‘I Didn’t Vote for This’: A Revolt Against DOGE Cuts, Deep in Trump Country

[Irrelevant]

I feel like thats a measure of comparison and the bar is pretty low.

Why do you feel that way? Who would have done better? What would they have done better?

Here are some things that led me to feel the way I do, going back to 2000.

GW had an excellent response to 911.
GW's Global HIV/Aids Initiative (from the interwebs), apparently, is credited with saving 25+ million lives.
Obama's rescue of our failed banks. I don't think it can be underestimated how big of a deal this would have been for us had we allowed them to go bankrupt. And we got all that money back with interest.
Obama's ACA, even though it made my healthcare significantly more expensive.
Trump's Warp Speed Covid effort
Trump's Great American Outdoors Act
Biden's CHIPS act

 

[INMT]

It would take too much time to point out everything besides would you believe me? Just because something in Project 2025 has come to pass doesn't mean it's the play book.

The bigger point is assume "everything" you read is false and biased, and then follow up to find out if it is actually true. That goes for all sources not just left ones, btw.

Yes I would believe it if given credible sources and proof.

What I struggle to believe is someone coming on a public forum and claiming something without evidence and then digging their heels in further.

Not a huge ask on your part. You said it, show me the evidence and I’ll gladly believe and and carry on with my day.

 

[Irrelevant]

The bigger point is assume "everything" you read is false and biased, and then follow up to find out if it is actually true. That goes for all sources not just left ones, btw.

But that doesn't mean that it is. Good reporting happens all the time, everywhere.

 

[Nick87]

Why do you feel that way? Who would have done better? What would they have done better?

Here are some things that led me to feel the way I do, going back to 2000.

GW had an excellent response to 911.
GW's Global HIV/Aids Initiative (from the interwebs), apparently, is credited with saving 25+ million lives.
Obama's rescue of our failed banks. I don't think it can be underestimated how big of a deal this would have been for us had we allowed them to go bankrupt. And we got all that money back with interest.
Obama's ACA, even though it made my healthcare significantly more expensive.
Trump's Warp Speed Covid effort
Trump's Great American Outdoors Act
Biden's CHIPS act

Which ones were the good ones for you vs not so good?

 

[jimh406]

What I struggle to believe is someone coming on a public forum and claiming something without evidence and then digging their heels in further.

That's fine, believe the OP post and article just as much. I'm not digging, btw. I'm refusing to do your work for you.

 

[Irrelevant]

Which ones were the good ones for you vs not so good?

I generally think they were all pretty good. Though I'm struggling to point to many "wins" under Trump 2.0.

I think the people running against them would have been pretty good too, just in different ways. The vilification of politicians is far worse than anything the politicians are doing. And be honest, who would have done better and why?

 

[INMT]

That's fine, believe the OP post and article just as much. I'm not digging, btw. I'm refusing to do your work for you.

Typical.

Just curious, do you think those folks were paid actors, RINO’s, or just not MAGA enough?

Wondering why you would not believe the folks interviewed?

 

[Nick87]

Though I'm struggling to point to many "wins" under Trump 2.0.

I'd tend to agree with that for the most part. Except the boarder situation that ones a win so far.

 

[jimh406]

Typical.

Believe everything that agrees with your opinion. It would be too much work for you to think it's not all true.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Politico is a political site. Keep that in mind. They are against pretty much everything from the current administration. It seems most of this article is simply wrong. I wonder if anyone checked anything written in it.

I’m also curious what about that article you find wrong? It seems to very accurately reflect my experience over the last 11 months.

 

[Nick87]

I generally think they were all pretty good. Though I'm struggling to point to many "wins" under Trump 2.0.

I think the people running against them would have been pretty good too, just in different ways. The vilification of politicians is far worse than anything the politicians are doing. And be honest, who would have done better and why?

