Lies about Project 2025

[@RyanMcBethProgramming]

Go to ground.news/RyanMcbeth to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link for 40% the Vantage plan for unlimited access this month only. Project 2025 is a vision document that was created by conservative research institution "The Heritage Foundation." This roughly 900 page document was designed to be a template for how to run a government in the event of a new conservative American government. Soon after the report was released, an "Active Measures" infographic was released online which misrepresented or outright lied about some of the intentions of Project 2025. This particular propaganda infographic was amplified by democratic pundit Christopher Hahn and is still being circulated today: x.com/ChristopherHahn/status/1809278519505035475 This video explores each item in the infographic to categorize it as true, partly true, or a lie. The full analysis can be found at: RyanMcBeth.Substack.com For uncensored video, check out my substack at: ryanmcbeth.substack.com Like my shirts? Get your own at: www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/ryan-mcbeth Want a personalized greeting: www.cameo.com/ryanmcbeth Watch all of my long form videos: kzbin.info/aero/PLt670_P7pOGmLWZG78JlM-rG2ZrpPziOy Twitter: @ryanmcbeth Instagram: @therealryanmcbeth BlueSky @ryanmcbeth Reddit: /r/ryanmcbeth Join the conversation: discord.gg/pKuGDHZHrz Want to send me something? Ryan McBeth Productions LLC 8705 Colesville Rd. Suite 249 Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA

[@Anarcho-harambeism]

@RyanMcBethProgramming seeing the comments, I don't think people even watched, or listened to your video before commenting lol.

[@j22mattones]

@RyanMcBethProgramming Ryan, regarding the contraceptives, they do specifically mention Male Condoms and emergency contraceptives, "the week after pill" Pg 485 Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate.

[@Subliminalsapper]

Do we have a "Hi, I'm the guy who checks." shirt? If not we need it.

[@ryanhiatt4733]

You should do a colab with the Legal Eagle channel on this, the already did legal break down of the document, might be interesting to do a collaborative breakdown

[@camaro02dk]

it should be noted that a version is also out there that refers to specific pages where many of these items are noted.

[@jdnb86]

I watched what the co author from the heritage foundation said when he thought he was speaking in private. It’s enough to know most Americans aren’t on board with their plan

[@ReallyBadJuJu]

He also said: "And so I come full circle on this response, and just want to encourage you with some substance. That we are in the process of the second American revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

[@stangbanger903]

The co-author has also stated in the leaked footage CNN has shown that he wants to "get to abolition" of abortion and "doesn't believe in exceptions"

[@MaxAlexander-kx8sy]

Do you have a link to it? I would be interested to hear what he said for myself.

[@phil6530]

It's also enough to know that the Trump campaign is desperately trying to run from it, which would suggest that they know it's unpopular.

[@Javaman21011]

@@ReallyBadJuJu that needs to be broadcast every day

[@grover4035]

I don’t think it’s honest to not mention what the Project 2025 document does indeed say about enforcing the Comstock Act of 1873. That’s how birth control was restricted in the past.

[@frumpycrust]

He had a moment at the start of the war where his limited, particular expertise was helpful to the conversation. The problem is his legit usefulness ended, but instead of recognizing it, he doubled down. He is chasing more and more attention with a surface level understanding of the topics he is taking on. He is a coder, and a former SFC infantryman. That's all. You'll see him now featured on domestic and international news programs as a US "military expert" or "military affairs analyst" or worse an "intelligence expert." He's at a point now where he's making it up as he goes along.

[@ludvig3242]

@@frumpycrust Well considering the war is still ongoing and actively developing, his usefulness is far from over. But yes, I don't really think he should going into subjects like this he has very limited knowledge of, but so many people love to do it. Jordan Peterson literally made his entire career over doing stuff like this. This assumption that because you're an expert in one field, that must mean that you somehow already have a good amount of innate knowledge in other fields

[@clapppo]

@@ludvig3242 i find it kinda ironic that he goes out of his way to basically disparage the new york times for having among their staff only 20 people who served in the mil / combat (or whatever the numbers he cites). By that logic, he should stay in his lane... www.nytimes.com/2024/01/21/magazine/heritage-foundation-kevin-roberts.html (21 Jan) www.nytimes.com/article/trump-2025-second-term.html (26 Dec 2023) Note that he says that this infographic first appeared "~July 4th, 2024". Ok.. and so when did political journalists first start reporting on this? Literally months before this obscure infographic emerged (which btw is clearly imo some dem / partisan overreach i.e. not a foreign "active measure")

[@deckmanager]

@@frumpycrustL. Your emotional truth is showing.

[@pharmdiddy5120]

You are conflating abortion with birth control. The Comstock Act was designed strictly to limit what the postal service carries. It does not criminalize obscenity, criminal incitement, or abortion directly but it criminalizes the use of the mail, a common carrier, or an interactive computer service in the conveyance of these materials.

[@mrspaceman2764]

Keep in mind the document never uses specific words like "Christian" but it does use "religious" around 100 times and makes statements like "Religious devotion and spirituality are the greatest sources of happiness", this line is used to directly clarify the line in our Declaration of Independence: "right to liberty and pursuit of happiness". That's not something even the nuns would have said at St Hyacinth, where I went to school. And the nuns were still smackin back then... these were hardcore nuns.

[@lxstcheckll9348]

That appeals to associative experiences which isn't an argument. What is wrong with saying that with religion, it is literally psychologically true coming from a secular bud?

[@officaldungeons]

Exactly. I heard Ryan say that I died a little inside. This is so disingenuous. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just really doesn’t study comparative religion or any religious studies at all enough to understand. Christian and Christian nationalists know what the authors mean when they say those things about religion in the document.

[@Seth9809]

He clearly didn't read it.

[@jamespeterson7125]

Yeah, I was disheartened by the number of times he said something to the effect to a word not appearing in the document or it only appearing a few times. It's pretty disingenuous and makes it feel like he just did a ctrl+f and called it a fact check.

[@Pseudowolf]

@@officaldungeons I was struck by that as well. He seemed to be taking the tack of “well it doesn’t SPECIFICALLY say this” or “this line isnt literally in it”. What I think the infographic creator did was not just use the document but also used statements from the creators about their intentions with the plan and included those. So while some items might not be word for word in there, the creators have said that these are things they intend to push for.

[@Chasval]

Former tax professional here. Additional tax breaks for corporations and the 1% is 100% true in the document you just showed. The most significant text is about eliminating deductions and 30% tax rate on people making above SS base (SS base is poverty). That's a significant tax hike that starts below middle class wages. Now, the 15% capital gains tax. The 1% make almost all their money from Capital gains. About a decade ago the stats I read was that the top 1% control 40% of all income. And 80% of that is from capital gains income. Corporate tax is a tax on profits. Labor is the cost of doing business and is a write off. Capital depreciates over years or decades: which is a slow right off. The reduction in corporate taxes benefits only capital gain earners and qualified dividend owners, i.e., People who own the capital. That's a massive tax break for the rich: 50% off. And they can expect an additional 17% in income because the corporations will have more money to pay in dividends and stock buy backs. That is a crazy tax plan that will make the rich richer and push the poor poorer.

[@sudpud]

Ryan, how is this not ending unions to some extent? "Congress should also consider whether public-sector unions are appropriate in the first place. The bipartisan consensus up until the middle of the 20th century held that these unions were not compatible with constitutional government.30 After more than half a century of experience with public-sector union frustrations of good government management, it is hard to avoid reaching the same conclusion." I'm not sure why you said private sector unions, nothing in the document specifies public/private. You also failed to mention the 5 pages of elimination of union protections starting at page 600. I'm not sure how the line in the document is a lie.

[@Butterkin]

Trump did invite the president of the teamsters union to the RNC for the first time in history- and he actually showed up. Really doubt that the plan for the conservatives is to eliminate Unions while simultaneously inviting them to their rallies. Certain conservatives in certain states have even walked picket lines with unions..

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

@@sudpud his whole "fakt-check" is based on searching for buzzwords in the 900 page document. Not on reading it and understanding the agenda.

[@shooster5884]

Ryan was not going into what how this document would be implemented would lead to .. The purpose of his video clearly, to me, was not about this project 25 document or his opinions on it's content, but about the casual misinformation being put out daily about anything and this list put out in the public domain purporting to be truths from project 25 was a great example to use.. The lesson being folks - FACT CHECK what you hear or read.

[@MoritzvonSchweinitz]

Not defending the document, but I would like to point out that unions, or at least striking, is often limited for the public sector around the world, because it kind of doesn't make sense. The point of striking is causing financial damage to your higher ups in order to have some leverage over them. In the public sector, that obviously doesn't apply.

[@dandork20]

It's because he didn't read it, he just searched it for keywords. You can tell because he uses a word count on each topic as a measure of how truthful a statement is...

[@mckylacious61]

Ryan: "Everything is spelled correctly" Document: "Christian religious BELEIFS"

[@maksimfedoryak]

At least we know, that it was written by human being

[@vernonmcphee6746]

@@maksimfedoryak The irony that it scrolls by just as he says that is amusing.

[@ScrapKing73]

Came here to note the same thing. :-)

[@domn8t0r]

🤣

[@Hale444]

Ryan's obviously a foreign actor paid for by big cigar.

[@LucasDimoveo]

Ryan - I’m not sure what part of Jersey you are from, but Project 2025’s opinion on public transportation and housing density alone should be enough to throw it out

[@Feezec]

CityNerd has videos on how Project 2025 is bad for cities

[@GreySlick]

What's Going on with Shipping also has 'things to say' about Project 2025 wanting to do things that interfere with shipping.

[@Apophis1010]

Please explain

[@anthonybanchero3072]

They claim that Public Transportation is coming for people ‘s cars. Here in Seattle, Most Light Rail stations outside of the city have lots of parking. The station in Lynwood that opens on the 30th of this month, people have been able to use the parking garage for months. Now some are complaining that the agency overseeing is considering charging for parking. I understand why it had been free for decades, if they are riding the bus(operators here were bus only when Park and Rides started) and later train, the patron is saving on parking downtown, and a fare paying customer. WhenP&R started roughly 1969, Seattle Transit fares were 35 cents, about $3 today. Interesting, Metro’s local fare today $2.75. Although I expect it goes up a quarter soon, to make transfers easier.

[@rufescens]

Ryan isn't defending Project 2025. He's merely pointing out a set of lies about Project 2025.

[@scottdebruyne6057]

When a mobster walks up to you and say's "Lovely family you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to them" I'm guessing you would think that was a complement and expression of concern?

[@ZetaMoolah]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jeffrey.p.thornton]

A lot of that depends on whether you think the guy calling himself a mobster is really mobbed up, or just a LARPer trying to pretend he has access to the power of a mob, or just an idealist with an agenda that is never intended to be practical. The problem with critics of Project 2025 is that they fail to draw this distinction, and try to suggest that TRUMP will be the victim of this mob - the gangster will somehow twist his arm to implement elements of this agenda which which he vociferously disagrees. That's not believable. It's also why these criticisms are propaganda.

[@KornPop96]

Stop smoking ice, bro.

[@ajjcooper]

Ryan is just saying not to lie. You can make all the claims you want that are grounded in fact. This doc is just wrong.

[@rexsceleratorum1632]

Now consider the fact that the other side is suspicious of your ideas and your motives in exactly the same way.

