The Trump Presidency

[DQ12]

I am sad I missed the abortion/religion discussion over the weekend. I'm obviously left of the democratic party, but I don't care about abortion, at all. I would vote for a pro life candidate. Of course that pro life candidate would have to support exceptions with regard to the health of the mother and for rape victims. This candidate would also have to vehemently support all programs to make sure the mother and the child were supported from birth to adulthood. Socialized health care, or at a minimum medicaid until adulthood, expanded wic and food stamp programs, fully funded public schools, etc. Of course this candidate does not exist in either party, although I firmly believe most people support these policies.

Well you see MiR therein lies the difference between pro-lifers - who are virtually non-existent, and pro-birthers. Which is more like what DQ and JW are, in practice.

Man, you don’t know me. 

[Pete]

I'll take dumb government contracts over more tax breaks for the rich every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I think what you’re describing is a false choice. I don’t think those two things should have to have anything to do with each other.

[Pete]

It’s the grift to end all grifts. Insert an admiral saying they’re gonna work real hard to pass that audit some day

https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1886592283836895553?s=46&t=-jwPwnR3rKHM9sk9hA7h8g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I attempted the fact check this on a couple of different services, but I can’t find anything that says one way or the other. I really hope it’s not true. This is the exact kind of thing that needs to stop. We need to maintain our level of defense, but do so at a fraction of the cost. I suppose I should look at the bright side and assume that there are loads of ways to reduce spending on defense while not reducing our capabilities.

[chum1]

I'll take dumb government contracts over more tax breaks for the rich every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I think what you’re describing is a false choice. I don’t think those two things should have to have anything to do with each other.

I think those are the exact two choices. Republicans want to extend Trump's tax plan without exploding the deficit too much.

[michigancat]

https://x.com/doge/status/1886578681805504608?s=46&t=3dr3KCNJf6FX0PfdU2jK9g

Government consulting is super lucrative. I worked for a consulting firm at one point that had a government services line of business and they made a fortune. Their margins were way higher than any other line of business. Every time there was any new initiative first thing that happens is the government hires consultants to come in and figure out how the new programs going work or the processes and tech on the new thing that has to be tracked or create the new report….it’s just part of the cost of constantly asking the government to to provide additional services or additional regulations or additional monitoring or additional anything. I’m not sure how government would a function without the consultants, given the vast number of new requirements that are thrown at the government all the time, but it really did seem like there had to be a more efficient way of doing things.

Anyway, doesn’t really break my heart to see them canceling consulting contracts.

On the surface, it sure seems way better than the USAid stuff. (Or a tax cut).

Have they cut anything that conservatives might not like yet? Like funding for cop tanks?

[sonofdaxjones]

It’s the grift to end all grifts. Insert an admiral saying they’re gonna work real hard to pass that audit some day

https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1886592283836895553?s=46&t=-jwPwnR3rKHM9sk9hA7h8g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I attempted the fact check this on a couple of different services, but I can’t find anything that says one way or the other. I really hope it’s not true. This is the exact kind of thing that needs to stop. We need to maintain our level of defense, but do so at a fraction of the cost. I suppose I should look at the bright side and assume that there are loads of ways to reduce spending on defense while not reducing our capabilities.

The program is a collective lost cause. This is well documented. Even 60 minutes discussed the waste in light of the threat from China. Wrong money going to the wrong places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

https://x.com/doge/status/1886578681805504608?s=46&t=3dr3KCNJf6FX0PfdU2jK9g

Government consulting is super lucrative. I worked for a consulting firm at one point that had a government services line of business and they made a fortune. Their margins were way higher than any other line of business. Every time there was any new initiative first thing that happens is the government hires consultants to come in and figure out how the new programs going work or the processes and tech on the new thing that has to be tracked or create the new report….it’s just part of the cost of constantly asking the government to to provide additional services or additional regulations or additional monitoring or additional anything. I’m not sure how government would a function without the consultants, given the vast number of new requirements that are thrown at the government all the time, but it really did seem like there had to be a more efficient way of doing things.

Anyway, doesn’t really break my heart to see them canceling consulting contracts.

