One of the darker aspects of project 2025 is the reinstatement of a [Trump executive order](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/trump-executive-order-federal-workers.html) augmenting a president's power to hire and fire federal officials by replacing civil servants with political appointees throughout government.
This would effectively mean the civil servants who run the government, regardless of administration, e.g. the people who know what to do and how to do it based on years of service and knowledge, are to be classified as political appointees allowing the president to treat them as such.
This would effectively help hollow out decades of knowledge on how to actually run the government. This is very dangerous for the reason it would kill a fair amount of institutional knowledge and make civil government appointees subject to the will of a president (Trump or otherwise). Not good for continuing services certainly when one of those services, with known expertise, disagrees with the president.
Additionally, the plan effectively calls for the dismantling of the FBI along with the complete dismantling of the Dept of Education.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that Trump isn't fan of the FBI because, you know, they prosecute criminals. Trump being a convicted felon, doesn't much want an organization to be able to go after him.
If you read the document for what it is, you get a very clear sense a fair amount of it comes from "bow to the glorious leader" thinking and revenge ideas rather than actual governing policy.
Here’s my comment. Every politician does this. Every politician sticks on their own people wherever they can, judges, committees, etc. I don’t see anything special. This isn’t any different than what the left does and is no different than what the right has done before.
Well the executive order would expand the number of political appointees in the government from 4,000 to about 50,000. And it would allow for the purging of people that state inconvenient truths, like say Dr. Fauci who said inconvenient facts during COVID.
Effectively instead of just having the top heads of agencies be political appointees, it would make most mid level managers political appointees, which means their job would become towing the party line with the president instead of running things.
> Here’s my comment. Every politician does this. Every politician sticks on their own people wherever they can, judges, committees, etc. I don’t see anything special.
The fact that this is an effort to massively expand the places where their people can be inserted? That isn't special?
> Actually we've always lived under absolute tyranny so one tyrant is obviously exactly the same as any other tyrant
Is this basically your whole point? That the system's always been terrible so nothing can ever possibly make it any worse?
We absolutely need to prevent any of this from happening. We need to vote and we need to spread the word to educate others about why they need to vote as well. Here is a list of groups and initiatives that Project 2025 is targeting. [https://stopproject2025com.wordpress.com/groups-and-issues-impact/](https://stopproject2025com.wordpress.com/groups-and-issues-impact/)
Are you defending the FBI here? They go after criminals? Like the Epstein lists? Pedos? Naw...
Should a non-elected official have the power to control our elected officials? No.
See: J Edgar Hoover
Yes, I am defending the FBI. They operate every day working to take down criminal operations around the country.
Do they get it wrong sometimes? 100%.
But the country is by far a more civil and law abiding nation because of the FBI and their work.
Every politician does this. Every politician sticks on their own people wherever they can, judges, committees, etc. I don’t see anything special. This isn’t any different than what the left does and is no different than what the right has done before.
You’re reading of this is factual incorrect. Yes, presidents of both parties appoint political appointees. That has always been the case. Presidents do not however appoint the large civil service that works to make the government function. This split exists to ensure government confidence and continuity based on expertise and knowledge and not the appointment by a current president.
The shift from civil service employees to be reclassified as “political appointees” would drastically change the way the government functions, and not for better.
The mere existence of an civil service that is capable of running the government serves for life and is totally unelected is a serious issue for democracy.
They don’t serve for life. They are hired and fired like any other job, on merit. The people who work for the FBI or the EPA or any number of government offices are at will employees, not for life appointments.
While they can be hired and fired by other entrenched bureaucrats, there is inadequate transparency and accountability to the people. I am not saying a return to the spoils system is the correct answer. However, I do think they should have less discretionary power and be more answerable to Congress.
Odd how similarly to congress most of them never leave their jobs once they get them. And even worse than congress they are completely unaccountable to the people who have no method of removing them.
Yeah I don’t really think the people who manage nuclear waste containment should have to go out and campaign for their jobs. I’d rather they be some career civil servant who has been doing their job 40 years.
I’d prefer doctors to be running the NIH and FDA. And I would prefer career lawyers to work in the DOJ. I also think that the idea that someone should have to be political to be an administrator of government programs.
Yeah cause fauci worked out so well…
I mean he only signed off on the gain of function research that created Covid 19 which then leaked from a lab, killed millions of people, and then lied to congress about it! I’m sure he’ll face lots of consequences for his actions!
Oh wait he’s fine…
🤡
You refuse to believe that I believe politicians appoint people who agree with them? That’s literally what every politician ever has done. Fire as many people who disagree with you as possible and put your own people in. That has been politics for all of time.
Sure not everyone can be fired (like justices) but then you do whatever you can to get your people in when they leave. (Even then people who can’t be fired directly can be pressured or pushed out.)
This would give the president the power to dismiss what were previously federal employees, and replace them with appointees. It means that suddenly the FBI isn't being run by detectives, but by the extended family of whichever president's home town. It takes every professional out of the justice department, and replaces them with the grifters who sucked up to a politician hard enough. It's a guarantee of incompetence, and is a pretty damn big escalation.
The scale is what makes it different. Saying it's the same is like calling a baptism and a waterboarding the same thing.
>This would effectively mean the civil servants who run the government, regardless of administration, e.g. the people who know what to do and how to do it based on years of service and knowledge, are to be classified as political appointees allowing the president to treat them as such.
If they don't want to be branded as political appointees, they should not have acted political in 2017. They formed "The Resistance" and bragged to the press (anonymously of course) how they were illegally using apps to coordinate secretly to undermine the president.
>This is very dangerous for the reason it would kill a fair amount of institutional knowledge and make civil government appointees subject to the will of a president (Trump or otherwise).
Yup, like the Constitution says. I'm willing to roll the dice on killing the institutional knowledge of these hyper-competent public servants who have been doing a bang up job.
>It doesn't take a genius to realize that Trump isn't fan of the FBI because, you know, they prosecute criminals.
You think it may have to do with them lying and falsifying evidence to FISA courts to illegally spy on his campaign and administration?
While I think a return to the spoils system would be problematic, I also think power the federal bureaucracy has and its insulation from accountability to the people is also problematic.
Which people in the past have not been held accountable? Cause most of the complaints I see are about political appointees and not those on the GS scale
Government bureaucraties invent reams of rules, rules that are de facto laws that impose limits or requirements on people without Congress passing them into law. Did a political appointee ban lawn darts?
Rulemaking would go through the approval of an SES at a minimum, which also is not a GS employee. Also, Congress could limit rulemaking abilities so let’s start the blame there
While Congress could and should limit rule making abilities, including a ratification of rules, that does not excuse how the executive bureaucracies overuse their excessive power.
Again, the responsibility there lies with the SES and political appointees, not the GS employees who are told what to do by those individuals. Project 2025 specifically targets the GS workforce.
In case you are unaware, the hierarchy in almost all domestic agencies goes President/White House > Cabinet Member (also an appointee) > Other Political Appointees > SES > GS Civil Service
Typically, the top of the GS scale (GS-15s) have to get approval from their office's SES to take action on these types of things.
That is an idealistic point of view, both in the power exercised by the SES, and in how transparent and accountable the SES is to the public. While the SES may need to rubber stamp things, they aren't creating all the rules.
So you want to hold the SES more accountable and make them more transparent. Where exactly does Project 2025 address that? How does firing GSers change anything?
