My inaugural newsletter is about a topic you’ve been clamoring for, one that has caused significant alarm bells to sound in the minds of many Americans.
I find the claim that it won’t happen to be disingenuous. I doubt that anyone spends their precious last years and days on earth exacting a plan that they think has no chance of implementation. I think his affability is to disarm the concern about these changes. What exactly does it mean to remove all reference to reproduction from government laws. Does that mean no laws restricting these rights; I don’t think so. That in and of itself uncovers a duplicitous agenda that doesn’t tell us exactly what we would experience.
This was exactly my instinctive reaction! You explained it much more eloquently than I would have. He is saying this just so the general public doesn’t worry about it and essentially ignores it. Seems like a public relations move to me.
Yes. It’s also telling that he relies on the general agreement of a “new conservative president” to play by the rules, when the biggest trend in conservatism is that they have stopped playing by the rules.
One of his big promises is to dismantle the very system he relies for the claim, “it won’t happen”.
I thought the exact same thing. I immediately thought about Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett sidestepping (lying?) when questioned about abortion. "Nothing to see here..."
This was my first thought! Why would he spend so much time on this if he thinks it couldn’t and won’t happen? The stuff is frightening and he didn’t answer Sharon’s question about all the people who think so. He just said Oh it won’t happen, nothing to worry about.
I think he explained the *how to get around this* in mentioning his own experience. He may recognize that they can't straight-up fire civil servants, but they can "move" them. Moving civil servants away from their positions of authority and expertise so those roles can be filled by whomever they want. Also will likely lead to those civil servants quiting after being put out to pasture, so to speak.
He seems to be downplaying the scariest parts of Project 2025 because it is not garnering the support from most Americans. You don’t spend 40+ years as a party developing a strategy that pre-dates Reagan to not implement it if given the opportunity. But Republicans have to win in November and the more people know about Project 2025, the less likely they are to vote R.
I completely agree with this. Plus, didn't we hear the "this would never happen" line with regard to dismantling Roe v. Wade?! And yet here we are. 100% agree that his claims sound disingenuous.
There are a lot of things being done around the country right now that I would have thought unthinkable just a few years ago, so I take their roadmap seriously, even if they themselves try to make light of it.
Agreed. Also, lots of folks said he would never do any of the things he said he would (limit immigration based on race/religion, curtail LGBTQ rights, put judges on the court to dismantle Roe) that he absolutely did. And then Jan. 6th.
Yes, great examples! Where there is a will there is a way...and this clearly shows that they have the will. So I don't care how unlikely it may be...my guard is up.
I think it’s a bit confusing to hear a senior contributor to Project 2025 say that he doesn’t think many or most of changes it proposes are possible. I wonder what he thinks the purpose of that document is then or why he would be involved in creating it.
Could be that they are doing this just to gain followers. Ex: Candidates sometimes claim that they will lower gas prices when they become president. But they have little to no control over gas prices. But people WANT lower gas prices so when a candidate claims they'll lower it, they may vote for that person. (gross over-simplification)
But it could be that this document is just thoughts and opinions for those that agree to be like, "Yes! I agree with you doing all of that! You've got my vote!" not knowing that those things are very unlikely to happen. (Just my theory)
I don’t think it’s to win over the masses since the masses don’t want what they are offering. For instance, if 90 percent of Americans want birth control rights, taking a stance against it won’t help attract voters.
What you’re saying now is sounding similar to the republicans who are talking about the contraception denial. “Oh course it won’t happen, it’s not a real thing”. Why can’t people work on real things then??? Spend time on things that will happen? Project 2025 and all these bills?!?!
Sharon, thanks so much for making the effort to understand Project 2025 from the perspective of the people who wrote it. My hope is that after reading this series I’ll be able to accurately represent opinions I disagree with in conversations with loved ones on the other side of the political spectrum.
