Based on the 2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Via a former conservative on Reddit:

  • The government won’t allow you to get an abortion even if giving birth would kill you (p.449 - 503)
  • The government won’t let you buy condoms or plan b (p.449)
  • The government will give more free money to the ultra-rich and the largest corporations (p.691)
  • The government will not allow for workers to be protected at work (p.581)
  • The government will steal your social security (p.691)
  • The government will take away Medicare (p.449)
  • The government will not let you find affordable healthcare (p.449)
  • The government will refuse to help educate our children (p.319)
  • The government will give your tax money to private schools for christians (p.319)
  • The government will force public schools to become religious schools for christians (p.319)
  • The government will fire you for the color of your skin (p545 - 581)
  • The government will tell you what you’re allowed to think (p319)
  • The government will sell our land to be permanently destroyed (p417)
  • The government will sell the arctic to oil companies (p363)
  • Big business and oil will be allowed to do whatever they want without consequences (p.363)
  • The government will tell you what a family is supposed to look like. Anything else is a crime. (p.545 - 581)
  • The government will make us deaf/blind to attack by destroying the FBI and Homeland Security (p.133)
  • The government will build concentration camps to get rid of anyone deemed un-American (p.133)
  • If you’re born in the United States you are not automatically a citizen (p.133)
  • The government will make it legal for food to be poison (p.363 - 417)

Claims without a citation yet:

  • The government will not let you get a divorce without “proof” of wrongdoing
  • Your taxes will go up
  • The government will not let you retire
  • Drugs will cost more
  • The government will let your kids go hungry while they are forced to attend these schools
  • The government will tell you what you’re allowed to read and burn the rest
  • The government will freely kill citizens they disagree with
  • The government will attack single mothers because that’s not a “traditional” family
  • The government will order our active-duty military to attack us if we protest
  • The government will make being muslim on American soil a crime
  • The government will make sure all judges are more loyal to the party than they are to the country
  • Coolcat1711 ( coolcat1711@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 years ago

    I just don’t really get why people even get behind stuff like this. There’s just nothing for anyone to really gain and a whole lot for everyone to lose…

    Even the mega rich and the corporations have to recognize that an unstable world isn’t really a great place to live or do business right? Or is it just that they’re so far removed from everything that they don’t have to care?

    By the time you’re benefiting from this in a non-symbolic way, your net worth is more than you can conceivably spend in a lifetime… Go home, you’re done!

    • BCsven ( BCsven@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      They are only thinking of “Me” now, or “Me and my kids”, they will be dead when society collapses and they don’t care. But yes, the obscene amassed wealth is insanity, it means nothing to your lifestyle at some point. And will be useless at death.

    • Sparky ( Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think it’s short term thinking. Probably something similar to the way investors think when they’re on a mission to earn money, but end up causing enshittification

  • Nath ( Nath@aussie.zone ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 years ago

    As I intentionally filter out as much US politics as I can, this has come out of nowhere for me.

    Australia has a couple of really simple things baked into its electoral system to resist something wildly unpopular like this from getting in power:

    1. Compulsory voting. These MAGA crazies are not and will never be the majority. If everyone had to vote, they’d never get in.
    2. Proportional voting. We vote for multiple candidates. If our first choice doesn’t get in, our vote goes to our second choice. Then third etc. we aren’t forced to vote for a lizard just to prevent the worse lizard getting in (it still almost always comes down to two parties, though).

    I know these are total non-starters for our American friends. “You can’t make me vote, that’s against the constitution or something”.

      • Schadrach ( Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        I prefer approval voting, it’s easier to explain and at least as good. Most voting systems also have support for it already.

        Easy to teach people new to it too, just pick everyone you are ok with winning.

          • Schadrach ( Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yeah, nearly anything is better than FPTP. But approval voting in particular is simple to explain and basically already supported by nearly all voting equipment out there.

            Basically instead of picking one person, you pick everyone you’re OK with. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If the election is for multiple seats then the top X people for most votes wins. No ranking order, no multiple rounds, no way to fill out a ballot wrong, it’s utterly simple.

