Trump’s 2nd term: American Carnage

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Justafan said:

No, I don't really agree with the way they are going about it. My post wasn't a defense of Trump, or Musk even, but moreso that I do think he has a point and is doing what a majority of Americans want done, even if the process is both terrifying and potentially unethical. 

I think the problem is Americans do not understand the every day functions of government across the political spectrum. We are already starting to see a lot of people who wanted what you described realizing these programs are actually benefiting them. We are in for a grim awakening as this continues. 

 

 

[Titans279]

26 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Those people were there to provide oversight, provide warning of irregularities, and call out conflicts of interest.

 

They absolutely were there and absolutely failed to do the things they were put in place to do in the first place. It's absolutely amazing to me that anyone could look at the bloated federal government and say the auditors / accountants have done a good job. 

 

I think you could easily hire outside auditors to do this.
 

What’s on the doge.gov site is not fraud or even irregularities or conflicts interest. It’s just spending they don’t like for ideological reasons. 
 

The typical (actual) auditors aren't just going to CTRL F “equity” and cancel all those contracts. 

 

The problem is they are taking a hatchet to the system, including freezing life saving aid. 
 

They really just want to destroy the government so they can rebuild it in their image. 
 

Top USAID officials are trying to create a false narrative that life-saving aid has continued despite Trump’s blanket halt to foreign aid. Our @nytimes.com reporting shows the exact opposite. USAID even issued an internal email to stop applications for waivers: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/politics/usaid-waivers-rubio.html

 

https://bsky.app/profile/ewong.bsky.social/post/3li5iz4mkyk27

 

 

Edited February 14, 2025 by Titans279

[Jamalisms]

"It was first announced on Thursday that Danielle Sassoon, a conservative lawyer recently promoted by President Donald Trump, had resigned after refusing to dismiss the case, a move she said would set a "breathtaking and dangerous precedent".

 

Her departure was followed by the resignations of at least five other top justice department officials.

 

... But on Monday, a Trump appointee, acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove, ordered Sassoon and New York prosecutors to drop the case, saying it "restricted" the mayor's ability to address "illegal immigration and violent crime" - a key goal of Trump's administration.

 

Bove did not address the merits of the case and noted that the justice department would reserve the right to reinstitute the charges after New York City's mayoral election in November.

 

Sassoon refused to drop the case, however, setting out her reasoning in a letter to Bove's boss, Attorney General Pam Bondi, on Thursday and saying she saw no "good faith" reason for dropping the case.

 

"Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations," she wrote."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm274m25e4ro

 

Those one just gets worse and worse over time.

[Justafan]

9 minutes ago, rns90 said:

I’ll disagree with you.  Look at all these departments he’s shuttered or about to etc.  how many of them qualify under your point?

 

As in these departments (or head) are actually superfluous and unneeded.  The more you dig , at least one of them (USAID ) had an investigation into Starlink.

 

One of these days, another shitty event is going to happen again .  Then it will turn out that with proper leadership and organization(ie Trump and Musk not firing a head) it could have been prevented.

Do me a favor and name off all the Federal agencies and then get back to me about how many qualify.

 

As far as the investigation into starlink, that's completely irrelevant to anything I've said. 

[Justafan]

2 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

 

I think you could easily hire outside auditors to do this.
 

What’s on the doge.gov site is not fraud or even irregularities or conflicts interest. It’s just spending they don’t like for ideological reasons. 
 

The typical (actual) auditors aren't just going to CTRL F “equity” and cancel all those contracts. They aren’t going to say “these should not be 

 

The problem is they are taking a hatchet to the system, including freezing life saving aid. 
 

They really just want to destroy the government so they can rebuild it in their image. 
 

Top USAID officials are trying to create a false narrative that life-saving aid has continued despite Trump’s blanket halt to foreign aid. Our @nytimes.com reporting shows the exact opposite. USAID even issued an internal email to stop applications for waivers: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/politics/usaid-waivers-rubio.html

 

https://bsky.app/profile/ewong.bsky.social/post/3li5iz4mkyk27

 

 

In principle, I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. 

[Jamalisms]

3 minutes ago, Justafan said:

If you care to go back and frame my comments correctly, I'll be happy to respond. 

 

Here's something that I think could clarify things and perhaps to people talking more on the same page ... are you more concerned about them getting the federal government shrunk or following the law and separation of powers, etc?

 

I suspect it's easy for people to hear you note that they're doing what most people want and for them to then think you are justifying it (even if you think it's unethical). I don't know that that's what you're doing, so I'm hoping that clarification would at least get people talking on the same page instead of past each other.

