What do you think about project 2025?

[Anonymous]

should be banned

should not be banned

[MisterWack]

Too extreme, BANNED!

I want moderate, center, and more open minded legislation especially in proposals that may make or break someone’s whole life…. It is a disgusting playbook and should never ever be allowed to happen.

[Dargil]

Its an opinion created by the Heritage Foundation. Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, bibles of the Left, are not banned. So why ban an opinion? And what authority would ban it?

[monorprise]

Its rather absurd to compare a moderate policy proposal like Project 2025 to theses historic ideological books @Dargil

Democrats are lying thou their teeth about this making a rocky mountain range out of something that is not much more than a hill.
https://www.project2025.org/truth/

Those liers should be ashamed

[exitseven]

Most of the policies will help America. The government is overloaded with layer after layer of bureaucrats that have the ability to set policies that can effect all of us. These people are not elected and in a lot of cases they cannot be fired.

Project 2025 addresses deep seated problems that have been plaguing the US for decades. It fixes the economy, the environment and foreign relations. It also addresses the problem at out borders and illegal immigration. .

It is not perfect but there is a lot of things that would help put America on the right track. People need to actually read it and not just listen to what people in the fake news say, https://www.project2025.org/policy/

It makes a lot more sense that this

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf

[strateguy632]

I agree drain the swamp.

[goaded]

You know, when you say bureaucrats, you're saying people who know what they're talking about.

[exitseven]

@goaded yes but they have agendas that are counter to what is best for the country

[goaded]

No, they don't. Their agenda is to do what's best for the country, specifically the people.

They protect your air, your water, your food, enforce the law, protect your rights... and they do it independently of who the president is. Until Project 2025, when it will all stop in favour of making Trump more rich and powerful.

[exitseven]

@goaded No the agenda is taking care of whoever paid them or the liberal agenda that is ruining this country.

[Guacamole409]

@exitseven

This is a very touchy subject for Germany.

[Skinhead-1979]

While I don't know the details... I live in the UK; even though whatever is being done in the US will affect us... I am not too bothered.

I am 'naturally' suspicious of what our governments decide on nowadays; they present it as something good for society and humans... but often it is not.

We do not live in a Democracy, we are being governed by Oligarchs... Oligarchies often rely on public obedience which is, one way or another, being imposed through some form of oppression.

Oligarchy:

Oligarchy is a conceptual form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control.

Throughout history, power structures considered to be oligarchies have often been viewed as coercive, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich, contrasting it with aristocracy, arguing that oligarchy was the perverted form of aristocracy.

[monorprise]

Its a very silly example of democrat lies @skinhead-1979

You don't know the details because nobody is reading the 1000 page document of really moderate (for historic administration) proposals.

Democrats are just lying thou their teeth trying to make this little hill into a mountain while Republicans don't understand why we should care what some random origination proposes:
https://www.project2025.org/truth/

Its not policy, its not likely to be policy, those who were elected have nothing to do with it, most never even heard of it.

[Skinhead-1979]

@monorprise I've only heard sparsely about it on Facebook; it didn't catch my attention enough to read about it and, truth be said, felt like some kind of over the top 'Conspiracy Theory'.

All I know is it some kind of theory from a thinktank... I don't place to much value on 'thinktanks' anyway, the don't 'think' they always project some kind of view which generally doesn't come close to how I think about the economy, society and politics in general and what I would like to see.

[monorprise]

@skinhead-1979
The sad thing is its not even over the top, much of this has been in the republican platform since world war 2.

[goaded]

Not banned, but defeated. They're really bad ideas, intended to benefit the excessively rich only. And anyone telling you it's not designed for a Trump presidency is lying; he said a couple of years ago they were going to write the blueprint for his next administration, and they did.

There are two types of people who worked with Trump; the ones who don't want him to gain office again (most of his cabinet), and the ones who had a hand in Project 2025. Trump's going to let them do whatever they want as long as he looks powerful doing it.

"At least 140 people who worked for Trump were involved in crafting Project 2025.

J. D. Vance said it included some "good ideas." He wrote the forward for a new book authored by one of Project 2025's key architects.

The document embodies everything the MAGA movement stands for."

https://mastodon.online/@[e-mail]/112882123114405913

[Skinhead-1979]

I didn't read the article you have linked... but I certainly agree with you about its intend being to benefit the already very Wealthy and Powerful.

[monorprise]

Project 2025 isn't even running in the election...

If you want to talk about it at least link it: https://www.project2025.org/policy/

its a bunch of fairly moderate proposals.

