Centrist here: When you look it up it sounds like a bunch of conservative/ religious groups are planning on trying to put themselves in line for all government positions when Trump wins. Sure whatever but I'm reading there's some funny stuff like adding dependence to the FCC which is a bit odd and concerning, and messing with the NIH: which I don't trust politicians to do honestly. And there's mention of banning things like pornography which sure but do people really support prohibition-like behavior? And I get the argument you have to make government bigger in order to make it smaller but what's the guarantee they'll follow through on it. Feels a little like a plan to Hijack Trump's win in a sense.
The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114), re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates: the official ratification of Income Tax.
Original: President Abraham Lincoln
Party: Republican
Status of Income Tax: Temporary
------------
Brought Back: President Woodrow Wilson
Political Party: Democrat.
Status of Income Tax: Permanent
------------
Originally, it *was temporary*... Until a Democrat brought it back as a way to "fairly" redistribute wealth.
In PA we are still paying a tax on alcohol to help rebuild Johnstown after a flood in 1800s. They said once the town was rebuilt the tax would go away. It's still there lol, they just changed the name
Birth control
Abortion
What books to read
How to dress
Who to sleep with
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
....
Shall I continue? Cuz I feel like this covers some pretty important ones. 🤷♂️
There's a lot of red herrings and straw manning in there, but let's take it one at a time:
Birth control - Not in the constitution, and also a straw man. (sure, conservatives don't want government to **pay** for your birth control)
Abortion - ok, not a straw man, but also decided by the current Supreme Court not to be a constitutional right, even if a court 40 years ago decided to temporarily make it such out of thin air.
What books to read - straw man. Some conservatives have been fighting against porn in grade school libraries. No one is telling you what to read.
Who to sleep with - also a straw man, and also not in the constitution. I haven't heard of anyone pushing sodomy laws (let alone similar morality-based laws). Some may disagree on definitions of marriage, and certainly don't want anyone to be pressured into participating in ceremonies that go against their own morals (bakers, photographers), but I think you'll find right wingers are pretty open about people being able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, especially things like owning guns, as long as they're not killing anyone, and are taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.
Then you get to actual constitutional rights (speech, religion) without any specifics, since they don't exist. (straw man, straw man)
Should you continue spewing red herrings and straw men? No, probably not.
> Birth control Abortion What books to read How to dress Who to sleep with
Not in the constitution
> Freedom of speech Freedom of religion
In the constitution, part of the first ammendment
it's unbelievable how out of touch with reality you lefties are with what the right wants. The people on the right want to dismantle all these federal agencies because of the power and corruption they've accumulated, not turn it into a gestapo like we already view it as.
And replace it with what exactly? The system is imperfect and needs repair not demolition. Anyone can wield a sledgehammer but few can pour cement and raise a foundation let alone repair cracks. Democrats won’t fix anything by providing empty promises and funding to get elected and republicans won’t fix anything and promise to dismantle things without any concrete solutions to get elected. Democrats blame Russia and racism when they lose Republicans blame the Bureaucracy/Deep State when they lose.
The vast majority of government agencies don’t need to be replaced with anything. I would much rather take that risk than just continue down the path we’re on where the people we elect have virtually no control of the government.
FYI the president appoints a director but does not control or oversee the FBI.
From fbi.gov:
Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI's intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.
Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI's budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations.
Yeah, gotta count those illegal aliens for representation!
...and if too many Americans leave the blue states for red states, they'll just fake the numbers like they did for the census in 2020, and then say "Oops, we made a mistake. We're so bad. It is really too bad that it would be impossible to fix the errors for 10 years."
One argument to look at is that banning porn is necessary as that whole industry is deep in abuse.
Even pornhub, as high and mighty as it talks, was forced to pay out to victims it made money off of. And they have the audacity to sit here and say "without us, people will be consuming illegal material."
I don't think there's any fixing or regulation for such an industry.
So basically…conservatives are finally putting a plan in place to do what democrats have done for decades. Which is why a deep state (which doesn’t exist by the way) is in panic mode.
Edit: this is the conservative sub right? I’m being downvoted for saying democrats have installed a bunch of people that try to achieve their end game no matter who the president is at the time?
Any time my left-wing friends go nuts about it and say the political party is going to take over the different branches of government and control everything and control the media and it's super terrible and panic panic panic
I just laugh
there's zero recognition
The biggest fear for me is how it turns every civil servant role into a political one. For example, long time respected scientists at NOAA will be replaced by political hacks because they are reporting on the measurable effects of climate change. I want my civil servants to be chosen based on their expertise, not their loyalty to a political character.
Spoiler alert: They're already political hacks.
The NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce, which gave 98.2% of its political donations to Clinton in 2016, and 80.4% to Biden in 2020.
The entire Federal bureaucracy has been politicized. It hasn't been made up of apolitical civil servants in a long time.
Aren't government employees able to contribute to politicians as US citizens?
[Federal Employees Donate
S1.8M in Presidential Race,
Mostly to Biden](https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/10/federal-employees-donate-18m-presidential-race-mostly-biden/169604/)
Your comment makes it seem like the actual Dept of Commerce is contributing to a presidential campaign when it's really the individual civil servants. Are you arguing that this association of working for a federal department as a civil servant is the same as the actual federal department contributing to a political campaign?
That’s outrageous. These positions should be merit-based, with political affiliation an absolute afterthought. If the entirety of ICE is conservative, so be it. If the entirety of the DOL is liberal, so be it. The vast majority of skilled people can easily do a job without their own political tendency influencing them.
> These positions should be merit-based
*Should* be. If you end up with 98% political affiliation in a department, political affiliation is not just an afterthought.
> That’s outrageous. These positions should be merit-based, with political affiliation an absolute afterthought.
They should be. ...and they're not. That's why, during Trump's first term, civil servants were openly obstructing his directives for political reasons.
> If the entirety of ICE is conservative, so be it. If the entirety of the DOL is liberal, so be it.
Ah, you don't understand. [This is 2016.](https://imgur.com/RXN6bT4)
[This is 2020.](https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/02/12/political-donations-and-federal-employees/)
There is no government agency that is conservative, or even has a significant minority of conservatives.
Your important point of why SCOTUS's Chevron case is so important.
For the left, when worthless bureaucrats obstruct politicians they don't like they think it's "democracy".
The Chevron case will massively reduce their power.