    • Five ( Five@slrpnk.net ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I’m the OP, and I also post in !notvoting@slrpnk.net. I’m a human who’s been called a bot, and an advocate for Ukrainians and Russians against colonization and tyranny who has been called a Russian puppet.

      Whether you vote or not isn’t important to me as long as whoever gets elected, you continue to fight for a better world via direct action. We’re in exactly this situation because people’s political resistance begins and ends with voting, and that means the people who get the ‘progressive’ vote merely have to be the least worst fascist on the ballot. Totalitarian tyranny isn’t built on the virtues of the tyrants, but the failures of the liberals. The Democrats created this situation, and they deserve to face consequences for it.

      Blaming bogey-men like Russian bots and scapegoating politically ‘unsophisticated’ leftists only puts off the self-reflection that needs to happen so that if the United States survives this election, they won’t be back in exactly this situation with a new fascist threat in another 4 years.

      • icydefiance ( icydefiance@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 years ago

        We’re in this situation because people don’t vote.

        All other forms of political activism, aside from murder, exist to convince people to vote.

        Activism without voting is worthless.

        You want more progressive candidates? Vote for Democrats until Republicans are forced to move to the left, and then Democrats will be able to move to the left as well.

        That’s how the Overton window works.

        • Five ( Five@slrpnk.net ) OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          The Overton window is a measurement of acceptable political discourse. You shift it by vocally expressing unpopular public opinions in the public sphere, not by voting. Voting is supposed to be an expression of popular public opinion, not the other way around.

          Sometimes the most effective way to change things is by threatening not to vote and convincing other people to do likewise. The most famous use of this tactic was by the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

          In the 1960s black people were much more actively discriminated against on a systemic level, practically prevented from voting in many of the states in the southern United States. The president at the time was the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, and was facing the much more racist Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. While the black vote was suppressed in the south, there was a significant voting block in the north of black people and their allies whose main issue was civil rights. Civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, met several times with LBJ, who coaxed them to tone down the direct action protests and criticism until after the election, as he claimed to we willing to negotiate with them once the threat to his power was diminished. Instead, civil rights protests increased. The leaders, probably correctly, determined that once the election was over, they would have less leverage. Even though losing the election meant having an enemy in the white house, having a ‘friend’ who continued to delay essential concessions did not further their cause. People were actively being murdered by the ‘Jim Crow’ apartheid regime, and delays and half-measures were not sufficient.

          Thanks to the pressure of millions of people engaged in direct action and open criticism of the president, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the 1964 election. LBJ won by a landslide due to the popularity of the legislation, but suffered the severe political consequences Democrats were trying to avoid through their strategy of placation and delay. The 1964 election was the last where Democrats got the majority of the white vote, and electing politicians in the southern states became much more difficult for their party. Palestinian Americans and their allies now face a similar situation. Democrats will continue to ignore the genocide in Gaza unless there are real political consequences to their actions. While Donald Trump would be a significantly worse candidate, the logic of a two-party system requires that they be willing to risk a worse political situation if they are to hold any political power at all.

          Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King are regarded as heroes today, but at the time, they were reviled by both Democrats and Republicans as a force of chaos that acted out of ignorance of the political system. If LBJ had lost the election to Goldwater, perhaps their legacy would be considered differently. But it would not change the fact that the cause they were fighting for was just, and they were able to wield political power in a system that was designed to marginalize them.

      • mozz ( mozz@mbin.grits.dev ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 years ago

        Whether you vote or not isn’t important to me as long as whoever gets elected, you continue to fight for a better world via direct action.

        If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.

        The Democrats created this situation,

        100% true

        and they deserve to face consequences for it.

        Along with millions or potentially billions of others, who didn’t do anything wrong?

        • Five ( Five@slrpnk.net ) OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.

          I’m OP; I posted the list. Yeah, I know. We’re already dodging police tear-gas canisters fired at head-level and Zionist vigilantes, I expect bullets next.

