Project 2025
Discuss
Pop quiz for all the weirdo right wingers pretending project 2025 doesn't exist...
(...and if it does exist its not as bad as you think)
(...and if its as bad as you think its because you are communist)
Do you think repealing Roe V Wade would be listed in Project 2025 if it hadn't already happened? Do you think Trump would platform the repeal of Roe V Wade today if it hadn't been repealed?
Do you think executive immunity would be listed in Project 2025 if it hadn't already happened? Do you think Trump would platform executive immunity today if it hadn't been ruled already?
I think the answer to both is a clear yes these things would be in Project 2025 and no Trump would never platform such specific goals that could potentially blow up in his face. Trump has taken credit for Roe V Wade so I'm pretty sure this is incredibly straight forward.
It is? I don't understand what you're saying.
The Republican party is already actively pushing through policy that aligns with Project 2025. Trump is actively taking credit for that policy.
Its incredibly ignorant to state that Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025 simply because his platform is lacking in specifics
I mean, Roe vs. Wade is hardly specific enough to make that connection. Abortion has been a hot topic in US politics since forever. Executive privilege, no idea about.
Trump actually campaigned in 2016 to reverse Roe vs Wade
executive immunity the way it got decided isn't what you guys claim it is but you gotta stick with the demented narrative of "POTUS can now kill wantonly" or whatever.
and no this isn't exactly what republicans wanted, this leaves too much power with judges.
it is a good decision though which is what matters. now all branches of government have explicit immunity for official acts as the founders clearly intended, not only congress and judges.
Trump actually campaigned in 2016 to reverse Roe vs Wade
executive immunity the way it got decided isn't what you guys claim it is but you gotta stick with the demented narrative of "POTUS can now kill wantonly" or whatever.
and no this isn't exactly what republicans wanted, this leaves too much power with judges.
it is a good decision though which is what matters. now all branches of government have explicit immu
Thanks for supporting my point
The actions after the report are, as i pointed out: WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS OF THE INTERVIEWS, you know we would have got video proof of Biden being gone months ago right, if they had released them? and the only reason not to release them was to protect democratic chances in the election, so, not independent.
Are you under the impression that the DOJ typically releases interviews to the public?
I asked this earlier and I’m still interested. Especially since they likely conducted interviews with Trump and haven’t released any of those.
the house subpoenaed the records of Biden interview not of Trump interview.
if an agency is independent, it should simply comply to subpoena (the house being SOVEREIGN to such an agency, and not co-equal branch of government), and executive privilege shouldn't be allowed to be used, as it's an independent agency not an executive agency.
Biden was able to save Garland from criminal accusations of obstruction (which btw if I am not mistaken , are what sent Navarro and Bannon to jail) by invoking executive privilege.
How the **** is that possible if the agency is independent
the house subpoenaed the records of Biden interview not of Trump interview.
if an agency is independent, it should simply comply to subpoena (the house being SOVEREIGN to such an agency, and not co-equal branch of government), and executive privilege shouldn't be allowed to be used, as it's an independent agency not an executive agency.
Biden was able to save Garland from criminal accusations of obstruction (which btw if I am not mistaken , are what sent Navarro and Bannon to jail) by invoking exe
I’m sure you called it out when Trump did it first omegalul
Inb4 you come up with some kind of post hoc rationalized symmetry breaker.
I’m sure you called it out when Trump did it first omegalul
Inb4 you come up with some kind of post hoc rationalized symmetry breaker.
I think his point is that the DOJ is not independent of the executive though, so this only serves to prove it.
Is independence a binary thing? You’ll recall that Trump would oftentimes meet Comey in ways that shocked Comey as he had never been approached that way before. Ultimately the DoJ will meet with the president for various reasons, but there is still widely independence.
The way I read his point, he seems to want to say that any invocation of executive privilege is a dire threat to the sovereignty of the congress. You’re being waaaaaay overly charitable in your reading.
I think his point is that the DOJ is not independent of the executive though, so this only serves to prove it.
yes I understand the claim has been argued in broken chains but I claimed the doj was never independent in reality (FBI even less), so let's formalize that and stop with the nonsense charade
Is independence a binary thing? You’ll recall that Trump would oftentimes meet Comey in ways that shocked Comey as he had never been approached that way before. Ultimately the DoJ will meet with the president for various reasons, but there is still widely independence.
The way I read his point, he seems to want to say that any invocation of executive privilege is a dire threat to the sovereignty of the congress. You’re being waaaaaay overly charitable in your reading.
no it isn't.
as co equals it's ok to have strongarm battles with unclear ending (although some spots might become constitutional crisis, but there is no ex ante solution to avoid them among co equal powers).
so doj has to be in clear ways put as just another department (it is in the name as well), serving at the pleasure.
having other (purportedly) independent agencies is an attempt of the monoparty (when it existed, the core centrists Dem + centrists rep) to solidify their power and elevate it much higher than what voters can at time decide.
they basically severed a piece of power from institutions that have to respond to the will of the People (congress and the executive), and reserved it to people who, by design, will be drafted from their own ideological pool (to the point that even in the age of polarization, Trump and Biden shared the same fed chairman).
