ADVERTISEMENT

At least some judges are willing to stand up to Trump and Musk.

This is what kills me about the statist cult. I have never talked to any Trump supporter that wants to eliminate foreign aid, medical research or reduce the ability of vets to access top notch medical care or push granny over a cliff and take her SS. Imo, Trump supporters are simply people that want the government to operate within it's constitutional bounds, operate with efficiency that is at least comparable to the private sector and holds those with the keys to POWER more accountable than the average purchasing manager at a local business that gets caught taking kickbacks from a vendor.

Seriously, look at the activities you guys are trying to defend. Billions of dollars sent to NGOs with absurd bookkeeping and financial controls. Refusing to turn violent illegals over to ICE upon release from local jails. Lack of control of our borders and resisting efforts to slow the flow, high school males in female locker rooms, treating little Johnny like little Susie at school without informing parents and on and on.

Imo, those that reluctantly voted for Trump realized that neither party is our friend and we had become a government by, of and for the government. Most Trump supporters I know want equal protection under the law for every citizen and that means no special rights for some at the expense of others. A government that is accountable to those that are supposed to be self governed and reps that treat the people's treasure as if they were budgeting for their fixed income parents. (Heavy on necessities, light on folly.)

No, I don't want NGOs affiliated with Stacey Abrams getting 2 billion out of the blue. And yes, I'd be just as pissed if Trump's team sent 2 bill to a NGO affiliated with Newt as well. I don't think the government needs any help spending money if the cause is legitimate.
There is a disconnect between what you say you want, and the reality of the impact DOGE is having on all of those things you claim to support.

It is impossible for Elon Musk or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness or impact of the programs he is killing in the short time frame he has taken to do it. That's been proven by the very public mistakes that have been made in both personnel and programs killed.

Saying you support foreign aid while Elon kills the agency responsible for directing a huge percentage of our foreign aid with no plan for replacement is a disconnect.

Saying you support medical research while Elon kills funding for the NIH, teaching universities and other agencies that actually conduct the studies with zero plan for replacement services is a disconnect.

It's akin to saying you are a law and order/back the blue person while enthusiastically supporting the guy who called over three hundred felons convicted of assaulting the police heroes and then pardoning them all. That's a disconnect.

Of course, everyone would like to reduce government fraud and waste. That's undeniable. So, develop an approach, even an aggressive approach, that provides time and the personnel to be thoughtful and effective. Elon's approach is not thoughtful and if it were well-executed, he wouldn't have to keep lying about the supposed savings he is driving, which he has done repeatedly.
 
Last edited:
There is a disconnect between what you say you want, and the reality of the impact DOGE is having on all of those things you claim to support.

It is impossible for Elon Musk or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness or impact of the programs he is killing in the short time frame he has taken to do it. That's been proven by the very public mistakes that have been made in both personal and programs killed.

Saying you support foreign aid while Elon kills the agency responsible for directing a huge percentage of our foreign aid with no plan for replacement is a disconnect.

Saying you support medical research while Elon kills funding for the NIH, teaching universities and other agencies that actually conduct the studies with zero plan for replacement services is a disconnect.

It's akin to saying you are a law and order/back the blue person while enthusiastically supporting the guy who called over three hundred felons convicted of assaulting the police heroes and then pardoning them all. That's a disconnect.

Of course, everyone would like to reduce government fraud and waste. That's undeniable. So, develop an approach, even an aggressive approach, that provides time and the personnel to be thoughtful and effective. Elon's approach is not thoughtful and if it were well-executed, he wouldn't have to keep lying about the supposed savings he is driving, which he has done repeatedly.
Thoughtful and effective? Are you serious? How about all the folks put out of a job because they didnt get the jab? You are totally full of shit.

Youve got some ****ing balls asking for thoughtful and effective as that happened and currently there are Libtards burning down Tesla dealerships , attacking Tesla drivers and currently supporting Hamas in DC and NYC.

Kindly take your thoughtful and effective and GFY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Georgia Knight

🫨​

Inside The Now-Shuttered Federal Agency Where Employees Lived ‘Like Reigning Kings’

Employees of DOGE's latest target spent taxpayer moneys on exotic vacations, portraits, and more.

One of the seven small federal agencies that President Donald Trump ordered downsized or eliminated on Friday was rife with corruption, with its employees hiring friends and relatives, commissioning paintings of themselves, and using government credit cards to indulge in constant luxuries.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) occupied a nine-story office tower on D.C.’s K Street for only 60 employees, many of whom actually worked from home, prior to the pandemic. Its managers had luxury suites with full bathrooms; one manager would often be “in the shower” when she was needed, while another used her bathroom as a cigarette lounge. FMCS recorded its director as being on a years-long business trip to D.C. so he could have all of his meals and living expenses covered by taxpayers, simply for showing up to the office.


