You conveniently failed to acknowledge this link https://www.project2025.observer where people _have_ read the policy proposals, and wrote them up in a nice little list, and are tracking their implementation.
We're 79 days in, and 42% of the policy objectives outlined in the document are complete, with another 15% in progress. Over 50% of the objectives have been actioned within the first 100 days. I've seen general contractors execute on a blueprint slower than this administration.
Project 2025 was a real proposal written by many people who were in his first administration, working with his campaign, and now his second administration. A significant fraction of the proposals are being implemented: https://www.project2025.observer/
Who said anything about fear? It’s just that when someone tells their backers what they plan to do, you can probably learn something useful by assuming they intended to use those plans.
It's no less a playbook or policy goal than a political party platform. Several of the authors of Project 2025 occupy staff or cabinet positions in the administration.
The policy goals of the ACLU, Clinton Foundation, etc are inputs to the Democratic Party's operations. Why would it be controversial to note that the Heritage Foundations's published policy is similarly an input to the Republican Party's operations?
Because it doesn't convey anything to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, especially when you just drop the name and treat that as if you've proven something. It's not a way of progressing a discussion, it's a way of stopping one.
I'd also note that mentioning George Soros being involved in anything gets condemnation here, so the same thing applies to both sides to at least some extent.
Now that your comment is flagged, I no longer remember the context. Maybe I'm getting older, but it seems like flagging is used as a downvote button lately. I don't think your comment was flag-worthy.