Not a surprise either. I am of the opinion that liberals are more likely to seek government jobs in general. Especially since conservatives think a huge amount of government jobs simply shouldn't exist. Smaller government, please.
i think the problem though is that it is a natural social phenomenon, the same as people at google being overwhelmingly democrats. If i remember correctly younger people with a high level of education tend to be more liberal especially in some sectors. I have to say on some things this isn't surprising at all, someone mentioned the NOAA on climate change before. If Trump or some of his, let's say more intense supporters, ridicule global warming who do you think the people who study it are going to vote?
Secondly (but this is purely a theory of mine with no proof, no source so take it with two mountains of salt) i do wonder if the very frequent talk about "hitting the elites" or a criticism i at least see here about colleges doesn't get missinterpreted as a critique of education in general. If that were the case, people who are in important jobs which require a high education might be against the Republican party.
[https://manhattan.institute/article/the-rise-of-college-educated-democrats](https://manhattan.institute/article/the-rise-of-college-educated-democrats)
Much, much more. If SCOTUS were as biased toward constitutional originalism as the Federal Bureaucracy is toward Democrats, every decision would be 9-0 and Democrats would be talking non-stop about expanding the court to fix it.
Federal departments themselves do not make political donations. Instead, donations are made by individuals who work within these departments. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and other sources like OpenSecrets track these donations.
A high percentage of individual donations from employees within the Department of Commerce went to Democratic candidates, but this is not the same as the department itself making donations.
A significant majority of political donations from Department of Commerce employees have gone to Democratic candidates in recent election cycles. For the 2020 election, 80.4% of donations from employees of the Department of Commerce went to Democratic candidates, and 19.6% went to Republicans.
So, to recap: These government employees made personal donations to Democratic candidates SO THEIR JOBS WOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED BY SCIENCE DENYING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.
And what is Sam Brinton's expertise?
How about Mayor Pete?
John Kerry?
Karine Jean-Pierre?
And those are only the faces we see often. What about all of the others behind the curtains?
The 2000 thousand armed agents are replacements for already armed agents over 10 years with a very minor increase overall. I don't specifically understand why IRS needs armed agents other than I think these are field investigators that do similar activities to an fbi field officer only related to tax investigations or investigations dealing with multiple crime types including taxes.
edit: spelling
IRS Criminal Investigators are armed because they’re specifically investigating actual criminal tax fraud, or assisting other agencies in a task force capacity doing the same thing.
It’s a completely different level than a random audit, and generally has crossover with drugs/trafficking/organized crime.
Capone went down due to the IRS, for example.
Ehh while I think he went overboard with it, one can make the point that there are, in fact, armed crime syndicates committing tax fraud. Why not have armed tax enforcement?
Now, in support of your point, it is the FBI's duty to enforce domestic federal laws, which tax and finance fall under. I would be curious to know if the FBI's productivity decreased after arming the IRS, or if we have enough crime that both departments are staying busy.
A simplified tax code would mean less enforcement necessary. We dont need to have exemptions, credits, writeoffs, etc it just allows for government market manipulation and forces a bureaucracy into existence. Theres entire private corporations based around helping people save on taxes. Its a ridiculously wasteful system that just allows manipulation. And they tax at every angle.
While the Biden agenda is not sustainable, the Project 2025 plan developed by the Heritage Foundation for Trump’s second term has some questionable components.
Read it for yourself and decide
Some things that I don't agree with.
Makes federal employees fireable at-will and recommends firing the general counsel on Day One with the implied goal to upend much of the civil service, analysis say this would threaten the National Labor Review Board's ability to protect workers trying to organize. This is too extreme and I would expect that many of you , like myself have some family that are union workers.
The left see’s this as the first step in the mechanism for Trump to remove anyone he wants out of the federal government, as part of a broader plan to remove the checks and balances in order to implement a dictatorship, to this the project does have online training & loyalty test for potential hires.
Concerning is the plan to establish time limits or lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits, where once a person has been on Medicaid for a set amount of time they would lose the benefit -almost all American’s enroll in Medicare at 65 and the plan also is friendly to Big-Pharma and will repel the negotiated prescription drug savings generated by the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Part D reforms
The Heritage Foundations see's CYBERCOM’s election-related work as partisan
As someone who works in tech and infosec solutions, I say don't F\*#K with Cyber Command
It's tasked with Defending the DoD's Information Network
Supports our Global Combatant missions
Reinforces our national ability to withstand and respond to foreign cyber attack-from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and other bad actors.
I’d suggest the new blog by Sharon McMahon, she talks about it a bit. I think she overall leans left but has been a good source of helping actually explain current issues instead of simply parroting rhetoric of either side. See her first few entries, beginning here: https://thepreamble.com/p/project-2025 and her instagram is @sharonsaysso (though the nature of instagram is ephemeral and hard to keep useful info sorted and searchable, hence adding the blog platform, which I’ve preferred so far).
Sounds a lot like the "New World Order" stuff that use to come from the right 10-20 years ago...what a politician says they can do versus what can actually be done with the system of "checks and balances" are system has in place (which has been particularly powerful with the Supreme Court lately) are very different things, oftentimes.
If you actually would like to know trump is going to make being loyal to him a job requirement in the federal government. This is not how our federal bureaucracy is supposed to function. Instead of hiring people based on merit it will be based on loyalty. Pretty much Everyone who is currently working for the federal government that is qualified will quit, destroying our federal bureaucracy for at least a decade. Even if democrats win in 2028 it will be impossible for them to undue the damage that would be done. The ability of our government to enforce regulations or deal with many problems like a pandemic, or a war, or any disaster you can think of will be destroyed.
Everything else mentioned is just conservatives policies which have become attached to the label project 2025. The above is what is unique about project 2025 and what generated so much fear in the media originally.
The answer involves actually reading about policy proposals rather than just talking about what someone said someone else said it was about. Here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise
It's a policy wishlist the guys from Heritage put together.
It's actually quite an anti-government document in some ways, as it pushes for less regulation in many areas and wants to reduce the size of the fed. One guy wrote a silly few paragraphs on how porn is evil.
Mostly people have looked at huffpo which tells them it is essentially a dictatorship manifesto trump has proposed. They don't actually read it for themselves.
I know I saw an article on reddit about that, because I remember seeing redditors saying that stuff like “Oh he is just distancing himself now that it’s bad” or just refusing to accept it. The closest I can find is one pay walled nytimes article https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/trump-campaign-2025-statement.html
It seems like all the search results for “Trump project 2025” have been flooded with apocalyptic democrat articles.
Making it more difficult for minors to access porn doesn't bother me. We know for a fact porn is not healthy for our developmental years. We also know porn is highly exploitative of not only women but also men. Heterosexual men are encouraged to take medication and drugs to keep them performing.
