Yes. First of all, I was actually talking about fraud, not waste. Fraud is the word right wingers use because it sounds ominous,
So just so you are never confused in the future. Every single time we use the word fraud it is more broad than the legal definition. We mean both wasteful and things that are used for harmful purposes.
They weren’t facing push back. They were facing backlash, not for “working on eliminating fraud”, but for lying about the amount of fraud that was taking place. It was classic propaganda - pretend there is rampant fraud, blame this non-existent rampant fraud on democrats, then paint yourself as the hero coming to save the day. This both elevates yourself as the real “man of the people” who dares to go against the grain for the good of honest working Americans, while pretending the democrats are the pro-fraud party working hard to screw you over. It’s nauseating, but with at least some it clearly works.
is your position really that wasteful spending isn't rampant in government? Also is it your position that the party who wants the government to literally do nothing is going to be as equally responsible for wasteful spending as the one who wants to increase the size and scope of government? honest questions?
It frustrating because it turns out government spending isn’t as wasteful as they’ve been propagandized to believe. Like when they fired people over at the department of energy only to realize that whoops… turns out those are the people guarding our nukes. Or when they fired all those pointless government doctors, only to find out that those people were needed to fight back against the avian flu which was sending the price of poultry and eggs soaring.
it's always been the position its better to cut too deep and make some mistakes since that is easily reversible than it is to not go deep enough considering how rare government spending cuts are. also it was a Biden official who demanded the pointless slaughter of poultry to artificially raise prices. Either that or they really were retarded enough to think that amount of extreme caution was neccessary.
Actually, what you’re calling “open borders” it turns out strengthens the social safety net. The people here illegally pay into the system but are legally prohibited from pulling from it, so unlike Americans in their comparable income brackets they’re actually a net positive.
ridiculous. Illegals can't pay taxes because employers have to pay them off the books and yet still use american resources also per the law of supply and demand artificially deflate wages while simultaneously increasing housing costs.
Due diligence is done by people. There’s always a way to improve efficiency, but the idea that the way to increase due diligence is by slashing your work force is ridiculous.
I just got my BSCIA and it involved a lot of studying computer science related topics and algorithms. Let me tell you we can simultaneously remove lazy employees and reward good ones with good pay increases while also creating computer programs to implement zero trust architecture to increase due diligence and make fraud less likely.
p.s.
examples of government waste you claim is non existent despite evidence that the government is imperfect https://craiggoldman.house.gov/DOGE
Promoting DEI business policies
and LGBTQ+ entrepreneurship in Serbia
(USAID) – Funding choice, equity, and sustainability programs
(NIH) – Testing the effects of “gender-affirming” hormone therapy on the immune system in the U.S.
(IAF) – Supporting alpaca farming in Peru
(NIH) – Testing the effects of “gender-affirming” hormone therapy on bone development in the U.S.
(IAF) – Improving the commercial viability of mushroom and pea farming in Guatemala
(IAF) – Promoting fruit and jam sales in Honduras
(USDA) – Supporting a study on the menstrual cycles
in transgender men
(NIH) – Testing the risk of breast cancer for transgender men in the U.S.
(IAF) – Supporting the production of artisanal salt in Ecuador
(DOS) – Supporting LGBTQ+ sensitivity trainings for police forces in Nigeria
(USDA) – Hiring a DEI onboarding specialist at the USDA
(HHS) – Adapting LGB+ teen pregnancy prevention program
for transgender boys
(IAF) – Promoting cultural support for Venezuelan migrants in Brazil
(DOS) – Promoting acceptance for LGBTQ+ people in Botswana
(USDA) – Promoting international development for underrepresented communities
(USADF) _ Funding mango drying facilities in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire
(USADF) – Promoting pineapple juice in Benin
(USDA) – Hiring a Brazilian forest and gender consultant at the USDA
(USADF) – Funding the promotion of 100% organic shea butter in Burkina Faso
(DOS) – Funding an international study trip on LGBTQ+ advocacy
(DOS) – Promoting the empowerment of lesbian and bisexual women in Belize
(USADF) – Supporting increased production of yogurt in Uganda
(USADF) – Supporting a business incubator for spa and wellness entrepreneurs in Nigeria
(DOS) – Producing a DEI music event
in Ireland
(DOS) – Funding dance class workshops in China
(DOS) – Creating an LGBTQ+ comic book in Peru
(USDA) – Hiring a Central American gender assessment consultant at the USDA
(DOS) – Funding a transgender opera in Colombia
Any suggestions as to how we get rid of them, gas chambers perhaps?
