What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Project 2025 is a product of The Heritage Foundation. It has plenty of bad elements, but the absolute worst, and a deal killer in itself, is "unitary executive theory".

I understand why this appeals to a fan of Putin and Orban, authoritarian leaders who pretend to be fairly elected.

Thanks for the long, highly informative, and typically nonpartisan reply from you...

OK, so this is it:

Project 2025 is a comprehensive conservative policy blueprint developed by The Heritage Foundation, aiming to guide a potential future conservative administration in reshaping the U.S. federal government. The initiative encompasses a wide range of proposals across various sectors, structured around four main pillars:
[ol]

Restoring the Family as the Centerpiece of American Life: This pillar emphasizes policies designed to strengthen traditional family structures and values.

Dismantling the Administrative State: The project advocates for reducing federal bureaucracy by streamlining agencies and increasing executive control over the federal workforce.

Defending the Nation's Sovereignty and Borders: It proposes stringent immigration policies to enhance border security and uphold national sovereignty.

Securing Individual Rights to Live Freely: This includes initiatives to protect freedoms such as religious expression and the right to bear arms.

[/ol]

To implement these objectives, Project 2025 outlines specific strategies, including:

• Restructuring Federal Agencies: Plans to abolish certain departments, such as the Department of Education, and redistribute their functions to other entities.
  time.com
  
• Environmental Policy Reforms: Proposals to downsize or eliminate agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), aiming to reduce regulations on fossil fuels and remove climate change considerations from federal policies.
  en.wikipedia.org
  
• Economic Policies: Recommendations to lower taxes for corporations and capital gains, implement a flat income tax, and reduce funding for programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
• Social Policies: Initiatives to infuse government operations with conservative Christian values, restrict abortion access, criminalize certain forms of contraception and pornography, and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Two partisan replies from two very partisan shills.

Did you copy and paste all by yourself?

It's also shockingly similar to the Wikipedia entry on Project 2025.


Do your own research.

I love the idea of criminalizing abortion, contraception, and pornography. Sounds super good.

sycasey said:

---

I love the idea of criminalizing abortion, contraception, and pornography. Sounds super good.

---

The best thing about Evangelicals is that they like their porn dirty, real dirty, and they know God will forgive them because they are manly men that have their needs that must be acted upon, repeatedly, and then forgiveness kicks in before they rinse and repeat.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Project 2025 is a product of The Heritage Foundation. It has plenty of bad elements, but the absolute worst, and a deal killer in itself, is "unitary executive theory".

I understand why this appeals to a fan of Putin and Orban, authoritarian leaders who pretend to be fairly elected.

---

The unitary executive theory predates Project 2025 by many decades. The constitution clearly makes the president head of the executive branch.

If the president is not the head of the executive branch, who is? What constitutional basis is there for limiting the presidents right to manage the executive branch?

Hint: If the president doesn't have these powers, the country will be run by non-elected bureaucrats that are accountable to no one. When the next dem gets elected, they too should have the ability to exert control over the bureaucracy. Elections matter.

---

Yes, but there is a reason why the federal government built up a large amount of career civil servants who have protections and are not appointed by the new political leaders: to avoid the rampant corruption and incompetence of the old "spoils system."

Trump seems to be steering us back towards that.

---

The "reason" is that democrats realized it was a way for them to grow government, perpetuate influence, and grift money.

The "civil servants" are accountable to no one and overwhelmingly left in many cases. That is more undemocratic than any spoils system.

The president is entitled to have executive department employees who will implement his policies and not act in opposition.

---

No, it isn't the reason. There was legislation passed against the "spoils system" back in the 19th century, well before any modern Democratic Party goals could have existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

I'm open to calls for reform, but I don't think firings en masse are the answer, and I would expect a competent President (and the political appointees he tabs to helm those departments) to be able to work with the workforce he has.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Project 2025 is a product of The Heritage Foundation. It has plenty of bad elements, but the absolute worst, and a deal killer in itself, is "unitary executive theory".