Probably a lot of people but they dont stand a chance getting elected. All Imsaying is they probably were good in comparison to there peers but as a whole nah. If you want to praise people who piss down your back and tell you it's raining that's fine. And yah im glad we bailed out the banks while a good chunk of the middle class lost everything they owned and worked for. A lot of which was due to the banks pushing those loans. I'm out of this one too irrelevant. Got a camping and fishing trip to plan for the kids in the spring. Have a merry christmas. I mean that.

 

[INMT]

Believe everything that agrees with your opinion. It would be too much work for you to think it's not all true.

That’s not what I’m asking. And you honestly have no clue my opinion or how I vote.

I’m simply asking for proof of what you stated.

 

[thusby]

I think FreeAir84 and his 75 messages need a new forum to post on. Ya’ll are way too eager to weigh into this crap. You’re ruining the forum.

 

[Irrelevant]

Project 2025 is like QAnon. The only significant number of people paying attention to it are on the left.

https://www.project2025.observer/en

Who’s pulling Trump’s strings? Inside Project 2025 and the 7 think tanks reshaping America

Since the 1960s, think tanks and advocacy groups have been key influencers of presidential policymaking. For decades, Democrat and Republican presidents have relied on think tanks for research and policy ideas. Most recently think tank roles have shifted from advisory to actual policy...

www.timesrepublican.com

Trump's Early Actions Mirror Project 2025

A TIME analysis found that nearly two-thirds of the executive actions Trump has issued mirror or partially mirror proposals from Project 2025.

time.com

How Trump's policies and Project 2025 proposals match up after first 100 days

As President Trump marks his first 100 days in the White House, many of the plans he has rolled out since the start of his second term closely align with those detailed in Project 2025's sprawling policy book.

www.cbsnews.com

and if you want/care to see what Chat says:
Here are additional, independent references that support specific examples of policy actions from the Trump 2025 administration that align with Project 2025 recommendations — based on reporting and tracking by reputable sources:

• TIME
• NBC4 Washington
• CBS News
• PBS
• Center for Progressive Reform

---

1. Ending DEI and “Woke” Federal Policies​

Executive Orders Eliminating Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Programs

• Executive Order 14151 directs the termination of almost all DEIA activities across federal departments, removing DEI-related positions, programs, funding, and references. (Wikipedia)
• Executive Order 14173 rescinded longstanding federal contractor anti-discrimination requirements tied to DEIA. (Wikipedia)

News and Analysis on Implementation:

• Multiple outlets note that Project 2025 explicitly calls for eliminating DEIA programs across the federal government, and that the administration’s executive actions mirror or closely reflect these recommendations. (TIME)
• PBS/Associated Press reporting shows that administration leaders have publicly aligned with Project 2025’s policy priorities, including rolling back federal DEIA policies. (PBS)

---

2. Reducing or Restructuring Federal Media Funding​

Executive Orders Targeting Public Broadcasting Funding

• Executive Order 14290 ends federal funding for NPR and PBS via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (Wikipedia)

This action aligns with Project 2025 recommendations to defund or restructure federal media and public information outlets that the blueprint identifies as promoting viewpoints it labels as “biased.” (CBS News)

---

3. Abortion Policy and Federal Funding Enforcement​

Executive Order Reinforcing Hyde Amendment Restrictions

• Executive Order 14182 stops federal funding for elective abortions and revokes previous executive actions that expanded abortion access. (Wikipedia)

Project 2025 calls for stricter federal enforcement of pro-life policies and limiting abortion funding at the federal level; this executive order implements that stance early in the second administration. (CBS News)

---

4. Broadly Aligned Executive Actions and Policy Shifts​

General Reporting on Alignment with Project 2025

• TIME magazine reported that a significant majority of the Trump administration’s early executive actions mirror or partially mirror Project 2025 policy prescriptions. (TIME)
• NBC News documented that “more than a dozen” actions in the first days align with Project 2025’s policy agenda. (NBC4 Washington)
• CBS News and other outlets specifically highlighted that policies targeting DEI, gender, abortion, and federal program restructuring are direct reflections of Project 2025 recommendations. (CBS News)

