Jeff. Our perspective on the politics of your nation from the UK is primarily through the focus of our legacy media . Beyond that, we have to resort to non mainstream outlets and- where possible to recorded events from American social movements ( which we hope are reasonably accurate). I recall for examaple, seeing reports of lynchings in the 30`s and later race riots in the southern states in the 50`s and 60`s T.he school segregation protest marches and t he mocking and vindictive trials for "un--american activities" :McCarthy and the Hollywood "Blacklist" .I can only imagine that history will repeat itself.
It's hard to choose specific points when I disagree with the entirety, and none of your claims are substantiated, but let's start with this one:
"Through the likes of Project 2025, Trump has enlisted groups like the Heritage Foundation to write an administration blueprint so ideologically extreme that it promises to transform government into a tool not for the people but against them."
What are "the likes of Project 2025,” and "groups like the Heritage Foundation" if not these projects and groups in particular? And what evidence do you offer to support the claim that Trump is operating through them and/or intends to use their "administration blueprint"?
That’s complete nonsense. Every claim in my article is backed by irrefutable, source-verifiable facts, either said by Trump himself, or those that work with him, or those that have worked with him. If you want to prove otherwise, point out specific points I made, and I’ll address them directly—and present evidence to counter my arguments.
Other groups, like the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), are also involved, which mimics policies planned in Project 2025. Another is the Center for Renewing America, led by Russ Vought. Russ Vought is the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Trump. Vought is a key figure in Project 2025 and has spoken at various Trump-related events, where he discusses the policy directions that Project 2025 aims to implement. For example, he was involved in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 launch event, where he articulated the vision for a second Trump administration
They are working through Trump. Trump is merely a conduit. For one, Trump's Agenda 47 outlines much of the same plans outlined in the Project 2025 blueprint. Further, roughly 40 to 60 people involved with Project 2025 were previously part of the Trump administration in various roles. This includes former officials and advisors from departments such as the EPA, DOJ, and FERC, as well as other executive offices that were part of Trump’s inner circle or key policymaking teams.
Trump also gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation wherein he agreed with their proposition of a plan to write his administrations' outline. I could go on. The evidence is overwhelming. J.D. Vance wrote the forward to Kevin Roberts book, 'Burning Down Washington to Save America'. Kevin Roberts is the president of Project 2025. As you can see, Trump and his close associates have strong ties to Project 2025.
I shouldn't be having to answer this very basic question for you, and it certainly shows that you are completely bereft of what a second Trump administration has planned.
Nearly every single point. Have you read and/or listened to either one yourself at any length whatsoever? Agenda 47 and Project 2025 share many overlapping goals, including the expansion of executive power, reducing or eliminating climate change initiatives, eliminating the Department of Education, and eliminating NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), overhauling federal education programs, implementing immigration crackdowns and mass deportations, deploying the National Guard in "disorderly" urban areas, restricting federal agency influence, ending birthright citizenship, reevaluating U.S. involvement in NATO (isolation policy), enforcing restrictive trade policies, limiting foreign aid, promoting a nationalistic and isolationist foreign policy, increasing regulation of news agencies to limit what is seen as “biased” or “false” reporting, implementing policies for controlling social media content to curb “misinformation,” restricting federal funding for media outlets critical of government actions, and limiting free speech on topics deemed national security concerns.
My only real criticism of Harris is that her stance on Israel isn’t strong enough. However, a critical analysis of a Democratic administration versus the overtly authoritarian agenda pushed by Trump? Comparing the two is like placing a relatively conventional administration alongside the framework of dictatorship. That is a ridiculous bait question, akin to comparing a benign Biden governance with something as extreme as a Hitler administration—there’s simply no comparison in the level of existential threat.
Lastly, you first made the false claim that none of my points are substantiated. You have yet to provide a single iota of evidence to support that claim, and I’m still waiting. You sidestep the core arguments I've presented about the troubling nature of both Agenda 47 and Project 2025. Instead of addressing the evidence I've shared regarding Trump's connections to these plans and the potential authoritarian implications, you’re asking for an analysis as if those points weren't made.
It seems to me that you are not familiar with or acknowledging the problems these goals are meant to address. You denounce the authoritarian nature you perceive in one administration's agenda while apparently turning a blind eye to the authoritarian nature of the current administration. For me, free speech is a major topic. It is strange how the 'liberal' party became the party of censorship and war, but here we are. Since we have very little common ground around these views, it seems pointless to continue this thread.
Jeff. Our perspective on the politics of your nation from the UK is primarily through the focus of our legacy media . Beyond that, we have to resort to non mainstream outlets and- where possible to recorded events from American social movements ( which we hope are reasonably accurate). I recall for examaple, seeing reports of lynchings in the 30`s and later race riots in the southern states in the 50`s and 60`s T.he school segregation protest marches and t he mocking and vindictive trials for "un--american activities" :McCarthy and the Hollywood "Blacklist" .I can only imagine that history will repeat itself.
