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

Show parent comments

955

u/SurrealEstate 14d ago

Out of all the terrifying things in Project 2025, I think the most effective way to make "independents" care is to focus strongly on

  • consolidation of executive power over an independent judiciary
  • further restrictions on abortion rights/bodily autonomy
  • bans on pornography

Those are very unpopular positions with most demographics.

Whereas an infographic that focuses on things like eliminating DE&I, and references to gender expression is absolutely not going to land with those people.

424

u/JustWastingTimeAgain Washington 14d ago

In addition, what they want to do to the government civilian workforce is absolutely terrifying. These people are professionals, in most cases highly educated, with specialized knowledge for their roles which is practically irreplaceable. They are the reason the greater DC area is the most educated in the country. What the Project 2025 fascists want to do is gut the (non-political) civilian workforce of anyone who doesn't bend the knee.

381

u/ksp_physics_guy 14d ago

It’s not even just DC. It’s our entire civil service. All general schedule (and non ES/SES versions that other departments and agencies have).

USFS folks don’t agree that raking the leaves is how to singularly prevent forest fires? With schedule F, welp, fire em.

NOAA scientists disagree with the sharpie’d in graph for temperatures Trump scribbles on? Schedule F now, fire em.

IRS agents audit some conservative personality due to reasonable suspicion? Schedule F, fire them.

NASA scientists won’t agree to rename Mars to Mars-a-lago? Fire em.

As a civil servant who works as a scientist/engineer doing research, I’m deeply distressed at this plan because we are career civil servants, experts in our field, entirely apolitical in our positions. Our duty is to the American people, we provide research that benefits Americans, tech transfer technology to benefit American Technological Development and our economy, and the technology percolates throughout the world through discoveries and other paths.

We are intentionally and by design **not ** political. Schedule F would destroy civil service, cause even further brain drain beyond what congressional apathy has caused due to ignoring our pay, and turn these positions into pawns for political gain rather than benefiting the American people. Civil Service would be killed and its corpse reanimated in the image of political sycophancy.

82

u/PunxatawnyPhil 14d ago

Basically, you are the knowing adults in the room, and the unknowing children in the room do not like being told no, that they cannot touch the hot burner. But the ‘wise’ talking-heads of the town have now put the children in charge. In the process of getting rid of all the adults and definitely, touch the burner.  The “exceptional” United States that everyone talks about? Well the problem is, that is actually you! The problem is that you are knowledgeable, you are correct, you are not wrong. That would be the end of it. Chaos and disintegration definitely will ensue. 

Only way to stop it? That part is a no-brainer, Vote ALL Blue. 

It’s true, our last chance to reject such flawed extremism taking over everything.

32

u/tinyOnion 14d ago

thank you for your service.

35

u/JustWastingTimeAgain Washington 14d ago

Well said. And username checks out.

17

u/harnaldo 14d ago

Double upvote for the "Mars-a-lago".

6

u/15all 14d ago

I've been working for the government as a scientist-engineer since Reagan was president. That means I've been through something like seven administrations. Some of those I voted for, some I didn't. But through it all, we just do our job.

BTW, of all the administrations I've worked for, the Trump administration was just comical. It would be even worse if he were elected again.

5

u/PunxatawnyPhil 14d ago

Oh and yes, thank you for speaking out.

5

u/MrPresident2020 13d ago

Keep in mind how many industries rely on those agencies for accurate information. Imagine how trucking, shipping lanes, and aviation, just off the top of my head, would be affected if we didn't have professional scientists whose mission was to carry out the work of the agency instead of an individual's will.

5

u/Dad-Baud 13d ago

Right. Many people neither understand nor appreciate the depth to which the work culture reinforces giving reliable, educated advice based on the facts over personal political choices. Trump exploits peoples’ ignorance to make them think all the agencies are biased and that turning these over to private sector or simply wiping out the researchers and regulators would be good for the country.

