Based on the 2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Via a former conservative on Reddit:
- The government won’t allow you to get an abortion even if giving birth would kill you (p.449 - 503)
- The government won’t let you buy condoms or plan b (p.449)
- The government will give more free money to the ultra-rich and the largest corporations (p.691)
- The government will not allow for workers to be protected at work (p.581)
- The government will steal your social security (p.691)
- The government will take away Medicare (p.449)
- The government will not let you find affordable healthcare (p.449)
- The government will refuse to help educate our children (p.319)
- The government will give your tax money to private schools for christians (p.319)
- The government will force public schools to become religious schools for christians (p.319)
- The government will fire you for the color of your skin (p545 - 581)
- The government will tell you what you’re allowed to think (p319)
- The government will sell our land to be permanently destroyed (p417)
- The government will sell the arctic to oil companies (p363)
- Big business and oil will be allowed to do whatever they want without consequences (p.363)
- The government will tell you what a family is supposed to look like. Anything else is a crime. (p.545 - 581)
- The government will make us deaf/blind to attack by destroying the FBI and Homeland Security (p.133)
- The government will build concentration camps to get rid of anyone deemed un-American (p.133)
- If you’re born in the United States you are not automatically a citizen (p.133)
- The government will make it legal for food to be poison (p.363 - 417)
Claims without a citation yet:
- The government will not let you get a divorce without “proof” of wrongdoing
- Your taxes will go up
- The government will not let you retire
- Drugs will cost more
- The government will let your kids go hungry while they are forced to attend these schools
- The government will tell you what you’re allowed to read and burn the rest
- The government will freely kill citizens they disagree with
- The government will attack single mothers because that’s not a “traditional” family
- The government will order our active-duty military to attack us if we protest
- The government will make being muslim on American soil a crime
- The government will make sure all judges are more loyal to the party than they are to the country
You must log in or register to comment.
Just about all of this is stuff conservatives have talked about wanting to implement for decades.
They’ve been open and public about it. And some of us never wanted to compromise with it, let alone election cycle after election cycle.
Just to be clear, he’s outright said he’s got no connection to this project, and that he disagrees with a lot of whats in it
Weather or not you believe him, fine, but let’s not pretend he’s out advocating for it.
Oh HE SAID THAT? Well dang, I can’t even name 445 times he has lied, so it must be true! Oh wait…there are already videos disproving everything he said with receipts (Midas touch, BTC, etc.)…darn, and I was SO CLOSE!
Moron
I mean, it’s more proof than any that’s been claimed of him being on board for it. “He lies sometimes” isn’t proof, and it’s much less proof than him willingly saying something, in public, in writing, to be set in stone eternally.
Plenty of it out there. I can’t make you go look it up.
Pleanty of allegations, but if any of it were true, he’d be fried on that, and NY wouldn’t have had to make up felony charges to get him on. Allegations aren’t proof.
Well…you got the last sentence correct…so that is some progress. You will get there eventually. Take care.
He blindly picked all the judges that the Federalist Society chose. What makes you think he’s gonna do anything different for another powerful conservative organization of the same caliber?
I think he had a rough go of it trusting a lot of people he shouldn’t have the first time around. I think he’s not going to be so gullible in that regard if he gets voted in again.
Nobody is sniffing the shit you’re shoveling.
Nobody without a brain, sure.
I think the pure length of it introduces enough delay before encountering the really terrifying parts and might interfere with the punch of the message. I might try to do a modified version with some bold text and larger sections so some of the strong full impact comes across right away, without trying to reduce the detail or the scope
Also, I think it is relevant to repeat the founders’ feeling on it. The “government” doesn’t “let” you do anything. Everyone’s just born into the earth into this wild and semiorganized place, as weird social beings that are half monkeys and half made up of something a lot more inspirational. And from time to time, they want to set up a system they all agree on so they can have clean water and roadways and courts and someone centrally in charge of the economy, things like that. But, sometimes like a few thousand people put temporarily in charge of all that start to look around at all the guns and money in their command and get confused and think they have the right to tell 400 million other people “hey check it out you have to do what I say, I DGAF what you think or of it’s right, that’s just what’s up.” And then when that happens it is the job of the 400 million to re educate them on what’s up.
And you could say that if they don’t, they deserve what happens. But honestly it’s not even a statement of deserves or not, or right and wrong. It is simply a statement of the reality of what happens. Most of things like the bill of rights is understood today as like, what the government is “allowed” to restrict and not, but the founders’ view of it was a lot more akin to, these are some examples of what people will do as inherent parts of their nature and God help you if you try to tell them they can’t, and they become alert and organized.
