[vel0city]

> he couldn’t convince any of them to cosponsor it. I don’t think anything has changed

You seriously don't think anything has changed in the GOP in 20 years?

And you're not arguing in bad faith?

> Trump has never said anything about abolishing the National Weather Service,

He already tried appointing the AccuWeather CEO for the job last time, who mostly wanted to privatize the NWS.

Maybe he hasn't directly said it, but he's actively moved to do it. Once again you're arguing people to just ignore the facts they can see with their own eyes.

And sure, maybe he hasn't read Project 2025. But the people writing it are the people he appointed last time and is likely to appoint again.

[skissane]

> You seriously don't think anything has changed in the GOP in 20 years?

Lots has changed-but about this topic? I don’t see evidence much has changed about this one. It remains, then as now, an idea some people in the GOP support, but they are still struggling to get everyone else on board.

> And you're not arguing in bad faith?

The HN guidelines say “Assume good faith”. [0] I don’t think your suggesting I’m “arguing in bad faith” is complying with that guideline.

> He already tried appointing the AccuWeather CEO for the job last time, who mostly wanted to privatize the NWS.

We don’t know why he nominated Myers. It isn’t necessarily because he personally supports this particular policy agenda. It could simply because some advisor talked the guy up to him. That advisor might have supported the agenda in question, but might have sold the candidate to Trump on other grounds.

And the fact that the Senate never called a confirmation vote on him implies that GOP Senators weren’t happy with the nomination behind the scenes. Which is evidence against your narrative that the GOP is 100% behind this agenda.

Furthermore, even if Myers had been confirmed, the NOAA Administrator doesn’t have the power to defund or abolish or privatize his own agency - only Congress can do that. So even if they’d won the battle to install Myers, it might not have actually done much to advance that policy agenda.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[vel0city]

> Idon’t think your suggesting I’m “arguing in bad faith” is complying with that guideline.

> We don’t know why he nominated Myers

When you're making statements like nothing much has changed in the GOP's opinion of the NWS and climate change in 20 years and it's a giant mystery why Myers (who so often talked about this position) would get appointed really strains my ability to see it as arguing in good faith. You're arguing for me to ignore reality over and over and over.

> It could simply because some advisor talked the guy up to him.

You mean like the people behind Project 2025 which you act like would have zero influence in Trump's administration?

> Which is evidence against your narrative that the GOP is 100% behind this agenda.

Maybe not 100%, but once again one side is openly advocating for it and working towards it and the other side isn't. You're telling people to ignore reality. It's not a sure thing everything in Project 2025 will happen if Trump wins, but if you don't like any of it you probably shouldn't vote for the people who endorse it.

It's not a guaranteed thing the NWS will be privatized if the GOP win in November, sure. But voting GOP is to vote towards that end. With the NWS, with Social Security, abortion rights, contraceptive rights, gay marriage, and so much more.