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: th-cam.com/play/PLt670_P7pOGmLWZG78JlM-rG2ZrpPziOy.html 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
@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.
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
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
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
@@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.
There's a section that says staticians and analysts as the U.S. Census Bureau and surviving elements of the Department of Education should be dismissed and the positions should be filled with political appointees. Scary stuff man...
Right, it didn't even mention issues with interpretations of the unitary executive and distracted from other issues regarding the lGBT+ community by exaggerating it to involve same sex unions
I think the issue is no one's going to read all 900 pages on their own. That's just being fair. What we do see if the Trump Campaign distancing themselves as much as possible, Publicly denouncing it. Then we see recordings of the creators of the document saying they understand Trump is giving them the wink wink.
Ryan, and folks like myself have probably too much trust in our checks and balances. You’re right, we need to pay attention to the words coming out of their mouths. Extremism is burgeoning in America! Slava Ukraini my fellow fellas! Why is there zero footage of Ryan responding to this thread?
So what? Why does it matter? I can see this document as being just traditional conservatism. This is not radical at all and nothing new that we have not seen. I would be more concerned with RFKs plan for a mandated federal wage of 15$ per hour or Kamala's unwillingness to elaborate what she meant when she said medicare for all and then shifted to residents, and then shifted again to were not doing that. Those are plans that we have never seen before.
Idk I think Ryan knows that, but he is simply responding to the original graphic that claims all it's points are mentioned in project 2025 policy. (Even if they aren't that doesn't mean the heritage foundation does not plan additional policy not present on the mandate.)
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.
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.
@@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
@@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")
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
My suggestion is read the entire 922 pages very carefully. Many parts require loyalty to the "chief executive" above all else, even laws and the Constitution itself. It's a playbook for ending the Constitution of the United States. As you well know, loyalty is to the Constitution, not the president!
Yeah this video really makes me question him. From what I have seen from the leaked training videos it's an all out assault on government designed to consolidate power to the executive branch. Not only that but most of the things on this fake list appeal to Trump's base
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).
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.
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.
@@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.
The part of increasing taxes on the working class is absolutely true! A flat 15% tax bracket of everyone making less than 150k is a significant increase in taxes especially when deductions (like standard deductions) and credits are removed. The median income of $67,000 for a family of 4 will pay $2000-3000 more in taxes annually.
It said remove most deductions. I assumed that meant the niche ones, not the standard deduction. Do you have a source saying they want to remove the standard deduction? Because that would be a huge deal!
Taxes are overly complicated. Also, the two lowest brsckets get a lot of deducción. The lowest brackets pretty much get over 100% back: 1) everything is return on direct taxes on their earning + 2) They get to use social services like everyone else. For the second lowest bracket is when you see a closer representation to around 20 something percent. The 30-40 % is only for those living in places like California. So a simpler tax system at around 20% is good for everyone. Many business chose not to hired young or unskilled labour's due to tax complexity.
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
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.
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.
@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?
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 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.
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
"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?
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?
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
@@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.
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.
@@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.
Not an American and not to deep into the whole thing, but with all due respect, this "debunking" has big "I hit ctrl+f and couldn't find any of the buzzwords, so there is no agenda." energy...
He read the entire document, so if there was anything else he would know, this guy is usually pretty good at this stuff from my experience watching his other vids
Regarding birth control you made a false statement. No company is required to offer birth control in their insurance plan. Companies are required to *tell the government* that they are not providing such coverage, then it is provided by the government. Starting off your video with an obvious lie? What did you say about that?
On the divorce issue, Project 2025 calls for “a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family,” which the playbook defines narrowly as “heterosexual, intact marriage.” and calls for “faith-based programs that incorporate local churches and mentorship programs". The gist is clear...Some marriages and some family arrangements are better than others.
Yeah, just because it may not specifically dictate trans (or probably any minority) people are a no no I get the very strange feeling I may not be welcome in a staunchly conservative world.
"Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations that maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; or poorer behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes. For the sake of child well-being, programs should affirm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith- based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman." Context is important, but I bet you aint even going to read it. Also it's well documented that same-sex marriages contain a disproportionately higher amount of abuse and instability. Which does not mean that it doesn't happen in heterosexual families, but the amount of "trans pedomommies" on telegram should tell you all you need to know.
Ryan's trying _way to hard_ to be an enlightened centrist & missing the forest for the trees. It'd be better if he stuck to the military topics. He either doesn't understand the right & the way they purposefully code their language or he's giving them the benefit of the doubt. When they've proven everytime they're given the benefit of the doubt they screw the people over that they just claimed they'd never do
This is no doubt true, some marriages and family arrangements are exponentially better than others. One need only look at the societal breakdown to verify this.
Vance and other Dominionists have advocated ending no-fault divorce, and I think those statements get rolled into the perception that it comes from the actual document. The threats to Social Security, Medicaid, and the retirement age are very real, but those are directly from Republican politicians, not the P2025 document.
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.
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.
@@user-zb9lv3gh8s 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
@@user-zb9lv3gh8s 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.
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".
"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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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 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.
@@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.
@@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.
‘….Lay down with dogs….pick up fleas…’. The Gorka thing is a laugh - he wears his dad’s and grandad’s medals (on a suit, no less)….i though Ryan would be against ‘stolen valour’…
@@MrTVintro thanks for the heads up. I unsubbed long ago when it started to become obvious that his takes on many issues are very skewed. But anyone that contributes to Newsmax is borderline treasonous. Now i see why 'programming' is in his channel title!
Yeah, really not your best work here. "Not once does the document advocate banning abortion in general" whereas on the screenclip you yourself used, "the next Conservative president should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support" and so on. You actually need to read, not just search for terms.
@@sandollor i think this video boils down to Ryan trying a little too hard to pander the conservative side of his viewer-base.. like yeah i can get that but come on man just show it for what it is
I am in general a fan of Ryan, However, he clearly has not used his standard of intelligence assessment ICE 203 when reading the document. Because the statements in project 2025 clearly fall into the "Likely", "very likely", and "certainly categories". He also never took a second to assess the authors of the document, and what their public statements are centered around these topics.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
"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.
You mean if enough people elect certain politicians to pass certain policies those policies will pass under a representative democracy???? I'm shocked! Shocked!
@@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.
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
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
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 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
@@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.
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.”
@@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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
This is very surface level debunking. It may not specifically destroy Medicare, but if the Schedule F provision gets enacted, the administration can appoint people that can defund anything and not enforce any legislation. If there's no one around to support a law, it's effectively gone. It's the Executive branch's duty to implement policy, but Trump doesn't care about the Constitution or he would have left the office peacefully.
"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?
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.
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 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?
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
16:19 Ryan says there is no blanket ban on African American or gender studies, but on page 5 in the foreword it says just that. That they should be “excised from curricula in every public school in the country.” Ryan I really expected better from you. I found this in 10 seconds of looking at the document.
This video is a perfect example of missing the trees for the forest, or hyper focusing on one small issue while ignoring the larger issue. And some of the really seems to downplay or outright ignore the real events happening in the US that while not explicitly stated in Project2025 are implied based on the Republican voting patterns. Like at 13:38 yeah the document might not explicitly state that Christianity will be mandated to be taught in schools, but Ryan completely ignores the fact that Oklahoma Superintendent said schools must use the Bible in classrooms, or that Louisiana public schools must display the 10 commandments in classrooms. Ryan also seems to forget about the part of Project2025 that says, "Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws" This EXPLICITY states that an employer's religious belief would take precedent over existing nondiscrimination laws. So religious discrimination is ok. If it's your religious belief that women shouldn't work or are against gay/interracial marriage, you are allowed to discriminate. Unless Ryan is somehow completely oblivious to Republican policy patterns or he is also participating in limiting information.
yes!! Ironically, he does more to "misrepresent...the intentions of Project 2025" with this video than does the "Active Measures" infographic itself (which sure, distorts/exaggerates elements of it...presumably for partisan gain..) I mean he basically characterises it as run-of-the-mill think tank stuff - just an innocuous "vision document" lol... what a clown...
I'm assuming that you haven't seen anything else of his. Ryan is focused on disinformation and misrepresenting facts. He doesn't generally comment for or against a particular political position. In fact, he rips into the right way more than he rips into the left, but since Project 2025 is such a hot button issue, more people are seeing this video than have seen his others. Basically, everything you wrote are arguments against Project 2025, and you bring actual talking points with actual quotes from the document to back it up. Ryan himself would say that you are doing a good job presenting your position. But no matter how important you feel your opinion is, it doesn't excuse lying.
@@avrahamhirsch2724 I agree that it's not useful to lie attack project 2025 or anything else. The way he goes about correcting these lies is almost like running cover for Project 2025. He may be trying to be as apolitical as possible, but when you do nothing but point out falsities in the image while doing nothing to point out the actual issues laid out in Project 2025, it downplays the reality of what is implied in the document. Yeah it's not EXPLICITY saying it's going to make Christianity the national religion, but the context of its writers and their own stated positions point in that direction. It's like saying he 1915 Grandfather Clause wasn't racist because it doesn't explicitly target black people to prevent them from gaining voting rights, but in its context it clearly was. The clause said you could only vote if your grandfather had previously voted. Obviously, the vast majority of black people at that time had grandfathers who were slaves and couldn't vote. But the guys who made that law knew that, they just found a way to not appear explicitly racist so that they could have defenders. I've seen Ryan's analysis on End Wokeness, I know he's very analytical. But he is so focused on hard, explicit data and evidence that he fails to read between the lines and see the implications of things that are not said. I think my point is that even though he is TECHNICALLY right, the effect of this video is negative as he fails to show the real harms in this document, like the ones I mentioned in my first comment.
@@avrahamhirsch2724 not about right vs left... (there's an endless stream of disinfo from both sides.. and he can't debunk all of it - he has to be selective..) the problem is his analysis takes one piece of disinfo, and then generalises (or at least implies) that the subject itself is also 'disinfo'... it's so analytically daft.. i've never seen or heard about this infographic - sure, it's exageratted to the point aspects could rightly be characterised as misleading. But this infographic is not why Project 2025 became "a thing"... The document itself - the 900 pages (which he hilariously claims to "have read") - is why it became a thing... it didn't suddenly become a talking point (it wasn't a secret.. journalists etc had been talking about it, well, since it was a project and became known.. which was not with this infographic) basically he's found a single piece of disinfo in a sea of disinfo and reverse engineered an implicit narrative as to the significance of this infographic.. it's sloppy af (ps. i've watched 20+ of his videos; most i think are spot on; a few i've found less compelling/rigorous but still respected. this is the only one where it's just been like: wow.. wtf lol )
@@avrahamhirsch2724 you have left seventeen comments on this channel in total, and they have left over a hundred. Wdym “you haven’t seen anything else of his” lol
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
When reading military manuals you look for the specific meaning. When reading political manifestos you need to read between the lines. Different skill sets.
There is not even a basis for any discussion here. P2025 must not happen, period. There is no if, when or but. The fact that some things are even proposed in the first place DQs the entire thing immediately. This manifesto is basically proposing to roll back the clock some 100+ years in some areas and undo decades of achievements. It is the hardest of hard passes. There is no cherrypicking if the entire cake is made of poop. Remember, in Germany back then, there were people who were unfazed (or at least they claimed to be) when the Nazis won the elections and thought they could control this raving and ranting upstart from Braunau. They thought “No worries, we will keep them in check no problem. How bad can it be?” Needless to say, they were in for quite the surprise. You do not want surprises here. Trust me.
I'll take it on good faith and assume you have been misinformed. Project 2025 is the same Conservative talking points for the last 20 years, it isn't a fascist manifesto. Most of it is devolution of power from federal government to state government, with a bit of department shifting as well.
@@johnroscoe2406 OP said people were unfazed when Nazis won the elections, which is of course a misconception because the Nazis never won legislative power democratically, they famously resorted to a violent coup and purged their political adversaries to seize power. You are out of your depth discussing any political issue at all, given you weren't able to make the connection. Of course, your idea of a substantial argument is to attack me for not specifically naming one of the two Weimar houses of parliament, and your last sentence demonstrates that you don't know what "good faith" means, so there is no discussion to be had with you.
@@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.
@@MrRingworld I think his position is that this is akin to Russian deception. That, I think, tries to intimate that the folks who have already been (quite solidly linked to heritage front and Trump ((all those attached to the doc were his staffers))) means to deflect from the above. I find that disingenuous.
@@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.
the project 2025 documents are the gussied up version of what it's vocal advocates have been saying for a while. sure, the handmaid's tale stuff isn't written down, but they all know what the goals the Heritage foundation are.
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. ❤
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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!
I'm going to check the checker. 8:21 - this is True, not partially true. The document says the 1%, the tax breaks benefit the 1%. Not sure how you got to partial. 9:05 - this is True, not partially true. Project 2025 calls for raising the 2 lowest tax brackets, that is higher taxes. 9:44 - this is Part True, not false. You described a worker protection P2025 seeks to eleminate. 11:45 - this is True, not part true. The language in P2025 calls for ending gov price controls on drugs, the result is going to be higher drug prices. 13:13 - Again you are saying partial true, then go on to explain how the statement is true. 17:05 - AGAIN you say partial true then go on to tell how it is true. I'm stopping at this point. I feel like a teacher and an A+ student has turned in a substandard paper. Ryan, this is not your usually excellent work, is everything alright at home? I'm going to give you an extension, resubmit your essay on Monday.
Ryan has been a displaying a pro-conservative bias for the last 12 to 18 months. And that bias colors his interpretation of the document. While I find his interpretation of the Ukrainian war interesting, I've been increasingly dissatisfied with his stances on U.S. politics. You really need to set aside your fondness from him developed over a couple years of Ukrainian war videos and pretend you were seeing this video the first time from a person you didn't like. What opinion would you form of their beliefs after seeing only this video?
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.
I think he's been *extremely* busy recently, he might be trying to cover too much, and either delegate to people not as serious as he is, or been unable to maintain his standard, i totally get if he didn't have the time to carefully read all these 900 pages, but here it might just be having very much pink tinted glasses, and interpreting the document in the most generous way, putting aside what republicans have been doing in their states and what policies were pushed when trump was president…
imagine thinking standards held just 20 years ago is an authoritarian dystopia. You know, when America was actually a respected and capable country and society.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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”.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
What od you mean divorce is number 1? Do you not realize that having a divorce in certain cases leads to a society with no morals? Nobody is preaching getting rid of divorce, a lot of states have different laws and all states have interpretations and exemptions... Again marriage benefits the poor more than the rich, rich people have more of a reason to remain unmarried and I hope that is what you are implying..
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"
Ban on African Americans and gender study but a subject that covers the topic of slavery and women's rights.. "Educators should not be forced to discuss contemporary political issues but should refrain from discussing certain subjects in an attempt to protect students from the idea with which they disagree." Banning study on African American and women studies? Lie? Subjective or objective from a "unbias" point of view?
Yeah but the document didn't specifically say DEI 🙄 This is a man who claims to be big on intelligence and just takes everything said to him at face value without thinking through the logical conclusions one can draw from the premises. No wonder we spent 15 years trying to find Bin Laden and waged war in Iraq to find the mythical "WMDs". If this is what our country's "intelligence" looks like, we are in a lot of trouble.
@@petercornwell5880Yeah, some of Ryan's interpretations were, uhmmm, generous. To say the least. His debunking is more BS than the meme he was analyzing
You can discuss the historical importance of those past events & movements without peddling the contemporary ideological components that exist in the current climate. I don't know why you're acting like those two things are somehow inseparable.
