Quote of the Day
Increased gun regulation is something that Arizona Democrats have long been fighting for, only to be shut down by Republican legislators. With a chance of winning the majority in November, policymakers are brainstorming gun control bills they would like to see on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk.
Only two seats away from having a Democratic majority in Arizona’s legislative chambers for the first time in six decades, the Democratic Caucus has established a plan they say would allow them to hit the ground running in 2025 should they take control of the Legislature. This story is part of a series of what a Democratic trifecta would look like for Arizona taxpayers.
“In the event that we flip, we want to be ready to govern,” Sen. Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix, told The Center Square.
Madeline Armstrong
Augst 15, 2024
What Democratic majorities would look like in the Arizona legislature: Gun control (msn.com)
Of course, “Ready to govern.” means “Ready to put a authoritarian boot on your face.”
Prepare and respond appropriately.
Pingback: It’s Coming – Area Ocho
“policymakers are brainstorming gun control bills they would like to see on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk.”
Why, it’s as if legislators are looking at the man and trying to find the crime.
“See the Man, Find the Crime.”
Of course I long for when it is time to get a bumper sticker,
Dissent’s Patriotic Again, Boys.”
I guess it is important to know where Sen. Christine Marsh lives….
Well, sure, but for today’s submission from the “whatabout” department, I’ll point to Project 2025, which is literally a map for hamstringing democracy and installing a unitary executive with control over the other branches.
This is why we should all be voting libertarian: both the dems and the repubs are obsessed with authoritarianism.
With Project 2025 being a 900 page tome, I really have doubts as to how much of it has actually been read by many who comment on it. Far too much of political commentary, on both sides of the political aisle, is based on pundits opinions and cursory reads of summaries rather than personal investigation and correlating analysis of the relevant sections of the Constitution . Another point that I find interesting is the constant clamor about defending democracy while there is far too much ignorance of how democratic processes should be used to maintain our republic form of government and how they also MUST be readily linkable to the Constitution. Just wondering when the last time was that anyone has seen an opinion written for the general public that illustrates those critical connections. It seems that for many people, democracy could best be described as “this is how I believe that things should be run” or “it sounds good to me” rather than citing links to the actual Constitution of the United States of America and its attendant Bill of Rights.
As for my personal opinion, having read some but not all of Project 2025, it appears to be a detailed exercise in free speech through independent analysis of current conditions with recommendations for corrections to deviations from the Constitution that have been allowed to develop within our Federal Government. In my mind, that is far different from, in the case cited in this post, positing infringements of the 2nd Amendment as good government. Were the same attitudes to be expressed in regards to the 1st Amendment regarding speech or press and in regards to obviously liberal causes, the acrimony would never cease either.
We should all say what we wish to say, but we should all also say it well, politely and with reasons clearly connected to our founding documents. Absent that we will continue to devolve into a morass of noise and chaos with little hope of happiness.
Wow John, you’d think the Republicans wanted to start price controls or something.
Republicans never saw a farm, oil, or industrial subsidy they didn’t like, which is the same as price controls just from the other side. Tomato/tomato.
Ya, right or wrong, who don’t take money?
And we been limping toward communism for a 100 years now. And only a power grubbing government gives out subsidies.
But outright price controls?
That’s some real mental gymnastics to tomato/tomato that.
Again?
You can bet the farm the demonrats WILL cheat to guarantee they control the legislature. Once they do there will be NO removing them from power…EVER. They will cement into place all the tools they use to steal elections. It’s WHAT THEY DO.
Go read the Republican Project 2025 manifesto and you’ll hear exactly the same thing.
Instead of vague generalities, maybe you should cite some specific text.
Pick your favorite source, there are lots of summaries (as Powerwagon notes, it’s 900 pages long).
Here’s Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/07/11/project-2025-explained/
Or the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/us/politics/trump-plans-2025.html
I mean, it’s not a secret, there’re about a billion articles on it at this point….
You must be new here.
No, the actual text from Project 2025. Not summaries you agree with that have their own spin.
Show us in the text itself the Republicans plan one-party, no challenge, alter the system to their benefit and ignore it otherwise that this is their plan. I’ll be amazed if you can actually do so.
You’re right, I can’t point to any text in the manifesto that says “We’re gonna set up a one-party, no challenge system.” They’re not that stupid to be so obvious. It’s a long, complicated doc that requires looking across the various proposals to see how it would all come together and affect democracy as a whole.
I’m sorta fascinated that folks here, who are theoretically freedom-first, wouldn’t be more in a twist about Project 2025. You don’t have to read much of it to understand the authoritarian goal, which I would think would concern you. Maybe because Republicans wrote it and folks here lean Republican? Or because libs are so frothing at the mouth about it that it’s easy to write off their objections as just “typical lib hyperbole.” I’d have expected more of this crowd than that.
