Talk:Project 2025

	This United States politics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Pillars

What is the 'Pillar 5' mentioned in the text? Anna Livia (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are only 4. I fixed it. Thanks! Bongolian (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nitpicking about "I know nothing about Project 2025"

I really don't want it to sound like I'm going to bat for Trump, but "I know nothing about X" is a pretty innocuous turn of phrase. People rarely use it in its literal sense. I don't think it does the article any favors by belaboring the point that his Truth Social post technically contradicted itself -- it just seems kind of petty and distracts from the context. Jekadu (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What might you suggest instead? I think that post of his was worded very deliberately as to be interpreted either way. The section isn't solely to respond to his post but to highlight that any second Trump administration would probably implement Project 2025 in large sum. Chillpilled (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I renamed the section. Chillpilled (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would just rephrase the paragraph to be less pedantic. I don't think the first two sentences conflict very badly, but the second and third ones do. My own read of the statement is that he is basically saying "I heard about it on the news, I will disavow it to be safe, but still show my support for a conservative project that is clearly done for my benefit." Given that he's famously averse to this kind of paperwork, I think it's a fair interpretation. I don't like to bring this stuff up because nobody likes a (counter-)pedant, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to treat inelegant rhetoric as some kind of gotcha. The article will be better for focusing on the broader picture instead of trying to catch him in some kind of lie. Jekadu (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point, Trump's inelegant rhetoric seems to be intentional (e.g., see Rhetoric of Donald Trump#Desensitization to violence). Catching him in a lie is like bringing a fishing pole to a live fish store. It's much harder to catch him in a truth. Roy Cohn, it would seem, gave him lessons in deceit and doing crimes while avoiding culpability. There is no need at this point to give him the benefit of the doubt. Bongolian (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

P25 in practice

Should 'they' be in a position to implement Project 25 - how long before 'reality' sets in, including money, inertia, money, absence of 'suitably trained staff', money, divergent opinions, staff recruited (with their own agendas), flaming rows, money, staff sacked for not being sufficiently committed to The Cause, Latin American states providing better opportunities (so immigration reverses direction), absence of money and 'we was thwarted by (equivalent of) the lettice's The Blob'? ^{— Unsigned, by: Anna Livia / talk / contribs}

Thinking outside the box

So - the document exists and is evolving (whether smoothly or 'add a bit here, add a bit there, and remove that').

People in general and strategists, politicians and others consider the document, and prepare for a world in which P25 *might* be operational (creating new links, flexibility etc), much as we-being-ordinary-people develop options for different weather or transport issues - so the President and the US have to face the consequences.

How far could the book boomerang as a result? Anna Livia (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If Trump wins, how likely is America going to become an Orwellian dictatorship with North Korean-levels of Human Rights?

With Project 2025 and Trump claiming "you wont have to vote in four years", along with the sorry state of the world right now? It feels possible. --Lordofairguitar (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)