FMCS is a 230-employee agency that exists to serve as a voluntary mediator between unions and businesses. As an “independent agency,” its director nominally reports to the president, but the agency is so small that in effect, there is no oversight at all — and it showed, becoming a real-life caricature of all the excesses that the Department of Government Efficiency has alleged take place in government.

This reporter spent a year investigating the agency a decade ago, and I found egregious and self-serving violations of hiring, pay, contracting, and purchase card rules. One thing I could not discover is why the agency actually existed, other than to provide luxurious lifestyles for its employees. Endless junkets to resort destinations, which employees openly used to facilitate personal vacations, were justified as building awareness of the agency in the hopes that someone would actually want to use its voluntary services.

FMCS seemed, quite clearly, to exist for the benefit of those on its payroll, and not much else. One employee told me: “Let me give you the honest truth: A lot of FMCS employees don’t do a hell of a lot, including myself. Personally, the reason that I’ve stayed is that I just don’t feel like working that hard, plus the location on K Street is great, plus we all have these oversized offices with windows, plus management doesn’t seem to care if we stay out at lunch a long time. Can you blame me?”

Recreation and reception fund.”

Top FMCS official George Cohen used a “recreation and reception fund” to order champagne and $200 coasters for his office, and to purchase artwork painted by his wife. The tiny agency commissioned paintings of its top employees — as one employee told me, “like they were reigning kings or something…I’ve never seen anything like it before.” It spent $2,402 retouching the portrait of someone who briefly held the top job in an acting capacity.

FMCS employees “unblocked” their government credit cards to turn off typical abuse protections, then used them to apparently fund personal expenses and simply bill anything they’d like to the government. One employee leased a BMW; another (IT director James Donnen) billed the government for his wife’s cell phone, cable TV at both his home and his vacation home, and even his subscription to USA Today.

Employee Dan W. Funkhouser used his FMCS card to rent a storage unit near his home in rural Virginia, two hours from the office he supposedly worked at, which was used to store personal possessions such as a photo album of his dog, Buster. Funkhouser also spent $18,000 at a jewelry store near his house, and “destroyed all purchase card records upon leaving the agency,” an audit said.

When Charles Burton retired from FMCS, he incorporated an LLC to which another FMCS employee paid $85,000 using his purchase card, listing it as a “Call Center Service,” even though the company had neither a website nor a working phone.

When an accountant, Carol Booth, blew the whistle on financial abuses to the General Services Administration, which manages purchase cards and contracting, Cohen forced her to send an email (which he wrote under her name) rescinding her statement.

Like something out of “The Office,” the employees spent an inordinate amount of time and money congratulating one another for being employed there and engaging in “work” that really amounted to pampering themselves.

One purchase was for $30,000 on trinkets making employees’ anniversaries. The agency’s office was absurdly oversized, but it refused to move. It hired a consultant for a “Hallway Improvement Project” to decorate. It had an in-house gym for employees, and purchased a $1,000 TV for the gym, a $3,867 ice-maker, and a $560 stereo.

The expenses that were actually business-related were hardly better. It paid, for example, $895 “for Suzanne Nichter’s enrollment in the English Essentials: A Grammar Refresher course” and $735 “for Lakisha Steward to attend Listening and Memory Skills Development Course.”

All expenses paid lifestyle

FMCS used federal jobs as a spigot of cash for friends and relatives. Allison Beck, a former union lawyer who became a top FMCS official, employed her sister-in-law as a “special assistant,” and an inspector general found evidence that she tried to create a high-level job for a friend.

FMCS employees allegedly steered contracts to friends, allowing them to write the “statement of work” that would be used to choose the contract winner — resulting in, of course, their own selection. Such “trainers” were paid $1,500 per day per person to train FMCS’s staff, plus $163 an hour for travel. When a low-level employee eventually said the extra travel pay ran afoul of federal rules, a contractor made clear he viewed it as an entitlement, huffing: “Work we have successfully performed for the agency for more than a decade — at great personal sacrifice, I should add — will be taken away unless we comply in an unquestioning manner with your edict.”

Scot Beckenbaugh, a top agency official, was paid $174,000 a year, but that wasn’t enough: He had his “duty station” listed as Iowa so that he could have all of his living expenses and food paid for in D.C., where he lived and worked, as if he was on a six-year-long business trip. When an employee raised the issue to an agency lawyer, the lawyer told him he “should not raise these issues … it would open a can of worms.”

FMCS hired a former mail carrier who lived in Pennsylvania, Lu-Ann Glaser, for a high-level, D.C.-based job, and agreed to pay for her to stay in a hotel for half of every month — even though it would have been easy to find someone better qualified who didn’t need to be put up in a hotel to simply do her job.

