[_heimdall]

Well I'm not from "the other side" as I don't align with either party, but I do live in a very red part of the country.

In the short term, as I understand it, the goal is to root out fraud and abuse. For decades many people from both sides of the aisle have believed the government wastes money, that is nothing new. The current moves somewhat rhyme with the early Clinton administration. Whether that is Trump's goal or not is largely speculative, but those I've talked to that support him see this as the goal.

The mid and long term goals vary wildly depending on who I talk to. Some still view it like old school republicans, small government and states' rights. Others want a government just as large and powerful as today but focused on different goals and moral views.

The question I've yet to hear raised or disavowed by the Trump supporters I know is whether this is leading to fascism. A supposed billionaire running the country with his billionaire friends in toe sure seems like industry take over of government.

Similarly though, I rarely heard the other side of the aisle acknowledging whether the other path was intentionally leading to Marxism - a similar number of parallels existed there as well and in either case the outcome is authoritarianism and massive federal powers.

[watwut]

This has zero to do with rooting put fraud, this is literally making goverment more corrupt.

And the whole "democrats are Marxists" talking point is ridiculous. There are no paralels here, just a authoritarian and anti democratic movement successfully demonizing other side regardless of truth.

[_heimdall]

You're being too black and white here in my opinion.

From what I've seen we don't yet have a clear vision of what their end goals really are. They've talked about waste and fraud, and what they've done so far could be to that end. Going out a layer and you find people around them, and Project 2025, that seem to talk much more towards privatizing the government. I haven't seen enough to know which way it will go, but its been moving so quickly that I can't keep up with everything.

I didn't say "democrats are Marxists" and I didn't intend to imply that. To say there are no parallels is disingenuous at best. Wealth distribution is a great example that is common in both groups, as is anticapitalist and anti-meritocratic views and policies.

That doesn't mean democrats are Marxists or that the party is Marxist. It does, though, mean that there are policies many Democratic voters or politicians support that align with arguments Marx made (and that doesn't inherently mean the ideas are bad ones).

[crusty]

If you are a person who thinks diversity, equity, and inclusion are by definition determinants or waste, fraud, and abuse, then sure, you aren't going to see this as something totally different. So when Trump threatens to disrupt and destroy funding streams to agencies and institutions merely for referencing or addressing those things, i guess that's just part of the government being efficient.

Waste, fraud, and abuse are completely subjective and at this point arbitrary terms to a guy who thinks Putin is aces, calls Zelynsk is a dictator, and claims Ukraine stayed the War with the country that invaded them... twice. If he's unwilling to recognize a shared reality and set of objective truths with us, how would we not be complete idiots to believe his version of waste, fraud, and abuse comes straight from the upside-down and its real value is as a catchphrase that capitalizes on people's preconceptions of the government.

[watwut]

1.) If you did not seem enough, it is because you was avoiding it. Project 2024 also literally describes much more then just privatization.

The goals of conservative movements were always visible and open, alteought enablers preferred to demand everyone uses euphemisms.

2 ) You did used those words. You knew it was exaggeration and even now you are exaggerating. Plus even milder claim is purely false. You got what you wanted politically, so this strategy of false equivalencies, of blaming democrats of what conservatives do and plan to do is getting really hollow.

Bo sides were not the same, you just create such impression by using euphemisms for one side and exaggerations for another one.

3.) No one on the right has any business to use the word meritocracy. They never wanted ine, occasionally using that word to manipulate. Right now, qualified woman amd black man were removed from leadership position amd replaced by mediocre unqualified man.

Right now, qualified people are replaced by unqualified loyalists.

[_heimdall]

You're still being too black and white here.

I live in a mostly red/republican state. I don't know anyone who had actually read Project 2025 or could tell me what's in it. For sure it shows the intentions of those who wrote it, but you are generalizing far too much by saying it makes clear the motivations of a broader conservative movement.

> Similarly though, I rarely heard the other side of the aisle acknowledging whether the other path was intentionally leading to Marxism - a similar number of parallels existed there as well and in either case the outcome is authoritarianism and massive federal powers.

This is an exact quote from my earlier comment so we aren't out of context here. I did not use the words "democrats are Marxists." I do raise the potential that some Democratic policies lead towards a Marxist end, but in no way does that say they are Marxist or prescribe an opinion of the entire party or voting block.

What euphemisms are you claiming I made earlier? Some context there would help, I was trying to give clear examples and make direct statements but maybe I didn't do that well

> No one on the right has any business to use the word meritocracy.

Well I'm not on the right or claiming what the right (or Republicans if that's what you mean) can or can't say. I agree that at a minimum the Republican platform right now is pretty contradictory with regards to merit and that's a problem. That again wasn't my point though - I was making the claim that some Democratic voters and politicians support are opposed to meritocracy and that view aligns with Marxist writings. Are you disagreeing with me there, or just wanting to deflect to what the Republicans are doing?

[malcolmgreaves]

The Democratic Party is about as far away as you can get from any sort of Marxist political ideology as you can. There’s not a single even minor US political movement that is even remotely related to Marxism.

[_heimdall]

That seems like a hard claim to stand behind when Harris's father was a Marxist economist. BLM was also a very popular movement among the Democratic party, and it was organized and run by Marxists.

How do you land on the party being as far from Marxism as a party can be?

[dashundchen]

What Marxist policies was Harris promoting?

Elon Musk's parents and grandparents were adovactes and beneficiaries of a violent, racist apartheid South Africa. His dad had children with his step-daughter.

Fred Trump was arrested for participating in a KKK rally and prosecuted for racist discriminatiory housing practices.

How do you land on Trump and Musk being far from violent ugly racism?

[_heimdall]

> The Democratic Party is about as far away as you can get from any sort of Marxist political ideology as you can.

The last comment or set the bar pretty high here. Many of Harris's policy ideas were more focused on the collective well-being than the individual, all of those are more Marxist than they could be.

I'm not sure why you're jumping to Musk or Trump comparisons here. I agree with you in some areas that they both may be dangerous, that just wasn't the topic here.

[Larrikin]

You were called out and obviously don't have a valid response. You should have not responded and used one of your other accounts to reply elsewhere when backed into a corner.

Now all it does is make people think that's a ridiculous defense and look through your post history and it becomes obvious the purpose of your account.

[_heimdall]

Well now you've got me curious. I didn't feel backed into a corner and I did respond here.

I also don't have multiple accounts or hide replies behind dummy accounts, people can think whatever they want about my comment history.

What exactly are you trying to get at here? What in my comment history, or in this thread, are you claiming shows some ulterior motive to my account?