Light em up bois https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ywrEB2DA2P0
I just don’t really get why people even get behind stuff like this. There’s just nothing for anyone to really gain and a whole lot for everyone to lose…
Even the mega rich and the corporations have to recognize that an unstable world isn’t really a great place to live or do business right? Or is it just that they’re so far removed from everything that they don’t have to care?
By the time you’re benefiting from this in a non-symbolic way, your net worth is more than you can conceivably spend in a lifetime… Go home, you’re done!
They are only thinking of “Me” now, or “Me and my kids”, they will be dead when society collapses and they don’t care. But yes, the obscene amassed wealth is insanity, it means nothing to your lifestyle at some point. And will be useless at death.
I think it’s short term thinking. Probably something similar to the way investors think when they’re on a mission to earn money, but end up causing enshittification
They’ll have a care once they hear that guillotine blade start its decent
This is what the bots here don’t want you voting against. Vote like lives depend on it!
I’m the OP, and I also post in [email protected]. I’m a human who’s been called a bot, and an advocate for Ukrainians and Russians against colonization and tyranny who has been called a Russian puppet.
Whether you vote or not isn’t important to me as long as whoever gets elected, you continue to fight for a better world via direct action. We’re in exactly this situation because people’s political resistance begins and ends with voting, and that means the people who get the ‘progressive’ vote merely have to be the least worst fascist on the ballot. Totalitarian tyranny isn’t built on the virtues of the tyrants, but the failures of the liberals. The Democrats created this situation, and they deserve to face consequences for it.
Blaming bogey-men like Russian bots and scapegoating politically ‘unsophisticated’ leftists only puts off the self-reflection that needs to happen so that if the United States survives this election, they won’t be back in exactly this situation with a new fascist threat in another 4 years.
This reads a lot like bothsidesism. And frankly it’s utter horse shit. And the clowns in Notvoting need to open a history book and try and find a single moment in history where NOT voting in an election created positive change.
I’ll save you some time:
Not once has it happened. If you don’t vote- you don’t get to influence any part of any change you’d like to see, but others do. And if you don’t vote, you have no control over what changes. It probably fits without saying, but maybe let everyone over there know that the election is going to happen with or without their influence.
So folding your arms and pouting is going to do nothing at all- and it’s going to say nothing at all- to no one that cares or is even willing you pay attention.
All you’re doing is removing the power you have to ever see the changes you want.
Lastly…
and they deserve to face the consequences…
So you’re openly admitting that you’re withholding your vote- for the purpose of getting Trump elected to punish democrats?
That makes YOU the problem here. Not voters. So go back to your echo chamber and pretend you’ve doing something good here. When Trump takes over, it’s going to be very interesting to see how you spin this into being the fault of the voters.
Yeah. That’s not how this works. If your argument is that both sides are the same- you get accused of arguing for both sides.
We’re in this situation because people don’t vote.
All other forms of political activism, aside from murder, exist to convince people to vote.
Activism without voting is worthless.
You want more progressive candidates? Vote for Democrats until Republicans are forced to move to the left, and then Democrats will be able to move to the left as well.
That’s how the Overton window works.
The Overton window is a measurement of acceptable political discourse. You shift it by vocally expressing unpopular public opinions in the public sphere, not by voting. Voting is supposed to be an expression of popular public opinion, not the other way around.
Sometimes the most effective way to change things is by threatening not to vote and convincing other people to do likewise. The most famous use of this tactic was by the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
In the 1960s black people were much more actively discriminated against on a systemic level, practically prevented from voting in many of the states in the southern United States. The president at the time was the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, and was facing the much more racist Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. While the black vote was suppressed in the south, there was a significant voting block in the north of black people and their allies whose main issue was civil rights. Civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, met several times with LBJ, who coaxed them to tone down the direct action protests and criticism until after the election, as he claimed to we willing to negotiate with them once the threat to his power was diminished. Instead, civil rights protests increased. The leaders, probably correctly, determined that once the election was over, they would have less leverage. Even though losing the election meant having an enemy in the white house, having a ‘friend’ who continued to delay essential concessions did not further their cause. People were actively being murdered by the ‘Jim Crow’ apartheid regime, and delays and half-measures were not sufficient.
