I'm just an outsider here but it seems very obvious to me that someone could both 1) support the (stated) mission of saving taxpayers' money and reducing the US national debt, and 2) disagree with a specific cut
I think you could make a reasonable argument that their actions aren't actually effective at implementing their mission. I'm not really in a position to judge that, personally. I was just saying I don't think it requires any great cognitive dissonance for GP to agree with their mission but disagree with a specific cut, as was sort of implied by the reply above.
I generally like my own government but I similarly think they've made some serious blunders at times. I don't think that's a huge contradiction (I'm not American FWIW...)
I guess it's the "Stated" mission that I find impossible to believe is the truth. DOGE clearly is not supposed to be about "saving tax payers money" when they include DEI reviews as well. So even your definition removes the baggage of the racism/transphobia/homophobia/misogyny by focusing only on the money when DOGE has not been focused solely on money in the slightest.
Anyone who trusts the "stated" mission of DOGE is a simple child who hasn't followed project 2025
