SEE PART 1 FOR CONTEXT FINAL GRADE LINK: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1104646630 OFFICIAL DOCUMENT LINK: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise (AGAIN, READ PT 1 IF U HAVEN'T ALREADY) 30. The VOA (Voice of America) has it's own representation and power for a reason. Giving single parts of the government full control of external organizations slowly deconstructs checks and balances and turns the VOA into a political weapon. 31a. "America's Story" is extremely vague and (again) can be manipulated to become a political weapon. It's not unreliable in telling "America's Story"; the VOA is an objective standpoint for all topics, and those standpoints happen to not align with yours. 31b. You don't specify what you're referring to when referencing the Smith-Mundt act. Created in 1948 in response to obvious global events, has since been amended. Also, the last sentence in the paragraph just proves you're just upset because they don't openly support right-wing politics. 32. Ad targeting is (and always has been) a thing. People have done nearly identical campaigning with pro-Trump politics, and I sure don't see you talking about that. 33. Go back and re-read my response to #30. 34. You can't pre-activate leadership before the Senate confirms the legitimacy of it. This is absolutely absurd for obvious reasons, since it can take quite a while for the Senate to conclude a topic. 35. So you just spent the entire chapter complaining about the USAGM's poor leadership and then criticized unnamed Congress members for being the problem. You literally just used this paragraph to contradict the entire point of the last ten and a half pages. 36. Why are we talking about non-government organizations? You don't make any points about them, so why bring them up? (You can't criticize them in this document because that would make the whole thing the professional equivalent of some Twitter rant). 37. I thought you just said Congress members were the problem. Also, bringing the entirety of the agency under NSC supervision is an awful decision, since the NSC is an agency that has nothing to do with the USAGM. 38. It obviously isn't, and nor is it that simple. 39. By not naming the actual source of where you found these people, they could be legitimate organization leaders. Or they could be posts you found while scrolling Reddit while bored on a Thursday afternoon. 40. Although usually in line with their goal set, US presidents aren't on a mission to fulfill the missions given to them by their party. Also, Nixon stepped down from office because he knew what he was doing was completely wrong. That is objective history. 41. Who is Antonin Scalia, and you don't give any reason for anyone to believe they are credible. As previously mentioned: for all we know, they might be a radical conservative Twitter fanatic with dimentia. 42. You're saying the President needs to completely eliminate ALL PUBLIC FUNDING because some people use public broadcasting to talk about ideas that don't perfectly match your ideals. Someone's political opinions doesn't make them untrustworthy journalists. And even if it does, this goes both ways. 43. Wow so we should only be funding conservative ideals? Also, for the third time, your campaigns for lower taxes sure aren't helping national debt. 44a. Hypocrite. 44b. What on earth do you mean when you say you will "reward a president"? The fact you don't specify is concerning at minimum. 44c. Why on earth would you cut funding from public media programs because of a study done in 2014? How are these programs supposed to control who watches their programs? How on earth do you justify federally punishing media programs for being watched by left-wing supporters? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY INSANE 45. It shouldn't be "logistically easy" if the government isn't politically skewed. 46. Ah yes, we love it when the president uses 'personal contact' to pass bills... Also the writing drops in professionality here: don't ever use colloquial terms like this again; there are much more professional ways to say "...NPR and PBS have teams of lobbyists who have convinced enough Members of Congress to save their bacon..." 47. Seasame street isn't remotely related to this topic, and how is HBO making money off of Seasame street remotely connected to political context? (Cont'd in Notes and Creds)
Credits to @Funboi9999999 for hosting this collaboration. This was made for their ongoing project. (This is sect. 8) 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: many phrases are openly oxymoronic or blatantly hypocritical. This whole section just feels like an excuse to exploit (and completely make up) imperfections with current media organizations. (Cont'd from earlier) 48. They do act in public interest. You don't have to watch these stations if you don't want to. No one is forcing you. They also absolutely are still NCEs, and are classified as that for a reason. This quote is taken out of context and used as a weird out-of-context supporting statement. Also FTLOG stop talking about Seasame Street. 49. Unprofessional, don't make puns and weird references like this. 50. The president better darn well back this up; when ACLU sees this they're gonna be MAD.
