625
No link to the poll, data, or polling methodology anywhere in the article. Does Newsweek still hire journalists?
Project 2025 has a 57% unfavorable rating, but the party that endorses it does not.
Curious.
Fans of the Leopards Eating Faces Party don't like it when it's their faces being threatened.
(They'll still vote for them, though.)
If Trump doesn't want to join the next debate it should be Kamala Harris arguing point to point against Project 2025 during the time slot. I would watch that.
She should also spend some time tying Project 2025 to dimbulb donnie, too. He keeps claiming he "doesn't know her" when it comes to Project 2025, but that's nonsense.
A great opening segment talking about how it was made by trump staffers.
"Project 2025 just got the coffee."
who are the effing 4%? I could see maybe 1% but less than one percent of that group would gain from it.
The 4% are the ones who think it will help them until it is their turn to be the ones shit on.
its dicks all the way up.
Same as the other 39% who apparently have no opinion.
Law enforcement probably
Indeed, they wouldn't have to do their jobs. They could just arrest anybody on the assumption their mere existence is a crime... and thanks to Project 25, they'd probably be right.
Probably the people that think they'll be helping in the enforcement.
Well yeah, they want to eliminate the fucking national weather service. Project 2025 is a plan to stop governing and begin ruling.
The other 39% view it unfavorably but don't have the spine to speak out against their own party when they know the poll results will be publicized.
Or they view it favorably, but don't have the spine to say the quiet part out loud because people would correctly label them as fascist monsters.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
625 points (98.9% liked)
politics
18917 readers
3944 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS