this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
617 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3506 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
 

Donald Trump is probably fuming about this interview with former Project 2025 director Paul Dans.

One of the architects of the conservative Project 2025 manifesto demonstrated on CNN Monday the many ways in which Donald Trump is tied to the project. 

Speaking to Kaitlin Collins on The Source, the project’s former director, Paul Dans, admitted that he’s visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate several times and has spoken with Trump’s campaign staff there, including the campaign’s co-chair Susie Wiles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lexam@lemmy.ca 56 points 2 months ago (2 children)

But but but he just said on the debate he has nothing to do with 2025. Trump wouldn't lie to us! Would he?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Eggplantbird? Cockcrow? Peniscorovid? Dicktweet?

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago

Cock crow. You got it! The comment reminded me of the denial of Peter and I felt compelled to reference it as ridiculously as possible. If I could find the clip of the roadside preacher from A Knight’s Tale I would link it.

[–] rednalsi@lemmings.world 2 points 2 months ago
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I actually don’t think he’s lying about this. He’s a moron who famously doesn’t read, and he doesn’t need to be included in this. Project 2025 is the Lovecraftian baby of the Heritage Foundation and other fascist groups lurking in trump’s shadow.

Trump is not the driving force behind this fascist movement – he’s just their carnival barker. If he dropped dead today, it would only make a minor dent in this movement.

I think it’s actually dangerous to focus on trump as though he’s the mastermind of this stuff. He is not, and the danger won’t be over once he’s gone.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's the out of control, moneyed interests in this country that are the real problem.

Wealth inequality is the problem that spawns all other problems, and until we make strides to get it back under control we will forever be putting out little fires that threaten to set the entire country ablaze.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wealthy Christian nationalists, specifically. They’re hell-bent on turning the US into a theocracy. They’ve been shedding members at an unprecedented rate (and thus money) as the populace becomes more secular, and since persuasion hasn’t been working, they’ve resolved to take their control back by force.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm to the point where I am pro-tax the rich even if the government took all of the money, put it in a big pile, and then set it on fire like the Joker in the Dark Knight.

EDIT: In my stump speech, I'll start proposing this as my plan to fight inflation. /s

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I mostly agree but go the step farther that the danger is pushed back a bit once he’s gone, because what other candidate wouldn’t have his own plan? His own goals? Anyone else would see that merely as a means to an end, and take only the compatible pieces

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, that’s the minor dent I was referring to. They’d need to find another front-man. I wouldn’t be surprised if it took less than a week to convince Musk to take on the mantle.

e: the right is plenty enamoured with Musk, so I think the transition would be fairly smooth.