undo the mistakes of the past. The garden needs not just to stop adding a terrible solution, though it does need that. It needs to be recultivated. The old conservative movement argued if you just got government out of the way, natural forces would resolve problems—we are no longer in this situation and must take a different approach. As Kevin Roberts writes, “It’s fine to take a laissez-faire approach when you are in the safety of the sunshine. But when the twilight descends and you hear the wolves, you’ve got to circle the wagons and load the muskets.” We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon. —J.D. Vance