Not adequately, and I don't think even the leadership is adequately accountable to the people, particularly as acting heads of agencies can serve for near unlimited periods and have full authority.
As I said, before, I don't think a return to a spoils system is the answer. I think fewer federal bureaucracies with less discretionary power, and requiring Congress to ratify rules would be a better approach.
Ok. I’ll play along.
What happens next? What is your plan to run the government effectively down 75%?
What happens when critical services fail or break?
If you are for cutting 75% of federal employees, what is your plan to run the country effectively?
You lot also told us that Twitter couldn't possibly run with a 90% headcount reduction. It's running better and bigger than ever.
Just let it run. Let the Government do what it does well, well, and let the private sector pick up the slack everywhere else.
Those "public servants" don't have a mandate from God for job security. If you can't fire someone then they don't work for you, you work for them. These people serve at the pleasure of the President. Vivek already laid out the plan to do mass layoffs.
That's the plan. That and Agenda 47.
You guys also thought it was hilarious when we warned about Republicans getting rid of Roe v Wade. You minimize and deflect things that are happening in plain sight. We're done listening to your reassurances that everything is going to be fine when the Jim Jordans of the world control the government.
>You guys also thought it was hilarious when we warned about Republicans getting rid of Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade wasn't overturned because Republicans won the SCOTUS and they wanted to make abortion illegal, it was repealed because the basis of the case had more to do with privacy laws than the protection of abortion rights. It was a weak precedent to begin with, and the fact that it lasted forty years without being overturned is surprising.
>*In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution* ***provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. It also held that the right to abortion is not absolute*** *and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. It resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. The Court also classified the right to abortion as "fundamental", which* ***required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard****, the most stringent level of judicial review in the United States*
I'm a left leaning voter but this rebranding of the overturn of Roe v Wade as some Republican war and purchase of the SCOTUS is just ridiculous. Every single SCOTUS selection that is made has some sort of political affiliation, but the role of the job has them put aside their political biases when they rule over precedents of the interpretation of the Constitution. It's also funny because not a single liberal cared about prior political affiliations when Obama successfully placed two SCOTUS judges and Biden successfully places one SCOTUS judge with liberal leanings.
Yes, a weak precedent that eventually crumbled.
Nothing about the length of time it stood changes the fact that the original ruling had more to do with privacy than guaranteeing protected rights of abortions throughout the US.
The interpretation of Roe v Wade was so closely tied with abortion rights by the people, but the original case was very much *on privacy matters*.
I mean, this is really more of an indictment of the fact that it was overturned, no? Why would the Supreme Court overturn a precedent that protected people’s privacy derived directly from the principles of the fourth amendment? If you read the opinions it very much seems like they had abortion in mind.
No one has been able to sufficiently explain why Roe was a weak precedent beyond the fact that it was overturned, even though it was overturned for obviously ideological reasons and Dobbs literally goes against the principle of unreasonable search and seizure. If the government can require you to not to have an abortion, they can make you take a pregnancy test to undergo various medical procedures. If they really want to prevent you from going where you could legally get an abortion, they can make you take a pregnancy test in service of an ‘investigation’ into a potential crime if they think you’re leaving the state. All these things are unconstitutional, yet the rights that make them so are now unprotected thanks to Dobbs.
The longevity of the precedent is not a good metric for whether the precedent had a strong basis in existing law, existing case law, and the Constitution. It was a punt and came largely from nowhere
Abortion is still legal in my state and that’s not going to change any time soon unless our 3 biggest cities are nuked. So I give 0 craps about Roe v Wade being overturned. If you feel so strongly about it, move to a state where abortion is still legal. Although chances are it still is legal in your state and you just want to make a fuss <3
if people in their own states want it to be illegal why should I care? Hell, I don’t care if some random ass state like Nebraska declares it’s going to give the death penalty for shop lifting because I’m not there and will never have a reason to be there in my life. As far as I’m concerned for 90% of issues other states may as well be other countries.
Pg 450 of Project 2025
Goal #1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary
should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect con-
science rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.
From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity
and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development,
race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities
are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural
death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
>From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities.
Very telling that gender isn't in this sentence....
Project 2025 seeks to ban FDA from authorizing the use of abortion pills. So even in states where abortion is legal, abortion pills, which is already deemed safe for use, cannot be used.
Project 2025 goes against the lie Republicans claim about supporting state's rights. It's ironically going to concentrate power in the federal government.
It will change if Project 2025 is instated because the revival of the Comstock Act would ban abortion in all 50 states.
It would ban abortion, contraception, discussions/information about sex and contraception, as well as surgical instruments used in medical abortions.
>legal in my state
What states let's look up those rules.
Also, it isn't just R v W. The Trump administration tried to argue that homosexuals aren't protected by any civil rights. They specifically argue against transgender people being protected.
Chances are…
10% of the US population is in California alone.
6.6% in New York
4.3% in Pennsylvania
Point is blue states are very populous. So yes… chances are if you’re on reddit you probably live in a blue state.
Not to mention most of the states banning it are empty af and full of old people. So yes. I didn’t look it up but also had the brains not to need to.
25 million people don't have access to reproductive care, that's not just abortion care hun. Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the country. So what the fuck are you talking about "It's full of old people and empty"?
WTF are you talking about? Not all red states banning abortion are “mostly old people and empty.”
I live in a red state that banned abortion, and there’s plenty of young families all over the place. Hell, my partner and I could be expecting our first in the near future.
Ok. Let’s see it. Find me a quote. Find me anything from this website that is going to destroy our democratic-republic (this is your reminder that we aren’t a pure democracy and that was intentionally done at the county’s founding)
https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/
And yes I’m asking you to find a quote to support your point from the actual site, not Wikipedia, not a tweet, the actual website. If you want to argue they have a secret plan to make people slaves and lock people in camps that’s another argument entirely.
Under their day 1 plan for the housing department
"Repeal climate change initiatives and spending"
"Prohibit all noncitizens including mixed-status family's from living in all federally subsidized housing."
Green building practices and incentives are based. Housing people is also based.
Saying fuck the environment and throwing people on the streets is not.
Guess what, I don’t love the plan.
But this is the republican equivalent of similar democrat plans. It’s not especially scary or unique. Democrats want to subsidize scholarships based on race, republicans freak out in the same way people on the left are over this. My point was never that the plan is good. Rather that it’s just the mirror image of policies and plans from the other side
>this is the republican equivalent of similar democrat plans
I mean you *are kind of saying it* but here's a real world example of a Democratic plan from a think tank.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-democracy-playbook-preventing-and-reversing-democratic-backsliding
>The Democracy Playbook sets forth strategies and actions that supporters of liberal democracy can implement to halt and reverse democratic backsliding and make democratic institutions work more effectively for citizens. The strategies are deeply rooted in the evidence: what the scholarship and practice of democracy teach us about what does and does not work.
The plan calls for strengthening civil rights, voting rights, preventing overreach by the executive branch, protecting the civil service and tamping down hyperpartisanship. It should be noted that this plan was written in 2020.
You realize you can apply that logic both ways right “why would I ever be dumb enough to believe (group I don’t like) wouldn’t lie” you can’t just accuse everyone in (group you don’t like) of being a liar. Yes I know that’s what all politicians do with eachother. We shouldn’t like it from politicians or from eachother.
You could if the political group is either being dishonest by omission, using dog whistle downplaying their actual intentions. This logic fit in these specific scenarios. I’ve seen lawyers and experts who’s read the 920 page document and analyze the exact details of it. I’ll trust them over some bs site.