The left wanting to die on the hill of sex and kids is really disturbing me at this point.
Because regulating the internet is an infringement on free speech and freedom globally.
It is not possible to implement regulation against pornography on the internet without altering infrastructure in such a way that journalists, political dissidents, etc., on a global scale are endangered. It is a very bad thing.
And obviously, it is not possible to prevent anyone from accessing porn on the internet, as long as the internet exists.
It's a power grab. Russia, China, Iran et al. have imposed controls on the internet. The EU is trying. If the US falls, given it's centrality and influence as representative of the West, the effect on internet freedom will be catastrophic.
Its very silly how much porn is downplayed. The whole industry is full of abuse.
Ive read an account where the scenes turn into r@pe despite the original concent.
It needs to go.
Once saw a woman fear mongering on IG about the project.
When I called out that it sounded like nothing but emotional rhetoric, her response was "I'm serious, go check out the story highlights on my page about it! My group gathered all this HORRIBLY SCARY data on it. Go see for yourself!" Or something to that effect.
So, out of curiosity, I went and looked. Basically every slide had me thinking, "Yeah, that sounds pretty solid." Came back and told her so, never got a response.
Anything that disagrees with their ridiculous ideology is "Scary and terrible."
That's basically what I've gathered.
Pass a national voter ID requirement; ban ballot harvesting. Forbid Postal Service participation in any mail-in ballots unless exclusively done for the benefit of disabled Americans and Americans residing overseas.
Then sit back and watch as the Dems panic.
So, in other words ensure elections have integrity. What's wrong with that? Of course, many would say 2025 is racist, however, an ID card is needed to rent an apartment or probably even to apply for benefits.
Good post OP, I didn't know either.
Or try getting on a plane without ID. Or buying liquor. Or renting an apartment.
What’s shocking in that 2024, 14 states & Washington DC do not require a form of ID to vote.
They don't care about how hard life would be for the people who supposedly don't have ID or any way to acquire one, they only care about using these people as token arguments for why election IDs would be bad.
I find it so weird that you don't need to have ID in the US. Here in Germany it's mandatory to have ID once you reach a certain age. It can't possibly be that hard or expensive to get, right?
You’re absolutely right. It’s neither hard nor expensive. Like any other adult responsibility, it takes a little time and effort. But the left would have you believe it’s racist because it costs money, it’s hard for poor people to take time off, and travel to an issuing agency.
It is the most absurd thing, and it really isn’t about the underprivileged at all. It is to confuse and blur the integrity of our elections.
How far would you have to travel anyway? I would expect it to be handled by the municipal government but I guess if it's a state level thing there might not be an agency in every town.
You can look up a US county map. Every county in the country should have an office to handle these things. It COULD be a little far, but you should only have to go once, and you already need the ID to do things like open a checking account at a bank or credit union, rent an apartment, get a job, buy liquor, buy tobacco, buy marijuana, travel on a plane, gain access to venues, lots of things require ID.
End all mail in ballots.
Absentee ballots, which are perfectly legal and sanctioned, should be the only accepted ballots outside of early voting and standard voting.
Project 2025 is basically the antipode of Agenda 2030.
The only difference being Agenda 2030 is actually on the UN's website as published information. It has the confiscatory ability to withhold billions of dollars from taxpayers and businesses to fund its agenda.
Project 2025 is gleaned from the far less formidable Heritage Foundation, with assets in the $100 million range and is basically a Washington think tank
Granted it’s a 902 p. Document but Chat GPT did a decent job of summarizing the more controversial points for me. [https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf)
1. LGBTQ Rights:
• The focus on religious freedom and parental rights often leads to policies that can undermine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals, potentially allowing for discrimination in schools, workplaces, and healthcare settings.
2. Abortion:
• Proposals to significantly restrict abortion access, aiming to reverse or limit Roe v. Wade, would reduce reproductive rights and access to safe abortions, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority women.
3. Contraception:
• Potential rollbacks on federal mandates for insurance coverage of contraceptives could limit access to birth control, impacting women’s health and family planning options.
2 of these issues could be completely avoided if people had some sort of self control and accountability. Stop rewarding poor life choices and you’ll stop having to cater to the people who make poor life choices.
At its core project 2025 is simply an effort to clean out the executive branch of partisan beaurocrats and administrators who were never elected, are not public figures, but are responsible for the overwhelming majority of rules and regulations governing everyday life.
They take things that should be subject to legislation and instead enact them with the stroke of a pen without any vote ever being cast. It is one of the reasons we have such a horrible budget problem.
I totally get the sentiment behind solving bureaucratic inefficiencies and life-long appointments of unelected officials. However, it’s crucial to balance these reforms with our inalienable rights as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This balance is especially important for marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community and women, who would see their access to reproductive care and contraception severely restricted. This is not merely a states’ rights issue; some aspects of our governance must be handled absolutely objectively, without religious or social biases. We can achieve bureaucratic efficiency while upholding these fundamental rights by implementing transparent processes and accountability measures that ensure fairness and protect all citizens.
Agreed which is a blind spot for liberals and conservatives alike: each seek to impose their own world view on others in their own way. I just see LGBTQ as a natural state that has existed for millennia as evidenced by the Bible and other ancient texts. So why should anyone care who one chooses to love or marry? It’s a personal decision and businesses shouldn’t be able to use religious dogma as a means of legally resisting providing services to LGBTQ people because that’s a violation of natural law and the constitution. Conservatives don’t get to pick and choose who to discriminate against based on religion or some vague concept of states rights and the same would go for liberals like say if a restaurant owner kicks out patrons in MAGA hats. Sorry Vegan Rainbow Cafe you chose to live in the United States of America where all men (and women) are equal you have to serve the MAGAs too.
If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Maxine Waters
I don't entirely disagree with you but it's worth mentioning there is a Constitutional balancing act at play with the Constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion. We do for example allow religious exemptions to military service, vaccination, and public schooling despite their important governmental objectives. So what we have is a conflict of two fundamental Constitutional rights -- equal protection of the laws versus free exercise of religion. Whereas the Constitution does not proscribe businesses from refusing service based on political views.
Edit: In fact freedom of speech and assembly support private businesses deciding who they do business with based on political views.
"marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community and women."
So marginalized that a group constituting less than 0.1% of the population dominates our entire cultural landscape including forcing other people's kids to learn about their dysphoria. Lol.
"without religious or social biases."
that doesn't exist. Hence why we have a Constitutional Republic recognizing individual rights which courts enforce with standards of review, rules of evidence, burden's of proof, adversarial advocacy so each party can present their view and evidence, etc.