@@BoneAppTheTeeth "The historical importance of those past events & movements without peddling the contemporary ideological components t" As an American who was born in Taiwan. I never heard of Trail of Tear until some guy did a T-shirt competition online that I entered. As an Asian American, I never learn about the consequences of mass starvation on the mental development of children, the rise of schizophrenia due to starvation like the massive starvation in CCP China, or the Civil War against the slaves or the Trail of Tears. All of which are American history. The 1619 Project is a journalistic initiative that aims to reframe American history by highlighting the role of slavery in the country's founding and its ongoing legacy. The project was launched in August 2019 with a special issue of The New York Times Magazine that included essays, creative works, and nonfiction pieces by historians, journalists, and artists. The project's goal is to help explain the roots of inequality and anti-Black racism in the United States today, and to consider what it would mean to view 1619 as the year the country was founded. Is this what White conservatives are afraid of? Who is peddling the contemporary ideological components? I am not white or black.
This is the first time I strongly disagree with one of your analyses. You have gone out of your way to put the Project 2025 in the best possible light while minimizing the dangers and hostility of the project to democracy and America as we know it. The document you reviewed is guilty of broad generalizations and without stating it includes information from public statements and interviews with Project contributors. When you include the information from other sources like Trump himself, somethings are overstated but very little that is untrue.
Dangers and hostilities such as what? Also, you claim that Trump has made statements.. well, he's made a public statement saying he doesn't believe in the stuff in the document, so, if he's the source of your information, then he also simultaneously invalidates that claim. But, I'll wait for your answer, specifically, what things in the document preset a danger or imminent hostility?
The problem with people like you is your impossible to debate with … I’ll say “ trump has condemned project 2025” which he has , and the most common response is “ you really believe that ??” … you can’t possibly have a conversation with someone who has no basis other than bias
Oh but you ate up the videos where Ryan called out bullshit the right put out. It is extremely likely your glasses are tinted far too blue for this specific analysis. You're welcome to pull up the comments on those anti-right videos to see just how unhinged you sound to those of us not blinded by political fanaticism.
So he did a Control+F for "marriage equality", didn't find it, and concludes it doesn't say anything about it... And so fades the final ember of Ryan McBeth's credibility.
Go on, do you have anything where project 2025 says marriage equality should be removed? I'm sure you have soo much to cite seeing as you have already destroyed Ryan's credentials
@@JohnCollins-vy4nf"There isn't a single line about ending marriage equality." Page 451: "Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden's HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on "LGBTQ+ equity," subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families." I repeat: he did a Control+F for the words "marriage equality" or "gay marriage," didn't find it, and moved on. The truth is, there's ALOT in there about how LGBT families are lesser should be excluded from social programs and grants, should be discouraged by state policy, and come VERY close to saying that discrimination against them (by "faith based" programs because this is the Heritage Foundation and "I hate gays and abortion" is like 99% of their entire religion) should be given legal sanction. As others have said, it's a very surface level take that misrepresents the document and it's intent. Unlike others, I'm not assuming bad faith, but it does make me wonder.
Alright then buddy. tell us all where it talks about ending marriage quality. what page? or would you rather other people spoon feed you information than looking at it yourself?
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.
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....
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@user-wk6ms3ke7kpretty 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.
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
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.
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.
@@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 TH-cam 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.)
Sorry Ryan, love your content, but after a few minutes and reading the comments... seriously, that is an unprofessional slip-up. In german we say "waret den Anfängen" - "beware of the beginning" P2025 is straight out of a 11th century absolutist mind, written in the same style as stalinist and fashist rules.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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..
This surface level dismissal and quite frankly ignorance to what is stated throughout the document has me questioning Ryan's integrity, personal agenda as well as my continued viewership.
Amen to that. I'm a huge fan. But all you have to do is Google. How much to be in the 1% to find out. He's off by 180,000 or "roughly" a third. From multiple sources.
100% with you on this one. To see the entire comment section debunk this video bit by bit is very refreshing, but also indicative that I should simply unsubscribe.
Ryan’s “analysis” just shattered the credibility of this channel. I’m sure his content will surface now & then on my feed and I’ll still give it a look, but I’m hitting the “unsubscribe” button for now. I’m guessing he’ll pick up many new subs from the FOX/Newsmax/OAN crowd, so I’m sure I won’t be missed. His next colab should be with Mike Flynn instead of Jake Broe.
@@acemarcola He was using the number from last year, where it was in fact.. around 600,000. The Biden/Harris admin has done such a terrible job with the economy, that in just one year that number went up to close to 800,000. So, you're technically right, his data on that one factoid is a bit out of date.
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?
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.
There are project 2025 training videos online. Among the instructions, how to hide what they are doing from oversight and FOIA requests by not creating email trails but to meet personally at the water cooler
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.
@@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.
“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.” 🙄
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.
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.
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.
@@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
Mehdi Hassan does a short version of project 2025..it highlights its importance of conservative values. It's a playbook for GOP administration for first 180 days , specifically designed for trump, in case he messes up this time around. With packed conservatives judges at the Supreme Court and majority that might happen in both congress, they will try to pass strict laws based on Christian values. You will like it if you are MAGA , but other half will have problem.
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.
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.
@@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.
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. ;)
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 😞
@@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.
Republican presidents have enacted about 60% of the heritage foundation's mandates for leadership since 1984, so they have been successful in getting their policies in place.
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.
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.
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.
This is how I feel too. I've looked to Ryan to separate fact from cap for military information I don't have the expertise to understand. But being able to decipher Project 2025 is my wheelhouse. Now I have to wonder, how much misinformation have I swallowed by trusting Ryan Mcbeth?
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.
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.
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.
I’m a volunteer researcher (read: non-professional) against Project 2025. A lot of it is as explicitly bad as people think. Some items on the infographic are derived from the founders or spokespeople from the institutions backing P25. I may be able to provide an origin on that infographic and would be available to help. Bear in mind, this infographic originates likely from people like me. Non-professional (though I also worked in intel). Many activist types have good intentions, but maybe not the professional infrastructure to affect change or bring criticism. (I’m also a former republican and volunteered for the McCain and Ron Paul campaigns) Happy to chat/help!
You shouldn't fact-check a fact-check with argumentation If do so this is going lead to anarchy biased and slippery slope fallacy indirectly. Also, the strawman would be crazy.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 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."
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.
“Does benefit ‘the rich’ but also benefits small businesses.” “Small businesses” might have, by definition, “less than 500 employees.”…those poor, poor small business owners. The language about eliminating “most deductions, credits, and exclusions” should be taken to mean that people won’t be getting earned income credits, child credits, etc etc. I read that as a direct attack on the poors, not that they’re going to make billionaires pay their share without loopholes. Several conservatives have openly said they want to cut social security only to have to fall back and retreat from it. They’ve said openly they want to raise the age to qualify for it. Not banning books on slavery? Ok…but Florida removed Hank Aaron’s and Roberto Clemente’s biographies, “When Wilma Rudolph played Basketball,” from libraries. Kinda weird. You jokingly referred to Handmaid’s Tale…well Florida banned that one too while we’re at it. More from Florida “HB7, known as the Stop W.O.K.E. act and officially called the Individual Freedom Act, is an educational gag order. Among other things, it prevents teachers from discussing advantages or disadvantages based on race. Discussion of systemic racism is considered “critical race theory” and not allowed.” Honestly if you’re going to debunk something this important, put in more effort than “I control effed and didn’t find that word one time!” This was low effort and bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I don't understand why you're spending time on this dodgy document. Why not address the actual Project 2025 document or reputable sorce analysis of it? I have to say your tone regarding this document sends the opinion that you believe project 2025 is a harmless organizational statement.
