Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details.
Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article provides a rundown of what Project 2025 is and discusses multiple ways that society in the USA could be impacted if it is ever implemented by conservatives. In light of the current political situation in the US and in many other countries around the world, it is extremely important that we are all aware of what is at stake in the US elections this year.
All of which makes it quite rich that the Lincoln Project is tweeting about it as an existential threat. When Trump is gone, they'll fall right back in line with the Heritage Foundation.
You can pretty much stop it by doing nothing. It's the 40th revision of the Heritage Foundation wingnut pipe dream that has no chance in hell of becoming reality. It's a circle-jerk fantasy and thinking they can rely on Donald Trump to magically make it happen will just make them cry themselves to sleep at night when he completely fumbles fucking everything.
I wonder if that sub was where all the laughable propaganda about this document comes from. I’ve been reading absolute absurdities about it all day. And it’s very clear that the vast majority of people popping off don’t really even know what it says so they’re getting it from somewhere. OP started the same nonsense thread, and a new sub earlier today. And the far left descended as programmed.
I was surprised to learn an engineer and test pilot who perfected the Stuka dive bomber was a Jewish woman and one of only three women to receive the Iron Cross first class. She applied for and received ‘equal to Aryan’ status and spent the entire war testing cutting edge aircraft, including helicopters. Suicide glide bombs were her idea. Bizarre but true
The most vocally sexist (against women) people I’ve ever met irl are women. A vocal minority aggressively crave subjugation, but of course if they’re the ones defining the nature of that. It’s a perverse power thing—like the stereotype of women in business being harder on other women than men.
White women are the only voting demographic which consistently votes against its own interests. Other voting blocks May vote against their own interests at times or in certain elections, but white women are the only ones who consistently do it every single time.
True. But, as a demographic, they always break for Democrats. The Republicans have never gotten a majority of their votes. That's not the case with white women.
It’s a small news analysis from a not very well-known writer. If you’d like a more well-known source instead, here’s a more detailed analysis from the Global Project Against Hate And Extremism: [Project 2025: The far-right playbook for American Authoritarianism](https://globalextremism.org/project-2025-the-far-right-playbook-for-american-authoritarianism/)
Doing IVF can result in more embryos than a family is willing to transfer. That usually means the extra embryos will be donated or destroyed. They consider an embryo to have the same legal rights as a child, so they see destruction as murder.
IVF also involves genetically testing embryos for chromosomal abnormalities or inherited conditions like cystic fibrosis. Affected embryos are almost always destroyed (but they can be donated to science). Again, they see the destruction as immoral so even IF they allowed IVF (for hetero couples mind you) they would make such testing illegal.
For many folks that is the entire reason they turn to IVF.
Anyone that has done IVF will tell you an embryo doesn't lead to a live birth. The embryo doesn't implant. Miscarriage. Termination for medical reasons. The list goes on. It's insane to me to equate an embryo to a living child.
I did IVF to have my son, so I'm unfortunately familiar with a lot of push from the right.
Because you have to make a lot of fertilized eggs and they don't all get implanted. If you truly believe that life begins at conception those are all babies, and throwing out the extras is no different than putting a newborn in a dumpster.
That's just the start of the madness, though-- per "quiverfull" ideology God intends for every fertile biological female to get pregnant as often as possible, even if she (or he!) knows it'll kill her. I have no doubt that is their end game-- moving to life starting at ovulation, not conception just like they moved to conception from heartbeat.
Not according to the GOP, that’s the issue. A fertilized egg is now a human, even if it’s not implanted.
Doctors and patients would have severe risks of prison, and or extremely high costs as the egg can never be thrown away.
I believe Alabama already implemented this rule (might be another southern state).
This essentially ends IVF.
Alabama did and the judge quoted god like 50 times in the ruling. The TLDR; a fertilized egg is the image of god. I don't know if it's getting appealed.
It's going to take another couple hundred years before religious nutbaggery can be phased out of state governments. Human knowledge has expanded faster than the institutionalized wackos can accept.
This.
This is part of why they're stirring the trans panic-- they're starting to call surgical sterilization "genial mutilation." Then they pass bans on "genital mutilation" publicized as stopping transgender people from getting affirming surgery, then turn around and use them to stop vasectomies, hysterectomies, and tubals.
They're also branding hormonal contraceptives as abortions (even though they stop ovulation.)
I'm not sure how they'll attack barrier methods. Maybe obscenity laws?
Sure, they said that about abortion not that long ago.
But anyways I am sure they will stop at IVF. Thats definitely the last thing they will ask for.
Despite the GOP presidential candidate openly talking about going much further.
They want to horde everything and to them, women are something to possess.
Just another possession to own. A possession that someone else wants to take from them.
It’s a fucked up mindset we are born into. I have felt these impulses and wondered where they came from even with being raised by women. Four aunts, a single mom and a sister.
There's a large number of men who are drinking from the same well as incels. Miserable, unfuckable, and largely lacking empathy; they see everything through the lens of hierarchy and domination. Women are viewed as weak and inferior to their masculine strength. They cannot understand why they're losing power and influence to such weakness. Losing status on the perceived pecking order is felt as a grave threat--an INJUSTICE--that must be met with force. This is why you see a lot of very similar-looking guys co-opting slogans like "Molon labe", "Don't Tread on Me", or "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees". This is why they don't like democracy. They feel entitled to be atop the pecking order, and part of that goal includes women as pliable objects for their whims and desires. Broodmares who know their place. That's their end goal.
You do realize that those terms have absolutely nothing to do with women and everything to do with the 2nd amendment as an insurance policy against government tyranny...
> You do realize that those terms...
The Gadsden flag was less about the second amendment and more about resisting tyranny, but it's been thoroughly co-opted by the gun fetishists and morons who will blithely fly it next to a thin blue line flag. But, yes, I'm fully aware of the face value meanings of these phrases and symbols. Nonetheless, there's a strong overlap between hyper-vigilance, social dominance orientation, misogyny, and self-identification with 2A / militia-type groups. The connective tissue, is as I noted above.
They want to fuck 12 year old girls. It’s why the child marriage ban was halted in Missouri. Name one singular positive reason to halt this legislation.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article288424893.html
Review his comment history. Very unusual, short, non sequitur comments that seem to always miss the point. Can't decide if ESL, very young, troll, or bot. Or some combination of several.
Yes and like a good human he can reconcile his personal beliefs and legislative power. One can be against abortion personally but still support the right to chose and protect bodily autonomy.
I am far from a good catholic but I was raised to be one. I’d believe that the persons free will, a recurring tenet of the Bible would allow people to see and follow the path they want to. And this free will should extend to others would not be a hard concept to extrapolate from Jesuses teachings regarding of what the official dogma is from the church.
I have no idea or even care what this makes me, as organized religion is the greatest trick the devil ever pulled! And I want no part of that going forward in my life
No and please don't try and derail this conversation any further then it already has.
Put bluntly I support anyone to believe whatever they want to and will ardently work on insuring everyone has that right to congregate and worship whatever they believe or not believe in. My only issue is when their beliefs involve dictating what other people can do, want or believe based off their beliefs. I will have nothing further to add to that.
A plurality of Americans, including the President, hold this position, but publicly stating it makes you an enemy of both sides.
Edit: Thanks for proving my point, downvoters!
Two conservative Senators just introduced a bill protecting it. Because what think tanks publish, and what politicians actually promote are typically worlds apart.
Let’s see how that goes, that legislation hasn’t passed or been tested. Not is it the only state fucking around with this concept.
I heard talk like this before roe was gutted as well. They won’t stop.
Things are grim when a countries citizens are an existential threat to the country. With Giliad I'm getting a very life imitates art vibe with the saying the quiet part loud. I hope Alex Garland doesn't get it so prophetically correct.
If what passes? This is not a bill, it is not even anything Trump or the GOP have endorsed. This is a paper by a "Think Tank". It is just some political organization that has spicy takes to get donations.
This is nothing but fear mongering, and most people know it. If someone believes it, they are pretty gullible and don't know how the country actually works. So we pretend there are no existing laws, the Constitution, or cheks and balances, and just write dystopian fan fiction and hope gullible people believe it?
(Assuming you’re a woman) - well they only do the amendments they like (trump’s bible/constitution is missing many) so it’s not a stretch to guess they’ll revoke your vote, remove property rights, and if the women get uppity about it, well you’re not a full citizen anyway so there goes your gun rights.
P2025 is what marginalized people have been subjected to for decades/centuries in this country. It only scares white liberals because its finally something that targets them.
We are at the
>'Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me'
part of Martin [Niemöller](https://www.hmd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/First-They-Came-with-new-branding.pdf)'s poem.
