The Project 2025 Plan is the corroborative effort of 400 scholars and policy experts, former elected officials, world-renowned economists, and veterans from four presidential Administrations. The plan is organized as follows: Section 1 - Taking the Reins of Government 1. White House Office - Rick Dearborn 2. Executive Office of the President of the United States - Russ Vought 3. Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy - Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, Paul Dans Section 2 - The Common Defense 4. Department of Defense - Christopher Miller 5. Department of Homeland Security - Ken Cuccinelli 6. Department of State - Kiron K. Skinner 7. Intelligence Community - Dustin J. Carmack 8. Media Agencies 8-1 U.S. Agency for Global Media - Mora Namdar 8-2 Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Mike Gonzalez 9. Agency for International Development - Max Primorac Section 3 - The General Welfare 10. Department of Agriculture - Daren Bakst 11. Department of Education - Linsey M. Burke 12. Department of Energy and Related Commissions - Bernard L. McNamee 13. Environmental Protection Agency - Mandy M. Gunasekara 14. Department of Health and Human Services - Roger Severino 15. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., MD 16. Department of the Interior - William Perry Pendley 17. Department of Justice - Gene Hamilton 18. Department of Labor and Related Agencies - Jonathan Berry 19. Department of Transportation - Diana Furchtgott-Roth 20. Department of Veterans Affairs - Brooks D. Tucker Section 4 - The Economy 21. Department of Commerce - Thomas F. Gilman 22. Department of the Treasury - William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, David R. Burton 23. Export-Import Bank 23-1 The Export-Import Bank should be abolished - Veronique de Rugy 23-2 The Case of the Export-Import Bank - Jennifer Hazelton 24 The Federal Reserve - Paul Winfree 25 Small Business Administration - Karen Kerrigan 26 Trade 26-1 The Case for Fair Trade - Peter Navarro 26-2 The Case for Free Trade - Kent Lassman Section 5 - Independent Regulatory Agencies 27. SEC and CFPB 27-1 Securites and Exchange Commission and Related Agencies - David R. Burton 27-2 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Robert Bowes 28. Federal Communications Commission - Brenden Carr 29. Federal Election Commission - Hans A. Von Spakovsky 30. Federal Trade Commission - Adam Candeub I will post each article related to the plan with my take on potential interdepartmental conflicts and the soundness of the article's ideas based on upon the application of a principle based methodology. For those wondering about my own expertise, I actually have related experience, both within and outside of trucking. Due to the linear process I'll take reading and commenting on each article, interdepartmental conflict comments will have to wait until after all articles are read.
So basically this is a list of unknowns with no respected expertise -- their sole qualifications are being associated with right-wing think-tanks. Of course a few of the names stick out merely because they are Trumpy 1/6 co-conspirators -- for example Peter Narvarro who was convicted, Christopher Miller who Trump attempted to appoint as Defense Secretary after the election so Trump could use the military to take over the country, and Ken Cuccinelli who unlawfully ran Trump's Immigration agency and is still being investigated by a grand jury for indictment.
My reply to your post is inline, below. Your post has been reformatted to facilitate my response. QUOTE="gwb-trading, post: 5865792, member: 9113"]So basically this is a list of unknowns True, I don't know them. However, what standard are you using to define "Unknown"? Yours? with no respected expertise Same as above, no "respected" "expertise" is based solely on your, as yet, unsupported opinion? -- their sole qualifications are being associated with right-wing think-tanks. While I don't know the educational and experience requirements of "Right-wing think tanks", it is probably a safe bet there are a number of advanced degrees in a wide range of areas, such as political science, economics, business administration, etc. Further, it would be fair to expect a good number of members to have considerable experience in related fields. Actually, I did list some of the qualifications earlier in this thread. Of course a few of the names stick out merely because they are Trumpy 1/6 co-conspirators You are talking about the January 6th, 2001 march on the Capitol that was characterized by the media as an insurrection where partisan prosecutors successfully obtained convictions against certain protesters and who are now attempting to implicate Trump. Your use of the word "merely" is a unsupported denigration of their qualifications and your attempt at diminishing them and both Trump by mentioning "1/6" is tainted by heavy media bias and partisan politics. Especially when partisan prosecutors generally failed to act after months of rioting and looting during other events that clearly beyond mere spur of the moment protests which led to deaths, loss of businesses, and much more property damage than January 6th. What ever happened to "We are equal under the law"? -- for example Peter Narvarro who was convicted, Should an otherwise competent and qualified person be excluded from using their expertise, potentially for the benefit of the country, because of a conviction? Especially a politically tainted conviction? Christopher Miller who Trump attempted to appoint as Defense Secretary after the election so Trump could use the military to take over the country, Interesting characterization, "So Trump could use the military to take over the country", you have there. Such a characterization demands legitimate supporting statements. Where are they? and Ken Cuccinelli who unlawfully ran Trump's Immigration agency and is still being investigated by a grand jury for indictment.[/QUOTE Your characterization of "unlawfully ran" also needs legitimate supporting statements. Again, being investigated or even convicted in the current political environment should not be a reason for summary exclusion of talented personnel from an plan that effectively addresses the shortcomings of the Biden Administration. It seems ironic to me, as ineffective the Biden administration is at governance, they are effective at propaganda and gaining power. Project 25 and a strong, committed leader, such as Donald Trump, will address the current economic malaise, geopolitical ineptness, and legal system abuse brought on by the incompetence and excessive partisanship of the Biden administration.