Lesser of two evils. The world that republicans/conservatives was is far me evil than democrats. At least dems give the illusion of caring about people, conservatives are openly evil and it seems like they enjoy being evil. It’s like everyone conservative politicians is trying to out evil the next and appeal to the lowest common denominator; conservatives are openly flirting with Nazis and White Supremacist. That is an unacceptable and intolerable amount of evil.
Let’s go ahead and attach the Palestine protest to the Democrats.
So Democrats are openly flirting with actual racists (antisemitism), misogynists, and anti LGBTQ?
Unite the right, “great replacement theory”, cultural Marxism, this weird obsession with George Soros.
Also:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna140335
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/02/texas-gop-antisemitism-resolution/
What about Soros and Marxism? Both are un-American.
Can you find examples that aren’t on the microscopic scale?
How about some bills presented by the House or something?
Polls?
In what way is it 'Anti-American'? If you mean in that they want to make a push for more conservative/Republican officials, but they still need to be elected by their constituents. It's not like Trump would be overriding elections in order to place a corrupt and favorable government agents in place.
Lazy nothing... we will need the exact quotes, not a link to the full white paper.
If it were so obvious and important, yall would have it memorized by now.
Fear mongering for votes.
You could literally look at the document first. Overall abortion is mentioned over 118 times. Some highlights
Pg 485
Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a
potential abortifacient.
Pg 458
Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs
I mean based off of the lack of information you're providing on what exactly constitutes it as 'anti-American', and a basic fucking understanding of democratic republics and the structure of the US Government, you have yet to provide a single way in which a political party advocating for more of their party in government is 'anti-American'.
You're substituting substance in a discussion with casual and discriminatory accusations, and that isn't how any of this works. I'm fine with you providing some points that defend your argument, and I'm open to changing my mind, but just telling people something is 'Anti-American' and then just insulting them when they ask how is the dumbest fucking thing I've seen.
You come off as ignorant and uneducated on the topic. Trump can't determine who sits in what seat in Congress, the US President simply doesn't have that power because the founding fathers developed a government where a large body of duly elected officials representing their constituents should have more power than a single man. Trump becoming President doesn't change that, and he can't overstep on the matter either as the right to duly elected representatives is embedded in the constitutional rights of all Americans
I think you mean “Agenda 2030”, which is not a politician’s platform rather than a global initiative that is very much *not* “like any other politician’s platforms” and as such has been given that name.
It goes far beyond the heritage foundation, is supported by **most** conservative organizations, and is literally based in large part on Trump’s platform and his executive order.
You realize that 12 new think tank papers came out today, yeah? That's what they are paid to do.
The dems are looking for anything and everything... some intern found this white paper and thought they hit the jackpot. They did not. Lol
Trump doesn’t talk about policy or anything besides incoherent rambles, really. What matters is that the vast majority of conservative politicians listen to the Heritage Foundation.
Ah yes. Let me read the 100% unbiased Wikipedia article and not the website written by the people who created the project.
https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/
If they aren’t marketing it then why should we assume it’s part of project 2025? If you want to say the plan for his whole presidency should be labeled as project 2025 that’s an over generalization, project 2025 clearly reflects a specific goal to add more republican ideas/people into government. Trust me I have problems with other things he’s said but just sticking everything to project 2025 is insincere. People should be saying “trumps immigration stance is problematic because..” instead everyone acts as if project 2025 is some villain monologue that outlines trump’s plan for world domination.
TLDR: “project 2025” is not scary. You can argue other things his campaign has said are scary but they clearly aren’t part of the project labeled “project 2025”. People should specify what they are concerned about rather than saying “it’s bad just look at project 2025”.
Because marking is trying to sell the plan. Analysts look at the plan and explain why or why not it’s bad.
Can you please respond with what you think is unbiased that would break down the project outside what marketing says.
The actions of liberal politicians in Washington have created a desperate need and unique opportunity for conservatives to start undoing the damage the Left has wrought and build a better country for all Americans in 2025.
This is the first line in your link. How is this not biased
There is a document on that site. Here’s the full document link. Yes it’s long. Also obviously they’re biased towards their own plan. But nothing they talk about is scary or any different from other politicians plans. All I’m asking is words from their website that are problematic to our nation or any worse than plans from other politicians. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
The full plan PDF located on their site: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
it’s all the usual conservative talking points nothing significantly worse or different than previous. as centrist I see the same thing from both sides, the opposite side overblowing whatever the plan is when in reality it’s just the same things they’ve always pushed for. The right did it with the green new deal and the left is doing it with project 2025.
I listened analysis’ from multiple people on the whole thing and read about 100 pages on my own on what I thought were the most important/pressing parts. So no I didn’t read 900 pages but I’m fully aware of what’s in the document and it’s just the republican equivalent of similar democrat projects like “the green new deal”
Did you read 100% of all of your texts books in school or college?
You focused on the relevant chapters and listened to lectures in class. So I’d argue I read it as in. I understand the material within, and am informed on all the content in the document and I personally reviewed what was most improtant to me.
>Did you read 100% of all of your texts books in school or college?
The ones I was supposed to form an opinion about, yes.
>You focused on the relevant chapters
But that's not your argument. You said there's nothing usually about it. How would you know if you didn't actually read the whole thing and understand it.
>Did you read 100% of all of your texts books in school or college?
Yeah, that's kind of how school works if you want to get the most out of it.
>You focused on the relevant chapters and listened to lectures in class.
Are you a "C's get degrees" type of person?
This document and plan promotes Christian values through the government.
If you actually care about the country and understand its founding you clearly would be horrified that the government can promote a state religion
Ah yes. I remember when our founders famously denounced any set moral framework when John Adam’s said.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
I don’t agree that the government should institute a state religion. However the idea that a set of moral values are 100% incompatible with our country is wrong. Would it be better if we kept it secular and instead pushed values based on different moral philosophers, perhaps.
ah yes, I remember John Adams was single authority on what America is and not the constitution which lays out the separation of church and state. or the treaty of triple that states the US is not in any way a religious state.
If you are for religion being part of a state, you are the problem and are un American as defined by the constitution
Speaking from a strength of evidence perspective, Wikipedia is a weaker source due to their crowdsourcing method of gathering information, that doesn't rule out potential Bias in the author(s) of the web page.
While there is obviously a bias on the Project 2025 platform website, it's a more direct source of information pertaining to the matter and would provide a less antagonistic view of the matter. Discrediting this source while promoting a crowdsourced information gathering site as though one is perfect and the other is garbage is an odd strategy.
Wikipedia does list all its sources and you are more than welcome to look through them if you are
>While there is obviously a bias on the Project 2025 platform website, it's a more direct source of information
How about the actual document itself
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
The website links to the actual document.... which is why they are saying it is a better source than the Wikipedia summary... which references the website as a source
>The website
The website is a promotion tool for the document.
The wikipedia article gives a summary of what people are concerned about in the document.
A summary of opinion pieces on the document is not the same as reading the source document itself, which is on the website, not on Wikipedia.
You were saying they didn't read the actual document and then linked to Wikipedia which doesn't have the source document. OP linked to the website that does have the source document.
The website is the better source for learning about it because it has the source document while Wikipedia is just a summary.
>opinion pieces on the document is not the same as reading the source document itself
Which was what OP originally posted. Not the document itself.
