Project 2025

[Birdjaguar]

But did that statement not include wording to the effect that they should only obey within the limits of the law?

Trump has no respect for the law. All of his recent indictments are for breaking or obstructing laws. His entire business career was spent trying to find way to thwart laws for profit.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Trump has no respect for the law. All of his recent indictments are for breaking or obstructing laws. His entire business career was spent trying to find way to thwart laws for profit.

I am talking as a matter of principal.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But did that statement not include wording to the effect that they should only obey within the limits of the law?

It did. But. Then that makes the "don't put obstacles in his way" 1) redundant (the only obstacles a lawyer would put in your way are legal concerns) and therefore 2) suspicious that they mentioned it: signaling that their ideal person for the job would regard laws as nothing more than obstacles.

If it's Eastman they have in mind (and he's one of the contributors to the project), we know that he won't let any law serve as an obstacle.

Unrelated: more people are Googling "Project 2025" than "Taylor Swift."

 

[Gori the Grey]

Chapter 2 is on the administrators who report to the President and who oversee agencies.

Office of Management and Budget, National Security Council, National Economic Council.

It's a hard slog. 22 pages. The Project as a whole has the ambition of educating citizens about the workings of government (which is laudable), so as this document treats various offices, it gives a quick summary of what that office does. It moves quickly, however, to how that office should operate under "the next conservative President" and in this chapter even more than chapter 1, that part of it seems written more to insiders than to the average American Joe.

So, the new Prez needs to take charge because:

a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its
own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences
of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country.

It lists the president's obligations relative to the bureaucracy, including to "limit" it, which I find suspect.

Again it faults Congress for not having done its job.

like Congress’s decades-long tendency to delegate its
lawmaking power to agency bureaucracies,

Their principles tell them that it should be Congress they should be trying to get to act differently. But that would be hard, so let's focus on the executive instead.

The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need
for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power—
including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people.
Success in meeting that challenge will require a rare combination of boldness and
self-denial: boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will and
self-denial to use the bureaucratic machine to send power away from Washington
and back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.

Trump will be on board for the first half of that. Self-denial probably not so much.

The Office of Management and Budget should be

the keeper of “commander’s intent”
is established, then and only then does OMB have the ability to shape the most
e"cient way to pursue an objective.

Carrying the word "commander" over from Commander in Chief to other aspects of the President's operations strikes me as telling.

Again they want a WH Counsel who is "creative"; not usually the first word you think of in connection with a lawyer.

Ha ha. Trump yammered about Buy American. Biden got it done:

MIAO. Building on the example and work of the Trump Administration, President
Biden established this o"ce to centralize, carry out, and further develop the
federal government’s Buy-American and other Made-in-America commitments.
Its work ought to be continued and further strengthened.

TIL that under Trump:

The Council of Economic Advisers did research on the economic benefits of
space property rights.

Unwinding:

Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding
policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity
initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s
climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other
federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the
federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and
scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and sci

Social Costs of Carbon also need to be "unwound":

The President should eliminate the Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is cochaired by the OSTP, OMB, and CEA, and by
executive order should end the use of SCC analysis.

And abolish the Gender Policy Council.

 

[IglooDame]

Generally, politicians running for office propose big ideas but not details because all the details do is give opponents attack surface and supporters reasons to disagree. Trump is no different in that respect from anyone else. But the way in which he is different is in not wanting to feel beholden or constrained to anyone, and a bunch of people - even supporters of his - writing up a "what he will specifically do in office" has got to irritate the crap out of him even if he actually agrees with it all.

Personally while I'm happy Project 2025 makes a great rallying cry and/or wakeup call to liberals and independents (and the occasional non-MAGA conservative); what I'm terrified about isn't in Project 2025 nor Agenda 47, it's simply that this time around Trump knows what he needs to do from the start to make sure the 2028 election will not matter and he retains power regardless.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

In the year 2025
If Biden is still alive
If Harris can survive
They may find...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump posted on his social media website. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Odd to have such opinions about something you know nothing about.

Trump: "Project 2025, stand down, and stand by"

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It did. But. Then that makes the "don't put obstacles in his way" 1) redundant (the only obstacles a lawyer would put in your way are legal concerns) and therefore 2) suspicious that they mentioned it: signaling that their ideal person for the job would regard laws as nothing more than obstacles.