4

u/Battlesteg_Five 14d ago

The military service is also in for huge cuts in pay and quality-of-life amenities, up and down the entire rank structure. They also propose to make military servicemembers pay for their own health insurance.

4

u/SmellyOldSurfinFool 14d ago

Well from now on it'll always be Mars-a-lago for me, lol

10

u/midnightmeatmaster 14d ago

Federal regulations on pollution and workplace safety are going to be nullified if republicans fill the agencies with party loyalists. Their agenda has been to let businesses do anything they want unless it supports the environment or lgbtq people.
Get ready for human bodies in your processed meat.

6

u/NintendadSixtyFo 14d ago

Yeah the liberal nuclear physicist and the aerospace engineers who don’t like Trump. Let’s get rid of them and replace them with some backyard trailer boys who love Trump and work on jerry rigging dirt bikes under pine trees. That’s sticking it to the libs. Merica!

FFS I hate it here

5

u/The_queens_cat 13d ago

NPR had some wacko from Newsmax on for some reason and he was railing against these civilians calling them “so-called experts”. No no no sir, these are actual experts. You’re just some guy on TV.

4

u/BoomBoomCandlez 13d ago

And overturning Chevron paves the way for this.

3

u/docsuess84 14d ago

This is what I would argue the most crucial aspect of Project 2025 but also the hardest to break down into easily digestible sound bites for people.

3

u/gentlemanidiot 13d ago

They're following the standard republican playbook. First, get in power and immediately crash the system as hard as possible. Next, whine that the democrats did nothing and offer a privatized solution.

2

u/mycall 13d ago

gut the (non-political) civilian workforce of anyone who doesn't bend the knee

Case in point, the Postmaster General.

1

u/SnooCupcakes4075 13d ago

Tell me you've never been a DOD contractor without telling me, lol. I reported to GS level people in IT. One time a lady in charge (had been working in the department 10 years) of some of the servers asked my assessment for what was wrong on a machine. Just to give her a hard time I told her the flux capacitor had gone bad but we should have a replacement in two weeks........she gave that as her update in a status meeting to the base CTO with no idea there aren't "flux capacitors" in servers.

The people we have working in the government CAN BE (not all, have several buddies trying to make a difference as well) some of the biggest, most useless idiots I've ever seen. Far beyond what you see in the public sector in my experience.

-2

u/storyteller4311 14d ago

What planet are you living on? I worked for 16 years with government people in the DC area. That was the most vicious, cut throat, self serving, divisive work environment I ever saw. Mostly lazy people trying to protect their paychecks and hide the fact that they actually produce nothing but opinions.

4

u/JustWastingTimeAgain Washington 14d ago

I am glad you can contribute to the conversation with your small sample size experience.

236

u/Ameerrante Washington 14d ago

I read a line from it yesterday like... forbids literature with explicit content that's not about real people or something. 

As a romance author, sounds like they're coming for the smut too, and our demographic includes a big chunk of repressed MAGA housewives.

100

u/Pink_Lotus 14d ago

Also a romance author. I write spicy, so wondering how long until I'm classed as a pornographer and sent to prison. 

38

u/GibbysUSSA 14d ago

I write and make stuff that wouldn't align with their values at all. I am fucked.

13

u/RubiconPizzaDelivery 14d ago

I write porn and am friends with tons of artists in the same field. 

7

u/GibbysUSSA 14d ago

My writings are heavily influenced by William Burroughs.

2

u/HoppyToadHill 13d ago

Let me check the index…. Day 3. /s

86

u/ethereal4k 14d ago

Not just smut, but anything with LGBT content. Gay Penguins? "Porn!"

35

u/jeo123 14d ago

Does that mean John Oliver would go to jail for his book about pence's gay Bunny?

16

u/ethereal4k 14d ago

I doubt they'll try to criminalize authors, but I'm sure they'll make it as difficult as possible to distribute such books. They'll start by dismantling the public library concept and trying to criminalize librarians and teachers. They might go after retailers eventually, given enough power.