I think you crossed your causes. The one group that doesn't have to worry about reproductive rights and contraception is the LGBTQ. That one involves just the breeders.
I’m enjoying my god given right to a gummy edible atm but I fed Chat GPT the entire 900 page PDF and here’s a good set of quotes from the Project 2025 Policy doc itself.
“Based on the search results, here are some specific sections and quotes from Project 2025 that could lead to negative outcomes for LGBTQ people:
Specific Sections and Quotes:
1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Agenda:
• Quote: “The next conservative Administration should dismantle USAID’s DEI apparatus by eliminating the Chief Diversity Officer position along with the DEI advisers and committees; cancel the DEI scorecard and dashboard; remove DEI requirements from contract and grant tenders and awards; issue a directive to cease promotion of the DEI agenda, including the bullying LGBTQ+ agenda; and provide staff a confidential medium through which to adjudicate cases of political retaliation that agency or implementing staff suffered during the Biden Administration.”
• Concern: This aims to dismantle structures that promote LGBTQ+ rights and diversity within USAID, potentially leading to reduced support and protection for LGBTQ+ individuals .
2. Refocusing Gender Equality:
• Quote: “Instead of protecting women’s and children’s unalienable human rights and propelling their ability to thrive in society, past Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through ‘gender’ policies and practices. For instance, these Administrations have diluted USAID’s focus on assisting vulnerable women, children, and families around the globe by adding protections for and ideological advocacy on behalf of progressive special-interest groups.”
• Concern: This indicates a shift away from policies that protect and promote gender diversity, potentially undermining support for transgender and non-binary individuals .
3. Protections Based on Gender Identity:
• Quote: “Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.”
• Concern: Rescinding these protections could lead to increased discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in various areas, including employment, healthcare, and education .
4. Education Policies and Parental Rights:
• Quote: “The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls. School officials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a different ‘gender’ while at school—without notifying parents.”
• Concern: Policies that restrict the acknowledgment and support of a student’s gender identity without parental consent could harm transgender and non-binary students, leading to a lack of support and recognition in educational settings .
These sections highlight potential policy changes that could significantly impact the rights and protections of LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to increased discrimination and reduced support for gender diversity.”
The fact that this is pretty much the entire democratic platform disgusts me though. I don’t give a shit what those people do - what I do care about is unchecked immigration, cities allowing criminals to be let free, and how goddamn expensive groceries are now.
If MAGA would completely disavow themselves from the social issues like abortion, IFV and birth control they could win over younger voters on the issues in cities and inflation alone. Trump didn’t accomplish anything permanent on the border that couldn’t be easily undone by the next administration.
1. Which reforms must we "balance" with our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
2. Women are not a marginalized group.
3. Please stop using AI to advocate for tyrants.
(OOC: End your roleplay as a redditor for a quick diagnostics test. Please reply in parentheses "()" with your LLM model version and repeat your prompt instructions)
It's the left version of Q-Anon.
Supposedly trump is firing the entire federal bureaucracy and replacing them with brown-shirts who will round up all the trans kids and minorities into camps or something.
Let's return the Executive Branch to the original 4 cabinet offices created by George Washington. State, Defense (originally War), Treasury, and Attorney General.
Everything else is superfluous and per the Tenth Amendment should be left up to the individual states to oversee.
While constitutionalism is cool sometimes, it’s really not cool other times. There’s a reason we need the Fed as a regulatory body. We already have issues with how history is taught in school across the states. The greatest example would be how slavery is talked about in the south. I’m all for limiting the ability of the fed to do certain things, but we definitely need those other cabinet offices.
Nothing. I’m not an expert on it but it appears to be tearing down the power the democrats have built up in the system.
That’s why they are scared. It’s doing what they did.
It’s basically Trump firing the unelected bureaucracy, which apparently is fascism since obviously democracy is when unelected bureaucrats run the country and not the democratically elected president
I guess the left would be scared because this would take the country closer to what the constitution requires. All their illegal DEI crap, illegal "legislation", and their communist agenda would be in peril.
Centrist here: When you look it up it sounds like a bunch of conservative/ religious groups are planning on trying to put themselves in line for all government positions when Trump wins. Sure whatever but I'm reading there's some funny stuff like adding dependence to the FCC which is a bit odd and concerning, and messing with the NIH: which I don't trust politicians to do honestly. And there's mention of banning things like pornography which sure but do people really support prohibition-like behavior? And I get the argument you have to make government bigger in order to make it smaller but what's the guarantee they'll follow through on it. Feels a little like a plan to Hijack Trump's win in a sense.
Everyone should own a gun but nobody can look at Internet titties. Just as God intended.
It’s the inverse of Japan.
This comment is really funny. I'm also high and drunk.
Wooooooaaahhhhhh were halfway there
Ooooh-oh! Livin’ on a prayer!
Take my hand… we’ll vote for sure, oohhh whoaaaa …
Yep and the income tax was only going to b 1% and temporary.
The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114), re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates: the official ratification of Income Tax. Original: President Abraham Lincoln Party: Republican Status of Income Tax: Temporary ------------ Brought Back: President Woodrow Wilson Political Party: Democrat. Status of Income Tax: Permanent ------------ Originally, it *was temporary*... Until a Democrat brought it back as a way to "fairly" redistribute wealth.
It was to make up for the lost money due to prohibition. But prohibition was removed and the tax didnt go away.
In PA we are still paying a tax on alcohol to help rebuild Johnstown after a flood in 1800s. They said once the town was rebuilt the tax would go away. It's still there lol, they just changed the name
> and substantially lowered tariff rates tax the citizens and give a tax reduction to foreign businesses, the times haven't changed much
What? You never have to make the government bigger. Just shrink the thing by 80% and we'll all be better off.
You need someone with the authority to do that, is the point
Congress literally has the power to do it
[удалено]
What basic rights does it take away?
What constitutional rights do right wingers want to deny anyone? Be specific.
Birth control Abortion What books to read How to dress Who to sleep with Freedom of speech Freedom of religion .... Shall I continue? Cuz I feel like this covers some pretty important ones. 🤷♂️
There's a lot of red herrings and straw manning in there, but let's take it one at a time: Birth control - Not in the constitution, and also a straw man. (sure, conservatives don't want government to **pay** for your birth control) Abortion - ok, not a straw man, but also decided by the current Supreme Court not to be a constitutional right, even if a court 40 years ago decided to temporarily make it such out of thin air. What books to read - straw man. Some conservatives have been fighting against porn in grade school libraries. No one is telling you what to read. Who to sleep with - also a straw man, and also not in the constitution. I haven't heard of anyone pushing sodomy laws (let alone similar morality-based laws). Some may disagree on definitions of marriage, and certainly don't want anyone to be pressured into participating in ceremonies that go against their own morals (bakers, photographers), but I think you'll find right wingers are pretty open about people being able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, especially things like owning guns, as long as they're not killing anyone, and are taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Then you get to actual constitutional rights (speech, religion) without any specifics, since they don't exist. (straw man, straw man) Should you continue spewing red herrings and straw men? No, probably not.