If it's Eastman they have in mind (and he's one of the contributors to the project), we know that he won't let any law serve as an obstacle.

I interpreted that quote as meaning that there should be no infighting between them and the president. As in, that unless their job explicitly calls for them telling him something is not supposed to be done they should focus on getting it done as opposed to thinking they know better an doing something else instead. This sort of thing is quite common among management and newer ends well.

 

[Gori the Grey]

As in, that unless their job explicitly calls for them telling him something is not supposed to be done they should focus on getting it done as opposed to thinking they know better an doing something else instead.

Except that WH Counsel has no role in "getting something done." Their only role is to check off that a proposed course of action is legal; once they do that, other people carry it into effect. I will acknowledge that I too am only interpreting, as you are. But the bit about obstacles doesn't need saying--with regard to this position--except to signal that the ideal candidate is one who will "creatively" find ways not to regard laws as obstacles.

Odd to have such opinions about something you know nothing about.

It's particularly the way their position on pornography has got out that he wants to distance himself from. And one other thing: it's very important to him to project that nobody but Trump sets Trump's policy.

He's speaking a kind of truth, by the way: he certainly hasn't read the document. But he's mostly lying, because, should he take office, he'll happily let these people pursue their policies. They include the same ones who directed him to his SC picks in his first term. They include plenty of people who served in his first term, including one of his chiefs of staff. He knows what this thing is about--but he's going to dodge bad press to whatever extent he can.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Except that WH Counsel has no role in "getting something done." Their only role is to check off that a proposed course of action is legal; once they do that, other people carry it into effect. I will acknowledge that I too am only interpreting, as you are. But the bit about obstacles doesn't need saying--with regard to this position--except to signal that the ideal candidate is one who will "creatively" find ways not to regard laws as obstacles.

Oh, in that case I think I have it figured out. Tell me what you think of this interpretation.

Thanks to your supreme court the president can do no wrong legally speaking. So that makes a team of people whose job is to tell the president if his action is legal or not basically obsolete. After all, he can't get in legal trouble for it. However his subordinates that execute the order can still get into trouble if its something illegal and they obey. So what the statement is saying is that basically the team should shift their focus from trying to block illegal orders now that nothing is illegal any more and toward warning the president when his orders can get his servants into trouble so that he can either prepare pardons or otherwise assign disposable members of staff to them.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, remember something else I said @PPQ_Purple. Remember, this document has been two or three years in the making. It's not up to date with the SC decision. In fact, I said it's almost kind of quaint in light of that decision. They're trying to give Trump individual bullets, while the SC handed him a machine gun. They couldn't know that would happen. They're working on their small-bore corruption, and SC just blew the doors wide open.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Or... this knew that the SC was building up to that decision and this might be something they had as a backup plan if that failed.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, that would require some real prognosticating powers! The plan was put in place in April of 2023. Trump was first charged in August of 2023. So they would have needed to guess that a charge was coming and that in response to the charges Trump would petition for immunity, and that the SC would take it up.

I think they just developed along parallel tracks.

 

[Samson]

'Gay furry hackers' say they've disbanded after raiding Project 2025's Heritage Foundation

After claiming to break into a database belonging to The Heritage Foundation, and then leaking 2GB of files belonging to the ultra-conservative think tank, the hacktivist crew SiegedSec claims to have disbanded.

According to a message on the group's Telegram channel, they had already planned to exit the scene this week. That missive continues:

> Given the circumstances i believe its best we do so now. for our own mental health, the stress of mass publicity, and to avoid the eye of the FBI.
> I've been considering quitting cybercrime lately, and the other members have agreed its time to let SiegedSec rest for good.
> And while disavowing a life of crime, SiegedSec will remain "hackers and always fighting for the rights of others."

But before breaking up the band, the politically motivated and self-described "gay furry hackers" published a bunch of furious messages that SiegedSec claims were sent to them by Mike Howell, the executive director of the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project.

The feud began on July 9 after SiegedSec said it obtained usernames, passwords, logs and "other juicy info" belonging to the Heritage Foundation, and then leaked that private data online in response to the org producing and promoting Project 2025. The information dump has now been taken offline.

Project 2025 is a lengthy and fairly detailed blueprint that outlines how a future conservative president – such as, say, Donald Trump should he win the election again – could overhaul the federal government and public policy to enact a far-Right agenda and give huge powers to the executive branch. Trump has claimed he knows "nothing" about it all though there clear links between Project 2025's advisory board, Team Trump, and the Republican National Committee.

