Project 2025 - Pros and Cons. An analysis.

Project 2025

So I woke up this morning and became informed about this proposal for the first time. I'm not always "hip to the trends" so sometimes information takes a bit of time to trickle down to my little department.

For those of you familiar with this proposition, what do you make of it?

Is this part of the pushback? Could this lead to further abuses of power in the future? How on earth do they plan to enforce these ideas?

In the interest of Freedom and Civil Discussion on this issue, I'd love to hear what our community thinks about this proposed inititive.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Authoritative Regimes in either direction, as I am very formally entrenched in the Ideals of the Constitution, and even though this plan claims to impose new rules and restrictions on Federal Overreach, it's a bit of Overreach in it's own right as far as I'm concerned.

What say you?

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Project 2025

Purpose Plan to reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of Republican Party president
Location
Washington, D.C.
Director Paul Dans
Main organ Mandate for Leadership
Parent organization Heritage Foundation
Budget $22 million[1]
Website www.project2025.org Edit this at Wikidata
Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of policy proposals to fundamentally reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.[2][3] Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president.[4] It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a widely disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States,[5][6] which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration."

Sounds like big trouble

I think it sounds like a great idea that needs to happen, but at the same time, I have to wonder, how will this be abused?
Thomas Jefferson said that the Republic must be based in an educated and moral population. We have definitely screwed the pooch on that at this point.... and that could lead to all manner of bad things coming under the guise of "the Democracy".

a reply to: nugget1

Now being a bit confused...

I thought the president was head of the executive branch?

The way that is written, it sounds like it will lead into power fights between administrations undoing what the other did. Kinda like EOs.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

To me it looks like it aims to use the federal government to use various powers to achieve political objectives.

It notes different loopholes and mechanisms to achieve a broad range of objectives.

It sounds more authoritarian than limiting government to me.

While I may agree with some of the objectives, I don’t like the means.

Didn't know about. Definitely not for it.

Like you, how about we just stick with the constitution? We need less government right now.

So, we would actually have to get some constitutional judges on the supreme court though.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

The idea has been brought many a few times here. The idea has been adopted by many top Republicans and supported by most. This is not some idea that was just thought up out of nowhere. This is carefully orchestrated and legal and scary as all hell. Please direct any mean and nasty comments towards the people that thought of this, The Heritage Foundation and all their glory.

a reply to: budzprime69

Frankly I think thousands of civil servants in D.C. would probably qualify as 'the swamp'.
It would be refreshing to get more conservative blood there.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

I can think of a few constitutional amendment repeals that need to be included in that plan.

Some should have never been enacted in the first place while others are just obsolete, such as the so-called Civil War amendments. The 13th, 14th and 15th specifically.

The 16th and 17th should have never been passed in the first place.

The 18th has already been repealed by the 21st.

The 26th needs to be revised to limit voting to the age of 35 years old. LOL

And last but not least, the 19th needs to be repealed. LOL If you don't see the joke in this, look it up. LOL
19th Amendment

originally posted by: LetsGoViking
I think it sounds like a great idea that needs to happen, but at the same time, I have to wonder, how will this be abused?

Always my thoughts on any new concept/proposal.

Just look at HOA's.

a reply to: charlest2

I'm going to get in trouble for this but the temptation is too strong.

Ehhh nvm but it is funny but in bad taste. The 19th though

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

A couple of reactions just off the top.

First, you need to know a little about the history of the Civil Service in the US. In 1789, there were only about 300 direct civilian employees of the US government. Back in those days, civilian jobs in the government were doled out on the spoils system--when a new POTUS came in to power he could and usually would fire any civil servant without cause and replace him with a friend, a crony, or someone who contributed to his campaign. With only a few hundred employees, a POTUS could do that. As a practical matter, this meant that the entire civil service staff would turnover very time the Presidency changed party and the friends of the President usually had no experience or expertise in the job they were hired for.

As the nation grew in size and wealth, the need for civil servants grew accordingly. After the Louisiana Purchase, when the size of the nation about doubled and the West was being settled it was apparent that the spoils system was incompetent for actually conducting the business of the nation, so there began to be a groundswell movement to create a professional civil service where individuals were hired on merit and could not be fired without cause.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson tried to oppose the granting of normal civil rights to freed blacks by firing cabinet officials who didn't share his view, but Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act to prevent him from doing that and ultimately ended up impeaching him for persisting even after the Act was passed. Does that sound familiar? By 1883, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed that set in place most of the characteristics of the current civil service system.

So basically, Trump wants to dial the clock backwards in time by about 150 years so he can dick around with civil service employees the way Andrew Johnson wanted to in 1867, and for mostly the same reasons. Been there, done that, it didn't work.

Second point: By 1900 there were over 200,000 civil service employees. By the time WWII had ended, employment had gone over 1 million. Today, there are approximately 2 million. Basically, the number of Civil Servants required follows the economic and technological growth of the country. After the Mexican American War in 1848, the land area approximately doubled again from the size of the Louisiana Purchase. That means more borders to patrol, more natural resources to manage, more waterways to navigate, more disputes to be litigated, etc. etc. All that takes people. People have to be hired to do that stuff. Some of those people have to be employees of the US government.