---

5. Independent Tracking of Project 2025 Implementation​

Project 2025 Tracking Resources:

• The Center for Progressive Reform and Governing for Impact is actively tracking executive actions across multiple agencies that reflect Project 2025’s policy prescriptions. (Center for Progressive Reform)
• The NAACP Legal Defense Fund also maintains a tracker outlining actions by the administration that map to Project 2025 proposals (particularly in civil rights areas). (Legal Defense Fund)

Note: These trackers document specific executive actions, regulatory rollbacks, and policy changes that align with the blueprint’s recommendations — though they do not present a formal causal claim that Project 2025 itself mandated each action.

---

Summary of Supported Examples​

Policy Area	Example Action	Independent Support
DEIA & Federal Workforce	EO ending DEIA programs and federal DEI roles	turn0search54, turn0search55, turn0news14, turn0news15
Public Broadcasting Funding	EO terminating NPR/PBS federal support	turn0search53, turn0news1
Abortion Funding Policy	EO enforcing Hyde Amendment restrictions	turn0search56, turn0news1
Alignment Reporting	Analyses of administration actions matching Project 2025	turn0news14, turn0news15, turn0news1, turn0news6
Tracking Implementation	NGO and civil rights organization trackers	turn0search2, turn0search12

---

Conclusion​

The independent sources above provide substantiation for key examples where administration executive actions and policy shifts in 2025 align with recommendations in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership. Coverage from major news outlets and ongoing policy trackers broadly corroborate that actions on:

• DEIA program elimination,
• federal media funding cuts,
• abortion funding policies,
• and other conservative governance shifts,

have been implemented and noted publicly as being consistent with the Project 2025 blueprint.

If you need a detailed list of specific executive orders and their Project 2025 policy matches, I can compile that using publicly available policy texts and the trackers above.

...
So how about you go now? Why don't you do your homework, or just google work, to present why someone should ignore Project 25 because it's irrelevant.

 

[Big Fin]

Project 2025 is like QAnon. The only significant number of people paying attention to it are on the left.

Not. Not even close. For those who didn't want to bury their head in the details of that 300+ page document, Chapter 16 was the part that impacts our issues the most. Link to that here - https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Project 2025 was a pet project of the anti-public land segment of the Republican Party. Trump's advisers were all over it. He was advised to dismiss it, as he knew it was bad baggage with some of his base. He won because he had way smarter advisers than the clown show he was running against.

The Heritage Foundation funded and coordinated Project 2025. It was a "wish list" of folks who have been public land vandals for decades. Mike Lee might be the visible face of that effort, but he's hardly the strategist.

The strategist is Russ Vought, now head at Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Vought was one of the leaders of Project 2025. He now has OMB sit in on meetings for BLM, USFS, USFWS, and other agencies, something that never happened in the past.

Vought hand-picked the person to write Chapter 16 of Project 2025, the chapter on Public Lands. Who did he pick? William Perry Pendley, a devout "sell the public land" guy from the Mountain States Legal Foundation who has written extensively about how/why to sell public lands.

Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy and former oil and gas executive, was asked to advise on Project 2025. DOE has its 9 principles for energy dominance that are the same as outlined in Project 2025. Some of the Executive Orders on energy and regulation that have been signed by POTUS are almost verbatim with Project 2025.

A few other Admin people listed as advisors or authors (over 260 given credit as contributors) in the Project 2025 document are:

Stephen Miller - White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, and POTUS Homeland Security Adviser

Brendan Carr - Chairman of Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Adam Candeub - General Counsel for the FCC (the guy who decides what deals get a thumbs up or thumbs down, or decides who the FCC does/doesn't go after.)

Paul Adkins - Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission

Peter Navaro - Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing

Tom Homan - Border Czar

Brian Cavanah - Associate Director for Homeland Security

Karoline Leavitt - White House Press Secretary

The list is much longer, but I think I've made the point.

Of the 267 "contributors" listed in the credits for Project 2025, over 140 of them came from Trump's first administration, his election team, or his transition team. That's more than 50%. It is laughable to entertain the idea that this was not part of the POTUS 47 plan.