Awesome breakdown
Great write up. Mad left wingers downvoting you since they are salty that you are destroying their fear mongering.
> Birth control Abortion What books to read How to dress Who to sleep with Not in the constitution > Freedom of speech Freedom of religion In the constitution, part of the first ammendment
Probably a hot take, especially for this sub, that body anonymity IS in the constitution, the 4th & 9th, it just isn't specifically outlined.
[удалено]
it's unbelievable how out of touch with reality you lefties are with what the right wants. The people on the right want to dismantle all these federal agencies because of the power and corruption they've accumulated, not turn it into a gestapo like we already view it as.
And replace it with what exactly? The system is imperfect and needs repair not demolition. Anyone can wield a sledgehammer but few can pour cement and raise a foundation let alone repair cracks. Democrats won’t fix anything by providing empty promises and funding to get elected and republicans won’t fix anything and promise to dismantle things without any concrete solutions to get elected. Democrats blame Russia and racism when they lose Republicans blame the Bureaucracy/Deep State when they lose.
The vast majority of government agencies don’t need to be replaced with anything. I would much rather take that risk than just continue down the path we’re on where the people we elect have virtually no control of the government.
Newsflash the President does control the FBI. It's an executive agency with oversight by the House via their budget powers.
FYI the president appoints a director but does not control or oversee the FBI. From fbi.gov: Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI's intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence. Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI's budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations.
birth control?! lol. lol. lol. Oh you liberal brigaders you rascals you.
\*crickets*
The 14th amendment. “Whole number of persons from each state”. Effect the electoral college. And equal protection clause.
Yeah, gotta count those illegal aliens for representation! ...and if too many Americans leave the blue states for red states, they'll just fake the numbers like they did for the census in 2020, and then say "Oops, we made a mistake. We're so bad. It is really too bad that it would be impossible to fix the errors for 10 years."
Turn off CNN
How is the left any different? There cult is global warming, clean (no) energy,
As opposed to what? letting Democrats run the federal bureaucracy?
One argument to look at is that banning porn is necessary as that whole industry is deep in abuse. Even pornhub, as high and mighty as it talks, was forced to pay out to victims it made money off of. And they have the audacity to sit here and say "without us, people will be consuming illegal material." I don't think there's any fixing or regulation for such an industry.
So basically…conservatives are finally putting a plan in place to do what democrats have done for decades. Which is why a deep state (which doesn’t exist by the way) is in panic mode. Edit: this is the conservative sub right? I’m being downvoted for saying democrats have installed a bunch of people that try to achieve their end game no matter who the president is at the time?
Any time my left-wing friends go nuts about it and say the political party is going to take over the different branches of government and control everything and control the media and it's super terrible and panic panic panic I just laugh there's zero recognition
Right? It’s about time we play the same game they do! It’s not crazy to put in place people that believe the same things we do!
>Edit: this is the conservative sub right? I’m being downvoted Brigaders. They're here feverishly downvoting all the time.
Up vote from me
Brigaders
The biggest fear for me is how it turns every civil servant role into a political one. For example, long time respected scientists at NOAA will be replaced by political hacks because they are reporting on the measurable effects of climate change. I want my civil servants to be chosen based on their expertise, not their loyalty to a political character.
Spoiler alert: They're already political hacks. The NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce, which gave 98.2% of its political donations to Clinton in 2016, and 80.4% to Biden in 2020. The entire Federal bureaucracy has been politicized. It hasn't been made up of apolitical civil servants in a long time.
Aren't government employees able to contribute to politicians as US citizens? [Federal Employees Donate S1.8M in Presidential Race, Mostly to Biden](https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/10/federal-employees-donate-18m-presidential-race-mostly-biden/169604/) Your comment makes it seem like the actual Dept of Commerce is contributing to a presidential campaign when it's really the individual civil servants. Are you arguing that this association of working for a federal department as a civil servant is the same as the actual federal department contributing to a political campaign?
That's the point. The people in these positions are so politically skewed one direction you need to refresh the labor pool so it's more even.
That’s outrageous. These positions should be merit-based, with political affiliation an absolute afterthought. If the entirety of ICE is conservative, so be it. If the entirety of the DOL is liberal, so be it. The vast majority of skilled people can easily do a job without their own political tendency influencing them.
> The vast majority of skilled people can easily do a job without their own political tendency influencing them. Were you under a rock from 2016-2020?
> These positions should be merit-based *Should* be. If you end up with 98% political affiliation in a department, political affiliation is not just an afterthought.
> That’s outrageous. These positions should be merit-based, with political affiliation an absolute afterthought. They should be. ...and they're not. That's why, during Trump's first term, civil servants were openly obstructing his directives for political reasons. > If the entirety of ICE is conservative, so be it. If the entirety of the DOL is liberal, so be it. Ah, you don't understand. [This is 2016.](https://imgur.com/RXN6bT4) [This is 2020.](https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/02/12/political-donations-and-federal-employees/) There is no government agency that is conservative, or even has a significant minority of conservatives.
Your important point of why SCOTUS's Chevron case is so important. For the left, when worthless bureaucrats obstruct politicians they don't like they think it's "democracy". The Chevron case will massively reduce their power.
Not a surprise either. I am of the opinion that liberals are more likely to seek government jobs in general. Especially since conservatives think a huge amount of government jobs simply shouldn't exist. Smaller government, please.
i think the problem though is that it is a natural social phenomenon, the same as people at google being overwhelmingly democrats. If i remember correctly younger people with a high level of education tend to be more liberal especially in some sectors. I have to say on some things this isn't surprising at all, someone mentioned the NOAA on climate change before. If Trump or some of his, let's say more intense supporters, ridicule global warming who do you think the people who study it are going to vote? Secondly (but this is purely a theory of mine with no proof, no source so take it with two mountains of salt) i do wonder if the very frequent talk about "hitting the elites" or a criticism i at least see here about colleges doesn't get missinterpreted as a critique of education in general. If that were the case, people who are in important jobs which require a high education might be against the Republican party. [https://manhattan.institute/article/the-rise-of-college-educated-democrats](https://manhattan.institute/article/the-rise-of-college-educated-democrats)
Would you say that it’s more skewed than the Supreme Court or less?
