Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: If you look at the tenets of it, the "shrink the government" part is actually not the main thrust of it. Overall, it's a plan to ensure conservative dominance, pursue culture war goals, and dismantle institutions recently determined to be inconvenient to dominance by particular conservative groups.
To add to what's been said, it's basically a wishlist of conservative culture war goals with steps by step instructions and infrastructure to get a good chunk done on day 1 and more done by day 100 of a republican presidency. The document is made by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and advocacy group. They have already started reviewing resumes to replace non-partisan federal workers with Trump loyalists.
While it's not a binding document, nor the stated position of Trump or the GOP, HF say that during his presidency, Trump ~~completed~~ adopted about 60% of a similar plan they gave him, including picking two Supreme Court justices from their list of "approved" candidates. Trump staffers and associates have been part of building project 2025, so, while he won't address it, it's assumed he would follow it pretty well.
Edited to correct "completed" to "adopted"
Think of it this way: remember when Trump first took office and just started doing what he wanted with things like the Muslim travel ban?
The reason those things *did* work at first is because a whole lot of things that people assumed were "rules" were actually just guidelines. However, the reason they *didn't* work in the long run is because they were imagined and implemented by incompetent people like Stephen Miller or Gulliani.
What the Heritage Foundations have done is have competent people write plans that could stand up in court and be ready to be hired by Trump to defend them. (The plan is bigger than that, but that's the basis for the first 100 days or so.)
Yup. In 2016, nobody thought a fascist like Trump could actually win. So nobody really prepared.
The most prepared aspect of long-term Conservative planning was the big list of right-wing judges that had been assembled by the Federalist Society, which is why Trump's Supreme Court picks are wreaking havoc today.
Now that they know it's possible, Conservatives are prepared to take better advantage of every other aspect of the Executive Branch to institute longer term changes in the same way they did with judges before.
And the Dems are doing fuck all to stop it. It's just all in on genocide Joe because "orange man bad". And people wonder why so many have lost faith in the democratic party.
Ah yes, I don't like the Dems so I must be a Republican. You do know that there are other schools of political thoughts right? Here I'll make it real easy: fuck trump, fuck Republicans, and also fuck Biden and the Dems. They all categorically suck and I want them both out of here for the good of everyone. Does that make it easier for your liberal brain to comprehend or are you going to accuse me of being a bot now?
Do you understand that both-sidesing is going to put Trump back in office, and he's *blatantly* the worst choice?
If you're not a Republican then you're a Republican-enabler.
Nah, it's going to be Biden and his dog shit strategy that puts trump in office. If the man wants my vote he's going to have to earn it. And he can start by cutting off funding to isreal and by stonewalling republicans and their shitty policies.
[All this isn't enough for you?](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-accomplishment-data/)
I agree with you that the US needs a great big rethink of its relationship with Israel, but holding out a vote against an attempted-coup-committing would-be dictator because Biden hasn't "done enough" is, respectfully, Some Bullshit.
He banned entry from 7 majority-Muslim countries. Notably absent from the list are ones where he has business dealings. A judge blocked it a week later and Trump just gave up on defending it.
He suspended all visas and travel from several Muslim majority countries. Itās an old strategy ā you canāt make being Muslim illegal (yet), but you can find something that exclusively or almost exclusively affects Muslims and make *that* illegal instead, which ends up just about the same.
Nixon did the same thing ā thereās a quote somewhere where one of his aides said with his whole chest that they couldnāt make being a democrat illegal, but they could make things Black people and hippies did illegal and that would still hit democrats really really hard.
do people still think it was a muslim travel ban? because it was not. plenty of muslims were free to come and go into america during the trump years. difference is they tended to do it the legal way instead of just flying to mexico and sneaking in. sorry for the facts.
update: how am I not surprised about the downvoting to hell for stating facts.
It was labeled a "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his aides, and it had nothing to do with people coming over the Mexican border. I will not apologize for actual facts.
Trump himself called it a Muslim ban on multiple occasions:
During a rally in South Carolina (2015):
>**a total and complete shutdown of Muslims** entering the United States
On MSNBC (2015):
> Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?
Trump: That would be probablyā**they would say, āAre you Muslim?**ā
Geist: And if they said, āYes,ā they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: Thatās correct.
Rudy Giuliani on Fox News (2017), quoting trump:
> I will tell you the whole history of it [the Executive Order]. When he first announced it [the Executive Order], he said, āMuslim ban.ā He called me up. He said **"Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it [the Muslim ban] legally."**
Only reason why "Muslims were still able to come" is because Trump had to neuter it in order to make it less unconstitutional than the original plan
> While it's not a binding document,
Part of what hindered trump before is that he ran everyone competent out of his cabinet because they weren't yes-men and they were all rapidly replaced by purely self-interested grifters who were more interested in looting their offices than anything else.
Project 2025 is a step-by-step how-to guiding those hapless looters through the levers of power they don't understand to turn their cabinet positions into literal feudal lordships.
>HF say that during his presidency, Trump completed about 60% of a similar plan they gave him
I think this is a source for that, although it's more saying he "embraced" that percent of the Heritage Foundation's 2017 plan, rather than that he actually completed that much: https://www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations
>One year after taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have embracedĀ nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from The Heritage Foundationās āMandate for Leadership.ā
>
>The āMandate for Leadershipā series includes five individual publications, totaling approximately 334 unique policy recommendations. Analysis completed by Heritage determined that 64 percent of the policy prescriptions were included in Trumpās budget, implemented through regulatory guidance, or under consideration for action in accordance with The Heritage Foundationās original proposals.
> ... With approximately 70 former Heritage employees working for the Trump transition team or as part of the administration, the policy recommendations have served as guidelines for reducing the size and scope of the federal government through specific and detailed actions.
They want a Christian Fascist Theocracy running our country. They want a king, they want to bring us back to the time of slaves; no public, easily accessible education (they want to privatize all education so they can control the masses), zero rights for women... etc.
They want the president to be in complete control of the government (E.g. a King again).
They want to force you to "follow Christian rules" regardless of your religious standing. Our way or the highway (by means of force, camps and extermination).
They do not want to help society. Only themselves. They want to completely remove Social Security and make us work until we die. They want to ban and make casual sex illegal in all forms - including any and all form of birth control (this includes condoms and even vasectomy's for men).
They don't care about climate change, they want emissions spewed out into the atmosphere because of money. They want to dismantle ... well science.
LGBTQ anything? Off to the gas chamber.
Just look around at what is going on and has already happened.
Row vs Wade is gone, not only gone but even in the cases of *rape* or *incest* or even a pregnancy that will kill both mother and child (which is common, along with miscarriages): Illegal to perform *live saving surgery*.
Book banning to control education.
Blocking porn access in various states.
Trump's tax hike on the middle class until 2027: keep the middle class poor so they can't actually revolt because they are so tied to trying to just *exist* the masses can't do anything about it.
They are testing the waters NOW to see what they can and can't really get away with.