Paul Voight, a human resources official, was listed as living in D.C. even though he actually lived in Wisconsin, in order to fraudulently obtain higher cost-of-living pay. Voight’s boss was Artur Pearlstein, who left the agency to become a law professor, and was then re-hired after his academic career imploded in a plagiarism scandal. His first move in his new job was terminating an independent investigation into FMCS staff abusing taxpayer funds for personal gain.

Cohen, for his part, steered work to his previous employer, despite signing ethics forms saying he would not.

Constant junkets

Many of the agency’s top employees lived outside of the typical Washington, D.C., commuting area, and only stopped in the area occasionally, in an era before telework was routine. Its CFO, Fran Leonard, would come to the office twice a week but leave by 2:00 p.m.

The agency had, inexplicably, an office in Honolulu.

It funded constant travel of its employees to exotic locales, on the pretext that it was drumming up business for the federal agency — an admission that there was little demand for the agency’s existence.

In one month, Beck traveled to Italy and Switzerland, where she conducted a business meeting — over video chat. Then she went to Tunisia and an island off the coast of Georgia. She flew first class and forced the agency to reimburse her for mileage when she drove to her vacation home in Maine.

The agency had three full-time media relations staffers, none of whom would speak to me, almost certainly one of the only reporters to ever call.

Cash grants for insiders

The agency’s existence is predicated on the idea that it is an impartial mediator, biased neither towards labor nor management. But its staff largely comes from a union background, and it gave out grants to promote union membership. But it was too incompetent to do much ideological damage; its employees’ comfort always came before helping unions.

Anyone could request cash grants from the agency, with the only requirement that they mention some nexus with unions, however tortured. It doled out a seemingly random assortment of giveaways to private businesses, perhaps because they were the only ones who knew the grants existed.

It gave $63,000 to a hospital that went bankrupt; $51,000 to a childcare company to help it pay government licensing fees; and $57,000 to a company to “strengthen of culture of continuous improvement to drive us to world class excellence!”

What surprised me most about my FMCS investigation was what happened afterward: nothing. An inspector general made a referral to the FBI, but there were no prosecutions. Instead, President Barack Obama nominated a chief subject of the investigation to the top job.

A decade later, Trump has done what even the agency’s own employees said should happen: shut it down.
 
Plenty of responses that have nothing to do with what Trump and Musk are doing. It's easier to say something about Biden when you can't defend what Trump is doing.

And if you missed it, another judge later yesterday halted another move that Trump is making. The judge didn't buy what Trump and his lawyers were saying which isn't surprising because we know of Trump's prejudices. More court time coming up.

And this morning I learned that Trump illegally fired the two Democrats on the FTC leaving the Republicans. So much for another supposed independent agency, etc.
 
Last edited:

🫨​

Inside The Now-Shuttered Federal Agency Where Employees Lived ‘Like Reigning Kings’

Employees of DOGE's latest target spent taxpayer moneys on exotic vacations, portraits, and more.
Well this certainly seems like an agency that needed to be cleaned up. I have no problem with the individuals mentioned being thrown on the street. But an investigation was used to uncover this and something similar should be done in other cases. Where it's not being done, or false information is being used, is where I have a problem.
 
Plenty of responses that have nothing to do with what Trump and Musk are doing. It's easier to say something about Biden when you can't defend what Trump is doing.

And if you missed it, another judge later yesterday halted another move that Trump is making. The judge didn't buy what Trump and his lawyers were saying which isn't surprising because we know of Trump's prejudices. More court time coming up.

And this morning I learned that Trump illegally fired the two Democrats on the FTC leaving the Republicans. So much for another supposed independent agency, etc.
Im understand nuance is tough when you have TDS.

I voted for what Trump is doing , so I hope he carries on .
 
Well this certainly seems like an agency that needed to be cleaned up. I have no problem with the individuals mentioned being thrown on the street. But an investigation was used to uncover this and something similar should be done in other cases. Where it's not being done, or false information is being used, is where I have a problem.
Do you know how many times we were told info was false , and it turned out to be true?
 
  • Like
Reactions: d-dawg and Lava-Man
There is a disconnect between what you say you want, and the reality of the impact DOGE is having on all of those things you claim to support.

It is impossible for Elon Musk or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness or impact of the programs he is killing in the short time frame he has taken to do it. That's been proven by the very public mistakes that have been made in both personnel and programs killed.

Saying you support foreign aid while Elon kills the agency responsible for directing a huge percentage of our foreign aid with no plan for replacement is a disconnect.

Saying you support medical research while Elon kills funding for the NIH, teaching universities and other agencies that actually conduct the studies with zero plan for replacement services is a disconnect.

It's akin to saying you are a law and order/back the blue person while enthusiastically supporting the guy who called over three hundred felons convicted of assaulting the police heroes and then pardoning them all. That's a disconnect.