I understand why this appeals to a fan of Putin and Orban, authoritarian leaders who pretend to be fairly elected.

---

The unitary executive theory predates Project 2025 by many decades. The constitution clearly makes the president head of the executive branch.

If the president is not the head of the executive branch, who is? What constitutional basis is there for limiting the presidents right to manage the executive branch?

Hint: If the president doesn't have these powers, the country will be run by non-elected bureaucrats that are accountable to no one. When the next dem gets elected, they too should have the ability to exert control over the bureaucracy. Elections matter.

---

Yes, but there is a reason why the federal government built up a large amount of career civil servants who have protections and are not appointed by the new political leaders: to avoid the rampant corruption and incompetence of the old "spoils system."

Trump seems to be steering us back towards that.

---

The "reason" is that democrats realized it was a way for them to grow government, perpetuate influence, and grift money.

The "civil servants" are accountable to no one and overwhelmingly left in many cases. That is more undemocratic than any spoils system.

The president is entitled to have executive department employees who will implement his policies and not act in opposition.

---

No, it isn't the reason. There was legislation passed against the "spoils system" back in the 19th century, well before any modern Democratic Party goals could have existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

I'm open to calls for reform, but I don't think firings en masse are the answer, and I would expect a competent President (and the political appointees he tabs to helm those departments) to be able to work with the workforce he has.

---

What you fail to grasp is that it is a spoils system - but only for one party. That is why you and the other dems are so upset the Trump and DOGE are cutting programs.

These are the "civil servants" you want Trump to work with. He's entitled to clean house.

97% of political contributions from USAID employees went to Democrats.

To say such a blatant political bias doesn’t affect their work is naive at best.

For example, lots of USAID funding has gone to DEI. pic.twitter.com/hukpxkQQ5W

— World Hall Of Fun (@WorldHallOfFun) February 8, 2025

---

So basically, your argument is that every new President should just fire everyone if he doesn't like their personal politics. Is that it?

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Why don't you read it instead of asking the question? Do you know how to read?

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Project 2025 is a product of The Heritage Foundation. It has plenty of bad elements, but the absolute worst, and a deal killer in itself, is "unitary executive theory".

I understand why this appeals to a fan of Putin and Orban, authoritarian leaders who pretend to be fairly elected.

---

The unitary executive theory predates Project 2025 by many decades. The constitution clearly makes the president head of the executive branch.

If the president is not the head of the executive branch, who is? What constitutional basis is there for limiting the presidents right to manage the executive branch?

Hint: If the president doesn't have these powers, the country will be run by non-elected bureaucrats that are accountable to no one. When the next dem gets elected, they too should have the ability to exert control over the bureaucracy. Elections matter.

---

Yes, but there is a reason why the federal government built up a large amount of career civil servants who have protections and are not appointed by the new political leaders: to avoid the rampant corruption and incompetence of the old "spoils system."

Trump seems to be steering us back towards that.

---

The "reason" is that democrats realized it was a way for them to grow government, perpetuate influence, and grift money.

The "civil servants" are accountable to no one and overwhelmingly left in many cases. That is more undemocratic than any spoils system.

The president is entitled to have executive department employees who will implement his policies and not act in opposition.

---

I'm a civil servant and I'm accountable for my actions every time I go to work. If my work is deemed unsatisfactory, I'll get canned. One of my co-workers got frog marched out the door one day last year after being allowed an hour or so to gather his things. He deserved it though. It was coming for a while even if he was surprised. He had a terrible temper and had people scared to work with him. He also had a habit of falling asleep at work.

My co-workers are probably more right wing than left wing, though our job has little to do with politics. I do work with some local politicians from time to time (in this area, most are Republicans) and I don't see political differences even coming onto play. That's true for most agencies. There are some that are more political, but most agencies are just trying to do their job for everyone.