[@frankpinmtl]

Hmmmm....right off the bat: "...the next conservative President should work with congress to enact the most robust protections that congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion." Jeez Ryan...what does that sound like to you?

[@edfhobbies556]

Sounds like Ryan is saying because the 2025 doc doesn't specifically claim the words "we want to Ban Abortion on Federal Level" then no one should interpret to mean anything close to that. Politicos who've been paying the least bit of attention understand this is a disingenuous read of any unpopular political position

[@Akin42]

​@@edfhobbies556Yeah, it requires completely ignoring the past 25+ years of "conservative" rhetoric and action to make the kinds of generous interpretations that Ryan does here.

[@lexslate2476]

Uterus annexation. It's uterus annexation. It's government seizing control of people's bodies.

[@diane8996]

Yeah, I just lost a lot of respect for him over this. There are a lot of untrue things that he has said in this video. You absolutely cannot take conservatives at face value as they do not outright tell you what they are going to do. They do what I call "breadcrumbing". It's like a little trail of "dog whisltes" that lead you to the conclusion. He talks about how they're not banning "gender ideology" in schools, but that is a complete lie. Project 2025 states that the Biden administration will let schools teach "gender ideology" in schools and treat this as if it were a bad thing that goes against "parental rights". They also state that are against social transitioning for transgender students in class because it goes against "parental right", which is effectively calling for a ban on teaching "gender ideology". Which, btw, parents of transgender children have every parental right to allow their children to transition, teachers have every right to exercise their First Amendment right and use pronouns even without parental consent, and students have every right to not tell their parents things that would endanger their children (which is why P2025 also states to get rid of student privacy protection; FERPA). And this happens in the exact same way with teaching black history; because news flash, when they are talking about banning DEI and CRT in schools, they are talking about banning anything that teaches diversity. This is why, and how, conservatives have already banned a ton of books written by black authors and civil rights leaders, like the ban Ruby Bridges faced in Texas. They have disguised their language as "we're not racists, we're just banning racist ideology" when in reality they mean "we're banning black history because we feel it is racist against us white people". You cannot take conservatives at face value - you absolutely can't. They speak in coded language because they know that what they say will turn moderates away, so the coded language is a way to put their foot in the door and act like what they want is good and justified. Their playbook is also the same as If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, where they will start with "state's rights" and then push for sweeping Federal implementation or "we're just protecting kids" turns into full-on legislation against adults after they got what they wanted. So you have to be aware of that one as well.

[@Thorloar]

@@edfhobbies556, yeah, he just did a keyword search, though I don’t blame him for not knowing all the different phrases and dog whistles the religious right uses for things like abortion which he could have searched for.

[@captainbean3114]

By going after exact wording, you're really cutting Proj2025 a lot of slack. This document heavily embellishes and makes things sound much more extreme. But Proj 2025 isn't as far off as you're making it sound.

[@BigBoss-sm9xj]

have you read the document?

[@NaTodai]

He does have NEWSMAX in his Twitter bio (which, according to the sponsor of this video, ground news, is right leaning). Maybe Ryan has to throw a bone to rw propagandists to keep that deal in line. The video feels dishonest in the way he went about fact checking by keyword search terms

[@draby112]

Yup, it's sad that dog whistling appears to completely undo all his skeptical "defensive measures" lol. Given how great of a job he did dismantling Breaking Points yeterday, this surely leaves one wanting for a bit more scrutiny.

[@ForcefulDragon]

@@BigBoss-sm9xj I have and captainbean is 100% right. It doesn't use a lot of the EXACT language that the graphic shows, so trying to find out the "truth" by using ctrl+F is not really doing it justice. A lot of the language is adjacent to the exact terms and used to IMPLY what they want to do rather than saying it 100% in the open. It doesn't specifically say they will roll back LGBTQ+ rights. But it does go on and on about "natural" families/marriages and "unnatural" families/marriages. It gushes about how good and important "natural" families are and how we need to turn our country back to emphasizing that. You don't need to be a very stable genius to read between the lines there.

[@alexander1902]

Him throwing in the line about his mom watching CNN was not exactly subtle. Ryan is selling out and not being the best at hiding it.

[@emilynelson5985]

If it doesn’t talk about Christianity in schools then why does that page on screen say that Christian schools are under attack? The document search function isn’t a substitute for close reading.

[@jeffrey.p.thornton]

Public vs private schools?

[@emilynelson5985]

@@jeffrey.p.thornton why should that question be relevant if the government still governs all schools? Unless you’re saying something like a Catholic school should be exempt from government investigation. Is that what you’re saying?

[@jeffrey.p.thornton]

@@emilynelson5985 Well, in point of fact, the government does NOT "govern" all schools. It does accredit schools based on curricular standards, but it has not historically told private schools, and especially religious schools, how they should be run. The argument is that the religious school is created as an act of religious faith, so it should be understood as a ministry - and the government should have a very light touch when regulating a ministry. The proposal from P25 is a response to efforts by progressives to require religious schools to hire and retain staff that do not share the religious values of the school and do not want to conduct their private affairs in a way that confirms to the school's understanding of ministry. (The use cases come down to teachers deciding to come out as LGBTQ to their students at schools run by churches that frown on that.) The argument in the document is that this is a new imposition of state authority on the religious entity running the school, and the state compromises the mission of the school if it doesn't recognize the role of the teachers as ministers subject to church discipline. It doesn;t have any bearing on policy at PUBLIC schools. I don't think it's reasonable to look at this proposal as the leading edge of a conspiracy to get God back into schools - unless you hate the idea of religious schools generally, but that's a different discussion.

[@ThZuao]

Because they feel it's true. Personally, I feel like it too, but I don't have evidence. Only one case in which a few boys who lived in the countryside very far away from any public shools who received funding to attend a christian school that was the closest one around that I saw in a pathethic article claiming it was somehow proof conservatives want to turn the country into a theocracy; and another case in which a coach was fired for holding a prayer circle with his athletes before a match. These are blatant religious intolerance cases propped up by liberals that should not be tolerated, but they're isolated cases of attack on christianity, unrepresentative of the big picture. There's also that case of the christian baker who refused to bake a cake to the exact specifications of a gay couple that was offensive to christianity, but that's not school related and the baker won the case. Saying they're under attack is not the same as saying they want to turn every school christian. And I have to put it here, since you tried to jab Ryan, a guy I respect, that the ability to read is not a substitute for intelligence or reading comprehension.

[@martinsutton8590]

The unfortunate thing about this video is I now feel I need to read the whole document myself in order to clarify what it does say.

[@stevekillgore9272]

Good, you should.

[@Sammysapphira]

You should always get something from an original, unedited source.

[@asicdathens]

I'm not an american, do not vote in the US elections, I only follow Ryan. But I saw a video from the heritage foundation encouraging potential republican political appointees when the have an action that needs to be done to go to the cafeteria to discuss it with the other person instead of writing emails and leaving a paper trail behind. This is Nixon level stuff. It prevents accountability and deprives the american people from checks and balances. At least Nixon recorded everything that was said in the oval office (apart from the tapes someone erased).

[@brohan914]

Spot on! And Nixon only recorded everything because he thought he was a paranoid narcissist. Had he been a little smarter about it he likely would have survived Watergate. Remember, the GOP rallied around him initially. It was only when those recordings came out that they jumped ship.

[@Butterkin]

This is something that everyone in DC already does. The conservatives are just implying that they didn't do that before.

[@spartakos3178]

😂😂😂 Where are Hillary's emails about Benghazi.....

[@gorkyd7912]

Not necessarily because the US has extremely hostile media on both sides which means that any discussion of policies, rather than the actual policies themselves, will be blown out of proportion out of context and turned into a narrative which could destroy the future of potentially good policies due to pure media hype.

[@paulhodgers]

@@spartakos3178 what did trump do in all that executive time? I only ask because thats my euphemism for have a poop or not doing what I'm supposed to do at work.

[@TheHalflingLad]

18:36 - Ryan, you missed a spot. Page 451 talks about repealing any policies "fraught with agenda items focusing on LGBTQ+ equity”. Page 478 talks about shielding organizations from "discrimination for providing adoption and foster care services based on their beliefs about marriage". Page 481: "Despite ... the Respect for Marriage Act... HMRE program grants should be available to faithbased recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman." Page 585-586 says that "the new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace." An example of such exercise is "traditional beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality." So, they're not saying they'll repeal marriage equality in legal terms, they only vow to never defend it in any way, so it becomes impossible in practice. The way you brushed that off feels odd, because the context makes their intentions regarding marriage equality really obvious. And then you can just take a closer look at how they insist on the term "healthy marriage" and constantly complain about "LGBT agenda" throughout the paper... If these proposals came to pass, marriage equality would go away in short order. I get that you are avoiding conjecture, but you could really look into context here. It's not entirely truthful to claim "no, this document doesn't say "four", when every other page says "two plus two".

[@gottagowork]

"A spot"? I think he missed pretty much all 900+ pages of it. Like he didn't read it at all and just searched for keywords. This must be one of the weirdest misses from him I've ever seen, and certainly didn't expect it. Wtf is going on? I'd go as far as calling this very video misinformation. I'm beyond disappointed. People should watch those who go through it *in detail* instead.

[@TheHalflingLad]

@@gottagowork Yeah, after posting I realized that people in the comment section found way more inaccuracies. Well, let's just say I was being polite.

[@N17C1]

Where is the bit about a healthy marriage plus affairs with adult movie stars? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

What argument is there for “conservatives” not to get rid of that terrible bill which enshrined that oxymoron into law?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@gottagowork no they shouldn’t. They should read it like I did.

[@abraveteddybear7390]

No problem with targeting misinformation but you’re also separating the document all the context of the people who put it together. And while I also agree that the infographic misrepresents the specific wording of some of the document the way you talk about it sounds as if you’re defending it or ignoring the actual effects these articles would have on the American people. There’s a million ways to make anything sound not awful or to use a different set of words to give deniability

[@woutvandessel1823]

This. I honestly don't know why he's doing this. He's smart enough to know that this is what's going on, but instead of addressing it he's nitpicking a random infographic put together by a random Twitter user and making vague unfounded accusations that Russia or some foreign government is behind it.

[@utkphilobio]

Yeah. This video sort of comes off as Ryan trying to say that Project 2025 isn't that bad, which is a problem.

[@woutvandessel1823]

@@utkphilobio That's pretty much exactly what it is. No other reason to take a random infographic that got some traction on Twitter and make a video accusing it of being an "active measure" and implying Russia or some foreign government is behind it. It's clear he comes from the intelligence community, he sees spies everywhere

[@lxstcheckll9348]

Yeah this isn't an argument so I want to hear a compelling argument for your position on why this is the case

[@lxstcheckll9348]

@@utkphilobiowhich it isn't bud. Can't handle people's different opinions of you. Literally, the left is hilarious when studies prove time and time again the left barely knows right taking point with eh right now significantly more. Which indirectly and directly means the strawman of argumentation would be insane.

[@michelluccote]

Thanks for the great video. This is interesting to re-watch. While Project 2025 does not contain many of these statements some of them are back and are directly mentioned by the president-elect. I only read part of this document so far and it felt to me like it left a lot of space for more extreme changes and I worry this was done intentionally. Only time will tell what they will attempt to do and how successful they will be.

