People from Project 2025 are writing official government memorandums.
But that's the problem here: no amount of evidence short of an admission from Trump is going to "prove" it to you, and Trump will deny this, all while Project 2025 is enacted by the people who wrote it with the unspoken blessing of the GOP.
You can confirm on the GOP website that the GOP platform is called agenda 47. You can also read agenda 47. This was published prior to the election.
Agenda 47 and project 2025 have very different approaches to matters like abortion. So far the evidence has been that the GOP supports the GOP‘s own platform in this regard, for example there’s no federal ban on abortion pills, which is part of project 2025 but not part of the GOP’s platform agenda 47.
If you are alleging a conspiracy that agenda 47 was the smoke screen in favour of the heritage foundation’s project 2025 then you will need to provide some kind of evidence for this conspiracy.
If you are implying that the thing that is 98% of the other thing aren't practically identical, you will need to provide some kind of evidence for this conspiracy.
I'm sure Trump wasn't lying when he said he hadn't read Project 2025 and didn't know what's in it. He doesn't care, none of that matters to him.
But he damn well knew what it was, where it came from, and who was involved, given he brought several Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation people into the administration.
Most things don't fully disprove most things, especially in politics. Trump will never announce Project 2025 by name, that doesn't mean he's not implementing it. Putting that as the bar is bad faith.
Again, why the high bar? Why does different branding of two nearly on identical things matter? If it's 90% the same you can conclude it was the plan all along.
People from Project 2025 are writing official government memorandums.
But that's the problem here: no amount of evidence short of an admission from Trump is going to "prove" it to you, and Trump will deny this, all while Project 2025 is enacted by the people who wrote it with the unspoken blessing of the GOP.
A spade is spade.
You can confirm on the GOP website that the GOP platform is called agenda 47. You can also read agenda 47. This was published prior to the election.
Agenda 47 and project 2025 have very different approaches to matters like abortion. So far the evidence has been that the GOP supports the GOP‘s own platform in this regard, for example there’s no federal ban on abortion pills, which is part of project 2025 but not part of the GOP’s platform agenda 47.
If you are alleging a conspiracy that agenda 47 was the smoke screen in favour of the heritage foundation’s project 2025 then you will need to provide some kind of evidence for this conspiracy.
We're already provided mountains of evidence that the exact language (and people!) that worked on Project 2025 is now Trump admin policy.
You pulled out a single example of Trump not being as extreme as P2025, which just happens to be also false.
https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-reint...
If you are implying that the thing that is 98% of the other thing aren't practically identical, you will need to provide some kind of evidence for this conspiracy.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-project-2025-administration...
I'm sure Trump wasn't lying when he said he hadn't read Project 2025 and didn't know what's in it. He doesn't care, none of that matters to him.
But he damn well knew what it was, where it came from, and who was involved, given he brought several Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation people into the administration.
Most things don't fully disprove most things, especially in politics. Trump will never announce Project 2025 by name, that doesn't mean he's not implementing it. Putting that as the bar is bad faith.
What policy item that wasn’t in agenda 47, but was in project 2025, was implemented?
Again, why the high bar? Why does different branding of two nearly on identical things matter? If it's 90% the same you can conclude it was the plan all along.
Also, no one is even pretending. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/republic...
You are arguing something even congressional Republicans don't bother arguing.
[flagged]