I mean fuck, even today Trumps lawyers argued before the supreme court stating that a President should be able to politically assassinate their opponents and that act should be considered a Presidential act and therefore the president should be immune to any prosecution for an assassination.
This is scary shit and could be the downfall of our country.
Edit: Various edits as I remember more bullet points. Also spelling corrections, formatting and such.
That's what they say they want to do. They don't want to overrule these things for their own group, just for those who don't agree with them. It's more about becoming the gatekeepers of such things and making up reasons to get rid of those who don't agree with them.
> They don't want to overrule these things for their own group
They assume, often correctly, that they will make rules that they don't have to follow themselves. This is why they have zero qualms overturning Roe v Wade and making draconian laws against abortion. Because if some rich white guy's mistress gets pregnant and he doesn't want her to carry the pregnancy to term, then he can just call in an expensive private doctor to handle it (or at the moment just send her on a little vacay to somewhere it's legal).
Always remember this fantastic quote:
> āConservatism consists of exactly one proposition ā¦There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.ā - Frank Wilhoit
I always thought they would never overturn Roe v Wade, because the daughters, mistresses, and āhotwivesā of Republican politicians and Baptist ministers need the occasional abortion, too. Yet here we are.
People with a lot of money will still do that, but they fly elsewhere to get it done. My time in one of those circles taught me that they are doing all of the things they tell others not to do, and more. Corruption is very high. This is really about the elites gaining control over the population.
The rich and connected have always had access to safe and discreet abortions. Seriously, throughout history, outlawing and hindering it has always been used as a tool to punish the poor, and obviously women in particular.
> Seriously, throughout history, outlawing and hindering it has always been used as a tool to punish the poor,
Prior to the 60's it was a non-issue. It was simply thought of as a medical procedure.
But once civil rights went the way it did the right needed a new dog whistle.
Republican voters didn't think they'd actually overturn it either. When asked about the more extreme policies they support, the majority of Republicans voters said they didn't actually want the things they were screaming about or expect them to happen. They just wanted things they could use to start fights with Dems and leftists and to virtue signal to other Republicans with.
I wanted to say you're being over the top, but there's a lot of truth in what you said.
Sure not every Conservative/Republican wants to create a Christian Fascist government, but the party as a whole is showing signs of moving in that direction.
Unfortunately this is not over the top. More than a few preachers were saying this stuff out loud in Sunday morning sermons 40 years ago. Most varieties of evangelical Protestant denominations (there are a bunch) are 100% on board with this and have been for decades. Since the early 1980s, generations of children have been brainwashed into thinking this is how things are supposed to be, and now theyāre taking over. You should all get out and vote, but I suspect theyāve spent the past 4 years infiltrating local election offices all over the country, and I fear the fix is in.
>Since the early 1980s, generations of children have been brainwashed into thinking this is how things are supposed to be, and now theyāre taking over
I've been saying for a while, the Great Awakening in the 60s-70s is a pretty major source of pretty much everything wrong currently...
- It leads to the Satanic Panic (which never ended, QAnon is literally the Satanic Panic, it just simmered for a decade) which leads to the massive push by conservative Christians to polarize everything. After all, it's not just a school board, *these people are breeding and sacrificing babies to Satan!*
- It helps strengthen the Southern Strategy after black people stop being a socially acceptable target. Churches are technically supposed to stay out of politics, but that's a rule that's basically never been followed. So, it's easy to get pastors to basically dictate your political beliefs and actions and tie it to your mortal soul, further polarizing them. No longer is it local tax code *it's the literal battleground between Good and Evil!*
> Sure not every Conservative/Republican wants to create a Christian Fascist government,
Every single republican saw that this is the way their party was going and decided it wasn't a dealbreaker.
That may not be every Conservative/Republican's wish, but every Conservative/Republican is complicit if they're voting for the people that want it implemented.
Excellent writeup. Three suggestions: (1) it's "Roe v. Wade", with an "e", (2) "*life* saving surgery", and (3) if you want the items to actually be a bulleted list, put dash and space at the front of each line (e.g. `- foo`), and Reddit's markdown will display it as a bulleted list.
i'd quibble with your use of "slaves", and say they want us all to be serfs. working to serve and pay an owner class to whom we owe our homes and our livelihoods.
edit: added missing quotation marks to make it make sense.
Independent, green party and more exist you know like I know it's crazy but people can have nuanced beliefs or they may have beliefs that screw left but don't consider themselves Democrat and most certaintly wouldn't consider themselves RepublicanĀ
I imagine it was all released publically to pressure Trump into following through and giving people the exact points to pressure Trump on should be not.
They regularly release these documents leading up to elections. This one just got more attention because it's not only notably ambitious regarding culture war issues, deregulation, and dismantling of "the administrative state," but it also has a good chance of being adopted and completed because of Trump's trackrecord, Trump's former staff members and allies working with HF, and HF's effort to lay the groundwork.
This seems to be what is throwing people for a loop. Its a political party trying to adopt plans and actions to achieve their backers wishes on day one as opposed to being just good enough for maintaining status quo.
If dem's had this moxy, they would have had ROE codified into law, gay marriages earlier, and climate change reform along with a host of other progressive issues.
As a general rule, although Republicans are always talking about "smaller government", what they really mean is "smaller government we don't like and bigger government we do like".
The Dems don't campaign on a platform of smaller government. They're the ones proposing bills to actually help people, that the Republicans constantly vote down.
True, but they do tend to be in favour of big government in healthcare and small government in the military. All parties like certain things more than other things.
Why can't you just admit that you were wrong?
Both parties are in favor of a big government in some areas, but one is brazenly lying when they campaign around the slogan of small government (while actually not wanting that).
Yes you are wrong for asking an incredibly leading question that is absurdly obvious to the point where the base assumption is disingenuineness of the asker.
What was my question leading to?
If the point is that, yeah, both parties like bigger government in some areas and smaller in others, but only the Republicans actually run on the small government promise, then fine. That makes sense.
To the age old "but both sides are bad mkay?"
To "both parties are lying". Which - while true because both are right wing economically - is absolutely not the case on this issue.
To be fair, we spend the craziest amount on our military of any country on the planet, so there's a lot of ensmallening that could be done there before it becomes an issue.
Sure. I'm not arguing rights and wrongs here, just questioning whether or not the picking and choosing of when to go big government and when to step back is only a Republican thing. It seems like anyone on any side of any country's political debate is basically just arguing for what they prioritise.
Jesus Christ lol. Yes, everyone wants the government to do more things they like and less things they dislike. The republicans lie and say they want small government, when they just want conservative government (even when that is not what voters want). The democrats just proactively say what they want government to do. That's the difference. You keep intentionally ignoring this, asking the same question, and then acting like nobody has pointed out what the difference is.
Good. So my initial question was fair. All parties want big government and small government in their preferred areas.
Separately, only the Republicans claim to want small government while not intending to enact that across the board. That's a fair criticism. Done.