For what it's worth, I was hired under a Republican administration though Presidential policies have almost nothing to do with our day to day work. Frankly, I just want to keep doing my job without being treated with contempt.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Project 2025 is a product of The Heritage Foundation. It has plenty of bad elements, but the absolute worst, and a deal killer in itself, is "unitary executive theory".

I understand why this appeals to a fan of Putin and Orban, authoritarian leaders who pretend to be fairly elected.

---

The unitary executive theory predates Project 2025 by many decades. The constitution clearly makes the president head of the executive branch.

If the president is not the head of the executive branch, who is? What constitutional basis is there for limiting the presidents right to manage the executive branch?

Hint: If the president doesn't have these powers, the country will be run by non-elected bureaucrats that are accountable to no one. When the next dem gets elected, they too should have the ability to exert control over the bureaucracy. Elections matter.

---

Yes, but there is a reason why the federal government built up a large amount of career civil servants who have protections and are not appointed by the new political leaders: to avoid the rampant corruption and incompetence of the old "spoils system."

Trump seems to be steering us back towards that.

---

The "reason" is that democrats realized it was a way for them to grow government, perpetuate influence, and grift money.

The "civil servants" are accountable to no one and overwhelmingly left in many cases. That is more undemocratic than any spoils system.

The president is entitled to have executive department employees who will implement his policies and not act in opposition.

---

No, it isn't the reason. There was legislation passed against the "spoils system" back in the 19th century, well before any modern Democratic Party goals could have existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

I'm open to calls for reform, but I don't think firings en masse are the answer, and I would expect a competent President (and the political appointees he tabs to helm those departments) to be able to work with the workforce he has.

---

What you fail to grasp is that it is a spoils system - but only for one party. That is why you and the other dems are so upset the Trump and DOGE are cutting programs.

These are the "civil servants" you want Trump to work with. He's entitled to clean house.

97% of political contributions from USAID employees went to Democrats.

To say such a blatant political bias doesn’t affect their work is naive at best.

For example, lots of USAID funding has gone to DEI. pic.twitter.com/hukpxkQQ5W

— World Hall Of Fun (@WorldHallOfFun) February 8, 2025

---

So basically, your argument is that every new President should just fire everyone if he doesn't like their personal politics. Is that it?

---

I'm saying that they should be entitled to fire anyone they want to which won't be everyone. That is the only way to impose accountability on government workers and for a president to implement his agenda.

It used to be the government workers would never dare to operate in opposition to the president. We have seen that is no longer the case. Bureaucrats literally bragged about operating in opposition to Trump in his first term. That is not how government is supposed to work.

I note you didn't respond to the fact that 97% of USAID donations went to dems. Do you think those people are willing to implement Trump's policies?

---

Okay, but so far the only hard evidence you have provided as reason these people should be fired is their political donations. Seems bad to fire people over that!

Purity test, by another name.


We don't need to show papers, because DOGE has access to everything.

They'll just show up at your desk:
"Says here, you donated $100 to UNICEF and $100 to your local Democratic candidate. Pack your desk. We're walking you out of the building, communist fascist scum!"

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Any supporter of Trump cannot be taken seriously. He committed an attempted coup d'etat. That's a hard line, conversation stopper.

Just like anyone who tries to argue that Hitler did good things without being able to say he killed 6 million Jews is…. There's just no conversation to have if you can't admit Hitler killed 6M Jews and trump attempted to overthrow a free and fair election.

---

Why did the highly partisan and motivated state and federal prosecutors not charge Trump with that when they brought all manner of other charges against him?

---

It's pretty simple.

For starters, there is very limited case law regarding insurrection in the United States.

Moreover, prosecutors needed guidance on EXACTLY what proof is required to establish that an insurrection took place, and how to distinguish an insurrection from a riot. - - - The special counsel's office didn't have that guidance.

To succeed in trying Trump for inciting an Insurrection, Smith would have to prove subjective intent showing that Trump meant to cause the full range of violence that day.