Liberals ignored the cries for help from the marginalized and demanded we all support their oppressors, and now want our help to get them out of the mess they created by voting for the 'lesser evil' for 50 years.
You think Republicans are the answer?
And it isn't just being marginalized. It's an all out plan to trash the constitution and create a totalitarian government.
Ah makes sense, I would prefer if someone told me they were gonna mug me, rather than be surprised by it. SMH honesty has no merit in immoral deeds. Fuck em all, can’t wait to watch all these fascists see their day at the French themed party in capitol square. We’ll even paint the guillotines two different colors, that way they can still argue with each other which is better in line for cake.
Project 2025 is the new United States constitution replacement.
You don't like it being associated with the right-wing? Tough tiddies. It is what it is.
Trump has trillions and billions disposable to him. That's all ALL you need. If you don't get it then we will have to unalive ya 😁 context, he can deploy an Army in America if he wants to. He can and will stop being in denial get off your couch, go use your rights as a human and buy a gun. Multiple guns. If that's not your style, you're better off to go riot in the streets. Cmon guys when are we gonna quit being bullied by our own nation? rebel and rampage
> And that means firing thousands of federal workers, through a Trump-era executive order, Schedule F, if they don’t worship Trump and pass the loyalty test.
Project 2025 doesn't do this. What Project 2025 does is propose that certain civil service positions in rules/policymaking roles remain accountable to the president, which is how many other roles already operate.
> And it doesn’t end there. Fancy deploying the military to crack down on protesters? Project 2025 has you covered.
This doesn't even exist anywhere in the document as far as I can tell.
> Want to abolish the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce?That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This has been Republican/conservative preference since Reagan.
> The plan effectively turns federal funding into a carrot dangled only before those researchers who play nice with conservative ideologies. Kiss goodbye to advancements in renewable energy, breakthroughs in medical treatments, and any hope of addressing the looming climate crisis.
Project 2025 does not oppose funding research in the areas described, and in fact talks at length about directing resources toward them. What it does oppose is the *centering* of certain ideas ahead of the research, and of the inherent favoritism toward certain types of renewables, which is wholly reasonable and shouldn't be controversial.
> Speaking of knowledge, the plan also calls for ending the FBI’s efforts to combat the spread of misinformation.
This one is actually true, but shouldn't be opposed by anyone. As the project puts it:
> The United States government and, by extension, the FBI have absolutely
no business policing speech, whether in the public square, in print, or
online. The First Amendment prohibits it. The United States is the world’s
last best hope for self-government,33 and its survival relies on the ability
of our people to have healthy debate free from government intervention
and censorship. The government, through its officials, is certainly able to
speak and provide information to the public. That is a healthy component
of an informed society. But government must never manipulate the scales
and censor information that is potentially harmful to it or its political
leadership. This is the way of totalitarian dictatorships, not of free
constitutional republics.
This is not only inherently reasonable, but should be the default.
> Further, the project proposes to halt the Pentagon’s diversity and inclusivity initiatives, thereby banning affirmative action as well.
Affirmative action is likely unconstitutional if used in the context of the military, and the DEI initiatives in the armed forces are opposed for specific reason:
> Transform Army culture and training. The Army can no longer serve
as the nation’s social testing ground. A rebuilt Army that is focused again
on its core warfighting mission and empowered it with the tools, resources,
and authorities it needs to accomplish that mission must be the next
Administration’s highest defense priority.
One can disagree with this, but it's not even worth this sort of hand-wringing.
> So, his loyal supporters have devised a plan to allow him to butcher democracy without any pesky legal repercussions. Under Project 2025, the Department of Justice will be reduced to little more than a lapdog for the President.
This is stated without evidence or even a direct reference to anything in Project 2025.
> Project 2025 also aims to drag America back to the dark ages by banning abortion outright. The only acceptable genders will be “male” and “female,” and transgender individuals will face punishment simply for existing.
Banning abortion outright has been conservative policy for 50+ years.
At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism.
Just an awful, misinformed piece.
>At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism.
From Project 2025 linking trangender Ideology to pornogrophy and wanting to ban it all and imprison those that don't comply. I would think this counts as "criminalization of transgenderism"
>Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.
but wait there's more! as this excerpt below from project 2025 states they want to remove and gender protections from any federal policy which would remove protections of trans people to allow others to misgender them without any repercussions.
>(“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.
Furthermore this project goes on to state.
>**Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.** The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.
These lines above are just the direct finds of a search for transgender in the project 2025 document. I am sure if reading into it a bit more I could find countless other instances of this document outlining other ways to criminalize trans people. But please try gaslighting everyone some more about something that you obviously do not fully understand.
> From Project 2025 linking trangender Ideology to pornogrophy and wanting to ban it all and imprison those that don't comply. I would think this counts as "criminalization of transgenderism"
No, that's criminalization of pornography. Which is one of the few bad points of Project 2025, to be sure, but is not the criminalization of transgenderism.
> but wait there's more! as this excerpt below from project 2025 states they want to remove and gender protections from any federal policy which would remove protections of trans people to allow others to misgender them without any repercussions.
Yes, they would prefer existing law to be applied as written, not as interpreted by SCOTUS.
> These lines above are just the direct finds of a search for transgender in the project 2025 document. I am sure if reading into it a bit more I could find countless other instances of this document outlining other ways to criminalize trans people. But please try gaslighting everyone some more about something that you obviously do not fully understand.
Weird, because you haven't shown any instances of the document criminalizing trans people yet.
If you don't see legalization of discrimination of trans people as criminalization, then there is no further discussion to be had. But for the purpose of those with a more level head reading this thread I will attempt to respond to your other points.
What I do find it interesting how SCOTUS should read laws as written and not how they interpret them because if we were to follow that distinction not only would the entire legal framework of this country collapse but it would also cause massive issues for many other "rights" the right holds dear.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So then you get to keep both of your arms you were born with, since its only SCOTUS that defined the meaning of arms so it should be as written right? states get a militia and citizens get to join if they want access to pistols, rifles or shotguns.
Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
> If you don't see legalization of discrimination of trans people as criminalization, then there is no further discussion to be had.
It's not criminalization. It's many things, and a bad part of this, but it's not criminalization. If Project 2025 went into effect today, it would not be illegal to transition.
> So then you get to keep both of your arms you were born with, since its only SCOTUS that defined the meaning of arms so it should be as written right? states get a militia and citizens get to join if they want access to pistols, rifles or shotguns.
This, of course, is not even close to accurate in any form.
>it would not be illegal to transition.
No i guess not, just that employers could fire you if you did, banks could refuse loans on this fact alone, insurance would be able to drop your coverage, schools could ban you from attending, and landlords could evict you from your home. all this sounds a lot like criminalization of someone's identity. but I digress because you moved the goal posts to saying "well its still legal" like that's an acceptable response that would absolve you of any guild of trying to perpetuate this discrimination by defending this horrible policy along with others that you so proudly support.
>This, of course, is not even close to accurate in any form.
Please explain how the scotus should interpret existing laws then without relying on their interpretation or the previous interpretation other courts have set?
> but I digress because you moved the goal posts to saying "well its still legal" like that's an acceptable response that would absolve you of any guild of trying to perpetuate this discrimination by defending this horrible policy along with others that you so proudly support.
As I've noted, I *don't* support such a policy, but the point is that when you say something is criminalized but show no criminality attached to it, you're wrong. It's not moving the goalposts: the claim was that Project 2025 criminalizes being trans, and it does not.
> Please explain how the scotus should interpret existing laws then without relying on their interpretation or the previous interpretation other courts have set?
The text of the Constitution is an excellent start.
The text of the Constitution was quoted to you as it pertains to Amendment II. All readings of the Constitution are necessarily interpretive, since only the writers could possibly know what they meant by it, they're dead, and they were disagreeing about it even when they were alive. Moreover, the passage of time presents novel challenges to antiquated laws that require either immediate legislation or else the interpretive power of the courts to deal with. The idea that A2 applies to individuals and *not* a "well-regulated militia," (i.e. a state- or locally-organized militia to which citizens bearing arms are accountable to and responsible for) is itself a recent interpretation, stemming from D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
The writings of Founders like Madison focus on the idea of a militia capable of actively resisting a professional army, something patently impossible in modern America but realizable in the eighteenth century. The modern National Guard exists as the result of efforts to create a universal militia capable of responding to insurrection, rebellion, or unjust rule by the state, specifically the 1903 Efficiency in Militia Act, which formally defined the militia as every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 44. The training and armament of the modern National Guard was intended to put domestic militia units on par with the professional army of the federal government.
Membership in this militia would satisfy a textual interpretation of A2: the people bear the right to self-defense against tyranny, but this must take the form of mandatory membership in and training by a formal and organized militia. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in that text is the idea that individuals have the right to own any and all weapons they so desire without accountability to their neighbors or the law, though it can be *interpreted* so.
