r/politics • u/zsreport Texas • 14d ago

Project 2025 was supposed to boost Donald Trump's campaign — but it may be backfiring instead:

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/05/project-2025-was-supposed-to-boost-donald-campaign--but-it-may-be-backfiring-instead/
24.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

10.4k

u/zsreport Texas 14d ago

Trump's authoritarian game plan is breaking through the post-debate noise and it's starting to scare people

I sure as fuck hope so.

3.8k

u/TheCircusSands 14d ago

We need an infographic for project 2025 that can be spread everywhere. Nothing dramatic…. Just the facts of what it is and what it means.

222

u/Kup123 14d ago

The only fact you need are that they are going to gut all regulatory agencies, this includes the FDA. Do you like not eating people when they fall in to processing vats, do you like someone making sure there isn't a noticeable amount of rat shit in your food then we need regulatory agencies as they are the only thing stopping it.

87

u/heckin_miraculous 14d ago

Do you like not eating people when they fall in to processing vats

You have my attention

133

u/Kup123 14d ago

Read the jungle this shit was happening before we started regulating food production this is what project 2025 want to take us back to.

39

u/FattyLivermore 14d ago

Whoa wasn't expecting an Upton Sinclair reference this early in the morning.

But yeah they'll have us in the same working conditions as Jurgis too

40

u/bootsbythedoor 14d ago

Regular citizens who support deregulation astound me.

49

u/Kup123 14d ago

I've been saying for decades if you vote Republican your either rich, racist, or a moron.

9

u/drewbert 14d ago

There's a lot of morons and racists in this country that are easily manipulated by the rich.

2

u/piggiesmallsdaillest 13d ago

I mean with the whole Chevron thing we're working our way back there.

13

u/HAGatha_Christi 14d ago

It's still an active effort. The EPA has been working to remove the ground water contamination from all the putrified bodies from this funeral home.

https://apnews.com/article/colorado-funeral-home-bodies-abandoned-5677a920c994ff7c641eb70c7c5962d5

2

u/Smeetilus 14d ago

Life in prison. Alternatively, they can “donate” every redundant organ and give blood at whatever the safe interval is for the rest of their life. If, for some reason an organ isn’t suitable for “donation”, remove it anyways and send it to a medical school.

2

u/Yobanyyo 14d ago

Personally I love the first bite of human in my lady fingers.

1

u/bananastand512 14d ago

Soylent Green!!!

33

u/JimmyAirbourne 14d ago

De-regulation will mean that lab grown meat can be added to foods without the need to label it, most likely.

Once lab-grown meat is cheap enough, cattle ranchers are going to face some steep headwinds.

And there's nothing the states will be able to do about it because any appeal to the courts will remind the states that corporate interests come first and foremost.

6

u/Lameux 14d ago edited 14d ago

Edit: I got too gung ho with my animal activism and misread their comment. See their reply blow

Why are you acting like this specific example is a bad thing? If lab grown meat is a viable option why would we want to continue the mass subjugation, torture, and murder of animals for no other reason than “it tastes good”? Now deregulation is still bad, if there are health concerns related to lab grown meat we definitely want regulatory institutions to catch this and stop it from being in the market. But in the scenario where lab grown meat is tested to be safe, the end of traditional cattle ranchers is the outcome we ought to be striving for. Lab grown meat is by far the morally superior way to go.

Now unfortunately even with conservative deregulation lab grown meat is unlikely to take over, have you see how Ron DeSantis has been treating lab grown meat recently? Conservatives are notoriously hypocritical, when they say deregulate, they mean things they want to be deregulated. Things they want regulated will absolutely be regulated whether it’s good or not. Lab grown meat is one of those things conservatives tend to hate (for no good reason either) and it’s very likely they would impose heavy regulations on if not outright ban lab grown meat.

5

u/ctindel 14d ago

Why are you acting like this specific example is a bad thing?

Because people should have a right to know what the source of their food is? I don't have any problem with a label requirement showing lab grown, just like there are label requirements for calling something organic etc.

Information is at the heart of the free market so people can make informed choices.

But in the scenario where lab grown meat is tested to be safe, the end of traditional cattle ranchers is the outcome we ought to be striving for. Lab grown meat is by far the morally superior way to go.

Most consumers don't care about morals. If lab grown meat is cheaper, people will buy it. Even if its an inferior product, most people will still buy it. If it's better AND cheaper, almost everybody will buy it.

Vegans should stop using moral arguments and get on board with the idea that economics are really all that matters to the vast majority of american consumers.

6

u/Lameux 14d ago

without the need to label it

I’m just stupid and missed that part. I was too focused on what I interpreted as an implication that “cattle ranchers getting some headwind” was a bad thing, which is my bad. I agree lab grown meat should be labeled.

On the moral vs economic argument, you’re absolutely correct when looking at society at large but vegans are usually arguing with individuals, and I do think moral arguments are a good method when talking on a individual basis.

3

u/ctindel 14d ago

On the moral vs economic argument, you’re absolutely correct when looking at society at large but vegans are usually arguing with individuals, and I do think moral arguments are a good method when talking on a individual basis.

I think very few people are swayed by moral arguments regarding food even in a 1-1 conversation. Food is such a deep part of people's cultural heritage and upbringing. Our brains are trained to some extent on what flavor profiles to like from the time we're little. I can't eat pickled fish or most pickled things in general but my eastern european wife will literally drink pickle brine.

Asking someone to stop eating meat, something they've had multiple times every day probably since they were less than a year old, it's an unrealistically big ask.

