I think what would actually be helpful is for the Trump campaign to be explicit about the things in Project 2025 it agrees with and disagrees with.
The one misleading people about project 2025 is Trump. His statement was that he didn't know what was in it. Then said it was too extreme. He wouldn't know that unless he knew what was in it. Trump also said that he didn't know who was behind it even though he was their keynote speaker in 2022 and the authors were part of his presidential team. Trump was already lying about it in his denial statement. Ask yourself why was he lying about it? Next, we've seen the exact things common to his released proposal and 2025. Add to that the fact that members of his team helped write 2025. Then we can look at Trump's own words to the Heritage Foundation who wrote 2025. "They’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do,” Trump said of the Heritage Foundation and their efforts to – as they describe on the Project 2025 website – “pave the way” for Trump’s next administration. https://www.salon.com/2024/07/11/ou...h-endorses-heritage-foundations-project-2025/ Trump himself said that about the group drafting 2025. He was the keynote speaker for the group. He said they were going to lay the plans and detail exactly what his administration was going to do. The plans they laid were detailed in Project 2025. Trump already promised those plans were exactly what his administration was going to do.
In short, you choose to believe (1) Trumps statement that he doesn’t know about Project 2025, and (2) that the overlap between Trumps platform and Project 2025 is small and includes the ideas you support. Do you at least acknowledge that Trump almost certainly lied about not knowing anything about Project 2025 in light of all the evidence connecting him to its architects and supporters? If you can’t even do that, then you certainly will not process the overwhelming evidence that: - Trump lied about knowing about Project 2025 (because it polls terribly with people outside of Maga) - his nominee sure as hell knew about and supports the author of Project 2025 - trumps team includes an enormous swath of people who worked in support of Project 2025 - and he has spoken at the Heritage foundation gleefully in support. You fault others for branding Trump as a supporter of Project 2025. It’s not like there isn’t a mountain of evidence indicating that he does support it. He can easily identify what parts he does and doesn’t support, as opposed to lie about it.
[NPR] Trump tells Christian voters they 'won't have to vote anymore' if he's elected Trump also urged Christians to turn out for him ahead of Election Day, calling it the "most important election ever." He added that if elected, Christian-related concerns will be "fixed" so much so that they would no longer need to be politically engaged. "You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians," he said.
Trump literally told folks at the Heritage Foundation that they would be coming up with exact plans that he would do in his next administration. The plan they came up with was Project 2025. Several of Trump's previous administration helped write the plan. Once the plan becomes unpopular, Trump is caught in a lie(s) trying distance himself from it.
Project 2025 Plan for Trump Presidency Has Far-Reaching Threats to Science | Scientific American What is even more unusual, and also mapped out in detail, is a plan to exert more presidential control over traditionally nonpartisan governmental workers—those Trump might describe as members of the “deep state,” or regulatory bureaucracy. For example, Project 2025 claims that the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other scientific institutions are “vulnerable to obstructionism” unless appointees at these agencies are “wholly in sync” with presidential policy. To that end, it would reclassify tens of thousands of civil service jobs as political positions that answer to the president. “The independence of science is being attacked across the board in this document,” says Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the Climate and Energy program at the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists. “The importance of this science is that’s how we can ensure people’s health and the environment are being safeguarded.” (Cleetus notes that her comments address the policy agenda’s contents, not the upcoming presidential election.) Career scientists who are now employed by the federal government are “terrified and polishing up their résumés,” says Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, or AFGE, a union that represents workers at the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the CDC and other agencies. If Project 2025 becomes reality, she says, “the very idea of scientific integrity will be flushed down the toilet.” The Heritage Foundation did not respond to Scientific American’s request for comment.
You see a lot of criticism of things DEI from the right for claiming that people are being hired for reasons other than merit. What Project 2025 / Agenda 47 though is due exactly that and put partisan and ideological loyalty as the main criteria for hiring rather than merit or experience.
The thought of more Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Josh Hawley, Margorie Taylor Green, and Laura Loomer types makes my skin crawl. Who's next? Lara Trump, Don JR, and Tucker?
You are wrong, Trump was never a politician to begin with... He didn't talk like one and he didn't act like one, there was no hypocrisy with Trump.... What you saw is what you got and what you got was a no nonsense no filter candidate. This is what attracted so many to him in 2016, yes he says things that straight anger people but if Trump is not 100% truthful there is some truth to it. Truth hurts and this meltdown of people not handling it is how we got to 2024 division and radical leftism alongside rightism. Perhaps the country would be better off if Trump never ran, there possibly wouldn't be division and the extreme liberal Dems would have never pushed insane policies just to spite Trump and conservatives. Yeah, political corruption would be alive and well and the swamp would have never been drained but we would all be living more peacefully not knowing it existed in the first place.
I'm trying to muster some basic empathy here to feel bad about all those Heritage Foundation careerists who are being thrown under the bus so easily but it's hard. It's really hard.
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-project-2025-secret-training-videos-trump-election Project 2025, the controversial playbook and policy agenda for a right-wing presidential administration, has lost its director and faced scathing criticism from both Democratic groups and former President Donald Trump. But Project 2025’s plan to train an army of political appointees who could battle against the so-called deep state government bureaucracy on behalf of a future Trump administration remains on track. One centerpiece of that program is dozens of never-before-published videos created for Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy. The vast majority of these videos — 23 in all, totaling more than 14 hours of content — were provided to ProPublica and Documented by a person who had access to them. The Project 2025 videos coach future appointees on everything from the nuts and bolts of governing to how to outwit bureaucrats. There are strategies for avoiding embarrassing Freedom of Information Act disclosures and ensuring that conservative policies aren’t struck down by “left-wing judges.” Some of the content is routine advice that any incoming political appointee might be told. Other segments of the training offer guidance on radically changing how the federal government works and what it does. In one video, Bethany Kozma, a conservative activist and former deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development in the Trump administration, downplays the seriousness of climate change and says the movement to combat it is really part of a ploy to “control people.” “If the American people elect a conservative president, his administration will have to eradicate climate change references from absolutely everywhere,” Kozma says. ...
... And in a video about oversight and investigations, a group of conservative investigators advise future appointees on how to avoid creating a paper trail of sensitive communications that could be obtained by congressional committees or outside groups under the Freedom of Information Act. “If you need to resolve something, if you can do it, it’s probably better to walk down the hall, buttonhole a guy and say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do here?’ Talk through the decision,” says Tom Jones, a former Senate investigator who now runs the American Accountability Foundation. Jones adds that it’s possible that agency lawyers could cite exemptions in the public-records law to prevent the release of certain documents. But appointees are best served, he argues, if they don’t put important communications in writing in the first place. “You’re probably better off,” Jones says, “going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US or one of those other groups is going to come back and seek.”