The deviant Biden regime is walking the US into quicksand. Russ Vought and Peter Navarro know what to do about it.
Republicans are full of promises which are just BS promises. These RINOs have no intention of living up to it. Look at Kevin McCarthy making a big show of curtailing Joe Biden's excessive spending but, when he did the budget negotiations with Joe Biden, just removed $2 billion from the $87 billion to fund 87,000 new IRS auditors? Add to that, the unbridled spending on Ukraine, $115 billion so far in weapons and deficits reported to have increased another $8 trillion. Where are the spending cuts? These RINOs are all useless wimps. That is why we need President Donald Trump back in the White House. That is the only hope the US has left.
A little housecleaning here. smallfil has me on block yet is unblocking me to comment in the thread I started, denying me of a easy way to respond. I'd ignore it if his comments were not significantly counterproductive and hypocritical. Reply to smallfil's copy and pasted post, below: smallfil 7,433 Posts 4,021 Likes Republicans are full of promises which are just BS promises. As are most politicians, unfortunately. They say what is needed to get the votes while intending to serve another master, the campaign contributor, is our current political model, it seems. However, I give great consideration to detailed, written commitments that also include specific ideas on how to implement said commitment. These RINOs have no intention of living up to it. Build it, and they will come (Around). Nobody wants to be seen as a loser who happens to be on a winning team. Success can beget success and attract even better qualified personnel later. A large number of prominent, "legitimate", similar minded Conservative Republicans have built Project 25. Will it win? Maybe. If they do win, it seems likely most of us will win as well, as our economic opportunity, geopolitical stability, and quality of justice will likely increase. Personally, I am a Social Liberal and Fiscal Neutral who happens to support Trump and Project 25. Some may see me as a RINO, but I've never registered as Republican. First as Independent, finally as Democrat. Look at Kevin McCarthy making a big show of curtailing Joe Biden's excessive spending but, when he did the budget negotiations with Joe Biden, just removed $2 billion from the $87 billion to fund 87,000 new IRS auditors? A mature way to look at politics is you have to give to get. When there are opposing goals, especially with finite resources, as there often are, one has to prioritize what they really want and be an effective negotiator. Further, considering all the interests affected during budget negotiations, including obligations of various types, really complicates things. Government spending and public debt are certainly out of control, in part perhaps by politicians finding it is easier for them to agree to fund each others obligations and goals rather than failing a promise to their donors or constituents. Add to that, the unbridled spending on Ukraine, $115 billion so far in weapons and deficits reported to have increased another $8 trillion. You have to give, in order to get. What are we getting for our Ukrainian spending? Security for us? Security for Europe? Happy defense contractors? Full campaign coffers? Justice for human rights? Long term geopolitical stability? Access to new markets? Most, if not all foreign policy decisions should be transparent and subject to debate and negotiation. The side that makes the most cogent arguments should get the most consideration. Where are the spending cuts? These RINOs are all useless wimps. Sorry, but you don't get to use the word "wimp" without being challenged. You've put many people on block to make it difficult for them to respond to your posts that you made in response to their posts. I see a Conservative Republican as a strong minded person who has a specific goal and have a plan how are going to achieve it; a person who rises to a challenge, not shirk or hide from it. Based on this standard, you sir, are no Republican. Can you even qualify to be a RINO? What are you, actually? That is why we need President Donald Trump back in the White House. That is the only hope the US has left. Whatever you really are, the above statement I can agree with. Anyone else?
You stated "Project 2025 Plan is the corroborative effort of 400 scholars and policy experts, former elected officials, world-renowned economists, and veterans from four presidential Administrations." Not a single person listed held a senior leadership position in an administration except for the Trump administration. Not a single person in the list is publicly viewed as any type of policy expert with decades of experience. Primarily the people on the list are only known for their criminal indictments and for pushing the MAGA "big lie" false election claims -- this is hardly the group of people to put together a reasonable, comprehensive plan -- the majority of them are peddlers of conspiracy theories. This is a trading forum which follows economics, we have a very good idea who the "world-renowned economists" are -- these are people regularly cited in business news. Tell us which name on the list is a "world-renowned economist"?