I understand that people who feel represented by that ideology (and rococo is a perfect example of a centrist) want as many agencies as possible "independent": it means Perma centrists with small deviations.
people on either side aren't as happy, they basically find a huge, not constitutionally mandated, brake to their power if they ever happen to win elections.
and in general actions that commit future governments to renounce their powers aren't constitutional.
in 2016 there was a SCOTUS vacancy to be filled by the winner immediately, so SCOTUS discussion was very salient.
in 2020 trump judges were already in place and ready to go it was just a matter of when a case to reverse roe reached SCOTUS, which it did soon enough
yes I understand the claim has been argued in broken chains but I claimed the doj was never independent in reality (FBI even less), so let's formalize that and stop with the nonsense charade
You’re using a completely unattainable definition of independent. Like it can’t be perfect so there’s no difference between mostly independent and total partisanship?
In 2018, Heritage claimed the Trump administration had by then embraced 64%, or nearly 2/3rds, of 334 proposed policies in the foundation's Mandate for Leadership.[16][17].
It would worry me if this number had been closer to 100% and not 2/3. That indicates a lot of P25 won't even be tried by Trump, maybe more given the absurd length of the newest volume.
If we omit 2/5ths of the new edition, say 40% of the most radical ideas, is it still that bad of a text? Does it still have a cohesive whole? Is it still something to be afraid of?
Additional:
Trump has repeatedly expressed being against a national abortion ban.
Kamala has made this the center of her campaign, hoping to scare people into believing Trump will ban abortions nationwide.
Is banning abortions in Project 25? I am guessing yes.
She can't even grapple onto something substantial. For the highest stakes, she is desperately clinging onto something FICTITIOUS.
So there's 900 pages, and this is what they've decided to pigeon-hole?
It barely takes any mental gymnastics to realize P25 is likely not a big deal.
You’re using a completely unattainable definition of independent. Like it can’t be perfect so there’s no difference between mostly independent and total partisanship?
Why? when agencies / institutions are independent in western countries, any attempt to deviate from that, eventhe slightest one, is met with brutal criticism. And it works. Prosecution in the UK and in Italy for example. Central banks in most first world countries.
When Hungary and Poland (in slightly different ways) partially reduced the independence of the judiciaries, very far from making them completly partisan, the EU sanctioned them, talks started of kicking them out of the EU, countermeasures were activated and the mediatic uproar was immense.
There is no in-between because one of the core reasons to want something to be independent is credibility for the population. And you don't get it with "partial independence", which in practice actually means "independent unless it matters a lot".
It would worry me if this number had been closer to 100% and not 2/3. That indicates a lot of P25 won't even be tried by Trump, maybe more given the absurd length of the newest volume.
If we omit 2/5ths of the new edition, say 40% of the most radical ideas, is it still that bad of a text? Does it still have a cohesive whole? Is it still something to be afraid of?
Additional:
Trump has repeatedly expressed being against a national abortion ban.
Kamala has made this the center of her campaign, hopin
I'm guessing the reason that this is a standalone post instead of a response to one of the many posts laying out why P25 is a concern is that you are unable to actually respond to the points made in those posts, choosing instead saying to say something general and unfounded like "It barely takes any mental gymnastics to realize P25 is likely not a big deal" to make your point.
It would seem from this thread that barring one outlier, the the preferred defense for Project2025 is to claim it will never go into effect.
Since the door to Trump and abortion was opened, it is fair to hypothesize that Project2025 will not go into effect in the same way that abortion bans never went into effect.
There is also the matter of why the Heritage Foundation and many former (and future, if he wins) Trump staffers are writing insane policy proposals that can only be defended by saying they will never go into effect, and also why so many of these insane proposals are tied to MAGA ideas.
It would seem from this thread that barring one outlier, the the preferred defense for Project2025 is to claim it will never go into effect.
Since the door to Trump and abortion was opened, it is fair to hypothesize that Project2025 will not go into effect in the same way that abortion bans never went into effect.
There is also the matter of why the Heritage Foundation and many former (and future, if he wins) Trump staffers are writing insane policy proposals that can only be defended by saying t
All those bans when into place at the state level. What we are seeing now is abortion appearing or were on the ballot at state levels and being overturned. The democrats had a girl on stage that was raped by her father and in some states would be forced to carry that child . Great strategy on their part but the GOP's policy is to allow for abortions for rape, incest and the mothers health
I agree many policies in Project 2025 are insane as are some of the policies Joe Biden and Kamala are presenting.
It would seem from this thread that barring one outlier, the the preferred defense for Project2025 is to claim it will never go into effect.
Since the door to Trump and abortion was opened, it is fair to hypothesize that Project2025 will not go into effect in the same way that abortion bans never went into effect.
There is also the matter of why the Heritage Foundation and many former (and future, if he wins) Trump staffers are writing insane policy proposals that can only be defended by saying t
Some main Trump platform ideas are in project 2025 and people who support Trump want them. Like mass deportations or attempts to fire civil servants who aren't loyal to the administration. And massive deregulation of oil and gas extraction, and as big a gutting as possible of environmental rules.
They are just telling you that some other stuff isn't going to be implemented, which is plausible if trump wins. Like federal abortion bans and whatnot.
The insane proposals they are telling you won't happen are the christian radical ones. And you can believe that given how much traffic grindrr gains where the RNC is held.
The MAGA ones are feasible and Trump has them in his platform. Some can be very bad (like high tariffs) but they aren't telling you that won't happen.