I’m curious - were you able to ask Don Devine what his role as “senior contributor” entailed? Like many in the comments here, I find his claim that “Project 2025 won’t actually happen” disingenuous and alarming, but I’d like to believe he made these statements in good faith. Was his role more that of an advisor, or an architect? Goodness knows I’ve been a part of projects before where I wasn’t totally on board with or convinced by the end result, and sometimes what feels like malice is really just disorganization or incompetence.
People didn't think Hitler would gas Jews and millions of other people either. He fooled the British Prime Minister, for example. Trump has shown he doesn't follow the rules. Who's going to stop him from doing whatever he wants, especially with MAGAs installed in every gov't position? Compromised, corrupt, pro-Trump SCOTUS? We can just look at world history to know that it's very easy for authoritarian regimes to come to power, and stay in power. Did you know the world had 35 countries democratizing in 2003? Now there are 18. There were 11 countries autocratizing in 2003. Now there are 42 countries autocratizing. (Info via CNN.) Democracy is dying around the world, because it's so fragile and we don't do enough to protect it. Pretending it can't happen here too is unrealistic. "When people show you who they are, believe them." - Maya Angelou. I choose to believe they will do this, and find a way to do it.
Interesting that you brought up Hitler. Reminded me of what my mom said in 2016, "Trump is radical enough to either be exactly what this country needs or the next Hitler" and here we are. I see him as "the next Hitler" and she sees him as "exactly what this country needs". It blows my mind how two people can view the same person so incredibly differently.
Seems to depend on which news sources you consume. I've heard people have had success with family members when they get them to watch different content. Takes awhile, but it's possible. I had a parent like that too. It's rough.
Thank you for sharing that about in 2003 35 countries were democratizing and now only 18. And only 11 countries autocratizing and now 42! That is heartbreaking.
We also need to remember that Trump is allies with authoritarians and authoritarian countries around the world. Seth Abramson did a lot of reporting on the "Red Sea Conspiracy" back in 2016, that is still backing Trump. I assume Sharon is trying to be reassuring, but I strongly disagree with him that Project 2025 isn't a serious threat. Assuming rules and norms will hold with a party and millions of voters who don't respect rules and norms and want violence if their candidate loses doesn't seem wise (and I say this as someone who has studied an authoritarian country and how they wield and obtain power with a guy who sits on the European Council on Foreign Relations, plus I have family history with this as an Eastern European with relatives still living in Ukraine). Democracy is up to the people. Not the laws written down on pieces of paper that can be ripped up. The best defense is to vote in November to preserve the rule of law.
Thank you, Sharon, for offering a newsletter with interviews with the persons "behind the curtains," **and** a community of other subscribers with whom to marvel at our reactions.
Even if most of this cannot happen, some of it happening is terrifying. What's most discouraging, however, is that this project is a marker for how deep the divide runs in our country right now. That somehow things can only be improved by championing one side and crushing the other. Where is the listening?
The pillar 'The first promise is to “restore the family” and “protect our children.” ' seems a coded way of saying restore the patriarchy to its glory and keep women subservient and children in poverty. If they really wanted to protect children, why are they so against a social safety net and universal healthcare? Make it make sense.
I think that is such a problem. The words they are using have very specific agendas for a lot of people. It sounds good to make the family (however you describe a family) important and protect children. Who doesn't want to "protect children"? But the how is very important.
I am not buying that it won't happen. Seeing Roe overturned was eye opening. Seeing a confederate flag inside the Capital was eye opening. Also, why invest so much time in something that is clearly going to cause a major commotion when you think it won't happen? Is it all just a distraction or for show?
There seems to be a lot of demonizing the left in this document. If they claim to want to fix the issues in our government, shouldn’t they start by neutralizing their language instead of perpetuating the us vs them narrative?
The language is very polarizing. Most people who care about the environment don't view it as a "religion," they simply want to take care of earth's finite natural resources. It's OK to have disagreements on the best way to do that. NORMAL, even. But I agree that some of the language is unnecessarily divisive and insulting.
It is curious though that a religion focused on protecting God’s creation would be so offensive to “Christians” who have been taught that they are responsible for maintaining said creation and creatures.