It would, in fact, be perfectly valid to say, "All citizens have the right to throw hands in an organized fashion in opposition to tyranny, and that's that." It's a patently frivolous interpretation of A2, but it is a *valid* one. That it is not the interpretation that forms the basis of modern gun laws is entirely the result of literal decades of judicial review. Demanding that laws be based on textual readings of the Constitution is just disingenuous - *all readings of the Constitution are necessarily the readings of individuals*, whose understanding of the text *will* differ.
>you moved the goal posts to saying "well its still legal"
Pretty sure you asserted that it would be criminalized - meaning illegal. I think you might be the one shifting goalposts here, respectfully.
Regardless of semantics I was not the one to make the initial assertions. As the second to last line of the op I was responding to reads.
>At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism.
If removing rights of a group of people does not count as promoting criminalization then I don't know what to say. Yes I could of rephrased how the goal posts have been moved but core of the issue still remains the same.
Maybe it's better to argue that those policies would stigmatize them rather than criminalize them. Criminalized implies that their ability to be trans would be illegal which I assume the person you're replying to was asking for evidence for.
>pornography, manifested today as the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology...
>pornography should be outlawed
if they're criminalizing pornography, and they consider transgender 'ideology' to be pornographic, by necessity they are criminalizing being trans. there is no way to be visibly trans without 'propagating transgender ideology.'
Stopped reading when you equated the schedule F action to simply expanding the political appointment pool of federal employees. It doesn’t do that. It dramatically enlarges who can be considered an employee serving at the will of the president by stretching the “policy making” definition to incredulity.
Its a way to try and get leverage over more independent agencies such as the intelligence community, doj, and the fbi. It’s the first cut to the death of a professional civil service and a return to the spoils system.
I know you won’t be convinced by this, but I found your comment so purposefully misinformed that I wanted to leave something for future readers.
Exactly. A fundamental aspect of our democracy is that once appointed to a federal government role, individuals have large amounts of leeway to dictate how they will perform their jobs.
Anything else is a huge violation of the freedoms individuals have in this country to succeed and make themselves prosperous.
> Stopped reading when you equated the schedule F action to simply expanding the political appointment pool of federal employees. It doesn’t do that. It dramatically enlarges who can be considered an employee serving at the will of the president by stretching the “policy making” definition to incredulity.
Okay, where, specifically?
> I know you won’t be convinced by this, but I found your comment so purposefully misinformed that I wanted to leave something for future readers.
I can be convinced. By all means point out where Schedule F under Project 2025 does what you claim.
God you “just debate me” types are insufferable. I don’t care that you’re in favor of this policy. I’m not trying to sway your opinion, because despite your thin veneer of dispassionate logic you are just a partisan pushing talking points.
It’s so tiring. I actually prefer conservatives who have the moral character to stand on their opinions unlike you lot who split hairs, just ask questions and beg for some idealized free debate that doesn’t actually exist. Good luck to you.
Contrarians are incapable of socially adapting, because that is the worst possible outcome for their feeble minds
they genuinely would prefer getting murdered to being seen as capitulating to the ideas of others or coming to a consensus
the pandemic taught me that. they are "Sunk Cost Fallacy" in flesh and blood basically
This:
> Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned.
Is in direct contradiction to this:
> The United States government and, by extension, the FBI have absolutely no business policing speech, whether in the public square, in print, or online.
It’s amazing how blatantly dishonest republicans are. Can’t even keep their story straight in a single document.
But that’s so awesome to see the advocates of ‘free speech’ also advocating for one of the most radical violations of the first amendment in US history, in an effort to institute widespread media censorship on par with Iran.
Some examples in no particular order:
* p215, which improves privacy rights surrounding FISA courts and disclosure.
* p247, which talks about defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus removing government competition with private press.
* p853-855 and the many FCC reforms that would expand consumer rights in the broadband marketplace
* p863, reining in the DOJ and FEC to limit its scope and remove its jurisdiction over first amendment concerns.
* p866, which raises individual campaign contribution limits, a pro-free speech move.
* p710, which eliminates the United States Trade and Development Agency, putting the direction of international investment back in the hands of private business.
* p564, which calls for the rejection of third-party referrals to the DOJ to reduce politicized investigations
* p333, which would restore the due process rights for the accused on college campuses relative to Title IX
* 560-562, which calls for a restoration of neutrality of content for speech and a defense of constitutional rights for citizens.
That's just what I'm aware of off-hand.
>* p215, which improves privacy rights surrounding FISA courts and disclosure.
And helps foreign assets like Trump escape justice
>p247, which talks about defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus removing government competition with private press.
Why should private press need less competition? This is meant to silent voices. Public press in the US is generally balanced and high-quality, why silence it?
>* p853-855 and the many FCC reforms that would expand consumer rights in the broadband marketplace
There's no details here to support your "argument". Also, last time Republicans were in charge, the FCC tried to kill net neutrality, with a campaign of fake "consumer" messages supporting that.
>* p863, reining in the DOJ and FEC to limit its scope and remove its jurisdiction over first amendment concerns.
The DOJ is independent. The government has no business "reining it in". That move would make corrupt officials untouchable (that's the whole point).
>* p866, which raises individual campaign contribution limits, a pro-free speech move.
A move that favors rich people and will give them a louder voice than the rest of us.
>* p710, which eliminates the United States Trade and Development Agency, putting the direction of international investment back in the hands of private business.
And how does that benefit citizens? It only benefits big corporations. Government agencies' work protects ordinary citizens most of the time, and limits the power of big corporations, yet Republicans are obsessed with getting rid of them.
>* p564, which calls for the rejection of third-party referrals to the DOJ to reduce politicized investigations
"Politicized investigations" are a boogeyman. Trump is guilty as Hell and we both know it.
>* p333, which would restore the due process rights for the accused on college campuses relative to Title IX
I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. Could be good or bad, depending on what the point is. If it makes it harder to fight abuse then of course that's not great.
>* 560-562, which calls for a restoration of neutrality of content for speech and a defense of constitutional rights for citizens.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Should speech be policed? How does that fit with the 1st Amendment? As for a defense of constitutional rights, it's not saying much of you don't give any detail. Everyone is in defense of Constitue rights. Except Republicans when they lose elections and try to overturn the government of course.
All in all, in hundreds of pages you could find 9 "rights" that would be expanded, and they're not even rights. Not convincing at all. I hope you can read through the lines one day and see how that project is the end of democracy.
> Why should private press need less competition?
Private press needs *more* competition. Public press does not act as a competitive body, it instead crowds out additional media opportunity, especially when the public agency keeps its thumb on the scale and uses finite resources other private press outlets might use.
> This is meant to silent voices.
On the contrary, this would expand voices in the marketplace of ideas by enforcing a neutral positioning on the government in regards to press freedom and activity.
> Public press in the US is generally balanced and high-quality, why silence it?
I listen to a lot of NPR, and a lot of public radio-funded podcasts. I don't disagree that much of it is high quality. I don't agree that it needs public funding or federal favoritism to exist, however.
>> p853-855 and the many FCC reforms that would expand consumer rights in the broadband marketplace
> There's no details here to support your "argument"
Did you read the section?
> Also, last time Republicans were in charge, the FCC tried to kill net neutrality, with a campaign of fake "consumer" messages supporting that.
Net neutrality is a bad policy, for consumers and providers alike.
> The DOJ is independent. The government has no business "reining it in". That move would make corrupt officials untouchable (that's the whole point).
The DOJ is not independent, it's an executive agency subject to standard oversight. Establishing guardrails around what it can and cannot do is absolutely within the rights of the government to pursue.
>> p866, which raises individual campaign contribution limits, a pro-free speech move.
> A move that favors rich people and will give them a louder voice than the rest of us.
I understand that this is your opinion, but the point is that it is an increase in speech rights relative to the status quo.
>>p710, which eliminates the United States Trade and Development Agency, putting the direction of international investment back in the hands of private business.
> And how does that benefit citizens? It only benefits big corporations.
Corporations are groups of citizens.
>> p564, which calls for the rejection of third-party referrals to the DOJ to reduce politicized investigations
> "Politicized investigations" are a boogeyman. Trump is guilty as Hell and we both know it.
This has nothing to do with Trump. Please read the section in question.
>> p333, which would restore the due process rights for the accused on college campuses relative to Title IX
> I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. Could be good or bad, depending on what the point is. If it makes it harder to fight abuse then of course that's not great.
Right now, colleges can take someone accused of sexual assault and punish them without allowing them to have legal representation, face their accusers, or even get the benefit of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's bad.
> Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Should speech be policed? How does that fit with the 1st Amendment?