[exitseven]

it does have a lot of good ideas. Consolidating Homeland Security will make it more efficient and less expansive. Creating a new culture in the department of defense emphasizing discipline and transparency. Reforming the federal government's involvement in education giving parents more choice in where their children are educated. Changing the EPA from a top down organization with policies that are unattainable and unable to show quantifiable results ot one of goals set that will show real results. There are many other parts of Project 2025 that will help America to become safe and prosperous. .

[Skinhead-1979]

@exitseven There is a reason for it why many government sectors in the US are heavily decentralised and why some government organisations' responsibilities overlap.

It reduces the risk of a a coup. If, lets say, the Marine Corps stages a coup... the National Guard can be used to suppress that; Same as would the State police take over a state, the FBI will be used to suppress that.

The CIA is technically not allowed to operate on Home Soil (it does), that's the responsibility of the FBI

Consolidating all assets into 1 centralised Command does pose a massive risk for a big country like the US; a Russia, for example, does the same.

[Skinhead-1979]

@exitseven It was exactly for this reason that a Nazi Germany set up the SS; the Nazi top did not trust the Wehrmacht Generals. Would they stage a coup, the SS would be used to combat the Wehrmacht.

(Not comparing the US to Nazi Germany of course; that would be absurd)

[exitseven]

@Skinhead-1979 the problem is that all the organizations are controlled by the same group of unelected bureaucrats. They do not work form the American people but mostly work to keep themselves in power.

[Skinhead-1979]

@exitseven Yes, I have been repeating several times in the past days... here and on Facebook... that we are being governed by 'Oligarchs'. The Democrats and Republicans; Labour and the Conservatives (here in the UK), 'Left-wing' and 'Right-wing'... just 2 sides of the same coin.

They all uphold the privileges and life styles of the very wealthy while ordinary people struggle.

We, ordinary people, are being kept divided with 'nonsense' (e. g. Race, Religion, Political preferences, etc) so that the rich and wealthy, the Establishment, can continue 'business as normal'.

[goaded]

@monorprise There's nothing "moderate" about replacing 50,000 civil servants with true believers, instead of 4,000. Nor in forcing the DoJ and FBI under political control.

The head of the Heritage Foundation has said that it's a revolution, while threatening anyone who disagrees with it.

[monorprise]

@goaded
Your aware that we use to regularly replace the entire Federal government's work force after every presidential election.
And and getting rid of the corrupt civil service has been on the table for years now.

If you ask me they need to fire 2 million of the 2.7 million federal employees not a mere 50,000. There is no need to replace them at all.

[goaded]

@monorprise Yes, in the 19th century, and it was a disaster almost every time, and that was back when there probably weren't even 4,000 running the government. It was called "the Spoils System".

But thanks for making clear what period you think the US should go back to (despite the laws passed to avoid such abuse of power). You really do want to undo the last century and a half, don't you?

[monorprise]

@goaded
I didn't say you needed to eliminate testing all together, I said everyone in the federal goverment needs to be subject to being layed off by the same administration. That the Government itself needs to be subject to the terms of it's 11 page Constitution and as such to make both possible we need to lay off more than 2 million of them never to be replaced.

Most of those employees would find jobs in the private sector providing similar services on a fee basis, or in the states actually authorized to force said services on the people.

[goaded]

@monorprise Nothing extreme about any of that, no sir!

[monorprise]

I try avoid calling constitutionally mandated and previously held polices as "Extreme" as it kind of makes the term a mockery.

It would be more consistent with the use of language @goaded
to refer to the present circumstances of a lawless goverment to be extreme.

[goaded]

@monorprise People voted to get rid of those "previously held polices", it's called progress.

[monorprise]

@goaded
I agree it is progress towards tyranny, and lawlessness.
We will respond in voting to re-institute them and failing that we will vote to withdraw from sharing a goverment with those who refuse to respect the Constitutional limits thereof.

That is called progress towards the rule of Law, and freedom.

[goaded]

@monorprise No, it's not, because at every step of the way the laws have been found to be constitutional, until just a few years ago, when Trump and McConnell's SCOTUS threw out the thousand year idea of precedent being important in law.

You're welcome to vote all you like, you're not welcome to break the system so that you can steal power for billionaires based on a small minority of idiot voters. There's a reason CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are backing Harris, it's because Trump will be terrible for the economy they have to work in.

[goaded]

Oh, and the "previously held polices" were made illegal because they involved rampant corruption. Why would you want that back?