[rns90]

2 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Do me a favor and name off all the Federal agencies and then get back to me about how many qualify.

 

 

That’s just it.  There’s no actual process to what they are they doing .  It’s chaos.

[Justafan]

Just now, Jamalisms said:

 

Here's something that I think could clarify things and perhaps to people talking more on the same page ... are you more concerned about them getting the federal government shrunk or following the law and separation of powers, etc?

 

I suspect it's easy for people to hear you note that they're doing what most people want and for them to then think you are justifying it (even if you think it's unethical). I don't know that that's what you're doing, so I'm hoping that clarification would at least get people talking on the same page instead of past each other.

My only point is that the government is extremely bloated and SOMEONE should be going through the entire federal government with a fine tooth comb and making cuts wherever possible or necessary until we reign the deficit spending back into sane levels. 

 

I don't think that person should be Elon Musk and I thought I made that clear, nor do I think Trump will do this responsibly. I will say that Dems and EVERYONE in Washington has had their chance to do something and NONE  of them have done ANYTHING worth note to actually fix an obvious problem that has been growing for decades.

 

In that context, Musk has a point and is doing what most Americans want.

 

I hope that clears it up. 

[Justafan]

3 minutes ago, rns90 said:

That’s just it.  There’s no actual process to what they are they doing .  It’s chaos.

That would be the claim no matter who was doing it or what was being cut if the cuts were coming at the expense of the politicians or causes that posters supported. If Dems were doing this to conservative love projects, the Republicans would be crying even worse. 

[Titans279]

6 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Here's something that I think could clarify things and perhaps to people talking more on the same page ... are you more concerned about them getting the federal government shrunk or following the law and separation of powers, etc?

 

I suspect it's easy for people to hear you note that they're doing what most people want and for them to then think you are justifying it (even if you think it's unethical). I don't know that that's what you're doing, so I'm hoping that clarification would at least get people talking on the same page instead of past each other.

Say I’m a fat man who needs to lose weight. Most people agree. 
 

Instead of losing weight through diet and exercise, I take up crystal meth. I lose a lot of weight. 
 

Did I do what most people wanted?

[Justafan]

Irrelevant and inaccurate analogy born from a stubborn ideology and a desire to lash out rather than understand. Has nothing to do with the conversation we were having. 

[rns90]

5 minutes ago, Justafan said:

My only point is that the government is extremely bloated and SOMEONE should be going through the entire federal government with a fine tooth comb and making cuts wherever possible or necessary until we reign the deficit spending back into sane levels. 

 

Except that this isn’t real significant in terms of reigning in deficit spending .

 

And when you justapose it with the tax cuts that they want that will ADD to the deficit and make it larger, it sounds like utter bullshit.

[Titans279]

Just now, rns90 said:

Except that this isn’t real significant in terms of reigning in deficit spending .

 

And when you justapose it with the tax cuts that they want that will ADD to the deficit and make it larger, it sounds like utter bullshit.

Yeah if they want to make a significant change in budget deficits and the national debt they will have to significantly cut social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending. 
 

Even more so if they are going to massively cut taxes. 
 

All foreign aid is about 1% of the budget. They went after it first for ideological reasons not for budgetary reasons. That’s where I disagree with Justafan. 

[Justafan]

Just now, rns90 said:

Except that this isn’t real significant in terms of reigning in deficit spending .

 

And when you justapose it with the tax cuts that they want that will ADD to the deficit and make it larger, it sounds like utter bullshit.

I don't support more tax cuts but I do think 44 billion dollars is a lot of money and shouldn't be dismissed because it alone won't solve the issue. That's always the excuse for these programs. Shut down 10 of them and that's 440 billion, which would make a significant difference, especially when projected out over decades.

 

This argument is like being 1 million dollars in debt but refusing to pay off a credit card because it would only save you a few hundred dollars a month and you have 100 credit cards. Start somewhere and start yesterday. 

[Justafan]

1 minute ago, Titans279 said:

Yeah if they want to make a significant change in budget deficits and the national debt they will have to significantly cut social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending. 
 

Even more so if they are going to massively cut taxes. 
 

All foreign aid is about 1% of the budget. They went after it first for ideological reasons not for budgetary reasons. That’s where I disagree with Justafan. 

I largely agree, I just think they SHOULD look to cut spending from all of those programs and there are reasonable ways to do so that wouldn't compromise our QOL, security, or abandon our elders.