Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
In case people don't know what Project 2025 is.
Here's the document:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise
AT LEAST READ THE FOREWARD. It very meticulously lays out their 4 goals:
In plain language they want to:
The whole thing is full of conservative buzz words, "anti-woke" rhetoric, and contradictions about free enterprise while wanting to exert control over people and "big tech."
But it's also dangerous because they're going to attempt to consolidate power to the next Republican president. There are complicated and far-reaching consequences to the things they're proposing that would take an academic paper to get into. For example, Ron DeSantis just signed a bill making lab-grown meat illegal because of the "global elite." It doesn't make any sense, but it's part of the reactionary, anti-leftist, culture war bullshit the Republicans are on right now.
That summary should be enough to show why this is so dangerous.
Wow. Thanks. With your summary and the titles alone I can make sense of that manifesto:
Define families properly to include all colours of families. Make them (the people) more important than corporate greed and capitalism. Make sure their children have access to education. And care for them if their parents aren't well off.
The state has no business dictating people's reproductive rights, choices in gender issues and religion. Instead they need the state to provide infrastructure to them, healthcare etc to enable them to achieve what they want individually. People need the freedom not to get shot on the streets or at school by some lunatic. And democracy in the USA is broken. Governance by the people needs true choices. Less lobbyism, gerrymandering and childish behaviour in the senate.
Make good choices in a globalized world. Sustainable politics. Trade and be friends with your neighbours and other friendly nations. If you want to be strong, you better have friends and also show them they're worth something to you.
Freedom and Liberty? That's a pretty straightforward proclamation to celebrate LGBTQ+ people, women etc as god made them. I'd say that extends to anyone and all the diversity and richness of life. And include welfare programs for the disadvantaged, as God and the founding fathers wanted equal opportunity. And the USA currently only cares for the rich. Contradicting any of Jesus' teachings.
Sry, I think the innuendo got lost here. I was more holding up a mirror to their double-speak and trying to point out that if you really liked those goals, you'd take a different route. The conclusions these people jumped to, contradict each other and what they're supposedly achieving.
I think if they were for families and liberty, they'd do roughly what I said... Making me think that's not what it's about. For me they don't need to come up with wrong reasons to justify it. They could just say 'we hate people and freedom' and at least that'd be honest and free of contradictions.
That's kinda what I thought you were going for at first, but wasn't sure.
Either way, that document is full of language that would easily catch a reader thinking it's all positive rather than manipulative.