I like the way you think, but they didn't work in the 1930s so they won't work now. I mean maybe if we used something other than wood doors https://www.islam-radio.net/historia/wsmt2/auschwitz-gas-chamber-doors.htm
but jews be moonwalking out of them
https://www.islam-radio.net/historia/hha/mietek-grocher/gas-chamber-backwards-Auschwitz.jpg
A far more socially acceptible method is deportations so they can continue their blood feud in their countries of origin
Ehh, they will bounce back. There is no reason to think a society of 2000 people would be better than one with 200. Once the old people die, they'll be above replacement levels again. demographic collapse is far worse than population collapse anyway. Like maybe Japan could fix the low birth rates by importing a bunch of people who will isolate, not adapt their cultural values, and turn a formerly high-trust society into a low-trust society, but it's probably just better to be predominantly Japanese and keep the good things about Japan
japan is doing great. They don't need random indians, blacks and muslims. They are not inferior to those people and require their help. They can just do the same things but have a smaller population
Looking at the Bondi Beach incident recently, it's truly a horrific thing. I just wonder why innocent Australians have to be caught in the middle of this blood feud at all. Why are Jews in Australia instead of Israel? WHy did the Jews in government decide to have so many refugees and immigrants allowed into Australia so they could continue their blood feud on Australian soil?
Western nations need to eliminate Jews and Middle Eastern barbarians from their lives by deporting them. You might argue that the barbarian Muslims are the only ones being violent here but if you look at which politicians and academics are the biggest promoters of diversity (AKA importing muslims who refuse to integrate) than its going to be predominantly Jewish. So by getting rid of both sides of this problem, you prevent it from happening again.
No, nor has anyone made that claim. They were working on eliminating a significant portion of fraud, but for some reason, they faced push-back, which is as absurd as it is to face push-back for such a thing. Many people working for DOGE, in fact, seem frustrated that it's a bit harder to cut wasteful spending in government than in the private sector.
Anyone who actually cares about creating a social safety net, though, should be opposed to open borders and want some due diligence when it comes to benefits, without added bureaucracy
You have to assume the debate will be deleted even when if they add the function just because it is online and not on an offline app on your computer so shit can happen.
You need strong borders to even think of a social safety net. The safety net is unsustainable under the current levels of fraud. The Somalian community does commit fraud on a large scale due to their culture but it isn't the only problematic community
It's real simple savant and I know you don't want to dig into the sociology here, but liberals, generally run things through a filter of "how will people perceivee for thinking this". It's inherently an anti truth bias and you'll see they'll just go towards whatever policies are popular. Meanwhile on the right you have a lot of alpha males and autistic people who do not run things through this pro social filter. The alpha males and the autists who only care about reality are going to be able to better control language in some regards.
You may be thinking "but it feels like things are shifting right, according to your logic shouldn't midwits also shift right"
Here is the interesting thing. As the right makes gains you'll see the midwits flip sides and the right dominate the political landscape they have been losing the last 60 years
It's a common misconception it came from a rap song. It was some kid in a Phillies game who never heard the song just saying nonsense
If the party dies because he failed to fix America then it deserves to die and we can just pray that we slowly turn into North Korea as opposed to steamrolling right into it. He was literally our last chance to save America so if it doesn't happen then so be it. Just move to the wilderness or something and hope that America turning into skid row takes a longer time than expected
I saw that, Epstein seemed to be bashing him in emails that mentioned trump. They were apparently enemies
Epstein list is a hoax not the files
https://x.com/FuentesUpdates/status/1991031183032135891
Nick Fuentes in his latest show has pointed to the release of the Epstein files to prove that the left and right working together against the center can have great results. It was a nearly unanimous decision based on the populous right and populous left simultaneously uniting to bully the center. His solution so we can join together and save the nation from the Zionist controlled government is simple. The right has to give up on the free market and the left has to give up on open borders, which ironically would also make their socialist policies more sustainable.
Democrats are leading republicans by about 4 points nationally in generic ballot polling and democrats are up by almost 20 points in enthusiasm.
Your sources lied to you when it said Hillary would win and when it said Kamala would win. How long will you believe them before you wake up?
Maybe they are right this time but if they lied to you twice before by manipulating the pills, why trust them now?
Everything is up for grabs but no stupid shit like oxygen. We split oxygen 50/50
You can pick like pedophiles or something whatever it is you guys support but you'll have to fight the libertarians for pedophiles
No we do a draft dont be a dick.
We can flip for who gets first pick but also fuck it give the libertarians a society as well for the lulls. Libertarians pick last, red team gets first pick and blue team gets 2nd pick
First in draft is we keep all white women who are less than 150 pounds
Go
Midwits are in a club where they try to best mimick the status quo belief systems.bwhen they want to be edgy they take those status quo belief systems and extrapolate a slightly more extreme version.
If Trump's plan is successful than you'll see midwits (110-130 IQ)starting to become more right wing (professors and low tier scientists) when they become right wing than high IQ individuals (130+) will start to shift leftward.
The right wing dominance has to last long enough for the current establishment in those facilities to die off, though you can see some shifting currently.
Professor Edward Dutton talks about this concept a lot
No shit, it is individuals that own guns and individuals that commit violent crime, the stats that are relevant are the ones that compare the differences between gun owner's vs people that don't own guns. You claim is that gun ownership reduces the chance you can be a victim of a violent crime, the stats prove conclusively that the opposite is true.
No the claim is that legalization of gun ownership reduces violent crime in America. I never claimed owning a gun reduces your chance of a violent crime though it could certainly lower the chance while simultaneously making it so you are more likely to die by that same gun.