Of course, everyone would like to reduce government fraud and waste. That's undeniable. So, develop an approach, even an aggressive approach, that provides time and the personnel to be thoughtful and effective. Elon's approach is not thoughtful and if it were well-executed, he wouldn't have to keep lying about the supposed savings he is driving, which he has done repeatedly.
And if the statist you worship hadn't created 37 trillion in debt with trillions more promised but not funded, we wouldn't have ever elected Trump and Elon wouldn't be needed now. And I'm very sure of what I want. While I hate the fact that a lot of government teat sucklings are going thru what private sector employees usually face once or twice in their lives, I'm not sorry we're taking drastic actions. I'm sick of being scammed by the government that is supposed to govern with the consent of the governed.

You listed a lot of agencies that are charged with doing good works but fail to admit all have issues with waste fraud and abuse and most are simply out of control due to our budget process and lack of oversight. NIH, USAID, the DOE, the Pentagon and every SOB with the power to spend a dime of tax payer treasure should be held to the highest accounting standards and use of tax dollars for political gain should be rooted out and prosecuted when warranted.
 
Plenty of responses that have nothing to do with what Trump and Musk are doing. It's easier to say something about Biden when you can't defend what Trump is doing.

And if you missed it, another judge later yesterday halted another move that Trump is making. The judge didn't buy what Trump and his lawyers were saying which isn't surprising because we know of Trump's prejudices. More court time coming up.

And this morning I learned that Trump illegally fired the two Democrats on the FTC leaving the Republicans. So much for another supposed independent agency, etc.

So, when these Article III judges attempting to wield Article II power have their decisions overturned, what's the new narrative?
 
And if the statist you worship hadn't created 37 trillion in debt with trillions more promised but not funded, we wouldn't have ever elected Trump and Elon wouldn't be needed now. And I'm very sure of what I want. While I hate the fact that a lot of government teat sucklings are going thru what private sector employees usually face once or twice in their lives, I'm not sorry we're taking drastic actions. I'm sick of being scammed by the government that is supposed to govern with the consent of the governed.

You listed a lot of agencies that are charged with doing good works but fail to admit all have issues with waste fraud and abuse and most are simply out of control due to our budget process and lack of oversight. NIH, USAID, the DOE, the Pentagon and every SOB with the power to spend a dime of tax payer treasure should be held to the highest accounting standards and use of tax dollars for political gain should be rooted out and prosecuted when warranted.
1) I don't worship anyone or anything related to our federal government. That's just a weird choice of words that seems to be a favorite when discussing opposition on the left.

2) All large organizations have inefficiencies, including corporations. The federal government is a massive organization that is designed to serve many interests. As I said before, there is always an opportunity to improve efficiency while preserving capability, but DOGE is failing at that.

3) If you are serious about reigning in the deficit, you would be raising hell about the fact that DJT and the GOP just passed a budget that is projected to raise the deficit by $2t to $2.5t over the next decade, all while gutting current entitlements.
 
There is a disconnect between what you say you want, and the reality of the impact DOGE is having on all of those things you claim to support.

It is impossible for Elon Musk or anyone else to evaluate the effectiveness or impact of the programs he is killing in the short time frame he has taken to do it. That's been proven by the very public mistakes that have been made in both personnel and programs killed.

Saying you support foreign aid while Elon kills the agency responsible for directing a huge percentage of our foreign aid with no plan for replacement is a disconnect.

Saying you support medical research while Elon kills funding for the NIH, teaching universities and other agencies that actually conduct the studies with zero plan for replacement services is a disconnect.

It's akin to saying you are a law and order/back the blue person while enthusiastically supporting the guy who called over three hundred felons convicted of assaulting the police heroes and then pardoning them all. That's a disconnect.

Of course, everyone would like to reduce government fraud and waste. That's undeniable. So, develop an approach, even an aggressive approach, that provides time and the personnel to be thoughtful and effective. Elon's approach is not thoughtful and if it were well-executed, he wouldn't have to keep lying about the supposed savings he is driving, which he has done repeatedly.

More concerned with the impact if drastic cuts aren’t made.
 
Im understand nuance is tough when you have TDS.

I voted for what Trump is doing , so I hope he carries on .
Thanks for proving my point. I don't know what you mean by nuance, but you certainly haven't responded to the issues. Did you really vote for all this crap Trump is doing or is it just more blind devotion to the king?
 
So, when these Article III judges attempting to wield Article II power have their decisions overturned, what's the new narrative?
Uh, yeah, I agree with the point here. Judges, like Ana Reyes in the trans case, don’t have the authority to flex Article II powers—that’s the President’s turf, you know, executive stuff like running the military.

She blocked the DOD from banning transgender folks from serving. She went further, questioning the military’s reasoning on biological sex and readiness, like whether pronouns mess up combat. That’s not just interpreting law; it’s poking into evidence and policy-making, which, um, feels like overreach.

