No, I'm not familiar and I'm not going to bother. This is from The Heritage Foundation; not Donald Trump. This is like equating every policy proposal from the Center for American Progress as 'Joe Biden's plan'. Take 2 minutes to understand what you're reading instead of letting an AI "do an analysis" and then shitposting on Reddit.
Of course you don’t care. That’s why you would be referred to as a low information voter.
The problem with your attitude is not that we may disagree. 1/2 of the population leans right, and 1/2 leans left. That has always been the case, and it will always be the case.
The problem with your intellectual sloth is that democracy depends on well informed voters, voting in their own best interests. Your attitude and behavior undermines democracy. In the case of project 2025, and with Trumps public statements and his previous behavior, such collective ignorance may represent a serious threat to democracy.
Overall I think it would be a step in the right direction. There needs to be a major overhaul of the US government, anyway.
Congress has become the de facto "monarch" the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
You do realize that America always has been a "Christian Nation", right? There is no official religion, but we are a country founded on Christian beliefs and ideals.
It seems more like a "reset to default settings" to me.
Wow. What a breathtakingly dishonest representation of those first 5 points.
1. The project advocates for DEcentralizing power away from agencies that at this point are unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats running the country. This is a good thing; it actually RESTORES democracy to the people.
2. These so-called "vulnerable communities" are actually the most powerful and privileged today, imposing a tyranny on the rest of us. The project restores freedom, liberty, and civil rights to EVERYONE, not just those in "vulnerable communities" at the expense of everyone else.
3. NPR and PBS are so partisan they shouldn't even be considered "news" outlets anymore; they are propagandist mouthpieces for the Democrat party, and absolutely should be defunded.
4. Yes, states absolutely should be looking at a "reset" of sorts to reign in the power of the federal government, which is what our Founding Fathers intended. America is not the federal government; America is a republic of states. The federal government was never intended to have absolute power, like a monarchy (which is what it's quickly becoming).
4. ILLEGAL immigrants are the problem, not "immigrants". Any true conservative will tell you this.
That analysis was by ChatGPT, not by me. It’s likely way more accurate than any partisan analysis you are relying on.
The parts I’ve read are clearly frightening. For example, criminalizing certain forms of free speech today, such as porn or speaking of transgender people in a positive manner by a public employee such as a librarian or a teacher. Such speech is proposed to become a registered sex offense.
I’ve only skimmed the document. Its goals are clearly unconstitutional in places, by current statute and case law.
1. My reading is that it centralizes executive power by eliminating civil service. MTG, for example, would no doubt claim to be an expert in nuclear waste disposal and in combatting its proliferation to potential terrorists. Boeber would have her own equally brilliant ideas. That is democracy. However, our current form of government places regulatory authority of such matters with the DOE and its nuclear physicists.
We live in an era of the poorly informed and uneducated feeling entitled to sssume the roles of experts.
No, Donald is not an expert in everything because he had an uncle who was a professor, any more than Eric is qualified to be president because his daddy was president.
2. Another false claim. No, gays, blacks, immigrants and transgender people are not the most powerful people in our society today. More importantly, current rights can be rescinded. Authoritarians typically target minorities. Any minority will suffice. Justice’s Thomas and Alito improperly invited legal challenges to gay marriage in their concurring Dobbs opinion. If we go down that path (of denying the implied privacy standard and the explicit equal protection standards), then it’s not far fetched to predict that gay men will be going to prison for having sex again. This was the case just a few decades ago.
3. Interesting point about NPR. This has actually been studied. The least informed media consumers studied are FOX news viewers. Second worst was MSNBC viewers. A surprise finding was that the more time spent viewing FOX, the worse informed the media consumer was. On the other hand, PBS and BBC media consumers were the best informed on basic current events questions, say like “what country does Viktor Orbán lead?”, or “what did the dobbs decision say?”, or “who is the senate majority leader?”, etc…
4. You are correct. We would find some agreement there. For example, as you may know, our founders did not intend the second amendment to be used to justify universal gun ownership. It very clearly authorizes local militias, which was the meaning of the phrase “to bear arms” at the time. The federal courts have over-reached on that one and completely perverts the original intent. The fact is that our founders probably had no opinion on gun ownership, per se. They did clearly oppose a large standing armed force with global projection of power, as we have today.