Personally in my experience it has to do with - this isn’t our final place. We are just here for a little bit - until the second coming of Christ. Then Christian’s go to their REAL and eternal home. They believe the second coming of Jesus is very soon.
I was about to jump on and say - no not me!!! I def should have written my response better…. I do not believe this but do know many many who says this. Why take care of it when tomorrow jesus is coming back.
Is there anything on climate and the necessity to stabilize the climate? I don't recall reading anything. Labeling something 'religion' when by far a majority of scientists believe we are endangering the earth by ignoring climate change not the same believing something on faith.
I just told my husband this this weekend. I am so exhausted with the demonization of the “other” side. It’s just dehumanizing and takes things to such extremes that no one will even attempt to actively listen and try to understand the other side.
FWIW, I do not see Biden as extreme. He is actually quite moderate and has been a moderate Democrat for most of his career. Most on the far Left are not happy with him. There _are_ people on the left who are extreme, but Biden is actually not one of them. We are mostly told he is extreme by those on the farther Right.
I am seeing themes of a need for men to be strong leaders, and women to be mothers first and foremost. I was raised as a Christian, and believed very avidly through much of my childhood and adolescence, but I find myself uneasy with the Christian Nationalism being expressed by many leaders on the right, these days.
America was not founded on Christian nationalism, but on the principle of religious freedom (among other things!). Christian nationalism is, in many ways, unAmerican.
In my view Christian Nationalism is a distortion of religion and patriotism to manipulate others into accepting authoritarian control. It appeals to heart-felt beliefs in order to gain followers who may not understand the difference.
I’d say it’s people with a clear goal to make the US a Christian theocracy. They want laws to be made that fit their beliefs, which are very strict Christian beliefs, and everyone to follow them.
It is ironic to me that the traditional party of business interests,the GOP, is going down this path. It doesn't seem like they've thought about the full consequences of putting women fully back in the home, and not allowing immigration. What happens to the sacred economy when you reduce the workforce by that much? It tanks.
It very much tanks. We rely a lot on immigration for a lot of work. Sadly, because they often way underpaid and would be too afraid to contest that, but it is how a lot of farming and other things get done.
Hoping you will discuss the motivation and psychology behind making “promises” about goals such as “dismantling the administrative state” that a “senior contributor” believes are not achievable and will not happen.
Is there underlying nihilistic messaging at work here? If Project 2025’s target conservative audience is convinced that the government is so “broken” that their goals are unattainable, doesn’t that risk “revolution” (Jan. 6th) rather than peaceful reform and compromise?
I think this would be very helpful . I am really enjoying the thread on this post. So much thought out into each response .. thank you, Sharon, for providing this platform
As a federal employee, Project 2025 definitely has me concerned, regards of what the senior contributor said.
I real into a good amount of the Project 2025 report, and what shocked me the most was how detailed it was. Not just broad plans for agencies/departments, but detailed information about various offices and budgets. They definitely did their research, and that had me worried about how serious they plan to attempt to implement it.
We weren’t there, so we can’t read the tone. But an ‘affable man’ leading a group with stated missions that are so hostile seems like he’s trying to disarm you with comments like “I’m not confident any of this will happen….” … “so don’t you trouble your pretty little head about it. “ I hate that I wonder what the interview would be like with a man asking questions instead?
It feels extremely manipulative to have a plan as "scary" as Project 2025 and then have one of the main contributors say they don't think it will happen. Why put it out there? Feels manipulative to me.
It makes me think of the adage "there are two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle lies the truth." Most of us are the truthers in the middle.
The exhausted majority may not even identify as centrist, but they most certainly do not identify with the way extremists tend to engage with politics!
“I’m not confident any of this will happen. I don’t think any of this will happen." I am curious what drew him to be a senior contributor to this project if he has no confidence in a favorable outcome for Project 2025's supporters and contributors.
