ik,r? Is it Substack or is it because Jeff takes some well-aimed shots at lefty foolishness and wingnuts everywhere think this is their special safe place?
Probably more the latter. Very Online right-wingers' eyes light up whenever you criticize the Left for any reason. Then they get angry and throw a hissy fit when it turns out you're not really one of them after all.
This is kind of the problem with repeatedly punching Left as a brand, it shapes your audience around that, something Jeff wrote about a few years back:
The policy page repeatedly contrasts her plans with "Trump's Project 2025 Agenda." His campaign did not produce Project 2025, and he has distanced himself from it, incurring the wrath of at least one of the project's architects (NYT 9/9: "Former Project 2025 Leader Accuses Trump Campaign Advisers of ‘Malpractice’"). If you want to get drunk fast during tonight's debate, I suggest that you drink each time Harris invokes that tired old bogeyman instead of criticizing Trump's actual platform.
I read his platform, and I support everything on it. What specifically in Trump's platform do you disagree with? I support stronger border policies; the protection of online free speech; ending taxes on tips; protecting women's hard won sex based protections under Title IX; building a stronger military, including an iron dome defense system similar to what Israel has; deporting criminals who are not citizens of this country; stronger law enforcement in poor neighborhoods, where our most vulnerable neighbors are terrorized by gang violence; enforcing hate crime laws against Jewish people the way we do against every other marginalized group; allowing parents to decide what values they want to teach their minor children, rather than allowing the government to undercut those values by insisting on teaching gender ideology to 8 year olds.
I worry about the radical part of the Project 2025 agenda where Trump threatens to use executive power to end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court via appropriations bill.
Oh, wait, that was actually Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
I’m trying to be polite here so here goes. Do you know who wrote the forward to the published edition? JD Vance. Do you know who drafted Project 2025? Predominantly past and possibly future Trump appointees. Do you know why it was devised in the first place? To specifically enumerate and identify far, FAR right policy proposals to be implemented in the event of a Trump reelection. Do know lies like most people breathe? Donald Trump. Your comment goes somewhere beyond naive.
> Do you know who wrote the forward to the published edition? JD Vance.
All I can find is material about Vance writing a foreword to a different book by one of the Project 2025 people, which is called "Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America". Where did you see that Vance wrote a "forward" to Project 2025?
I want to repeat a statistic I use in every talk: by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30% will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent. Unsettling to say the least
It will not actually work that way in the house because it is capped.
Currently, wyoming has 50% greater representation in the house of representatives than they ought - .17 percent of population but .23 percent of the house of representatives.
If I’m wrong somewhere in there on my math or logic please let me know - I might be missing something. Just divided 1/435 (wyoming rep/total rep) and compared to wyoming pop/total pop.
It made a lot more sense when we were actually federalist, and the “United States” really was a confederation of *states* as opposed to one big country with a bunch of districts.
But grabby Feds and a Supreme Court willing to pretend the Commerce Clause is a blank check have steadily eroded federalism, so now the bicameral legislature and the electoral college are the most visible remaining vestiges of that intention behind the Constitution.
In the 1790 census, nearly 20% of people lived in Virginia, which was 12 times the population of the smallest state (Delaware). This is not a new or unanticipated “problem”.
That said I’d be fine with increasing the number of representatives to reduce the skew caused by “must have 1 representative”. And we can break up California if you want.
"Equality Act" is in there, FYI. My fellow Very Cruel Liberals Who Believe Women Are Real noticed this. It's a big deal. She needs to make it clear that men are absolutely allowed to pretend to be women but that the federal government plays no role in enforcing that alternate, evidently falsifiable reality on everyone.
Until she does that, my rapidly growing contingent of oat milk drinking, Women's March liberals will continue to turn away from Harris, even if that just means not voting.
The Equality Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, which is already the law because of the Bostock decision (and the logic behind passing a law is that Bostock could be overturned). It does not force anyone to believe anything.
My son is a trans man and you are WRONG. The Equality Act conflates discrimination based on sex with discrimination based on Gender Identity. That effectively erases women's sex based protections and allows males in women's sports and prisons. That is not okay, especially since it severely undermines social acceptance for trans people in general.
My son should NEVER be put into a men's prison for any reason, because he is FEMALE and like most trans men, has never had bottom surgery. He also has zero chance of competing effectively in sports with other males.
The Equality Act harms those women who are most likely to depend upon sports scholarships and who are most likely to end up in prison: poor and working class women.