But we are more than simply a democratic republic, as I read your comment. We are a *constitutional democratic republic*. which means that the government may not infringe on certain individual rights. The weakness of democracy is the potential tyranny of majority rule over minorities, as our slaves knew.
5. We may have some common ground on the immigration issue. It’s a shame that Donald blocked the recent bipartisan attempt to make some small improvements. Putting the illegal immigrant problem aside for the moment, since literally the entire U.S. population agrees on that. Our legislators love to punt it around as a political football and do nothing….
We do have an immigration problem. Other countries have addressed theirs by introducing a merit based system. The U.S. system is a quota system and a green card purchase system. The price of a green card varies from $500k to $1m, depending on the economic zone the applicant intends to invest in.
We don’t have enough qualified immigrants under this system to keep our work force vibrant.
However, technology may be changing this soon. Some are predicting that we’ll have a large economically useless population segment as AI and robotics continue to take up a larger share of the load.
1. Talking to children about porn is NOT "free speech", nor should it ever be considered to be. Ditto "trans" lunacy.
2. Donald never said he was an "expert" on anything other than business.
3. "This has actually been studied." By whom? I've been working at the highest levels of the media for nearly 40 years, and I know from a direct insider's perspective how biased PBS and the BBC are, as well as most of legacy media.
4. You are blatantly incorrect about the Founding Fathers' intentions about gun ownership. The right to self-defense was so obvious to them, they found no need to even codify it outside the parameters of the militia language. Asserting that they did not intend for us to own guns as individuals is as absurd as asserting that they never intended for us to not have to pay the government a tax on the air we breathe.
5. There was no "bipartisan" attempt to make any "improvements". The bill that was voted down did absolutely nothing to close the border, and actually would have codified allowing a permanent stream of illegals into the country. Read the legislation.
1. Of course it isn’t. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The document says that porn should have no constitutional protection as free speech. In another place is says that speaking of transgender issues should be a registered sex offense.
Both of these ideas are unconstitutional under current law if enforced.
2. You are flat out wrong about that. Donald claims to be an expert on the constitution and on history; he claimed to know more about the military than his joint chiefs did; … he blathered on and on repeatedly that he was a stable genius. Anything he attempts, he claims to know more in any topic than any actual expert. He frequently cites the fact that he had an uncle who taught at MIT, and concomitantly cites his race horse theory (a shout out to racists too, obviously) which presumably would make his offspring eligible to succeed him, by extension.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think conservatism implies racism. I think Donald is clearly a racist, and part of his constituency is too.
3. Two professors. I believe they were at the University of New Hampshire. You can find the study. Let me know if you are actually interested, or your question is rhetorical.
4. Nope, I’m not. Many homes had rifles for hunting. The founders were not interested in gun ownership, per se. the clear meaning of the second amendment is to establish the right to “bear arms”. In 1789, the accepted meaning of that term was to be a part of a militia. I’m surprised that you don’t know this, as you seem well informed as to the intent to decentralize power. Our founders were breaking away from colonialism. They opposed a large standing armed force to be used inevitably to impose force on others. Their ideal was only to bear arms in self defense. To this end, local militias would be raised.
It’s interesting to me how different ideological groups flip flop on whether to interpret the Constitution according to its intent and contemporaneous meaning, or whether to interpret the language of the time literally with a modern dictionary. The 2nd amendment activists completely miss the original intent. The intent was that the federal government could not proscribe members from joining militias.
As I’m sure you know, both Jefferson and Adams agreed, in their letters after they reconciled, that our constitution should be updated regularly to fit the times. We seem to have forgotten that original intent.
5. I think your sources are biased on the recent immigration bill. We’ll just have to disagree on that. Donald did instruct the house speaker (who is now beholden to Donald for helping retain his speakership), and others to oppose the bill so he would have the issue as political fodder to fire at Biden. It was a bipartisan proposal.
