Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Is that the one that 'Trump campaign officials acknowledge aligns well' with Project 2025? Loads of the policies are identical, not just well-aligned. It's fair game to point up the links between the guy and the document when his ex-staffers wrote the document and his current staffers acknowledge the similarity of the document.
He (or his staff) needs to tell people the actual differences, rather than vague disavowals.
To be honest, I have not paid a lot of attention to 2025 since it has nothing to do with the election. I know one point of difference is abortion. Agenda 47 is very different than 2025. I am pro-choice, so I much prefer Agenda 47