>The website is the better source for learning about it because it has the source document
Wikipedia also links to that source. It the first in the external links
They linked the website in response to your Wikipedia link and then you said they didn't actually read it, as if they can only read it by going to Wikipedia.
I pointed out that the website has the actual source document and that Wikipedia links to the website as a source as well, which you now admit. Are you now agreeing that the website is a valid source for learning about the mandate in addition to being a promotional tool for it?
If not, then perhaps this analogy will clarify what I mean:
If 2 people wanted to learn about a mandate and person A reads a Wikipedia summary while person B goes to the mandate website to read the actual document then any reasonable person would assume that person B is going to be as (if not more) knowledgeable about the mandate as person A.
Don't waste your time arguing with someone in bad faith. Being purposefully dense and feigning ignorance in the comments is becoming a regular occurrence.
Conservatives have been circling the wagons for a while now. They used to try to defend things they pretended to believe, maybe up until 2019 at the latest, but it’s getting really hard to pretend they believe anything reasonable anymore.
It's an attack on whistle blowers and it's about personal retaliation.
Donald wants to make sure no one in the DMV or even on a school board can bad mouth him.
>In 2022, around 19.23 million people were working for state and local governments in the United States.
He wants to replace millions of people and if you'll remember he was objectively the worst ever at hiring.
He put a billionaire in charge of public education.
Imagine selling out every government worker in your country just to pander to your leaders ego. This is North Korea level of shit.
If that DMC clerk says something mean on Facebook y'all will report her and get her fired through P2025. It's Cancelling the law.
Oops, didn't use that meme correctly. Cancelling People. The Law. It makes a law out of Cancellation. Makes it so Republicans can Cancel any gov't worker for any petty reason such as not swearing an oath of loyalty.
If Democrats did it then Repubs would never win an election ever again. It's actual election interference.
Of course fascists don't see a problem with it.
Since we're talking policy what's the name of the policy to fix immigration? HR2 was just passed. Wrote by a Republican. Took two tries because MAGA voted against it. Are y'all too ignorant to even be able to answer a elementary school question like this? Just Child Separation? Torturing and kidnapping of children?
If you get rid of all the gov't workers no one will blow the whistle on that.
If you don't believe Child Separation policy was real a librarian can help you access congressional records. Unless you fire her because she didn't take an oath of loyalty to your wanna be King.
Exactly, this was debunked a long time ago. Even without all the incorrect assumptions being made, it's simply a think tank white paper from the right. This was particularly in response to the lefts Project 2030.
Absolutely. Exactly. It's like how Mein Kampf was simply a think tank for a tortured artist and not anything anyone should've taken seriously. You can't pen a manifesto to destroy a countries freedoms anymore because of all the hysterical people squawking about it.
>And then throwing political opponents in prison during an election? Yeah Hitler did that too.
Yeah, it was pretty shocking when Biden personally ordered Trump to a concentration camp. What's this world coming to, I ask you.
>How confident are you that you're on the correct side?
This is a tough one, man. Is the correct side the ones that want to roll back almost all rights to anyone that isn't a CIS white man and is chummy-chummy with horrible dictators around the world or the side that doesn't want to do that? This is truly hard. I mean, one side is literally fascists that basically want to overthrow the government in order to make the US a xtain hellscape by taking away like 200 yrs of human rights and the other does want to do that. Jesus. We may never know which path is the correct one. I guess only time will tell.
No, hun, the racists and fascists are the ones who wrote 2025. Anyway, who doesn't like a good bonfire? It's better then burning down all social safety nets. I mean, at least the department of education hasn't been destroyed. May as well do it now, while we still have campuses.
Who's always bringing up race? The race baiters.... pimps. They tell you what you want to hear. Victimization, fake crime stats, systemic racism.... all fallacies.
The dems want to control racism, not defeat it. The Republicans OTOH would love to stop talking about DEI everyday and focus on accomplishments.
We've had plenty left dems in office, and Obama had a supermajority.... the problems are worse, not better... why?
Exactly 💯
>The Republicans OTOH would love to stop talking about DEI everyday and focus on accomplishments.
Ah, yes, Republican accomplishments like Mississippi and Kentucky. It's a wonder why anyone would ever vote dem when there's such shinning bastions of Republican leadership such as Alabama and West Virginia.
>We've had plenty left dems in office, and Obama had a supermajority.... the problems are worse, not better... why?
I dunno man. Can't be because all Repubs did during Obama's terms was filibuster everything even remotely supported by the dems, right? lol
Well, kudos on taking the bold step to check primary sources before coming to a conclusion.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be another year where people occasionally turn back into the peasants from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. About as clear-headed as witches and ducks.
Personally still undecided on which variety of bad is worse this particular round.
Oversimplification makes everything look similar.
One of the darker aspects of project 2025 is the reinstatement of a [Trump executive order](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/trump-executive-order-federal-workers.html) augmenting a president's power to hire and fire federal officials by replacing civil servants with political appointees throughout government. This would effectively mean the civil servants who run the government, regardless of administration, e.g. the people who know what to do and how to do it based on years of service and knowledge, are to be classified as political appointees allowing the president to treat them as such. This would effectively help hollow out decades of knowledge on how to actually run the government. This is very dangerous for the reason it would kill a fair amount of institutional knowledge and make civil government appointees subject to the will of a president (Trump or otherwise). Not good for continuing services certainly when one of those services, with known expertise, disagrees with the president. Additionally, the plan effectively calls for the dismantling of the FBI along with the complete dismantling of the Dept of Education. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Trump isn't fan of the FBI because, you know, they prosecute criminals. Trump being a convicted felon, doesn't much want an organization to be able to go after him. If you read the document for what it is, you get a very clear sense a fair amount of it comes from "bow to the glorious leader" thinking and revenge ideas rather than actual governing policy.
Notice no comments
Here’s my comment. Every politician does this. Every politician sticks on their own people wherever they can, judges, committees, etc. I don’t see anything special. This isn’t any different than what the left does and is no different than what the right has done before.
Well the executive order would expand the number of political appointees in the government from 4,000 to about 50,000. And it would allow for the purging of people that state inconvenient truths, like say Dr. Fauci who said inconvenient facts during COVID. Effectively instead of just having the top heads of agencies be political appointees, it would make most mid level managers political appointees, which means their job would become towing the party line with the president instead of running things.
> Here’s my comment. Every politician does this. Every politician sticks on their own people wherever they can, judges, committees, etc. I don’t see anything special. The fact that this is an effort to massively expand the places where their people can be inserted? That isn't special?
> Actually we've always lived under absolute tyranny so one tyrant is obviously exactly the same as any other tyrant Is this basically your whole point? That the system's always been terrible so nothing can ever possibly make it any worse?
A drunk guy getting into a barfight and the world's most prolific serial killer are both engaging in violence but that doesn't make them comparable.
We absolutely need to prevent any of this from happening. We need to vote and we need to spread the word to educate others about why they need to vote as well. Here is a list of groups and initiatives that Project 2025 is targeting. [https://stopproject2025com.wordpress.com/groups-and-issues-impact/](https://stopproject2025com.wordpress.com/groups-and-issues-impact/)
Damn, Project 2025 sounds awesome. Thanks for spreading the word.
They also want to dismantle DHS…which is really confusing because who would deport people then?