Reply to your post is inline, below: QUOTE="gwb-trading, post: 5866072, member: 9113"]You stated "Project 2025 Plan is the corroborative effort of 400 scholars and policy experts, former elected officials, world-renowned economists, and veterans from four presidential Administrations." Not a single person listed held a senior leadership position in an administration except for the Trump administration. Not a single person in the list is publicly viewed as any type of policy expert with decades of experience. https://www.project2025.org/policy/ This book is the product of more than 400 scholars and policy experts from across the conservative movement and around the country. Contributors include former elected officials, world-renowned economists, and veterans from four presidential Administrations. This is an agenda prepared by and for conservatives who will be ready on Day One of the next Administration to save our country. The Heritage Foundation is once again facilitating this work, but as our dozens of partners and hundreds of authors will attest, this book is the work of the entire conservative movement. The Project 2025 Plan is based on the above book. Primarily the people on the list are only known for their criminal indictments and for pushing the MAGA "big lie" false election claims https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/possible-election-fraud-in-progress.352166/ There is a fairly comprehensive thread here on Elitetrader entitled "Possible Election Fraud in Progress" that you are well aware of as you've posted in it multiple times. The reason for starting the thread were as follows: I have been following the Progress of the 2020 Presidential Election on Realclearpolitics.com and found some anomalies in several swing states. The following is a list of states along with Democrat% of votes won, Republican % of vote wons, and % of totals votes cast. Values either updated when a change occured or along with other updates. These updates started towards the latter part of Tuesday night. GA 48.1, 50.7, 93% GA 48.1, 50.7, 97% GA 48.3, 50.5, 85% Why the drop in percentage of votes counted? Fraud attempt? GA 48.3, 50.5, 99%. Ok, almost back to where it was. MI may have a correlation anomaly with the relationship of the change of percentage of total votes cast versus swings in net percentage. Further, the progress of the count has slowed down subtantially. This may suggest some Trump votes are getting thrown out. MI 44.7, 53.6, 63% MI 44.7, 53.7, 64% MI 45.1, 53.3, 66% MI 45.0, 53.4, 67% MI 45.0, 53.4, 69% MI 45.1, 53.3, 70% MI 45.1, 53.3, 71% MI 45.3, 52.2, 71% MI 46.2, 52.2, 74% MI 46.4, 52.0, 75% MI 46.4, 52.0, 76% MI 46.7, 51.7, 77% MI 46.9, 51.5, 78% MI 46.9, 51.5, 79% Watching PA and a similar thing may be happening here as with MI. PA 42.1, 56.7, 68% PA 42.2, 56.6, 70% PA 42.5, 56.3, 72% PA 42.4, 56.4, 72% PA 42.7, 56.1, 74% PA 43.1, 55.7, 75% PA 43.0, 55.8, 75% PA 43.1, 55.7, 75% WI 47.3, 51.2, 94% WI 47.3, 51.2, 94% WI 47.2, 51.3, 96% WI 47.4, 51.1, 97% WI 48.8, 49.7, 98% How does the total percentage of votes go up 1% or so and votes swing 1.4% to Biden? WI 49.4, 49.1, 98%. Here again, not change in total percent of votes cast, yet Biden gains .6%. There certaintly could be plausible explainations that don’t involve fraud, but there is clearly a reason to investigate these apparent anomalies. Now MI is 48.5, 49.9, 77%. Note total percentage of all votes cast actually went DOWN, while Biden’s vote percentage went up. When I was a Leftist activist, we complained about the predecessor of current voting machines, Diebold, because of their relationship to a member of the Bush Administration, their refusal to allow their source code to be independently reviewed, and the apparent lack of security protections. Apparently, these issues still exist to this day. Also in the thread are articles discussing Republican election auditors getting removed to cheers of election workers, denying a check and balance, apparent coordination between Democrat led states unilaterally changing elections laws, with some changes apparently in direct conflict with established election laws in a particular state. PA, if I recall correctly. There are more election anomalies listed in this 258 page thread. While election fraud has not been proven, any minimal standard of probable cause for investigation has been met. US voters, whether Independent, Democrat, Republican, or any other political affiliation deserve election transparency as well as free and fair elections. -- this is hardly the group of people to put together a reasonable, comprehensive plan -- the majority of them are peddlers of conspiracy theories. You might want to check the past of the founding fathers of the United States. What do you think the establishment, the English Monarchy at the time, would say about them? Would not those most harmed by potentially unconstitutional Biden Administration policies be the best, most committed advocates for change? This is a trading forum which follows economics, we have a very good idea who the "world-renowned economists" are -- these are people regularly cited in business news. Tell us which name on the list is a "world-renowned economist"?[/QUOTE Either you or I can contact Project 25. I'm sure Paul Dans can point us in the right direction. I'll let you continue your research and post the results here, or I'll do it later, as I have a safety meeting in a few minutes.