          • mozz ( mozz@mbin.grits.dev ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            So you know that Trump has plans to start shooting protestors on purpose with live ammunition, but you also think that whether you vote or not isn’t important? Not just “accidentally” crush some eyes or testicles or skulls from time to time, but just outright gun people down en masse, and you’re okay with not doing anything to stop that escalation until the Democrats clear your bar for goodness?

            (Actually, more accurately, he has plans to remove the things that stopped the order from getting carried out, when last time he said he wanted them to shoot protestors with live ammunition.)

            I’m not trying to be rude about it or harp on this one thing when we seem like we should be allies, but your viewpoint on that sounds shockingly naive. You also didn’t answer my question. If you (or I) are one of the people getting shot, a year from now, because you want to organize for a better world, will you in your words deserve to face those consequences?

              • mozz ( mozz@mbin.grits.dev ) 
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 years ago

                This part doesn’t seem totally crazy to me. Actually, Ralph Nader, who has quite a history of getting good outcomes to pop out of the pig’s ear (to put it pretty fuckin charitably) that is Washington, expressed his anger and frustration with people who were seeing injustices like Gaza and not doing anything to threaten the Democrats into better behavior about it. Like I say, not totally crazy.

                I feel like the needed additional part for that, though, is some concrete action to induce the change you are aiming for from the Democrats. That’s the part that the civil rights movements had. If you’re just saying “not good enough yet” as a general thing, and encouraging others to do the same, then I think that ramps up the unlikeliness of it producing any good policies, and also ramps up significantly the likeliness of it producing death camps instead.

                Not saying you’re doing that; I haven’t gone back and taken any kind of deep dive. But I’ve been conversing with you and I haven’t happened to run across anything that stuck out that looked like “I don’t want to vote for the Democrats unless X Y Z and you shouldn’t either.”

  • mozz ( mozz@mbin.grits.dev ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think the pure length of it introduces enough delay before encountering the really terrifying parts and might interfere with the punch of the message. I might try to do a modified version with some bold text and larger sections so some of the strong full impact comes across right away, without trying to reduce the detail or the scope

    Also, I think it is relevant to repeat the founders’ feeling on it. The “government” doesn’t “let” you do anything. Everyone’s just born into the earth into this wild and semiorganized place, as weird social beings that are half monkeys and half made up of something a lot more inspirational. And from time to time, they want to set up a system they all agree on so they can have clean water and roadways and courts and someone centrally in charge of the economy, things like that. But, sometimes like a few thousand people put temporarily in charge of all that start to look around at all the guns and money in their command and get confused and think they have the right to tell 400 million other people “hey check it out you have to do what I say, I DGAF what you think or of it’s right, that’s just what’s up.” And then when that happens it is the job of the 400 million to re educate them on what’s up.

    And you could say that if they don’t, they deserve what happens. But honestly it’s not even a statement of deserves or not, or right and wrong. It is simply a statement of the reality of what happens. Most of things like the bill of rights is understood today as like, what the government is “allowed” to restrict and not, but the founders’ view of it was a lot more akin to, these are some examples of what people will do as inherent parts of their nature and God help you if you try to tell them they can’t, and they become alert and organized.

  • OceanSoap ( OceanSoap@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Just to be clear, he’s outright said he’s got no connection to this project, and that he disagrees with a lot of whats in it

    Weather or not you believe him, fine, but let’s not pretend he’s out advocating for it.

  • Echo Dot ( echodot@feddit.uk ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Oh good. I was just thinking there are not enough dictators in the world and we really do need a second Russia.

    Good old USA providing yet again. Without you life would be boring. Probably longer too.

  • I might get downvoted to oblivion. Why can’t America have a decent president for once again?

    Trump is a fascist or at least going on its way to it and supports Israel with what’s it is doing in Gaza. Biden is in the old age and probably has just old age issues and supports Israel with what it is doing in Gaza.

    It isn’t just America either, The Netherlands with PVV, France with Le Pen (if I said the name correct?), Germany with the whole AFD thing. Russia and its war on Ukraine.

    The world seems to have gone mad.