On the surface, it sure seems way better than the USAid stuff. (Or a tax cut).

Have they cut anything that conservatives might not like yet? Like funding for cop tanks?

Probably because those consulting firms are almost certainly led by conservatives.

Are the police tanks in federal spending or are those just grants to the police departments and then the police departments go by the tanks?

I really hope they do something about that boat that DAX posted about that rough ridin' thing cost $150 - $200M just for the one boat, which they are allegedly mothballing before it ever had a chance to actually serve

[Pete]

It’s the grift to end all grifts. Insert an admiral saying they’re gonna work real hard to pass that audit some day

https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1886592283836895553?s=46&t=-jwPwnR3rKHM9sk9hA7h8g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I attempted the fact check this on a couple of different services, but I can’t find anything that says one way or the other. I really hope it’s not true. This is the exact kind of thing that needs to stop. We need to maintain our level of defense, but do so at a fraction of the cost. I suppose I should look at the bright side and assume that there are loads of ways to reduce spending on defense while not reducing our capabilities.

The program is a collective lost cause. This is well documented. Even 60 minutes discussed the waste in light of the threat from China. Wrong money going to the wrong places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That enrages me. All this stuff that DOGE is doing it’s just peanuts compared to that they need to turn DOGE loose on the defense department and have them just focus there. They’ll make us 10 times the money back as they were looking into USAid and stuff like that. The right answer is to do both, but if we’re choosing between the two go focus on the defense contractors.  Of course the CIA might kill them all if they did that, but that’s a separate matter.

[DQ12]

Pretty sick boat though to be fair

[Pete]

Pretty sick boat though to be fair

Yeah, definitely an opportunity to sell those to turn them into party barges

[Pete]

Take that bitch out on Lake of the Ozarks brag to the fellas how you picked her up at a government surplus auction

[sonofdaxjones]

USAid has long been understood to be a front for the CIA.

USAid (for example) covered the cost of African workers so the DOD could use them to support a coup.

How do you ginormous derps think they cover crap like that?

That’s why the joke was-when Samantha Power showed up-somebody was getting Coup’d. Just like Vicky Nuland.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dugout DickStone]

Pretty sick boat though to be fair

Yes, it’s a beauty.  Imagine Labor Day on that mother

[michigancat]

https://x.com/doge/status/1886578681805504608?s=46&t=3dr3KCNJf6FX0PfdU2jK9g

Government consulting is super lucrative. I worked for a consulting firm at one point that had a government services line of business and they made a fortune. Their margins were way higher than any other line of business. Every time there was any new initiative first thing that happens is the government hires consultants to come in and figure out how the new programs going work or the processes and tech on the new thing that has to be tracked or create the new report….it’s just part of the cost of constantly asking the government to to provide additional services or additional regulations or additional monitoring or additional anything. I’m not sure how government would a function without the consultants, given the vast number of new requirements that are thrown at the government all the time, but it really did seem like there had to be a more efficient way of doing things.

Anyway, doesn’t really break my heart to see them canceling consulting contracts.

On the surface, it sure seems way better than the USAid stuff. (Or a tax cut).

Have they cut anything that conservatives might not like yet? Like funding for cop tanks?

Probably because those consulting firms are almost certainly led by conservatives.

Are the police tanks in federal spending or are those just grants to the police departments and then the police departments go by the tanks?

I really hope they do something about that boat that DAX posted about that rough ridin' thing cost $150 - $200M just for the one boat, which they are allegedly mothballing before it ever had a chance to actually serve

Looks like a lot comes from DoD surplus

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/its-past-time-to-end-the-federal-militarization-of-police

[DQ12]

Sell it to Hollywood for BARGE GAS 3: Violin’s Revenge

[Pete]

https://x.com/doge/status/1886578681805504608?s=46&t=3dr3KCNJf6FX0PfdU2jK9g

Government consulting is super lucrative. I worked for a consulting firm at one point that had a government services line of business and they made a fortune. Their margins were way higher than any other line of business. Every time there was any new initiative first thing that happens is the government hires consultants to come in and figure out how the new programs going work or the processes and tech on the new thing that has to be tracked or create the new report….it’s just part of the cost of constantly asking the government to to provide additional services or additional regulations or additional monitoring or additional anything. I’m not sure how government would a function without the consultants, given the vast number of new requirements that are thrown at the government all the time, but it really did seem like there had to be a more efficient way of doing things.