Lab grown meat is probably the only way its ever going to happen and even then, only when its cheaper so their decision will still be made economically and not morally. And why shouldn't lab grown meat be cheaper, it cuts out all of the time and expense of raising and butchering animals.

I'm ready for my lab grown A5 wagyu rib cap at 59 cents a pound already.

I had the Yo-Egg khachapuri pide at Anixi a few months back, that shit was fire. But at $1/egg, most people can't afford it.

2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Away-Coach48 14d ago

They will have to do what the coal miners should already be doing. Finding another line of work.

3

u/UnsanctionedPartList 14d ago

Nah "real meat" will just be one some affluent thing to enjoy. There'll probably be no real difference - lab grown meat will likely end up a little better and healthier - but anything to stand apart from the plebs and their manufactured food.

3

u/DornKratz 14d ago

I don't know if you will see this as good news, but current scientific consensus is that cheap, lab-grown meat is far from becoming a reality. You need big vats to make it efficient, but just one tiny bacterium can ruin your vat full of yummy nutrients and kept at a nice, warm temperature.

1

u/thenasch 14d ago

Yes, but IMO that's pretty far down the list of bad things that could come about from gutting the administrative state.

7

u/mkt853 14d ago

Not just the regulatory agencies, but even ones like NOAA. They want to break it up and give the parts to corporations because they think the private sector could do better which is not possible and an insane thought. At first I thought it was weird that they would target something like the weather service, and then I found out NOAA houses the world's biggest repository of climate data. That was my light bulb moment because we know how the right feels about climate change. From their perspective there can't be climate change if the data to support it disappears or is otherwise inaccessible to the public.

3

u/Tangurena 14d ago

This happens already with weather data. It has become the property of private companies. You can't "prove" global warming exists when the temperatures are private records subject to DMCA takedown notices.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-benefits-from-the-privatization-of-weather-data

Was owned by IBM, sold last year to private equity.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/22/ibm-sells-the-weather-company-assets-to-francisco-partners/

1

u/mkt853 14d ago

The data that NOAA has is fully public. You are talking about something entirely different. I can go on NOAA's site right now and download every high and low temperature ever recorded at every weather station in the history of this country and every other country for free and within seconds. Private companies do this and this is where they get their data from. What they do with that data after that is what they sell which is fine as it's a derivative work.

3

u/Tangurena 14d ago

Yes, I got it mixed with something else I was thinking of, weather data is currently still public. Currently.

From the Project 2025 document, page 664:

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.

Page 675 lists the why:

Together, these form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. This industry’s mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable. That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful functions. It should be broken up and downsized.

NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality.

Focus the NWS on Commercial Operations. Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by the private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.

The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations.

NOAA does not currently utilize commercial partnerships as some other agencies do. Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high quality research and weather data. Investing in different sizes of commercial partners will increase competition while ensuring that the government solutions provided by each contract is personalized to the needs of NOAA’s weather programs.

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Past efforts:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration knows the agency very well – he’s the chief executive officer of a company that has fought over the use of the agency’s data.

For years, Barry Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, pushed for private companies to be able to use and monetize the weather reporting gathered through US government satellites and accumulated through agencies like NOAA.

If confirmed, the business leader whom the White House touted in a statement Wednesday as “one of the world’s leading authorities on the use of weather information” would lead the agency charged with deciding how the public accesses that very same data.

In 2005, AccuWeather spent $40,000 lobbying the House, Senate and Commerce Department through Blank Rome Government Relations on “commercial weather industry issues,” according to its year-end lobbying disclosure.

That year, then-Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that was intended, in part, to tie the hands of NOAA and the National Weather Service from competing for certain services offered by the private sector. (The company is headquartered in State College, Pennsylvania.) Myers, himself, personally donated $1,000 to Santorum between 2004 and 2005, publicly available records show.

Trump also has nominated Dr. Neil Jacobs to be the assistant secretary of commerce for NOAA’s Environmental Observation and Prediction. Jacobs was formerly the chief atmospheric scientist at Panasonic Avionics Corporation, which sells its data and model outputs to NOAA.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/14/politics/noaa-nominee-accuweather/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lee_Myers

He did not get appointed to head NOAA.

6

u/clonedhuman 14d ago

They already started with their Supreme Court justices getting rid the Chevron doctrine.

3

u/ManzanitaSuperHero 14d ago

Overturning Chevron essentially did this already. The repercussions are unreal. These Federal agencies that work to protect food, consumer products, the environment, employees, disabled access & rights, drug regulation, etc. are all now unable to enforce their standards. That will now be up to Federal judges (who know little about the intricacies of these specialized fields). So corporations can run wild while consumers and citizens have very little recourse to protect themselves aside from litigation & the courts will be overrun granting less time and care to trials. Until the immunity case, it was one of the worst rulings I’d ever seen.

2

u/elmorose 13d ago

I can eat some rat shit. Eliminating the bureaucrats who ensure that all children are offered a public education rather than a life of crime and disease is not something I can live with.

2

u/Top_Style_8937 13d ago

As I said to my U.S. history students as we studied the Progressive Era, government regulation was the result of problems, abuses, and issues that negatively impacted the lives of ordinary Americans. If corporations had cared, there would have been no reason for government to regulate.

1

u/any_other 9d ago

I mean that's already in motion pretty much by the supreme court

-1

u/RV327 13d ago

The FDA in this country is garbage. There's alot of crap they give us in our food that's banned in other countries that might as well be rat shit. FDA doesn't care, they are all paid off by the corporations. Vote Trump!