Why don't you discuss what is actually in the document. Aren't there items in there that affect veterans? I don't know why you chose that banner to use? There are so many other accurate pics of what is in it.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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:
th-cam.com/play/PLt670_P7pOGmLWZG78JlM-rG2ZrpPziOy.html
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
@RyanMcBethProgramming seeing the comments, I don't think people even watched, or listened to your video before commenting lol.
@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.
Do we have a "Hi, I'm the guy who checks." shirt? If not we need it.
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
it should be noted that a version is also out there that refers to specific pages where many of these items are noted.
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
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."
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"
Do you have a link to it? I would be interested to hear what he said for myself.
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.
@@ReallyBadJuJu that needs to be broadcast every day
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.
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?
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.
He clearly didn't read it.
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.
@@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.
Misinformation like this sucks because Project 2025 is terrible enough on its own. There is no need to embellish what is already a terrible document.
There's a section that says staticians and analysts as the U.S. Census Bureau and surviving elements of the Department of Education should be dismissed and the positions should be filled with political appointees. Scary stuff man...
100%
Right, it didn't even mention issues with interpretations of the unitary executive and distracted from other issues regarding the lGBT+ community by exaggerating it to involve same sex unions
"embellish"
I think the issue is no one's going to read all 900 pages on their own. That's just being fair. What we do see if the Trump Campaign distancing themselves as much as possible, Publicly denouncing it. Then we see recordings of the creators of the document saying they understand Trump is giving them the wink wink.
It's not just the document, it's what the people who wrote the document are saying when interviewed.
Ryan, and folks like myself have probably too much trust in our checks and balances. You’re right, we need to pay attention to the words coming out of their mouths. Extremism is burgeoning in America!
Slava Ukraini my fellow fellas!
Why is there zero footage of Ryan responding to this thread?
So what? Why does it matter? I can see this document as being just traditional conservatism. This is not radical at all and nothing new that we have not seen. I would be more concerned with RFKs plan for a mandated federal wage of 15$ per hour or Kamala's unwillingness to elaborate what she meant when she said medicare for all and then shifted to residents, and then shifted again to were not doing that. Those are plans that we have never seen before.
Idk I think Ryan knows that, but he is simply responding to the original graphic that claims all it's points are mentioned in project 2025 policy. (Even if they aren't that doesn't mean the heritage foundation does not plan additional policy not present on the mandate.)
But it is about the document. The debunking is about the fake news relating to the document.
You get your information from a TH-cam commentator. Ryan is an expert source of nothing.
Ryan: "Everything is spelled correctly"
Document: "Christian religious BELEIFS"
At least we know, that it was written by human being
@@maksimfedoryak The irony that it scrolls by just as he says that is amusing.
Came here to note the same thing. :-)
🤣
Ryan's obviously a foreign actor paid for by big cigar.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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")
@@frumpycrustL. Your emotional truth is showing.
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.
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.
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..
@@sudpud his whole "fakt-check" is based on searching for buzzwords in the 900 page document. Not on reading it and understanding the agenda.
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.
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.
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...
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?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
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.
Stop smoking ice, bro.
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.
Now consider the fact that the other side is suspicious of your ideas and your motives in exactly the same way.
Being ‘centrist’ isn’t the same as ‘unbiased’.
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.
@@Ranger1812 exposing lies from either side wherever you see them is being unbiased.
@@Letmedoubt And as I said, that isn't what being centrist is. Please don't fall into the trap of 'enlightened centrism'.
"Centrist" is just the middle of wherever the Overton window is at the moment.
@@Ranger1812 more anti-centrist nonsense from extremists who consider "compromise" a sin. good luck functioning outside your bubble.
My suggestion is read the entire 922 pages very carefully. Many parts require loyalty to the "chief executive" above all else, even laws and the Constitution itself. It's a playbook for ending the Constitution of the United States. As you well know, loyalty is to the Constitution, not the president!
end of the day it is just a "wishlist"
@@0devast8r0 And Mein Kampf is just a book.
This guy managed to turn an embellishment fact check into a project 2025 simp video
Yeah this video really makes me question him. From what I have seen from the leaked training videos it's an all out assault on government designed to consolidate power to the executive branch. Not only that but most of the things on this fake list appeal to Trump's base
@@TheStephaneAdam Bingo!
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).
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.
This is something that everyone in DC already does. The conservatives are just implying that they didn't do that before.
😂😂😂 Where are Hillary's emails about Benghazi.....
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.
@@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.
The part of increasing taxes on the working class is absolutely true!
A flat 15% tax bracket of everyone making less than 150k is a significant increase in taxes especially when deductions (like standard deductions) and credits are removed.
The median income of $67,000 for a family of 4 will pay $2000-3000 more in taxes annually.
Ryan doesn't care because he will get a tax cut
It said remove most deductions. I assumed that meant the niche ones, not the standard deduction. Do you have a source saying they want to remove the standard deduction? Because that would be a huge deal!
cite that. i dont trust anime ppl its not personal
Taxes are overly complicated. Also, the two lowest brsckets get a lot of deducción. The lowest brackets pretty much get over 100% back: 1) everything is return on direct taxes on their earning + 2) They get to use social services like everyone else. For the second lowest bracket is when you see a closer representation to around 20 something percent. The 30-40 % is only for those living in places like California. So a simpler tax system at around 20% is good for everyone. Many business chose not to hired young or unskilled labour's due to tax complexity.
People in california oay the same federal taxes as people in arkansas or texas, so i dont understand how this applies,
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
CityNerd has videos on how Project 2025 is bad for cities
What's Going on with Shipping also has 'things to say' about Project 2025 wanting to do things that interfere with shipping.
Please explain
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.
Ryan isn't defending Project 2025. He's merely pointing out a set of lies about Project 2025.
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.
@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?
@@Chloe7324v7hbut Ryan simping for the heritage foundation here is next level BS.
Have you noticed in the training videos they often they speak about "the privilege of serving Trump"? Cult anyone?
you cry about this but are ok with the Duluth model? lmao
Dude what are you on? He is literally braking it down barny style for you to understand. And contrasting it with facts...@user-zb9lv3gh8s
Project 2025 sounds like what would happen if you loaded all the RNC bargain basement bad ideas into Chatgpt
@WackadoodleMalarkey I mean, that's a difference of opinion. I agree with some, and disagree with other parts.
@@Anarcho-harambeismwhat on earth do you agree with ?
@@scottessery100mirror?
@@scottessery100 "the parts that don't matter seem sometimes reasonable!"
I suppose you prefer the communist manifesto that the dems use?
This is truly unfair, much is not said in the project, you are not paying attention to all that was said before..
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.
Not really and your suggestion means you did not watch the video properly.
@@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.
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
@@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.
"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?
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?
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
@@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.
Uterus annexation. It's uterus annexation. It's government seizing control of people's bodies.
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.
@@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.
Not an American and not to deep into the whole thing, but with all due respect, this "debunking" has big "I hit ctrl+f and couldn't find any of the buzzwords, so there is no agenda." energy...
He read the entire document, so if there was anything else he would know, this guy is usually pretty good at this stuff from my experience watching his other vids
@@blep129if you read the document yourself you’ll see Ryan is being very superficial here.
@@conair1973 can you give examples, did you read it? (Not tryna press, genuinely curious)
@@blep129they can’t
@@HugoTheGOAT01 yes we can.
Regarding birth control you made a false statement. No company is required to offer birth control in their insurance plan. Companies are required to *tell the government* that they are not providing such coverage, then it is provided by the government.
Starting off your video with an obvious lie? What did you say about that?
On the divorce issue, Project 2025 calls for “a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family,” which the playbook defines narrowly as “heterosexual, intact marriage.” and calls for “faith-based programs that incorporate local churches and mentorship programs". The gist is clear...Some marriages and some family arrangements are better than others.
Yeah, just because it may not specifically dictate trans (or probably any minority) people are a no no I get the very strange feeling I may not be welcome in a staunchly conservative world.
"Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations
that maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition
of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective
outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact
marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability
(the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual
marriages); financial stress or poverty; or poorer behavioral, psychological,
or educational outcomes.
For the sake of child well-being, programs should affirm that children
require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play
and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the
Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between
any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith-
based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults,
but one man and one unrelated woman."
Context is important, but I bet you aint even going to read it.
Also it's well documented that same-sex marriages contain a disproportionately higher amount of abuse and instability. Which does not mean that it doesn't happen in heterosexual families, but the amount of "trans pedomommies" on telegram should tell you all you need to know.
Ryan's trying _way to hard_ to be an enlightened centrist & missing the forest for the trees. It'd be better if he stuck to the military topics. He either doesn't understand the right & the way they purposefully code their language or he's giving them the benefit of the doubt. When they've proven everytime they're given the benefit of the doubt they screw the people over that they just claimed they'd never do
This is no doubt true, some marriages and family arrangements are exponentially better than others. One need only look at the societal breakdown to verify this.
Vance and other Dominionists have advocated ending no-fault divorce, and I think those statements get rolled into the perception that it comes from the actual document.
The threats to Social Security, Medicaid, and the retirement age are very real, but those are directly from Republican politicians, not the P2025 document.
Its not relevant if the heritage foundation "can" get everything they want.
The fact they want it is enough.
Right!? And with this supreme court Trump got criminal immunity. They could probably get away with more than we think.
@@raintalon6138 wtf are you talking about? yes it is, it's totally relevant if they can get it. wishes aren't real! goofus
@@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"?
@@raintalon6138 that doesn't even follow. and no one on earth could pass ten constitutional ammendments even if they tried
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.
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.
The tax burden is here to stay, I'm sorry to say. You have to rewrite tax policies before raising taxes again.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishis that somehow a justification for shifting it entirely to the lower and middle classes???
@@user-zb9lv3gh8s 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
@@user-zb9lv3gh8s 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.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishyou're right, tax the rich more. Great idea!
Actual lawyers have gone over the Project 2025 document. It is much worse than your apparent understanding of it.
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".
"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.
@@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.
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?
What argument is there for “conservatives” not to get rid of that terrible bill which enshrined that oxymoron into law?
@@gottagowork no they shouldn’t. They should read it like I did.
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.
The ACA barely functions even as that now that there isn't a penalty for not having an insurance plan.
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.
@@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.
@@TCLeMillions of Americans have insurance they would otherwise not have
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
You say "lies" where others may just call it summarizing.
@@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.
@@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.
General reminder that this guy regulary hangs out with Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka and is a frequent contributor to newsmax.
‘….Lay down with dogs….pick up fleas…’. The Gorka thing is a laugh - he wears his dad’s and grandad’s medals (on a suit, no less)….i though Ryan would be against ‘stolen valour’…
He really struck out with this vid, I honestly expected more from him.
casual reminder that attacking people for going on certain news programs you don't like is actual fascist behavior.
@@worldofdoom995 casual reminder that Seb Gorka is an actual fascist and there is a societal obligation to call out fascism when you see it.
@@MrTVintro thanks for the heads up. I unsubbed long ago when it started to become obvious that his takes on many issues are very skewed.
But anyone that contributes to Newsmax is borderline treasonous.
Now i see why 'programming' is in his channel title!
Yeah, really not your best work here. "Not once does the document advocate banning abortion in general" whereas on the screenclip you yourself used, "the next Conservative president should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support" and so on.
You actually need to read, not just search for terms.
It seems the critical thinking cap wasn't on for this video😔
@@squillz8310 Or was it? Purposeful obfuscation is the intelligence community's bread and butter.
@@sandollor i think this video boils down to Ryan trying a little too hard to pander the conservative side of his viewer-base.. like yeah i can get that but come on man just show it for what it is
“But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning.”
Nope, absolutely nothing to read into here. Move along folks.
I am in general a fan of Ryan, However, he clearly has not used his standard of intelligence assessment ICE 203 when reading the document. Because the statements in project 2025 clearly fall into the "Likely", "very likely", and "certainly categories". He also never took a second to assess the authors of the document, and what their public statements are centered around these topics.
Instead of receiving pensions, they want us to have savings instead😂. That is literally increasing retirement age for most American.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@thegooddoctor2009 you're right, we need more immigrants and babies, and possibly immigrant babies
@@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.
"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.
You mean if enough people elect certain politicians to pass certain policies those policies will pass under a representative democracy????
I'm shocked! Shocked!
@@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.
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.
@@johnroscoe2406 Where are the "Far Right GOP" policies of price controls, or installing unelected officials. You don't know what fascism is.
Hey man, there's only one thing we can/must do... Vote Harris and tell as many people you know to vote...
“It doesn’t use the exact language that I hit control F for therefore that’s not what the legislation will do in practice.” Very disappointing video.
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.
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 😂
no I believe that both commenters here have already been radicalized and cannot see a logical vid for what it is
@@MoonRegoliththe irony of the anti-disinformation guy putting out literal disinformation. 🤷♂️
@@MoonRegolith Very well stated!
@@BigBoss-sm9xj Ouch, but fair. :)
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.
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.
Lol k
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
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.
Yeah. This video sort of comes off as Ryan trying to say that Project 2025 isn't that bad, which is a problem.
@@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
Yeah this isn't an argument so I want to hear a compelling argument for your position on why this is the case
@@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.
Implying that the Democratic Party has to revisit its beliefs die to one misleading social media post is so ridiculous
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.”
Unfortunately both sides play that game and bypass our will
@@Andromedon777 Pathetic "Bothsidesism"...sigh
@@Andromedon777 No, this is clearly a one sided issue and nobody should entertain the notion that both sides are guilty of “bypassing the process.”
@@Andromedon777democrats didn’t do it thou
@@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.
Ryan, this is naive analysis P2025 doesn’t say it seeks to ban abortion and no-fault divorce. It attacks their legal underpinnings.
Ryan is engaged in active measures in this video. It's the most reasonable explanation for what's going on.
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.
have you read the document?
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
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.
@@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.
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.
This is very surface level debunking. It may not specifically destroy Medicare, but if the Schedule F provision gets enacted, the administration can appoint people that can defund anything and not enforce any legislation. If there's no one around to support a law, it's effectively gone. It's the Executive branch's duty to implement policy, but Trump doesn't care about the Constitution or he would have left the office peacefully.
"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?
It could. But that's just an assumption.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishan assumption based on mountains of evidence
@@PatheticApatheticnot to mention entire generations growing up in the south believing the civil war was just about "states rights"
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.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfishthat's hardly an assumption. They're saying it in interviews and alluding to it in their documents.
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.
Public vs private schools?
@@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?
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@NitroDragon they should have free school lunches for all the kids in school as they are basically forced to go and held hostage.
16:19 Ryan says there is no blanket ban on African American or gender studies, but on page 5 in the foreword it says just that. That they should be “excised from curricula in every public school in the country.” Ryan I really expected better from you. I found this in 10 seconds of looking at the document.
This video is a perfect example of missing the trees for the forest, or hyper focusing on one small issue while ignoring the larger issue. And some of the really seems to downplay or outright ignore the real events happening in the US that while not explicitly stated in Project2025 are implied based on the Republican voting patterns.
Like at 13:38 yeah the document might not explicitly state that Christianity will be mandated to be taught in schools, but Ryan completely ignores the fact that Oklahoma Superintendent said schools must use the Bible in classrooms, or that Louisiana public schools must display the 10 commandments in classrooms.
Ryan also seems to forget about the part of Project2025 that says,
"Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion
regardless of nondiscrimination laws"
This EXPLICITY states that an employer's religious belief would take precedent over existing nondiscrimination laws. So religious discrimination is ok. If it's your religious belief that women shouldn't work or are against gay/interracial marriage, you are allowed to discriminate.