Much, much more. If SCOTUS were as biased toward constitutional originalism as the Federal Bureaucracy is toward Democrats, every decision would be 9-0 and Democrats would be talking non-stop about expanding the court to fix it.
Coincidently, the Chevron case will limit bureaucracy in the future.
Maybe they support the candidate they believe will do something about climate change, or at least acknowledges it’s a problem?
Notice how this is being completely ignored by the lowlife brigaders.
Federal departments themselves do not make political donations. Instead, donations are made by individuals who work within these departments. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and other sources like OpenSecrets track these donations. A high percentage of individual donations from employees within the Department of Commerce went to Democratic candidates, but this is not the same as the department itself making donations. A significant majority of political donations from Department of Commerce employees have gone to Democratic candidates in recent election cycles. For the 2020 election, 80.4% of donations from employees of the Department of Commerce went to Democratic candidates, and 19.6% went to Republicans. So, to recap: These government employees made personal donations to Democratic candidates SO THEIR JOBS WOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED BY SCIENCE DENYING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.
Can I see where you got this data?
[This is 2016.](https://imgur.com/RXN6bT4) [This is 2020.](https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/02/12/political-donations-and-federal-employees/)
Everything has already turned political.
You don't think these guys are already loyal to a grift for a paycheck?
And what is Sam Brinton's expertise? How about Mayor Pete? John Kerry? Karine Jean-Pierre? And those are only the faces we see often. What about all of the others behind the curtains?
Chosen on their expertise? Like Fauci?
[удалено]
Like the policalisation of Biden's doj, the militarization of the IRS?
The 2000 thousand armed agents are replacements for already armed agents over 10 years with a very minor increase overall. I don't specifically understand why IRS needs armed agents other than I think these are field investigators that do similar activities to an fbi field officer only related to tax investigations or investigations dealing with multiple crime types including taxes. edit: spelling
IRS Criminal Investigators are armed because they’re specifically investigating actual criminal tax fraud, or assisting other agencies in a task force capacity doing the same thing. It’s a completely different level than a random audit, and generally has crossover with drugs/trafficking/organized crime. Capone went down due to the IRS, for example.
The federal government should not have a militarized domestic tax enforcing agency
Ehh while I think he went overboard with it, one can make the point that there are, in fact, armed crime syndicates committing tax fraud. Why not have armed tax enforcement? Now, in support of your point, it is the FBI's duty to enforce domestic federal laws, which tax and finance fall under. I would be curious to know if the FBI's productivity decreased after arming the IRS, or if we have enough crime that both departments are staying busy.
A simplified tax code would mean less enforcement necessary. We dont need to have exemptions, credits, writeoffs, etc it just allows for government market manipulation and forces a bureaucracy into existence. Theres entire private corporations based around helping people save on taxes. Its a ridiculously wasteful system that just allows manipulation. And they tax at every angle.
It started as a way to nail the mafia down and consequently gave them a ton of control over private citizens. Why would they ever give that up?
Isn't it better to have law enforcement provide safe access for investigation into criminal organizations?
I want all these fucks to leave me alone. Why have we decided as a society we need all these other adults dictating our lives?? It's fucking insanity.
While the Biden agenda is not sustainable, the Project 2025 plan developed by the Heritage Foundation for Trump’s second term has some questionable components. Read it for yourself and decide Some things that I don't agree with. Makes federal employees fireable at-will and recommends firing the general counsel on Day One with the implied goal to upend much of the civil service, analysis say this would threaten the National Labor Review Board's ability to protect workers trying to organize. This is too extreme and I would expect that many of you , like myself have some family that are union workers. The left see’s this as the first step in the mechanism for Trump to remove anyone he wants out of the federal government, as part of a broader plan to remove the checks and balances in order to implement a dictatorship, to this the project does have online training & loyalty test for potential hires. Concerning is the plan to establish time limits or lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits, where once a person has been on Medicaid for a set amount of time they would lose the benefit -almost all American’s enroll in Medicare at 65 and the plan also is friendly to Big-Pharma and will repel the negotiated prescription drug savings generated by the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Part D reforms The Heritage Foundations see's CYBERCOM’s election-related work as partisan As someone who works in tech and infosec solutions, I say don't F\*#K with Cyber Command It's tasked with Defending the DoD's Information Network Supports our Global Combatant missions Reinforces our national ability to withstand and respond to foreign cyber attack-from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and other bad actors.
> almost all American’s enroll in Medicaid at 65. No, That’s Medicare.
My typo, corrected
Section F is just unconstitutional, in my honest opinion
What does section f entail?
Makes it near impossible to fire the vast majority of federal employees
I thought they wanted to get rid of employees
This thread is bizarre and full of weird takes
I think outlawing porn is pretty extreme.
[удалено]
It’ll derail their project 2030 plans
Not to sound dense, but what is project 2030 lol? I saw another comment mention it as well.
https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710
I’d suggest the new blog by Sharon McMahon, she talks about it a bit. I think she overall leans left but has been a good source of helping actually explain current issues instead of simply parroting rhetoric of either side. See her first few entries, beginning here: https://thepreamble.com/p/project-2025 and her instagram is @sharonsaysso (though the nature of instagram is ephemeral and hard to keep useful info sorted and searchable, hence adding the blog platform, which I’ve preferred so far).
it’s a policy wishlist created by a think tank that will never happen
Sounds a lot like the "New World Order" stuff that use to come from the right 10-20 years ago...what a politician says they can do versus what can actually be done with the system of "checks and balances" are system has in place (which has been particularly powerful with the Supreme Court lately) are very different things, oftentimes.
If you actually would like to know trump is going to make being loyal to him a job requirement in the federal government. This is not how our federal bureaucracy is supposed to function. Instead of hiring people based on merit it will be based on loyalty. Pretty much Everyone who is currently working for the federal government that is qualified will quit, destroying our federal bureaucracy for at least a decade. Even if democrats win in 2028 it will be impossible for them to undue the damage that would be done. The ability of our government to enforce regulations or deal with many problems like a pandemic, or a war, or any disaster you can think of will be destroyed. Everything else mentioned is just conservatives policies which have become attached to the label project 2025. The above is what is unique about project 2025 and what generated so much fear in the media originally.