The other comment that struck me was, “The Democrats can’t change it because of the unions, and the Republicans can’t do it because they don’t understand how the process works." Obviously, this is referencing only one of the pillars, but unless the point of Project 2025 is to give people something meaningful and hopeful to contribute to (writing out a 17 page plan), his clear understanding that the efforts are not plausible are further evidence that Project 2025 is an actual waste of time. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a bait and switch, because I believe it's likely that most, if not all, of the contributors to this project have the desire to see it come to pass.
Truly, I think what is most disappointing about Project 2025 is the amount of time and energy it probably absorbed from people doing their actual jobs (i.e.: people in Congress).
I find the claim that it won’t happen to be disingenuous. I doubt that anyone spends their precious last years and days on earth exacting a plan that they think has no chance of implementation. I think his affability is to disarm the concern about these changes. What exactly does it mean to remove all reference to reproduction from government laws. Does that mean no laws restricting these rights; I don’t think so. That in and of itself uncovers a duplicitous agenda that doesn’t tell us exactly what we would experience.
Oooh interesting!
This was exactly my instinctive reaction! You explained it much more eloquently than I would have. He is saying this just so the general public doesn’t worry about it and essentially ignores it. Seems like a public relations move to me.
It's giving very, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtian" vibes. It feels very shady. Why write it if it can't be done?
Yes. It’s also telling that he relies on the general agreement of a “new conservative president” to play by the rules, when the biggest trend in conservatism is that they have stopped playing by the rules.
One of his big promises is to dismantle the very system he relies for the claim, “it won’t happen”.
I thought the exact same thing. I immediately thought about Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett sidestepping (lying?) when questioned about abortion. "Nothing to see here..."
This was my first thought! Why would he spend so much time on this if he thinks it couldn’t and won’t happen? The stuff is frightening and he didn’t answer Sharon’s question about all the people who think so. He just said Oh it won’t happen, nothing to worry about.
I think he explained the *how to get around this* in mentioning his own experience. He may recognize that they can't straight-up fire civil servants, but they can "move" them. Moving civil servants away from their positions of authority and expertise so those roles can be filled by whomever they want. Also will likely lead to those civil servants quiting after being put out to pasture, so to speak.
He seems to be downplaying the scariest parts of Project 2025 because it is not garnering the support from most Americans. You don’t spend 40+ years as a party developing a strategy that pre-dates Reagan to not implement it if given the opportunity. But Republicans have to win in November and the more people know about Project 2025, the less likely they are to vote R.
I completely agree with this. Plus, didn't we hear the "this would never happen" line with regard to dismantling Roe v. Wade?! And yet here we are. 100% agree that his claims sound disingenuous.
That's a really great point.
There are a lot of things being done around the country right now that I would have thought unthinkable just a few years ago, so I take their roadmap seriously, even if they themselves try to make light of it.
Yes. Trying to distract us so we don’t pay attention
That was my exact thought as well. So many said that there was no way Trump would be elected - yet he was elected.
Agreed. Also, lots of folks said he would never do any of the things he said he would (limit immigration based on race/religion, curtail LGBTQ rights, put judges on the court to dismantle Roe) that he absolutely did. And then Jan. 6th.
Yes, great examples! Where there is a will there is a way...and this clearly shows that they have the will. So I don't care how unlikely it may be...my guard is up.
I think it’s a bit confusing to hear a senior contributor to Project 2025 say that he doesn’t think many or most of changes it proposes are possible. I wonder what he thinks the purpose of that document is then or why he would be involved in creating it.
Could be that they are doing this just to gain followers. Ex: Candidates sometimes claim that they will lower gas prices when they become president. But they have little to no control over gas prices. But people WANT lower gas prices so when a candidate claims they'll lower it, they may vote for that person. (gross over-simplification)
But it could be that this document is just thoughts and opinions for those that agree to be like, "Yes! I agree with you doing all of that! You've got my vote!" not knowing that those things are very unlikely to happen. (Just my theory)
I don’t think it’s to win over the masses since the masses don’t want what they are offering. For instance, if 90 percent of Americans want birth control rights, taking a stance against it won’t help attract voters.
