For those of you who somehow haven't heard about Project 2025: It's a radical right-wing movement designed to destroy constitutional rights and turn the U.S. into a conservative semi-dictatorship. This document (original linked below) is a real representation of the plans for another Trump presidency, with devastating side effects for anyone in the LGBTQ+ community, POC citizens, left-wing supporters, single parents, anyone who wants healthcare, and literally any student in the education system (see my other project exposing several absolutely insane quotes found in this document) OFFICIAL DOCUMENT LINK: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise 1. Half of the first sentence is literally copied verbatim off of the top google result when looking up "USAGM" on Google, which is unprofessional and unreliable. The next few sentences are extremely subjective and debatable, and the last part attacks the USAGM for showing foreign "talking points". 2. This is an official document meant to be a formal guide to leadership. It's very colloquial and unprofessional to use sarcasm, especially when depicting others, in official leadership documents. 3. The phrase "...where civil society is under threat..." can be interpreted in a huge variety of ways depending on who's reading the document... Which in this case is a wide variety of people. 4. Once again, this formal document is being written like an opinion column. Vague terms such as "bright spots" and "poor leadership" is generally a sign that there isn't actually anything to support the concept other than opinions and vague phrases. 5. Budget cuts are created if the government doesn't have the financial resources to support the project. The government's financial resources come from taxes. Hey, wait a sec... Aren't you guys campaigning for lower taxes right now? 6. How professional and objective of you to describe the RFE's actions as "edgy" and "daring" operations into "deep behind the Iron Curtain". If you're not the main character in a spy movie, don't write your formal documents like this. 7. Oh look, more vague terms such "dissimilar messaging", "redundant programming", and once again "bright spots". This is a formal document, so please elaborate on references like these. 8. Turns out, $1.2 million is actually not that much money in government context, and this sentence uses rhetorical devices to make this feel intense, when in reality it's entirely just dramatic. 9. Elaborate on "dubious circumstances", specify which "consolidation rules" you refer to, and please describe how the the OTF allegedly "usurp[ed] the mission and funding of [USAGM]". The entire rest of this paragraph is similarly extremely vague with absolutely no elaboration or hard evidence to back up these claims. 10. 'Small' isn't an effective synonym for 'insubstantial' in this context, and you don't elaborate on specific 'unsubstantiated claims'. Also, kindly never use the term "boondoggle" again. 11. It's petty to accuse leadership of spending money on furnishings, and it's hard to take these accusations seriously when you repeatedly use unprofessional terms and simply resort to name-calling. Also the point of this document isn't to publicly shame organizations, it's to set a concept for leadership standards. 12. The viewer signed up for information on how to run media agencies, not a hypocritical history lecture. 13. "Cultural calculus" is crazy 14. Journalists have a right to free speech and expression. Also, this is ridiculously hipocritical, since you criticize them for presenting content in a politically biased way. ...When you literally wrote dozens of paragraphs criticizing Biden's presidency. 15. There is NO WAY you just criticized journalists for presenting information that could be "highly critical" of the U.S President, AND THEN you criticized another completely different organization for agreeing with that information. For the millionth time, this is a leadership guidebook, not a hypocritical public shame of random organizations. 16. So there's this little thing called freedom of the press... 17. There's still this thing called freedom of the press... 18. For the third time in one page, freedom of the press is a constitutional right. ALSO FTLOG STOP USING THE TERM "BRIGHT SPOTS" 19. There is no connected evidence to support this claim, and in this context, this could mean either two or two hundred. 20. This is the FBI's fault for not keeping track; why are you blaming the FBI's negligence on the USAGM? 21. Similarly, this implies that it's the USAGM's fault for the FBI failing to check records several times. Also, January 2021 is almost completely irrelevant (in this context, since this problem arose only shortly before then), so these supporting statistics are also irrelevant, leaving the entirety of these last paragraphs completely unsupported by relevant data. (Cont'd in notes & credits)
Credits to @Funboi9999999 for hosting this collaboration. This was made for their ongoing project. If you're here to support Project 2025 or deny the possibility of it happening, I would like to kindly ask you to leave. Hate comments will NOT be tolerated. Scroll down in the instructions for my analysis of the boxed/underlined sections. As a summary of most of the points I make against this document: phrases used are almost always extremely vague, highly unprofessional, and very hypocritical. (Cont'd from earlier) 22. Turns out, the Trump administration is currently campaigning for lower taxes. For any of you who failed elementary school math, lower taxes = less government money = budget cuts 23. Two different organizations can have similar functions. Also, your 'for example' provided absolutely no useful insight and simply repeated a very weak point that you made ten words ago. 24. Isn't that the Trump Administrations fault for doing absolutely nothing about this? 25. This whole set of paragraphs literally is advocating for publicly broadcasting sensitive government information over radio waves, which can be VERY easily intercepted and decrypted. For context, you can make your own perfectly working radio with a simple speaker, adjustable transistor, coil, resistor, and battery setup you can create in five minutes with easily-obtained components. 26. If Internet is restricted, it's basically guranteed that radio frequencies are going to be monitored specifically to counter these implied messages into restricted territory, and sensitive information will be more likely to be intercepted and stolen by the people blocking the messages. 27. Credible according to whom? You? 28. Why should they report to the president alone? There is absolutely no resolution as to why any of this should happen; all you say is that it's not happening and therefore for some reason it's a problem. 29. So why in the world would you not have fixed this in 2016 during the first Trump presidency? You complain about ongoing problems that you could have fixed almost a decade ago, but didn't for some reason.