Your smug contempt for the uneducated masses (you know, the "essential workers") is typical of the average Dem voter today. That's why I switched parties. MAGA.
That's not a fair characterization of "More Time with Friends"'s argument.
I think it is reasonable to ask politicians if it is acceptable to discriminate based upon gender (eg, locker rooms, toilets, gyms, etc). If no, then do they rubbish those places should be shut down, if yes, what is the defining characteristic of gender so that we can make sure we discriminate correctly. As a concrete example, Tickle v Giggle! Should that also be the law of the United States?
Of course it does. It uses the full force of the law to impose a lie on people: that males are the same as females if they say they are. This is insanity and it does nothing to help trans men like my son. In fact, it undermines and endangers him.
You wrote: "It’s worth pointing out that Trump’s platform does not court the center — it’s written for a Fox News audience, and is, itself, a moderated version of the shockingly extreme Project 2025."
Um, wouldn't a moderated version be a move toward the center?
I read Trump's platform and I don't consider it extreme at all. It's pro-American, pro-Free Speech, pro-worker, and pro-Woman (well, it's pro incarcerated women: No Males In Women's Jails).
But the party of the professional class doesn't concern itself with those messy little people of the poor and working classes.
"But the party of the professional class doesn't concern itself with those messy little people of the poor and working classes"
Where exactly are you getting this idea? The Democratic platform, while imperfect, is about a thousand times more pro-worker than any Republican platform in recent history. Republicans brag about being union busters, want to raise the age of retirement, roll back child labor laws, rabidly oppose paid family leave and a minimum wage increase, and are completely for sale to corporate donors. In his first term Trump changed overtime rules to exclude 8 million workers, killed a regulation that keeps employers from requiring workers to agree to never sue them, lost 75k manufacturing jobs, and cut workplace safety enforcement.
Trumpian populism is fake populism. The man made a career out of duping people who trust him. Don't be one of them. Here are a few write ups for you:
I am one of the angry right wingers but I try to see what the other side thinks. My thinking is similar to yours on many of Harris’ talking points- that is I don’t really believe her. I am in the same league as Berny Sanders who said is saying what she has to to get elected.
Seems very Dem stuff to have the typical washy “cant spend much” policies when it comes to people who cant afford a living, hyper detailed policies when it comes to arming people for three different wars and giving money to a foreign country that doesnt matter but also super matters for real guys. Oh well, better than a madman who wants Haitians to get kicked out because his son said they were eating cats
Jeff - have you actually read Project 2025? Would love to know what's so shockingly extreme about it. The parts I have read are typical old-school conservative wishful thinking about reigning in the size of the government, and none of the proposals eliminate the separation of powers between the constitutional branches. What am I missing?
The expansion of presidential powers, like eliminating civil service protections and reducing DOJ independence, are extreme, as are policies like eliminating the departments of Commerce and Education, using the Comstock Act to restrict mifepristone, and banning pornography.
Those are existing Presidential powers - the named organizations are part of the Executive branch already. The idea that the Executive has no authority over members of the Executive branch is the extreme idea. I understand the argument that civil service or DoJ should be apolitical and not influenceable, but let's be honest, that ship has sailed.
Like I said, none of these proposals expand Presidential power beyond the executive branch or violate the separation of Constitutional powers.
As for the Comstock act: P2025 is calling for the DOJ to enforce the law (18 USC 1461/1462) as written, and it's clearly written in 1462(c) that mailing abortifacients is illegal. Maybe Congress should act to amend or repeal 18 USC 1461 / 1462 if the public wants access to mifepristone or pornography through the mail.
The Project 2025 thing is not a Trump thing. They didnt ask him, they didnt clear it with him, and no one on gods green and verdant earth thinks he has read it, let alone thought about it, and endorsed it somehow. You should simply politely refuse to respond or engage or even act like you understand what they mean. Before someone wishes to invoke even the smallest smidge of P25 like it is some sort of disadvantage about Trump, they should be able to link it to him. There simply isnt a good one that should be able to convince someone that that 900 page document will be anything like his plan for his administration.