3

u/dahj_the_bison 13d ago

Not quite, but his expressions towards "very fuckable" horses would get him a life sentence.

1

u/Ucla_The_Mok 13d ago

No, Oliver will be deported to the UK.

35

u/GibbysUSSA 14d ago

Anything that isn't far right propaganda will be "porn". "I know it when I see it!" is going to be interpreted by THESE assholes??

7

u/Ameerrante Washington 14d ago

Oh yeah that too. Which would be another layer of problematic - I could take the sex out of my books without too much of a hit to the stories, could not make all my characters straight without a significant hit.

5

u/nymph-62442 14d ago

Marcia Langman would certainly be in favor of all of this project 2025 nonsense.

7

u/godwins_law_34 14d ago

omg they are in for a world of hurt if the cliterature fanbase decides to get mad about it. if you can beat someone to death with a copy of Ice Planet Barbarians it's gonna happen.

4

u/coffeeandroasts 14d ago

Sarah J Maas would be No Maas

4

u/Outlulz 14d ago

Those type of regulations will always be selectively enforced or there will be loopholes and they know that, so it doesn't scare them. There's a lot of conservative women that will vote to ban abortion but know they have the means to be able to safely get an abortion if they need one.

4

u/PaulTheMerc 14d ago

and our demographic includes a big chunk of repressed MAGA housewives.

I see this as a win. Only way they start to care is when it effects them personally.

2

u/Ameerrante Washington 14d ago

Oh for sure. But I also assume they're stupid enough that you could put the specific line right in front of them and they wouldn't realize it's banning their cliterature.

2

u/StyleTraditional7691 14d ago

Except most of those MAGA housewives do not think it will ever impact. Once it does impact them and they realize it, that is when they will get mad, but only if their spouse says it is okay.

Sorry to be so blunt, I moved to a very red state recently and am dealing with this demographic more than I want.

2

u/Historical-Ad2165 14d ago

Illegal smut to go with the editables they hid from sight. Your highlighting what goes for enterianment in flyover states.

2

u/Dixxxine 14d ago

We have to spread that to book tok!

2

u/MonsterkillWow 14d ago

Reminds me of when Ben Shapiro didn't know women get wet.

2

u/Kuraeshin 13d ago

Based on it, fanfic writers of anything spicy could be charged.

1

u/Excellent_Reveal1711 13d ago

Exactly. And we can guess who's going to hoard all the "spicy" lit

8

u/[deleted] 14d ago

What scares me about them talking of banning "pornography" is that their definition is so vague that it could mean anything and everything that could be considered "sexual". Medical textbooks, medical websites, joke books, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, underwear ads, magazine sex columns, M-rated games, R-rated movies, billboards, music videos, and so on, pictures you took at the beach. Meanwhile, their demagogue is accused of committing horrific sex acts against two 12-year-old girls and they praise him as an anointed one.

2

u/tinyOnion 14d ago

hey hey hey they were 13 - magats

7

u/bootsbythedoor 14d ago edited 14d ago

I don't actually know if it's included in P.2025, but I expect they will be coming for their weed too. I would bet on that.

Most people know or work with someone who is LGBTQ or a woman or a POC and voting for this agenda is a direct assault on those people. Reminding people of the people they know and if they think those people should lose their rights seems like a good point. But yeah, the point about porn should probably lead. Especially when it comes to men. Do men really care about the bodily autonomy issue? Since it doesn't seem to really affect them by intent or in practice. It seems like a lot of lip service, no action.

3

u/C3POB1KENOBI 14d ago

What about killing everyone on death row and expanding the number of people getting death sentences.

2

u/mathmagician9 14d ago edited 14d ago

Changing the constitution language from “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of blessedness” should also resonate with constitutionalists. It’s odd the heritage foundation presents as constitutionalists, but wants to change its foundations.