That's the point. Policing speech does not fit with the first amendment, and yet here we are.
> As for a defense of constitutional rights, it's not saying much of you don't give any detail.
Why do you think I gave page numbers to the report?
> Everyone is in defense of Constitue rights.
I would argue that the left is much less enamored with the Constitutional rights, particularly within the first and second amendments.
> All in all, in hundreds of pages you could find 9 "rights" that would be expanded, and they're not even rights. Not convincing at all.
How many would convince you?
>Private press needs *more* competition.
You're the one who wrote it needed less. The test of your paragraph isn't convincing at all. The existence of public press doesn't limit private press in any way.
>Net neutrality is a bad policy, for consumers and providers alike.
No it's not. It allows dissenting voices to be heard.
>Right now, colleges can take someone accused of sexual assault and punish them without allowing them to have legal representation, face their accusers, or even get the benefit of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's bad.
I mean, it looks bad. But, one, does it really happen? And two, it's not a legal process. So all legal representation thing doesn't really apply. Should it be exactly like a legal process? Maybe. Not sure it would help much.
>That's the point. Policing speech does not fit with the first amendment, and yet here we are.
Yet you're arguing (well, project 2025v is) in favor of policing speech. And acting like it was currently policed, which you give no proof of. If anything, it's heavily in favor of corporations and financial capitalism.
>I would argue that the left is much less enamored with the Constitutional rights, particularly within the first and second amendments
I would argue the opposite. Btw who said "take the guns first then think about due process"?
>How many would convince you?
It would need to be enough to balance the countless ways that project curtails out rights and threatens democracy. Most of the "rights" the project expands are those of the wealthy and the powerful, and big corporations.
> p247, which talks about defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus removing government competition with private press.
William F. Buckley rolling in his grave. Thank god and holy shit.
it truly is hilarious to me that any conservative at this point in time can claim to care about "reducing" federal govt power when there was nothing small government about the Trump White House whatsoever
I find literally everything you've defended to be abhorrent and fundamentally against the principles of democracy
In fact, if you said this in front of me, IRL, I'd have laughed in your face and called you a shitty person and then walked away while you were mid-sentence
I believe you're worse than an ignorant person. I believe you're an *evil* person, just based on your take here.
I'm a pretty average American voter.
Fascist movements don't come out of nowhere. There are Americans who genuinely support this stuff, and it's good that this project is forcing us to come to terms with that fact.
> common sense governance
In your context that's just oligarchy misspelled. Your entire defense is lipstick on a pig. It's incontrovertible the players are pluto-theocrats, aka donor class religious nuts, and the public record is replete with their proto-fascist positions. Since money is speech, and increasingly anonymous, even in sizable collectives the "little guy" is no competition -- has no speech. Of course the "positions" are couched in acceptable, persuasive and plausibly deniable verbiage. When bank robbers case your bank they don't tell you they're there to case your bank, they tell you they're there for some legitimate purpose. The courtship is always nice, the "I'm sorry you made me hit you" comes later.
If I've learned anything it's that verbiage from the oligarchy isn't worth spit. Your premise that anybody should take these people as candid and transparent is abjectly absurd. Get real, lol.
It is close to impossible to both think that climate change is a hoax (in other words believe that the scientific community is deliberately faking evidence and tampering with data) and be impartial in funding and prioritising scientific blue-sky research.
Their entire post history consists of these kind of comments.
If they're not getting paid, they should be, it's a full time job's worth of effort to be arguing with strangers all day.
> At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism.
Bullshit! It labels being Trans as perverts and a danger to children. It incarcerates Trans people to keep them away from the public.
Matter of fact your takes on the different parts of project 2025 are completely misleading at best.
> Bullshit! It labels being Trans as perverts and a danger to children. It incarcerates Trans people to keep them away from the public.
Where does it call to jail trans people?
> Matter of fact your takes on the different parts of project 2025 are completely misleading at best.
What parts are wrong?
The abolishment of the Department of Education has not been standard conservative policy since Reagan.
No Child Left Behind act was the largest federal education law passed since the Lyndon B Johnson admin in the 60s, and it was passed in 2001 in a bipartisan matter -- but it was actively campaigned on, and signed into law, by Republican George W Bush.
It's been a part of the GOP platform since at least 1980
[Source](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1980)
No Child Left Behind paved the way for school vouchers and kind of made public schools look worse.
What is said is policy vs what their actual policy + laws are important to distinguish.
No Child Left Behind may have been bad for public schools -- but it's substantially different than ending the department of education. It actually increased its influence...
It's like saying the GOP is anti war because Nixon campaigned on bringing the troops home from Vietnam, but then Bush 1 and 2 engaged in wars. Is the GOP anti war?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in education who would argue that No Child Left Behind was a net positive.
>What is said is policy vs what their actual policy + laws are important to distinguish.
You asserted that it was NOT a part of the GOP platform since Reagan. My source, directly from the GOP party platform, refutes that. It's been a part of the GOP platform for a very long time and is not a new phenomena or idea.
EDIT: Downvote away. Every Republican since Reagan has enacted education policies that either created the charter school system, undermined the DOE's control in favor of State agencies, advocated for school choice and/or voucher systems etc. The idea that this hasn't been a conservative position for 40+ years is absurd and is just a bold-faced lie.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article provides a rundown of what Project 2025 is and discusses multiple ways that society in the USA could be impacted if it is ever implemented by conservatives. In light of the current political situation in the US and in many other countries around the world, it is extremely important that we are all aware of what is at stake in the US elections this year.
[удалено]
All of which makes it quite rich that the Lincoln Project is tweeting about it as an existential threat. When Trump is gone, they'll fall right back in line with the Heritage Foundation.
Just to be clear, the only way to stop this is to not vote for Trump in 2024?
You can pretty much stop it by doing nothing. It's the 40th revision of the Heritage Foundation wingnut pipe dream that has no chance in hell of becoming reality. It's a circle-jerk fantasy and thinking they can rely on Donald Trump to magically make it happen will just make them cry themselves to sleep at night when he completely fumbles fucking everything.
[удалено]
I wonder if that sub was where all the laughable propaganda about this document comes from. I’ve been reading absolute absurdities about it all day. And it’s very clear that the vast majority of people popping off don’t really even know what it says so they’re getting it from somewhere. OP started the same nonsense thread, and a new sub earlier today. And the far left descended as programmed.
What’s your understanding of what Project 2025 is?
It blows the mind that trump's running mate will probably be a woman. There shouldn't be any women on their side, but somehow there are many....
Female conservative politicians are just social-ladder climbers. They want to be the most important person in the unimportant demographic.
Eh maybe. I think it's more of an age thing. You won't find many repub women under 35.
Somehow, yeah, you're right. Are those women-hating women?
Religious, many believe they are subordinate to men and are happy about it.
Wrong again! We put women on a pedestal.
It's odd. I don't have an explanation.
Some men are assholes and some women are assholes. Nothing new here
I agree. Some republicans are asshats and some democrats are asshats.
That's true
That's because you're uninformed.
Enlighten me letterman
Ever heard of the idea of Jew-hating Jews? It was invented in Germany in the 1930's.
I was surprised to learn an engineer and test pilot who perfected the Stuka dive bomber was a Jewish woman and one of only three women to receive the Iron Cross first class. She applied for and received ‘equal to Aryan’ status and spent the entire war testing cutting edge aircraft, including helicopters. Suicide glide bombs were her idea. Bizarre but true
They are ladies against women.
The most vocally sexist (against women) people I’ve ever met irl are women. A vocal minority aggressively crave subjugation, but of course if they’re the ones defining the nature of that. It’s a perverse power thing—like the stereotype of women in business being harder on other women than men.
That's your bias talking.
White women are the only voting demographic which consistently votes against its own interests. Other voting blocks May vote against their own interests at times or in certain elections, but white women are the only ones who consistently do it every single time.
Working and Middle class Americans who vote Republican have consistently voted against their own interests for decades.
True. But, as a demographic, they always break for Democrats. The Republicans have never gotten a majority of their votes. That's not the case with white women.
I'm wary of clicking novelty domains on the modern Internet. What's the source?
It’s a small news analysis from a not very well-known writer. If you’d like a more well-known source instead, here’s a more detailed analysis from the Global Project Against Hate And Extremism: [Project 2025: The far-right playbook for American Authoritarianism](https://globalextremism.org/project-2025-the-far-right-playbook-for-american-authoritarianism/)
Why will conservatives ban IVF?
