this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
364 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4552 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Slightly off topic, but I worry that this election has, amongst other things has turned into a referendum on Project 2025. So, the Democratic Party won't have a leg to stand on when it gets implemented in full. They can't really argue that the electorate was ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Republicans are claiming to voters that they "don't know anything about projects 2025". Despite supporting all the policies individually. There's still plenty of room to argue the electorate was duped by their lies should they win

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe, but it's like the Brexit referendum. During the run up to the vote, the rightwing government at the time swore that it wasn't binding, instead it was advisory. But, when the opportunity to vote again when it actually became clear what the Brexit deal meant, it was dismissed. We had our vote. Even though there was no way of knowing that people actually voted for the form Brexit they actually got. Instead those that advocate for a final binding vote was castigated for being anti Democratic with vested interests and hidden agendas.

If they can do that to Brexit skeptics with all the uncertainty and doubt surrounding that decision, imagine what they can do surrounding a much more cut and dried prospect of Project 2025.

I should imagine the line will be: "you, yourself advertised what Project 2025 will be. You said if you vote us in, we'll implement it. Now we're in, we see that as a democratic mandate to implement it".

[–] Atom 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe, and while a fair amount of Trump supporters do agree with Project 2025, I bet an equally fair amount of them believe him when he claims he doesn't know anything about it. Another large share knows it, but thinks the worst parts won't happen or at least won't effect them.

I have family that have been straight ticket Republicans their whole lives and voted for Trump. After Roe fell, they claimed they had no idea that would happen. They said Republicans had been saying they would ban abortion for years, and never thought they'd actually do it. They'll take the easy way out and ignore Project 2025 the same way until it happens.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They said Republicans had been saying they would ban abortion for years, and never thought they'd actually do it.

I wonder how many are causally gambling on Americans' freedom every 4 years?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

"Certainly the institutions and norms that we've been undermining for decades will prevent anything bad happening."

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good on them, but man, how did this not happen earlier? Seems like something that you could just spend a moderate amount of campaign funds on. There was a good wave of Project 2025 awareness going around social media a month or so ago. It's so late to do it now.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

They did start it earlier. It's talking about work that's been ongoing

[–] sucoiri 3 points 3 weeks ago

Fuck the libre initiative btw

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -4 points 3 weeks ago

Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Rolling Stone:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/translating-project-2025-spanish-latino-voters-1235137797/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support