Thanks to the pressure of millions of people engaged in direct action and open criticism of the president, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the 1964 election. LBJ won by a landslide due to the popularity of the legislation, but suffered the severe political consequences Democrats were trying to avoid through their strategy of placation and delay. The 1964 election was the last where Democrats got the majority of the white vote, and electing politicians in the southern states became much more difficult for their party. Palestinian Americans and their allies now face a similar situation. Democrats will continue to ignore the genocide in Gaza unless there are real political consequences to their actions. While Donald Trump would be a significantly worse candidate, the logic of a two-party system requires that they be willing to risk a worse political situation if they are to hold any political power at all.
Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King are regarded as heroes today, but at the time, they were reviled by both Democrats and Republicans as a force of chaos that acted out of ignorance of the political system. If LBJ had lost the election to Goldwater, perhaps their legacy would be considered differently. But it would not change the fact that the cause they were fighting for was just, and they were able to wield political power in a system that was designed to marginalize them.
Whether you vote or not isn’t important to me as long as whoever gets elected, you continue to fight for a better world via direct action.
If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.
The Democrats created this situation,
100% true
and they deserve to face consequences for it.
Along with millions or potentially billions of others, who didn’t do anything wrong?
If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.
I’m OP; I posted the list. Yeah, I know. We’re already dodging tear-gas canisters fired at head-level, I expect bullets next.
So you know that Trump has plans to start shooting protestors on purpose with live ammunition, but you also think that whether you vote or not isn’t important? Not just “accidentally” crush some eyes or testicles or skulls from time to time, but just outright gun people down en masse, and you’re okay with not doing anything to stop that escalation until the Democrats clear your bar for goodness?
(Actually, more accurately, he has plans to remove the things that stopped the order from getting carried out, when last time he said he wanted them to shoot protestors with live ammunition.)
I’m not trying to be rude about it or harp on this one thing when we seem like we should be allies, but your viewpoint on that sounds shockingly naive. You also didn’t answer my question. If you (or I) are one of the people getting shot, a year from now, because you want to organize for a better world, will you in your words deserve to face those consequences?
I’ve written in another thread about why someone who thinks Donald Trump is significantly worse than Joe Biden would still choose not to vote for Joe.
This part doesn’t seem totally crazy to me. Actually, Ralph Nader, who has quite a history of getting good outcomes to pop out of the pig’s ear (to put it pretty fuckin charitably) that is Washington, expressed his anger and frustration with people who were seeing injustices like Gaza and not doing anything to threaten the Democrats into better behavior about it. Like I say, not totally crazy.
I feel like the needed additional part for that, though, is some concrete action to induce the change you are aiming for from the Democrats. That’s the part that the civil rights movements had. If you’re just saying “not good enough yet” as a general thing, and encouraging others to do the same, then I think that ramps up the unlikeliness of it producing any good policies, and also ramps up significantly the likeliness of it producing death camps instead.
Not saying you’re doing that; I haven’t gone back and taken any kind of deep dive. But I’ve been conversing with you and I haven’t happened to run across anything that stuck out that looked like “I don’t want to vote for the Democrats unless X Y Z and you shouldn’t either.”
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me.
The fact that the manifesto is hundreds of pages long, they hate everything good and decent is country enough to write hundreds of pages about how and why we should burn it all to the ground.
I think bullet point 5, about stealing social security, is better cited by page 710, where it is explicitly stated as an “area of concern”
As a non american, is this funking real? Not a shitpost? Holy shit the more i read, the worse it becomes. Wtf.
This is very real. You can read it here: https://www.project2025.org. You can google multiple right wing websites commenting on it for yourself.
Or you can watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp_s
Believe people when they tell you who they are.
I was thinking surely there must be at least one positive bulletpoint reading that shyte
There is! … If you’re an ultra conservative right wing trump supporter
Defunding the FBI and Homeland Security sounds like a good idea.
They serve a purpose. Definitely need a restructuring though.
I find it amusing that you’re being downvoted by people who likely also claim ACAB and want to “defund the police”, since DHS and FBI are federal law enforcement, aka federal police.
I didn’t downvote, but the optics are very different on those groups. Jane and John Smith are much more likely to have a terrible experience with local police than federal police. I would like to think they operate under different standards, but I admittedly know very little about how the FBI functions.
Sorry FBI is useful. DHS is tedious, but it would just get rolled into another agency if it shuttered.
What happens when they all die of old age in a few years?
Donald Trump has nothing to offer
Most of this shit is already happening right now?