[@zenivinez]

"Just because the heritage foundation wants to do some things doesn't mean they can" - Your points given assume our government still functions as a democracy. The statement is pointless anyway it just means that if the GOP of today were given sufficient power they would choose to do all of these things. Given the modern GOP's deep shift into fascism it is unlikely me you congress or the supreme court would have any say in the matter. Today's SC may likely be the driving force for many of these policies to be implemented on a Federal level regardless of constitutionality. While I understand you read the entire document I think you missed that many of these policies have intent. Without understanding the goals of many of these organizations its hard to see the intent of the policy. Many items within the document may not even directly reference their intended impact. This isn't a list of things explicit within the project 2025 document, it is a list of end goals the authors of the policies within 2025 intend. Remember this document is a short overview of a strategy meant for only the initial days of a republican administration and does not directly discuss strategy. This is a hard document to understand written by a litany of groups who are highly specialized in policy implementation for specific lobbies from a long list of groups not just the Heritage Foundation. Every statement within project 2025 has an unshared implementation strategy behind it that extends far beyond what is explicitly stated within project 2025.

[@dfmrcv862]

You mean if enough people elect certain politicians to pass certain policies those policies will pass under a representative democracy???? I'm shocked! Shocked!

[@GabrielPettier]

@@dfmrcv862 Right, but before voting, the people should certainly be aware of the policies the people they are going to vote for, are preparing to put in place, otherwise, it's not really going to be a very well functioning democracy.

[@cameronnovy3718]

Insinuating that the GOP is fascist and a threat to democracy tells me everything I need to know about your echo chamber bud. I don’t see the GOP pushing for price controls, or propping up a candidate who was never voted for to take the presidency.

[@cameronnovy3718]

@@johnroscoe2406 Where are the "Far Right GOP" policies of price controls, or installing unelected officials. You don't know what fascism is.

[@markbrisec3972]

Hey man, there's only one thing we can/must do... Vote Harris and tell as many people you know to vote...

[@JORE4203]

There are a lot of problems with your fact checking, I do agree the document that was shared was not accurate but neither was your fact checking. It sucks, but if you’re going to make a 20 minute video about this you have to read the entire document. Wrong about unions, ACA, religious teaching in schools. The document is awful but you can’t claim fact checking just by checking keywords

[@JoelJ777]

There is a reason most leftists don't specify particulars about Project 2025.

[@Brampie-vc8nf]

But he the doc doesnt mention “divorce” explicitly so it must not be true i guess. This is how the whole vid feels like, just ctr+f

[@salter1630]

​@@JoelJ777There are literally dozens of comments specifying things about P2025 above

[@JK8]

You just don’t like that it doesn’t serve your liberal agenda

[@mattburgess5697]

@@JK8No, we don’t like that it’s authoritarian. Maybe you like that but not everyone does.

[@thomase8103]

I have to move on so i don’t lose my mind, but are you honestly trying to present the language in Project 2025 in conjunction with the actions and rhetoric of the Republican Party for the last 50 years as not calling for a nationwide ban on abortion because it doesn’t explicitly say it in the document? I guess the effects of redlining couldn’t have been real because so often the language didn’t explicitly state “black people”… if the rest of the video is as much obfuscation through pedantry as that part, I’m good.

[@choccolocco]

100%

[@alphamikeomega5728]

It's like Macbeth isn't considering dog whistles. If you don't know it, look up what Lee Atwater said on the topic.

[@choccolocco]

@@alphamikeomega5728 Heck, it’s not even dog whistles at this point, they’ve said it publicity many times loud and clear.

[@christenawalker2944]

Hint it was!

[@RobertImhoff]

This video is about an image being shared on the Internet, not about the subtext of the source material it serves to dismantle. Ryan is not trying to do anything to promote or dissuade P2025. He is doing Project 2025 detractors a favor: stop generating non factual documents, because people will stop believing you!

[@JWinterhaven]

Mate, I like you. You usually make some very interesting stuff. If your research is not reading the stuff but to do a full text search and not even use synonyms, common phrases or understand dog-whistles, I'm concerend about the rest of your works validity after this one.

[@Rastaferrari829]

Exactly! “Christian” isn’t mentioned, but “religious” is multiple times. He ignores the authors behind the document entirely and their agenda/ bias.

[@notchpoodles5864]

Yeah. Like fact checking the infographic is great and all (and there’s certainly a way to make it more factual and still get the point across). And there are a lot of things in there that they try to disguise. Like for them, religious means Christian

[@shaniasmith284]

Try Legal Eagle or Leeja Miller

[@Ranger1812]

Being ‘centrist’ isn’t the same as ‘unbiased’.

[@KasumiRINA]

He isn't centrist, USA is a right wing country and picking between moderate right Democrats and batshit insane Republicans who went so far right, they came out on the other side of the horseshoe and now envision Stalinism as their main ideology.

[@Letmedoubt]

@@Ranger1812 exposing lies from either side wherever you see them is being unbiased.

[@Ranger1812]

@@Letmedoubt And as I said, that isn't what being centrist is. Please don't fall into the trap of 'enlightened centrism'.

[@citricdemon]

@@Ranger1812 more anti-centrist nonsense from extremists who consider "compromise" a sin. good luck functioning outside your bubble.

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

@mtheory85 And, as he said not the same as unbiased. In a naturally right wing, religious, conservative country like the USA, "centrist" means quite a lot further right than it does in a naturally Egalitarian, Rational country like New Zealand. A "centrist" American would find himself arguing for more -fascist- conservative policies constantly if he joined our slightest-rightward-of-center party.

[@WackadoodleMalarkey]

Project 2025 sounds like what would happen if you loaded all the RNC bargain basement bad ideas into Chatgpt

[@Anarcho-harambeism]

@WackadoodleMalarkey I mean, that's a difference of opinion. I agree with some, and disagree with other parts.

[@scottessery100]

@@Anarcho-harambeismwhat on earth do you agree with ?

[@maksimfedoryak]

​@@scottessery100mirror?

[@Bynming]

@@scottessery100 "the parts that don't matter seem sometimes reasonable!"

[@michaellee1244]

I suppose you prefer the communist manifesto that the dems use?

[@tigerdragon7783]

Now Ryan, you know that what Project 2025 says vs that single infographic doesn't take into account anything members of the Heritage Foundation have said in various forms of video or text outside of the core precepts of their items listed in Project 2025. ❤

[@SomeoneFromBeijing]

In many cases, Project 2025 does not explicitly say "do this" and "do that". They seek to create an environment in which people who want to do these things can easily get them done. Which is just the same with one extra step.

[@tigerdragon7783]

​@@SomeoneFromBeijing Doesn't contradict my admonition. The entire project is a baseline for allowing the stuff they DO say in other places.

[@jeffrey.p.thornton]

But why does he have to take into account the public statements of people that won;t be part of the government after the election?

[@tigerdragon7783]

​@@jeffrey.p.thornton Likely because the public comments are the same from those influential people who ARE on the loyalist jobs list Project 2025 has been collecting.

[@jeffrey.p.thornton]

@@tigerdragon7783 LOL dude, any jerk who sent in an e-mail got added to that list. The fact that a list exists doesn't mean it's a useful list, or that it will be used by people to make decisions. The relevance of the list collapses once you realize it was always a grift. There is an article on Politico called "It Was Supposed to Be Trump’s Administration in Waiting. But Project 2025 Was a Mirage All Along." Go read it, it will give you peace of mind.

[@jimward204]

Reported for misinformation.

[@paycation3448]

Since its not not ending free school lunches for everyone ... its not true that they are ending free school lunches. Thats kind of a nerd finger-wag technicality take.

[@NitroDragon]

Also the "middle-class" has kinda been shrinking, there are plenty of "middle-class" families living paycheck to paycheck and who rely on the free school lunches since they are one accident away from falling out of the middle-class bracket.

[@petercornwell5880]

@@paycation3448 Actually, as soon as you introduce means testing to programs like this they get weakened and become easier to end. Families are too embarrassed to say they’re poor enough to need the free food, and don’t want to fill out the intrusive paperwork anyway. Then the rich families whine about the freeloaders, dominate the school committees and the programs end.

[@Dragonette666]

@@NitroDragon they should have free school lunches for all the kids in school as they are basically forced to go and held hostage.

[@stevencrook7982]

This is the first of Ryan's videos that I can't finish. There's a lot of far right/alt right shorthand at work here. "The world has never seen a thriving, healthy, free, and prosperous society where most children grow up without their married parents...if current trends continue, we are heading toward social implosion.”. It might not say "end no fault divorce", but it makes clear that this is the goal.

[@mick8888V]

I've stopped watching others before and only clicked on this one to see how he would provide cover for this egregious document.

[@dannybaseball2444]

Why do these type comments always have the subtext, I hate the option of a selfless choice?

[@rere-x6g]

LOL? Are you mad about facts? The world has in fact never seen what you just said. If you think that this statement is alt right then you are full of amnesia.

[@alexis1451]

Is this entire video an "active measure"? Feels like it since it skips over the actual seriously dangerous parts of Project 2025 (like everything to do with Schedule F) and makes it sound like Project 2025 isn't actually all that bad. Why not do a video on what Project 2025 *actually* wants to do? Why cherry pick this one infographic?

[@ForcefulDragon]

I'm with you. Project F feels like the thing that will grease the wheels for everything else. This video focuses too much on "well they didn't say the EXACT words so I'm going to call it a lie".

[@bdsterne1]

Because it's not an analysis of the document from a policy standpoint nor is he really trying to espouse an opinion on the content. He is refuting misinformation about the document without supporting/opposing the policies within. I have no desire to support Project 2025 and disagree with many points it makes but I don't believe in lying/misrepresenting something to argue against it. If your ideals have ideological merit, it is not necessary to misrepresent the thing you are arguing against.

[@zachowon]

Bevause it is nothing but the heritage foundations odeas that no one likes. The fact that most of the right domt agree with majority of it

[@SixOneNiner23]

We all know something big is up, I can’t begin to explain what my family has been put through over a dumb mistake by “black cyber ops”

[@captainsewerrat]

I definitely agree that he should do another video and speak about the dangers of it. He tries not to take political sides, but at the same time you can be apolitical and just speak about the dangers it poses to overall freedom.

[@waitwhat1167]

I never thought I would see the day that Ryan defends 2025.

[@KoRntech]

Now if you watch The he Project 2025 training videos, oh boy a lot of those short claims in that image that lack more specific details and references are interwoven in many of the videos. The Supreme Court has already set the stage for some of those to happen.

[@Chloe7324v7h]

@KoRntech Bush/Cheney had Heritage Foundations graduates in charge of the Iraq rebuilding. That went well. The pig farm ...burning trash by soldiers barracks resuting in lung damage and deaths. With 2025...what could go wrong?

[@VladimirPutin-p3t]

​@@Chloe7324v7hbut Ryan simping for the heritage foundation here is next level BS.

[@kevinskiles2033]

Have you noticed in the training videos they often they speak about "the privilege of serving Trump"? Cult anyone?

[@othan_eake4385]

you cry about this but are ok with the Duluth model? lmao

[@zombiebaker]

Dude what are you on? He is literally braking it down barny style for you to understand. And contrasting it with facts...​@user-zb9lv3gh8s

[@LizaFitness]

So the info graphic is a poor summary of project 2025? Please make an accurate summary because the clips that have been leaked of the architects of project 2025 aren't inspiring confidence. They are scary and straight up unacceptable.

