408

Trump is now trying to downplay Project 2025 (www.salon.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Project 2025 (and its auxiliary Trump’s “Agenda 47”) are a plan by right-wing extremists and other authoritarians to end America’s multiracial democracy and to replace it with a White Christian nationalist plutocracy.

A conspiracy is a plan by two or more people operating in private to advance their interests and goals above those of some other person(s) — or in this context the American people. Project 2025 is not a conspiracy. These plans are exhaustively detailed in a book titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” and are regularly discussed at conferences, in interviews, and in other public forums. Project 2025 and its related plans, like Agenda 47, were not hatched overnight. As author and journalist Anne Nelson and other experts have been extensively documenting, Project 2025 and the other right-wing extremists’ and neofascists' plans to end America’s multiracial democracy have been years and decades in development

top 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 80 points 1 month ago

Just because they have shitty opsec doesn’t mean it’s not a conspiracy.

The full details aren’t public.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

You can read Project 2025 for yourself. What details aren't public?

[-] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago

I think what they are trying to say is that the people behind Project 2025 aren't going to show their whole hand. This is just step 1. There are most likely plans and schemes that won't be revealed until they have implemented the first part.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

Execution of LGBTQ is definitely in there

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I don’t know. I’m not an asshole. Well, not enough of one to be an insurrectionist.

There have, however been plenty of reports that not everything has been publicly stated.

[-] [email protected] 69 points 1 month ago

The number of people discussing the election that don’t know about project 2025 is disturbing

[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago

Both sides... Right?

[+] [email protected] -49 points 1 month ago

No, but yes. Democrats fund extremist Republicans in order to "secure" their seats. The amount of times this has blown up in their faces means that they are, at the minimum, culpable for the extremism festering on the right. Their party isn't as bad, but it does answer to the same interests (big business) that the Republicans get their matching orders from.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

[Citation Needed]

I’m happy to listen to your points if you have well documented evidence.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/democrats-republican-primaries.html

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

The Democratic Governors Association and the campaign of Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) spent a combined $34.5 million successfully elevating Bailey.

Great, that’s exactly the kind of evidence I’m talking about. I hope people take you dead serious when you spit facts like this.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

You're being downvoted to hell and back but part of the reason where here is because the DNC in 2016 chose to support and push the right's fringe candidates assuming they were unelectable....it's has absolutely failed.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

What GOP candidates have the DNC boosted that went on to defeat the Democratic candidate? Just curious.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Well first I read about it was regarding the 2016 election so Trump's dumbass for one. It seems the same inability to understand the audience lead to Hillary assuming she had states she needed in the bag. The DNC somehow encouraged "unelectable" candidates and Hillary did not campaign in some states she should have.

Biden all the way for 2024. I don't love some actions of the DNC, but we saw the cost of the asshole tax in 2016. No chance I'm interested in exploring asshole tax 2.0. it will literally tear the country apart.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The argument that Hillary is responsible for Trump is pretty ridiculous. The Republican primary for 2016 was a clown car full of losers nobody liked and Trump won through a series of plurality victories because the GOP is full of power hungry narcissists.

Notably in 2020, early on it was looking like the Democrats were going to nominate Bernie in the same way. He was winning early primary contests by plurality. But the Democrats circled their wagons and lined up behind Biden.

Hillary Clinton barely had a grip on the Democratic party in 2016. She lost significant mindshare and support to a relative unknown at the time (Bernie). She certainly wasn't powerful enough to pick who she ran against.

Biden also didn't to my knowledge discuss the Republican primary very much if at all. For a while he was giving Trump the Voldemort treatment and not even referring to him by name.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

The argument that Hillary is responsible for Trump is pretty ridiculous.

Yes, but no. Her campaign and the DNC actively worked to elevate Trump in hopes that he'd be unelectable so that they wouldn't have to compromise with the Left. The "pied piper" tactic that the Dems are now continually using is extremely high risk but they would rather see fascism than leftward movement.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

She and her super Deligates and the DNC absolutely stole Bernie's momentum.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Like I really don't understand people who hang out in poltical forums but have like, not even a cursory knowledge of politics.

Adam Schiff ratfucked Katie Porter by taking millions in democratic donations and giving them to the republican candidate, so that he wouldn't have to face Katie in the general.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/02/29/adam-schiff-katie-porter-steve-garvey-california-senate-race/

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

I really don't understand people who hang out in political forums but like, don't even have the ability to read the question before shooting off an unrelated answer. If Adam Schiff loses to Steve Garvey you've provided a proper example.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Steve Garvey won the primary cheese head. He won. Porter lost. Goal met.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Steve Garvey hasn't won that seat. I would've preferred Porter win the spot in the primary but this is in no way an example of the DNC boosting a Republican and losing the race.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Schiff spent 10 million dollars promoting Garvey, a Republican, to stop a progressive.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

a plan by right-wing extremists

I don't think the word "extremist" is appropriate when the overwhelming majority of conservatives support it. Project 2025 is just what regular conservatives plan to do to oppress and eradicate the normal people.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Here in Germany we learn that extremists are people with opinions that go against the system, trying to overthrow the system. By that definitions they are extremists, I think?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

By that definition, I agree.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Actually the definition is more nuanced. A radical (from latin radix = root) is someone who wants to change the political system from its core by using legal procedures like elections. An extremist is someone who despite being in a minority trys to overthrow the system in violent terms. So depending on Trump's win or a mop running in the capitol and declaring Trump the winner, they are either radicals or extremist.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

By the way, The Heritage foundation has a "Project " document pretty regularly, so these ideas aren't going away and aren't dependant on a particular candidate... They're well funded and backed by the think tank.

this post was submitted on 31 May 2024

408 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18138 readers

3973 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News