Unless Ryan is somehow completely oblivious to Republican policy patterns or he is also participating in limiting information.
yes!! Ironically, he does more to "misrepresent...the intentions of Project 2025" with this video than does the "Active Measures" infographic itself (which sure, distorts/exaggerates elements of it...presumably for partisan gain..) I mean he basically characterises it as run-of-the-mill think tank stuff - just an innocuous "vision document" lol... what a clown...
I'm assuming that you haven't seen anything else of his. Ryan is focused on disinformation and misrepresenting facts. He doesn't generally comment for or against a particular political position. In fact, he rips into the right way more than he rips into the left, but since Project 2025 is such a hot button issue, more people are seeing this video than have seen his others. Basically, everything you wrote are arguments against Project 2025, and you bring actual talking points with actual quotes from the document to back it up. Ryan himself would say that you are doing a good job presenting your position. But no matter how important you feel your opinion is, it doesn't excuse lying.
@@avrahamhirsch2724 I agree that it's not useful to lie attack project 2025 or anything else. The way he goes about correcting these lies is almost like running cover for Project 2025. He may be trying to be as apolitical as possible, but when you do nothing but point out falsities in the image while doing nothing to point out the actual issues laid out in Project 2025, it downplays the reality of what is implied in the document. Yeah it's not EXPLICITY saying it's going to make Christianity the national religion, but the context of its writers and their own stated positions point in that direction.
It's like saying he 1915 Grandfather Clause wasn't racist because it doesn't explicitly target black people to prevent them from gaining voting rights, but in its context it clearly was. The clause said you could only vote if your grandfather had previously voted. Obviously, the vast majority of black people at that time had grandfathers who were slaves and couldn't vote. But the guys who made that law knew that, they just found a way to not appear explicitly racist so that they could have defenders.
I've seen Ryan's analysis on End Wokeness, I know he's very analytical. But he is so focused on hard, explicit data and evidence that he fails to read between the lines and see the implications of things that are not said. I think my point is that even though he is TECHNICALLY right, the effect of this video is negative as he fails to show the real harms in this document, like the ones I mentioned in my first comment.
@@avrahamhirsch2724 not about right vs left... (there's an endless stream of disinfo from both sides.. and he can't debunk all of it - he has to be selective..) the problem is his analysis takes one piece of disinfo, and then generalises (or at least implies) that the subject itself is also 'disinfo'... it's so analytically daft.. i've never seen or heard about this infographic - sure, it's exageratted to the point aspects could rightly be characterised as misleading. But this infographic is not why Project 2025 became "a thing"... The document itself - the 900 pages (which he hilariously claims to "have read") - is why it became a thing... it didn't suddenly become a talking point (it wasn't a secret.. journalists etc had been talking about it, well, since it was a project and became known.. which was not with this infographic)
basically he's found a single piece of disinfo in a sea of disinfo and reverse engineered an implicit narrative as to the significance of this infographic.. it's sloppy af
(ps. i've watched 20+ of his videos; most i think are spot on; a few i've found less compelling/rigorous but still respected. this is the only one where it's just been like: wow.. wtf lol )
@@avrahamhirsch2724 you have left seventeen comments on this channel in total, and they have left over a hundred. Wdym “you haven’t seen anything else of his” lol
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
There is a reason most leftists don't specify particulars about Project 2025.
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
@@JoelJ777There are literally dozens of comments specifying things about P2025 above
You just don’t like that it doesn’t serve your liberal agenda
@@JK8No, we don’t like that it’s authoritarian. Maybe you like that but not everyone does.
When reading military manuals you look for the specific meaning. When reading political manifestos you need to read between the lines. Different skill sets.
Read too much between the lines and you will only read what you want to read.
@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding OK. From now on I will intrinsically trust anything a politician tells me because interpretation is bad.
@@McCallumMade When did I say that? U are kinda proving my point here...
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding As if you have a point.
@@McCallumMade My point is that if you "read between the lines" too much, you will just cherry pick what you want to hear.
There is not even a basis for any discussion here. P2025 must not happen, period. There is no if, when or but. The fact that some things are even proposed in the first place DQs the entire thing immediately. This manifesto is basically proposing to roll back the clock some 100+ years in some areas and undo decades of achievements. It is the hardest of hard passes. There is no cherrypicking if the entire cake is made of poop.
Remember, in Germany back then, there were people who were unfazed (or at least they claimed to be) when the Nazis won the elections and thought they could control this raving and ranting upstart from Braunau. They thought “No worries, we will keep them in check no problem. How bad can it be?”
Needless to say, they were in for quite the surprise. You do not want surprises here. Trust me.
I'll take it on good faith and assume you have been misinformed.
Project 2025 is the same Conservative talking points for the last 20 years, it isn't a fascist manifesto.
Most of it is devolution of power from federal government to state government, with a bit of department shifting as well.
The Nazis never had a majority in parliament.
@@johnroscoe2406 Keep telling yourself that
@@johnroscoe2406 OP said people were unfazed when Nazis won the elections, which is of course a misconception because the Nazis never won legislative power democratically, they famously resorted to a violent coup and purged their political adversaries to seize power. You are out of your depth discussing any political issue at all, given you weren't able to make the connection. Of course, your idea of a substantial argument is to attack me for not specifically naming one of the two Weimar houses of parliament, and your last sentence demonstrates that you don't know what "good faith" means, so there is no discussion to be had with you.
Getting the Supreme Court to approve Pro Right policies isn’t going to be hard.
At this point, that sort of thing is "day that ends in a y."
Perhaps Ryan has forgotten what McConnell's personal project for the past few decades has been.
We need a right wing century to get us situated for space colonies
@@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.
@@lexslate2476 Job growth measured relatively to what? Of course jobs grew after lockdowns ended.
I think you are completely out to lunch on this one. As a concerned Canadian, NONE of this document is what democracies strive for
Which part of the document is against Democracy?
He is not advocating for any of this. He is just pointing out that a doc that is reporting to be official is not and is full of inaccuracies.
@@fen3311having supreme executive power in the hands of one person.
The Framers didnt think that was such a good idea.
Wonder why?
@@MrRingworld I think his position is that this is akin to Russian deception. That, I think, tries to intimate that the folks who have already been (quite solidly linked to heritage front and Trump ((all those attached to the doc were his staffers))) means to deflect from the above. I find that disingenuous.
@@bobbafett1849 I mean, can you tell me where to find it in the 900 page docu I'm genuinely curious.
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.
Funny thing about reading between the lines is that anyone can find whatever they like.
@@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.
Sounds like putting words in people's mouths
@@YoBoyNeptuneyes, typical strawman.
They always do it.
I really don't think he wants to read between the lines.
the project 2025 documents are the gussied up version of what it's vocal advocates have been saying for a while. sure, the handmaid's tale stuff isn't written down, but they all know what the goals the Heritage foundation are.
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. ❤
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.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing Doesn't contradict my admonition. The entire project is a baseline for allowing the stuff they DO say in other places.
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?
@@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.
@@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.
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.
Why is the box even necessary?
@@johnroscoe2406 What business is it of the government?
@@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.
@@macmcleod1188 So if a later government decides to ban contraception, you'd consider that legitimate?
@@jdotozhow is that even close to part of this discussion?
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.
100%
It's like Macbeth isn't considering dog whistles. If you don't know it, look up what Lee Atwater said on the topic.
@@alphamikeomega5728
Heck, it’s not even dog whistles at this point, they’ve said it publicity many times loud and clear.
Hint it was!
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!
Ryan MacBeth , i must humbly request that you educate TH-cam Lawyer LegalEagle on this document.
I'm going to check the checker.
8:21 - this is True, not partially true. The document says the 1%, the tax breaks benefit the 1%. Not sure how you got to partial.