As for the call to a constitutional convention, I doubt it would work, as much as I think we need it.
For example, I think Jefferson would agree that the time has come to scrap our electoral college. It’s fascinating to me that he has the prescience to predict that the US would remain a democracy as long as it remained an agrarian economy.
We now see how our senate system and our electoral college system disenfranchises voters in large industrial population centers as opposed to rural sparsely populated areas. A vote by a North Dakotan is 2.74 times the vote of a Californian due to the electoral college system. In the senate, the ratio of influence is more like 50 to 1.
Why do you generalize so, and stereotype others. Do you think that putting people into artificial categories you create, simply because you don’t understand them or disagree with them serves some positive purpose?
Have you learned nothing about people who do that, as a gay person?
ChatGPT lies and makes stuff up literally all the time. It also has a documented bias when asked political questions, so it’s definitely not to be trusted.
I actually don’t know too much about this, but started reviewing and it is talking points and a plan from the Heritage Foundation. They are a very conservative organization that tends to be more extreme in their views. Akin to many left leaning activist organizations which do the same and publish goals they have if they could control politicians. None of it is serious or could be implemented- it is a wish list for some people on the extreme side. I always find these kind of things great advertising for the other side as they tend to freak out about these and believe they will all be implemented day 1 if their candidate loses.
I wouldn’t call an organization that tries to undermine our Constitution as conservative. But I know that that like to have that label for fundraising, etc.
I agree..and most of it is a "wish list" as others have pointed out. I think they would be thrilled to get two out of every ten ideas mentioned passed into law.
I’ve only made a slight dent in it, but to be honest I just keep thinking that this is how I thought the government already was…. And that’s the point apparently lol
Oof I’m gonna have to come back after work and read all of your very long arguments.
Before I do all that though, I’d like to know if you have read it yourself. I saw you used chatGPT to formulate some of your comments, so are you relying on that and/or a summary by someone else?
Almost everything you just described Biden is already doing. I really wish they’d make it illegal to run non stop opinion 24/7 on “news” channels without forcing them to put a “for entertainment purposes only” disclaimer on every program. Hate always makes the most money and all the news channels have been on to that far longer than anyone. I don’t even watch anymore and if I hear something disturbing g I go find the original source. For instance every time Trump signed an executive order the “news” made it seem volatile and dangerous or whatever. Yet every single time I managed to go on to https://www.federalregister.gov/ and read the actual documents and in every single instance whatever the news was blowing up was not even close to accurate. If you guys can’t see that the news is in the business of selling news, and it doesn’t matter to them anymore if it’s real or not, I challenge you to pick a story, any story and trace it down to its root document/person/etc and read it yourself and see just how serious the issue has gotten. I have not one good thing to say about Biden but I don’t watch news I just remember important shit from my lifetime and throughout his career he’s been nothing but a conman grifter lining his pockets and just saying shit he thinks people wanna hear of deflecting with a whopper of a tall tale. He truly subscribes to Mark Twains “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” quote but for him it’s his whole platform. He can’t even keep the same viewpoint on a topic longer than a news cycle if that news cycle is unfavorable. I don’t believe he’s in cognitive decline or any other excuse, the fact is he’s always been pure evil. Is it really a coincidence that every time a Democrat is in that office Putin gets a new country? Democrats whole pattern revolves around doing shit and then accusing the other party of doing the shit they’re already doing 😂😂😂it’s mind boggling people aren’t waking up. Botched Afghanistan complete shit the bed but destabilized the Middle East after Trump did the impossible and had the whole region fairly peaceful for the first time since Jesus made wine outta the water over there. Democrat donors are the big name war machine guys like Halliburton and Raytheon, Blackwater, etc and every time one takes office those donors will get their wars to profiteer on.