So you just pretty much confirmed that there are no policy experts, no world renown economists putting together this agenda... just a bunch of MAGA "big lie" election fraud spouting conspiracy pushers -- Thanks for the confirmation. It's absurd that you spend most of your response pushing completely debunked election conspiracy nonsense as your "evidence" that this is in any way a valid list of experts to put together a vision for a government policy. Can you even stay on subject and identify a single well-known "expert" from list of names.
Reply to your post is inline, below: QUOTE="gwb-trading, post: 5866161, member: 9113"]So you just pretty much confirmed that there are no policy experts, no world renown economists putting together this agenda... Nice weasel words you have there, "Pretty much". just a bunch of MAGA "big lie" election fraud spouting conspiracy pushers -- Thanks for the confirmation. Again, part of the basis for election fraud concerns has been already shown. I will ask you more directly this time: How do you feel about election transparency? It's absurd that you spend most of your response pushing completely debunked election conspiracy nonsense as your "evidence" It seems fair to say that millions of voters do not feel the same way. As far as media pieces "Proving" there were no significant election regularities, the media has lost credibility with many people long ago. Can you see the fundamental importance of the media regaining their credibility now? Project 2025 can and has a article discussing media reform. that this is in any way a valid list of experts to put together a vision for a government policy. Can you even stay on subject and identify a single well-known "expert" from list of names.[/QUOTE It is reasonable to address concerns over possible election fraud because you brought it up and it is one of the driver's behind the desires of many for election and judicial reform, among other things. Again, Project 2025 is based on the 920 page book, Mandate for Leadership, linked below: https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf From the pdf: Acknowledgments This work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a collective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America. Our work is by no means the comprehensive compendium of conservative policies, nor is our group the exclusive cadre of conservative thinkers. The ideas expressed in this volume are not necessarily shared by all. What unites us is the drive to make our country better. First and foremost, we thank the chapter authors and contributors who gave so freely of their time in service of their country. We were particularly grateful to have the help of dedicated members of The Heritage Foundation’s management and policy teams. Executive Vice President Derrick Morgan, Chief of Staff Wesley Coopersmith, Associate Director of Project 2025 Spencer Chretien, and Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies Director Paul Ray devoted a significant amount of their valuable time to reviewing and editing the lengthy manuscript and provided expert advice and insight. The job of transforming the work of dozens of authors and hundreds of contributors into a cohesive manuscript fell upon Heritage’s formidable team of editors led by Director of Research Editors Therese Pennefather, Senior Editor William T. Poole, Marla Hess, Jessica Lowther, Karina Rollins, and Kathleen Scaturro, without whose tireless efforts you would not be reading these words. The talented work of Data Graphics Services Manager John Fleming, Manager of Web Development and Print Projects Jay Simon, Director of Marketing Elizabeth Fender, Senior Graphic Designer Grace Desandro, and Senior Designer Melissa Bluey came together to bring the volume to life. We also thank the dedicated junior staff who provided immeasurable assistance, especially Jordan Embree, Sarah Calvis, and Jonathan Moy. Most important, we are grateful to the leadership, supporters, and donors of each of the Project 2025 advisory board member organizations and those of The Heritage Foundation, without whom Project 2025 would not be possible. Thank you. Paul Dans & Steven Groves The Project 2025 Advisory Board Alabama Policy Institute Alliance Defending Freedom American Compass The American Conservative America First Legal Foundation American Accountability Foundation American Center for Law and Justice American Cornerstone Institute American Council of Trustees and Alumni American Legislative Exchange Council The American Main Street Initiative American Moment American Principles Project Center for Equal Opportunity Center for Family and Human Rights Center for Immigration Studies Center for Renewing America Claremont Institute Coalition for a Prosperous America Competitive Enterprise Institute Conservative Partnership Institute Concerned Women for America Defense of Freedom Institute Ethics and Public Policy Center Family Policy Alliance Family Research Council First Liberty Institute Forge Leadership Network Foundation for Defense of Democracies Foundation for Government Accountability FreedomWorks The Heritage Foundation Hillsdale College Honest Elections Project — xii — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Independent Women’s Forum Institute for the American Worker Institute for Energy Research Institute for Women’s Health Intercollegiate Studies Institute James Madison Institute Keystone Policy The Leadership Institute Liberty University National Association of Scholars National Center for Public Policy Research Pacific Research Institute Patrick Henry College Personnel Policy Operations Recovery for America Now Foundation 1792 Exchange Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Texas Public Policy Foundation Teneo Network Young America’s Foundation. I imagine that many, if not most of the above listed organizations associated with the book and project have members with impressive educational and or specific industry backgrounds.