Anyway, doesn’t really break my heart to see them canceling consulting contracts.

On the surface, it sure seems way better than the USAid stuff. (Or a tax cut).

Have they cut anything that conservatives might not like yet? Like funding for cop tanks?

Probably because those consulting firms are almost certainly led by conservatives.

Are the police tanks in federal spending or are those just grants to the police departments and then the police departments go by the tanks?

I really hope they do something about that boat that DAX posted about that rough ridin' thing cost $150 - $200M just for the one boat, which they are allegedly mothballing before it ever had a chance to actually serve

Looks like a lot comes from DoD surplus

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/its-past-time-to-end-the-federal-militarization-of-police

Well, I have some potentially amazing news for any police departments in the market for a new boat

[mocat]

Am I supposed to know that Twitter account?

[mocat]

He reads like the menswear guy but for naval waste

[star seed 7]

He reads like the menswear guy but for naval waste

"blacklisted from Wikipedia" is a hell of a bio

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I am sad I missed the abortion/religion discussion over the weekend. I'm obviously left of the democratic party, but I don't care about abortion, at all. I would vote for a pro life candidate. Of course that pro life candidate would have to support exceptions with regard to the health of the mother and for rape victims. This candidate would also have to vehemently support all programs to make sure the mother and the child were supported from birth to adulthood. Socialized health care, or at a minimum medicaid until adulthood, expanded wic and food stamp programs, fully funded public schools, etc. Of course this candidate does not exist in either party, although I firmly believe most people support these policies.

Well you see MiR therein lies the difference between pro-lifers - who are virtually non-existent, and pro-birthers. Which is more like what DQ and JW are, in practice.

Man, you don’t know me.

You’re right, I don’t know you, and it sounds like both you and I are better off for that because it doesn’t seem like we would see eye to eye on many things (unless we happen to be the same height). I’d bet dollars to donuts there are myriad things you do in your personal private life that I would take exception to, and I suppose one of the biggest differences between us is that when it comes to the things you do in your private life that are none of my god damn business and don’t affect my life in any kind of way…I don’t feel the need to make it my single issue top priority to legislate what you can or cannot do even though I have absolutely no standing in the matter whatsoever and (i repeat) it’s absolutely none of my rough ridin' business

[star seed 7]

I bet you would love dlew, actually. frfr on god

[MakeItRain]

I refuse to wholesale support whatever the democrats come up with anymore. I have done that for 32 years. I am done with it. They have violated my trust. Going forward, I will pick and choose the issues that I support based on my own judgment and not the propaganda of a given party.

I agree that the Democrats don't deserve wholesale support but I also don't think wholesale support (or excusing) of everything Elon Musk says or does is the best alternative.

That’s why I don’t wholesale support everything Elon Musk does. And I also choose to not get bent out of shape by really pussy crap while he’s still achieving gains on the things that really matter.

Yeah I hedged it with "excusing" what you don't wholesale support. What is the "really pussy crap" you're referring to?

A current topical example of this is Trans rights.  This is a hot topic at the moment in our country. I am 100% in full support of trans rights. However, if a trade has to be made, and it means sacrificing trans rights for meaningful progress on one of the other three big issues for me (national debt/economy, defense, AI) then so be it.

I accept that I do not live in a world where I get everything that I want. I also accept that I live in a world where compromises must be made, and that frequently horrible collateral damage occurs even when we make the right decision for the aggregate good . I do not like that and I do not approve of it, but I accept it.