Exactly!
What you’re saying now is sounding similar to the republicans who are talking about the contraception denial. “Oh course it won’t happen, it’s not a real thing”. Why can’t people work on real things then??? Spend time on things that will happen? Project 2025 and all these bills?!?!
I agree that it sounds disingenuous. "THEY" said Roe would never be overturned, but here we are.
Sharon, thanks so much for making the effort to understand Project 2025 from the perspective of the people who wrote it. My hope is that after reading this series I’ll be able to accurately represent opinions I disagree with in conversations with loved ones on the other side of the political spectrum.
I’m curious - were you able to ask Don Devine what his role as “senior contributor” entailed? Like many in the comments here, I find his claim that “Project 2025 won’t actually happen” disingenuous and alarming, but I’d like to believe he made these statements in good faith. Was his role more that of an advisor, or an architect? Goodness knows I’ve been a part of projects before where I wasn’t totally on board with or convinced by the end result, and sometimes what feels like malice is really just disorganization or incompetence.
People didn't think Hitler would gas Jews and millions of other people either. He fooled the British Prime Minister, for example. Trump has shown he doesn't follow the rules. Who's going to stop him from doing whatever he wants, especially with MAGAs installed in every gov't position? Compromised, corrupt, pro-Trump SCOTUS? We can just look at world history to know that it's very easy for authoritarian regimes to come to power, and stay in power. Did you know the world had 35 countries democratizing in 2003? Now there are 18. There were 11 countries autocratizing in 2003. Now there are 42 countries autocratizing. (Info via CNN.) Democracy is dying around the world, because it's so fragile and we don't do enough to protect it. Pretending it can't happen here too is unrealistic. "When people show you who they are, believe them." - Maya Angelou. I choose to believe they will do this, and find a way to do it.
I pressed him on this topic (more soon) considerably. And I can tell you that he has some *very* interesting views on Jan 6.
Yes, please!
Interesting that you brought up Hitler. Reminded me of what my mom said in 2016, "Trump is radical enough to either be exactly what this country needs or the next Hitler" and here we are. I see him as "the next Hitler" and she sees him as "exactly what this country needs". It blows my mind how two people can view the same person so incredibly differently.
Seems to depend on which news sources you consume. I've heard people have had success with family members when they get them to watch different content. Takes awhile, but it's possible. I had a parent like that too. It's rough.
Thank you for sharing that about in 2003 35 countries were democratizing and now only 18. And only 11 countries autocratizing and now 42! That is heartbreaking.
I agree, because I’m witnessing the beginning of it every day.
We also need to remember that Trump is allies with authoritarians and authoritarian countries around the world. Seth Abramson did a lot of reporting on the "Red Sea Conspiracy" back in 2016, that is still backing Trump. I assume Sharon is trying to be reassuring, but I strongly disagree with him that Project 2025 isn't a serious threat. Assuming rules and norms will hold with a party and millions of voters who don't respect rules and norms and want violence if their candidate loses doesn't seem wise (and I say this as someone who has studied an authoritarian country and how they wield and obtain power with a guy who sits on the European Council on Foreign Relations, plus I have family history with this as an Eastern European with relatives still living in Ukraine). Democracy is up to the people. Not the laws written down on pieces of paper that can be ripped up. The best defense is to vote in November to preserve the rule of law.
I actually don’t feel like we know if she’s trying to be reassuring. I think this is a multi part interview. We’ll see
True, that was just the initial impression. Can't wait to read the other parts!
"I don't think any of this will happen." It is giving me "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" vibes--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA
Thank you, Sharon, for offering a newsletter with interviews with the persons "behind the curtains," **and** a community of other subscribers with whom to marvel at our reactions.
I thought the EXACT same thing and posted it to an earlier comment before I saw your comment! Clearly Gails are very bright ;) :D
Even if most of this cannot happen, some of it happening is terrifying. What's most discouraging, however, is that this project is a marker for how deep the divide runs in our country right now. That somehow things can only be improved by championing one side and crushing the other. Where is the listening?
