124 points

Meanwhile the newspapers: “FACT CHECK: It is incorrect to associate project 2025 with the Trump campaign” 🙄

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Besides fox News and the like, who said that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
17 points

Saving everyone a click

THE FACTS: Trump has said he doesn’t know about Project 2025, a controversial blueprint for another Republican presidential administration.

The plan was written up by many of his former aides and allies, but Trump has never said he’ll implement the roughly 900-page guide if he’s elected again. He has said it’s not related to his campaign.

That’s everything they said. Those are quite literally the facts which they can report on: what Trump says.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Nope. Not what you’re saying it is. They call out its origin even.

The plan was written up by many of his former aides and allies,

They also briefly mention what he claims. That is in no way corroborating it. They are simply trying to avoid seeming biased. The other time “2025” appears in that page, it’s a quote from Harris about how dangerous it is.

This is normal and decent journalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Just about all of them, FFS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

What you all are really saying is that you want media to be more left leaning. The example people keep citing is AP, but they literally called out that he was associated with the creators of the document. Should they have used the word “lie”, well, yes I think so personally, but there is a danger in further appearing biased. I can settle for refuting his claim the way they did despite my preference. This is not some obvious right wing leaning like people ITT seem to think.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Those are some questionable sources.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

The Associated Press:

permalink
report
parent
reply

A better start to that would be:

“Trump, a pathological liar, has said he doesn’t know about Project 2025”

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

The election coverage I saw on AP this week confirms that they are compromised as well. They are dead to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

This was likely true.

Trump didn’t need to know about it, and (since by all accounts, he’s functionally illiterate) he certainly never read it. Project 2025 is the brainchild of the same groups who chose Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Cavanaugh. Trump likely knew very little about them, too.

Trump was chosen because he’s easy to manipulate and is too incurious to care much about actual governance, so he won’t get in their way. All they need is for him to sign whatever they put in front of him between rounds of golf.

Trump likely didn’t know much about Project 2025 – but that absolutely did not mean it wasn’t the plan all along.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yikes, they should show how its related to him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

What am I missing here? Two sentences telling us his claims isn’t the complete failure of journalism y’all seem to be insinuating it is…

permalink
report
parent
reply
89 points

I find this “retribution” thing very quaint…

“Retribution” for being held to the same standards as the rest of us. “Retribution” for being punished for violating the rules we’re all under. “Retribution” for being called to account for acting like awful people.

There is nothing that has been done to them that does not stem from their own, poor behavior—a completely self-fixable concern.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

It’s projection. They do witch hunts against others, so naturally they assume any investigation of them is a witch hunt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points
*

Our only hope is if Project 2025 ends up not being implemented in full because of its one fatal flaw: Donald Trump didn’t think of it first. He might ignore parts of it out of spite, just to make sure the Heritage Foundation understands that it is not President.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Yeah, I also suspect he may be dumb enough to do something like dissolve the IRS. Which would more or less destroy all forms of federal governmental power both soft and hard. Its something rhe sovcits have wanted for decades and I would not be surprised in the least if he got convinced by one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

No more IRS? Looks like I’m not going to allow any federal tax to be withheld from my paycheck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Its actually a bit dumber than just that. The sovcits want the sheriff’s to collect taxes, im pretty sure my county sheriff would sooner kill themselves rather than even think about such a suicidal idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Trump is really bad at following through.

Other than the millions of deaths and the bad economy, which are weirdly short-term things, what did he actually accomplish first term aside from fucking up the judiciary? And even that was really more of a McConnel accomplishment from the Obama era.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Didn’t he implement something like 2/3rds of the Heritage Foundation’s policy proposals in his first term?

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points

permalink
report
reply
9 points

MAGAS are incapable of associating anything bad with their dear leader. Hold them accountable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You can’t hold someone accountable if they don’t think they did anything wrong. They firmly believe they’re in the right, and will never believe Trump can or will do anything wrong. Anything bad that comes out of his administration, they’ll just say it was Biden’s fault. Kinda like how some Republicans supporters thought Obama was president during 9/11.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Right. The cons and the Republican Party are pathological liars. The “liberal media” would do well to remember that and be sure to point it out as often as possible instead of playing their bullshit bothsiderist game.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 480K

    Comments