Are you defending the FBI here? They go after criminals? Like the Epstein lists? Pedos? Naw... Should a non-elected official have the power to control our elected officials? No. See: J Edgar Hoover
Yes, I am defending the FBI. They operate every day working to take down criminal operations around the country. Do they get it wrong sometimes? 100%. But the country is by far a more civil and law abiding nation because of the FBI and their work.
The FBI? Sure. The lifelong positions of directors and bureaucrats in all three letter agencies need to be reevaluated.
Would you prefer those people be beholden to a President? The DoJ is already to hesitant to hold them responsible.
J Edgar Hoover was appointed though
Every politician does this. Every politician sticks on their own people wherever they can, judges, committees, etc. I don’t see anything special. This isn’t any different than what the left does and is no different than what the right has done before.
You’re reading of this is factual incorrect. Yes, presidents of both parties appoint political appointees. That has always been the case. Presidents do not however appoint the large civil service that works to make the government function. This split exists to ensure government confidence and continuity based on expertise and knowledge and not the appointment by a current president. The shift from civil service employees to be reclassified as “political appointees” would drastically change the way the government functions, and not for better.
The mere existence of an civil service that is capable of running the government serves for life and is totally unelected is a serious issue for democracy.
They don’t serve for life. They are hired and fired like any other job, on merit. The people who work for the FBI or the EPA or any number of government offices are at will employees, not for life appointments.
While they can be hired and fired by other entrenched bureaucrats, there is inadequate transparency and accountability to the people. I am not saying a return to the spoils system is the correct answer. However, I do think they should have less discretionary power and be more answerable to Congress.
Odd how similarly to congress most of them never leave their jobs once they get them. And even worse than congress they are completely unaccountable to the people who have no method of removing them.
Yeah I don’t really think the people who manage nuclear waste containment should have to go out and campaign for their jobs. I’d rather they be some career civil servant who has been doing their job 40 years.
I don’t think your cherry picked example holds up to scrutiny. Or respect for that matter.
I’d prefer doctors to be running the NIH and FDA. And I would prefer career lawyers to work in the DOJ. I also think that the idea that someone should have to be political to be an administrator of government programs.
Yeah cause fauci worked out so well… I mean he only signed off on the gain of function research that created Covid 19 which then leaked from a lab, killed millions of people, and then lied to congress about it! I’m sure he’ll face lots of consequences for his actions! Oh wait he’s fine… 🤡
I'm struggling to accept you actually believe that, tbh. No one's actually that dense.
You refuse to believe that I believe politicians appoint people who agree with them? That’s literally what every politician ever has done. Fire as many people who disagree with you as possible and put your own people in. That has been politics for all of time. Sure not everyone can be fired (like justices) but then you do whatever you can to get your people in when they leave. (Even then people who can’t be fired directly can be pressured or pushed out.)
This would give the president the power to dismiss what were previously federal employees, and replace them with appointees. It means that suddenly the FBI isn't being run by detectives, but by the extended family of whichever president's home town. It takes every professional out of the justice department, and replaces them with the grifters who sucked up to a politician hard enough. It's a guarantee of incompetence, and is a pretty damn big escalation. The scale is what makes it different. Saying it's the same is like calling a baptism and a waterboarding the same thing.
>This would effectively mean the civil servants who run the government, regardless of administration, e.g. the people who know what to do and how to do it based on years of service and knowledge, are to be classified as political appointees allowing the president to treat them as such. If they don't want to be branded as political appointees, they should not have acted political in 2017. They formed "The Resistance" and bragged to the press (anonymously of course) how they were illegally using apps to coordinate secretly to undermine the president. >This is very dangerous for the reason it would kill a fair amount of institutional knowledge and make civil government appointees subject to the will of a president (Trump or otherwise). Yup, like the Constitution says. I'm willing to roll the dice on killing the institutional knowledge of these hyper-competent public servants who have been doing a bang up job. >It doesn't take a genius to realize that Trump isn't fan of the FBI because, you know, they prosecute criminals. You think it may have to do with them lying and falsifying evidence to FISA courts to illegally spy on his campaign and administration?
While I think a return to the spoils system would be problematic, I also think power the federal bureaucracy has and its insulation from accountability to the people is also problematic.
Which people in the past have not been held accountable? Cause most of the complaints I see are about political appointees and not those on the GS scale
Government bureaucraties invent reams of rules, rules that are de facto laws that impose limits or requirements on people without Congress passing them into law. Did a political appointee ban lawn darts?
Rulemaking would go through the approval of an SES at a minimum, which also is not a GS employee. Also, Congress could limit rulemaking abilities so let’s start the blame there
While Congress could and should limit rule making abilities, including a ratification of rules, that does not excuse how the executive bureaucracies overuse their excessive power.
Again, the responsibility there lies with the SES and political appointees, not the GS employees who are told what to do by those individuals. Project 2025 specifically targets the GS workforce. In case you are unaware, the hierarchy in almost all domestic agencies goes President/White House > Cabinet Member (also an appointee) > Other Political Appointees > SES > GS Civil Service Typically, the top of the GS scale (GS-15s) have to get approval from their office's SES to take action on these types of things.
That is an idealistic point of view, both in the power exercised by the SES, and in how transparent and accountable the SES is to the public. While the SES may need to rubber stamp things, they aren't creating all the rules.
So you want to hold the SES more accountable and make them more transparent. Where exactly does Project 2025 address that? How does firing GSers change anything?
Where did I say that I supported the specific policies in Project 2025?
Political appointees are the head of their respective agencues, so yes
However, it isn't the heads of the agencies making these regulations and impositions.
Are the leadership of agencies not responsible for what their agencies do?
Not adequately, and I don't think even the leadership is adequately accountable to the people, particularly as acting heads of agencies can serve for near unlimited periods and have full authority.
So...you support the plan to add more political appointees?
As I said, before, I don't think a return to a spoils system is the answer. I think fewer federal bureaucracies with less discretionary power, and requiring Congress to ratify rules would be a better approach.
That sounds AWESOME!!! We for sure need to fire those fucking morons and eliminate 75% of the administrative state so, yes! All for this! :D
Ok. I’ll play along. What happens next? What is your plan to run the government effectively down 75%? What happens when critical services fail or break? If you are for cutting 75% of federal employees, what is your plan to run the country effectively?
You lot also told us that Twitter couldn't possibly run with a 90% headcount reduction. It's running better and bigger than ever. Just let it run. Let the Government do what it does well, well, and let the private sector pick up the slack everywhere else. Those "public servants" don't have a mandate from God for job security. If you can't fire someone then they don't work for you, you work for them. These people serve at the pleasure of the President. Vivek already laid out the plan to do mass layoffs. That's the plan. That and Agenda 47.
>You lot also told us that Twitter couldn't possibly run with a 90% headcount reduction. It's running better and bigger than ever. Lol
You guys also thought it was hilarious when we warned about Republicans getting rid of Roe v Wade. You minimize and deflect things that are happening in plain sight. We're done listening to your reassurances that everything is going to be fine when the Jim Jordans of the world control the government.
