Watch out for 'Project 2025'!

[eider]

I wonder how many Americans have seen proposals like this?
Question:- Do you want to live in a country that advocates the kinds of changes proposed by Project 2025?
The mention of 'speedy executions' caught my attention ...................and the invocation of the 'Insurrection Act of 1807' is yet another twist coming after the 01/06 outrage.

I tried to read more about all this on the 'project 2025 org' website but the guts of the policy are hidden..........but since Wicki has already published details for your attention I thought that might be a good introduction for you all.

Oh.......... and be careful what you vote for!

Here is the Wicki introduction, if you want more shocks then access this report and read further:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).[8][9] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[10] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[11] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[12][13] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[14][15] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[16][17] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[18] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[19][20] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[21] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[21][22] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[4][22] as well as affirmative action.[23]

Project contributor Jeffrey Clark advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.[24][25] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants.[26] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences.[27] Project director Paul Dans, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."[28][29] Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government.[4] Although the project cannot by law promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Trump and his 2024 campaign.[6][30]

[KingsGambit]

I don't like the increasingly expansive scope of executive orders seemingly shared by every president, and this would take that to a while new level.

Having said that...do you have any concept of "know your audience"? You're coming in here and trying to argue that we should be outraged about laws that would not define "abortion as health care" or would ban pornography?

[Sam]

I don't like the increasingly expansive scope of executive orders seemingly shared by every president, and this would take that to a while new level.

Having said that...do you have any concept of "know your audience"? You're coming in here and trying to argue that we should be outraged about laws that would not define "abortion as health care" or would ban pornography?

If the audience here's conscious isn't shocked by the Project 2025 plan to round up immigrants into giant internment camps, one would at least hope the "small government" mentality would compel them to be scandalized by the prospect of pregnant people dying when the hospitals in their state can't perform medically necessary abortions because they're no longer designated as health care.

-Sam

[eider]

I don't like the increasingly expansive scope of executive orders seemingly shared by every president, and this would take that to a while new level.

Having said that...do you have any concept of "know your audience"? You're coming in here and trying to argue that we should be outraged about laws that would not define "abortion as health care" or would ban pornography?

I think I know most of the audience here, in as much as some might be happy to see Project 2025 together with other trash in it.

So you don't consider pregnancy termination in cases of lifesaving of the mother 'healthcare'?

Pornography? Exactly what would fall under that title? Maybe sex education, eh?

[KingsGambit]

I think I know most of the audience here, in as much as some might be happy to see Project 2025 together with other trash in it.

So you don't consider pregnancy termination in cases of lifesaving of the mother 'healthcare'?

Pornography? Exactly what would fall under that title? Maybe sex education, eh?

I do support life of mother exceptions for any abortion bans, and that doesn't remotely fit within the scope of anything I initially posted. You're clearly not trying to interact in good faith so I'll bow out.

[eider]

I do support life of mother exceptions for any abortion bans, and that doesn't remotely fit within the scope of anything I initially posted. You're clearly not trying to interact in good faith so I'll bow out.

Which part of 'healthcare' didn't you get?
And that is t a bow-out, but more like a cop-out.

Abortion to save mother-life is healthcare and on some cases would need financial support.

Careful what you support, or not, eh?

[seer]

If the audience here's conscious isn't shocked by the Project 2025 plan to round up immigrants into giant internment camps, one would at least hope the "small government" mentality would compel them to be scandalized by the prospect of pregnant people dying when the hospitals in their state can't perform medically necessary abortions because they're no longer designated as health care.

-Sam

Of course illegals should be rounded up - to await deportation. Which 62% of Americans support. And I doubt that any state would not allow abortion when it saves the life of the mother. And they are not pregnant people, they are pregnant women.

[eider]

If the audience here's conscious isn't shocked by the Project 2025 plan to round up immigrants into giant internment camps, one would at least hope the "small government" mentality would compel them to be scandalized by the prospect of pregnant people dying when the hospitals in their state can't perform medically necessary abortions because they're no longer designated as health care.

-Sam

Absolutely correct!
And the idea of focusing armed militia to go after political foes of the rightist movement is straight out of Hitler's copy book.

[Terraceth]

I wonder how many Americans have seen proposals like this?
Question:- Do you want to live in a country that advocates the kinds of changes proposed by Project 2025?
The mention of 'speedy executions' caught my attention ...................and the invocation of the 'Insurrection Act of 1807' is yet another twist coming after the 01/06 outrage.

I tried to read more about all this on the 'project 2025 org' website but the guts of the policy are hidden..........but since Wicki has already published details for your attention I thought that might be a good introduction for you all.

Oh.......... and be careful what you vote for!