lol ya right, they court shopped to find a court with a hard left judge that would take the stupid case they just manufactured, made up bullshit jury instructions that are 100% bullshit. You can’t have a jury split a bunch of charges then as long as they all thought he’s guilty of one of them that counts as unanimous and convict on all of them. This was the biggest perversion of the justice system in history and nothing but election interference. Biden and the woke left are a cancer. The left are insanely more radical and violent than the right all the while pointing the finger at the right for everything they’re doing themselves! The left burnt , rampaged and destroyed cities for a whole summer because of the “broken, corrupt, racist justice system” yet as soon as Trump gets screwed by it all of a sudden the justice system is awesome and the right just doesn’t “respect the rule of law”. The whole hypocritical party is a joke. “We must ban firearms to save the children…Except the ones we want to kill in the womb”
False again. It’s fascinating to read the misinformation the Trump extremists are fed. Bragg filed in the court in his jurisdiction. Simple as that.
If you’re referring to Smith, he very clearly didn’t go shopping. He sought each indictment where the alleged crimes occurred, and filed in those same jurisdictions.
I agree with you, if your point is that ideologues on the left are dangerous. But then, so are Trumpist ideologues. Every ideologue is dangerous.
I read it….well skimmed. I mean seriously. Would it even be possible to get even 5% of it actually done? Really?
A republican administration would have four years to make sweeping structural changes….to even steady the bus enough to start implementing any of the proposed ‘plans’. And that’s assuming they have support from congress & the senate, and the unions behave and there’s no public backlash and international affairs don’t take over.
Should Trump even want to do/ start any of this, the GOP would need to already be planning for continuation of the project from 2028. Who’ll lead this? Since Trump’s VP will likely not be selected on skill but how attractive they are at a lectern, I don’t think much thought has gone in to riding these plans through in to the next decade by retaining the WH longterm.
Regardless, do you not think the Dems have their own Project 25? Ofcourse they so. It’ll simply be the reverse of the all shit in the GOP one. And presently there is defined backlash against overly progressive policies.
Haha. You give the Dems way too much credit. They are way more ad hoc and diverse in their views.
But to answer the more important question, I don’t know.
McConnell achieved his goal of packing the SCOTUS. It is now politically corrupt nd lacks credibility. Just consider the ethics and recusal issues, and the stalling on whether a president can assassinate his opponent. Delaying the presidential immunity case for six months or more is clearly and reprehensibly motivated by political corruption.
We found with Donald that a problem with the few laws applicable to the president generally lack any teeth. They are generally in administrative or civil code sections.
For example, when Hillary violated the anti-nepotism statute, passed in response to RFK’s appointment by JFK, by proposing her own healthcare reform plan to the Congress, she was appropriately chastised, and she backed down, humiliated.
However, when Donald violated the statute and appointed family members, times had changed. The statute provides that if the president violates the statute, then the appointee cannot be paid by the U.S. Treasury. Donald spun this as largess. His family would be of service at no charge. Never mind the $2.7+ billion in payoffs to the Kushners by foreign entities.
So, what happens if the highest court is corrupt in favor of one person? What happens if the President simply ignores the law, when there are no criminal sanctions, and the Congress is too deadlocked to impeach and convict?
We have relied on the President respecting the law and relying on precedent to dictate his limits. That is why the President has a WH Counsel to advise him.
When any branch ignores our Constitution, the system fails, sometimes at multiple levels. A good example is when Obama requested the Congress to act on the children sent here from South America. The Congress refused to legislate one way or another, failing in their constitutional duty. Obama reacted by “legislating” by Executive Order to create the DREAMer problem. It was a short term bandaid. Now it’s a headache dor the children turned adult and for the courts who have no legislative authority on the matter, but feel obliged to honor a U.S. president’s commitment.
There is no question that the President has very broad authority to run the Executive Branch as he chooses. As far as I know, he or she is not legally bound by regulations. The question as to what would happen if a president simply ignores statutory authority is an open question that Donald has shown he is willing to test.
No, I'm not familiar and I'm not going to bother. This is from The Heritage Foundation; not Donald Trump. This is like equating every policy proposal from the Center for American Progress as 'Joe Biden's plan'. Take 2 minutes to understand what you're reading instead of letting an AI "do an analysis" and then shitposting on Reddit.
This, bottom line.