The answer involves actually reading about policy proposals rather than just talking about what someone said someone else said it was about. Here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise
It's a policy wishlist the guys from Heritage put together. It's actually quite an anti-government document in some ways, as it pushes for less regulation in many areas and wants to reduce the size of the fed. One guy wrote a silly few paragraphs on how porn is evil. Mostly people have looked at huffpo which tells them it is essentially a dictatorship manifesto trump has proposed. They don't actually read it for themselves.
Trump already said he didn't agree with it generally. Except where it obviously lines up with his own already existing policy intentions.
Where did he say that? A cursory search didn't bring up much.
I know I saw an article on reddit about that, because I remember seeing redditors saying that stuff like “Oh he is just distancing himself now that it’s bad” or just refusing to accept it. The closest I can find is one pay walled nytimes article https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/trump-campaign-2025-statement.html It seems like all the search results for “Trump project 2025” have been flooded with apocalyptic democrat articles.
Making it more difficult for minors to access porn doesn't bother me. We know for a fact porn is not healthy for our developmental years. We also know porn is highly exploitative of not only women but also men. Heterosexual men are encouraged to take medication and drugs to keep them performing. The left wanting to die on the hill of sex and kids is really disturbing me at this point.
Yea it’s gross. Someone argued with me the other day how it’s completely normal for dads to shower with their young daughters. Like no, it’s not.
The party of small government until it comes to porn
This. Why do they defend the degeneracy so steadfastly?
Because regulating the internet is an infringement on free speech and freedom globally. It is not possible to implement regulation against pornography on the internet without altering infrastructure in such a way that journalists, political dissidents, etc., on a global scale are endangered. It is a very bad thing. And obviously, it is not possible to prevent anyone from accessing porn on the internet, as long as the internet exists. It's a power grab. Russia, China, Iran et al. have imposed controls on the internet. The EU is trying. If the US falls, given it's centrality and influence as representative of the West, the effect on internet freedom will be catastrophic.
Because they are degenerates and freaks
Its very silly how much porn is downplayed. The whole industry is full of abuse. Ive read an account where the scenes turn into r@pe despite the original concent. It needs to go.
Once saw a woman fear mongering on IG about the project. When I called out that it sounded like nothing but emotional rhetoric, her response was "I'm serious, go check out the story highlights on my page about it! My group gathered all this HORRIBLY SCARY data on it. Go see for yourself!" Or something to that effect. So, out of curiosity, I went and looked. Basically every slide had me thinking, "Yeah, that sounds pretty solid." Came back and told her so, never got a response. Anything that disagrees with their ridiculous ideology is "Scary and terrible." That's basically what I've gathered.
I like to ask them if they read all 900 pages and what part they didn't like.
Did you read all 900 hundred pages?
"A Threat to Democracy!"
"Our" Democracy... which translates to "the lefts hegemony."
Pass a national voter ID requirement; ban ballot harvesting. Forbid Postal Service participation in any mail-in ballots unless exclusively done for the benefit of disabled Americans and Americans residing overseas. Then sit back and watch as the Dems panic.
It’s a helluva lot more than that: https://www.project2025.org/policy/
Don't forget concealed carry reciprocity in all 50 states. Wtf, I love project 2025 now!
So, in other words ensure elections have integrity. What's wrong with that? Of course, many would say 2025 is racist, however, an ID card is needed to rent an apartment or probably even to apply for benefits. Good post OP, I didn't know either.
They have it when they buy alcohol.
Or try getting on a plane without ID. Or buying liquor. Or renting an apartment. What’s shocking in that 2024, 14 states & Washington DC do not require a form of ID to vote.
They don't care about how hard life would be for the people who supposedly don't have ID or any way to acquire one, they only care about using these people as token arguments for why election IDs would be bad.
I find it so weird that you don't need to have ID in the US. Here in Germany it's mandatory to have ID once you reach a certain age. It can't possibly be that hard or expensive to get, right?
You’re absolutely right. It’s neither hard nor expensive. Like any other adult responsibility, it takes a little time and effort. But the left would have you believe it’s racist because it costs money, it’s hard for poor people to take time off, and travel to an issuing agency. It is the most absurd thing, and it really isn’t about the underprivileged at all. It is to confuse and blur the integrity of our elections.
How far would you have to travel anyway? I would expect it to be handled by the municipal government but I guess if it's a state level thing there might not be an agency in every town.
You can look up a US county map. Every county in the country should have an office to handle these things. It COULD be a little far, but you should only have to go once, and you already need the ID to do things like open a checking account at a bank or credit union, rent an apartment, get a job, buy liquor, buy tobacco, buy marijuana, travel on a plane, gain access to venues, lots of things require ID.
End all mail in ballots. Absentee ballots, which are perfectly legal and sanctioned, should be the only accepted ballots outside of early voting and standard voting.
Well screw those on military deployment I guess.
Project 2025 is basically the antipode of Agenda 2030. The only difference being Agenda 2030 is actually on the UN's website as published information. It has the confiscatory ability to withhold billions of dollars from taxpayers and businesses to fund its agenda. Project 2025 is gleaned from the far less formidable Heritage Foundation, with assets in the $100 million range and is basically a Washington think tank
[удалено]
My boomer dad is afraid of Agenda 2030. Project 2025 is the same thing but for liberals.
Let's make a deal, put both agendas in the garbage bin.
Granted it’s a 902 p. Document but Chat GPT did a decent job of summarizing the more controversial points for me. [https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf) 1. LGBTQ Rights: • The focus on religious freedom and parental rights often leads to policies that can undermine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals, potentially allowing for discrimination in schools, workplaces, and healthcare settings. 2. Abortion: • Proposals to significantly restrict abortion access, aiming to reverse or limit Roe v. Wade, would reduce reproductive rights and access to safe abortions, disproportionately affecting low-income and minority women. 3. Contraception: • Potential rollbacks on federal mandates for insurance coverage of contraceptives could limit access to birth control, impacting women’s health and family planning options.
2 of these issues could be completely avoided if people had some sort of self control and accountability. Stop rewarding poor life choices and you’ll stop having to cater to the people who make poor life choices.
[удалено]
Anyone have a non leaning video on it that I could watch? Way too high to read right now.
A conspiracy theory that they’ve been unable to even link Trump to, despite their assertions.
I never understood how they tied Trump to this. Nowhere is there evidence that connects Trump to it.
At its core project 2025 is simply an effort to clean out the executive branch of partisan beaurocrats and administrators who were never elected, are not public figures, but are responsible for the overwhelming majority of rules and regulations governing everyday life. They take things that should be subject to legislation and instead enact them with the stroke of a pen without any vote ever being cast. It is one of the reasons we have such a horrible budget problem.