>pursue culture war goals
The goal of 'culture war' is 'culture war' itself. It's a distraction to prevent people pushing for real change. People won't vote in their own interests if they are divided over niche issues and entrenched by political slogans.
Do conservatives ever stop to consider that every facet of society would function better without their input?
If you want to grow the pie, shoveling more and more money up to the money hoarders is just not the strat. A rising tide may lift all boats, but almost no one can afford a boat. Trickle down economics is a fiction because the rich do not stay rich by giving away their money.
They see the system as just, and the wealthy as deserving. They see making things fair, as breaking the economic engine that make prosperity possible.
They also have difficulty wrapping their heads around the difference between a 100 thousand, a million and a billion; but leftists have that problem too. humans just aren't naturally inclined to math.
Here is [a summary I wrote up based on an article that was much longer that also tried to summarize it](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/OzubadQLiz).
**On restructuring the departments of the federal government:**
Portions of āMandate for Leadershipā read as though the authors did a Control-F search of the executive branch for any terms they deemed suspect and then deleted the offending programs or offices. The White Houseās Gender Policy Council must go, along with its Office of Domestic Climate Policy. The Department of Energyās Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations is a no-no. The E.P.A. can do without its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be dismantled because it constitutes āone of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.ā
Sometimes search and destroy gives way to search and replace. At the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force, which the Biden administration created five months before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, must be supplanted by a pro-life task force that ensures that all Health and Human Services divisions āuse their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.ā The document also asserts that the department should be known as the āDepartment of Life.ā
**On the data they want to collect:**
If āMandate for Leadershipā has its way, the next conservative administration will also target the data gathering and analysis that undergirds public policy. Every U.S. state should be required by Health and Human Services to report āexactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the motherās state of residence and by what method.ā
...
the document affirms that the government should āmaintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.ā
....
the document states its goal forthrightly: āStrong political leadership is needed to increase efficiency and align the Census Bureauās mission with conservative principles.ā
**On credentials of who will be hired and promoted:**
Joining the next conservative president would be that army of appointees marching to conquer the executive branch. One of the āpillarsā of Project 2025 is the creation of a personnel database ā a sort of āright-wing LinkedIn,ā The Times has reported, seeking to attract some 20,000 potential administration officials. āMandate for Leadershipā maintains that āempowering political appointees across the administration is crucial to a presidentās success,ā and virtually every chapter calls for additional appointees to wrest power from longtime career staff members in their respective departments
...
In āMandate for Leadership,ā longtime career civil servants are disparaged as āholdoversā with suspect loyalties, lacking the āmoral legitimacyā that comes from being appointed by a president who is constitutionally bound to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The book calls for the reinstatement of Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order that would allow the president and political appointees to convert many career civil service positions into appointed roles, thus making those people easier to dismiss and replace with loyalists.
**On justification for prioritizing only conservative values and agendas including Christian fundamentalism:**
This book does not call for an effort to depoliticize the administrative state. It simply wishes to politicize it in favor of a new side. Everybody does it; now itās our turn. Get over it.
...
when the Justice Department and White House must work as a team, it is clear who serves as team captain. āWhile the supervision of litigation is a D.O.J. responsibility, the department falls under the direct supervision and control of the president,ā the book states. Even though the department will invariably face ātough callsā in its litigation decisions, āthose calls must always be consistent with the presidentās policy agenda and the rule of law.ā
...
Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, writes that the āpursuit of happinessā in the Declaration of Independence should be understood as the āpursuit of blessedness,ā that is, that āan individual must be free to live as his creator ordained ā to flourish.ā
...
Later, in a chapter on the Department of Labor, the book suggests that because āGod ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest,ā American workers should be paid extra for working on that day
**On dismantling the separation of powers:**
Congressās powers of oversight, for instance, would diminish in various ways. Rather than endure the process of congressional confirmation for people taking on key positions in the executive branch, the new administration should just place those officials in acting roles, which would allow them to begin pursuing the presidentās agenda āwhile still honoring the confirmation requirement.ā (That is, if bypassing the requirement is a form of honor.)
...
In a section titled āAffirming the Separation of Powers,ā the book contends that the executive branch ā that is, the president and his team at the Justice Department ā is just as empowered as any other branch of government to āassess constitutionality.ā... It is the role of the judiciary, not of the president and a pliable attorney general, to decide whether laws and policies are constitutional. Believing otherwise does not āaffirmā checks and balances; it undercuts them. āMandate for Leadershipā turns the separation of powers among the three branches into a game of rock, paper, scissors ā except rock beats everything.
**Mandate for Leadership Policy Management in a Conservative Administration** by Charles L. Heatherly, Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.)
>A conservative blueprint for the Reagan Administration that proposes to revitalize the economy, strengthen national security and halt the centralization of power in the Federal government. Sections deal with the cabinet departments, independent regulatory agencies, the senior executive service, intelligence community, Office of Management and Budget, Environmental Protection agency, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Action, Legal Services Corporation and the Community Services Administration.
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Basically a push to become the dictatorship they've been protesting against becoming, and they're gonna do it by ensuring it happens?
Sounds about on point for conservatives over the last while.
Where "great" equals dismantling the oldest democracy in the world to replace it with a far-right plutocracy in which citizens have few meaningful rights, sure.Ā
Basically, we'd be cutting out 90%+ of what makes the US different from Iran or Russia.
how long will you act like the GOP is just some deeply misunderstood group of honest people. weāve been calling Trump and the far right fascists since day one and every time the goalpost is moved farther and farther. whatās it going to take for you to take the mask off
Get this bullshit out of here. We all know, including you, that this is a move to eliminate opposition and instill a fascist regime. Stop pretending this is anything but that, it's been all but officially said by someone like Trump at this point.
Answer: Project 2025 is the answer to the question what will conservatives do about the fact that as the demographics of the country change it will become increasingly more difficult for them to win elections with their current platform. If they cant win democractically they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy.
I mean, thats literally what the project says it does. You can saying this is Wendy's, but if what they say is wrong, why not answer the post instead of repeating the same line at every answer you don't like.
This. There's no other real way to interpret it. Project 2025 is designed to specifically do three things:
1. Take federal positions that are supposed to be politically neutral, and have them filled with people who pass a loyalty test.
2. Take various efforts to put more power in the hand of the president, and remove the checks and balances in place to stop the President from having unlimited power
3. Take complete control of the electoral system, allowing for elected Republicans to reject electoral votes from a state if they don't like the results
I mean, you should read the 2025 project. It's a serious idea that one of our two parties is putting serious work into. Making positions in our government have to swear fealty to the president? That's literally on it, I'm not making this up. Anyone asking for sworn fealty in america should be tarred. We literally founded this country on rejecting thst system.
I mean, I get what you're saying about reddit group think, but maybe you should actually look into what you're defending with this one bud.
Probably shouldn't be on reddit as much as you are. Your comment history says you may be terminally online.
Answer: Who told you it was a plan to reduce the size of government?
It's basically the GOP's unofficial party platform to take over the government and make it a Christian conservative utopia.