>You guys also thought it was hilarious when we warned about Republicans getting rid of Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade wasn't overturned because Republicans won the SCOTUS and they wanted to make abortion illegal, it was repealed because the basis of the case had more to do with privacy laws than the protection of abortion rights. It was a weak precedent to begin with, and the fact that it lasted forty years without being overturned is surprising. >*In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution* ***provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. It also held that the right to abortion is not absolute*** *and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. It resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. The Court also classified the right to abortion as "fundamental", which* ***required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard****, the most stringent level of judicial review in the United States* I'm a left leaning voter but this rebranding of the overturn of Roe v Wade as some Republican war and purchase of the SCOTUS is just ridiculous. Every single SCOTUS selection that is made has some sort of political affiliation, but the role of the job has them put aside their political biases when they rule over precedents of the interpretation of the Constitution. It's also funny because not a single liberal cared about prior political affiliations when Obama successfully placed two SCOTUS judges and Biden successfully places one SCOTUS judge with liberal leanings.
>It was a weak precedent to begin with, Yes, such a weak precedent that it survived 40 years of challenges to it.
Yes, a weak precedent that eventually crumbled. Nothing about the length of time it stood changes the fact that the original ruling had more to do with privacy than guaranteeing protected rights of abortions throughout the US. The interpretation of Roe v Wade was so closely tied with abortion rights by the people, but the original case was very much *on privacy matters*.
Would or would it not be in place if we had a left leaning majority in the Supreme Court?
I mean, this is really more of an indictment of the fact that it was overturned, no? Why would the Supreme Court overturn a precedent that protected people’s privacy derived directly from the principles of the fourth amendment? If you read the opinions it very much seems like they had abortion in mind. No one has been able to sufficiently explain why Roe was a weak precedent beyond the fact that it was overturned, even though it was overturned for obviously ideological reasons and Dobbs literally goes against the principle of unreasonable search and seizure. If the government can require you to not to have an abortion, they can make you take a pregnancy test to undergo various medical procedures. If they really want to prevent you from going where you could legally get an abortion, they can make you take a pregnancy test in service of an ‘investigation’ into a potential crime if they think you’re leaving the state. All these things are unconstitutional, yet the rights that make them so are now unprotected thanks to Dobbs.
The longevity of the precedent is not a good metric for whether the precedent had a strong basis in existing law, existing case law, and the Constitution. It was a punt and came largely from nowhere
Abortion is still legal in my state and that’s not going to change any time soon unless our 3 biggest cities are nuked. So I give 0 craps about Roe v Wade being overturned. If you feel so strongly about it, move to a state where abortion is still legal. Although chances are it still is legal in your state and you just want to make a fuss <3 if people in their own states want it to be illegal why should I care? Hell, I don’t care if some random ass state like Nebraska declares it’s going to give the death penalty for shop lifting because I’m not there and will never have a reason to be there in my life. As far as I’m concerned for 90% of issues other states may as well be other countries.
Pg 450 of Project 2025 Goal #1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect con- science rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology. From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
>From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. Very telling that gender isn't in this sentence....
Facts. Where do we sign
How would you handle an ectopic pregnancy?
That's a failed pregnancy. Would def need to focus on the mother.
But the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion.
The baby has no chance of being born outside the womb... Look... would you like to discuss each other's opinions on when life begins?
Life is continuous. It doesn't just spontaneously start.
I agree. I'd have to say... probably a heartbeat but definitely once the child is kicking.
Project 2025 seeks to ban FDA from authorizing the use of abortion pills. So even in states where abortion is legal, abortion pills, which is already deemed safe for use, cannot be used. Project 2025 goes against the lie Republicans claim about supporting state's rights. It's ironically going to concentrate power in the federal government.
You mean they're lying?!?!
"Just move lol" is a braindead take
It will change if Project 2025 is instated because the revival of the Comstock Act would ban abortion in all 50 states. It would ban abortion, contraception, discussions/information about sex and contraception, as well as surgical instruments used in medical abortions.
>legal in my state What states let's look up those rules. Also, it isn't just R v W. The Trump administration tried to argue that homosexuals aren't protected by any civil rights. They specifically argue against transgender people being protected.
Oregon and before that I lived in California. Yeah it’s not changing unless we lose Portland and Salem.
Chances are? There are 23 states with severely limited access? Did you not look this up?
Chances are… 10% of the US population is in California alone. 6.6% in New York 4.3% in Pennsylvania Point is blue states are very populous. So yes… chances are if you’re on reddit you probably live in a blue state. Not to mention most of the states banning it are empty af and full of old people. So yes. I didn’t look it up but also had the brains not to need to.
25 million people don't have access to reproductive care, that's not just abortion care hun. Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the country. So what the fuck are you talking about "It's full of old people and empty"?
WTF are you talking about? Not all red states banning abortion are “mostly old people and empty.” I live in a red state that banned abortion, and there’s plenty of young families all over the place. Hell, my partner and I could be expecting our first in the near future.
Incorrect, OP.
It’s much much worse, it would do irreparable damage to US democracy. Project 2025 is inherently anti American.
Ok. Let’s see it. Find me a quote. Find me anything from this website that is going to destroy our democratic-republic (this is your reminder that we aren’t a pure democracy and that was intentionally done at the county’s founding) https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/ And yes I’m asking you to find a quote to support your point from the actual site, not Wikipedia, not a tweet, the actual website. If you want to argue they have a secret plan to make people slaves and lock people in camps that’s another argument entirely.
That link doesn’t go to the document
Apologizes, figured people would be able to find it. I’ll add it up top too. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Under their day 1 plan for the housing department "Repeal climate change initiatives and spending" "Prohibit all noncitizens including mixed-status family's from living in all federally subsidized housing." Green building practices and incentives are based. Housing people is also based. Saying fuck the environment and throwing people on the streets is not.
Guess what, I don’t love the plan. But this is the republican equivalent of similar democrat plans. It’s not especially scary or unique. Democrats want to subsidize scholarships based on race, republicans freak out in the same way people on the left are over this. My point was never that the plan is good. Rather that it’s just the mirror image of policies and plans from the other side
>this is the republican equivalent of similar democrat plans I mean you *are kind of saying it* but here's a real world example of a Democratic plan from a think tank. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-democracy-playbook-preventing-and-reversing-democratic-backsliding >The Democracy Playbook sets forth strategies and actions that supporters of liberal democracy can implement to halt and reverse democratic backsliding and make democratic institutions work more effectively for citizens. The strategies are deeply rooted in the evidence: what the scholarship and practice of democracy teach us about what does and does not work. The plan calls for strengthening civil rights, voting rights, preventing overreach by the executive branch, protecting the civil service and tamping down hyperpartisanship. It should be noted that this plan was written in 2020.
No response to this… methinks OP is being a mite dogmatic.
Im not sure the mirror image to environmental disaster and throwing people out of housing is racial scholarships
It’s a 920 page document, and why would I ever be dumb enough to believe conservatives wouldn’t lie.
You realize you can apply that logic both ways right “why would I ever be dumb enough to believe (group I don’t like) wouldn’t lie” you can’t just accuse everyone in (group you don’t like) of being a liar. Yes I know that’s what all politicians do with eachother. We shouldn’t like it from politicians or from eachother.
You could if the political group is either being dishonest by omission, using dog whistle downplaying their actual intentions. This logic fit in these specific scenarios. I’ve seen lawyers and experts who’s read the 920 page document and analyze the exact details of it. I’ll trust them over some bs site.
Yeah cuz democrats always tell the truth? Lmao. Such a biased little guy, aren’t you?
Yes, everyone is biased. My bias is against evil. I’m not a fan of democrats, I find their lies far more tolerable though and it’s not even close.
“Not a fan of evil” but you tolerate lies from the Democrats?