Of course you don’t care. That’s why you would be referred to as a low information voter. The problem with your attitude is not that we may disagree. 1/2 of the population leans right, and 1/2 leans left. That has always been the case, and it will always be the case. The problem with your intellectual sloth is that democracy depends on well informed voters, voting in their own best interests. Your attitude and behavior undermines democracy. In the case of project 2025, and with Trumps public statements and his previous behavior, such collective ignorance may represent a serious threat to democracy.
[удалено]
You are wrong.
Overall I think it would be a step in the right direction. There needs to be a major overhaul of the US government, anyway. Congress has become the de facto "monarch" the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
It seems like a plan to install Christian Nationalism to me. I can’t support any politician who supports it. It’s a clear attack on gay people, btw.
You do realize that America always has been a "Christian Nation", right? There is no official religion, but we are a country founded on Christian beliefs and ideals. It seems more like a "reset to default settings" to me.
False. Our constitution and our founders clearly stated that.
Wow. What a breathtakingly dishonest representation of those first 5 points. 1. The project advocates for DEcentralizing power away from agencies that at this point are unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats running the country. This is a good thing; it actually RESTORES democracy to the people. 2. These so-called "vulnerable communities" are actually the most powerful and privileged today, imposing a tyranny on the rest of us. The project restores freedom, liberty, and civil rights to EVERYONE, not just those in "vulnerable communities" at the expense of everyone else. 3. NPR and PBS are so partisan they shouldn't even be considered "news" outlets anymore; they are propagandist mouthpieces for the Democrat party, and absolutely should be defunded. 4. Yes, states absolutely should be looking at a "reset" of sorts to reign in the power of the federal government, which is what our Founding Fathers intended. America is not the federal government; America is a republic of states. The federal government was never intended to have absolute power, like a monarchy (which is what it's quickly becoming). 4. ILLEGAL immigrants are the problem, not "immigrants". Any true conservative will tell you this.
That analysis was by ChatGPT, not by me. It’s likely way more accurate than any partisan analysis you are relying on. The parts I’ve read are clearly frightening. For example, criminalizing certain forms of free speech today, such as porn or speaking of transgender people in a positive manner by a public employee such as a librarian or a teacher. Such speech is proposed to become a registered sex offense. I’ve only skimmed the document. Its goals are clearly unconstitutional in places, by current statute and case law. 1. My reading is that it centralizes executive power by eliminating civil service. MTG, for example, would no doubt claim to be an expert in nuclear waste disposal and in combatting its proliferation to potential terrorists. Boeber would have her own equally brilliant ideas. That is democracy. However, our current form of government places regulatory authority of such matters with the DOE and its nuclear physicists. We live in an era of the poorly informed and uneducated feeling entitled to sssume the roles of experts. No, Donald is not an expert in everything because he had an uncle who was a professor, any more than Eric is qualified to be president because his daddy was president. 2. Another false claim. No, gays, blacks, immigrants and transgender people are not the most powerful people in our society today. More importantly, current rights can be rescinded. Authoritarians typically target minorities. Any minority will suffice. Justice’s Thomas and Alito improperly invited legal challenges to gay marriage in their concurring Dobbs opinion. If we go down that path (of denying the implied privacy standard and the explicit equal protection standards), then it’s not far fetched to predict that gay men will be going to prison for having sex again. This was the case just a few decades ago. 3. Interesting point about NPR. This has actually been studied. The least informed media consumers studied are FOX news viewers. Second worst was MSNBC viewers. A surprise finding was that the more time spent viewing FOX, the worse informed the media consumer was. On the other hand, PBS and BBC media consumers were the best informed on basic current events questions, say like “what country does Viktor Orbán lead?”, or “what did the dobbs decision say?”, or “who is the senate majority leader?”, etc… 4. You are correct. We would find some agreement there. For example, as you may know, our founders did not intend the second amendment to be used to justify universal gun ownership. It very clearly authorizes local militias, which was the meaning of the phrase “to bear arms” at the time. The federal courts have over-reached on that one and completely perverts the original intent. The fact is that our founders probably had no opinion on gun ownership, per se. They did clearly oppose a large standing armed force with global projection of power, as we have today. But we are more than simply a democratic republic, as I read your comment. We are a *constitutional democratic republic*. which means that the government may not infringe on certain individual rights. The weakness of democracy is the potential tyranny of majority rule over minorities, as our slaves knew. 5. We may have some common ground on the immigration issue. It’s a shame that Donald blocked the recent bipartisan attempt to make some small improvements. Putting the illegal immigrant problem aside for the moment, since literally the entire U.S. population agrees on that. Our legislators love to punt it around as a political football and do nothing…. We do have an immigration problem. Other countries have addressed theirs by introducing a merit based system. The U.S. system is a quota system and a green card purchase system. The price of a green card varies from $500k to $1m, depending on the economic zone the applicant intends to invest in. We don’t have enough qualified immigrants under this system to keep our work force vibrant. However, technology may be changing this soon. Some are predicting that we’ll have a large economically useless population segment as AI and robotics continue to take up a larger share of the load.