This is a comment thread in which Jeff himself waves away the lack of specifics in Vice President Harris's policy pages by commenting that "they will be chewed up and spit out by Congress anyways". Then lets even give Trump that same consideration in reading. And also stick to things and pieces he endorses. His policy page goes on for a lot longer and gets down into more details. It also wasnt in any way directly lifted off of Joe Bidens campaign page. Refuse to engage with this Project 2025 nonsense. I mean good for the Heritage foundation I guess for getting their name in the news, but as far as arguments against a potential second Trump term, there are so many more that he himself endorses. Democrats continuing to make a deal out of P25, and contuining to try and link it to Republicans in general are trying to get you to defend its possible extremism. Who cares if it is or isnt? Fine. Jeff is right. Its an insanely radical, far more extreme than anything Bernie Sanders ever proposed in the Senate. Or dreamed up alone in his shower in the morning. Since Project 2025 has nothing to do with Trump or the GOP, stop wasting breath defending it.
If the Heritage Foundation had paid me fifty bucks to read it, I would have told them this would have happened and suggested they dont print it. But they didnt, and anyways, they arent the Trump campaign so Democrats screeching about it is just weird. We have real shit this campaign season. Democrats have to be desperate to make this their central thesis. Stop feeding it.
I know, I'm tilting at windmills, but I like to read things for myself and see what they actually say. And the more I read P25 the more I actually agree with as an old-school, small government libertarian conservative.
And that's fine, really. No one should be ashamed if they like parts of a 900 page set of policy ideas with Conservative DNA or origins or whatever. It's just it's totally unrelated to anything Trump can or should be judged on. He has nothing to do with it so dragging it into the election as something Republicans have to defend or publicly reject us to buy into an invalid framing of the issue. Refuse to talk about it in relation to Trump v Harris.
Trump had embraced about 2/3 of the 2016 one, according to the Heritage Foundation.
Additionally, the president of the Heritage Foundation sees his job as “institutionalizing Trumpism” for petes sake. If you don’t want this to be associated with Trump so badly, you should probably be yelling at them for it. I think over 100 former Trump employees are among those working on it too, so presumably people with similar ideas.
It’s downright silly to act like it’s completely unrelated to what a second Trump presidency could look like.
Except for how he has personally denied having anything to do with it, has never said he wants to enact it, and has repeatedly made it clear they didn't talk to him about it. Yeah. It's totally silly to act like he and it are separate things.
If you want to tie him to the edgiest parts of it, don't you think him constantly saying that it isn't what he wants would have some bearing on the topic but that is just me. If you want to make him responsible for something he doesn't like and didn't do. Be my guest. But you sound very unserious.
Jesus Christ, the angry right wingers in this comment section, man. It's so typical of every Substack nowadays.
I swear to God some of you are stuck in 2020 Brain and can't see the vibe has shifted if it walked up to you and kicked you in the ass.
ik,r? Is it Substack or is it because Jeff takes some well-aimed shots at lefty foolishness and wingnuts everywhere think this is their special safe place?
Probably more the latter. Very Online right-wingers' eyes light up whenever you criticize the Left for any reason. Then they get angry and throw a hissy fit when it turns out you're not really one of them after all.
This is kind of the problem with repeatedly punching Left as a brand, it shapes your audience around that, something Jeff wrote about a few years back:
https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/what-building-a-media-thing-looks
Right wingers will literally get mad that they get the choice of two right wing parties but the slightly less right wing one isnt right wing enough
The policy page repeatedly contrasts her plans with "Trump's Project 2025 Agenda." His campaign did not produce Project 2025, and he has distanced himself from it, incurring the wrath of at least one of the project's architects (NYT 9/9: "Former Project 2025 Leader Accuses Trump Campaign Advisers of ‘Malpractice’"). If you want to get drunk fast during tonight's debate, I suggest that you drink each time Harris invokes that tired old bogeyman instead of criticizing Trump's actual platform.
Trump's distanced himself from the name "Project 2025," not the policies within.
I read his platform, and I support everything on it. What specifically in Trump's platform do you disagree with? I support stronger border policies; the protection of online free speech; ending taxes on tips; protecting women's hard won sex based protections under Title IX; building a stronger military, including an iron dome defense system similar to what Israel has; deporting criminals who are not citizens of this country; stronger law enforcement in poor neighborhoods, where our most vulnerable neighbors are terrorized by gang violence; enforcing hate crime laws against Jewish people the way we do against every other marginalized group; allowing parents to decide what values they want to teach their minor children, rather than allowing the government to undercut those values by insisting on teaching gender ideology to 8 year olds.
Anything you disagree with there?
I worry about the radical part of the Project 2025 agenda where Trump threatens to use executive power to end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court via appropriations bill.
Oh, wait, that was actually Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
🙄
At least some of its policies that Harris wants you to think he supports, e.g., on abortion, are not in his or the party's platform.