[monorprise]

You really don't know anything @goaded about how our political system work even in practice do you... Although precedent's both in executive practice and judicial court ruling is an important part understanding the meaning of the law.

The Federal court nonetheless routinely overturns precedent by their own admission. Indeed the original Roe v. Wade was an enormous act of overturning precedents of 100+ years which clearly showed such domestic policy was in the domain of the states who did in fact outlaw abortion.

The recently controversial Arizona law from the "Civil war" is but a single example of abortion law in place at and since that time. So if anything the court was restoring the original precedent in place 2-3 times longer than Roe v. Wade.

As for the CEO's of most rich companies tending towards the left today they are correct the moderate democratic party is in fact better for them in that they are the ones writing all the rules which effectively help keep competition from challenging their position. Its not at all better for the common man who can't start a business to challenge their market position.

[goaded]

@monorprise Oh, yes, please tell me how I can't read again. No, it's not "routine", it's almost unprecedented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

And the Democratic administration in the one suing companies for abusing their monopolies, having hidden fees, etc., etc., unlike Trump.

[monorprise]

@goaded Theses are just some of the acknowledged precedent overturned:

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

When you dig into a lot of supposedly original cases you will find often they too over turn prior precedent that the court simply refused to acknowledge. So take this list with a grain of salt as its really just what was acknowledged.

[goaded]

@monorprise Fair point. I wonder how many of the overruled decisions affected common people and were supported by a vast majority of the population.

Roe, and Chevron, to name but two, did and were.

This partisan SCOTUS is overruling precedent at what should be a surprising rate, especially considering their lack of mandate. Not to mention making shit up like the president should be immune for crimes committed that they can claim were official acts (and disallowing access to evidence that could prove otherwise).

[monorprise]

@goaded
In most cases there is little we can realistically do about bad rulings under the currently pushed political understanding so long as the court has the general support of 13 states, or passive support of much of the political class.

As to fix the court generally requires a constitutional amendment and the support of all but 12 states to pass as well as practically a significant popular majority to even propose.

There are more than a few such edicts that were quite unpopular at the time including the Original Roe v. Wade which is in no small part responsible for republicans doing so well in the presidency in all the years since with the pledge to appoint judges to reverse it.

But others were even more outrageous such as Reynolds v. Sims (1964) fundamentally changing the nature of our state Governments and came with only a few states short of a 2nd Constitutional convention.

Unfortunate exposing a flaw in our Constitutional amendment process in that it takes too long to implement if we presume the Court has the power to alter the election system.
Thus proving the federal Court could in practice make America into a dictatorship as long as the other 2 branches and levels of goverment don't check it.

Which they haven't done much since the "Civil war" being taught in schools the court are dictators, which in a lot of ways they are in conspiracy with the federal executive, since we also assume state's can't stand up for themselfs after the same war.

A situation which basically demonstrates why our Constitutional system completely broke down in the last 100+ years.

[goaded]

@monorprise How "outrageous": "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

How could anyone believe such nonsense? It is, of course, "We, the acres...".

Ironic that you're talking about "federal Court could in practice make America into a dictatorship as long as the other 2 branches and levels of government don't check it." at a time when Republicans are intent on doing just that.

Justices used to have broad bipartisan support in the Senate (RBG had 97 votes for her confirmation, iirc.), now, thanks to McConnell and Republican obstruction, the majority gained fewer than 60, all but one Republican.

[monorprise]

@goaded The statement made by the lawless politicians on the federal court itself demonstrates their non-qualifications for the job of judge by intentional lying about the nature of our republic.

America is quite explicitly a Constitutional republic it never represented people outside of their capacity as states, or in this case their capacity as regional self-governing communities. That fact alone proves their edict a violation of all historic precedent.

The fact that was pointed out to them that even the same Federal Constitution mandates like the State's equal representation among self-governing regions that were the States, a fact that cannot even be changed by amendment and predates the Federal Constitution itself.

So the yes the constitutions does and always has represented the people in their capacity as self-governing regions and in fact explicitly does so at the expense of them as indiviual people since day one. A fact soo critical to the system itself it cannot even be amended per the ONLY remaining exception of Article 5.

This is soo plainly written into our history and the text of the same document, and pointed out to them by flabbergasted lawyers that one has to assume the politicians on the bench in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) were intentionally lying to overthrow our constitutional system as a power-grab for their ideology.

Thus proving they were nothing but lawless politicians not judges. Traitors who should have been removed from the bench that day.