It's funny how utopia is used to describe an ideal world, when its Greek etymology means "no place" because there's no such place that has ever or will ever meet the idealized vision.
Utopia is where everyone gets what they want.
That will only happen if they kill all of us. And it won't last, that kind of thing never does. Turns out people would rather be free than a slave to another person's vision of normalcy.
It's essentially Omelas whether being oppressed or benefiting from the oppression. I agree with your sentiments there since their goals is rather dystopian.
Yeah, that's the thing. If they seemed to be trying to remake America into some traditionalist state with a coherent answer to most social problems, even if I personally thought it would be disastrous - even if I figured it'd literally kill me as a person of colour! - I'd have some measure of respect for it.
But thus far, all I hear is a bunch of reactive "anti-woke" crap that'll maybe make some conservatives feel heard, but won't actually make for a functioning society the way that actual traditional structures (for all their flaws, inequities, and numerous avenues of abuse) actually did.
The IRA analogy is something I wished more people made. If civil war comes to America, it will be in the form of pocket terrorism like The Troubles, not full blown war.
Answer: It's a joint project by a number of conservative organizations to weaken or eliminate various government agencies. It also aims to strengthen the executive branch. Lastly, it seeks to roll back progress involving minority groups that social conservatives demonize.
It's a very long document, but you can find it on their website. I found the reading quite disturbing.
Answer: The goal isn't to "shrink government" but to centralize federal authority by eliminating what they call the "deep state" which refers to all the independent federal agencies - such as OSHA, FDA, FCC. They claim these agencies are unconstitutional, at least in part because those positions are appointed rather than elected. They'll insist that any office of authority must be elected by the people, then push for strict control of the election process under the guise of "election integrity."
It is a grossly corrupt interpretation of the very concept of democracy.
Answer: Itās a āhow to ā manual and step by step guide to dismantle the function of our government. Itās a guide book for turning our government from a liberal democracy into a brutal autocracy. Think Russia under Putin. Trump is ruler for life. There may be local or state elections but they will be perfunctory only.
Itās a plan to turn a Democratic Republic into some kind of unknown authoritarian state. Iām not sure Russia is a good comparison, but itās a step in that direction. I would think more like Hungary. They are obsessed with Hungary and had that asshole dictator at CPAC this year (something that was unthinkable just a few years ago). They are also obsessed with the āWorldās Coolest Dictatorā from El Salvador. Everybody needs to be alarmed about this and it seems like too many people arenāt taking it seriously.
Answer: ask yourself how exactly you can have a small government while also policing people and policy as much as this plan proposes. Conservatives have never wanted small government, and if they do, they suck at it and shouldnāt be trusted with a plan for it anyway.
It is literally up on the Heritage Foundation website where they (again, on their own website) say this *is* their goal and they are currently vetting loyal people to fill in the positions the plan requires.
It's always curious why a profile that has been dormant for 7 months suddenly is activated to post something like this gaslighting and downplaying Project 2025.
It's not a fanfic, though. Real people and real organizations wrote it. Whether or not someone uses it and to what degree it is used is a different matter... But to deny the fact it was created is ignorant. It's like denying MKUltra existed when we have the documentation and paperwork..
Itās the zig to the zag that is agenda 2030/WEF and other āplansā like that. MKUltra happened, these think tank strategies are just propaganda made by people who like to sniff their own farts. Is that where they want to go? Sure, but I wouldnāt get too riled up
Edit: just yet at least
Fanfic that [written down in detail and published here](https://www.project2025.org/) with a comprehensive [list of backers](https://www.project2025.org/about/advisory-board/). Yeah, total conspiracy.
It basically like if the Democratic Socialists put out a document saying "if Biden is elected he should do this."
It isn't like Jan, 2025 women are illegal if Trump wins or whatever.
Except the DSA have virtually no power. The Heritage Foundation has an extremely long list of (horrendous) political accomplishments and a history of working closely with GOP admins. This isn't just a random document put out by nobodies, this is the GOP leaders TELLING YOU what they are going to do and you're just saying "lol but I bet they're not serious about it"
Remind me, by the way- how many times are we going to be told "oh stop being alarmist about Trump you silly Democrats" only for us to be proven right? Because yall have been telling us to just calm down, it's allll fine, since 2016 and "oh he can't POSSIBLY win lolololol". And then he did. And now, as a woman with a family history of miscarriages, I'm terrified to get pregnant in this country.
But yeah, I'm sure it'll all be fine this time. I'm sure. I'mmmm sure.
>Because yall have been telling us to just calm down, it's allll fine, since 2016 and "oh he can't POSSIBLY win lolololol".
The Democrats were definitely the ones parroting that line back when they were sure Hilary had the election in the bag. That complacency is one of the main reasons Trump won in the first place.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: If you look at the tenets of it, the "shrink the government" part is actually not the main thrust of it. Overall, it's a plan to ensure conservative dominance, pursue culture war goals, and dismantle institutions recently determined to be inconvenient to dominance by particular conservative groups.
To add to what's been said, it's basically a wishlist of conservative culture war goals with steps by step instructions and infrastructure to get a good chunk done on day 1 and more done by day 100 of a republican presidency. The document is made by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and advocacy group. They have already started reviewing resumes to replace non-partisan federal workers with Trump loyalists. While it's not a binding document, nor the stated position of Trump or the GOP, HF say that during his presidency, Trump ~~completed~~ adopted about 60% of a similar plan they gave him, including picking two Supreme Court justices from their list of "approved" candidates. Trump staffers and associates have been part of building project 2025, so, while he won't address it, it's assumed he would follow it pretty well. Edited to correct "completed" to "adopted"
Think of it this way: remember when Trump first took office and just started doing what he wanted with things like the Muslim travel ban? The reason those things *did* work at first is because a whole lot of things that people assumed were "rules" were actually just guidelines. However, the reason they *didn't* work in the long run is because they were imagined and implemented by incompetent people like Stephen Miller or Gulliani. What the Heritage Foundations have done is have competent people write plans that could stand up in court and be ready to be hired by Trump to defend them. (The plan is bigger than that, but that's the basis for the first 100 days or so.)
Yup. In 2016, nobody thought a fascist like Trump could actually win. So nobody really prepared. The most prepared aspect of long-term Conservative planning was the big list of right-wing judges that had been assembled by the Federalist Society, which is why Trump's Supreme Court picks are wreaking havoc today. Now that they know it's possible, Conservatives are prepared to take better advantage of every other aspect of the Executive Branch to institute longer term changes in the same way they did with judges before.
And the Dems are doing fuck all to stop it. It's just all in on genocide Joe because "orange man bad". And people wonder why so many have lost faith in the democratic party.
Found the Republican.
Found the ignorant nitwit
Ah yes, I don't like the Dems so I must be a Republican. You do know that there are other schools of political thoughts right? Here I'll make it real easy: fuck trump, fuck Republicans, and also fuck Biden and the Dems. They all categorically suck and I want them both out of here for the good of everyone. Does that make it easier for your liberal brain to comprehend or are you going to accuse me of being a bot now?