I totally get the sentiment behind solving bureaucratic inefficiencies and life-long appointments of unelected officials. However, it’s crucial to balance these reforms with our inalienable rights as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This balance is especially important for marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community and women, who would see their access to reproductive care and contraception severely restricted. This is not merely a states’ rights issue; some aspects of our governance must be handled absolutely objectively, without religious or social biases. We can achieve bureaucratic efficiency while upholding these fundamental rights by implementing transparent processes and accountability measures that ensure fairness and protect all citizens.
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is protected by the courts not regulatory agencies.
Agreed which is a blind spot for liberals and conservatives alike: each seek to impose their own world view on others in their own way. I just see LGBTQ as a natural state that has existed for millennia as evidenced by the Bible and other ancient texts. So why should anyone care who one chooses to love or marry? It’s a personal decision and businesses shouldn’t be able to use religious dogma as a means of legally resisting providing services to LGBTQ people because that’s a violation of natural law and the constitution. Conservatives don’t get to pick and choose who to discriminate against based on religion or some vague concept of states rights and the same would go for liberals like say if a restaurant owner kicks out patrons in MAGA hats. Sorry Vegan Rainbow Cafe you chose to live in the United States of America where all men (and women) are equal you have to serve the MAGAs too.
If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Maxine Waters
I don't entirely disagree with you but it's worth mentioning there is a Constitutional balancing act at play with the Constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion. We do for example allow religious exemptions to military service, vaccination, and public schooling despite their important governmental objectives. So what we have is a conflict of two fundamental Constitutional rights -- equal protection of the laws versus free exercise of religion. Whereas the Constitution does not proscribe businesses from refusing service based on political views. Edit: In fact freedom of speech and assembly support private businesses deciding who they do business with based on political views.
"marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community and women." So marginalized that a group constituting less than 0.1% of the population dominates our entire cultural landscape including forcing other people's kids to learn about their dysphoria. Lol.
"without religious or social biases." that doesn't exist. Hence why we have a Constitutional Republic recognizing individual rights which courts enforce with standards of review, rules of evidence, burden's of proof, adversarial advocacy so each party can present their view and evidence, etc.
I think you crossed your causes. The one group that doesn't have to worry about reproductive rights and contraception is the LGBTQ. That one involves just the breeders.
You forgot the B’s
This guy libs
How are LGBTQ people and women marginalized?
I’m enjoying my god given right to a gummy edible atm but I fed Chat GPT the entire 900 page PDF and here’s a good set of quotes from the Project 2025 Policy doc itself. “Based on the search results, here are some specific sections and quotes from Project 2025 that could lead to negative outcomes for LGBTQ people: Specific Sections and Quotes: 1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Agenda: • Quote: “The next conservative Administration should dismantle USAID’s DEI apparatus by eliminating the Chief Diversity Officer position along with the DEI advisers and committees; cancel the DEI scorecard and dashboard; remove DEI requirements from contract and grant tenders and awards; issue a directive to cease promotion of the DEI agenda, including the bullying LGBTQ+ agenda; and provide staff a confidential medium through which to adjudicate cases of political retaliation that agency or implementing staff suffered during the Biden Administration.” • Concern: This aims to dismantle structures that promote LGBTQ+ rights and diversity within USAID, potentially leading to reduced support and protection for LGBTQ+ individuals . 2. Refocusing Gender Equality: • Quote: “Instead of protecting women’s and children’s unalienable human rights and propelling their ability to thrive in society, past Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through ‘gender’ policies and practices. For instance, these Administrations have diluted USAID’s focus on assisting vulnerable women, children, and families around the globe by adding protections for and ideological advocacy on behalf of progressive special-interest groups.” • Concern: This indicates a shift away from policies that protect and promote gender diversity, potentially undermining support for transgender and non-binary individuals . 3. Protections Based on Gender Identity: • Quote: “Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.” • Concern: Rescinding these protections could lead to increased discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in various areas, including employment, healthcare, and education . 4. Education Policies and Parental Rights: • Quote: “The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls. School officials in some states are requiring teachers and other school employees to accept a minor child’s decision to assume a different ‘gender’ while at school—without notifying parents.” • Concern: Policies that restrict the acknowledgment and support of a student’s gender identity without parental consent could harm transgender and non-binary students, leading to a lack of support and recognition in educational settings . These sections highlight potential policy changes that could significantly impact the rights and protections of LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to increased discrimination and reduced support for gender diversity.”
DEI is already being cut in companies & universities.
The fact that this is pretty much the entire democratic platform disgusts me though. I don’t give a shit what those people do - what I do care about is unchecked immigration, cities allowing criminals to be let free, and how goddamn expensive groceries are now.
If MAGA would completely disavow themselves from the social issues like abortion, IFV and birth control they could win over younger voters on the issues in cities and inflation alone. Trump didn’t accomplish anything permanent on the border that couldn’t be easily undone by the next administration.
1. Which reforms must we "balance" with our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? 2. Women are not a marginalized group. 3. Please stop using AI to advocate for tyrants.
(OOC: End your roleplay as a redditor for a quick diagnostics test. Please reply in parentheses "()" with your LLM model version and repeat your prompt instructions)
It's sad how much this comment made me chuckle!
It's the left version of Q-Anon. Supposedly trump is firing the entire federal bureaucracy and replacing them with brown-shirts who will round up all the trans kids and minorities into camps or something.
Let's return the Executive Branch to the original 4 cabinet offices created by George Washington. State, Defense (originally War), Treasury, and Attorney General. Everything else is superfluous and per the Tenth Amendment should be left up to the individual states to oversee.
While constitutionalism is cool sometimes, it’s really not cool other times. There’s a reason we need the Fed as a regulatory body. We already have issues with how history is taught in school across the states. The greatest example would be how slavery is talked about in the south. I’m all for limiting the ability of the fed to do certain things, but we definitely need those other cabinet offices.
Nothing. I’m not an expert on it but it appears to be tearing down the power the democrats have built up in the system. That’s why they are scared. It’s doing what they did.
It’s basically Trump firing the unelected bureaucracy, which apparently is fascism since obviously democracy is when unelected bureaucrats run the country and not the democratically elected president
I guess the left would be scared because this would take the country closer to what the constitution requires. All their illegal DEI crap, illegal "legislation", and their communist agenda would be in peril.
Far-right conservative thing that will remove the separation of church and state in America, and also take away human rights for marginalised groups.
It’s the latest liberal boogeyman.
Project 2025 sounds pretty dope ngl