Judges aren’t supposed to play investigator or second-guess executive calls like that. So, when these Article II intrusions get overturned, the new narrative might just be, “Hey, stick to your lane, Your Honor”? It’s a messy overstep, if you ask me.

Drunk Season 8 GIF by The Office
 
So, when these Article III judges attempting to wield Article II power have their decisions overturned, what's the new narrative?
No new narrative because I am sure Trump will continue to not follow the law. As we've said, it's all part of the process.
 
Uh, yeah, I agree with the point here. Judges, like Ana Reyes in the trans case, don’t have the authority to flex Article II powers—that’s the President’s turf, you know, executive stuff like running the military.

She blocked the DOD from banning transgender folks from serving. She went further, questioning the military’s reasoning on biological sex and readiness, like whether pronouns mess up combat. That’s not just interpreting law; it’s poking into evidence and policy-making, which, um, feels like overreach.

Judges aren’t supposed to play investigator or second-guess executive calls like that. So, when these Article II intrusions get overturned, the new narrative might just be, “Hey, stick to your lane, Your Honor”? It’s a messy overstep, if you ask me.

Drunk Season 8 GIF by The Office
All to be decided. You left out the point that Trump didn't present any evidence that they weren't doing their job. But since Trump has now declared that we can again discriminate against people, he's just following his prejudices.
 
1) I don't worship anyone or anything related to our federal government. That's just a weird choice of words that seems to be a favorite when discussing opposition on the left.

2) All large organizations have inefficiencies, including corporations. The federal government is a massive organization that is designed to serve many interests. As I said before, there is always an opportunity to improve efficiency while preserving capability, but DOGE is failing at that.

3) If you are serious about reigning in the deficit, you would be raising hell about the fact that DJT and the GOP just passed a budget that is projected to raise the deficit by $2t to $2.5t over the next decade, all while gutting current entitlements.
Uh, well, I don’t think it’s quite fair to say DOGE is failing. I mean, look at the numbers—they’ve already trimmed $840 million in wasteful contracts, according to stories like Business Insider, and that’s with a 12% drop in administrative overhead, all while keeping essential services intact. That’s not exactly a failure, right? It’s more like a solid start.

And about that deficit projection—sure, the CBO says $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion over a decade, but they’ve got a track record of underestimating tax revenue after tax cuts. Besides 2019 with Trump’s 2017 cuts, take 2003—after the Bush tax cuts, revenues grew faster than the CBO predicted once the economy picked up. Same deal in 1983 with Reagan’s cuts; the CBO underestimated the revenue rebound there too, as growth outpaced their forecasts. So, you know, maybe we shouldn’t panic just yet. Just my two cents.
 
No new narrative because I am sure Trump will continue to not follow the law. As we've said, it's all part of the process.

Look, I don’t mean to nitpick or anything—it’s not really my style—but I couldn’t help but notice a little issue with your statement. You said, “No new narrative because I am sure Trump will continue to not follow the law,” and then tied it to “it’s all part of the process.” But here’s the thing—and I hate to be that guy—if a judge’s ruling gets overturned, it means, legally speaking, that Trump didn’t actually break the law in that case. Like, technically. I know it’s confusing, and no one really likes hearing this stuff from me, but it’s just how the paperwork shakes out. So saying he’s not following the law might not totally fit there. Just pointing it out.

All to be decided. You left out the point that Trump didn't present any evidence that they weren't doing their job. But since Trump has now declared that we can again discriminate against people, he's just following his prejudices.

I’ve got to disagree with a couple points here. You said Trump didn’t present evidence that “they weren’t doing their job,” but I think we might be missing the mark a bit. The issue wasn’t about trans people not doing their jobs—no one’s saying that. It’s more about the Executive Branch, you know, the President’s team, having the authority to set fitness standards for the military. That’s their call, not really something a judge steps in and starts tossing evidence around for. Judges don’t do that—it’s a big no-no for them, actually. They just rule on what’s in front of them.

And about the discrimination part—saying he’s “following his prejudices” and letting people discriminate again—I’m not sure that holds up either. The policy isn’t about targeting anyone for who they are. It’s about medical and readiness standards. For example, the 2018 Mattis policy, which came out of all this, focused on deployability and mental health stats—like how 41% of trans individuals have higher rates of psychological conditions compared to the general population, per some studies. That’s not prejudice; it’s just data the military uses to keep things running smoothly. I know it’s not a fun topic, and I’m probably the last person you want explaining this, but I figured I’d clear that up. I’ll just head back to my desk now.

Season 4 Office Tv GIF by The Office
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lava-Man
1) I don't worship anyone or anything related to our federal government. That's just a weird choice of words that seems to be a favorite when discussing opposition on the left.

2) All large organizations have inefficiencies, including corporations. The federal government is a massive organization that is designed to serve many interests. As I said before, there is always an opportunity to improve efficiency while preserving capability, but DOGE is failing at that.