There is not enough listening!!
The pillar 'The first promise is to “restore the family” and “protect our children.” ' seems a coded way of saying restore the patriarchy to its glory and keep women subservient and children in poverty. If they really wanted to protect children, why are they so against a social safety net and universal healthcare? Make it make sense.
This is a question I have as well, among other things. Don't say you're trying to protect children when we need more legislation on gun control.
Disingenuous at best.
I think that is such a problem. The words they are using have very specific agendas for a lot of people. It sounds good to make the family (however you describe a family) important and protect children. Who doesn't want to "protect children"? But the how is very important.
100% agree.
I am not buying that it won't happen. Seeing Roe overturned was eye opening. Seeing a confederate flag inside the Capital was eye opening. Also, why invest so much time in something that is clearly going to cause a major commotion when you think it won't happen? Is it all just a distraction or for show?
I’d have to agree with you. I feel like every time I think, “well that won’t ever happen,” there we are.
These were my thoughts as well. So much has happened in the last several years that more learned folks than myself said never could. Until they did.
There seems to be a lot of demonizing the left in this document. If they claim to want to fix the issues in our government, shouldn’t they start by neutralizing their language instead of perpetuating the us vs them narrative?
The language is very polarizing. Most people who care about the environment don't view it as a "religion," they simply want to take care of earth's finite natural resources. It's OK to have disagreements on the best way to do that. NORMAL, even. But I agree that some of the language is unnecessarily divisive and insulting.
It is curious though that a religion focused on protecting God’s creation would be so offensive to “Christians” who have been taught that they are responsible for maintaining said creation and creatures.
I am a Christian and I have not been able to make it make sense.
Personally in my experience it has to do with - this isn’t our final place. We are just here for a little bit - until the second coming of Christ. Then Christian’s go to their REAL and eternal home. They believe the second coming of Jesus is very soon.
I think we understand the beliefs. I just can’t understand stating beliefs that you refuse to live by.
I hope no one thinks that I meant literally “you”.
I was about to jump on and say - no not me!!! I def should have written my response better…. I do not believe this but do know many many who says this. Why take care of it when tomorrow jesus is coming back.
Ironic for sure!
What I have read of the document screams “Steven Miller” to me. Dehumanizing, angry, and at times utterly ridiculous.
Is there anything on climate and the necessity to stabilize the climate? I don't recall reading anything. Labeling something 'religion' when by far a majority of scientists believe we are endangering the earth by ignoring climate change not the same believing something on faith.
I just told my husband this this weekend. I am so exhausted with the demonization of the “other” side. It’s just dehumanizing and takes things to such extremes that no one will even attempt to actively listen and try to understand the other side.
Agree so much! I don’t even see how I can vote. It’s a NO to Biden and a NO to Trump. Two extremes! I wish N. Haley had gotten the nomination.
FWIW, I do not see Biden as extreme. He is actually quite moderate and has been a moderate Democrat for most of his career. Most on the far Left are not happy with him. There _are_ people on the left who are extreme, but Biden is actually not one of them. We are mostly told he is extreme by those on the farther Right.
I am seeing themes of a need for men to be strong leaders, and women to be mothers first and foremost. I was raised as a Christian, and believed very avidly through much of my childhood and adolescence, but I find myself uneasy with the Christian Nationalism being expressed by many leaders on the right, these days.
America was not founded on Christian nationalism, but on the principle of religious freedom (among other things!). Christian nationalism is, in many ways, unAmerican.
And in my view unchristian.
What is Christian nationalism?
In my view Christian Nationalism is a distortion of religion and patriotism to manipulate others into accepting authoritarian control. It appeals to heart-felt beliefs in order to gain followers who may not understand the difference.
Christian Nationalism is about power. Christianity is about peace. Veeeery different things and so scary to me as a professing Christian.