Trump did a remarkable job of deflecting it. The facts present today make it hard to deny that it was, and still is, part of the road map put together by the Heritage Foundation.

Asking some in DC who are "in the know" as to the origin of the attacks on public lands and the conservation infrastructure, and all fingers points to Vought, Wright, and Pendley, three main contributors of Project 2025.

I met with a lobbyist last week who lobbies mostly on the conservative side of Congress. He was asking me ideas about how Rs might change the narrative on public lands and conservation. I didn't have much to offer, short of changing course.

If there is a good nugget I learned from the discussion it is that there are many Rs who would do anything to get rid of Mike Lee. As he told me, "Not a single R, outside of Lee and Friends, will touch another public land disposal bill after the mess created last summer." I guess that's one good thing that came of the big battle last summer.

When asked about the attacks on conservation, wildlife, privatizing resources while socializing costs/liabilities, and other actions that are going to have lifetime consequences to wildlife, he wasn't very reassuring that the folks he talks to have any concerns about those actions. When I asked more questions on the topic, his response was similar to my unhelpful response about how Rs can look better on public lands and conservation. He gave me the looked of, "I get your concerns, but I don't have any advice for how you can change the course we are on."

The 2024 D candidate and process was such an abysmal mess, it surely didn't offer much for alternatives. As I tell my D-loyalists, "I agree with all the facts pointed out as to the completely unpresidential character of the POTUS. But, what does that say about your candidate if your candidate lost to him by a large margin?"

Some wanted these changes and voted for such. Some did not expect it to go this far, yet voted for POTUS based on other priorities in their life. Yet, here we are.

I can understand why Terry says he "didn't vote for this." I hope he and others who voted for POTUS and who are having that feeling are compelled to stand up and speak up on the issues of public lands, conservation, access, etc. That's our only hope to prevent a dismantling of many systems that provide habitat necessary for robust wildlife numbers.

The election is done, based on how voters assessed their priorities. What matters now is that we give voice to wild places and wild things at this time when the folks with the levers of power have no interest in considering such. If we don't do so in the next few years, wildlife on public lands, the wildlife we have access to, is going to take the hit. If we think tags are hard to draw at the lower herd levels of today, we "ain't seen nothin' yet" would be the appropriate phrase to compare what it will be like 10 years from now.

 

[Hem]

I know this is a crazy idea, but democrats could run someone that doesn’t suck.
Trump won because they ran an unprincipled, unintelligent, unlikable twit that according to the 2020 primary wasn’t liked by democrats.

Trump is a horrible president-likely one of the worst ever- and he’s 100x better than her.

You are tracking, I mostly agree. I wasn't very convinced with Kamala Harris on short notice. Referring to Harris as a " her" is pretty demeaning, part of a bigger problem in this country.

 

[Treeshark]

That's our only hope to prevent a dismantling of many systems that provide habitat necessary for robust wildlife numbers.

Great post, Randy.

I mean this respectfully- this point above is exactly why I feel so strongly that wildlife and the land on which it lives cannot and should not be separated conceptually. I get and understand the legalistic argument, but one relies so much upon the other that it is impossible to uncouple.

As far as the subject of the article, I feel bad for him- but I’d have felt a lot worse ten years ago. After getting “wildlife is state-owned” rammed down our throats so often lately, it sure seems like a short-sighted battle cry when issues like this are being discussed.

 

[MTGomer]

2.

That is only a perception that we allow the media to instill in us. In those 23 years, we've had good presidents. Perfect presidents? No. But good? Yes, absolutely, on both sides of the political spectrum.

did you think they were good at the time?

I didn’t. But looking back… now I do.

Not sure if that’s because my views have evolved or because the bar has been lowered so far.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I regret voting against our dear leader, accidentally.

 

[TheTone]

I’m still waiting for my cost of living and gas prices to go down. Wasn’t that supposed to happen on day one?