Here is the Wicki introduction, if you want more shocks then access this report and read further:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).[8][9] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[10] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[11] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[12][13] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[14][15] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[16][17] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[18] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[19][20] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[21] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[21][22] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[4][22] as well as affirmative action.[23]

Project contributor Jeffrey Clark advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.[24][25] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants.[26] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences.[27] Project director Paul Dans, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."[28][29] Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government.[4] Although the project cannot by law promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Trump and his 2024 campaign.[6][30]

As you admitted, you haven't seen the "guts of the policy" and instead are relying on Wikipedia's summary. The problem is, Wikipedia has a liberal bias--it's not as big as some people try to claim, but it is definitely there. So anything conservative is going to be described through a liberal lens. So one should be cautious with it. I'm not saying it's useless in such areas, but caution should be advised.

So let's take a look at the part you bolded, which you seem to consider the biggest deal. There are two obvious issues there. First, it doesn't say this is a formal part of "Project 2025" but just that a contributor said this, with no indication that this was is some formal position of the project.

However, it gets more dodgy when one looks at the citations it uses. The first is from a Washington Post article, which claims that some people who spoke with Trump told the Washington Post (on condition of anonymity) that Trump wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office. Accepting this as true, it doesn't seem to find a real connection to Project 2025 with this. The mention of the Insurrection Act is to use it to put down "civil demonstrations" (the articles' words), which sounds pretty concerning until you get a few more paragraphs later and it seems to be in using it to put down riots, with it mentioning that Trump expressed regret he didn't use it to put down the George Floyd riots. Notably, it doesn't say either of those things are actually from jeffrey Clark, merely that Jeffrey Clark is "leading the work on the Insurrection Act under Project 2025" but as the article does not demonstrate Project 2025 is directly involved with any direction towards going after Trump's enemies, or that the Insurrection Act invocation would be anything other than putting down demonstrations that get unruly, it falls quite short of backing up what the Wikipedia article says.

The second citation goes to the CNN website, which does more explicitly draw some connections. It says:

Last year, Clark published an essay itled “The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent” for the Center for Renewing America, a conservative nonprofit founded by Russell Vought. Clark also helped draft portions of the Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump term, including outlining the use of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement, as first reported by the Washington Post.

Here it links to the aforementioned Washington Post article. But again, the usage of the military with the Insurrection Act is not stated, either in the Washington Post or CNN, to be used to "pursue Donald Trump's adversaries" but to be used for law enforcement, with the example used being the George Floyd riots; Trump going after his "adversaries" is a separate matter mentioned in the Washington Post article, and one not directly linked to Project 2025.

The Wikipedia article seems to be conflating two separate things into one. And while Trump's desire (at least according to sources speaking on the requirement of anonymity) to go after former allies who became critical of him could be concerning, it's a separate thing from the usage of the Insurrection Act to use the military for domestic law enforcement. I also do not see, in either cited article, any statement that Clark said the President should "immediately" do any of this. So it really seems a misrepresentation of its sources (the sources probably aren't the most unbiased things to begin with in regards to Trump, but even accepting the articles as totally factual, they don't back up the bolded sentence from Wikipedia).

[eider]

As you admitted, you haven't seen the "guts of the policy" and instead are relying on Wikipedia's summary.........

Are you telling us that you have a link to the full project details?
If so then that's brilliant......please post up a link.

Can't wait.

[JimL]

The entire point of project 2025 is to create the very "DEEP STATE" to put an end to the independence of democratic institutions, to appoint loyalists, sycophants, to head the agencies who would be, along with all employees, directly answerable to the new Dictator of the U.S..
When the fascists accuse their opposition of something, such as "operating a "Deep State" you can be quite certain that they are the guilty ones and are either doing or are planning to do that very thing.

[eider]

The entire point of project 2025 is to create the very "DEEP STATE" to put an end to the independence of democratic institutions, to appoint loyalists, sycophants, to head the agencies who would be, along with all employees, directly answerable to the new Dictator of the U.S..
When the fascists accuse their opposition of something, such as "operating a "Deep State" you can be quite certain that they are the guilty ones and are either doing or are planning to do that very thing.

I don't doubt what you say in your post at all.
PRoject 2025 is just 'sick'.
And some members are even trying to support it by focusing upon single policies within it......and getting those wrong as well!

[Terraceth]

Are you telling us that you have a link to the full project details?
If so then that's brilliant......please post up a link.

Can't wait.

It's right there on the website:
https://www.project2025.org/policy/

Go to the website, click "Policy" and viola, it brings you to the above page. It's extremely easy to find. I personally haven't read it both because I don't particularly care and also because it clocks in at nearly 900 pages, but it's not hidden or anything.

[tabibito]

I don't doubt what you say in your post at all.
PRoject 2025 is just 'sick'.
And some members are even trying to support it by focusing upon single policies within it......and getting those wrong as well!

It is not an officially recognised policy, but a wish list promulgated by activists. When the Republicans commit to enacting its policies, it will be time to worry.

[rogue06]

I don't like the increasingly expansive scope of executive orders seemingly shared by every president, and this would take that to a while new level.

Having said that...do you have any concept of "know your audience"? You're coming in here and trying to argue that we should be outraged about laws that would not define "abortion as health care" or would ban pornography?

Let's not forget that this seems to be largely still in the "spitballing" stage where all sorts of ideas get tossed out there, most of which won't ever be recommended.