1. Talking to children about porn is NOT "free speech", nor should it ever be considered to be. Ditto "trans" lunacy. 2. Donald never said he was an "expert" on anything other than business. 3. "This has actually been studied." By whom? I've been working at the highest levels of the media for nearly 40 years, and I know from a direct insider's perspective how biased PBS and the BBC are, as well as most of legacy media. 4. You are blatantly incorrect about the Founding Fathers' intentions about gun ownership. The right to self-defense was so obvious to them, they found no need to even codify it outside the parameters of the militia language. Asserting that they did not intend for us to own guns as individuals is as absurd as asserting that they never intended for us to not have to pay the government a tax on the air we breathe. 5. There was no "bipartisan" attempt to make any "improvements". The bill that was voted down did absolutely nothing to close the border, and actually would have codified allowing a permanent stream of illegals into the country. Read the legislation.
1. Of course it isn’t. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The document says that porn should have no constitutional protection as free speech. In another place is says that speaking of transgender issues should be a registered sex offense. Both of these ideas are unconstitutional under current law if enforced. 2. You are flat out wrong about that. Donald claims to be an expert on the constitution and on history; he claimed to know more about the military than his joint chiefs did; … he blathered on and on repeatedly that he was a stable genius. Anything he attempts, he claims to know more in any topic than any actual expert. He frequently cites the fact that he had an uncle who taught at MIT, and concomitantly cites his race horse theory (a shout out to racists too, obviously) which presumably would make his offspring eligible to succeed him, by extension. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think conservatism implies racism. I think Donald is clearly a racist, and part of his constituency is too. 3. Two professors. I believe they were at the University of New Hampshire. You can find the study. Let me know if you are actually interested, or your question is rhetorical. 4. Nope, I’m not. Many homes had rifles for hunting. The founders were not interested in gun ownership, per se. the clear meaning of the second amendment is to establish the right to “bear arms”. In 1789, the accepted meaning of that term was to be a part of a militia. I’m surprised that you don’t know this, as you seem well informed as to the intent to decentralize power. Our founders were breaking away from colonialism. They opposed a large standing armed force to be used inevitably to impose force on others. Their ideal was only to bear arms in self defense. To this end, local militias would be raised. It’s interesting to me how different ideological groups flip flop on whether to interpret the Constitution according to its intent and contemporaneous meaning, or whether to interpret the language of the time literally with a modern dictionary. The 2nd amendment activists completely miss the original intent. The intent was that the federal government could not proscribe members from joining militias. As I’m sure you know, both Jefferson and Adams agreed, in their letters after they reconciled, that our constitution should be updated regularly to fit the times. We seem to have forgotten that original intent. 5. I think your sources are biased on the recent immigration bill. We’ll just have to disagree on that. Donald did instruct the house speaker (who is now beholden to Donald for helping retain his speakership), and others to oppose the bill so he would have the issue as political fodder to fire at Biden. It was a bipartisan proposal.