What? Seriously, you just spouted factually errant nonsense re: the abortion issue. Just wildly and objectively false. Pure MAGA insanity.
"What’s known about Trump’s abortion agenda neither lines up with Harris’ description nor Project 2025’s wish list." - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump
I’m trying to be polite here so here goes. Do you know who wrote the forward to the published edition? JD Vance. Do you know who drafted Project 2025? Predominantly past and possibly future Trump appointees. Do you know why it was devised in the first place? To specifically enumerate and identify far, FAR right policy proposals to be implemented in the event of a Trump reelection. Do know lies like most people breathe? Donald Trump. Your comment goes somewhere beyond naive.
> Predominantly past ... Trump appointees.
Given that Trump chewed through nearly the entire party in appointments before firing them for disloyalty, this isn't surprising.
> and possibly future Trump appointees.
Well now we're not really talking about facts at all,
There's more to tie Kamala Harris to the Green New Deal.
> Do you know who wrote the forward to the published edition? JD Vance.
All I can find is material about Vance writing a foreword to a different book by one of the Project 2025 people, which is called "Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America". Where did you see that Vance wrote a "forward" to Project 2025?
What is his platform other than taxes on tips and how is it different?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/09/politics/video/project-2025-trump-campaign-similarities-differences-lead-digvid
Another reason to work the center: at best President Harris will have a tiny House majority and a 50-50 Senate to work with.
And speaking of the latter, I can never forget this banger from Norm Ornstein:
https://x.com/normornstein/status/1016789064379334656?s=61&t=d57_wdu2mp3jUpQgi28A5Q
I want to repeat a statistic I use in every talk: by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30% will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent. Unsettling to say the least
Why is that unsettling? It's the way it was designed, so that small states wouldn't get overrun by the big ones.
And you neglect to mention that those 15 states will select 70% of the House, since house seats are proportioned by population.
It's almost as if the founders wanted lawmaking to be hard!
It will not actually work that way in the house because it is capped.
Currently, wyoming has 50% greater representation in the house of representatives than they ought - .17 percent of population but .23 percent of the house of representatives.
If I’m wrong somewhere in there on my math or logic please let me know - I might be missing something. Just divided 1/435 (wyoming rep/total rep) and compared to wyoming pop/total pop.
I was incorrect, those 15 states will actually have 65.2% of the House seats.
Each state gets at least one representative, so there are 435 - 50 = 385 seats apportioned by population.
If 15 states contain 70 percent of the population, they will have .7 * 385 = 269 seats plus the 15 automatic seats = 284 seats, 284 / 435 = 65.2%.
https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congressional-apportionment/about.html
This argument never makes sense to me. How exactly is Ohio going to run over Delaware, for instance?
It made a lot more sense when we were actually federalist, and the “United States” really was a confederation of *states* as opposed to one big country with a bunch of districts.
But grabby Feds and a Supreme Court willing to pretend the Commerce Clause is a blank check have steadily eroded federalism, so now the bicameral legislature and the electoral college are the most visible remaining vestiges of that intention behind the Constitution.
In the 1790 census, nearly 20% of people lived in Virginia, which was 12 times the population of the smallest state (Delaware). This is not a new or unanticipated “problem”.
That said I’d be fine with increasing the number of representatives to reduce the skew caused by “must have 1 representative”. And we can break up California if you want.
"Equality Act" is in there, FYI. My fellow Very Cruel Liberals Who Believe Women Are Real noticed this. It's a big deal. She needs to make it clear that men are absolutely allowed to pretend to be women but that the federal government plays no role in enforcing that alternate, evidently falsifiable reality on everyone.
Until she does that, my rapidly growing contingent of oat milk drinking, Women's March liberals will continue to turn away from Harris, even if that just means not voting.
The Equality Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, which is already the law because of the Bostock decision (and the logic behind passing a law is that Bostock could be overturned). It does not force anyone to believe anything.
My son is a trans man and you are WRONG. The Equality Act conflates discrimination based on sex with discrimination based on Gender Identity. That effectively erases women's sex based protections and allows males in women's sports and prisons. That is not okay, especially since it severely undermines social acceptance for trans people in general.
My son should NEVER be put into a men's prison for any reason, because he is FEMALE and like most trans men, has never had bottom surgery. He also has zero chance of competing effectively in sports with other males.
The Equality Act harms those women who are most likely to depend upon sports scholarships and who are most likely to end up in prison: poor and working class women.