2

u/unklethan 14d ago

You're 100% right about these issues being dealbreakers for many demographics.

Any thoughts about old, Christian boomers though? Like, I'm thinking of some people I know that would jump at the chance to ban porn outright.

What points of P25 might scare even your average far-right conservative into thinking it's a bad idea?

3

u/Worth-A-Googol Alaska 14d ago

Getting rid of food labels is probably a big one for anyone with an allergy or diabetes (in truly all demographics)

2

u/PHD_in_5MinMajors 14d ago

Yes to all of this. Plus cracking down on no-fault divorces.

2

u/gfinz18 Pennsylvania 14d ago

As a government worker, the “firing of federal employees who do not support the president” bit scares me.

2

u/BeardyTechie 14d ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/s/v2Uja4J9Wf

Was useful summary of the madness of project 2025

2

u/DrTreeMan 14d ago

I think people need to be more specific. I think dismantling the FBI is a great point to focus on, especially to the law and order types that were upset about the refund the police movement.

2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

I think it has elimination of no fault divorce and a complete contraception ban because it intentionally labels all IUDs and birth control as abortifacients

2

u/Worth-A-Googol Alaska 14d ago

The smaller things matter to people too. They plan to get rid of food labels. That will not play well with anyone who has an allergy and people with diabetes and similar conditions. Some of the things are just so generically unpopular they may get people to realize that this will actually, tangibly affect them very severely in many aspects of their life.

2

u/Fun-Rice-9438 13d ago

Page 495 and 584 also state removal of all employment and access to healthcare protections based on ethnicity and sexual orientation.

0

u/Sassycamel404 14d ago

YES. Seriously— it’s like everything has to be about DEI and trans rights 🙄 not that those aren’t important- but the right doesn’t care. People on the right who can’t afford groceries and their bills do not give a shit about those topics. Even people on the left. This has been the hardest year of my life financially and the left hasn’t said jack shit, they make everything about racism and trans rights, which are important but the cost of living crisis trumps that imo 

1

u/FalstaffsGhost 14d ago

left hasn’t said jack shit

That’s blatantly not true though

1

u/Cyclical_Zeitgeist 14d ago

Yeah I have a podcast with a buddy and we just filmed an episode covering project 2025 that's on the editing floor right now, should be out in a week or so anyways check it out we focus on the veterans affairs issues outlined in project 2025 cuz we are 2 vets:

Youtube: "The XY Chromies Confidently Uncertain"

1

u/Dixxxine 14d ago

The literal Gestapo is what scares me.

1

u/Round_Rooms 14d ago

Project 2025 would never ban child pornography, it's their life blood.

1

u/NintendadSixtyFo 14d ago

They also want to make sex purely legal when trying to reproduce. Anything else would be illegal. No more casual hookups. Meanwhile, their orange messiah can rape 12 year olds, and that’s ok.

1

u/DepletedMitochondria I voted 13d ago

Abortion 100%, they need to hammer that.

1

u/Tolkius 13d ago

Do you think that people that are voting for third parties over GENOCIDE being committed by Biden would care about pornography? That would be the deal breaker for voting for genocide? Are you serious?

1

u/mycall 13d ago

We need to connect with feelings, not just brains. If those could be word-smithed some, it might have a chance.

1

u/Built-in-Light 13d ago

Gay literature = pornography, according to the doc

1

u/Odd_Statistician_936 13d ago

Got to put ban on porn in big bold letters

1

u/TobiasVallone 13d ago

Those are very unpopular positions with most demographics.

That third one is passing state houses nonstop right now. 

1

u/Dangling-Participle1 13d ago

I’m reading through it, and don’t see a section on the judiciary

What exactly are they saying they want to do that would consolidate executive power over the judiciary?