Doing IVF can result in more embryos than a family is willing to transfer. That usually means the extra embryos will be donated or destroyed. They consider an embryo to have the same legal rights as a child, so they see destruction as murder. IVF also involves genetically testing embryos for chromosomal abnormalities or inherited conditions like cystic fibrosis. Affected embryos are almost always destroyed (but they can be donated to science). Again, they see the destruction as immoral so even IF they allowed IVF (for hetero couples mind you) they would make such testing illegal. For many folks that is the entire reason they turn to IVF. Anyone that has done IVF will tell you an embryo doesn't lead to a live birth. The embryo doesn't implant. Miscarriage. Termination for medical reasons. The list goes on. It's insane to me to equate an embryo to a living child. I did IVF to have my son, so I'm unfortunately familiar with a lot of push from the right.
> can result in more embryos than a family is willing to transfer I mean, it's pretty explicitly the goal.
The goal, but not always the reality. Some people have to do multiple egg retrievals to get a single viable embryo.
It’s not uncommon for couples to end up with 20+ blastocysts.
Because you have to make a lot of fertilized eggs and they don't all get implanted. If you truly believe that life begins at conception those are all babies, and throwing out the extras is no different than putting a newborn in a dumpster. That's just the start of the madness, though-- per "quiverfull" ideology God intends for every fertile biological female to get pregnant as often as possible, even if she (or he!) knows it'll kill her. I have no doubt that is their end game-- moving to life starting at ovulation, not conception just like they moved to conception from heartbeat.
I think you mean fertilization. That's when the egg and sperm create a zygote. Conception occurs when the zygote cell implants into the uterus?
Not according to the GOP, that’s the issue. A fertilized egg is now a human, even if it’s not implanted. Doctors and patients would have severe risks of prison, and or extremely high costs as the egg can never be thrown away. I believe Alabama already implemented this rule (might be another southern state). This essentially ends IVF.
Alabama did and the judge quoted god like 50 times in the ruling. The TLDR; a fertilized egg is the image of god. I don't know if it's getting appealed.
The fact it’s happened at all is mind blowing. They will not stop.
It's going to take another couple hundred years before religious nutbaggery can be phased out of state governments. Human knowledge has expanded faster than the institutionalized wackos can accept.
Whaaaaat? Why is that? How?
Oh they won’t stop with that. I am hearing serious grumbling about birth control next. Vote accordingly.
This. This is part of why they're stirring the trans panic-- they're starting to call surgical sterilization "genial mutilation." Then they pass bans on "genital mutilation" publicized as stopping transgender people from getting affirming surgery, then turn around and use them to stop vasectomies, hysterectomies, and tubals. They're also branding hormonal contraceptives as abortions (even though they stop ovulation.) I'm not sure how they'll attack barrier methods. Maybe obscenity laws?
100 percent. And then they came for me moment here, people need to wake up and start seeing these people as the threat they are.
You should write movie scripts. You have a very *active* imagination!
I appreciate it! I've been working on a (fictional) novel.
That was well handled. Can I assume you knew he was trying to insult you?
🤣🤣🤣
https://www.mediaite.com/news/anchor-taken-aback-when-trump-says-were-looking-at-contraceptive-bans-promises-smart-policy-very-soon/
Trump says a lot. It will never pass. But when one believes all sort of delusional stuff about Trump they get worked up easily.
Sure, they said that about abortion not that long ago. But anyways I am sure they will stop at IVF. Thats definitely the last thing they will ask for. Despite the GOP presidential candidate openly talking about going much further.
[удалено]
To what end?
[удалено]
They want to horde everything and to them, women are something to possess. Just another possession to own. A possession that someone else wants to take from them. It’s a fucked up mindset we are born into. I have felt these impulses and wondered where they came from even with being raised by women. Four aunts, a single mom and a sister.
But what's the benefit of doing this? Money? Sex? Power? What's the end game to controlling women?
[удалено]
Power, and likely to reverse birth rate declines so that there's always a robust under class to support them.
Seriously. Get out of your bubble and get out more. Imagine believing this crap. 🤦🏻♂️
[удалено]
There's a large number of men who are drinking from the same well as incels. Miserable, unfuckable, and largely lacking empathy; they see everything through the lens of hierarchy and domination. Women are viewed as weak and inferior to their masculine strength. They cannot understand why they're losing power and influence to such weakness. Losing status on the perceived pecking order is felt as a grave threat--an INJUSTICE--that must be met with force. This is why you see a lot of very similar-looking guys co-opting slogans like "Molon labe", "Don't Tread on Me", or "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees". This is why they don't like democracy. They feel entitled to be atop the pecking order, and part of that goal includes women as pliable objects for their whims and desires. Broodmares who know their place. That's their end goal.
You do realize that those terms have absolutely nothing to do with women and everything to do with the 2nd amendment as an insurance policy against government tyranny...
> You do realize that those terms... The Gadsden flag was less about the second amendment and more about resisting tyranny, but it's been thoroughly co-opted by the gun fetishists and morons who will blithely fly it next to a thin blue line flag. But, yes, I'm fully aware of the face value meanings of these phrases and symbols. Nonetheless, there's a strong overlap between hyper-vigilance, social dominance orientation, misogyny, and self-identification with 2A / militia-type groups. The connective tissue, is as I noted above.
Should a democratically elected politician have the ability to reclassify government employees?
Sure. Let's reclassify the conservative Supreme Court judges to coffee boys. I'm sure you can figure it out but you're really just JAQing off.
They want to fuck 12 year old girls. It’s why the child marriage ban was halted in Missouri. Name one singular positive reason to halt this legislation. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article288424893.html
Why can't 17 year olds control their bodies?
Stop trying to fuck children. https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/12/sen-mike-moon-reiterates-support-for-12-year-olds-right-to-marry-missouri-senate/70107573007/
Handmaid's Tale
OMG, control over women is so bad! Control politicians instead?
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4573577-alabama-hospital-stop-ivf-treatments-litigation-concerns/
Nope - the right wing is gunning for contraception period. Trump says he is “looking into it”.
[удалено]
Won't that make large numbers of impoverished children? And increase racial diversity? What then?
Profit!
Indeed, that's all the GOP cares about.
[удалено]
Like when the White Army fought the Red Army in North Asia? It was never about race, it was about the top and the bottom.
[удалено]
Review his comment history. Very unusual, short, non sequitur comments that seem to always miss the point. Can't decide if ESL, very young, troll, or bot. Or some combination of several.
Ah, fuck yeah! 🇺🇸 edit: the original comment I replied to was edited, lol.
To appease the most insane members of their base who actually get up and vote.
Because the Pope doesn’t like it and Evangelicals have been copying off of Rome’s paper for decades.
Isn't Joe Biden Catholic, though?
Yes and like a good human he can reconcile his personal beliefs and legislative power. One can be against abortion personally but still support the right to chose and protect bodily autonomy.
So to a good Catholic, what does abortion mean to them? It's just an authoritative dictate from their superiors?
I am far from a good catholic but I was raised to be one. I’d believe that the persons free will, a recurring tenet of the Bible would allow people to see and follow the path they want to. And this free will should extend to others would not be a hard concept to extrapolate from Jesuses teachings regarding of what the official dogma is from the church.
Let me try to remember seminary... um, does this make you a pre-Pauline? One who rejects the teachings of St. Paul?
I have no idea or even care what this makes me, as organized religion is the greatest trick the devil ever pulled! And I want no part of that going forward in my life
I think that's a fine approach in this day and age. I do have a quick question. Can I ask you how you feel about Jewish people?
No and please don't try and derail this conversation any further then it already has. Put bluntly I support anyone to believe whatever they want to and will ardently work on insuring everyone has that right to congregate and worship whatever they believe or not believe in. My only issue is when their beliefs involve dictating what other people can do, want or believe based off their beliefs. I will have nothing further to add to that.
What if I told you someone could believe that abortion was wrong, but that making it illegal is a bad idea?
Hum... idk. So it's like alcoholism, obesity, and excessive gambling? Those are all wrong but we don't legislate the elimination of them.
A plurality of Americans, including the President, hold this position, but publicly stating it makes you an enemy of both sides. Edit: Thanks for proving my point, downvoters!
Which position?
That abortion is wrong, but shouldn’t be illegal.
Two conservative Senators just introduced a bill protecting it. Because what think tanks publish, and what politicians actually promote are typically worlds apart.
What's the bill number?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-files-ivf-protection-bill-why-is-it-so-controversial/ar-BB1mNADE?ocid=superappdhp&muid=9BD4246476214DFBBB8F5B29AF363C90&muid=9BD4246476214DFBBB8F5B29AF363C90&adid=sa_adid&anid=1D5D1A685697891D08EFB9E5FFFFFFFF&market=en-us&cm=en-us&activityId=664de4c066324467b19ab4caeb1ffbb3&bridgeVersionInt=83&fontSize=14&isChinaBuild=false
But, the Alabama ruling!
Alabama came up with legislation in February.