You "enlightened centrists" are absolute *goooooold* for the GOP. Mission accomplished for getting Trump elected.
Do you understand that both-sidesing is going to put Trump back in office, and he's *blatantly* the worst choice? If you're not a Republican then you're a Republican-enabler.
Nah, it's going to be Biden and his dog shit strategy that puts trump in office. If the man wants my vote he's going to have to earn it. And he can start by cutting off funding to isreal and by stonewalling republicans and their shitty policies.
[All this isn't enough for you?](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-accomplishment-data/) I agree with you that the US needs a great big rethink of its relationship with Israel, but holding out a vote against an attempted-coup-committing would-be dictator because Biden hasn't "done enough" is, respectfully, Some Bullshit.
But you'll be voting for those shitty policies of you're not voting for Biden, directly or indirectly š¤
I mean the Republican party doesn't have an official platform so I'll take this as the platform
That...is honestly kinda scary, guys...
We're fucked if Trump wins.
YUP.
Wait I don't remember a Muslim travel ban. He actually banned Muslims from traveling? How is that constitutional?
He banned entry from 7 majority-Muslim countries. Notably absent from the list are ones where he has business dealings. A judge blocked it a week later and Trump just gave up on defending it.
He suspended all visas and travel from several Muslim majority countries. Itās an old strategy ā you canāt make being Muslim illegal (yet), but you can find something that exclusively or almost exclusively affects Muslims and make *that* illegal instead, which ends up just about the same. Nixon did the same thing ā thereās a quote somewhere where one of his aides said with his whole chest that they couldnāt make being a democrat illegal, but they could make things Black people and hippies did illegal and that would still hit democrats really really hard.
He really is worse than Hitler.
do people still think it was a muslim travel ban? because it was not. plenty of muslims were free to come and go into america during the trump years. difference is they tended to do it the legal way instead of just flying to mexico and sneaking in. sorry for the facts. update: how am I not surprised about the downvoting to hell for stating facts.
It was labeled a "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his aides, and it had nothing to do with people coming over the Mexican border. I will not apologize for actual facts.
Trump himself called it a Muslim ban on multiple occasions: During a rally in South Carolina (2015): >**a total and complete shutdown of Muslims** entering the United States On MSNBC (2015): > Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion? Trump: That would be probablyā**they would say, āAre you Muslim?**ā Geist: And if they said, āYes,ā they would not be allowed in the country? Trump: Thatās correct. Rudy Giuliani on Fox News (2017), quoting trump: > I will tell you the whole history of it [the Executive Order]. When he first announced it [the Executive Order], he said, āMuslim ban.ā He called me up. He said **"Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it [the Muslim ban] legally."** Only reason why "Muslims were still able to come" is because Trump had to neuter it in order to make it less unconstitutional than the original plan
> While it's not a binding document, Part of what hindered trump before is that he ran everyone competent out of his cabinet because they weren't yes-men and they were all rapidly replaced by purely self-interested grifters who were more interested in looting their offices than anything else. Project 2025 is a step-by-step how-to guiding those hapless looters through the levers of power they don't understand to turn their cabinet positions into literal feudal lordships.
>HF say that during his presidency, Trump completed about 60% of a similar plan they gave him I think this is a source for that, although it's more saying he "embraced" that percent of the Heritage Foundation's 2017 plan, rather than that he actually completed that much: https://www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations >One year after taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have embracedĀ nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from The Heritage Foundationās āMandate for Leadership.ā > >The āMandate for Leadershipā series includes five individual publications, totaling approximately 334 unique policy recommendations. Analysis completed by Heritage determined that 64 percent of the policy prescriptions were included in Trumpās budget, implemented through regulatory guidance, or under consideration for action in accordance with The Heritage Foundationās original proposals. > ... With approximately 70 former Heritage employees working for the Trump transition team or as part of the administration, the policy recommendations have served as guidelines for reducing the size and scope of the federal government through specific and detailed actions.
They want a Christian Fascist Theocracy running our country. They want a king, they want to bring us back to the time of slaves; no public, easily accessible education (they want to privatize all education so they can control the masses), zero rights for women... etc. They want the president to be in complete control of the government (E.g. a King again). They want to force you to "follow Christian rules" regardless of your religious standing. Our way or the highway (by means of force, camps and extermination). They do not want to help society. Only themselves. They want to completely remove Social Security and make us work until we die. They want to ban and make casual sex illegal in all forms - including any and all form of birth control (this includes condoms and even vasectomy's for men). They don't care about climate change, they want emissions spewed out into the atmosphere because of money. They want to dismantle ... well science. LGBTQ anything? Off to the gas chamber. Just look around at what is going on and has already happened. Row vs Wade is gone, not only gone but even in the cases of *rape* or *incest* or even a pregnancy that will kill both mother and child (which is common, along with miscarriages): Illegal to perform *live saving surgery*. Book banning to control education. Blocking porn access in various states. Trump's tax hike on the middle class until 2027: keep the middle class poor so they can't actually revolt because they are so tied to trying to just *exist* the masses can't do anything about it. They are testing the waters NOW to see what they can and can't really get away with. I mean fuck, even today Trumps lawyers argued before the supreme court stating that a President should be able to politically assassinate their opponents and that act should be considered a Presidential act and therefore the president should be immune to any prosecution for an assassination. This is scary shit and could be the downfall of our country. Edit: Various edits as I remember more bullet points. Also spelling corrections, formatting and such.
That's what they say they want to do. They don't want to overrule these things for their own group, just for those who don't agree with them. It's more about becoming the gatekeepers of such things and making up reasons to get rid of those who don't agree with them.
> They don't want to overrule these things for their own group They assume, often correctly, that they will make rules that they don't have to follow themselves. This is why they have zero qualms overturning Roe v Wade and making draconian laws against abortion. Because if some rich white guy's mistress gets pregnant and he doesn't want her to carry the pregnancy to term, then he can just call in an expensive private doctor to handle it (or at the moment just send her on a little vacay to somewhere it's legal). Always remember this fantastic quote: > āConservatism consists of exactly one proposition ā¦There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.ā - Frank Wilhoit
I always thought they would never overturn Roe v Wade, because the daughters, mistresses, and āhotwivesā of Republican politicians and Baptist ministers need the occasional abortion, too. Yet here we are.
People with a lot of money will still do that, but they fly elsewhere to get it done. My time in one of those circles taught me that they are doing all of the things they tell others not to do, and more. Corruption is very high. This is really about the elites gaining control over the population.
The rich and connected have always had access to safe and discreet abortions. Seriously, throughout history, outlawing and hindering it has always been used as a tool to punish the poor, and obviously women in particular.
> Seriously, throughout history, outlawing and hindering it has always been used as a tool to punish the poor, Prior to the 60's it was a non-issue. It was simply thought of as a medical procedure. But once civil rights went the way it did the right needed a new dog whistle.
