politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sneaking it past the voters by...
Checks notes
...publishing the entire agenda on Project2025.org.
This isn't a one and done thing. P2025 is the Heritage foundation, long time conservative economic think tank funded by the Kochs. They're pushing this agenda and it doesn't matter who knows since this is a plan to seize power. They put out these demented sounding policy agenda and they stick to the plan, more or less, in working toward. Trying out different wordings, spamming out policy proposals and voting agenda items like the ones in this plan; copy pasted from existing bills written for other States. Look at how trans legislation is going in this country.
In the media they'll try out different framings of these issues, start bringing in grifters in the media to frame these issues "creatively" to the public. Most of these framings will be terrible, awful, but one will catch on and then it becomes part of public consciousness almost over night.
And they're doing this for all of these issues. People sometimes say that the capitalist class only cares about the next quarter, but these think tanks funded by the capitalist class, are able to look ahead decades. A good example of this is the Powell memo, written in the 70s by the chamber of commerce. Compared to when it was written they've gotten maybe 85% of what they asked for, and the mechanisms to get that last fraction of whatever is left of the US labor movement have been working and are "interpreted" into law by our conservative supreme court and the closely-linked Federalist Society.
Project 2025 gets rejected by a mostly ambivalent voting base. Big defeat, Democrats patting each other on the back. But the machine keeps working for decades as long as there's funding coming from major donors; unless it gets completely defeated, as in the people responsible are put on trial, Nuremberg style.
This seems like a good place to link Robert Evans BTB episode: "How Conservatism Won" in which "Robert sits down with David Bell to discuss how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all)." The tl;dr is basically the rich hated FDRs New Deal and immediately set to work to undo everything he did.
The above commenter has nailed it, it's not even a conspiracy, it's all easily verifiable. These people do not share our American values. They do not value freedoms (speech, press, religion, etc) the same way that many of us do. They want a return to the gilded age with them as the robber barons and gentry and everyone else as a permanent, toiling underclass.
It's literally a conspiracy.
He meant conspiracy theory. There is nothing theoretical about this conspiracy.
Maybe, but there's a weird stigma around "conspiracies" like they are politically unserious, or something that only people having paranoid delusions believe. Conspiracy theories often appear around very real evidence that is contradictory to the official story, or coincidences that are too frequent and conspicuous to be ignored. The milieu that has grown up around conspiracy theories is practically a consumer identity at this point, and often accomplishes little more than masking antisemitism, or providing passive revenue streams to mysterious grifter entities, like Q. But nothing will make you seem like more of a nut than telling your friends three things that the CIA openly admits to doing. Misinformation is and always has been rampant.
I don't have a lot of patience for conspiracy theories, but if you look at history there are a lot of incidents that were denied by the official story, and the people saying them were humiliated or had their careers destroyed or worse; that later it turns out they were correct when files get declassified decades later. So I'm just speaking to the stigma against the idea of conspiracies, they exist. People with similar interests "conspire," sometimes diabolically, to ensure their interests come to fruition. And to deny that is dangerously naive.