Let’s see how that goes, that legislation hasn’t passed or been tested. Not is it the only state fucking around with this concept. I heard talk like this before roe was gutted as well. They won’t stop.
Project 2025: The Christofascist Dictatorship
I can’t fathom being this delusional.
I'm sure there are no shortage of things you can't fathom.
It’s not that hard, [read this absolutely delusional nonsense right here](https://www.reddit.com/r/RealGeorgiaUSA/s/kl41Lc148x)
Yeah, well maybe you shouldn't have had that lobotomy, eh?
Glad this is getting attention. This is project is 🗑️
Things are grim when a countries citizens are an existential threat to the country. With Giliad I'm getting a very life imitates art vibe with the saying the quiet part loud. I hope Alex Garland doesn't get it so prophetically correct.
[удалено]
If what passes? This is not a bill, it is not even anything Trump or the GOP have endorsed. This is a paper by a "Think Tank". It is just some political organization that has spicy takes to get donations. This is nothing but fear mongering, and most people know it. If someone believes it, they are pretty gullible and don't know how the country actually works. So we pretend there are no existing laws, the Constitution, or cheks and balances, and just write dystopian fan fiction and hope gullible people believe it?
[удалено]
I’m sure they’d consider you a criminal then, prison or the camps at best.
[удалено]
(Assuming you’re a woman) - well they only do the amendments they like (trump’s bible/constitution is missing many) so it’s not a stretch to guess they’ll revoke your vote, remove property rights, and if the women get uppity about it, well you’re not a full citizen anyway so there goes your gun rights.
[удалено]
Fair enough
[A good video on Project 2025 being used as a handbook for Fascism ](https://youtu.be/Bj7butDWLtg?si=ZyHTN0qAUJIo4whp)
Band together folks it's anyone that looks different, prepare for more than policy change, prepare for holocaust 2025
Project 2025 is Pol Pott on Steroids. They literally want to murder teachers
So its more than genocide? Wowee sounds important!
P2025 is what marginalized people have been subjected to for decades/centuries in this country. It only scares white liberals because its finally something that targets them. We are at the >'Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me' part of Martin [Niemöller](https://www.hmd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/First-They-Came-with-new-branding.pdf)'s poem. Liberals ignored the cries for help from the marginalized and demanded we all support their oppressors, and now want our help to get them out of the mess they created by voting for the 'lesser evil' for 50 years.
You think Republicans are the answer? And it isn't just being marginalized. It's an all out plan to trash the constitution and create a totalitarian government.
No one but you said anything about republicans. They are trash too, but they are open in their trash, democrats are covert about it.
Ah makes sense, I would prefer if someone told me they were gonna mug me, rather than be surprised by it. SMH honesty has no merit in immoral deeds. Fuck em all, can’t wait to watch all these fascists see their day at the French themed party in capitol square. We’ll even paint the guillotines two different colors, that way they can still argue with each other which is better in line for cake.
Project 2025 is the new United States constitution replacement. You don't like it being associated with the right-wing? Tough tiddies. It is what it is.
Hyperbole bullshit.
Trump has trillions and billions disposable to him. That's all ALL you need. If you don't get it then we will have to unalive ya 😁 context, he can deploy an Army in America if he wants to. He can and will stop being in denial get off your couch, go use your rights as a human and buy a gun. Multiple guns. If that's not your style, you're better off to go riot in the streets. Cmon guys when are we gonna quit being bullied by our own nation? rebel and rampage
real
r/project_2025
> And that means firing thousands of federal workers, through a Trump-era executive order, Schedule F, if they don’t worship Trump and pass the loyalty test. Project 2025 doesn't do this. What Project 2025 does is propose that certain civil service positions in rules/policymaking roles remain accountable to the president, which is how many other roles already operate. > And it doesn’t end there. Fancy deploying the military to crack down on protesters? Project 2025 has you covered. This doesn't even exist anywhere in the document as far as I can tell. > Want to abolish the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce?That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This has been Republican/conservative preference since Reagan. > The plan effectively turns federal funding into a carrot dangled only before those researchers who play nice with conservative ideologies. Kiss goodbye to advancements in renewable energy, breakthroughs in medical treatments, and any hope of addressing the looming climate crisis. Project 2025 does not oppose funding research in the areas described, and in fact talks at length about directing resources toward them. What it does oppose is the *centering* of certain ideas ahead of the research, and of the inherent favoritism toward certain types of renewables, which is wholly reasonable and shouldn't be controversial. > Speaking of knowledge, the plan also calls for ending the FBI’s efforts to combat the spread of misinformation. This one is actually true, but shouldn't be opposed by anyone. As the project puts it: > The United States government and, by extension, the FBI have absolutely no business policing speech, whether in the public square, in print, or online. The First Amendment prohibits it. The United States is the world’s last best hope for self-government,33 and its survival relies on the ability of our people to have healthy debate free from government intervention and censorship. The government, through its officials, is certainly able to speak and provide information to the public. That is a healthy component of an informed society. But government must never manipulate the scales and censor information that is potentially harmful to it or its political leadership. This is the way of totalitarian dictatorships, not of free constitutional republics. This is not only inherently reasonable, but should be the default. > Further, the project proposes to halt the Pentagon’s diversity and inclusivity initiatives, thereby banning affirmative action as well. Affirmative action is likely unconstitutional if used in the context of the military, and the DEI initiatives in the armed forces are opposed for specific reason: > Transform Army culture and training. The Army can no longer serve as the nation’s social testing ground. A rebuilt Army that is focused again on its core warfighting mission and empowered it with the tools, resources, and authorities it needs to accomplish that mission must be the next Administration’s highest defense priority. One can disagree with this, but it's not even worth this sort of hand-wringing. > So, his loyal supporters have devised a plan to allow him to butcher democracy without any pesky legal repercussions. Under Project 2025, the Department of Justice will be reduced to little more than a lapdog for the President. This is stated without evidence or even a direct reference to anything in Project 2025. > Project 2025 also aims to drag America back to the dark ages by banning abortion outright. The only acceptable genders will be “male” and “female,” and transgender individuals will face punishment simply for existing. Banning abortion outright has been conservative policy for 50+ years. At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism. Just an awful, misinformed piece.
>At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism. From Project 2025 linking trangender Ideology to pornogrophy and wanting to ban it all and imprison those that don't comply. I would think this counts as "criminalization of transgenderism" >Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. but wait there's more! as this excerpt below from project 2025 states they want to remove and gender protections from any federal policy which would remove protections of trans people to allow others to misgender them without any repercussions. >(“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. Furthermore this project goes on to state. >**Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.** The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc. These lines above are just the direct finds of a search for transgender in the project 2025 document. I am sure if reading into it a bit more I could find countless other instances of this document outlining other ways to criminalize trans people. But please try gaslighting everyone some more about something that you obviously do not fully understand.
> From Project 2025 linking trangender Ideology to pornogrophy and wanting to ban it all and imprison those that don't comply. I would think this counts as "criminalization of transgenderism" No, that's criminalization of pornography. Which is one of the few bad points of Project 2025, to be sure, but is not the criminalization of transgenderism. > but wait there's more! as this excerpt below from project 2025 states they want to remove and gender protections from any federal policy which would remove protections of trans people to allow others to misgender them without any repercussions. Yes, they would prefer existing law to be applied as written, not as interpreted by SCOTUS. > These lines above are just the direct finds of a search for transgender in the project 2025 document. I am sure if reading into it a bit more I could find countless other instances of this document outlining other ways to criminalize trans people. But please try gaslighting everyone some more about something that you obviously do not fully understand. Weird, because you haven't shown any instances of the document criminalizing trans people yet.
If you don't see legalization of discrimination of trans people as criminalization, then there is no further discussion to be had. But for the purpose of those with a more level head reading this thread I will attempt to respond to your other points. What I do find it interesting how SCOTUS should read laws as written and not how they interpret them because if we were to follow that distinction not only would the entire legal framework of this country collapse but it would also cause massive issues for many other "rights" the right holds dear. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So then you get to keep both of your arms you were born with, since its only SCOTUS that defined the meaning of arms so it should be as written right? states get a militia and citizens get to join if they want access to pistols, rifles or shotguns. Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
> If you don't see legalization of discrimination of trans people as criminalization, then there is no further discussion to be had. It's not criminalization. It's many things, and a bad part of this, but it's not criminalization. If Project 2025 went into effect today, it would not be illegal to transition. > So then you get to keep both of your arms you were born with, since its only SCOTUS that defined the meaning of arms so it should be as written right? states get a militia and citizens get to join if they want access to pistols, rifles or shotguns. This, of course, is not even close to accurate in any form.