Your smug contempt for the uneducated masses (you know, the "essential workers") is typical of the average Dem voter today. That's why I switched parties. MAGA.
That's not a fair characterization of "More Time with Friends"'s argument.
I think it is reasonable to ask politicians if it is acceptable to discriminate based upon gender (eg, locker rooms, toilets, gyms, etc). If no, then do they rubbish those places should be shut down, if yes, what is the defining characteristic of gender so that we can make sure we discriminate correctly. As a concrete example, Tickle v Giggle! Should that also be the law of the United States?
Of course it does. It uses the full force of the law to impose a lie on people: that males are the same as females if they say they are. This is insanity and it does nothing to help trans men like my son. In fact, it undermines and endangers him.
But identity will be elevated above sex, so even though they can't force us to "believe" it, they will force us to live it. It was recently reported that this male got their wish and he and 4 others are now in the women's prison in MN. https://www.startribune.com/transgender-prisoner-sues-state-officials-says-she-should-be-in-womens-prison-not-locked-up-with-men/600180943
But is that really as bad as criminalizing abortion?
I assume calling the plan a "New War Forward" is a typo? Or are you just getting ahead of the criticism she will inevitably get?
That was a typo, and a pretty bad one!
But look, now the idea's out there Jeff, let's not be too hasty to dismiss, ah, *expansive* ideas.. I mean it worked for Shrub, right?
Freudian slip.
If there isn't already a punk band called "Kamala Harris's Penis", there should be.
Oh my, this post was more hilarious than usual!
Well played, good sir.
Well played.....
You wrote: "It’s worth pointing out that Trump’s platform does not court the center — it’s written for a Fox News audience, and is, itself, a moderated version of the shockingly extreme Project 2025."
Um, wouldn't a moderated version be a move toward the center?
I read Trump's platform and I don't consider it extreme at all. It's pro-American, pro-Free Speech, pro-worker, and pro-Woman (well, it's pro incarcerated women: No Males In Women's Jails).
But the party of the professional class doesn't concern itself with those messy little people of the poor and working classes.
"But the party of the professional class doesn't concern itself with those messy little people of the poor and working classes"
Where exactly are you getting this idea? The Democratic platform, while imperfect, is about a thousand times more pro-worker than any Republican platform in recent history. Republicans brag about being union busters, want to raise the age of retirement, roll back child labor laws, rabidly oppose paid family leave and a minimum wage increase, and are completely for sale to corporate donors. In his first term Trump changed overtime rules to exclude 8 million workers, killed a regulation that keeps employers from requiring workers to agree to never sue them, lost 75k manufacturing jobs, and cut workplace safety enforcement.
Trumpian populism is fake populism. The man made a career out of duping people who trust him. Don't be one of them. Here are a few write ups for you:
https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/workplace-safety-enforcement-continues-decline-trump-administration/
https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record
https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record
https://readsludge.com/2024/02/08/the-dnc-is-still-contracting-with-firms-that-fight-against-unions/ https://readsludge.com/2024/08/15/corporate-clients-of-top-democratic-firm-oppose-the-democratic-agenda/ i dont disagree that republicans are anti-union bastards, but keep in mind this current admin started by making it illegal for railworkers to strike and then ignore that explosion in East Palestine (guess ignoring Palestine is a running gag in American politics). I wouldnt hold my breath for Dems to actually walk the walk, just that they actually have a small amount of people who will hold them accountable meanwhile Republican voters are happy to be arrested for thinking about wanting higher pay
Also, I've never been a Fox News watcher. Ever. MAGA.
Give her credit: at least she’s not promising to be the world’s first analyst AND therapist…
By the way, has anyone on this thread ever even SEEN a chicken?
I am one of the angry right wingers but I try to see what the other side thinks. My thinking is similar to yours on many of Harris’ talking points- that is I don’t really believe her. I am in the same league as Berny Sanders who said is saying what she has to to get elected.
https://i0.wp.com/loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/changeintoatruck-440x586.jpg?resize=440%2C586&ssl=1
Seems very Dem stuff to have the typical washy “cant spend much” policies when it comes to people who cant afford a living, hyper detailed policies when it comes to arming people for three different wars and giving money to a foreign country that doesnt matter but also super matters for real guys. Oh well, better than a madman who wants Haitians to get kicked out because his son said they were eating cats
America has never needed a “National Refractory Period” more than we do right now!