3) If you are serious about reigning in the deficit, you would be raising hell about the fact that DJT and the GOP just passed a budget that is projected to raise the deficit by $2t to $2.5t over the next decade, all while gutting current entitlements.
1. You can't even bring yourself to admit Biden's 20 billion out the door at the last minute to orgs created by cronies is unacpetable. I'm not sure I have ever seen you condemn any actions taken by the authoritarian statist of the left. A government worshiper and statist sycophant defends the indefensible in the name of the leaders of their tribe.

2. True, all large org have inefficiencies but the competition and desire to profit usually leads to the discovery and elimination of orgs that are out of control. Large corps closing divisions that are no longer profitable or necessary is common place. Eliminating out of control government agencies while assigning their worthy tasks to other divisions should be common place as well. If the established pols would have competently managed the growth of government, the chainsaw wouldn't be needed today.

3, WGAS about projections? If government statisticians have proven anything over the yrs, it's they can hold their jobs while being less accurate than a weatherman calling for snow in July in Atl.
 
Thanks for proving my point. I don't know what you mean by nuance, but you certainly haven't responded to the issues. Did you really vote for all this crap Trump is doing or is it just more blind devotion to the king?
Thanks for proving my point.
 
Look, I don’t mean to nitpick or anything—it’s not really my style—but I couldn’t help but notice a little issue with your statement. You said, “No new narrative because I am sure Trump will continue to not follow the law,” and then tied it to “it’s all part of the process.” But here’s the thing—and I hate to be that guy—if a judge’s ruling gets overturned, it means, legally speaking, that Trump didn’t actually break the law in that case. Like, technically. I know it’s confusing, and no one really likes hearing this stuff from me, but it’s just how the paperwork shakes out. So saying he’s not following the law might not totally fit there. Just pointing it out.



I’ve got to disagree with a couple points here. You said Trump didn’t present evidence that “they weren’t doing their job,” but I think we might be missing the mark a bit. The issue wasn’t about trans people not doing their jobs—no one’s saying that. It’s more about the Executive Branch, you know, the President’s team, having the authority to set fitness standards for the military. That’s their call, not really something a judge steps in and starts tossing evidence around for. Judges don’t do that—it’s a big no-no for them, actually. They just rule on what’s in front of them.

And about the discrimination part—saying he’s “following his prejudices” and letting people discriminate again—I’m not sure that holds up either. The policy isn’t about targeting anyone for who they are. It’s about medical and readiness standards. For example, the 2018 Mattis policy, which came out of all this, focused on deployability and mental health stats—like how 41% of trans individuals have higher rates of psychological conditions compared to the general population, per some studies. That’s not prejudice; it’s just data the military uses to keep things running smoothly. I know it’s not a fun topic, and I’m probably the last person you want explaining this, but I figured I’d clear that up. I’ll just head back to my desk now.

Season 4 Office Tv GIF by The Office
HR guy bringing some #fax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toby Flenderson
1. You can't even bring yourself to admit Biden's 20 billion out the door at the last minute to orgs created by cronies is unacpetable. I'm not sure I have ever seen you condemn any actions taken by the authoritarian statist of the left. A government worshiper and statist sycophant defends the indefensible in the name of the leaders of their tribe.

2. True, all large org have inefficiencies but the competition and desire to profit usually leads to the discovery and elimination of orgs that are out of control. Large corps closing divisions that are no longer profitable or necessary is common place. Eliminating out of control government agencies while assigning their worthy tasks to other divisions should be common place as well. If the established pols would have competently managed the growth of government, the chainsaw wouldn't be needed today.

3, WGAS about projections? If government statisticians have proven anything over the yrs, it's they can hold their jobs while being less accurate than a weatherman calling for snow in July in Atl.
1) https://uga.forums.rivals.com/threads/is-anyone-surprised-anymore.691257/#post-8288826

2) We are talking past each other on this. We agree that government efficiency is a needed initiative. We disagree regarding DOGE and how Elon is going about it.

3) I agree on projections. The problem is, government projections almost always over-estimate revenues and underestimate expenditures. That means the actual deficit will almost certainly end up larger than the $2.5t estimate.
 
Just because Soros doesn’t tweet all day every day and get on stage swinging a chainsaw like a lunatic doesn’t mean he isn’t transparent in his philanthropy.


The idea that Soros’s low-key style proves his philanthropy’s transparency doesn’t hold water.