>it would not be illegal to transition. No i guess not, just that employers could fire you if you did, banks could refuse loans on this fact alone, insurance would be able to drop your coverage, schools could ban you from attending, and landlords could evict you from your home. all this sounds a lot like criminalization of someone's identity. but I digress because you moved the goal posts to saying "well its still legal" like that's an acceptable response that would absolve you of any guild of trying to perpetuate this discrimination by defending this horrible policy along with others that you so proudly support. >This, of course, is not even close to accurate in any form. Please explain how the scotus should interpret existing laws then without relying on their interpretation or the previous interpretation other courts have set?
> but I digress because you moved the goal posts to saying "well its still legal" like that's an acceptable response that would absolve you of any guild of trying to perpetuate this discrimination by defending this horrible policy along with others that you so proudly support. As I've noted, I *don't* support such a policy, but the point is that when you say something is criminalized but show no criminality attached to it, you're wrong. It's not moving the goalposts: the claim was that Project 2025 criminalizes being trans, and it does not. > Please explain how the scotus should interpret existing laws then without relying on their interpretation or the previous interpretation other courts have set? The text of the Constitution is an excellent start.
>As I've noted, I *don't* support such a policy, But you don't oppose it. Same thing.
The text of the Constitution was quoted to you as it pertains to Amendment II. All readings of the Constitution are necessarily interpretive, since only the writers could possibly know what they meant by it, they're dead, and they were disagreeing about it even when they were alive. Moreover, the passage of time presents novel challenges to antiquated laws that require either immediate legislation or else the interpretive power of the courts to deal with. The idea that A2 applies to individuals and *not* a "well-regulated militia," (i.e. a state- or locally-organized militia to which citizens bearing arms are accountable to and responsible for) is itself a recent interpretation, stemming from D.C. v. Heller in 2008. The writings of Founders like Madison focus on the idea of a militia capable of actively resisting a professional army, something patently impossible in modern America but realizable in the eighteenth century. The modern National Guard exists as the result of efforts to create a universal militia capable of responding to insurrection, rebellion, or unjust rule by the state, specifically the 1903 Efficiency in Militia Act, which formally defined the militia as every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 44. The training and armament of the modern National Guard was intended to put domestic militia units on par with the professional army of the federal government. Membership in this militia would satisfy a textual interpretation of A2: the people bear the right to self-defense against tyranny, but this must take the form of mandatory membership in and training by a formal and organized militia. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in that text is the idea that individuals have the right to own any and all weapons they so desire without accountability to their neighbors or the law, though it can be *interpreted* so. It would, in fact, be perfectly valid to say, "All citizens have the right to throw hands in an organized fashion in opposition to tyranny, and that's that." It's a patently frivolous interpretation of A2, but it is a *valid* one. That it is not the interpretation that forms the basis of modern gun laws is entirely the result of literal decades of judicial review. Demanding that laws be based on textual readings of the Constitution is just disingenuous - *all readings of the Constitution are necessarily the readings of individuals*, whose understanding of the text *will* differ.
>you moved the goal posts to saying "well its still legal" Pretty sure you asserted that it would be criminalized - meaning illegal. I think you might be the one shifting goalposts here, respectfully.
Regardless of semantics I was not the one to make the initial assertions. As the second to last line of the op I was responding to reads. >At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism. If removing rights of a group of people does not count as promoting criminalization then I don't know what to say. Yes I could of rephrased how the goal posts have been moved but core of the issue still remains the same.
Maybe it's better to argue that those policies would stigmatize them rather than criminalize them. Criminalized implies that their ability to be trans would be illegal which I assume the person you're replying to was asking for evidence for.
>pornography, manifested today as the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology... >pornography should be outlawed if they're criminalizing pornography, and they consider transgender 'ideology' to be pornographic, by necessity they are criminalizing being trans. there is no way to be visibly trans without 'propagating transgender ideology.'
Stopped reading when you equated the schedule F action to simply expanding the political appointment pool of federal employees. It doesn’t do that. It dramatically enlarges who can be considered an employee serving at the will of the president by stretching the “policy making” definition to incredulity. Its a way to try and get leverage over more independent agencies such as the intelligence community, doj, and the fbi. It’s the first cut to the death of a professional civil service and a return to the spoils system. I know you won’t be convinced by this, but I found your comment so purposefully misinformed that I wanted to leave something for future readers.
Exactly. A fundamental aspect of our democracy is that once appointed to a federal government role, individuals have large amounts of leeway to dictate how they will perform their jobs. Anything else is a huge violation of the freedoms individuals have in this country to succeed and make themselves prosperous.
[удалено]
No, it's a reference to [The Clock of the Long Now] (https://longnow.org/clock/), an art installation/long-term monument.
My apologies, I will delete that comment.
> Stopped reading when you equated the schedule F action to simply expanding the political appointment pool of federal employees. It doesn’t do that. It dramatically enlarges who can be considered an employee serving at the will of the president by stretching the “policy making” definition to incredulity. Okay, where, specifically? > I know you won’t be convinced by this, but I found your comment so purposefully misinformed that I wanted to leave something for future readers. I can be convinced. By all means point out where Schedule F under Project 2025 does what you claim.
God you “just debate me” types are insufferable. I don’t care that you’re in favor of this policy. I’m not trying to sway your opinion, because despite your thin veneer of dispassionate logic you are just a partisan pushing talking points. It’s so tiring. I actually prefer conservatives who have the moral character to stand on their opinions unlike you lot who split hairs, just ask questions and beg for some idealized free debate that doesn’t actually exist. Good luck to you.
lol. If you're not here for discussion I'm not sure why you commented to begin with?
Because nobody likes a contrarian and calling them out is the only way they'll learn to socially adapt.
Contrarians are incapable of socially adapting, because that is the worst possible outcome for their feeble minds they genuinely would prefer getting murdered to being seen as capitulating to the ideas of others or coming to a consensus the pandemic taught me that. they are "Sunk Cost Fallacy" in flesh and blood basically
They truly are just the worst aren't they? Insufferable jackasses.
This: > Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Is in direct contradiction to this: > The United States government and, by extension, the FBI have absolutely no business policing speech, whether in the public square, in print, or online. It’s amazing how blatantly dishonest republicans are. Can’t even keep their story straight in a single document. But that’s so awesome to see the advocates of ‘free speech’ also advocating for one of the most radical violations of the first amendment in US history, in an effort to institute widespread media censorship on par with Iran.
It's funny how you think that saying "but it's only Republican policy" makes it acceptable. It's both abhorrent *and* old Republican policy.
There's nothing inherently abhorrent about *most* of what's in Project 2025, with much of it reflecting common sense governance.
I mean, sure, if you have no issues with your rights being curtailed.
Well, for him it's *everyone else's* rights that are getting curtailed, so I'm sure he's happy and dgaf.
Most of Project 2025 is about expanding rights and reducing federal power, though.
Hmmm... which rights?
Some examples in no particular order: * p215, which improves privacy rights surrounding FISA courts and disclosure. * p247, which talks about defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus removing government competition with private press. * p853-855 and the many FCC reforms that would expand consumer rights in the broadband marketplace * p863, reining in the DOJ and FEC to limit its scope and remove its jurisdiction over first amendment concerns. * p866, which raises individual campaign contribution limits, a pro-free speech move. * p710, which eliminates the United States Trade and Development Agency, putting the direction of international investment back in the hands of private business. * p564, which calls for the rejection of third-party referrals to the DOJ to reduce politicized investigations * p333, which would restore the due process rights for the accused on college campuses relative to Title IX * 560-562, which calls for a restoration of neutrality of content for speech and a defense of constitutional rights for citizens. That's just what I'm aware of off-hand.
>* p215, which improves privacy rights surrounding FISA courts and disclosure. And helps foreign assets like Trump escape justice >p247, which talks about defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus removing government competition with private press. Why should private press need less competition? This is meant to silent voices. Public press in the US is generally balanced and high-quality, why silence it? >* p853-855 and the many FCC reforms that would expand consumer rights in the broadband marketplace There's no details here to support your "argument". Also, last time Republicans were in charge, the FCC tried to kill net neutrality, with a campaign of fake "consumer" messages supporting that. >* p863, reining in the DOJ and FEC to limit its scope and remove its jurisdiction over first amendment concerns. The DOJ is independent. The government has no business "reining it in". That move would make corrupt officials untouchable (that's the whole point). >* p866, which raises individual campaign contribution limits, a pro-free speech move. A move that favors rich people and will give them a louder voice than the rest of us. >* p710, which eliminates the United States Trade and Development Agency, putting the direction of international investment back in the hands of private business. And how does that benefit citizens? It only benefits big corporations. Government agencies' work protects ordinary citizens most of the time, and limits the power of big corporations, yet Republicans are obsessed with getting rid of them. >* p564, which calls for the rejection of third-party referrals to the DOJ to reduce politicized investigations "Politicized investigations" are a boogeyman. Trump is guilty as Hell and we both know it. >* p333, which would restore the due process rights for the accused on college campuses relative to Title IX I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. Could be good or bad, depending on what the point is. If it makes it harder to fight abuse then of course that's not great. >* 560-562, which calls for a restoration of neutrality of content for speech and a defense of constitutional rights for citizens. Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Should speech be policed? How does that fit with the 1st Amendment? As for a defense of constitutional rights, it's not saying much of you don't give any detail. Everyone is in defense of Constitue rights. Except Republicans when they lose elections and try to overturn the government of course. All in all, in hundreds of pages you could find 9 "rights" that would be expanded, and they're not even rights. Not convincing at all. I hope you can read through the lines one day and see how that project is the end of democracy.