The political wishlist includes, among many, many, many things, rolling back environmental protection rules [PDF], eliminating energy efficacy standards and programs, and ending the US government's "focus on climate change and green subsidies" [PDF]. It also includes eliminating [PDF] the US Department of Education.

Healthcare funding [PDF] takes a big hit under Project 2025, too. It calls for privatizing many public healthcare services and reducing the scope of programs including Medicare and Medicaid. The plan would also reverse the approval of morning-after pills, and cut federal funding to abortion providers and those providing gender-affirming care [PDF].

And ultimately, it seeks to expand the executive branch's power, ensure that federal agencies and their leaders and rank-and-file fall heavily in line with the president's agenda and "push back against woke policies in corporate America" [PDF].

SiegedSec, whose previous targets have included America's biggest nuclear power lab's computer systems and NATO (on multiple occasions), said it took issue with Project 2025's "authoritarian Christian nationalist plan to reform the United States government."

In a July 9 post on its Telegram channel, the cat-fanatics-slash-hacktivists noted: "Project 2025 threatens the rights of abortion healthcare and LGBTQ+ communities in particular. so of course, we won't stand for that! ^-^"

The Heritage Foundation did not respond to The Register's inquiries about the alleged data security breach nor about a chat exchange purported to be between SiegedSec's "vio" and the conservative group's Mike Howell.

We'd like to point out Howell retweeted parts of the purported conversation without denying he said the things he's quoted as saying.

The Signal exchange, according to SiegedSec, started with Howell asking what the hacktivists were "seeking or threatening." Here's how the conversation then apparently played out:

> vio:
> We want to make a message and shine light on who exactly supports the heritage foundation. we dont want anything more than that, not money and not fame. we're strongly against Project 2025 and everything the heritage foundation stands for.
> Mike Howell:
> That's why you hacked us?
> Just for that?
> vio:
> Yes. it should be obvious thats all we want based on our history as a hacktivist group, we dont seek money.
> Mike Howell:
> Ok listen to me closely
> We are in the process of identifying and outting members of your group
> Reputations and lives will be destroyed
> Closeted Furries will be presented to the world for the degenerate perverts they are
> You cannot hide
> Your means are miniscule compared to mine. You now can either turn yourself in or you can cooperate

From there the messages said to have been sent from Howell become increasingly dark, lecturing the crew on beastiality and how it's a "weird sin," calling them perverts," and then telling vio "you won't be able to wear a furry tiger costume when you're getting pounded in the ass in the federal prison I put you in next year."

Overall, not a good look for an organization touting Christian values, not that we're judging or anything.

 

[Zardnaar]

Pity they're disbanding.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Overall, not a good look for an organization touting Christian values, not that we're judging or anything.

How so? Isn't sentencing everyone who disagrees with you to an eternity of torture in fire the core value of all abrahamic religions?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not for Christianity, at least. At least, not if practiced properly. Its sacred scriptures almost could not be more explicit and straightforward: Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Not for Christianity, at least. At least, not if practiced properly. Its sacred scriptures almost could not be more explicit and straightforward: Judge not lest ye be judged.

But don't they also include a whole lot of explicit rules on when to stone people, kill people, expel people, shun people etc?
Than again figuring out what Jesus wanted and said from the rest of the book is kind of difficult from my understanding.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The one time stoning someone comes up in the gospels, Christianity's founder arranges for it not to happen.

In the most interesting way, in fact, given our focus here on people judging other people.

 

[Narz]

Not for Christianity, at least. At least, not if practiced properly. Its sacred scriptures almost could not be more explicit and straightforward: Judge not lest ye be judged.

Properly = let's ignore the old testament bipolar stuff and focus on some nicey-nice Christ quotes.

Be real there is no proper Christianity. Christianity, like Walt Whitman, contains multitudes, it doesn't mind a bit of slavery, wifey disposal, genocide and slaughtering your neighbor for moving the lawn on the weekend but also turn the other cheek.

The Bible is not straightforward although it's historical and current use in organizations is straightforward, amass power and control.

Your personal use and belief is not a problem, I don't doubt it may feel beneficial and prosocial even. And perhaps even your church could be a positive force in your community.

On the larger level tho it's toxic and corrosive hence why the constitution insists we limit it from power in the government and public affairs.