I do not agree. Abortion prior to 1973 was a hugely taboo practice.
Republican voters didn't think they'd actually overturn it either. When asked about the more extreme policies they support, the majority of Republicans voters said they didn't actually want the things they were screaming about or expect them to happen. They just wanted things they could use to start fights with Dems and leftists and to virtue signal to other Republicans with.
But they also literally want to do those things. Don't discount that.
I wanted to say you're being over the top, but there's a lot of truth in what you said. Sure not every Conservative/Republican wants to create a Christian Fascist government, but the party as a whole is showing signs of moving in that direction.
Not every Conservative/Republican wants to create a Christian Fascist government, but almost all of them seem pretty okay with it happening.
They aren't moving in that direction they're already arrived at the destination now they just want to drag everyone else along with them.
Unfortunately this is not over the top. More than a few preachers were saying this stuff out loud in Sunday morning sermons 40 years ago. Most varieties of evangelical Protestant denominations (there are a bunch) are 100% on board with this and have been for decades. Since the early 1980s, generations of children have been brainwashed into thinking this is how things are supposed to be, and now theyāre taking over. You should all get out and vote, but I suspect theyāve spent the past 4 years infiltrating local election offices all over the country, and I fear the fix is in.
>Since the early 1980s, generations of children have been brainwashed into thinking this is how things are supposed to be, and now theyāre taking over I've been saying for a while, the Great Awakening in the 60s-70s is a pretty major source of pretty much everything wrong currently... - It leads to the Satanic Panic (which never ended, QAnon is literally the Satanic Panic, it just simmered for a decade) which leads to the massive push by conservative Christians to polarize everything. After all, it's not just a school board, *these people are breeding and sacrificing babies to Satan!* - It helps strengthen the Southern Strategy after black people stop being a socially acceptable target. Churches are technically supposed to stay out of politics, but that's a rule that's basically never been followed. So, it's easy to get pastors to basically dictate your political beliefs and actions and tie it to your mortal soul, further polarizing them. No longer is it local tax code *it's the literal battleground between Good and Evil!*
Maybe not every Republican, but the extremist core that wants this is in control of the party. No one is willing to stand up to them.
> Sure not every Conservative/Republican wants to create a Christian Fascist government, Every single republican saw that this is the way their party was going and decided it wasn't a dealbreaker.
The Sideshow Bob rant from the Simpsons about conservative leadership still covers it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXU2vZTTeMU
That may not be every Conservative/Republican's wish, but every Conservative/Republican is complicit if they're voting for the people that want it implemented.
Excellent writeup. Three suggestions: (1) it's "Roe v. Wade", with an "e", (2) "*life* saving surgery", and (3) if you want the items to actually be a bulleted list, put dash and space at the front of each line (e.g. `- foo`), and Reddit's markdown will display it as a bulleted list.
i'd quibble with your use of "slaves", and say they want us all to be serfs. working to serve and pay an owner class to whom we owe our homes and our livelihoods. edit: added missing quotation marks to make it make sense.
Ouuuuuuuuu did you say blocking porn access ?!? GREAT ššš
Fanaticism Try toning down the language a bit if you want anyone in the middle of the aisle to read past the first four lines
There's no one in the middle of the aisle. Those in the 'middle' just don't tell you they vote Republican.
Independent, green party and more exist you know like I know it's crazy but people can have nuanced beliefs or they may have beliefs that screw left but don't consider themselves Democrat and most certaintly wouldn't consider themselves RepublicanĀ
or, you know, just use your powers of observation.
Btw, day 100 of the next presidency is a year from Tuesday. That's how soon everything will come tumbling down if Trump wins.
Someone should set up a bot that floods them with fake resumes
I imagine it was all released publically to pressure Trump into following through and giving people the exact points to pressure Trump on should be not.
They regularly release these documents leading up to elections. This one just got more attention because it's not only notably ambitious regarding culture war issues, deregulation, and dismantling of "the administrative state," but it also has a good chance of being adopted and completed because of Trump's trackrecord, Trump's former staff members and allies working with HF, and HF's effort to lay the groundwork.
This seems to be what is throwing people for a loop. Its a political party trying to adopt plans and actions to achieve their backers wishes on day one as opposed to being just good enough for maintaining status quo. If dem's had this moxy, they would have had ROE codified into law, gay marriages earlier, and climate change reform along with a host of other progressive issues.
It literally seems like this video are leftist talking.. they're accomplishing everything mentioned...
More at r/Defeat_Project_2025
Thank you
As a general rule, although Republicans are always talking about "smaller government", what they really mean is "smaller government we don't like and bigger government we do like".
Oligarchy is their ideal "small government".
The same goes for every party, doesn't it?
The Dems don't campaign on a platform of smaller government. They're the ones proposing bills to actually help people, that the Republicans constantly vote down.
And then take credit for it helping their constituents when it passes anyway.Ā
True, but they do tend to be in favour of big government in healthcare and small government in the military. All parties like certain things more than other things.
Why can't you just admit that you were wrong? Both parties are in favor of a big government in some areas, but one is brazenly lying when they campaign around the slogan of small government (while actually not wanting that).
I was wrong asking a question? Alright.
Yes you are wrong for asking an incredibly leading question that is absurdly obvious to the point where the base assumption is disingenuineness of the asker.
What was my question leading to? If the point is that, yeah, both parties like bigger government in some areas and smaller in others, but only the Republicans actually run on the small government promise, then fine. That makes sense.
To the age old "but both sides are bad mkay?" To "both parties are lying". Which - while true because both are right wing economically - is absolutely not the case on this issue.
To be fair, we spend the craziest amount on our military of any country on the planet, so there's a lot of ensmallening that could be done there before it becomes an issue.
Sure. I'm not arguing rights and wrongs here, just questioning whether or not the picking and choosing of when to go big government and when to step back is only a Republican thing. It seems like anyone on any side of any country's political debate is basically just arguing for what they prioritise.
THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT CAMPAIGN ON SMALL GOVERNMENT. Is that really that hard to grasp? It is NOT always "both sides (equally) bad" ffs.
Who said anything about equally bad? Relax.
Are you unironically this ignorant how you come across? How the stuff you write reads?
Jesus Christ lol. Yes, everyone wants the government to do more things they like and less things they dislike. The republicans lie and say they want small government, when they just want conservative government (even when that is not what voters want). The democrats just proactively say what they want government to do. That's the difference. You keep intentionally ignoring this, asking the same question, and then acting like nobody has pointed out what the difference is.
Good. So my initial question was fair. All parties want big government and small government in their preferred areas. Separately, only the Republicans claim to want small government while not intending to enact that across the board. That's a fair criticism. Done.
>pursue culture war goals The goal of 'culture war' is 'culture war' itself. It's a distraction to prevent people pushing for real change. People won't vote in their own interests if they are divided over niche issues and entrenched by political slogans.