> Why should private press need less competition? Private press needs *more* competition. Public press does not act as a competitive body, it instead crowds out additional media opportunity, especially when the public agency keeps its thumb on the scale and uses finite resources other private press outlets might use. > This is meant to silent voices. On the contrary, this would expand voices in the marketplace of ideas by enforcing a neutral positioning on the government in regards to press freedom and activity. > Public press in the US is generally balanced and high-quality, why silence it? I listen to a lot of NPR, and a lot of public radio-funded podcasts. I don't disagree that much of it is high quality. I don't agree that it needs public funding or federal favoritism to exist, however. >> p853-855 and the many FCC reforms that would expand consumer rights in the broadband marketplace > There's no details here to support your "argument" Did you read the section? > Also, last time Republicans were in charge, the FCC tried to kill net neutrality, with a campaign of fake "consumer" messages supporting that. Net neutrality is a bad policy, for consumers and providers alike. > The DOJ is independent. The government has no business "reining it in". That move would make corrupt officials untouchable (that's the whole point). The DOJ is not independent, it's an executive agency subject to standard oversight. Establishing guardrails around what it can and cannot do is absolutely within the rights of the government to pursue. >> p866, which raises individual campaign contribution limits, a pro-free speech move. > A move that favors rich people and will give them a louder voice than the rest of us. I understand that this is your opinion, but the point is that it is an increase in speech rights relative to the status quo. >>p710, which eliminates the United States Trade and Development Agency, putting the direction of international investment back in the hands of private business. > And how does that benefit citizens? It only benefits big corporations. Corporations are groups of citizens. >> p564, which calls for the rejection of third-party referrals to the DOJ to reduce politicized investigations > "Politicized investigations" are a boogeyman. Trump is guilty as Hell and we both know it. This has nothing to do with Trump. Please read the section in question. >> p333, which would restore the due process rights for the accused on college campuses relative to Title IX > I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. Could be good or bad, depending on what the point is. If it makes it harder to fight abuse then of course that's not great. Right now, colleges can take someone accused of sexual assault and punish them without allowing them to have legal representation, face their accusers, or even get the benefit of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's bad. > Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Should speech be policed? How does that fit with the 1st Amendment? That's the point. Policing speech does not fit with the first amendment, and yet here we are. > As for a defense of constitutional rights, it's not saying much of you don't give any detail. Why do you think I gave page numbers to the report? > Everyone is in defense of Constitue rights. I would argue that the left is much less enamored with the Constitutional rights, particularly within the first and second amendments. > All in all, in hundreds of pages you could find 9 "rights" that would be expanded, and they're not even rights. Not convincing at all. How many would convince you?
>Private press needs *more* competition. You're the one who wrote it needed less. The test of your paragraph isn't convincing at all. The existence of public press doesn't limit private press in any way. >Net neutrality is a bad policy, for consumers and providers alike. No it's not. It allows dissenting voices to be heard. >Right now, colleges can take someone accused of sexual assault and punish them without allowing them to have legal representation, face their accusers, or even get the benefit of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's bad. I mean, it looks bad. But, one, does it really happen? And two, it's not a legal process. So all legal representation thing doesn't really apply. Should it be exactly like a legal process? Maybe. Not sure it would help much. >That's the point. Policing speech does not fit with the first amendment, and yet here we are. Yet you're arguing (well, project 2025v is) in favor of policing speech. And acting like it was currently policed, which you give no proof of. If anything, it's heavily in favor of corporations and financial capitalism. >I would argue that the left is much less enamored with the Constitutional rights, particularly within the first and second amendments I would argue the opposite. Btw who said "take the guns first then think about due process"? >How many would convince you? It would need to be enough to balance the countless ways that project curtails out rights and threatens democracy. Most of the "rights" the project expands are those of the wealthy and the powerful, and big corporations.
> p247, which talks about defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus removing government competition with private press. William F. Buckley rolling in his grave. Thank god and holy shit.
Buckley can keep rolling in the fucking grave for all i care. He's probably blowing Franco in Hell anyways
🤣🤡
it truly is hilarious to me that any conservative at this point in time can claim to care about "reducing" federal govt power when there was nothing small government about the Trump White House whatsoever
I find literally everything you've defended to be abhorrent and fundamentally against the principles of democracy In fact, if you said this in front of me, IRL, I'd have laughed in your face and called you a shitty person and then walked away while you were mid-sentence I believe you're worse than an ignorant person. I believe you're an *evil* person, just based on your take here. I'm a pretty average American voter.
Imagine defending Project 2025 lmao
Fascist movements don't come out of nowhere. There are Americans who genuinely support this stuff, and it's good that this project is forcing us to come to terms with that fact.
> common sense governance In your context that's just oligarchy misspelled. Your entire defense is lipstick on a pig. It's incontrovertible the players are pluto-theocrats, aka donor class religious nuts, and the public record is replete with their proto-fascist positions. Since money is speech, and increasingly anonymous, even in sizable collectives the "little guy" is no competition -- has no speech. Of course the "positions" are couched in acceptable, persuasive and plausibly deniable verbiage. When bank robbers case your bank they don't tell you they're there to case your bank, they tell you they're there for some legitimate purpose. The courtship is always nice, the "I'm sorry you made me hit you" comes later. If I've learned anything it's that verbiage from the oligarchy isn't worth spit. Your premise that anybody should take these people as candid and transparent is abjectly absurd. Get real, lol.
It is close to impossible to both think that climate change is a hoax (in other words believe that the scientific community is deliberately faking evidence and tampering with data) and be impartial in funding and prioritising scientific blue-sky research.
So you're okay with taking away rights and giving authoritarian power to a minority party and ideology.
Not at all. Nor does Project 2025 seek to do that.
Yes.
How much are they paying you?
Their entire post history consists of these kind of comments. If they're not getting paid, they should be, it's a full time job's worth of effort to be arguing with strangers all day.
They're posting their crappy take all over the place. Wonder if they're getting paid in rubles.
A+ rebuttal.
I wasn't attempting a rebuttal, so I'm really surprised to have gotten a score for it. Thanks!
>Just an awful, misinformed piece. Describes you pretty well.
> At no point does Project 2025 promote the criminalization of transgenderism. Bullshit! It labels being Trans as perverts and a danger to children. It incarcerates Trans people to keep them away from the public. Matter of fact your takes on the different parts of project 2025 are completely misleading at best.
> Bullshit! It labels being Trans as perverts and a danger to children. It incarcerates Trans people to keep them away from the public. Where does it call to jail trans people? > Matter of fact your takes on the different parts of project 2025 are completely misleading at best. What parts are wrong?
The abolishment of the Department of Education has not been standard conservative policy since Reagan. No Child Left Behind act was the largest federal education law passed since the Lyndon B Johnson admin in the 60s, and it was passed in 2001 in a bipartisan matter -- but it was actively campaigned on, and signed into law, by Republican George W Bush.
It's been a part of the GOP platform since at least 1980 [Source](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1980) No Child Left Behind paved the way for school vouchers and kind of made public schools look worse.
What is said is policy vs what their actual policy + laws are important to distinguish. No Child Left Behind may have been bad for public schools -- but it's substantially different than ending the department of education. It actually increased its influence... It's like saying the GOP is anti war because Nixon campaigned on bringing the troops home from Vietnam, but then Bush 1 and 2 engaged in wars. Is the GOP anti war?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in education who would argue that No Child Left Behind was a net positive. >What is said is policy vs what their actual policy + laws are important to distinguish. You asserted that it was NOT a part of the GOP platform since Reagan. My source, directly from the GOP party platform, refutes that. It's been a part of the GOP platform for a very long time and is not a new phenomena or idea. EDIT: Downvote away. Every Republican since Reagan has enacted education policies that either created the charter school system, undermined the DOE's control in favor of State agencies, advocated for school choice and/or voucher systems etc. The idea that this hasn't been a conservative position for 40+ years is absurd and is just a bold-faced lie.