As for the call to a constitutional convention, I doubt it would work, as much as I think we need it. For example, I think Jefferson would agree that the time has come to scrap our electoral college. It’s fascinating to me that he has the prescience to predict that the US would remain a democracy as long as it remained an agrarian economy. We now see how our senate system and our electoral college system disenfranchises voters in large industrial population centers as opposed to rural sparsely populated areas. A vote by a North Dakotan is 2.74 times the vote of a Californian due to the electoral college system. In the senate, the ratio of influence is more like 50 to 1.
So, like a typical leftist, you are basing your opinion around what the media and ChatGPT is telling you?
Why do you generalize so, and stereotype others. Do you think that putting people into artificial categories you create, simply because you don’t understand them or disagree with them serves some positive purpose? Have you learned nothing about people who do that, as a gay person?
ChatGPT lies and makes stuff up literally all the time. It also has a documented bias when asked political questions, so it’s definitely not to be trusted.
Depends on how you frame your query. But yes, it can hallucinate. It’s more common, though, for it to omit information.
Why do you think ChatGPT won’t be bias? It only knows what you feed it!
I actually don’t know too much about this, but started reviewing and it is talking points and a plan from the Heritage Foundation. They are a very conservative organization that tends to be more extreme in their views. Akin to many left leaning activist organizations which do the same and publish goals they have if they could control politicians. None of it is serious or could be implemented- it is a wish list for some people on the extreme side. I always find these kind of things great advertising for the other side as they tend to freak out about these and believe they will all be implemented day 1 if their candidate loses.
I wouldn’t call an organization that tries to undermine our Constitution as conservative. But I know that that like to have that label for fundraising, etc.
Overall, I like it. Not everything, but most of it is common sense and good for the country.
I agree..and most of it is a "wish list" as others have pointed out. I think they would be thrilled to get two out of every ten ideas mentioned passed into law.
I’ve only made a slight dent in it, but to be honest I just keep thinking that this is how I thought the government already was…. And that’s the point apparently lol
Oof I’m gonna have to come back after work and read all of your very long arguments. Before I do all that though, I’d like to know if you have read it yourself. I saw you used chatGPT to formulate some of your comments, so are you relying on that and/or a summary by someone else?
The summary of the contents of project 2025 is AI generated. I already pointed that out.
Almost everything you just described Biden is already doing. I really wish they’d make it illegal to run non stop opinion 24/7 on “news” channels without forcing them to put a “for entertainment purposes only” disclaimer on every program. Hate always makes the most money and all the news channels have been on to that far longer than anyone. I don’t even watch anymore and if I hear something disturbing g I go find the original source. For instance every time Trump signed an executive order the “news” made it seem volatile and dangerous or whatever. Yet every single time I managed to go on to https://www.federalregister.gov/ and read the actual documents and in every single instance whatever the news was blowing up was not even close to accurate. If you guys can’t see that the news is in the business of selling news, and it doesn’t matter to them anymore if it’s real or not, I challenge you to pick a story, any story and trace it down to its root document/person/etc and read it yourself and see just how serious the issue has gotten. I have not one good thing to say about Biden but I don’t watch news I just remember important shit from my lifetime and throughout his career he’s been nothing but a conman grifter lining his pockets and just saying shit he thinks people wanna hear of deflecting with a whopper of a tall tale. He truly subscribes to Mark Twains “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” quote but for him it’s his whole platform. He can’t even keep the same viewpoint on a topic longer than a news cycle if that news cycle is unfavorable. I don’t believe he’s in cognitive decline or any other excuse, the fact is he’s always been pure evil. Is it really a coincidence that every time a Democrat is in that office Putin gets a new country? Democrats whole pattern revolves around doing shit and then accusing the other party of doing the shit they’re already doing 😂😂😂it’s mind boggling people aren’t waking up. Botched Afghanistan complete shit the bed but destabilized the Middle East after Trump did the impossible and had the whole region fairly peaceful for the first time since Jesus made wine outta the water over there. Democrat donors are the big name war machine guys like Halliburton and Raytheon, Blackwater, etc and every time one takes office those donors will get their wars to profiteer on.