Please also note that Trump claims that is not his agenda or policy platform. Are there any Republican candidates claiming alignment with it?
He claims that now that it’s getting massive blowback. But it was written by the Heritage Foundation, who’ve been crafting Republican policy since Reagan, and in particular Russ Vought, who was in Trump’s cabinet. As were many of the other authors of it. Vought is also director of platform policy for the RNC. AFAIK most presidential candidates familiarize themselves with the platform of their party, if nothing else just for shits and giggles.
So for Trump to not know about it would be either willful ignorance, or that people who would normally be in close contact with the Republican candidate are intentionally keeping him in the dark. Neither scenario speaks to a candidate of any competence.
Everybody loves their plausible deniability….
To claim he hasn’t read it is absurd. But to claim it is not his agenda or policy platform is another. Please cite where he claims it or the policies of concern in it align with his platform.
And I find it telling you didn’t show any republican candidate claiming to support it.
Well of course they don’t support it *publicly.* And now that it’s becoming radioactive they won’t. That’s a very different thing from them actually wanting to implement it (review your favorite Fox News footage for examples of repubs supporting the proposals in Project2025 outside that context, as individual issues. It’s all there, just divided up). Let’s remember that core RNC directors authored it, along with members of Trump’s cabinet.
A partial list: https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-ex-trump-contributors-republicans-election-1922933
And the P25 authors tout their associations with other organizations on the site itself, with lots of major republican orgs supporting it explicitly. If these folks are all explicit in their support, how many support it quietly, while maintaining plausible deniability?
https://www.heritage.org/press/project-2025-reaches-75-coalition-partners-continues-grow-preparation-next-conservative
But you’re all correct, there’s no smoking gun here. Drawing a straight line from P25 to Trump or anybody else is nearly impossible AFAIK, and that’s by design. If your belief is that the only way this doc is relevant is if Trump or other candidates endorse it, then there’s no argument: they won’t. But that’s never been the point. Manifestos like this are designed to move the Overton Window and make radical ideas more acceptable merely by becoming “reasonable” topics of discussion. Getting the details implemented as policy are the cherry on top.
Tying this back to the OP, let’s compare:
“the Democratic Caucus has established a plan they say would allow them to hit the ground running in 2025 should they take control of the Legislature. ”
“Project 2025’s Advisory Board, which is focused on recruiting personnel and preparing comprehensive policy recommendations to ensure the next conservative presidential administration is prepared for success on day one. ”
It is, as the saying goes, “Same shit, different assholes.”
Yet, the article I quoted was filled with quotes of elected democrats who support the proposed authoritarian laws. That is a big difference.
Here is a suggestion, don’t judge people by what their worst critics claim about them. Judge them by what they say and do. You will get much closer to the truth. Unless you don’t care about the truth.
Just wow John! Imagine that. Politicians seeking ever more authoritarian power?
Who would have thought such a thing?
Lenin said: “The best way to control the opposition, is to run it ourselves.”
And if we think that’s not exactly what’s happening?
I would posit that out of all the available persons in this country suitable for the office of president.
We get to choose between Harris or Trump?
I’m with Matt Bracken on this one;
“Doesn’t matter who you make captain of the Titanic, after you already hit the f-in iceberg!”
We ain’t voting our way out of collapse. Reset.
Libertarian? Oh please! That’s/your—–entertaining.
“Go read the Republican Project 2025 manifesto and you’ll hear exactly the same thing.”
You mean kind of like the communist party leftist motor-voter registration/mail-in voting scam?
You know, the one they used in Oregon to totally suppress every conservative voice in Oregon that wasn’t bought off?
Ya, the same one they want in Arizona and all over the country?
The same one they used to steal 2020 election?
The republicans are that bad????
God save us from them!
I am so old I remember Agenda 2020, now rebranded as Agenda 2030. This was/is a UN effort and produced about the same reaction on the Right that Project 2025 produces on the Left.
The default setting should be “is this proposal in full compliance with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?”
If the answer is “yes,” then it can become a point of discussion in detail as to whether or not the citizenry thinks it’s a good idea and wants to adopt it under whatever limitations are prudent.
If the answer is “no” it is instantly dismissed with prejudice, and that condition enforced to the fullest extent.
Until we learn enough to reach that point we’re condemned to endless strife, obfuscation and division. It is possible that seeking authority and power is so ingrained in the human psyche that achieving such a state is impossible, so as Heinlein said, and Sarah Hoyt frequently reminds, “keep your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.”