With other, more "solid" charges available to prosecutors that would allow them to forgo clearing any "rigorous" hurdles for (free) speech, dropping pursuit of the insurrection charge was the most legally sound choice.

---

What more "solid" J6 charge did Trump get convicted of?

---

Here, let me help you again with basic 6th grade reading comprehension ...

Here are the "more solid charges" availible to Jack Smith, which he filed:

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191493880/trump-january-6-charges-indictment-counts

As everyone knows, the Orange Buffoon who threw his own VP under the bus, was never convicted.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

What is Project 2025, and what are, say, its 5 worst elements?

---

Project 2025 is a product of The Heritage Foundation. It has plenty of bad elements, but the absolute worst, and a deal killer in itself, is "unitary executive theory".

I understand why this appeals to a fan of Putin and Orban, authoritarian leaders who pretend to be fairly elected.

---

The unitary executive theory predates Project 2025 by many decades. The constitution clearly makes the president head of the executive branch.

If the president is not the head of the executive branch, who is? What constitutional basis is there for limiting the presidents right to manage the executive branch?

Hint: If the president doesn't have these powers, the country will be run by non-elected bureaucrats that are accountable to no one. When the next dem gets elected, they too should have the ability to exert control over the bureaucracy. Elections matter.

---

Yes, but there is a reason why the federal government built up a large amount of career civil servants who have protections and are not appointed by the new political leaders: to avoid the rampant corruption and incompetence of the old "spoils system."

Trump seems to be steering us back towards that.

---

The "reason" is that democrats realized it was a way for them to grow government, perpetuate influence, and grift money.

The "civil servants" are accountable to no one and overwhelmingly left in many cases. That is more undemocratic than any spoils system.

The president is entitled to have executive department employees who will implement his policies and not act in opposition.

---

No, it isn't the reason. There was legislation passed against the "spoils system" back in the 19th century, well before any modern Democratic Party goals could have existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

I'm open to calls for reform, but I don't think firings en masse are the answer, and I would expect a competent President (and the political appointees he tabs to helm those departments) to be able to work with the workforce he has.

---

What you fail to grasp is that it is a spoils system - but only for one party. That is why you and the other dems are so upset the Trump and DOGE are cutting programs.

These are the "civil servants" you want Trump to work with. He's entitled to clean house.

97% of political contributions from USAID employees went to Democrats.

To say such a blatant political bias doesn’t affect their work is naive at best.

For example, lots of USAID funding has gone to DEI. pic.twitter.com/hukpxkQQ5W

— World Hall Of Fun (@WorldHallOfFun) February 8, 2025

---

So basically, your argument is that every new President should just fire everyone if he doesn't like their personal politics. Is that it?

---

I'm saying that they should be entitled to fire anyone they want to which won't be everyone. That is the only way to impose accountability on government workers and for a president to implement his agenda.

It used to be the government workers would never dare to operate in opposition to the president. We have seen that is no longer the case. Bureaucrats literally bragged about operating in opposition to Trump in his first term. That is not how government is supposed to work.

I note you didn't respond to the fact that 97% of USAID donations went to dems. Do you think those people are willing to implement Trump's policies?

---

Okay, but so far the only hard evidence you have provided as reason these people should be fired is their political donations. Seems bad to fire people over that!

---

The clip below is hard evidence. I had seen the interview but it took me a few days to find it.

Per Rubio, USAID was not abiding by Trump's and his directives and refusing to answer questions/cooperate with his inquiries. "Rank insubordination" as he put it by, among other things, attempting to process payments after Trump issue an order not to.

---

I'm not sure I'm taking any assertions by Trump officials as "hard evidence," but thanks for providing what their claimed justification is. This may well all come out in court later.

Cal88 said:

---

What's up with the other third??

---

All the stuff Wags likes but can't admit.

Cal88 said:

---

What's up with the other third??

---

Improvisation on the same theme.