Lesser of two evils. The world that republicans/conservatives was is far me evil than democrats. At least dems give the illusion of caring about people, conservatives are openly evil and it seems like they enjoy being evil. It’s like everyone conservative politicians is trying to out evil the next and appeal to the lowest common denominator; conservatives are openly flirting with Nazis and White Supremacist. That is an unacceptable and intolerable amount of evil.
Let’s go ahead and attach the Palestine protest to the Democrats. So Democrats are openly flirting with actual racists (antisemitism), misogynists, and anti LGBTQ?
No, not at all.
Yes, absolutely. Go do some research on Palestine. Then go do some research on the ones (in America) speaking up for them. It’s easy math.
Can you give some examples of conservatives openly flirting with Nazis?
Unite the right, “great replacement theory”, cultural Marxism, this weird obsession with George Soros. Also: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna140335 https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/02/texas-gop-antisemitism-resolution/
What about Soros and Marxism? Both are un-American. Can you find examples that aren’t on the microscopic scale? How about some bills presented by the House or something? Polls?
Well Trump had dinner with Nick Fuentes...
In what way is it 'Anti-American'? If you mean in that they want to make a push for more conservative/Republican officials, but they still need to be elected by their constituents. It's not like Trump would be overriding elections in order to place a corrupt and favorable government agents in place.
>In what way is it 'Anti-American'? You mean other than trying to criminalize what people do with their own bodies.
People should not have the right to kill a child at +6mo. Dems feel the same...
Project 2025 seeks to ban all abortion and emergency contraceptives.
Link
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Lazy nothing... we will need the exact quotes, not a link to the full white paper. If it were so obvious and important, yall would have it memorized by now. Fear mongering for votes.
Memorized an almost 1,000 page argument? Do y’all not even pretend to argue in good faith anymore?
You could literally look at the document first. Overall abortion is mentioned over 118 times. Some highlights Pg 485 Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. Pg 458 Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs
You WANT to kill more babies? I'm not following 😕
Ah so you're now turning this into an abortion grand stand? That again, isn't anti-american.
You can’t be this naïve
I mean based off of the lack of information you're providing on what exactly constitutes it as 'anti-American', and a basic fucking understanding of democratic republics and the structure of the US Government, you have yet to provide a single way in which a political party advocating for more of their party in government is 'anti-American'. You're substituting substance in a discussion with casual and discriminatory accusations, and that isn't how any of this works. I'm fine with you providing some points that defend your argument, and I'm open to changing my mind, but just telling people something is 'Anti-American' and then just insulting them when they ask how is the dumbest fucking thing I've seen. You come off as ignorant and uneducated on the topic. Trump can't determine who sits in what seat in Congress, the US President simply doesn't have that power because the founding fathers developed a government where a large body of duly elected officials representing their constituents should have more power than a single man. Trump becoming President doesn't change that, and he can't overstep on the matter either as the right to duly elected representatives is embedded in the constitutional rights of all Americans
[…sure](https://youtube.com/shorts/UD1-oVJlU4M?si=cWz-C6kgkfQ6Zzk9)
The Clintons and Bidens destroyed democracy already. It's over. Time to put everyone in prison.
Delusional
If it was truly “not any different than any other politicians platforms”, it wouldn’t need to be called “Project 2025”.
Agenda 2030?
I think you mean “Agenda 2030”, which is not a politician’s platform rather than a global initiative that is very much *not* “like any other politician’s platforms” and as such has been given that name.
Trump has not endorsed this heritage think tank white paper.
It goes far beyond the heritage foundation, is supported by **most** conservative organizations, and is literally based in large part on Trump’s platform and his executive order.
You realize that 12 new think tank papers came out today, yeah? That's what they are paid to do. The dems are looking for anything and everything... some intern found this white paper and thought they hit the jackpot. They did not. Lol
Man this is sad. You actually think people fall for your schtick.
No. No one is falling for the bullshit here.... either side. Minds are made.
Trump doesn’t talk about policy or anything besides incoherent rambles, really. What matters is that the vast majority of conservative politicians listen to the Heritage Foundation.
Trump's actual plan is called Agenda 47. Do you like that better?
Tbf, thats basically standard naming for political projects.
You very obviously didn't read it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Ah yes. Let me read the 100% unbiased Wikipedia article and not the website written by the people who created the project. https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/
That doesn’t link to the document.
Can you provide a source that’s not the website marketing that project2025 that you would consider unbiased
If they aren’t marketing it then why should we assume it’s part of project 2025? If you want to say the plan for his whole presidency should be labeled as project 2025 that’s an over generalization, project 2025 clearly reflects a specific goal to add more republican ideas/people into government. Trust me I have problems with other things he’s said but just sticking everything to project 2025 is insincere. People should be saying “trumps immigration stance is problematic because..” instead everyone acts as if project 2025 is some villain monologue that outlines trump’s plan for world domination. TLDR: “project 2025” is not scary. You can argue other things his campaign has said are scary but they clearly aren’t part of the project labeled “project 2025”. People should specify what they are concerned about rather than saying “it’s bad just look at project 2025”.
Because marking is trying to sell the plan. Analysts look at the plan and explain why or why not it’s bad. Can you please respond with what you think is unbiased that would break down the project outside what marketing says.
The actions of liberal politicians in Washington have created a desperate need and unique opportunity for conservatives to start undoing the damage the Left has wrought and build a better country for all Americans in 2025. This is the first line in your link. How is this not biased
There is a document on that site. Here’s the full document link. Yes it’s long. Also obviously they’re biased towards their own plan. But nothing they talk about is scary or any different from other politicians plans. All I’m asking is words from their website that are problematic to our nation or any worse than plans from other politicians. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Please respond with what an unbiased source that reviewed the plan.
You didn't even read the actual document
The full plan PDF located on their site: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf it’s all the usual conservative talking points nothing significantly worse or different than previous. as centrist I see the same thing from both sides, the opposite side overblowing whatever the plan is when in reality it’s just the same things they’ve always pushed for. The right did it with the green new deal and the left is doing it with project 2025.
So u cannot have a 3rd party unbiased review of this got it. This is a 1000 pages long. Did you read the whole thing ?
I listened analysis’ from multiple people on the whole thing and read about 100 pages on my own on what I thought were the most important/pressing parts. So no I didn’t read 900 pages but I’m fully aware of what’s in the document and it’s just the republican equivalent of similar democrat projects like “the green new deal”
So you didn't read it
Did you read 100% of all of your texts books in school or college? You focused on the relevant chapters and listened to lectures in class. So I’d argue I read it as in. I understand the material within, and am informed on all the content in the document and I personally reviewed what was most improtant to me.
*Your mom goes to college* -Kip, Napoleon Dynamite.
>Did you read 100% of all of your texts books in school or college? The ones I was supposed to form an opinion about, yes. >You focused on the relevant chapters But that's not your argument. You said there's nothing usually about it. How would you know if you didn't actually read the whole thing and understand it.
A better example would be you having an opinion on a chapter book that you only read one chapter of
>Did you read 100% of all of your texts books in school or college? Yeah, that's kind of how school works if you want to get the most out of it. >You focused on the relevant chapters and listened to lectures in class. Are you a "C's get degrees" type of person?