[BCA6010]

I don't think about it because it doesn't matter; it's a wet dream of the heritage foundation, some of which is good, but a significant chunk is neither constitutional or supported by any serious conservatives, most importantly Donald Trump. Good luck ever getting the party as a whole onboard with anything that doesn't rhyme with "Schmorporate Hax Guts," and even that is deteriorating.

People and organizations can have and publish their opinions. Project 2025 isn't even remotely close to the most extreme and blatantly unconstitutional political pieces published and promoted in the USA, so between that and the existence of the first amendment, there is no reason to "ban" it. In fact, the only reason it's even making news is because the media is desperate to smear the conservatives since they have nothing else.

[OlderAndWiser]

As I understand it, this Project is the activity of a private organization that is not a part of federal or state government. It is merely this group's idea of what the country should do to improve itself. Why would ANYONE think this should be banned?

[exitseven]

Because it will help fix the country, the opposite of what the democrats want to do.

[Anonymous]

This is really just more evidence of why you can trust anything democrats say. Read about Project 2025 for yourself:

https://www.project2025.org/truth/

Theses are mostly very reasonable proposals if anything they don't go far enough.

All of us make similar proposals all the time you don't see democrats freaking out about it.

[FarmBoy13]

I don’t support project 2025 but I also don’t support banning opinions. Project 2025 is an opinion of a group of people, but it’s their right as Americans to think like that. And I will not stand behind taking rights away.

Instead I plan on voting against the party behind project 2025. That is the true American way.

[snowboarder720]

I have no problem with other people who have a different opinion than me however, if their opinion is placing laws against the right for others to live then that’s where their ‘opinions’ should absolutely be banned.

[4ngelic]

should be banned obviously. that's basically a plan to instaure a nationalistic christian dictatorship. i'm not exactly a democrat but that thing would litterally end American democracy if it was fully put in place

[NoneOfYourBusiness96]

I am all for people living in good grace following strong healthy values and treating others with the decency they were lied they will get from the family members who loved them. Meaning 100% accountability and 0 excuses for non sense, lies, manipulation, ostracism, marginalisation, sin, degeneracy and immorality THINGS BORN OUT of selfishness and self absorption of men.

[patois]

It's a Chinese Psyop linked to the Democrat Party and RINOs that are part off the uniparty/cabal.

[patois]

Thus I think it should not be banned. I think people should continued to expose it for what it really is, so that Democrats can come to an understanding of how much their own party brainwashes them in collusion with foreign powers to manipulate the outcome of elections.

[patois]

*of...

[bobby_bush_eater]

Tbh I see so much about but actually know very little of it. I know Trump denounced it over and over and I know the libs keep screaming about it for some reason.

Other than that I don't know or really care about it

[pethouse]

I meant to click should be banned. It goes against the constitution. But then again when did any politician care for the constitution if it wasn’t in their favor.

[exitseven]

find one single thing that is unconstitutional.

[pethouse]

Goes against separation of church and state

[SugarSugarplum]

It's irrelevant unless somehow Congress gets replaced by the Heritage Foundation.

[Anonymous]

It shouldn’t be banned they have the right to say whatever they want but it definitely shouldn’t be implemented either. Even Donald Trump thinks that’s going too far.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm.. does America want to be like NKorea or Russia? Tough choice here. Vote people.

[Jersey2]

Even Trump doesn’t want this and it seems only people on the Left know about this.

[HalalCabello]

I don't live in America but I did read it it seems scary it should be banned & never happen at all.

[dragoblack]

It's quite literally the same plan that put hitler in charge of Germany, allowing the nazi party to take control.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

a conspiracy theory that the left came up with just to show off far their hypocrisy can go.

[Juxtapose]

Trump doesn't even support this so it's a moot point.

[Anonymous]

It's a phony thing made up by the left, but if it were real, how would it be banned anyway? It would be protected political speech under the First Amendment.

[RainbowMarinade]

“It's a phony thing made up by the left.”
The Heritage Foundation is….. left wing?

[Anonymous]

I think anything that's over 900 pages and doesn't come with a summary is a complete waste of time.

[Anonymous]

We need to get back to a more extreme conservative right wing-oriented govt.

I briefly glanced over "Project 2025" and found it to be a very likeable agenda

[Anonymous]

Tell me everything I need to know about Project 25

[strateguy632]

Only part of it is good

[avery58]

Should be banned for sure

[Agape93]

Should be banned. Hit The wrong button

[gorydetails]

lol who the fuck is voting "should be banned"?

[Anonymous]

I support Christian nationalism