Oh pulease, first correlation is not causation, and there is no reason to think those two stats on your chart are even in the ballpark of proof of your point.
The correlation here has an obvious causation. You are simply retarded if you think a cost benefit analysis of a crook would make them equally as likely to attack people who they think could have a gun vs those same people in a society where they know for a fact everyone is a soft target.
It's not a coincidence that everytime in the history of the planet where gun laws got stricter then property crime and violent crime went up. You might not want to admit it but you are more likely to be a victim of crime walking home from a bar in Germany than you are walking home from a bar in the United States.
You say, "societies that allow guns are safer" and then show us an unrelated graph, your contention requires that we look at international stats to actually compare societies, those stats demonstrate conclusively that societies that allow guns are not safer by any stretch of the imagination.
its definitely related lol, it directly compares a societies crime rates to the level of gun ownership at the time but here is some other charts
More evidence that societies where there are more gun nuts tend to be safer.
The only thing your chart shows is that the US gun fetich is unrelated to crime, you guys claim it's fear of crime that motivates you to buy your guns, but your stats show that just isn't true, the NRA just programmed you to say that. Sorry Rambo, but it isn't based on evidence, it's based on the movies you watch.
No not really, yes grandmas are less likely to be raped if they have the capability to murder their rapist. Yes you advocate for policies that make it easier to rape the elderly because you are evil, but no that's a strawman. The biggest argument is that we love freedom and in general try to oppose having similar policies to people like Hitler and KimJung un who ban guns. Yes it has the added side effect of making society quite obviously safer but its not about crime.
There are lots of good reasons to own a gun. For example if you live in Alaska away from civilization and routinely encounter aggressive bears.
I already showed u that that graph is misleading. The per capita use of guns has increased but the actual number of people owning guns has decreased. Per capita use is misleading then. Plus u idiotically say your simple little graph proves your position while you just ignore the overwhelming weight of all the stats in the opening post
I didn't understand it on first read but that's an excellent point, and one i didn't consider prior. I still have seen studies in Australia for example of the amount of property crime just before gun bans and just after and it appears people are more willing to victimize you if you are statistically less likely to have a gun.
If people are committing suicide they probably want to die. But the stats I provided already show increased odds that you become a victim of violent crime if guns are outlawed.
No, the stats do not show that lie by any stretch of the imagination. Studies show that people living in homes with handguns are shot to death at a higher rate than those in gun-free homes. The increased risk was especially high in domestic violence incidents.
How exactly does that change the fact that citizens are safer from violent crimes in communities that have legalized ways to defend yourself?
In study after study, the “stats” show conclusively that firearms kept in homes are more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, a criminal assault, or a suicide attempt than to be used in self-defense.
SO are you using stats on individual gun ownership as a type of red herring to avoid the chart above which conclusively prove that societies that allow guns are safer
The point is you are only looking at successful homicide rates. Other stuff matters so with gun ownership, gun deaths increase but things like breaking into homes or raping white women or mugging old ladies decreases. The point was that the extra murders suck but if a few extra deaths make most of us safer from extreme trauma than it's likely worth it to allow gun ownership
Would you rather be eaten by a bear or a shark?
shark, I feel like more people survive being eaten by them
person below
Why is your mom such a whore?
i read a story about a boy who got a gun out of his house to shoot some bullies who followed him home. they were challenging him. he admits he wouldn't have did this if he didn't have access to a gun.
If they followed him home the likelihood is he was under physical threat. It doesn't surprise me that he would be an easier victim if he didnt have the means to defend himself. Let's forget this retarded stat that more guns equals more gun deaths, what people want to know is if having freedom and having guns is safer than not having guns. Are you less likely to be violently attacked if you have means of self defense and the stats show that no you are in fact safer by not being a soft target
Why is the UN a “libtard lead” organization? Is that because you define every educated person who actually understands how the world works a libtard? Cause at that point you’re telling on yourself.
Their world views. It's a type of hive mind that leans towards antiquated cold war international relations and globalism to the point of destroying their own cultures with minimal short term economic gain.
You're not going to see any of these globalists understand Hoppes or Spengler. You should have a really in depth understanding of political philosophy and they tend towards a type of technocratic beurocratic form of thinking that is essentially anti human.
Shoresy said the following. Which is it. Are libtard led organizations dysfunctional or evil?
One of 2 things are probably not true between these two statements. Either The UN is objectively dysfunctional as Trump claimed or the UN is fully functional but was just out to get revenge on Trump.
Not just any conspiracy, it is a vast conspiracy.
No it's a minor misfuction probably just a mild conspiracy
So if I can't prove to you that the UN escalator has ever broken down while a world leader was on it... Must be sabotage against Trump.Great argument there. I'll just let you marinate in that one.
Taking individually you might have a point here but time after time after time after time
Prove that escalators break down? Is there something wrong with you? Have you never stepped outside before?
Not just any escalator. This is a UN summit. Where you must assume they are recruiting the best of the best of the best and checking things hundreds of times for any tiny imperfections.