They’re trying to get this stuff done now, iirc the whole thing about project 2025 is they want everything queued up for the first days that Trump is in office so that he can hit the ground running
So if all of this stuff is currently happening under Biden, why should I support him? If he wins, won’t it just continue?
I guess, mathematically, every thread has to have its “stupidest take”…
Yours.
Wrong again, but I won’t kink-shame.
How is project 2025 worse than project 1492?
How is it different than a tuna sandwich.
None of the stuff they’re doing yet is stuff that can be blocked by the president, most of it is happening in right wing courts and the supreme court that Trump/conservatives rammed a conservative majority into
If trump gets elected there are more things he can push through, and they won’t have to worry about a veto if they try to pass an actual law rather than using court rulings. Republicans put a lot of time and planning into this project 2025 planning, it’s not just some ultra right winger dudes in a house throwing stuff together, it’s a lot of political and legal experts working together and putting a lot of time and effort into planning these things and figuring out how to force each of them into existence in ways that can’t be blocked or stopped
I don’t like Biden and would prefer basically any other left candidate, but if Trump gets elected there is a lot more that they can do without fear of it being blocked. That’s why they’re not doing all of these right now, they’re just getting things in place to do them day 1 if Trump gets elected
One might almost think that the government designed by slaveowners is the problem if this is the result: a segregationist genocidal dementia-addled corporate puppet running against his twin.
Correct, none of this is happening under Biden. Please point out specific examples
“It’s okay for the US military to slaughter children in Palestine, but it’s not okay for them to do that here. Unless their papers aren’t in order.” — liberals
But whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout
Shut up
What about if they were your kids?
Oh good. I was just thinking there are not enough dictators in the world and we really do need a second Russia.
Good old USA providing yet again. Without you life would be boring. Probably longer too.
As I intentionally filter out as much US politics as I can, this has come out of nowhere for me.
Australia has a couple of really simple things baked into its electoral system to resist something wildly unpopular like this from getting in power:
- Compulsory voting. These MAGA crazies are not and will never be the majority. If everyone had to vote, they’d never get in.
- Proportional voting. We vote for multiple candidates. If our first choice doesn’t get in, our vote goes to our second choice. Then third etc. we aren’t forced to vote for a lizard just to prevent the worse lizard getting in (it still almost always comes down to two parties, though).
I know these are total non-starters for our American friends. “You can’t make me vote, that’s against the constitution or something”.
As an American, I think I’d support compulsory voting… But the right would fight that with everything they had, because if everyone had to vote, they’d never win with their current stances.
Ranked choice voting (proportional) is still making its way slowly into the mainstream, but with very little reason the change the main political parties torpedo it when they can.
I prefer approval voting, it’s easier to explain and at least as good. Most voting systems also have support for it already.
Easy to teach people new to it too, just pick everyone you are ok with winning.
Most commonly suggested voting systems are better than FPTP, usually by a lot.
Yeah, nearly anything is better than FPTP. But approval voting in particular is simple to explain and basically already supported by nearly all voting equipment out there.
Basically instead of picking one person, you pick everyone you’re OK with. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If the election is for multiple seats then the top X people for most votes wins. No ranking order, no multiple rounds, no way to fill out a ballot wrong, it’s utterly simple.
Yeah, these have saved us on a lot of issues I feel. It’s simply a much more representative system than what the Americans do and it helps keep a lot of fringe ideologies at the fringes, where they usually belong.
Minor correction, we have preferential voting not proportional.
What’s Australia’s stance on immigration?
Mixed, as it is in every wealthy country that has more people wanting to move here than move away from here. Because we have such a large migrant population though it is difficult for politicians to gain traction by being outright anti-immigrant.
Compulsory voting is definitely intriguing…even if you had the option to vote “null” meaning not vote for anyone but at least you had to make the effort to say something. The crazies I think are a relatively small portion of the US, they’re just SO much louder than everyone else
A null vote here is a option. Colloquially called a Donkey Vote, or statistically reported as an Informal Vote, you can write nothing on your voting slip and put it straight in the box. Also since voting is compulsory it is held on a Saturday, there are usually sausage sizzles, there must be enough polling places open so you’re not in line for more than 30 minutes, and early voting is a viable option.
A Donkey Vote isn’t the same thing as an Informal Vote. A Donkey Vote means simply numbering the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. In other words, a thoughtless vote that any donkey could do.
This is why there’s a benefit to appearing in the first spot and why the impartial and independent Australian Electoral Commission (another invaluable aspect of Australian democracy) randomly determines candidate order.