Nice callback at the end there
Jeff - have you actually read Project 2025? Would love to know what's so shockingly extreme about it. The parts I have read are typical old-school conservative wishful thinking about reigning in the size of the government, and none of the proposals eliminate the separation of powers between the constitutional branches. What am I missing?
The expansion of presidential powers, like eliminating civil service protections and reducing DOJ independence, are extreme, as are policies like eliminating the departments of Commerce and Education, using the Comstock Act to restrict mifepristone, and banning pornography.
Those are existing Presidential powers - the named organizations are part of the Executive branch already. The idea that the Executive has no authority over members of the Executive branch is the extreme idea. I understand the argument that civil service or DoJ should be apolitical and not influenceable, but let's be honest, that ship has sailed.
Like I said, none of these proposals expand Presidential power beyond the executive branch or violate the separation of Constitutional powers.
As for the Comstock act: P2025 is calling for the DOJ to enforce the law (18 USC 1461/1462) as written, and it's clearly written in 1462(c) that mailing abortifacients is illegal. Maybe Congress should act to amend or repeal 18 USC 1461 / 1462 if the public wants access to mifepristone or pornography through the mail.
The Project 2025 thing is not a Trump thing. They didnt ask him, they didnt clear it with him, and no one on gods green and verdant earth thinks he has read it, let alone thought about it, and endorsed it somehow. You should simply politely refuse to respond or engage or even act like you understand what they mean. Before someone wishes to invoke even the smallest smidge of P25 like it is some sort of disadvantage about Trump, they should be able to link it to him. There simply isnt a good one that should be able to convince someone that that 900 page document will be anything like his plan for his administration.
This is a comment thread in which Jeff himself waves away the lack of specifics in Vice President Harris's policy pages by commenting that "they will be chewed up and spit out by Congress anyways". Then lets even give Trump that same consideration in reading. And also stick to things and pieces he endorses. His policy page goes on for a lot longer and gets down into more details. It also wasnt in any way directly lifted off of Joe Bidens campaign page. Refuse to engage with this Project 2025 nonsense. I mean good for the Heritage foundation I guess for getting their name in the news, but as far as arguments against a potential second Trump term, there are so many more that he himself endorses. Democrats continuing to make a deal out of P25, and contuining to try and link it to Republicans in general are trying to get you to defend its possible extremism. Who cares if it is or isnt? Fine. Jeff is right. Its an insanely radical, far more extreme than anything Bernie Sanders ever proposed in the Senate. Or dreamed up alone in his shower in the morning. Since Project 2025 has nothing to do with Trump or the GOP, stop wasting breath defending it.
If the Heritage Foundation had paid me fifty bucks to read it, I would have told them this would have happened and suggested they dont print it. But they didnt, and anyways, they arent the Trump campaign so Democrats screeching about it is just weird. We have real shit this campaign season. Democrats have to be desperate to make this their central thesis. Stop feeding it.
I know, I'm tilting at windmills, but I like to read things for myself and see what they actually say. And the more I read P25 the more I actually agree with as an old-school, small government libertarian conservative.
And that's fine, really. No one should be ashamed if they like parts of a 900 page set of policy ideas with Conservative DNA or origins or whatever. It's just it's totally unrelated to anything Trump can or should be judged on. He has nothing to do with it so dragging it into the election as something Republicans have to defend or publicly reject us to buy into an invalid framing of the issue. Refuse to talk about it in relation to Trump v Harris.
It’s written by the Heritage Foundation.
They also write the Mandate for Leadership.
Trump had embraced about 2/3 of the 2016 one, according to the Heritage Foundation.
Additionally, the president of the Heritage Foundation sees his job as “institutionalizing Trumpism” for petes sake. If you don’t want this to be associated with Trump so badly, you should probably be yelling at them for it. I think over 100 former Trump employees are among those working on it too, so presumably people with similar ideas.
It’s downright silly to act like it’s completely unrelated to what a second Trump presidency could look like.
Except for how he has personally denied having anything to do with it, has never said he wants to enact it, and has repeatedly made it clear they didn't talk to him about it. Yeah. It's totally silly to act like he and it are separate things.
If you want to tie him to the edgiest parts of it, don't you think him constantly saying that it isn't what he wants would have some bearing on the topic but that is just me. If you want to make him responsible for something he doesn't like and didn't do. Be my guest. But you sound very unserious.
“I want nothinf to do with it it contains bad things” and then describing plans *in the goddamn plan* (return of the spoils system for one)
HW said mo more taxes. Obama said you keep your insurance. What on earth has you think Donald Trump is a man of his word?
Well said