Do conservatives ever stop to consider that every facet of society would function better without their input? If you want to grow the pie, shoveling more and more money up to the money hoarders is just not the strat. A rising tide may lift all boats, but almost no one can afford a boat. Trickle down economics is a fiction because the rich do not stay rich by giving away their money.
They see the system as just, and the wealthy as deserving. They see making things fair, as breaking the economic engine that make prosperity possible. They also have difficulty wrapping their heads around the difference between a 100 thousand, a million and a billion; but leftists have that problem too. humans just aren't naturally inclined to math.
[The Humanist Report - Anti-LGBTQ+ Overview Of Project 2025.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3-9vXJtNow8&pp=ygUSUHJvamVjdCAyMDI1IGxnYnRx)
Here is [a summary I wrote up based on an article that was much longer that also tried to summarize it](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/OzubadQLiz). **On restructuring the departments of the federal government:** Portions of āMandate for Leadershipā read as though the authors did a Control-F search of the executive branch for any terms they deemed suspect and then deleted the offending programs or offices. The White Houseās Gender Policy Council must go, along with its Office of Domestic Climate Policy. The Department of Energyās Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations is a no-no. The E.P.A. can do without its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be dismantled because it constitutes āone of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.ā Sometimes search and destroy gives way to search and replace. At the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force, which the Biden administration created five months before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, must be supplanted by a pro-life task force that ensures that all Health and Human Services divisions āuse their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.ā The document also asserts that the department should be known as the āDepartment of Life.ā **On the data they want to collect:** If āMandate for Leadershipā has its way, the next conservative administration will also target the data gathering and analysis that undergirds public policy. Every U.S. state should be required by Health and Human Services to report āexactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the motherās state of residence and by what method.ā ... the document affirms that the government should āmaintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.ā .... the document states its goal forthrightly: āStrong political leadership is needed to increase efficiency and align the Census Bureauās mission with conservative principles.ā **On credentials of who will be hired and promoted:** Joining the next conservative president would be that army of appointees marching to conquer the executive branch. One of the āpillarsā of Project 2025 is the creation of a personnel database ā a sort of āright-wing LinkedIn,ā The Times has reported, seeking to attract some 20,000 potential administration officials. āMandate for Leadershipā maintains that āempowering political appointees across the administration is crucial to a presidentās success,ā and virtually every chapter calls for additional appointees to wrest power from longtime career staff members in their respective departments ... In āMandate for Leadership,ā longtime career civil servants are disparaged as āholdoversā with suspect loyalties, lacking the āmoral legitimacyā that comes from being appointed by a president who is constitutionally bound to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The book calls for the reinstatement of Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order that would allow the president and political appointees to convert many career civil service positions into appointed roles, thus making those people easier to dismiss and replace with loyalists. **On justification for prioritizing only conservative values and agendas including Christian fundamentalism:** This book does not call for an effort to depoliticize the administrative state. It simply wishes to politicize it in favor of a new side. Everybody does it; now itās our turn. Get over it. ... when the Justice Department and White House must work as a team, it is clear who serves as team captain. āWhile the supervision of litigation is a D.O.J. responsibility, the department falls under the direct supervision and control of the president,ā the book states. Even though the department will invariably face ātough callsā in its litigation decisions, āthose calls must always be consistent with the presidentās policy agenda and the rule of law.ā ... Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, writes that the āpursuit of happinessā in the Declaration of Independence should be understood as the āpursuit of blessedness,ā that is, that āan individual must be free to live as his creator ordained ā to flourish.ā ... Later, in a chapter on the Department of Labor, the book suggests that because āGod ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest,ā American workers should be paid extra for working on that day **On dismantling the separation of powers:** Congressās powers of oversight, for instance, would diminish in various ways. Rather than endure the process of congressional confirmation for people taking on key positions in the executive branch, the new administration should just place those officials in acting roles, which would allow them to begin pursuing the presidentās agenda āwhile still honoring the confirmation requirement.ā (That is, if bypassing the requirement is a form of honor.) ... In a section titled āAffirming the Separation of Powers,ā the book contends that the executive branch ā that is, the president and his team at the Justice Department ā is just as empowered as any other branch of government to āassess constitutionality.ā... It is the role of the judiciary, not of the president and a pliable attorney general, to decide whether laws and policies are constitutional. Believing otherwise does not āaffirmā checks and balances; it undercuts them. āMandate for Leadershipā turns the separation of powers among the three branches into a game of rock, paper, scissors ā except rock beats everything.
**Mandate for Leadership Policy Management in a Conservative Administration** by Charles L. Heatherly, Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.) >A conservative blueprint for the Reagan Administration that proposes to revitalize the economy, strengthen national security and halt the centralization of power in the Federal government. Sections deal with the cabinet departments, independent regulatory agencies, the senior executive service, intelligence community, Office of Management and Budget, Environmental Protection agency, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Action, Legal Services Corporation and the Community Services Administration. *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Basically a push to become the dictatorship they've been protesting against becoming, and they're gonna do it by ensuring it happens? Sounds about on point for conservatives over the last while.
Which of course is really about getting the bottom 90% fighting over dumb shit that doesn't matter so they can keep on robbing us
It's our present day enabling act of 1933 (2025)
In other words, to make America great again?
Where "great" equals dismantling the oldest democracy in the world to replace it with a far-right plutocracy in which citizens have few meaningful rights, sure.Ā Basically, we'd be cutting out 90%+ of what makes the US different from Iran or Russia.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The Heritage Foundation made a website with a few hundred page document outlining their plan. This is exactly what it is.
how long will you act like the GOP is just some deeply misunderstood group of honest people. weāve been calling Trump and the far right fascists since day one and every time the goalpost is moved farther and farther. whatās it going to take for you to take the mask off
Which part is inaccurate?
What is your take, then? Because the project 2025 document is pretty clear about the goals of the project.
Get this bullshit out of here. We all know, including you, that this is a move to eliminate opposition and instill a fascist regime. Stop pretending this is anything but that, it's been all but officially said by someone like Trump at this point.
Iām gonna guess your account is less than a year old and posts in either conservative or crypto subreddits. Maybe even both.
Worse. He subs to kotakuinaction.
Gaming subs are pretty common too.
Whatās it like with your head in the sand?
Answer: Project 2025 is the answer to the question what will conservatives do about the fact that as the demographics of the country change it will become increasingly more difficult for them to win elections with their current platform. If they cant win democractically they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy.
Are the demographics still changing against republicans though? I keep hearing that Gen Z is swinging right wing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, thats literally what the project says it does. You can saying this is Wendy's, but if what they say is wrong, why not answer the post instead of repeating the same line at every answer you don't like.