Too many Democrats seem willing to compromise on the most important things in order to achieve an ideological victory that benefits very few relative to the detriments.

oof pete, this personally hurts, actually. I hope I get to read a retraction/clarification in the next three pages. You have to know that the assault on trans rights is just an entry to more, right? I mean they are literally carrying this out now. You think that the plan is to just remove civil rights for a group of people that comprise less than 1% of the population? The messaging from the white house is that trans rights, rights of minorities, rights of women, rights of those with disabilities are all the same. They aren't just targeting the trans community when they are looking to eliminate all dei programs. When fighting for civil rights you can't just pick winners and losers, that's never how it has worked or will ever work. Most, if not all, of the EOs that mention gender also mention race.

Federal law allows the Education Department to withhold funds from any school that discriminates based on race or sex. In a strikingly different ideological posture, Trump and his allies argue that lessons about systemic racism amount to discrimination, because they presume certain things about people based on race, such as that White Americans enjoy certain privileges based on their race. And they say that giving rights to transgender students, especially transgender girls and women, discriminates against cisgender girls and women by forcing them to share spaces and sports teams.

How did you feel about Obama when he said that he would not endorse gay marriage and instead only civil unions? 2008 he said he only supported civil unions and it took him until 2012 to change his mind. I remember thinking at the time that that sucked, but admitting to myself that it was probably a smart move to wait to fight that fight later.

I though he was a piece of crap for using civil rights as a political football.

[nicname]

I bet you would love dlew, actually. frfr on god

Real talk. GOAT human.

[MakeItRain]

I'll also vouch for dlew, good people.

I do struggle with at what point I'll make the decision to be an absolutist about people willing to stand up for civil rights of others. This has nothing to do with dlew per se, as I don't have a clue as to where he stands on this, we've never had a conversation about it. I do feel like as the current administration has made a point to actively attack civil rights, as opposed to the Laissez-Faire approach that all other administrations have taken since LBJ, I may have to take a stand here.

I wonder what the expectation of people like Pete, who has explicitly expressed that civil rights aren't a priority, are for spending time with people who are being targeted by the administration. Like are we supposed to just hang out and eat tapas and have refreshing drinks while the administration actively erases the existence of trans people and black history?

[DQ12]

I am sad I missed the abortion/religion discussion over the weekend. I'm obviously left of the democratic party, but I don't care about abortion, at all. I would vote for a pro life candidate. Of course that pro life candidate would have to support exceptions with regard to the health of the mother and for rape victims. This candidate would also have to vehemently support all programs to make sure the mother and the child were supported from birth to adulthood. Socialized health care, or at a minimum medicaid until adulthood, expanded wic and food stamp programs, fully funded public schools, etc. Of course this candidate does not exist in either party, although I firmly believe most people support these policies.

Well you see MiR therein lies the difference between pro-lifers - who are virtually non-existent, and pro-birthers. Which is more like what DQ and JW are, in practice.

Man, you don’t know me.

You’re right, I don’t know you, and it sounds like both you and I are better off for that because it doesn’t seem like we would see eye to eye on many things (unless we happen to be the same height). I’d bet dollars to donuts there are myriad things you do in your personal private life that I would take exception to, and I suppose one of the biggest differences between us is that when it comes to the things you do in your private life that are none of my god damn business and don’t affect my life in any kind of way…I don’t feel the need to make it my single issue top priority to legislate what you can or cannot do even though I have absolutely no standing in the matter whatsoever and (i repeat) it’s absolutely none of my rough ridin' business

“Why do you care about this thing you perceive to be profoundly unjust? It’s none of your business!”

That’s never been very convincing to me.  I think it works better for some issues where nobody is really being harmed (eg gay marriage), but it doesn’t translate very well to say “it’s none of your business” when the thing I’m concerned about is innocent humans being killed unjustifiably. 

It’s kind of funny.  The other day Pete was like “if you believed that, you’d be out firebombing!” And now BAC is like “it shouldn’t even concern you.”  Which is it?! Should I join get French Resistance or mind my own damn business?!

Like I said several pages ago, we disagree on the value of the human (or “thing” if you prefer) being killed (or “terminated”).  And like I said, reasonable minds can disagree on that.

But the “you’re not pro life you’re pro birth!” and “it’s none of your business” stuff trotted out by you in these last two posts is really weak.  If you’re going to derisively accuse me of being a “pro-birther,” you should come with better arguments.