Sure, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) lays out a shiny mission statement, but they admit most grants are handed out behind closed doors, leaving us guessing who’s really cashing the checks --->LINK

Then there’s the 2016 leak showing OSF playing it coy on touchy advocacy, hardly the mark of an open book --->LINK

Critics over at Capital Research Center point out Soros’s cash funnels through a maze of middlemen, like the Open Society Policy Center’s lobbying blitz, muddying the trail. --->LINK

And InfluenceWatch flags how his billions fuel shadowy global projects, some so dicey they’ve gotten OSF booted from places like Russia. --->LINK

Your transparency claim is a bit overblown. Soros’s crew doesn’t need him twirling a chainsaw on stage, quiet money moves can still dodge the spotlight. His setup leans on slick, under-the-radar plays.

For example, this article ---> LINK shows how a Soros-backed group is reimbursing left-wing protesters for targeting Tesla showrooms as part of an anti-Musk, anti-Trump campaign. It says the group offers at least $200 per protest group to disrupt Musk’s influence.

Soros’s philanthropy isn’t some open book. Quietly funding agitation through layers like this group, with $7.26 million from Soros, just proves that his cash flows in shadowy ways and is not the transparent charity some claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: litedawg1968
Here’s the real kicker.

ICE has admitted that a number of the “gang members” deported to hell-hole prisons in El Salvador had never previously been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.

ICE is also detaining green card holders and visiting nationals with valid passports for no stated reason.

And what our MAGA friends fail to realize is that once due process is out the door, no one is safe from an authoritarian government. It always starts with the “others”, until “others” includes anyone who resists authority

Hey fashys, judges have the ability to weigh in on and restrict executive authority. If you have a problem with that get the fuck out of the country.
You are full of it! Trump will win the appeal.
 
The idea that Soros’s low-key style proves his philanthropy’s transparency doesn’t hold water.

Sure, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) lays out a shiny mission statement, but they admit most grants are handed out behind closed doors, leaving us guessing who’s really cashing the checks --->LINK

Then there’s the 2016 leak showing OSF playing it coy on touchy advocacy, hardly the mark of an open book --->LINK

Critics over at Capital Research Center point out Soros’s cash funnels through a maze of middlemen, like the Open Society Policy Center’s lobbying blitz, muddying the trail. --->LINK

And InfluenceWatch flags how his billions fuel shadowy global projects, some so dicey they’ve gotten OSF booted from places like Russia. --->LINK

Your transparency claim is a bit overblown. Soros’s crew doesn’t need him twirling a chainsaw on stage, quiet money moves can still dodge the spotlight. His setup leans on slick, under-the-radar plays.

For example, this article ---> LINK shows how a Soros-backed group is reimbursing left-wing protesters for targeting Tesla showrooms as part of an anti-Musk, anti-Trump campaign. It says the group offers at least $200 per protest group to disrupt Musk’s influence.

Soros’s philanthropy isn’t some open book. Quietly funding agitation through layers like this group, with $7.26 million from Soros, just proves that his cash flows in shadowy ways and is not the transparent charity some claim.
You need to refine your AI engagement.

The OSF website lists the recipients of 19,737 past grants by year and amount granted. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past

Your (AI) most notable claim is that OSF was banned in Russia. That's the best endorsement for their work that you could possibly cite. Thanks for that.
 
The problem is, government projections almost always over-estimate revenues and underestimate expenditures. That means the actual deficit will almost certainly end up larger than the $2.5t estimate.

The claim that “government projections almost always overestimate revenues” doesn’t align with CBO data, especially on tax revenues, which are frequently underestimated.

Looking at CBO data from 2013–2023, revenues exceeded forecasts in 10 out of 11 years (90.9%). Deficits were overestimated in 8 out of 11 years (72.7%). --->LINK
 
  • Like
Reactions: willdup
Are you implying that Trumps invoking of the Alien Enemies Act, which is a war time act that gives the government the ability to deport people without due process, in a non war time is constitutional?
Evidently it is constitutional. You can’t have one radical judge stopping due process. He doesn’t have the authority to overturn the Presidents decisions!
 
The idea that Soros’s low-key style proves his philanthropy’s transparency doesn’t hold water.

Sure, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) lays out a shiny mission statement, but they admit most grants are handed out behind closed doors, leaving us guessing who’s really cashing the checks --->LINK

Then there’s the 2016 leak showing OSF playing it coy on touchy advocacy, hardly the mark of an open book --->LINK

Critics over at Capital Research Center point out Soros’s cash funnels through a maze of middlemen, like the Open Society Policy Center’s lobbying blitz, muddying the trail. --->LINK

And InfluenceWatch flags how his billions fuel shadowy global projects, some so dicey they’ve gotten OSF booted from places like Russia. --->LINK

Your transparency claim is a bit overblown. Soros’s crew doesn’t need him twirling a chainsaw on stage, quiet money moves can still dodge the spotlight. His setup leans on slick, under-the-radar plays.

For example, this article ---> LINK shows how a Soros-backed group is reimbursing left-wing protesters for targeting Tesla showrooms as part of an anti-Musk, anti-Trump campaign. It says the group offers at least $200 per protest group to disrupt Musk’s influence.