[@MacBjorn]

It's a hard core extremist group that some lefties found them decided to bring to everyones attention but sold it as Trumps plan. Conservatives have no idea about it, except for Democrats 😂

[@BigBoss-sm9xj]

no I believe that both commenters here have already been radicalized and cannot see a logical vid for what it is

[@hangarflying]

@@MoonRegoliththe irony of the anti-disinformation guy putting out literal disinformation. 🤷‍♂️

[@theresamcpherson7352]

@@MoonRegolith Very well stated!

[@manxx25]

@@BigBoss-sm9xj Ouch, but fair. :)

[@WhoDat_1]

Ryan, what are you doing? I dont think you actually read the document. Normally i like your points, but in this case you ignored alot of obvious questions

[@froster3117]

it seems he just ctrl F'd keywords and tried to debunk based on that when in reality these people have secret videos talking about the importance of keeping discussions in person and not creating a paper trail. I imagine they would be smart enough to not out-right spell out the more nefarious aims of the organization making the actual 2025 document require more in-depth analysis.

[@SomeoneFromBeijing]

Ryan definitely dropped the ball this time. I think he just clicked "command + F + keyword" and declared the statement untrue if the exact words didn't pop up. For example, the term "transgender" only appeared 13 times. But most of the transphobia actually popped up when I searched the term "biological" on the document. "Christian" was rarely used in the document, but "religion" or "religious" were far more common. Ryan really should have known that bywords are always used in this context.

[@aaronkahn-bork1120]

@@SomeoneFromBeijingI wondered about this as I listened. Thanks for checking

[@DamienPalmer]

@@SomeoneFromBeijing What bothers me is that I know Ryan KNOWS this. It's his fudging day job, or so he claims. He is either really bad at his job.... or? (IMO from least likely to more likely: direct pay off from Kremlin, direct pay off from Trump, or he is bowing to KZbin algorithmic audience capture and needing to prove his "liberal" bone fides and buy some capital with a cheap easy hit job against an unsourced memetic listograph.)

[@suddenlytitan739]

I hate these type of comments. SPECIFY what your talking about.

[@YouTubeUser24601]

“There isn’t a single line about ending marriage equality” not true. P25 states “ maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.”

[@fixpontt]

P25? that is on P481 _"Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations that maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family."_ this means churches cannot be forced to adapt gay marriage or they can run programs that does not require promoting gay marraige, it says nothing about legal marriage defined by the state which is a basic right for churches everywhere in the world, it has nothing to do with marriage equality

[@Xenomnipotent]

@@fixponttThey meant P25 as a short-form for Project 2025, not Page 25.

[@godeater9044]

"The noxious tenets of 'critical race theory' and 'gender ideology' should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country," (page 5). Ryan, can't this be interpreted as Conservatives wanting to remove curriculum on slavery and black people, as many Conservatives seem to define that as CRT?

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

It could. But that's just an assumption.

[@PatheticApathetic]

@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishan assumption based on mountains of evidence

[@Matthew-zn3zm]

​@@PatheticApatheticnot to mention entire generations growing up in the south believing the civil war was just about "states rights"

[@RobertImhoff]

Historical race relations and slavery have been part of US education for decades before CRT modules and views on those topics were introduced. They will still be there after the CRT is removed. Ryan is only proving the statement made is a lie.

[@VladimirPutin-p3t]

​@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishthat's hardly an assumption. They're saying it in interviews and alluding to it in their documents.

[@jameslynn7271]

Ryan, you are reading the words , but not reading in between the lines and knowing who the authors are you can fill in the blanks.

[@VnazT]

Funny thing about reading between the lines is that anyone can find whatever they like.

[@darkocelot7342]

@@VnazT This kind of defense is exactly why they go out of their way to only strongly imply things and stay away from the full-on direct statements. Good ol' *Im*plausable Deniability.

[@YoBoyNeptune]

Sounds like putting words in people's mouths

[@lxstcheckll9348]

@@YoBoyNeptuneyes, typical strawman. They always do it.

[@macmcleod1188]

I really don't think he wants to read between the lines.

[@EntropiaBones]

A fact check based on a word search will not show cause and effect. Thank you for your service.

[@DamienPalmer]

Well it shows an effect of some kind, though the cause remains in question.

[@TRYCLOPS1]

What the video was about was that the people using that document for fearmongering are intentionally dishonest and being dishonest like that probably means they ain’t the good guys for anyone with common sense.

[@squillz8310]

​@@TRYCLOPS1when P2025 uses euphemisms to hide their true intentions, of course people are going to call it exactly what it is in order to make the point more clear.

[@ilana]

Dude, he literally says from the get go he read all of it. He uses the word search to showcase, but he read it alright. Don't misinform

[@andreirachko]

@@ilanathe video shows the opposite. I can do the same exact level of “research” he did in 3 mins, no reading required. He didn’t even proof-read his script, hence the avalanche of edits and errors everywhere.

[@byrdikus]

Thank you for being "the guy who checks"

[@DonTewdon7573]

McBeth either doesn't know The ACA is not a insurance plan, it is instead the mechanism use to pay subsidized insurance premiums, therefore if you separate the ACA subsidized market from the non-subsidize insurance market the ACA will cease to exist.

[@TCLe]

The ACA barely functions even as that now that there isn't a penalty for not having an insurance plan.

[@aftonline]

I don't follow your logic. If some health insurers are subsidized by ACA, and some are not, the ACA will still exist, it just won't be subsidizing every health insurer in the country.

[@DonTewdon7573]

​@@TCLe The ACA functions very well, a d it is more popular now than it was before as it allowes people to have health insurance that otherwise wouldn't have. Among those groups are people that fir one reason or a other lost employee group insurance when either because of layoffs or whatever reason moved to a job that didn't offered health insurance, or did not earned enough to go outside the ACA. You must also understand that prior to the ACA insurance companies were able to cancel you with no recourse, and then deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. However, I do agree it could be better and probably the solution is medicare for all.

[@Matt-xc6sp]

@@TCLeMillions of Americans have insurance they would otherwise not have

[@macmcleod1188]

@@DonTewdon7573 for a better picture of what the project 2025 would actually do to Medicare and Medicaid, see "Project 2025 Calls for Big Changes to Medicare, Medicaid" It's pretty bad if you are sick, not wealthy, or have a chronic illness.

[@roycenlisa]

Very surface level de-bunking here, which gives the impression that "if it doesn't explicitly state it in the Project 2025 doc, then it isn't a thing". There's a lot of maneuvering and stated goals by the Heritage Foundation, MAGA, etc. that does fall in line with most if not all of that pamphlet and a little more digging on your end could verify that.

[@rere-x6g]

It would be so much easier if the viewers of this comment also didn't surface level read this and have legislative examples... echoing things like schedule F which we have already seen in effect under the Trump administration still does not show anything... Operating on the assumption that whoever wrote this plan inherently thinks it would be bad for the U.S. or its people is absolutely insane. There's a reason why you don't attack intention but policy or else you would understand that Kamala saying in the past medicare then shifting medicare for residents and now shifting to not supporting that plan anymore should be scrutinized WAY more. Again, this is not including that think tanks of any party do not dictate its policy especially when you realize that he has disavowed the plan.

[@FUnzzies1]

Lol k

[@taiwandxt6493]

@@rere-x6g Think tanks do not by themselves dictate party policy however they have massive, massive influence. Not to mention, specifically with the Heritage Foundation, they have had massive influence on policy here in the United States. Also, There's also on top of Schedule F, Trump Administration rollbacks on environmental and discrimination protections, as well as there was a national abortion ban that floated around Congress in 2018-2019 that the Republican Party supported. We also have, in Louisiana and Oklahoma, the return of explicit religious symbols in public schools under religious moral rationales as to why they are being implemented. It is not a KZbinr commenters job to provide you with examples when the examples are literally all around us if you've been paying attention, regardless of your political beliefs. Also, what a fucking idiotic thing to say, "There's a reason why you don't attack intention but policy." Intention is what becomes policy so it has to be attacked lest it becomes policy. That's a core pillar of political discourse is criticism of policy intentions.

[@rere-x6g]

@@taiwandxt6493 Right, yet Trump said that there will be no federal abortion ban. The return on Roe V Wade literally prohibits federal action on that issue. Other than dish galloping on your religious bs. This has nothing to do with 2025 or with Trump. We actually have already seed schedule F and I have read it. It in fact does not have anything to do with "Loyalty tests" These positions dictate policy, and when you have someone in the EXECUTIVE branch who is making it purposefully harder to enact executive orders than obviously its not efficient. I understand you would like to think there is a kabal but you don't know how the American government works.

[@namgreb9063]

Reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 18%(pre-trump the tax rate was 35%) and the top earner capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% is absolutely screwing anyone middle class and lower. All that tax burden won't go away, but will be shifted to some of the poorest in our society. This and the withdrawl from major climate initiatives should be more concerning to anyone hoping for their children to have a better future. Getting rid of Pensions effectively raises the retirement age. They aren't even being sneaky about being vehemently anti-union.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

The tax burden is here to stay, I'm sorry to say. You have to rewrite tax policies before raising taxes again.

[@VladimirPutin-p3t]

​@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishis that somehow a justification for shifting it entirely to the lower and middle classes???

[@skyrailmaxima]

​@@VladimirPutin-p3t Its still higher on everyone on the upper sector, and costs are always passed down if there is no competition. Its literally unfairly high and you are so greedy that youll take more. Stop all tax breaks then we can at least see how bad the tax policy is now

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

@@VladimirPutin-p3t no. It's a reality not a justification. The tax laws as they are now, allow for people with the resources to reduce any taxes they have significantly. They barely paid tax through legal loopholes, which will only get more abused, if taxes get raised on them. Then, there's the ever delicate balancing act of not raising taxes too high. At a certain point, the upper class will just leave, as they have the resources to do so. This is known as capital flight, and we've seen it occur multiple times throughout history, even in large economies. The fact of the matter is that the lower and middle class will always shoulder the burden of taxes, due to the simple fact that they're more numerous, and thus, a more reliable source of tax revenue. One middle class person not paying taxes or emmigrating and renouncing citizenship, doesn't affect a budget nearly as much as an upper class person or someone in the 1%, doing the same.

[@mwu2712]

​@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishyou're right, tax the rich more. Great idea!

[@ZacksScraps]

Well this aged like milk

[@PasadenaMMZ]

The author of the meme was conflating a lot of agenda items from the GOP, and Trump, and Project 2025. But, Ryan McBeth was also focused on explicit goals. Some strongly believed implicit goals were cited on the poster, but, because they were not explicit in the documents he gave Project 2025 a pass. I think the analysis is still a bit generous to Project 2025. I recommend looking at the leaked training videos where they even cite 1984.

[@choccolocco]

100% And I’ve watched him long enough to know that he knows that full well. This video is at best disingenuous, at worst, misinformation.

[@jakeaurod]

idk, I'd expect the potential president's own "Agenda47" to be part of the policy proposal package in "2025 Presidential Transition Project" in addition to _Mandate for Leadership_ . Ryan swung and missed.

[@serversurfer6169]

“While it’s _technically correct_ that they will raise taxes on the poor and working class, that’s simply the result of streamlining the tax code by raising taxes on the poor and working class while reducing taxes on the wealthy.” 🙄

[@brohughes]

Haha yeah raising taxes on the poor is what Harris wants to do. How dare Trump compete with her drive to screw the everyman.

[@Bugsnackers]

Instead of receiving pensions, they want us to have savings instead😂. That is literally increasing retirement age for most American.

[@thegooddoctor2009]

Which is probably necessary. We only have 3 people putting money into social security for every 1 person taking from it. When SS was created the ratio was 15 people putting money in to 1 person withdrawing. We either need less people drawing from SS, or vastly more people putting money in.

[@todo9633]

@@thegooddoctor2009 It is not necessary, if we just make the top 10% pay their fair share of taxes, by closing loopholes and preventing them from using tax havens. The situation of the poor of this country are directly attributable to the rich, there's more than enough money in the economy to end poverty.

[@willythemailboy2]

What do you think a 401k is? It's your personal savings instead of a pension. I've never had a job that had a traditional pension plan, even as a state employee.

[@imperatorcaesardivifiliusa2158]

@@thegooddoctor2009 you're right, we need more immigrants and babies, and possibly immigrant babies

[@paperburn]

@@thegooddoctor2009 Or take away the mandatory cap or bring minimum wage back to parity with inflation. The best ting would be bring back the middle class.

[@thorgodinson3632]

Thank you for your hard work! It's becoming increasingly difficult to fact check everything while also working my own job and taking care of the family. This helps!

[@Ronritdds]

I searched the communications of that geographically very big country that executed the Special Military Operation. I looked for keywords "war" snd "invasion" and found none. So i conclude, on keyword search, there is no war.

[@SakakiDash]

Not really and your suggestion means you did not watch the video properly.

[@Ronritdds]

@@SakakiDash I absolutely watch the video. He did a keyword search and if the words weren't mentioned then he said the subject was absent. That's exactly what he did. He searched for Christianity, for example. He didn't search for any number of synonyms or other words.

[@teddymclaughlin1718]

Strangely, when I looked deeper into the people behind it, it seemed like it was a “war” but they never said it was, so it couldn’t be? Same thing applies for P2025

[@SakakiDash]

@@Ronritdds nope he didn't he read the text. Which is apparent on how he mentioned similarities and compared it to what was actually said.

[@Ronritdds]

"religious devotion and spirituality are the greatest sources of happiness" , that's a quote from P2025. This is not a religious institution making this quote. This is a policy position paper from a think tank which is meant to be a guide for the United States government. You don't think some statement like this deserves at least a mention when talking about forcing Christianity on the people?

[@DarkWardancer]

Hi Ryan, I'm not a US Citizen, so thankfully this does not affect me, but I'd still recommend watching Legal Eagle's video on Project 2025. They - to my knowledge - as full fledged Lawyers listed what this project intends to do. I'm certainly not saying all ideas in the playbook are inherently bad, but take it from someone who was raised in german remembrance culture and studied law: What they intend to do in respects to career government employees (the currently non political offices) alone is causing all my "democracy ending power grab" sirens to go off. Now, i understand that legal eagle seems to be rather "left leaning" for US standards, and therefore may interpret some of these things unfavorably, but as lawyers, they are trained to sniff out the worst implications of any given legal relevant text. And these sections they show in the video for each point are quite damning as they would allow for some pretty absurdly hard measures. i mean, from my background in law i know already that the US Law system is terribly broken and outdated (altough the constitution may have been brilliant for its timeperiod, in my opinion, its not been properly modernized to be on a comparable level to e.g. Germany (Which also has lots of flaws)), but this stuff would break the bald eagle's neck. Also attributing this to russian sources would make no sense at all, as russians are putting all their bets on trump winning and further destabilizing the US like in his first term and cutting Ukrainians off from aid/pressuring them to negotiate. So forgive me if I stick with the lawyers on this one, but rest assured i wouldn't in terms of military assessments. ;)

[@justmenotyou3151]

I don't think I can trust his military assessments after this.

[@emilywalla8958]

Oh wow I didnt realize legal eagle made a p2025 vid thanks for pointing that out.

[@PrincessPeach242]

Since you’re not a US citizen and you seem to know what you’re talking about with the “democracy ending sirens going off” I would LOVE to hear what your opinion is on Agenda 2030 And Kamala’s latest policy of Price Control My fear is no matter who we vote into power, democracy is seeing the end 😞

[@justmenotyou3151]

@@PrincessPeach242 The short titles of the 17 SDGs are: No poverty (SDG 1), Zero hunger (SDG 2), Good health and well-being (SDG 3), Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equality (SDG 5), Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Reduced inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), Climate action (SDG 13), Life below water (SDG 14), Life on land (SDG 15), Peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16), and Partnerships for the goals (SDG 17). NOT GONA HAPPEN.

[@bsadewitz]

"Left leaning" in America with regard to socioeconomic policy could be confused with the platform of some right-wing populist platforms in Europe.

[@AARon-fe1mo]

They know almost none of this will pass through normal means, this is why they are hell bent on putting the right people in the right places to shift the balance of power so they don’t have to worry about going through “the process.”

[@Andromedon777]

Unfortunately both sides play that game and bypass our will

[@Steelmage99]

@@Andromedon777 Pathetic "Bothsidesism"...sigh

[@AARon-fe1mo]

@@Andromedon777 No, this is clearly a one sided issue and nobody should entertain the notion that both sides are guilty of “bypassing the process.”

[@bluebandites]

@@Andromedon777democrats didn’t do it thou

[@Butterkin]

@@AARon-fe1mo Both sides are guilty of that though. Everyone with a poli sci degree knows this. Everyone who went to college knows this. When you take control of the colleges and you pump ideologues out like it's a production line and they all filter into government positions and positions in DC you can't sit there and say that the progressives didn't already do this. Like I said before. Conservatives are just asking for their turn with the car keys. That's all that's happening. Conservatives have had to sit through progressives controlling pivotal institutions and agencies for over a decade. It is your turn to sit down and let us have a turn with the car keys. It didn't kill me to let you guys drive, let us drive for 4 years.

[@croepha]

Friends don’t let friends get embarrassed by using LLMs to do their homework for them

[@raintalon6138]

Its not relevant if the heritage foundation "can" get everything they want. The fact they want it is enough.

[@evanrussell4211]

Right!? And with this supreme court Trump got criminal immunity. They could probably get away with more than we think.

[@citricdemon]

@@raintalon6138 wtf are you talking about? yes it is, it's totally relevant if they can get it. wishes aren't real! goofus

[@raintalon6138]

@@citricdemon so you'd support an organization that wants to.. let's say.. remove the bill of rights? Just cuz "they can't do that"?

[@citricdemon]

@@raintalon6138 that doesn't even follow. and no one on earth could pass ten constitutional ammendments even if they tried

[@Unknown-qj9sm]

They also can. Trumps VP helped write this document. The only reason he was picked was lieu because of his connections to it and an assurance to the wealthy elites in this country they will get it done.

[@Ygdrad]

Did some of my own digging Page 284 does say the following "The next secretary should also reverse the Biden Administration’s focus on “‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage,” replacing such policies with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families." Reversing of "subsidizing" single-motherhood kind of sounds like "condemning" them, financially-speaking, by getting rid of government aid for single mothers. I really don't know why they had to make up lies about it, there's plenty of real stuff to scare centrists and left-leaning voters in there from a bit of keyword search prodding of the document. Just maybe not stuff as sexy as that list.

[@Quillyik]

the whole idea of right-wing politics is getting the fed out of the wallets of people, this would be a step in the right direction.

[@andyghkfilm2287]

@@Quillyik the Fed should be in the pockets of people who need it, like single mothers, the disabled, the unemployed, and so on. That’s the thing. This isn’t “replacing” anything, this is just repealing good things we’ve passed into law for good reason.

[@johnassal5838]

You say "lies" where others may just call it summarizing.

[@userequaltoNull]

@@andyghkfilm2287 Well the fucking PROBLEM is that by supporting single mothers, the federal government has created more of them, by incentivising women to make bad, risky, and unhealthy decisions around sex and lack of birth control. Lyndon B. Johnson, the implementor of the first such legislation, did so *explicitly* with the intention of destroying the black family. The problem could be very easily solved by simply allowing CURRENT single mothers to keep recieving benefits, while closing the door to new applicants. This would stop propogating the problem, while not cutting off the vulnerable people that this policy knowingly created.

[@TehKarmalizer]

@@andyghkfilm2287 you take it as good that incentivizing single motherhood is good. Not everyone does. And data concurs that outcomes for children of single mother households are worse than two parent households. Or statistically even single father households, but that isn’t specifically germane. Most single motherhood is a result of one or more irresponsible, cavalier decisions, and millions of people should not be financially responsible for the poor judgment of others.

[@Wild_Turkey0352]

Project 2025 has an interesting section concerning veterans benefits. If you are a veteran and like sleepless nights give that a read.

[@spartakos3178]

The VA has catastrophically failed veterans.... ending it and just paying for medical care at civilian facilities would lead to FAR better outcomes for veterans.

[@spartakos3178]

The VA has failed. Veterans would and are far better treated at civilian hospitals.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Such as?

[@lucasmctavish9289]

@@spartakos3178I don’t know man the VA ime has been slowly getting better, and I very much would like that to not stop. Also what reasons do you have? Or are you just reiterating what you have heard. Because I use the VA and it’s been a lifesaver. I am kidna suspicious that you’re not arguing in entirely good faith.

[@jcbillman]

Until you have Cape Fear Valley as your civilian hospital

[@headcasey6375]

It is an absolute shame that no one will actually take any of this info in that needs too.

[@AlphaLimaXray]

The relative shoddiness of Ryan's research and the myopic nitpicking in his conclusions about what P2025 says, versus what its authors and backers are trying to achieve, has truly shaken my confidence in him and his reporting. I'm hoping this subpar effort is merely a sign he's a bit overextended in his workload, rather than of someone who is either too naïve to realize just how bad the far-right has become - or worse, is actually sympathetic to their cause whilst feigning to be a pro-democracy moderate. I'm praying my disappointment is not replaced by feelings of betrayal.

[@TukaihaHithlec]

This video has led me to look further into it, and preliminary findings suggest he supports Trump and his goals but avoids admitting it, at least on this channel. Color me disappointed.

[@squillz8310]

As someone who has read through P2025 in its entirety (took a few months because of how heavy it is to digest) this video has genuinely shaken me a bit. Ryan has hinted in the past that his views lean more to the right than the left, but that inherently isnt a problem. Having an understanding of this document myself though, if he so much as remotely defends this video, it's over for me too

[@shaniasmith284]

​@@TukaihaHithlecmy partner tried showing me this video to convince me that P2025 is just satire so learning this guy is probably a Trump supporter is disappointing.

[@McCallumMade]

When reading military manuals you look for the specific meaning. When reading political manifestos you need to read between the lines. Different skill sets.

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

Read too much between the lines and you will only read what you want to read.

[@McCallumMade]

@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding OK. From now on I will intrinsically trust anything a politician tells me because interpretation is bad.

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

@@McCallumMade When did I say that? U are kinda proving my point here...

[@McCallumMade]

@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding As if you have a point.

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

@@McCallumMade My point is that if you "read between the lines" too much, you will just cherry pick what you want to hear.

[@TheAlchaemist]

6:42 Abortion: In the document, it's not partial, it's full truth, although in "blah blah speech" or implied. Page 6 "the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support"

[@DamienPalmer]

They ESPECIALLY hate those partial-truth abortions.

[@lesliemacmillan9932]

Well, Congress is not likely to support any federal attempt to ban abortion nationally, so that is something of an empty aspiration.

[@DamienPalmer]

@@lesliemacmillan9932 It is far too likely, honestly at this point. We need a full court press (no pun intended) to protect and restore and reinforce rights that are broadly and intentionally under attack by these people.

[@TheAlchaemist]

@@lesliemacmillan9932 During the hearings for the SCOTUS justices, Republicans kept saying "don't be crazy, nobody is advocating for overriding Roe! You are delusional, you are fearmongering". Well, it turned out that they lied. In the same way, Congress is elected, so if the GOP gets elected, it's more than an aspiration. The point being that Project 2025, and the GOP are actively going full force on all this, just hoping that the people don't realize about it. In fact they literally SAY SO themselves... "don't be vocal about what we are going to do", in their training videos to their members.

[@RLFWE1]

Love to hear "Active measures" getting called out. Yuri Bezmenov was right.

[@KoRntech]

16:30 ya I mean if you ignore that whole Civil War that has something to do with rejecting slavery, ya I mean if they leave all those details out then the Confederacy was just acting for States Rights, hmm where have we heard this term before?

[@treemeister2616]

The cut from "them wanting to ban the teaching of slavery is a lie" to a direct quote where they paint over the existence of the American Civil War is actual insanity.

[@MattHuarez-yh9zj]

​@@treemeister2616and they're acting like they were part of the good guys😂😂😂

[@ashleyhamman]

Besides the mountains of ctrl-f complaints, something I notice is that Ryan being so literal means he's missing the "We are saying this in a way that it makes it hard to object to as supporting evidence for a very subjective conclusion." a-la the recent Supreme Court ruling on criminal charges against presidents.

[@zombiebaker]

You mean the law that has been around for quite a while... and only has been surficed seriously due to political bias that's was pushed so hard that the court had to go on record to state the obvious....

[@BrandonCRFC]

I hope you hold all democrat-based documents in the same regard...although, I doubt you do.

[@justinloup]

This isn't so much a case of outright lies as it is conflation. While project 2025 doesn't explicitly address many of the assertions made. Most of the assertions are deeply held goals by many authors of project 2025. It is a conservative wish list, you have to admit. And justice Thomas has explicitly stated he would like to see the end of gay marriage. All he's waiting for is some litigant to bring forth the appropriate lawsuit.

[@citricdemon]

that's true, you're correct. I'm reading the other comments and they don't seem to understand that.

[@askingwhy123]

Exactly. Vance has spoken against no-fault divorce. Vance and Trump want to raise the eligibility age for Social Security. This is clearly not all Project 2025, but it all aligns with the general beliefs of Republican leaders.

[@bookernoel6471]

Oh, it's much more than a conservative wish list. It's basically a roadmap of Stephen Miller's most obscene fantasies and Donnie Doucheb*g's most extreme promises. There is nothing in the summary document that is materially incorrect in that context, and that's what we must guard against at all costs.

[@mitchconner403]

@@askingwhy123 There are two different types of Republicans right now. The new MAGA republicans, and the Old Guard Bush era Republicans. the two are at constant odds

[@Jeff456-p3c]

I'll take my chances with trump

[@metaleggman18]

The issue with this video is that a lot of these topics, while they're not in the "document", they're issues that matter quite a bit to the higher echelon of the Heritage foundation. To use the first example, yes, it's not in the document, but many want to bring back fault-divorce. Not fault-divorce and the subsequent required alimony system it coincided with, just the fault-divorce aspect. The VP candidate for Donald Trump has even spoken on his belief of bringing back the fault-divorce system. On one hand, I like your style of videos, and while you're not technically wrong from the way you frame it, when you have people in an organization, they also represent that organization to a certain degree. So if powerful people in said organization espouse non-official stances, ones mimicked by others in the party, powerful people, one can reasonably infer that what they put to paper may just be their sanitized, official stance, mostly for the purposes of accountable deniability. It doesn't mean they don't believe nor wish to enact those things if they get the chance. And let's be real, we live in an age of plutocrats and autocrats running political schemes to mold the United States into *their* world, not the world the majority of Americans actually want. The majority of America is far less political and polarized than the media wishes us to think. This is also trivially exposed on the right when you see many, frankly if not most, conservatives are single issue voters, voting for the party simply because they're protecting or advocating for a single political notion they believe in. Frankly, many 2Aers would give up their hands to vote for people who claim to protect their right to bear arms. Basically put a 2A carrot on a stick, and those voters will do and think whatever you tell them to. Progressive voters can be single issue voters as well, but generally less so.

[@aufmpe]

My gut told me not to trust this guy, and I should’ve listened. I’m disappointed in myself. I’m gonna stay subscribed for another week to see if he makes corrections, but my gut is telling me that he won’t. Never trust a guy with a cigar in one hand and a shot in the other. He’s more interested in how he appears than doing the right thing.

[@Moshe_Dayan44]

Nice try, Vladimir. Ryan is the genuine article. You're a KGB shill, whether you know it or not. Enough of Projekt Infektion and efforts to sow confusion and undermine confidence in any sources of information. I don't always agree with every assertion or conclusion Ryan makes, but as former Int. person myself, I can tell you he's a good guy, not a bad guy.

[@Warp10x]

Oh boo hoo he didn't confirm my biases I'm crying to Mommy.

[@veneroso3337]

​@@Warp10xyou mean, acknowledge reality? People who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

[@hookedblades6471]

​@@veneroso3337Ha, funny when a leftist uses that quote. Half of y'all's politics are exactly focused on that mentality.

[@veneroso3337]

@@hookedblades6471 better than being a fascist. But you're a free thinker, right? There's a video that Beau of the Fifth Column did three years ago. It's called "Let's talk about Trump's Accomplishments" really worth a watch if you can make up your own mind.

[@jemborg]

Yeah, I know the left isn't perfect Ryan but I agree with others here, you've hit your level of incompetence "both-siding" this pamphlet with Project 2025.

[@westernhowler8985]

your right, the left is worst.

[@GarrFagen]

Exactly. Why do these people think they need to weigh in on every topical issue? He an Elon should have a "conversation" too. Such a wanker. Stay in your own lane, Ryan.

[@jemborg]

@@GarrFagen indeed. Makes me think of the bible verse, something about criticising someone for the mote in their eye whilst ignoring the beam in their own.

[@CuriousRoach]

Sorry, but why are you not talking about effective tax rates? Because it looks too bad? The effective fed tax rate of 15% is $110k a year in 2023! That means anyone with income under $110k/year will pay more taxes! The less you make the more taxes you will pay. For example an effective rate for $60k/year is 9.1% for today. Project 2025 literally means that you will pay +6% more taxes with $60k/year income. An effective tax rate for $168k/year is 18% in 2023. That literally means that you will pay 3% less taxes for $168k/year. So yes. Anyone with an income under $110k will get poorer and anyone with an income $168k+ will get even more richer.

[@vacri54]

and given that the US median full-time salary is 55-60k, that means that most salary earners will be hit.

[@Sir_Maximus_Hardwood]

If you earn less than I think it was $43000 a year your taxes will go up under project 2025.

[@KingSizzle21]

One of the things I thought was hilarious about this is that trump, once he saw how much most people hated project 2025, he lied and denied it had anything to do with him (despite most of the people who wrote it being from his inner circle). Then he came out with “project 47,” which is exactly the same for the most part: fire everyone from any position that isn’t a party loyalist (like the Nazis did), so that his far right agenda has no obstacles. As a vet, after seeing what they would do to destroy and privatize the VA, and after the two bad wars the GOP sent me to fight, I’ll never vote Republican again. They lost me when they fought against the Post 9/11 GI Bill (claiming it was “too generous”), but now I’m never voting GOP again until they stop hating working class people and vets because I’m both.

[@mash2481]

Sure sounds like Vance wants to end “no-fault divorce”. In 2021 he gave an interview saying that we shouldn’t make it “easy for people to change marriages like they do underwear”, “even if they’re violent marriages”.

[@diane8996]

And conservatives use the 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie' playbook. They are always going to want more and the request for a cookie is just to get their foot in the door. Their chant to end "no-fault divorce" is a plan to end ALL divorce. You can see the truth in this in how they constantly repeat "studies" that show "heterosexual married families have better and healthier children". Which those "studies" are filled with their own bias and lies.

[@RoonMian]

Yeah, but if you hit ctrl-f and search for it you won't find it in this one specific documents so it must be all lies, right? (Attention: Sarcasm)

[@dzcav3]

The question is "What's in the document?"; NOT "What does Vance think?"

[@stefanb6539]

@@dzcav3 No, the question is: Is this inaccuracy enough to brand someone as "likely a Russian active measure", as Ryan just did at the start of the video. Because they made inaccuracies with their sourcing? That is rich, considering Ryans ideas about "kinetic measures" from about a week ago.

[@LarryWater]

The divorce process is nowhere close to be like changing underwear.

[@briancampbell5534]

OK, I could only make it 10 minutes in before I wanted to scream. The bullet list is about the long-term implications and potential inferences of the heritage foundation blueprint. Of course it would not be spelled out. It requires the reader to read through the document, understand why the Heritage Foundation is proposing the items, and finally extrapolate the long-term consequences. For example when supply-side economics or reagonomics were introduced the long-term consequences were not understand by the average person at the time. Now we have enough time to see what happened and project what may happen in the future. This is always a struggle for conservatives because they think in black and white. They have angst in the now while wearing rosy eyes glasses of privilege and the good old days. It is about protecting those in power plain and simple. I hate using racism as an example. A document can be racist or use racist dog whistles WITHOUT using overt racist terms. The same can be said in restrictions on women rights. All we know is the Heritage Foundation provides blueprints that have been historically adopted by various conservative administrations. There are severe downstream implications that obviously HF is blind to or willfully ignore.

[@sid1gen]

Very well said. Dog-whistles like "inner city crime" became infamous because Reagan and his henchmen started using it. Did they use the words that truly conveyed what they meant? No. In the old Soviet Union they used "cosmopolitanism" as a catchword for "Jewish." It was a crime, too. But a person was never charged for being a Jew, only for being "cosmopolitan." The cosmopolitans were all Jews, of course

[@zoundstreetop]

Or consequences which they want and hope we won’t object to. But they’d never say something like…”a second revolution that will be bloodless if the Left allows.”

[@worldofdoom995]

so again you guys just make shit up and gaslight the right into doing what you wish they would do so you can feel like the good guy.

[@mreforme]

The fact you cannot listen to someone else's analysis without getting so triggered that you want to scream says more about you, than it does the quality of his analysis.

[@ChristopherGray00]

the majority of these bulletpoints straight up did not exist in the document though, the ones that did have long term implications were noted as partially true, so i don't see your point here..

[@Stannum-Aura]

19:57 I’m sorry what? Privatizing the TSA is ridiculous. It should be the government defending us, not a random company who’s only motivation is money.

[@cameronnovy3718]

Ahh yes, because government security is so much better than private. The private security company would have a major incentive to make everything as safe as possible, few would choose to pay for substandard security. Those that did would get a lousy reputation and would likely lose out on ‘customers’. That’s how the private sector generally works, you put out the best product you can. If it isn’t up to snuff, they’ll go somewhere else for a better product. This incentivizes making the best product producing competition that drives the baseline up, the government has no such incentive.

[@Stannum-Aura]

@@cameronnovy3718 yeah it is, you want to know what happens when businesses have power like that? Look at Blackrock

[@fredmdbud]

@@cameronnovy3718 monopoly, anyone?

[@Einsteinbomb]

​@@cameronnovy3718 Yeah, I heard Argenbright Security and Globe Aviation Services did a magnificent job going 4/4 on that one day in 2001.

[@fredmdbud]

@@cameronnovy3718 then why not privatize tax revenue collection? or is it something about functions being inherently governmental. hmmmm. but you'll love the many collection-style calls and letters, because of profit incentive and what not.

[@vasilizaitsez7455]

- SCHEDULE F - Good quick breakdown. You have to read a bit deeper for some items. Even though there is no direct effort to eliminate unions, there is a plan to move significant numbers of employees over to Schedule F employees removing most if not all of their union protections.

[@swannman169]

Page 14 “we need a ruling elite to make decision for us.” So the document says we need a special social class of rich people to decide how American should live?! Nope I don’t think so. 16:30 for a time stamp.

[@screenname153]

I think you're misreading that paragraph. I think it's saying that the left sees this as moral decay and that's why the left needs to serve as A ruling class

[@askljdf12325]

Read the sentence carefully. It doesn't say what you think it says.

[@swannman169]

@@askljdf12325 I read the entire paragraph. That is exactly what it says.

[@davewillson262]

@@askljdf12325 Seems pretty clear: "To the Left, these assertions of patriotic self-assurance are just so many signs of our moral depravity and intellectual inferiority-proof that, in fact, we need a ruling elite making decisions for us."

[@nunyabidness3075]

It says the Left thinks we need an elite class because of our history of choices. Basically, the opposite of what you think it says. The document was written by a bunch of academic types, so it’s not a clear read.

[@KoRntech]

This was a bit disappointing, Yes the How to manual doesn't specifically say some of those things but then neither does the financial industry where sun down towns and red lining are still in effect even if they're not specifically spelled out.

[@darkocelot7342]

He seems to word-search for one or two words and if it doesn't immediately say the exact same thing as in the infographic it's "clearly false". Disappointing indeed from "The guy who checks". To me he clearly didn't "Check" enough to read the whole document before declaring as if fact these things definitely don't exist inside it.

[@Joelice]

@@darkocelot7342 Why not supply the page and say what he got wrong? You know be helpful. Or are you just a bot repeating what someone else said?

[@sonicpsycho13]

As SCOTUS once said, "A ban on yamakas is a ban on Jews." Just because a policy doesn't have an overt effect doesn't mean the effect isn't there. We all know anti-sodomy laws are just anti-gay laws

[@Butterkin]

So basically the official document outlining the roadmap and the agenda doesn't actually outline the real agenda because everyone enforcing it is just going to do the opposite of what the agenda says when they get in? Did you even watch the RNC? Plenty of people from all creed and walks of life were represented as delegates. Yet you're over here saying that those same delegates who are LEADERS of the GOP are going to implement sun down towns federally? Think hard, think really hard.

[@Twizzzums]

Or do you just want Project 2025 to be as bad as possible so you can pat yourself on the back? I mean firstly, Trump has already said that’s not his plan though he likes a few concepts of it like the school lunch funding going to the kids who actually need it. I’ve gone through the website and sifted myself and Ryan is correct. People who just read the headlines got fucking PSYOP’d and now have to cling to their unfounded position to justify the primal reaction they initially had to it. So 1) It’s not as extreme as most people thought And 2) In the even Trump rolls his ass back into the WH it won’t be implemented.

[@andrewduff2048]

The affordable care act never made anyone offer coverage for contraception if they had a moral objection. It made them tick a box that said they had a moral objection to birth control and then the federal government would cover it. The hobby lobby case happened because they objected to ticking a box that would start a chain of events where the end result was their employees got birth control.

[@jdotoz]

Why is the box even necessary?

[@jdotoz]

@@johnroscoe2406 What business is it of the government?

[@macmcleod1188]

​@@jdotozthe government is the people. And a majority of the people in the country want to provide birth control for young women Hobby lobby was not required to provide birth control. The representatives of many women and Democratic people had put in provisions such that the government would provide birth control if the business declined. Hobby lobby insincerely declined to decline.

[@jdotoz]

@@macmcleod1188 So if a later government decides to ban contraception, you'd consider that legitimate?

[@Lunkanize]

@@jdotozhow is that even close to part of this discussion?

[@quantum_beeb]

This document is meant to further the republican platform. Which is all these things

[@urtaxwiz]

The info screen seems mostly accurate to me. Follows Project 2025 policy guide as well as training videos produced by the organization. Also private conversations of all of the impactful players in this group. No default divorce is promoted by JD "Shady" Vance as well as others. Heritage Foundation have been well documented as anti female reproductive rights. More than what the document proscribes is what the 120 organizations cited in the document have been actively promoting and fighting for over the past 50 years. Nothing about this document is good for Americans. And much of a similar policy document provided by the Heritage Foundation in 2016 was implemented by Trump through Executive Orders in his first administration, which circumvent Congressional oversight.

[@jeffslote9671]

@@urtaxwiz A lot of the ideas are very good. Limiting so called reproductive rights is a good thing

[@countdeku646]

@@jeffslote9671found the Russian bot

[@huxm5259]

Hot take anyone preventing kids from getting school lunch should go to prison with no food

[@pkrakras3561]

Here Ryan has put on too big a pair of trousers.Just contoling keywords is a bit too easy, I wonder if he has read the entire document in its entirety.

[@musiqlgreen6141]

​@@pkrakras3561yeah I'm wondering that too 900 pages is a lot to comprehend thoroughly, especially into absolute yes or no facts.

[@maxbalata5916]

Ctrl+f and then not finding the exaact wording as the meme is not the same as reading all 900,000,000 pages of that nightmarish crack pipedream

[@guhr1dy]

Taking away school lunches from kids, whether they're, low, middle income (does that still exist?) or high income, just seems like the wrong idea. If we take lunches away because of the kids whose families "could have" afforded lunch for them, how many children in America go hungry? Just like.. shut up and give kids food. This is the first world, no?

[@Rhinopkc]

We do give kids food. There are multiple government programs that give poor people money and groceries.

[@petercornwell5880]

I saw a middle class dad saying how much he loves the school breakfast program. It saves him doing breakfast chores and allows him to have quality time with his kids before school instead, which he said was hugely beneficial to his relationships with them.

[@starsiegeRoks]

​@@petercornwell5880republicans dont care about quality time, some would see it as a waste since it is not a money making activity

[@pspspspssspspps]

that's bullshit, why should i pay the lunch for the rich kid? do you know what a regressive policy is? are you on giving the money of the poor people to the rich ones?

[@choccolocco]

@@Rhinopkc Not enough.

[@LTRand]

Banning abourtion is on page 450, Goal #1 for department of HHS reforms.

[@TheAlchaemist]

If you literally expect them to speak out every detail, you then have not actually read/interpreted it in full. Many of the points you flag as LIE are actually developed using "code speech" and euphemisms. Especially if you consider the document in isolation without considering the voiced opinion of all those who wrote the document, and what they themselves say.

[@TheAlchaemist]

I'd like to add that I have added a couple points pointing to specific parts of the document, where the intentions are clear, and would rehabilitate a couple points which IMHO should have been GREEN. BUT, after a few minutes the comments vanished... YT is often a waste of time.

[@fjgavaller5058]

If project 2025 is so on-the-level, then why's trump trying to distance himself from it?

[@gregtaylor9806]

Because his campaign know the majority of the population don’t actually think or read so the truth doesn’t matter. The term is a lightning rod and not a hill to die on.

[@Opusss]

Because it isn't his agenda and he has his own. This is real basic stuff

[@Tigerheart01]

Because it's not HIS agenda...

[@evanrussell4211]

Because it makes him look really bad. Trumps wants to distance himself from it, even though he's in bed with the people that made it.

[@Rensune]

You understand claiming that "Project 2025" is Trump's is like claiming the Communist Manifesto is Kamala's, right? Neither of them (Trump or Kamala) had ANYTHING to do with the writing of those documents.

[@argentinelawdness]

This makes me wonder if all your other videos are equally shallowly researched to the point that you may be a misinformation source. You post on a bunch of things that I don't have the background to be able to double check your work, but on this issue I AM able to verify it for myself, and it is not inspiring confidence. You should do a followup where you debunk your own misinformation, but after actually reading the underlying document this time.

[@TanyaLairdCivil]

Seriously. The document proposes bringing back the Comstock Act into enforcement. That act effectively banned abortion across the US. It prohibited the transport of any medicine or equipment used in abortions from being sent through the mail. Abortion clinics don't have blacksmiths on site forging surgical tools and chemistry labs making pills. They require goods and equipment like anything else does. And that mostly comes through the mail. Even private shippers like Fedex and UPS often rely on the Post Office for last mile service. And I am not the first one to point this out. The re-enforcement of the Comstock Act is one of the most talked about parts of Project 2025.

[@sircolinlesleyrowling]

Yep , I've noticed a pattern with Ryan , it's a little red flag that I've seen pop a few times now ,, remember he's friendly with Gorka 🚩

[@jozefkovac6858]

​@nisanight2247Then decipher it and make a video, lol.

[@TukaihaHithlec]

I realized this when he said that native English speakers use single or triple exclamation points, but double indicates that English isn’t a first language. Double as a maximum is recommended and triple is discouraged in Canadian schools. Not even British or Australian, but Canadian, the country where most Americans and Canadians can’t readily distinguish each other. What nonsense.

[@JohnDorian-j7x]

​@@TukaihaHithlec Bruh... he's talking about common, normal, regular people's parlance. 100%, Americans definitely don't often use double exclamation points... they almost always use one or three or any other number than two of them. I don't know about Canada specifically, but i've never had a Canadian friend use double exclamation marks when texting me or posting something, but they have used one exclamation point all the time. Regardless, this is an extremely weird and picky thing to point out from that video... there's plenty of other worse examples he's done.

[@cgriff1489]

Here’s the problem. I’m not a die hard democrat by any means. I care about what’s true, and what is true is I’ve seen dozens of prominent Republicans SAY some of the very things this document claims. So while, yes, this specific document is definitely lying about project 2025, I’m still very much concerned conservatives want to drastically diminish our rights and freedoms.

[@daxeckenberg]

you are aware that you can be for some of these conservative things but not before the entire plan correct? would you not expect there to be some overlap between project 2025 and other conservative plans?

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

This is a good video made of pretty stories but *NO.* The problem I have with this analysis is you’re taking a lot of the official document at face value because the Republicans always say their policy is not as bad as their critics claim. Turns out they’re worse! For Example abortion bans in Texas and Ohio, the Republicans said, “Oh we have exceptions for Rape Incest and Life/Health of the mother. The problem is you have to go to a court where hand picked judges decide whether or not your allowed to get an abortion and as we have seen a lot of these hand picked judges make decisions based on faith not science. All this video does is give benefit to the doubt to a party that should have lost all of it years ago.

[@vacri54]

Gotta be honest - your debunk of the first item was so iffy, I went to the comments to see if others were squeamish about it. And yeah, it's not a great debunk - "I could only find the word 'divorce' once!". It's really worrying when someone who specialises in finding misinformation just assumes that dogwhistling and subtext simply isn't going to be a thing for a given political topic. Continuing on, it continues to be at the level of "I didn't find the exact word in a search", as if politicos never use euphemisms. edit: Ryan, you give it away at the end at 22:40. The entire video you've been talking about the literal verbiage of the document, free of any subtext, context, or history of the people and party driving it... but you say "if you have to make up [blah] against an opposing *party* ". So... "the DOCUMENT in question doesn't literally say that... so that means the infographic is making stuff up about the PARTY"? If you do widen your scope to the party, then yes, things like full bans on abortion are *routinely* mentioned by them. Just... sad to see this from you. I don't come to you for in-depth nuanced political analyses, but I also don't come to you for this... crap. If you want to be conservative, then say you're conservative. Call yourself a moderate conservative. Be honest about it. Don't pull this "I'm a centrist" nonsense and then release misdirecting stuff like this.

[@TheRealBunnyMan]

Think what you want about it but it is quite literally not true. The info-graphic says that ending no fault divorce is a goal of the project 2025 plan. You're saying that ending no-fault divorce seems like a natural conclusion of their priorities or that it is somehow implied when it is, again, not in the document. They're not the same thing.

[@RakeeshJ4]

@@TheRealBunnyMan What’s the title of this video? ‘Lies About Project 2025’. Searching the document for specific words and phrases, not finding them, and concluding that a given policy isn’t sought is…well. It isn’t at all the level of sophistication he brings to military matters analysis, or analyzing whether a specific source is backed by a foreign government. Which isn’t so surprising, really. He doesn’t (or didn’t) tout himself as an American domestic politics authority…which was for the best.

[@SRocinante]

Well the discussion is over what the document contains, so if you are talking about what the party wants outside of the document, it isn't really relevant to the discussion.

[@veneroso3337]

​@@SRocinantepretty sure that the constitution doesn't say that a president is immune from prosecution, yet here we are. Pretty sure that if you stage an insurrection that you can't hold office in the United States. Yet, here we are. It's absolutely relevant and why people tell you who they are, believe them. I hope that you don't have a daughter, because if this comes to pass, she will be a second class citizen.

[@andyghkfilm2287]

@@TheRealBunnyMan ending no-fault divorce is literally part of the 2025 plan.

[@Valohir666]

A thorough deep dive into Heritage Foundation goals, instead of hyper focusing on one publicly printed document would show that all the bullet points are accurate. Ryan is basically spreading HF propaganda while claiming to be centrist.

[@leepope3500]

@@Valohir666 I had no choice, my gut told me I had to unsubscribe.

[@rere-x6g]

When an effort to make policy appear in your mind fails then you must blame it on some other imaginary writing or interpretation.

[@sketchtwenty2]

I am a lifelong Democrat who is as dismayed by the "alternative truths" propounded by the left as by the right. Thank you for your service to facts and common sense.

[@colew306]

There is still some scary shit in the Project 2025 documentation. For those interested, Wikipedia does a great job distilling it down some.

[@nate32396]

Wikipedia where the top editors have a bias.

[@johanmikkael6903]

​@@nate32396 As Opposed to the people who created the Project? Yeah we can't have anything without a bias these days 😅

[@Calebe428]

@@nate32396 LITERALLY everything has bias except for like math and (usually) science. This video has bias to some degree too

[@KuroNekoExMachina]

@@nate32396 Facts have a liberal bias right?

[@NitroDragon]

@@nate32396 Because you cannot be bothered to check the wiki sources you are literally the reason for some teachers tirades against wikipedia. People like you are the problem. Not the editors.

[@BNETT21]

I think you should make followup to this about the talking points that weren't in the documents but members of the movement have been caught on video saying.

[@gorkyd7912]

If there are ideas not in the document then they are not in the document. This is no different than calling every Democrat a socialist based on statements from people they've associated with at some point. Biden met with Xi Jinping and they were on friendly terms so clearly Biden must be a socialist.

[@lxstcheckll9348]

Using social conceprukisatikn with administrative assertion doesn't mean anything and is not aligned with Trump or right-wing people at all. Use your critical boots, Trump had this member in his office, yet he didn't enact their written ideas. Removed them from their campaign and made them get rejected from his campaign. That says a lot bud. Stop fussing around and study philosophy, so your logical fallacy will be less apparent

[@choccolocco]

@@lxstcheckll9348 Not a logical fallacy but the facts. The videos don’t lie, but the internet does. They’ve told us for years what they want, and this document is simply a road map on how to do it.

[@MirraMazDuur]

Ryan, I have to join the chorus here in the comments and say while I'm usually really impressed by your work this really drops the ball. Your assessment is a very superficial review that seems to assume the writers of this document would not try to obscure language.

[@user-ho1yn6ms7y]

It’s so hard to fact check all this because even if the text of Project 2025 doesn’t say exactly what’s stated, it often says something very similar but worded in a way that’s a little more vague. But also, it’s easy to get confused because Republican politicians very often do say these things, even if they’re not officially part of Project 2025, so where do we draw the line? For instance, VP candidate Vance is on the record as advocating for the exact bullet points listed first, I.e. no-fault marriage, no exceptions, etc. So if the majority of the current Republican Party does believe and advocate for most of these policies, even if those positions aren’t explicitly stated in Project 2025, is there really a difference? Not a super liberal here, just pontificating.

[@Wolfboy607]

Careful nerd, that's how you skip over the liberals and enter the left proper. We welcome you, anyway.

[@archie8767]

The right is heterodoxical. That's your explanation. There's a lot of overlap, but particular enforcement or how it should be pursued differs and is substantively different. I'm a conservative. I'm for social safety nets; however, I oppose faceless money-lending and believe it is harmful to the social fabric. A lot of conservatives are against no-fault divorce. Marriage has pronounced social implications, especially on the stability of children. It shouldn't be easy to make a decision that will likely harm the children psychologically and will negatively impact society down the road.

[@meRyanP]

This is a rare big L for you, Ryan. Did you just hit ctrl+f and not find the buzz words and ignore context? This is bad, I'd say bad enough that it dances on the line of YOU spreading misinformation.

[@abc123number1america]

Exactly what I felt

[@xalaxie]

not just dancing, clearly stepping way way over that line

[@bblvrable]

Whoever created that graphic basically included every right-wing wishlist item as if it were in Project 2025. Sadly, it misses a huge amount of things that *are* in the document that are pretty bad, such as Schedule F, which would make expert merit-based positions within the federal government subject to loyalty and ideology tests, and able to be dismissed by political appointees.

[@thomassenbart]

How do you know that someone is in a position due to merit and is not ideologically driven, i.e., Fauci and a host of others? The problem with the Federal bureaucracy is it has become extremely powerful and basically acts in many cases, as an unelected legislature, generally pushing Left-wing agenda projects.

[@rurak2727]

That is the most essential part of Project 2025 I‘d say: Trying to politicise all aspects of government. Instead of a trained social worker, you now have a racist ableist giving out food stamps. And that goes for everythint

[@thomassenbart]

@@rurak2727 Government is inherently politicized. That is the nature of the beast. If you don't recognize this fact, you are naive.

[@worldofdoom995]

no they didn't they put in everygaslight bullshit that leftists have been screeching for seven years

[@userequaltoNull]

@@rurak2727 The problem is that the government is already highly politicized. There is an extremely neoliberal bias among our institutions and it's only competitor has been neoconservatism. The fact of the matter is, that from a populist-right perspective, they are simply "balancing the scales", which are already out-of-whack in precisely the manner you have described.

[@maryannedouglas]

Sorry Ryan, i have to leave now. Enjoyed your Ukraine videos, but no...just no. Wish you all the best 💋💋💋

[@MikeyD8716]

Getting the Supreme Court to approve Pro Right policies isn’t going to be hard.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

At this point, that sort of thing is "day that ends in a y."

[@lexslate2476]

Perhaps Ryan has forgotten what McConnell's personal project for the past few decades has been.

[@ugiswrong]

We need a right wing century to get us situated for space colonies

[@lexslate2476]

@@ugiswrong Sooo.. slowing the economy down is necessary for space travel? Seriously, look at which party's presidencies see more jobs growth and which ones show more debt growth. Hell, sort US states by median income and see what the top and bottom five are.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@lexslate2476 Job growth measured relatively to what? Of course jobs grew after lockdowns ended.

[@jaredharmer7047]

Ryan, it’s not as simple as ctrl+f. Conservatives intentionally destroy things indirectly to avoid bad press. See: “Right to work” “States rights” “Separate but equal” etc etc

[@jer1014t2th]

"Right to work" refers to individuals being able to work in a given job sector without being forced into a Union if they don't want to be in one.

[@jaredharmer7047]

@@jer1014t2th It doesn’t refer to sectors, we don’t have sector unions in the US. Regardless, everyone knows right to work laws destroy unions, that’s the only reason those laws exist.

[@jer1014t2th]

@jaredharmer7047 it destroys union monopolies, yes. I was using "job sector" as a general term, not a specific one.

[@jaredharmer7047]

@@jer1014t2th you used the term incorrectly, right to work specifically just means you can work at a unionized workplace without paying dues. Nothing to do with monopolies or sectors

[@jer1014t2th]

@@jaredharmer7047 thank you for the correction.

[@cloudycolacorp]

I like that everyone is suitably angry at project 2025. Even if people are embellishing stuff whilst de-weaselifiying the document's official language, heritage foundation just put out their dystopia project out in writing

[@TRYCLOPS1]

Only liberals are “angry” 🤷‍♂️

[@Matt-xc6sp]

@@TRYCLOPS1You’re too tired defending it with lies to be angry I guess

[@chrispreston8451]

This did not address that the Heritage Foundation pre vetting the Supreme Court judges that were appointed by Trump and then promptly overturned Row.

[@daxeckenberg]

where in the infographic did that get mentioned?

[@MichaelRatkowski-u2x]

Your fan base is a smart group of people, happy to read the comments.

[@Andrew-C-Witham]

1:49 The BBC is not owned or funded by the UK Government. There is miss information right there. It is an independent Public Corporation set up by Royal Charter. It is funded by a licence fee.

[@RJStockton]

The license fee is enforced by law and the BBC receives hefty government subsidies when people inevitably duck paying their licenses. There is also a revolving door between mid-level ministerial posts and the BBC board, which makes it essentially the same people on both sides of the relationship. Also, given the lockstep synergy on government propaganda that the BBC proudly displays, if it was an American entity it would be bound to the First Amendment as if it's a government agency.

[@KasumiRINA]

@@RJStockton you are confusing PUBLIC BROADCASTERS from state media. They are literally opposite things. Independent public broadcasters getting subsidies and then using them to talk shit about government isn't the same as being mouthpiece of the ruling party.

[@Andrew-C-Witham]

@@RJStockton My post pointing out miss information is factually correct. It is false of you to assert that there are government subsidies to cover licence fee evasion. This is completely untrue. Non of the board members are former MPs let alone ministers. Again you are wrong. And its something that is easy to look up if you cared. Your opinion on the output is irrelevant if you don't care. Its a great mistake to look at the world by trying to shoehorn the things you see into US institutions. You will miss so much.

[@frakismaximus3052]

Ah yes, it has the charade of not being government, how could anyone forget that.

[@noellinder99]

Enlightened centrism at it’s worst here Ryan…

[@smoking566]

I still believe all schools should be given free meals but schools & communities should be looking to produce their own food and use it as education tool same with clothing like school uniforms & P.E uniforms ect