There's a lot of sources online. I watch everything from all sides; a balanced view.
This perspective is extremely one-sided and comes off as fearful and paranoid.
If that's the case, then you should easily be able to share specific points that you disagree with. Support your comment with something substantive.
It's hard to choose specific points when I disagree with the entirety, and none of your claims are substantiated, but let's start with this one:
"Through the likes of Project 2025, Trump has enlisted groups like the Heritage Foundation to write an administration blueprint so ideologically extreme that it promises to transform government into a tool not for the people but against them."
What are "the likes of Project 2025,” and "groups like the Heritage Foundation" if not these projects and groups in particular? And what evidence do you offer to support the claim that Trump is operating through them and/or intends to use their "administration blueprint"?
"𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝"
That’s complete nonsense. Every claim in my article is backed by irrefutable, source-verifiable facts, either said by Trump himself, or those that work with him, or those that have worked with him. If you want to prove otherwise, point out specific points I made, and I’ll address them directly—and present evidence to counter my arguments.
------------------------------
"𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐞 "𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓,”"
Agenda 47, for example. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
Other groups, like the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), are also involved, which mimics policies planned in Project 2025. Another is the Center for Renewing America, led by Russ Vought. Russ Vought is the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Trump. Vought is a key figure in Project 2025 and has spoken at various Trump-related events, where he discusses the policy directions that Project 2025 aims to implement. For example, he was involved in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 launch event, where he articulated the vision for a second Trump administration
------------------------------
"𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝/𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 "𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭"?"
They are working through Trump. Trump is merely a conduit. For one, Trump's Agenda 47 outlines much of the same plans outlined in the Project 2025 blueprint. Further, roughly 40 to 60 people involved with Project 2025 were previously part of the Trump administration in various roles. This includes former officials and advisors from departments such as the EPA, DOJ, and FERC, as well as other executive offices that were part of Trump’s inner circle or key policymaking teams.
Trump also gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation wherein he agreed with their proposition of a plan to write his administrations' outline. I could go on. The evidence is overwhelming. J.D. Vance wrote the forward to Kevin Roberts book, 'Burning Down Washington to Save America'. Kevin Roberts is the president of Project 2025. As you can see, Trump and his close associates have strong ties to Project 2025.
I shouldn't be having to answer this very basic question for you, and it certainly shows that you are completely bereft of what a second Trump administration has planned.
In what ways is Agenda 47 like Project 2025?
Which points from Agenda 47 bother you?
Where can I see your critical analysis of and predictions for the competing administration?
"𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝟒𝟕 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮?"
"𝐈𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝟒𝟕 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓?"
Nearly every single point. Have you read and/or listened to either one yourself at any length whatsoever? Agenda 47 and Project 2025 share many overlapping goals, including the expansion of executive power, reducing or eliminating climate change initiatives, eliminating the Department of Education, and eliminating NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), overhauling federal education programs, implementing immigration crackdowns and mass deportations, deploying the National Guard in "disorderly" urban areas, restricting federal agency influence, ending birthright citizenship, reevaluating U.S. involvement in NATO (isolation policy), enforcing restrictive trade policies, limiting foreign aid, promoting a nationalistic and isolationist foreign policy, increasing regulation of news agencies to limit what is seen as “biased” or “false” reporting, implementing policies for controlling social media content to curb “misinformation,” restricting federal funding for media outlets critical of government actions, and limiting free speech on topics deemed national security concerns.
------------------------------
"𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?"
My only real criticism of Harris is that her stance on Israel isn’t strong enough. However, a critical analysis of a Democratic administration versus the overtly authoritarian agenda pushed by Trump? Comparing the two is like placing a relatively conventional administration alongside the framework of dictatorship. That is a ridiculous bait question, akin to comparing a benign Biden governance with something as extreme as a Hitler administration—there’s simply no comparison in the level of existential threat.
Lastly, you first made the false claim that none of my points are substantiated. You have yet to provide a single iota of evidence to support that claim, and I’m still waiting. You sidestep the core arguments I've presented about the troubling nature of both Agenda 47 and Project 2025. Instead of addressing the evidence I've shared regarding Trump's connections to these plans and the potential authoritarian implications, you’re asking for an analysis as if those points weren't made.
It seems to me that you are not familiar with or acknowledging the problems these goals are meant to address. You denounce the authoritarian nature you perceive in one administration's agenda while apparently turning a blind eye to the authoritarian nature of the current administration. For me, free speech is a major topic. It is strange how the 'liberal' party became the party of censorship and war, but here we are. Since we have very little common ground around these views, it seems pointless to continue this thread.