Soros’s philanthropy isn’t some open book. Quietly funding agitation through layers like this group, with $7.26 million from Soros, just proves that his cash flows in shadowy ways and is not the transparent charity some claim.
The difference in Soros and Musk can be summed up in what the end results of their efforts seek to achieve.

You may argue how he goes about it, but Musk's goal is to cut government waste.

Soros' goal is to push very, very progressive ideas. Most notably in the area of the prosecution of criminals, or lack thereof.

One of those goals aligns with the vast majority of Americans. The other's aligns with probably 20 percent of Americans.
 
The difference in Soros and Musk can be summed up in what the end results of their efforts seek to achieve.

You may argue how he goes about it, but Musk's goal is to cut government waste.

Soros' goal is to push very, very progressive ideas. Most notably in the area of the prosecution of criminals, or lack thereof.

One of those goals aligns with the vast majority of Americans. The other's aligns with probably 20 percent of Americans.
And they are radical communists !
 
You need to refine your AI engagement.

The OSF website lists the recipients of 19,737 past grants by year and amount granted. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past

Your (AI) most notable claim is that OSF was banned in Russia. That's the best endorsement for their work that you could possibly cite. Thanks for that.
Google and sometimes LI (Lava Intelligence) for quick numbers search. Clearly not 100% perfect, that's why I provide links. I was wrong to say OSF’s grants are “behind closed doors, leaving us guessing.” I simply missed that table in my quick review. Mea Culpa.

I should have also expanded on my Russia point:
--->
LINK
The bigger problem: Russia and other nations tend to see Soros as a tool of U.S. policy. While Soros is not, his high-profile involvement in the domestic affairs of these faraway lands poses problems for Washington. Soros has made it harder for President Obama to "hit the reset button" with Russia and has complicated relations with a host of other nations. Getting Russia's vote on the U.N. Security Council to halt Iran's nuclear-weapons program or further isolate North Korea is made more difficult by Soros.

OSF has a history of hurting the US policy. Getting booted by Russia is not a "good" thing, even when Russia is "bad"

What about the rest of my post? Did you read the article, published today re: the Tesla protests?
 
Evidently it is constitutional. You can’t have one radical judge stopping due process. He doesn’t have the authority to overturn the Presidents decisions!
One radical, leftist judge? Are we talking about the same radical, leftist judge who:

- Ordered the release of 14,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails
- Dismissed the Trump tax return lawsuit, ensuring his taxes didn't become public
- Upheld parts of a work requirements bill for a Medicaid program in Kentucky
- Limited the scope of the Mueller investigation disclosures
- Issued lighter sentences for J6 rioters than prosecutors sought
- Limited grand jury material disclosure in Trump's classified documents case

Yeah, this guy is a real commie, isn't he? :rolleyes:
 
It’s been done before and we were invaded by these illegal foreigners on the southern border.
During a period of war-time is only one of the criteria. The other centers on foreign actors sent by a foreign government / country. We don't have to be at war with said government. The fact that there was coordination between Venezuelan leadership that ended up with TDA members on our soil...and a refusal to take them back....is what makes it legal.

The bigger question - why freaking sue to try and keep these guys in the country? To borrow a phrase from Kamala and Walz.....weird.
 
One radical, leftist judge? Are we talking about the same radical, leftist judge who:

- Ordered the release of 14,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails
- Dismissed the Trump tax return lawsuit, ensuring his taxes didn't become public
- Upheld parts of a work requirements bill for a Medicaid program in Kentucky
- Limited the scope of the Mueller investigation disclosures
- Issued lighter sentences for J6 rioters than prosecutors sought
- Limited grand jury material disclosure in Trump's classified documents case

Yeah, this guy is a real commie, isn't he? :rolleyes:
Honest question - do you not support getting these guys the eff out of our country? Why the fight here? These are TDA gang members here illegally.
 
It’s been done before and we were invaded by these illegal foreigners on the southern border.
It was done in WW2, WW1, and the war 1812. We used it in WW2 to build concentration camps for Japanese and Italian citizens. Again, you're just simple wrong and just yelling about how you wish things were. It was never used as a means of dealing with illegal immigration
 
  • Like
Reactions: celticdawg
One radical, leftist judge? Are we talking about the same radical, leftist judge who:

- Ordered the release of 14,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails
- Dismissed the Trump tax return lawsuit, ensuring his taxes didn't become public
- Upheld parts of a work requirements bill for a Medicaid program in Kentucky
- Limited the scope of the Mueller investigation disclosures
- Issued lighter sentences for J6 rioters than prosecutors sought
- Limited grand jury material disclosure in Trump's classified documents case

Yeah, this guy is a real commie, isn't he? :rolleyes:
Not 1 judge has the authority to over rule the Presidency. Especially a lower court judge.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT