this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
420 points (83.1% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3948 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sofsip@sh.itjust.works 21 points 9 months ago (3 children)

There is a bluprint out there in the open :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Some people are seriously planning to take down US democracy...

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Seems like a good reason for the party to adapt in order to secure as much participation from as many likeminded voters as possible.

"Not Trump" is not as universally convincing as I fear the party is assuming. It's sufficient for you and I, to be sure.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Right. I didn't address this in my comment because I wanted to focus on Trump himself. Whatever Trump does, he'll likely use this plan to destroy our democracy.

If Trump gets into office again, our best hope would be that 1) the institutions can survive Project 2025 and 2) Trump and Co are too incompetent to enact their plans. I wouldn't want to bet my life on either of these, though. A better hope is to work to keep Trump (and anyone else like him) away from any position of power all the way from President to city councilman.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reagan started to get in to ideas of unitary executive theory and Bush was another proponent. The founders often debated, famously Hamilton, what the "executive" role actually meant for the office, and it was left vague as a lot of their ideas were. In the context of the time you had landowners being allowed to vote, the whole point of the government was basically to ensure no states had power over any other, then over time the executive branch developed and expanded and presidents had to see what that meant testing limits over time. I don't think this plan would be successful and if it were it would probably be bad by virtue of who would be in power.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Landowning was never a requirement on the federal level in the US. It was allowed to be a requirement for the states for a little while, few states bothered and the ones that did gave it up.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Look in to the men's suffrage movement, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky were the only three states to have full adult suffrage for white males before 1800.

18th century property qualifications:

Connecticut: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or £40 of personal property

Delaware: fifty acres of land (twelve under cultivation) or £40 of personal property

Georgia: fifty acres of land

Maryland: fifty acres of land and £40 personal property

Massachusetts Bay: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or £40 of personal property

New Hampshire: £50 of personal property

New Jersey: one-hundred acres of land, or real estate or personal property £50

New York: £40 of personal property or ownership of land

North Carolina: fifty acres of land

Pennsylvania: fifty acres of land or £50 of personal property

Rhode Island and Providence Plantations: personal property worth £40 or yielding 50 shillings annually

South Carolina: one-hundred acres of land on which taxes were paid; or a town house or lot worth £60 on which taxes were paid; or payment of 10 shillings in taxes

Virginia: fifty acres of vacant land, twenty-fives acres of cultivated land, and a house twelve feet by twelve feet; or a town lot and a house twelve feet by twelve