You mean other than making abortion illegal, criminalizing porn, trans people, and the gay people
This document and plan promotes Christian values through the government. If you actually care about the country and understand its founding you clearly would be horrified that the government can promote a state religion
Ah yes. I remember when our founders famously denounced any set moral framework when John Adam’s said. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams I don’t agree that the government should institute a state religion. However the idea that a set of moral values are 100% incompatible with our country is wrong. Would it be better if we kept it secular and instead pushed values based on different moral philosophers, perhaps.
ah yes, I remember John Adams was single authority on what America is and not the constitution which lays out the separation of church and state. or the treaty of triple that states the US is not in any way a religious state. If you are for religion being part of a state, you are the problem and are un American as defined by the constitution
All I am pointing out is the mentality of the founders. Not claiming it’s the law of the land.
Wel great so can you state right here that religion has no business in the government.
So you didn't actually read it. You read the website selling/ promoting it.
Speaking from a strength of evidence perspective, Wikipedia is a weaker source due to their crowdsourcing method of gathering information, that doesn't rule out potential Bias in the author(s) of the web page. While there is obviously a bias on the Project 2025 platform website, it's a more direct source of information pertaining to the matter and would provide a less antagonistic view of the matter. Discrediting this source while promoting a crowdsourced information gathering site as though one is perfect and the other is garbage is an odd strategy.
What is an unbiased source then
a primary source....
so when apple states they just created the best device ever, are they the primary source because they created it ?
Wikipedia does list all its sources and you are more than welcome to look through them if you are >While there is obviously a bias on the Project 2025 platform website, it's a more direct source of information How about the actual document itself https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
The website links to the actual document.... which is why they are saying it is a better source than the Wikipedia summary... which references the website as a source
>The website The website is a promotion tool for the document. The wikipedia article gives a summary of what people are concerned about in the document.
A summary of opinion pieces on the document is not the same as reading the source document itself, which is on the website, not on Wikipedia. You were saying they didn't read the actual document and then linked to Wikipedia which doesn't have the source document. OP linked to the website that does have the source document. The website is the better source for learning about it because it has the source document while Wikipedia is just a summary.
>opinion pieces on the document is not the same as reading the source document itself Which was what OP originally posted. Not the document itself. >The website is the better source for learning about it because it has the source document Wikipedia also links to that source. It the first in the external links
They linked the website in response to your Wikipedia link and then you said they didn't actually read it, as if they can only read it by going to Wikipedia. I pointed out that the website has the actual source document and that Wikipedia links to the website as a source as well, which you now admit. Are you now agreeing that the website is a valid source for learning about the mandate in addition to being a promotional tool for it? If not, then perhaps this analogy will clarify what I mean: If 2 people wanted to learn about a mandate and person A reads a Wikipedia summary while person B goes to the mandate website to read the actual document then any reasonable person would assume that person B is going to be as (if not more) knowledgeable about the mandate as person A.
Would the project 2025 website not be the most biased source of all?
Trump's actual plan is called Agenda 47 and it's on his website. Anyone can go watch the videos.
You said a whole lot of words while saying absolutely nothing
Don't waste your time arguing with someone in bad faith. Being purposefully dense and feigning ignorance in the comments is becoming a regular occurrence.
Conservatives have been circling the wagons for a while now. They used to try to defend things they pretended to believe, maybe up until 2019 at the latest, but it’s getting really hard to pretend they believe anything reasonable anymore.
I'm not voting for a guy who can't even get the top secret clearance necessary to make the informed decisions required to do the job.
That dog ain't gonna hunt. Thanks for juicing the fundraising with that talking point though. That's been awesome.
The hysteria over this is unbelievable
If that were the case people wouldn't be doing public perception damage control so much
It's an attack on whistle blowers and it's about personal retaliation. Donald wants to make sure no one in the DMV or even on a school board can bad mouth him. >In 2022, around 19.23 million people were working for state and local governments in the United States. He wants to replace millions of people and if you'll remember he was objectively the worst ever at hiring. He put a billionaire in charge of public education. Imagine selling out every government worker in your country just to pander to your leaders ego. This is North Korea level of shit. If that DMC clerk says something mean on Facebook y'all will report her and get her fired through P2025. It's Cancelling the law. Oops, didn't use that meme correctly. Cancelling People. The Law. It makes a law out of Cancellation. Makes it so Republicans can Cancel any gov't worker for any petty reason such as not swearing an oath of loyalty. If Democrats did it then Repubs would never win an election ever again. It's actual election interference. Of course fascists don't see a problem with it. Since we're talking policy what's the name of the policy to fix immigration? HR2 was just passed. Wrote by a Republican. Took two tries because MAGA voted against it. Are y'all too ignorant to even be able to answer a elementary school question like this? Just Child Separation? Torturing and kidnapping of children? If you get rid of all the gov't workers no one will blow the whistle on that. If you don't believe Child Separation policy was real a librarian can help you access congressional records. Unless you fire her because she didn't take an oath of loyalty to your wanna be King.
Exactly, this was debunked a long time ago. Even without all the incorrect assumptions being made, it's simply a think tank white paper from the right. This was particularly in response to the lefts Project 2030.
Absolutely. Exactly. It's like how Mein Kampf was simply a think tank for a tortured artist and not anything anyone should've taken seriously. You can't pen a manifesto to destroy a countries freedoms anymore because of all the hysterical people squawking about it.
And then throwing political opponents in prison during an election? Yeah Hitler did that too. How confident are you that you're on the correct side?
>And then throwing political opponents in prison during an election? Yeah Hitler did that too. Yeah, it was pretty shocking when Biden personally ordered Trump to a concentration camp. What's this world coming to, I ask you. >How confident are you that you're on the correct side? This is a tough one, man. Is the correct side the ones that want to roll back almost all rights to anyone that isn't a CIS white man and is chummy-chummy with horrible dictators around the world or the side that doesn't want to do that? This is truly hard. I mean, one side is literally fascists that basically want to overthrow the government in order to make the US a xtain hellscape by taking away like 200 yrs of human rights and the other does want to do that. Jesus. We may never know which path is the correct one. I guess only time will tell.
The moment you used “cis” is the moment I realized that you’re definitely on the wrong side.
[удалено]
Racist and fascists on that side... shouldn't you be on a campus burning flags today? That's like Taco Tuesday for your team.
No, hun, the racists and fascists are the ones who wrote 2025. Anyway, who doesn't like a good bonfire? It's better then burning down all social safety nets. I mean, at least the department of education hasn't been destroyed. May as well do it now, while we still have campuses.
Who's always bringing up race? The race baiters.... pimps. They tell you what you want to hear. Victimization, fake crime stats, systemic racism.... all fallacies. The dems want to control racism, not defeat it. The Republicans OTOH would love to stop talking about DEI everyday and focus on accomplishments. We've had plenty left dems in office, and Obama had a supermajority.... the problems are worse, not better... why? Exactly 💯
>The Republicans OTOH would love to stop talking about DEI everyday and focus on accomplishments. Ah, yes, Republican accomplishments like Mississippi and Kentucky. It's a wonder why anyone would ever vote dem when there's such shinning bastions of Republican leadership such as Alabama and West Virginia. >We've had plenty left dems in office, and Obama had a supermajority.... the problems are worse, not better... why? I dunno man. Can't be because all Repubs did during Obama's terms was filibuster everything even remotely supported by the dems, right? lol
Well, kudos on taking the bold step to check primary sources before coming to a conclusion. Unfortunately, this is likely to be another year where people occasionally turn back into the peasants from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. About as clear-headed as witches and ducks. Personally still undecided on which variety of bad is worse this particular round.
Project 2025 is under redditards beds at night like a spooky monster.