Nah, Biden doesn’t aspire to authoritarianism as the extreme right does. It’s a real stretch to try to say that.
lol ya right, they court shopped to find a court with a hard left judge that would take the stupid case they just manufactured, made up bullshit jury instructions that are 100% bullshit. You can’t have a jury split a bunch of charges then as long as they all thought he’s guilty of one of them that counts as unanimous and convict on all of them. This was the biggest perversion of the justice system in history and nothing but election interference. Biden and the woke left are a cancer. The left are insanely more radical and violent than the right all the while pointing the finger at the right for everything they’re doing themselves! The left burnt , rampaged and destroyed cities for a whole summer because of the “broken, corrupt, racist justice system” yet as soon as Trump gets screwed by it all of a sudden the justice system is awesome and the right just doesn’t “respect the rule of law”. The whole hypocritical party is a joke. “We must ban firearms to save the children…Except the ones we want to kill in the womb”
False again. It’s fascinating to read the misinformation the Trump extremists are fed. Bragg filed in the court in his jurisdiction. Simple as that. If you’re referring to Smith, he very clearly didn’t go shopping. He sought each indictment where the alleged crimes occurred, and filed in those same jurisdictions. I agree with you, if your point is that ideologues on the left are dangerous. But then, so are Trumpist ideologues. Every ideologue is dangerous.
I read it….well skimmed. I mean seriously. Would it even be possible to get even 5% of it actually done? Really? A republican administration would have four years to make sweeping structural changes….to even steady the bus enough to start implementing any of the proposed ‘plans’. And that’s assuming they have support from congress & the senate, and the unions behave and there’s no public backlash and international affairs don’t take over. Should Trump even want to do/ start any of this, the GOP would need to already be planning for continuation of the project from 2028. Who’ll lead this? Since Trump’s VP will likely not be selected on skill but how attractive they are at a lectern, I don’t think much thought has gone in to riding these plans through in to the next decade by retaining the WH longterm. Regardless, do you not think the Dems have their own Project 25? Ofcourse they so. It’ll simply be the reverse of the all shit in the GOP one. And presently there is defined backlash against overly progressive policies.
Haha. You give the Dems way too much credit. They are way more ad hoc and diverse in their views. But to answer the more important question, I don’t know. McConnell achieved his goal of packing the SCOTUS. It is now politically corrupt nd lacks credibility. Just consider the ethics and recusal issues, and the stalling on whether a president can assassinate his opponent. Delaying the presidential immunity case for six months or more is clearly and reprehensibly motivated by political corruption. We found with Donald that a problem with the few laws applicable to the president generally lack any teeth. They are generally in administrative or civil code sections. For example, when Hillary violated the anti-nepotism statute, passed in response to RFK’s appointment by JFK, by proposing her own healthcare reform plan to the Congress, she was appropriately chastised, and she backed down, humiliated. However, when Donald violated the statute and appointed family members, times had changed. The statute provides that if the president violates the statute, then the appointee cannot be paid by the U.S. Treasury. Donald spun this as largess. His family would be of service at no charge. Never mind the $2.7+ billion in payoffs to the Kushners by foreign entities. So, what happens if the highest court is corrupt in favor of one person? What happens if the President simply ignores the law, when there are no criminal sanctions, and the Congress is too deadlocked to impeach and convict? We have relied on the President respecting the law and relying on precedent to dictate his limits. That is why the President has a WH Counsel to advise him. When any branch ignores our Constitution, the system fails, sometimes at multiple levels. A good example is when Obama requested the Congress to act on the children sent here from South America. The Congress refused to legislate one way or another, failing in their constitutional duty. Obama reacted by “legislating” by Executive Order to create the DREAMer problem. It was a short term bandaid. Now it’s a headache dor the children turned adult and for the courts who have no legislative authority on the matter, but feel obliged to honor a U.S. president’s commitment. There is no question that the President has very broad authority to run the Executive Branch as he chooses. As far as I know, he or she is not legally bound by regulations. The question as to what would happen if a president simply ignores statutory authority is an open question that Donald has shown he is willing to test.
Seems alarmist