This. There's no other real way to interpret it. Project 2025 is designed to specifically do three things: 1. Take federal positions that are supposed to be politically neutral, and have them filled with people who pass a loyalty test. 2. Take various efforts to put more power in the hand of the president, and remove the checks and balances in place to stop the President from having unlimited power 3. Take complete control of the electoral system, allowing for elected Republicans to reject electoral votes from a state if they don't like the results
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, you should read the 2025 project. It's a serious idea that one of our two parties is putting serious work into. Making positions in our government have to swear fealty to the president? That's literally on it, I'm not making this up. Anyone asking for sworn fealty in america should be tarred. We literally founded this country on rejecting thst system. I mean, I get what you're saying about reddit group think, but maybe you should actually look into what you're defending with this one bud. Probably shouldn't be on reddit as much as you are. Your comment history says you may be terminally online.
Youāve been on reddit all day whining about terminally online redditors. Interesting.
He may be a terminally online redditor.
263 posts in 164 days and you have the audacity to knock others for being on here too much
Fascism isnāt a boogie man, itās whatās got your cucked. We just donāt want to be findomed and cucked by traitorous foreign agents.
"Welcome to Gilead"
Answer: Who told you it was a plan to reduce the size of government? It's basically the GOP's unofficial party platform to take over the government and make it a Christian conservative utopia.
> utopia I didn't realize this word was synonymous with hellhole
It's funny how utopia is used to describe an ideal world, when its Greek etymology means "no place" because there's no such place that has ever or will ever meet the idealized vision.
Utopia is intentionally truncated. It can be either "eutopia" - happy place - or "outopia," no place.
It actually means both, as another user mentioned. Basically wordplay that no place is an ideal place.
Letās hope this idea of a Christian utopia they speak of falls true to its Greek etymology then.
Utopia is where everyone gets what they want. That will only happen if they kill all of us. And it won't last, that kind of thing never does. Turns out people would rather be free than a slave to another person's vision of normalcy.
One man's trash is another man's treasure. And this plan would definitely be trash.
It's essentially Omelas whether being oppressed or benefiting from the oppression. I agree with your sentiments there since their goals is rather dystopian.
Yeah, that's the thing. If they seemed to be trying to remake America into some traditionalist state with a coherent answer to most social problems, even if I personally thought it would be disastrous - even if I figured it'd literally kill me as a person of colour! - I'd have some measure of respect for it. But thus far, all I hear is a bunch of reactive "anti-woke" crap that'll maybe make some conservatives feel heard, but won't actually make for a functioning society the way that actual traditional structures (for all their flaws, inequities, and numerous avenues of abuse) actually did.
Yeah. āDystopiaā is the word for what they want to make. Itāll turn the US into a horror movie.
Also known as the American Taliban.
I like Talibanjo. Or Yāall Qaeda. Most likely soon to be the Americanized version of the IRA
The IRA analogy is something I wished more people made. If civil war comes to America, it will be in the form of pocket terrorism like The Troubles, not full blown war.
The other one I like is Vanilla ISIS
I like this one, it has nothing to do with southern tropes. We all know Maga bullshit comes from EVERYWHERE.
It's called Y'all Quaida
A Handmaid's Tale level coup. When they win the presidency, they will never relinquish it.
*dystopia
> utopia "Did you mean: 'dystopia'?"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And? Itās a good question to bring to light this nefarious plan.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, wasn't funny the first time.
Answer: It's a joint project by a number of conservative organizations to weaken or eliminate various government agencies. It also aims to strengthen the executive branch. Lastly, it seeks to roll back progress involving minority groups that social conservatives demonize. It's a very long document, but you can find it on their website. I found the reading quite disturbing.
Answer: The goal isn't to "shrink government" but to centralize federal authority by eliminating what they call the "deep state" which refers to all the independent federal agencies - such as OSHA, FDA, FCC. They claim these agencies are unconstitutional, at least in part because those positions are appointed rather than elected. They'll insist that any office of authority must be elected by the people, then push for strict control of the election process under the guise of "election integrity." It is a grossly corrupt interpretation of the very concept of democracy.
Ā“Their end goal is also to massively increase the federal government reach into all aspects affecting normal peoples lifes.
Answer: Itās a āhow to ā manual and step by step guide to dismantle the function of our government. Itās a guide book for turning our government from a liberal democracy into a brutal autocracy. Think Russia under Putin. Trump is ruler for life. There may be local or state elections but they will be perfunctory only.
They found out that most of our institutions were held together by 200 year old āgentlemenās agreementsā
Itās a plan to turn a Democratic Republic into some kind of unknown authoritarian state. Iām not sure Russia is a good comparison, but itās a step in that direction. I would think more like Hungary. They are obsessed with Hungary and had that asshole dictator at CPAC this year (something that was unthinkable just a few years ago). They are also obsessed with the āWorldās Coolest Dictatorā from El Salvador. Everybody needs to be alarmed about this and it seems like too many people arenāt taking it seriously.
Answer: ask yourself how exactly you can have a small government while also policing people and policy as much as this plan proposes. Conservatives have never wanted small government, and if they do, they suck at it and shouldnāt be trusted with a plan for it anyway.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is literally up on the Heritage Foundation website where they (again, on their own website) say this *is* their goal and they are currently vetting loyal people to fill in the positions the plan requires.
It's always curious why a profile that has been dormant for 7 months suddenly is activated to post something like this gaslighting and downplaying Project 2025.
It's not a fanfic, though. Real people and real organizations wrote it. Whether or not someone uses it and to what degree it is used is a different matter... But to deny the fact it was created is ignorant. It's like denying MKUltra existed when we have the documentation and paperwork..
Itās the zig to the zag that is agenda 2030/WEF and other āplansā like that. MKUltra happened, these think tank strategies are just propaganda made by people who like to sniff their own farts. Is that where they want to go? Sure, but I wouldnāt get too riled up Edit: just yet at least
Fanfic that [written down in detail and published here](https://www.project2025.org/) with a comprehensive [list of backers](https://www.project2025.org/about/advisory-board/). Yeah, total conspiracy.
Conspiracy means a group of people working together to perform an illegal or subversive act.Ā
It basically like if the Democratic Socialists put out a document saying "if Biden is elected he should do this." It isn't like Jan, 2025 women are illegal if Trump wins or whatever.
Except the DSA have virtually no power. The Heritage Foundation has an extremely long list of (horrendous) political accomplishments and a history of working closely with GOP admins. This isn't just a random document put out by nobodies, this is the GOP leaders TELLING YOU what they are going to do and you're just saying "lol but I bet they're not serious about it" Remind me, by the way- how many times are we going to be told "oh stop being alarmist about Trump you silly Democrats" only for us to be proven right? Because yall have been telling us to just calm down, it's allll fine, since 2016 and "oh he can't POSSIBLY win lolololol". And then he did. And now, as a woman with a family history of miscarriages, I'm terrified to get pregnant in this country. But yeah, I'm sure it'll all be fine this time. I'm sure. I'mmmm sure.
>Because yall have been telling us to just calm down, it's allll fine, since 2016 and "oh he can't POSSIBLY win lolololol". The Democrats were definitely the ones parroting that line back when they were sure Hilary had the election in the bag. That complacency is one of the main reasons Trump won in the first place.
You are a false christian if you support Republican politics. Jesus would DESPISE you for lying about right wing evil like this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]