9:05 - this is True, not partially true. Project 2025 calls for raising the 2 lowest tax brackets, that is higher taxes.
9:44 - this is Part True, not false. You described a worker protection P2025 seeks to eleminate.
11:45 - this is True, not part true. The language in P2025 calls for ending gov price controls on drugs, the result is going to be higher drug prices.
13:13 - Again you are saying partial true, then go on to explain how the statement is true.
17:05 - AGAIN you say partial true then go on to tell how it is true.
I'm stopping at this point.
I feel like a teacher and an A+ student has turned in a substandard paper. Ryan, this is not your usually excellent work, is everything alright at home? I'm going to give you an extension, resubmit your essay on Monday.
@@johnroscoe2406
100%
Ryan has been a displaying a pro-conservative bias for the last 12 to 18 months.
And that bias colors his interpretation of the document.
While I find his interpretation of the Ukrainian war interesting, I've been increasingly dissatisfied with his stances on U.S. politics.
You really need to set aside your fondness from him developed over a couple years of Ukrainian war videos and pretend you were seeing this video the first time from a person you didn't like.
What opinion would you form of their beliefs after seeing only this video?
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.
I think he's been *extremely* busy recently, he might be trying to cover too much, and either delegate to people not as serious as he is, or been unable to maintain his standard, i totally get if he didn't have the time to carefully read all these 900 pages, but here it might just be having very much pink tinted glasses, and interpreting the document in the most generous way, putting aside what republicans have been doing in their states and what policies were pushed when trump was president…
@@pkrakras3561 Have you?
Dude that project 2025 is something out of an authoritarian dystopia.
At this point point they just want to build a clan of zealous oligarchs.
@@LvL1henchman😮 Like Russia?
@@ziggyc3004except there will only be a few oligarchs and all of them will be fighting each other.
imagine thinking standards held just 20 years ago is an authoritarian dystopia. You know, when America was actually a respected and capable country and society.
It's The Enabling Act. It doesn't have to have real policies except for the one that gives the government to Trump and his owners.
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?
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".
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.
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
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”
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.
I'm so glad this guy allayed my worries about Project 2025. Not really, The guy's just doing a puff piece.
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
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”.
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.
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)
The question is "What's in the document?"; NOT "What does Vance think?"
@@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.
The divorce process is nowhere close to be like changing underwear.
A fact check based on a word search will not show cause and effect.
Thank you for your service.
Well it shows an effect of some kind, though the cause remains in question.
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.
@@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.
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
@@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.
If divorce is #1, you can already see what kind of people wrote this. Rich religious nuts who had an affair and lost half their money.
Watch the video, the graphic was made by a disinformation account likely originating from Russia
While evangelicals are definitely radical, destruction of the nuclear family has caused lots of society's issues.
What does that have to do with religious beliefs at all? Unless you are talking about a particular religion then list that not all religious people
What od you mean divorce is number 1? Do you not realize that having a divorce in certain cases leads to a society with no morals? Nobody is preaching getting rid of divorce, a lot of states have different laws and all states have interpretations and exemptions... Again marriage benefits the poor more than the rich, rich people have more of a reason to remain unmarried and I hope that is what you are implying..
@@anthonydesisto2328 Explain how, please.
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"
They ESPECIALLY hate those partial-truth abortions.
Ban on African Americans and gender study but a subject that covers the topic of slavery and women's rights..
"Educators should not be forced to discuss contemporary political issues but should refrain from discussing certain subjects in an attempt to protect students from the idea with which they disagree."
Banning study on African American and women studies?
Lie?
Subjective or objective from a "unbias" point of view?
Yeah but the document didn't specifically say DEI 🙄
This is a man who claims to be big on intelligence and just takes everything said to him at face value without thinking through the logical conclusions one can draw from the premises.
No wonder we spent 15 years trying to find Bin Laden and waged war in Iraq to find the mythical "WMDs". If this is what our country's "intelligence" looks like, we are in a lot of trouble.
@@RigelOrionBeta C’mon. You give him too much credit. He knows what he’s doing.
@@petercornwell5880Yeah, some of Ryan's interpretations were, uhmmm, generous.
To say the least. His debunking is more BS than the meme he was analyzing
You can discuss the historical importance of those past events & movements without peddling the contemporary ideological components that exist in the current climate. I don't know why you're acting like those two things are somehow inseparable.
@@BoneAppTheTeeth "The historical importance of those past events & movements without peddling the contemporary ideological components t"
As an American who was born in Taiwan. I never heard of Trail of Tear until some guy did a T-shirt competition online that I entered. As an Asian American, I never learn about the consequences of mass starvation on the mental development of children, the rise of schizophrenia due to starvation like the massive starvation in CCP China, or the Civil War against the slaves or the Trail of Tears. All of which are American history.
The 1619 Project is a journalistic initiative that aims to reframe American history by highlighting the role of slavery in the country's founding and its ongoing legacy. The project was launched in August 2019 with a special issue of The New York Times Magazine that included essays, creative works, and nonfiction pieces by historians, journalists, and artists. The project's goal is to help explain the roots of inequality and anti-Black racism in the United States today, and to consider what it would mean to view 1619 as the year the country was founded.
Is this what White conservatives are afraid of? Who is peddling the contemporary ideological components? I am not white or black.
This is the first time I strongly disagree with one of your analyses. You have gone out of your way to put the Project 2025 in the best possible light while minimizing the dangers and hostility of the project to democracy and America as we know it. The document you reviewed is guilty of broad generalizations and without stating it includes information from public statements and interviews with Project contributors. When you include the information from other sources like Trump himself, somethings are overstated but very little that is untrue.
Trump has disavowed it many times idk why you NPC’s are still crying about project 2025
Dangers and hostilities such as what?
Also, you claim that Trump has made statements.. well, he's made a public statement saying he doesn't believe in the stuff in the document, so, if he's the source of your information, then he also simultaneously invalidates that claim.
But, I'll wait for your answer, specifically, what things in the document preset a danger or imminent hostility?
The problem with people like you is your impossible to debate with … I’ll say “ trump has condemned project 2025” which he has , and the most common response is “ you really believe that ??” … you can’t possibly have a conversation with someone who has no basis other than bias
Oh but you ate up the videos where Ryan called out bullshit the right put out. It is extremely likely your glasses are tinted far too blue for this specific analysis.
You're welcome to pull up the comments on those anti-right videos to see just how unhinged you sound to those of us not blinded by political fanaticism.
@@Sean-nj3hx They aren't very smart people.. they're just upset and want the world to know about it.
So he did a Control+F for "marriage equality", didn't find it, and concludes it doesn't say anything about it...
And so fades the final ember of Ryan McBeth's credibility.
Go on, do you have anything where project 2025 says marriage equality should be removed?
I'm sure you have soo much to cite seeing as you have already destroyed Ryan's credentials
@@JohnCollins-vy4nf"There isn't a single line about ending marriage equality."
Page 451:
"Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden's HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on "LGBTQ+ equity," subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families."
I repeat: he did a Control+F for the words "marriage equality" or "gay marriage," didn't find it, and moved on. The truth is, there's ALOT in there about how LGBT families are lesser should be excluded from social programs and grants, should be discouraged by state policy, and come VERY close to saying that discrimination against them (by "faith based" programs because this is the Heritage Foundation and "I hate gays and abortion" is like 99% of their entire religion) should be given legal sanction.
As others have said, it's a very surface level take that misrepresents the document and it's intent. Unlike others, I'm not assuming bad faith, but it does make me wonder.
@@JohnCollins-vy4nfhe can’t because its made up lol. I wanna see the exact page from the actual document, not a biased site that says its in there
@@jimboneutron8399 The actual document is 90% department shifting and tax revisions and 10% generic "God bless america" filler
Alright then buddy. tell us all where it talks about ending marriage quality. what page? or would you rather other people spoon feed you information than looking at it yourself?