I’d say it’s people with a clear goal to make the US a Christian theocracy. They want laws to be made that fit their beliefs, which are very strict Christian beliefs, and everyone to follow them.
Yes, I think this is an accurate characterization. There is theological term for this - it’s called “theonomy.” Worth a Google.
@Sharon at the Preamble: This would be good subject matter for your newsletter. ;)
Absolutely, Patricia. Christian Nationalism is no joke. I consider myself to be a Christian but I want nothing to do with Christian Nationalism.
Absolutely. I agree with this. I am a Christian and therefore I want nothing to do with Christian Nationalism. The whole idea of it is unBibical.
Same here. It should just be called Nationalism as there's no part of it that's Christian.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Me too, Patsy.
Same.
It is ironic to me that the traditional party of business interests,the GOP, is going down this path. It doesn't seem like they've thought about the full consequences of putting women fully back in the home, and not allowing immigration. What happens to the sacred economy when you reduce the workforce by that much? It tanks.
It very much tanks. We rely a lot on immigration for a lot of work. Sadly, because they often way underpaid and would be too afraid to contest that, but it is how a lot of farming and other things get done.
Hoping you will discuss the motivation and psychology behind making “promises” about goals such as “dismantling the administrative state” that a “senior contributor” believes are not achievable and will not happen.
Is there underlying nihilistic messaging at work here? If Project 2025’s target conservative audience is convinced that the government is so “broken” that their goals are unattainable, doesn’t that risk “revolution” (Jan. 6th) rather than peaceful reform and compromise?
That's a great question. I specifically pressed him on Jan 6. Should I talk about this in this week's paid subscriber video?
I think this would be very helpful . I am really enjoying the thread on this post. So much thought out into each response .. thank you, Sharon, for providing this platform
I would really appreciate that!
Yes please!!
Yes, please do and thank you!
Definitely
Yes, I’m interested to hear what he said and your take on his response.
Yes, please!
Yes, definitely!
Yes please!
Yes please!!
Yes please!
As a federal employee, Project 2025 definitely has me concerned, regards of what the senior contributor said.
I real into a good amount of the Project 2025 report, and what shocked me the most was how detailed it was. Not just broad plans for agencies/departments, but detailed information about various offices and budgets. They definitely did their research, and that had me worried about how serious they plan to attempt to implement it.
We weren’t there, so we can’t read the tone. But an ‘affable man’ leading a group with stated missions that are so hostile seems like he’s trying to disarm you with comments like “I’m not confident any of this will happen….” … “so don’t you trouble your pretty little head about it. “ I hate that I wonder what the interview would be like with a man asking questions instead?
I had this thought as well. On the screen, the tone was very “there, there, nothing to worry about “.
In my head I hear Muahahahahahaha. I trust him not.
It feels extremely manipulative to have a plan as "scary" as Project 2025 and then have one of the main contributors say they don't think it will happen. Why put it out there? Feels manipulative to me.
It makes me think of the adage "there are two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle lies the truth." Most of us are the truthers in the middle.
The exhausted majority may not even identify as centrist, but they most certainly do not identify with the way extremists tend to engage with politics!
Curious to read the rest. This is great info.
“I’m not confident any of this will happen. I don’t think any of this will happen." I am curious what drew him to be a senior contributor to this project if he has no confidence in a favorable outcome for Project 2025's supporters and contributors.
The other comment that struck me was, “The Democrats can’t change it because of the unions, and the Republicans can’t do it because they don’t understand how the process works." Obviously, this is referencing only one of the pillars, but unless the point of Project 2025 is to give people something meaningful and hopeful to contribute to (writing out a 17 page plan), his clear understanding that the efforts are not plausible are further evidence that Project 2025 is an actual waste of time. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a bait and switch, because I believe it's likely that most, if not all, of the contributors to this project have the desire to see it come to pass.
Truly, I think what is most disappointing about Project 2025 is the amount of time and energy it probably absorbed from people doing their actual jobs (i.e.: people in Congress).