I’m not clear what the dirty little secret is supposed to be. That it doesn’t poll well? That it’s written by Trump associates (and therefore ofc Trump knows about it)?
The last part.
I think I was thrown off because that’s been in the news cycle for a while now. So I assumed they were introducing something new
Cory Doctorow mentioned another interesting ‘secret’ in there, namely that the policies it’s unsure about each represent fracture lines in which two groups of R voters want conflicting things. Highlighting these divisions could let those groups know that they might be getting the opposite of what they voted for.
Interesting. This might be the article you’re referring to? Going to give it a read
https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/14/fracture-lines/#disassembly-manual
That’s the one, referencing https://prospect.org/politics/2024-07-10-project-2025-republican-presidencies-tradition/
“The fact that conservatives have been trying so hard for so long is what makes it more dangerous. It’s our good luck that each time, some accident of history stood in the way of the worst right-wing plans. The Great Depression prevented Project 1921. Phew. But not a good accident! Better for us to nip this thing in the bud on our own. And that takes a deeper understanding of antecedents.”
In other words, “81% of the document’s creators held formal roles in Trump’s presidency.”
It’s very unlikely that he has “no idea who is behind it.”
Please, for the love of humanity and our future, GO VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
Secret: it was written by trump associates, so he must have known about it
Now, given that 31 of the 38 people involved in drafting the roughly 900-page plan were either nominated to positions in Trump’s administration or transition team, it’s getting even harder to push aside the controversial blueprint, per a report from The Guardian.
The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump’s first years in office, when the Republican president’s team was ill-prepared, his Cabinet nominees had trouble winning Senate confirmation and policies were met with resistance — by lawmakers, government workers and even Trump’s own appointees who refused to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals.
In an interview on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Roberts added that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back.”
The way I see it, we have three options: we fight it out, and the winner gets to run the country according to their ideals and vision. Or, we try to compromise. Personally, I think this option is unlikely to work. There comes a point where compromise becomes impractical, if not impossible. The third option is we split up, and go our separate ways. Personally, I prefer the third option, and I think it’s already happening.
Take abortion, for instance. The overturning of Roe v Wade didn’t make abortion illegal throughout the whole country, it simply returned the matter to the states. In order to either make abortion completely legal in all 50 states, or to ban abortion completely in all 50 states, it would require a constitutional amendment. But, constitutional amendments have to be ratified by at least 38 of the 50 states. Since abortion is currently fully legal in I believe 28 states, and fully illegal in 14 states, neither constitutional amendment seems likely to happen. So, the matter will likely be handled on a state by state basis for the foreseeable future. I think a lot of matters will be primarily handled by the states going forward, as the federal government becomes more and more dysfunctional and unable to legislate.
But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think it’s better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states, then to have a strong federal government that gets taken over by fascists, for instance. And that’s the thing, as long as the federal government remains the highest power and authority, there will always be groups fighting each other for control of it.
Edit: let me clarify the three options. Option 1, a winner take all fight between liberals and conservatives for total control of America. Option 2, compromise. Option 3, break up. I support option 3 because I don’t believe compromise is possible and because I think a winner take all fight for total control is risky (liberals could lose) and it would probably cause a lot of harm. Some of you want to fight it out, I get that, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s the best option. People tend to focus on the negative aspects of breaking up, specifically that conservative states will have more autonomy to enact their harmful policies in their states, and that’s true, but liberals will also have more autonomy to enact their policies in their states. In a break up scenario, much of the US will not only remain liberal but be free to become even more liberal. However, in a winner take all fight for supremacy, if the liberals lose, no parts of the US would be liberal.
WOW, I love that you’re argument in favor of states rights is “sure women in all these states completely lost their bodily autonomy, but I’m not a woman so I think it’s the way to go!”
Watch him respond with “if they don’t like it they can just move to a state with abortions” as if poverty and other mechanisms that restrict mobility don’t exist. Absolutely WILD!
WOW, I love that you’re argument in favor of states rights is “sure women in all these states completely lost their bodily autonomy, but I’m not a woman so I think it’s the way to go!”
Well, I certainly didn’t write that. At all. In fact, it seems you didn’t read what I wrote at all. The only way to guarantee abortion rights for all women in all 50 states is a constitutional amendment, an amendment that is very unlikely to pass. So, what do you propose?
You literally used the fact that states are currently undoing abortion access in your argument that you support states right to choose!
Edit here are some quotes, all I removed was rambling
The third option is we split up, and go our separate ways. Personally, I prefer the third option, and I think it’s already happening.
Take abortion, for instance. The overturning of Roe v Wade didn’t make abortion illegal throughout the whole country, it simply returned the matter to the states.
But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think it’s better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states
“Sure, some people are still property. But that decision is made at the state level, so it’s all good.”
You folks keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that a decision automatically becomes morally right when it is made at the state level instead of the federal level. I never said that restricting abortion access was right or good.
I really would like an answer from someone about how you all would make abortion legal in all 50 states. Please, my all means tell me. If that is the only acceptable option to you, how do you think it can be accomplished?
Pass a law that medical decisions are between a patient and a doctor. You claim it needs to be an amendment, but there’s no reason for that.
Your entire premise seems to be capitulating to fascism because you’re afraid it can’t be stopped at the federal level. Do you really think “some fascism at the state level” would be a peaceful solution in the long term?
Pass a law that medical decisions are between a patient and a doctor.
They tried passing a law to make abortion legal in all 50 states. It was called the Women’s Health Protection Act. It was defeated in the Senate, twice. I’m sure they’ll keep trying, but even if they succeed the law will be challenged and I think it’s likely the current supreme court would overturn it. Plus, laws passed by one Congress can be repealed by another Congress. The only way to guarantee abortion rights in all 50 states would be to amend the constitution.
I literally did not.
deleted by creator
What you call rambling, is actually context.
You literally edited my words to change what I said. The FULL sentence I wrote was:
I think it’s better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states, then to have a strong federal government that gets taken over by fascists, for instance.
You’re just being deliberately dishonest.
Context doesn’t matter when all it does is attempt to justify heinous decisions like allowing states to restrict abortion and other fundamental rights. When it does that it’s just rambling.
If you think having a fascist federal government, in which abortion is illegal for all, is between than some states having abortion rights and some states not, that’s your opinion, I’m just saying I disagree with it.
Why would I be in favour of a fascist federal government? Where did I say something to support that? Have we completely given up on not having federal fascism already?
deleted by creator
You don’t compromise with Nazis. Either we fight a bloody civil war and hope we win, or we fragment into a North/South Korea type situation.
Civil wars are ultimately based on population numbers and industry, which is one reason a lot of republican states tend to lean towards industry these days, mend the mistakes of the past civil war.
Stop the clickbaitp please. Just write whatever you are trying to say here…