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.
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....
I hope you hold all democrat-based documents in the same regard...although, I doubt you do.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@user-wk6ms3ke7kpretty 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.
@@TheRealBunnyMan ending no-fault divorce is literally part of the 2025 plan.
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
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.
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.
@@SomeoneFromBeijingI wondered about this as I listened. Thanks for checking
@@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 TH-cam 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.)
I hate these type of comments. SPECIFY what your talking about.
Sorry Ryan, love your content, but after a few minutes and reading the comments... seriously, that is an unprofessional slip-up.
In german we say "waret den Anfängen" - "beware of the beginning" P2025 is straight out of a 11th century absolutist mind, written in the same style as stalinist and fashist rules.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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..
This surface level dismissal and quite frankly ignorance to what is stated throughout the document has me questioning Ryan's integrity, personal agenda as well as my continued viewership.
Amen to that. I'm a huge fan. But all you have to do is Google. How much to be in the 1% to find out. He's off by 180,000 or "roughly" a third. From multiple sources.
100% with you on this one. To see the entire comment section debunk this video bit by bit is very refreshing, but also indicative that I should simply unsubscribe.
Ryan’s “analysis” just shattered the credibility of this channel. I’m sure his content will surface now & then on my feed and I’ll still give it a look, but I’m hitting the “unsubscribe” button for now. I’m guessing he’ll pick up many new subs from the FOX/Newsmax/OAN crowd, so I’m sure I won’t be missed. His next colab should be with Mike Flynn instead of Jake Broe.
@@acemarcola He was using the number from last year, where it was in fact.. around 600,000. The Biden/Harris admin has done such a terrible job with the economy, that in just one year that number went up to close to 800,000. So, you're technically right, his data on that one factoid is a bit out of date.
Yep, sadly....
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?
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.
There are project 2025 training videos online. Among the instructions, how to hide what they are doing from oversight and FOIA requests by not creating email trails but to meet personally at the water cooler
Project 2025 has an interesting section concerning veterans benefits. If you are a veteran and like sleepless nights give that a read.
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.
The VA has failed. Veterans would and are far better treated at civilian hospitals.
Such as?
@@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.
Until you have Cape Fear Valley as your civilian hospital
“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.” 🙄
Haha yeah raising taxes on the poor is what Harris wants to do. How dare Trump compete with her drive to screw the everyman.
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.
that's true, you're correct. I'm reading the other comments and they don't seem to understand that.
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.
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.
@@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
I'll take my chances with trump
Mehdi Hassan does a short version of project 2025..it highlights its importance of conservative values. It's a playbook for GOP administration for first 180 days , specifically designed for trump, in case he messes up this time around. With packed conservatives judges at the Supreme Court and majority that might happen in both congress, they will try to pass strict laws based on Christian values. You will like it if you are MAGA , but other half will have problem.
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.
your right, the left is worst.
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.
@@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.
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. ;)
I don't think I can trust his military assessments after this.
Oh wow I didnt realize legal eagle made a p2025 vid thanks for pointing that out.
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 😞
@@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.
"Left leaning" in America with regard to socioeconomic policy could be confused with the platform of some right-wing populist platforms in Europe.
Republican presidents have enacted about 60% of the heritage foundation's mandates for leadership since 1984, so they have been successful in getting their policies in place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is how I feel too. I've looked to Ryan to separate fact from cap for military information I don't have the expertise to understand. But being able to decipher Project 2025 is my wheelhouse. Now I have to wonder, how much misinformation have I swallowed by trusting Ryan Mcbeth?
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.
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 🚩
@@nisanight2247Then decipher it and make a video, lol.
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.
If project 2025 is so on-the-level, then why's trump trying to distance himself from it?
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.
Bad optics. Obviously.
Because it isn't his agenda and he has his own. This is real basic stuff
Because it's not HIS agenda...
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.
I’m a volunteer researcher (read: non-professional) against Project 2025. A lot of it is as explicitly bad as people think. Some items on the infographic are derived from the founders or spokespeople from the institutions backing P25.
I may be able to provide an origin on that infographic and would be available to help. Bear in mind, this infographic originates likely from people like me. Non-professional (though I also worked in intel).
Many activist types have good intentions, but maybe not the professional infrastructure to affect change or bring criticism.
(I’m also a former republican and volunteered for the McCain and Ron Paul campaigns)
Happy to chat/help!
I want someone to fact-check Ryan McBeth's work on P2025.
Malcolm Nance
Why don’t you do it yourself then?
Fact check the fact check?
You shouldn't fact-check a fact-check with argumentation
If do so this is going lead to anarchy biased and slippery slope fallacy indirectly.
Also, the strawman would be crazy.
Also, why don't you do it read project 😭 2025.
Find out yourself and you realize with your own conclusion.
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?
We do give kids food. There are multiple government programs that give poor people money and groceries.
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.
@@petercornwell5880republicans dont care about quality time, some would see it as a waste since it is not a money making activity
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?
@@Rhinopkc
Not enough.
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.
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
Read the sentence carefully. It doesn't say what you think it says.
@@askljdf12325 I read the entire paragraph. That is exactly what it says.
@@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."
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.
“Does benefit ‘the rich’ but also benefits small businesses.” “Small businesses” might have, by definition, “less than 500 employees.”…those poor, poor small business owners. The language about eliminating “most deductions, credits, and exclusions” should be taken to mean that people won’t be getting earned income credits, child credits, etc etc. I read that as a direct attack on the poors, not that they’re going to make billionaires pay their share without loopholes. Several conservatives have openly said they want to cut social security only to have to fall back and retreat from it. They’ve said openly they want to raise the age to qualify for it. Not banning books on slavery? Ok…but Florida removed Hank Aaron’s and Roberto Clemente’s biographies, “When Wilma Rudolph played Basketball,” from libraries. Kinda weird. You jokingly referred to Handmaid’s Tale…well Florida banned that one too while we’re at it.
More from Florida “HB7, known as the Stop W.O.K.E. act and officially called the Individual Freedom Act, is an educational gag order. Among other things, it prevents teachers from discussing advantages or disadvantages based on race. Discussion of systemic racism is considered “critical race theory” and not allowed.”
Honestly if you’re going to debunk something this important, put in more effort than “I control effed and didn’t find that word one time!” This was low effort and bad.
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.
@@urtaxwiz A lot of the ideas are very good. Limiting so called reproductive rights is a good thing
@@jeffslote9671found the Russian bot
Hot take anyone preventing kids from getting school lunch should go to prison with no food
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.
@@pkrakras3561yeah I'm wondering that too 900 pages is a lot to comprehend thoroughly, especially into absolute yes or no facts.
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.
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.
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
I don't understand why you're spending time on this dodgy document. Why not address the actual Project 2025 document or reputable sorce analysis of it?
I have to say your tone regarding this document sends the opinion that you believe project 2025 is a harmless organizational statement.
No he just supports it.
Why don't you discuss what is actually in the document. Aren't there items in there that affect veterans? I don't know why you chose that banner to use? There are so many other accurate pics of what is in it.
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.
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.
@@cameronnovy3718 yeah it is, you want to know what happens when businesses have power like that? Look at Blackrock
@@cameronnovy3718 monopoly, anyone?
@@cameronnovy3718 Yeah, I heard Argenbright Security and Globe Aviation Services did a magnificent job going 4/4 on that one day in 2001.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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.
Oh boo hoo he didn't confirm my biases I'm crying to Mommy.
@@Warp10xyou mean, acknowledge reality? People who trade liberty for security deserve neither.
@@veneroso3337Ha, funny when a leftist uses that quote. Half of y'all's politics are exactly focused on that mentality.
@@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.
This did not address that the Heritage Foundation pre vetting the Supreme Court judges that were appointed by Trump and then promptly overturned Row.
where in the infographic did that get mentioned?