Keep Track
Keeping Track of the 2nd Trump administration!
One thing Donald Trump and the extreme right were very good at doing is burying the track record of his first presidency from 2017 to 2021.
Keep Track is dedicated to literally keeping track, day by day, of the policy decisions made by the new Trump Administration.
That is not to say we're interested in the crazy things he says or tweets, he clocked over 30,000 lies the last time he was in office, I don't see how it's possible to track all of that. This is about POLICY. Nominees, executive orders, signed laws, and so on.
Subject line format should be {{date}} {{event}} so: "01-20-2025 - Trump is sworn in."
The international date format of 2025-01-20 is also acceptable!
Links should be to verifiable news sources, not social media or blog sites. So no Xitter/Truth/Youtube/Substack/etc. etc.
view the rest of the comments
No, the training materials got leaked after their release was ordered in several court cases against the schools in question where the training materials were considered likely examples of bias (except Ole Miss, where the training materials were leaked first and then referenced by the plaintiff in that case). There were several of these, all roughly in the early-mid 2010s, as the Obama guidelines that reduced due process went into effect in 2011 and the Devos guidelines that included mandating that training materials be available to the public took effect in 2018. Cases against Yale and UMiss are probably the largest and most reported on, but not the most egregious.
I'd give you a link to the training materials from the era, but my old one is a dead link and I'm unwilling to dig through the 400-odd Title IX due process lawsuits between 2011 and 2019 to find the right one, especially since the database I used back when is behind a paywall. Said database was maintained by A Voice For Male Students, now branded as Title IX For All if you have an interest in the many and varied complaints students have filed suit against colleges for related to Title IX it might stroke your fancy. I'd point to current training materials, but those are generally based on the Devos rules since the Biden rules were only in effect for a single semester (taking effect 8/1/24) and even then were blocked by injunction in 26 states.
Yeah, generally. More often than the average news media, less often than Alex Jones, but yeah. You're the only one in this conversation that thinks Fox News has anything to do with anything though.
I have never claimed otherwise. He was an extra-shitty Republican last time (who kept saying outrageous things on social media to draw attention away from what was going on), and seemed to have jumped wholly off the deep end in the less than two weeks we've been into his second term (and we have nearly four more years of this shit unless he keels over, and I don't expect Vance to be any better).
But even he and his largely terrible appointees very rarely express good ideas despite that. For example, Trump has suggested putting an end to daylight savings time, RFK wants to ban some food additives that are banned elsewhere, Trump signed FIRST STEP into law during his first term, and Devos revised the Title IX guidelines and all of those things are things I support. To be fair, that's an almost exhaustive list of things I support that Trump and his minions have supported, but Trump supporting it doesn't for example make ending daylight savings time suddenly a bad idea.
Again, the Devos rules aren't perfect, but they're much better than the Obama ones were and "Trump is bad!" is not really an argument against the guidelines, despite broadly being true.
"Trump is bad" is your repeated and deliberate mischaracterisation of my point that you are being really really really really really gullible if you think that a set of rule changes proposed by a rapist (who tries to sue his victims into silence) are balanced and a good plan rather than just a way to let rich people's lawyers let more rapists off the hook.
...and my point is that you are complaining about policy in terms of who changed the policy and not in terms of what the policy actually is. "Trump is bad!" might be reductive, but it is the heart of your position, and most of your reaction to it could easily be reduced to "You are mischaracterizing me by saying 'Trump is bad!', here's why Trump is bad and why it doesn't matter what the policy actually is since it's bad policy because it's his and you're a fool to base your opinion on what the policy actually says and does, especially since it was active policy nationwide from 2018-August, 2024."
Also note: Trump didn't propose the rule changes in question: DeVos did, back in 2018. Went through the entire bureaucratic rulemaking process that the Obama admin kinda ran roughshod over with that version of Title IX policy. The core of what Trump actually proposed was "I wanna throw out that thing that Biden did that overturned DeVos." It's not like he's overturned other things Biden did solely because Biden did them or anything, like the whiny narcissist that he is.
It's NOT that Trump is bad, it's that he's a RAPIST and you're stupidly gullable if you think he isn't changing the rules on RAPE to make it easier for rich men like him to get away with RAPE, and it's also that getting lawyers involved in K12 exclusions makes everything worse and particularly harrowing for girls who have been RAPED and it's SPECIFICALLY designed to SILENCE THEM.
...and again, my whole point is that you aren't engaging with what the policy actually says/does, but starting and stopping with whose administration it was created under and rolled back to under.
I also notice you keep focusing on K12, despite a majority of these cases being college cases. Both the stakes of being wrongly found responsible and the likelihood anyone involved has a lawyer for the Title IX hearing are much lower for K12 cases. Unless the kid is accusing staff or faculty, in which case I definitely expect the kid's parents to have a lawyer present at the very least, but that's because there are much more likely to be criminal or civil cases in that case in addition to the Title IX case as opposed to cases involving two kids where it's probably just the Title IX hearing.
It really isn't specifically designed to silence them though. Part of the whole construct is specifically that any questioning of their testimony has to be approved by the finder of fact (aka analog to a judge, since the DeVos process is modeled in a lot of ways on a bench trial - typically this is the Title IX Coordinator, but it can be delegated) as being relevant to the case - the whole point of which is to bar questions that are just irrelevant victim blaming / victim shaming from being asked (for example, the sex life of the accuser is usually irrelevant, as is what she was wearing). The accused is also not allowed to ask questions directly, it must go through an intermediate (typically either lawyer for the accused or appointed faculty advisor), specifically to make it less intimidating.
Of course it's designed to silence them. There's a word that keeps coming up; gullible. Really, really gullible.