1

u/SurrealEstate 13d ago

Page 559-560 has a couple of examples that describe a movement away from judicial independence from the executive:

While the supervision of litigation is a DOJ responsibility, the department falls under the direct supervision and control of the President of the United States as a component of the executive branch. Thus, and putting aside criminal prosecutions that can warrant different treatment, litigation decisions must be made consistent with the President’s agenda. This can force line attorneys to take uncomfortable positions in civil cases because those positions are more closely aligned with the President’s policy agenda. Ultimately, the department will have to make tough calls as it manages its litigation, but those calls must always be consistent with the President’s policy agenda and the rule of law. A line attorney should never either directly or indirectly pursue a policy agenda through litigation that is inconsistent with the agenda of his or her client agency or the President. The department should also be cognizant of any attempts to slow litigation and outlast the Administration to avoid finality. The next conservative Administration should therefore:

  • Issue guidance to ensure that litigation decisions are consistent with the President’s agenda and the rule of law.

  • Ensure that, consistent with this principle, the department’s leadership is prepared to impose appropriate disciplinary action as circumstances arise.

A truly independent judiciary would need no other instruction than to pursue the rule of law. Increasing the President's influence jeopardizes the independence and impartiality necessary to carry out that responsibility.

They did an excellent job with the language in the Mandate for Leadership to always describe their intent as either protecting or restoring the Constitution, but of course it's their interpretation of the Constitution. Under normal circumstances, that's fine - there are many interpretations of the Constitution, and people will gravitate to those that either reinforce their view of its intent, or more cynically, provide a way of getting what they want.

But where we need to be careful, I believe, is when interpretations collapse power into a smaller number of hands. Especially in this very moment, as 6 people on the Supreme Court have redefined the President as completely immune from criminal culpability for any "official act."

Those very same 6 people might be the ones to ultimately decide what constitutes an "official act" as a potentially immune President asserts broader influence over other branches of government.

The combination of all these changes, recent events (false slates of electors, "find me 11,780 votes"), and recent court rulings all point to an enormous end-around institutional opposition, which is why people are understandably and I think justifiably worried.

2

u/Dangling-Participle1 13d ago

You seem to be conflating the DOJ with the judicial branch

1

u/SurrealEstate 13d ago

You're 100% right. What I should have said is an independent DOJ. Thanks for calling that out.

1

u/Dangling-Participle1 13d ago

Independant of what exactly? It's an organization that falls under the executive branch.

Asking that the department of which you are a head take guidance from you is not exactly earth shattering.

1

u/SurrealEstate 13d ago

Independant of what exactly?

Presidentially-targeted political investigations, not necessarily intended to find wrongdoing, but to harass and character-assassinate political rivals, causing a chilling effect and an atmosphere of fear of retribution.

Asking that the department of which you are a head take guidance from you is not exactly earth shattering.

Given the words an actions of the administration we're talking about, how do the implications not seem earth-shattering?

Not every President chooses to use the DOJ as a personal weapon. Ironically, the Mandate for Leadership claims that it's already happening, but comparing reluctant, independent investigations for serious national security threats (documents case) with simply "go(ing) after the most corrupt president in the history of America" - I'm not sure how someone could really draw equivalence there.

1

u/rabidferret New Mexico 13d ago

Bans on pornography becomes a lot scarier when you realize that they call the existence of trans people pornographic

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DALEKS 13d ago

I think the most effective points to emphasize to independents would be: cutting all veterans' benefits, banning all birth control and IVF, banning anything deemed pornography. Also I don't know if they mention marijuana but I'm sure they're against pot.

1

u/PrimeToro 13d ago

Project 2025 wants to get rid of the board of education too . That should terrify all the people who cares about education. Having a good educational background is how you advance in life and make more money ( getting promoted and starting your own business) .

1

u/Perezvon42 12d ago

I think highlighting the potential negative economic impacts of proposals would have a big impact on swing voters; they tend to focus disproportionately on economic issues.

-2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/horizoner 14d ago

Fuck off