By the time the Civil War came around, the telegraph was the hot technology of the day and was considered crucial to the war effort, so the US government set up a Military Telegraph Corps to make sure that they had access to that technology. By the time WWI came along, wireless telegraphy had replaced wires and airplanes were dropping bombs on soldiers riding horses, so the government had to get involved in radio and aviation. By WWII, it was rockets, jet planes, atomic bombs, and electronic computers. Today, we've added the internet, space travel, and big Pharma, to name a few. Every time there is an advance in technology there is an increase in the amount of stuff the government has to be aware of and try to govern. That's how we got to approximately 2 million civil servants today. Every one of those civil servants has a job that was created to answer a need that Congress identified and funded and that the POTUS signed off on. And by the way, none of those job titles is "deep state operative".

Trump's vision--if you can call it that--is that he's going to go in and change the course of all 2 million civil servants instantly to move the country in a direction that he likes, and he is going to fire anyone who stands in his way. The problem with this strategy is that you will end up firing most of the people who actually know how to run an agency, so the Trump cronies who come in to give an agency a new direction won't have anyone underneath them to give orders to. So it's pretty easy to predict that all those agencies will quickly devolve into chaos. This is basically what happened when Elon Musk took over Twitter. All the people who could actually make the changes that Musk wanted, were gone because he got rid of them. FUBAR on a massive scale.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

That sounds like the Republicans learned dirty tricks from the Democrats. I don't like dirty tricks from any side. Let's stick to the Constitution but with term limits for all government officials. No carear politicians or government bureaucrats.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Trump didn't have a clue how DC worked the first time. Luckily, he watched, listened, and learned from the pro's like Obama. So he is going to be open about doing what Obama did in the shadows. If it was OK for the dems, it should be fine for the Republicans. If it's not OK for the Republicans, then amazingly enough, it shouldn't be allowed by the Dems. Fairzies and all.

a reply to: network dude

Luckily project 2025 isn’t necessarily a Trump driven directive. It’s the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation.

So I doubt that the methods laid out are actually utilized en mass.

Part of the project would be giving president more powers over the other branches. Which some would celebrate until someone from the other side wins.

The reason there’s so much gear spinning in the government is a feature not a bug. The people who set it up didn’t want there to be huge amounts of change unless there was overwhelming support.

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: nugget1

Now being a bit confused...

I thought the president was head of the executive branch?

The way that is written, it sounds like it will lead into power fights between administrations undoing what the other did. Kinda like EOs.

He doesn't have many actual policies to speak of, so it creates a vacuum. And into that vacuum step in the various organizations that write the President's policies for him, like The Heritage Foundation does. The foundation started interviewing and vetting candidates for his administration months ago. One of the prerequisites to make it on the list is to be an election denier.

Project 2025 has been in the news for a few months now. It's basically Steve Bannon's wet dream.

I worry about abuse.

However, part of the issue is that we can't have deep state employees sabotaging the executive branch either. We have to be able to fire employees who are not following the directive of the executive branch provided there is nothing illegal happening.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

since when is anyone sticking to the Constitution these days?

June 19, 2024

PROJECT 2025 Update

Here: gettr.com...

It's a bit extreme but I get where some of the ideas may be a good to restore law and order. A problem I see is part of the plan seems to imply Conservatives will move and comply like many on the left do, as a unified group for a political purpose. But the situation is, they don't. So as far as moving Conservative bodies to D.C., nope. Conservatives are more independent and don't move as one body, which can be either good or bad. And they don't have the patience to put up with the crap from the left. If they happen to already be situated there, they do the best they can but I don't see them voluntarily uprooting and transferring to a new location 'for the cause'.

It's also a negative that it appears as more of a militarized movement, and that scares people. During hurricane Katrina when the National Guard removed legally owned firearms from civilians, it sent a stark message and I don't thing people want to go there again - as in a more militarized society, not the removal of firearms per se. It's simply a bad look. Also as CriticalStinker noted above, this isn't a Trump driven agenda even though he might approve of it. It's new though and it's from what I would call a FAR right position of a small group of people.

It's not that the ideology of inserting politically like minded people into other areas is a new idea as the Left does it all the time and it seems to be part of their agenda. Look at the illegal aliens infiltrating our country. Don't tell me that it's not for gaining new voters for the Left. I believe Biden knew his presidency would be a failure from day one so he and his administration began immediately leaving the border wide open to 'grateful' immigrants. But the civilian populations are not happy with the destruction the Left has left in their wake and are moving out of blue areas and into red. So it may be a wash for him on election day.

I also believe that extreme ideas tend to soften upon implementation so what is in the plans now as far as Project 2025 goes would become more of a 'back to law and order' plan. And staffing your administration with like minded people is simply common sense, regardless of party affiliation.

It's just silly that the Left once again is trying to call foul when they themselves have done or insinuated they would like to do some of the same things. Like Biden wanting to add Supreme Court Justices.

It's clear that serious changes need to be made though. The economy and safety are top issues that need to be addressed and require more than just a few words. There needs to be action in a big way and I think we all know who will and who won't be ready to play hardball in the next chapter.