There's a lot more things other than USAID that you shouldn't be offering your opinion on.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
Neither of them is my favorite, but it is undeniable that they are/were both extremely talented and successful.
Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Lady Gaga all write most of their own songs. Are you therefore anointing them as amazing as a result? Elvis didn't. Sinatra didn't. Are they overrated?
Oooh, you're gonna get lots of laughs with that one from the other people here who hold all of the exact same opinions you do.
Thank you for confirming my post. Your lack of self awareness is astonishing
Good point about Frank and Elvis, but they were primarily known as performers, crooners even. In that era, it was more common not to write your stuff. Swift has talent, but co writes a lot and we all know what that means. .
Eilish? Garbage.
Gaga? Should have quit after Poker Face
Whether USAID is infested with fraud or used as a money laundering scheme by the left or not. Sure seems like they funded some ultra left wingy propaganda.
The CIA used it for years to overthrow unfriendly leaders, meddle in elections, etc., but in recent times it has veered off into SJW fantasy land.
The image it tries to project is one of feeding starving children, vaccinating the impoverished, and this may have at one time been what they actually did. A lot of good, but an ever increasing amount of horse excrement
What’s funny is they have two scripts. One says that Hitler is a dictator. The other says Musk is in charge. I wonder if they realize how inconsistent this is. They used to stay on message better. It’s clear one of the side effects of TDS is lack of focus and clarity.
USAID Clearances Uncovered - Accusations of Corruption Pre-DOGE
Before Elon Musk and DOGE made headlines, a former USAID employee was raising concerns about the agency’s security clearance process.
news.clearancejobs.com
Before it was shuttered, USAID routed funds to Soros-aligned causes, terrorists and drag queens
The development agency for years also funneled money to several nonprofit groups that also received substantial backing from components of George Soros’ empire.
justthenews.com
Wait. What's hypocritical about Elon and DOGE complaints? He's an unelected dude who donated billions to President Trump's campaign, and now has been given power through EO alone to run an agency also made up through EO alone. You, mac, who claim you're above party politics, ought to be the most suspicious person here.
It's almost as if the left is not one person!
🤣🤣🤣 You wouldn't recognize irony and satire if they were peeing with penises in the stall next to your closest female relative.
Well, in all fairness, if it has anything to do with being humanitarian toward others, it is indeed a lefty endeavor. 🤷♂️
Is this kinda like the cats and dogs thing, where it doesn't matter if it's a lie if it pushes the narrative you want?
Last edited:
That's hilarious. One, because obviously USAID is not in the humanitarian business. And also because the left only act like they are good to others. They're full of fakes and crooks.
"President Donald Trump’s mission to upend the U.S. Agency for International Development, a government organization tasked with alleviating global poverty and providing humanitarian relief, has paralyzed efforts to distribute essential food, medicine and other lifesaving supplies around the world, according to nonprofit organizations, farm industry groups and federal lawmakers."
But NBC rhymes w/ MSNBC, so it's allllllll a lie and the exact opposite of everything they say is 100% true.
"The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development will deliver a major blow to efforts including humanitarian assistance in Colombia, conservation efforts in Brazil and coca eradication in Peru..."
Oh, but they didn't praise President Trump for signing an EO banning the fewer than 10 transgender women from college sports, so they're nothing but hippie liars.
Yeah. Never mind what the other 90% of their actions tell you. Doing some humanitarian business doesn't mean you're in the humanitarian business. You can fall for that lie all you want. Let me ask. Does any of what has come to light concern you?"President Donald Trump’s mission to upend the U.S. Agency for International Development, a government organization tasked with alleviating global poverty and providing humanitarian relief, has paralyzed efforts to distribute essential food, medicine and other lifesaving supplies around the world, according to nonprofit organizations, farm industry groups and federal lawmakers."
But NBC rhymes w/ MSNBC, so it's allllllll a lie and the exact opposite of everything they say is 100% true.
"The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development will deliver a major blow to efforts including humanitarian assistance in Colombia, conservation efforts in Brazil and coca eradication in Peru..."
Oh, but they didn't praise President Trump for signing an EO banning the fewer than 10 transgender women from college sports, so they're nothing but hippie liars.
Are we just making up percentages now?
I'm concerned about govt waste and inefficiency wherever it may exist. I don't think you and I will agree about what is wasteful. For example, the last link smashmouth offered cites $ given to Serbia for LGBTQIAQFAOC+ support of some kind. I looked up the specific organization the $ went to. It promotes opportunity and fights workplace discrimination. I don't know anything about the status of that community in Serbia, and neither does anyone else here. Fighting workplace discrimination for people who are frequently marginalized doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. They might spend the money inefficiently or wastefully, but the stated goals of the group alone do not convince me. I think ANY $ spent on ANY group they're not a part of is enough for most people here to complain about it, sight unseen, without knowing anything about it. I mean, take the T part of LGBTQIAQFAOC+: you, personally, express condescending sympathy for people who have gender dysphoria, insist on calling it mental illness, and refuse to use preferred pronouns. You oppose ALL gender-affirming healthcare for anyone under 18, including pubescent minors, including psychiatric support. The mere recognition and validation of their existence is enough for you to protest. The only thing you know about the use of this $ is the summary of what they do based on what right-wing propaganda tells you, and that's all you care to know before drawing your conclusion.
Do you have the slightest concern with Musk's motives for who he is going after? I mean, I would presume quite safely that there is some waste and inefficiency in every govt dept. Why USAID? I've seen the allegation out there that the USAID was investigating Musk's Starlink partnership w/ Ukraine at the time they were shutdown. (Either they factually were or factually weren't investigating it, whether it had merit or not, but I can't confirm, so I'll call it an "allegation.") Does that not raise valid suspicions about a conflict of interest? Even if Musk were capable of objectivity, isn't the suspicion valid? Or just yesterday, when asked about the parameters of Musk's authority and potential conflicts of interest, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, "The president was already asked, and answered the question this week. He said that if Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, then Elon will excuse himself from those contracts.” That sounds to me like he gets to police himself, basically, with no other oversight or established ethical standards. Does that concern you at all? Or do you at least recognize why others' concerns about it are reasonable?
Yup. As far as the LGBT funding in Serbia, we have veterans in this country who can’t afford housing and we’re spending millions on Sesame Street in Iraq and to combat LGBT bigotry in Serbia ( their ostensible raison d’etre anyway). Let the EU deal with that.
That the Dems think this is groovy is Exhibit A why they’re a party in the wilderness right now.
“I looked up the specific organization”. Was your source thoroughly vetted and non biased? You do realize that what orgs say they do on their websites and what they actually do often don’t align?Are we just making up percentages now?
I'm concerned about govt waste and inefficiency wherever it may exist. I don't think you and I will agree about what is wasteful. For example, the last link smashmouth offered cites $ given to Serbia for LGBTQIAQFAOC+ support of some kind. I looked up the specific organization the $ went to. It promotes opportunity and fights workplace discrimination. I don't know anything about the status of that community in Serbia, and neither does anyone else here. Fighting workplace discrimination for people who are frequently marginalized doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. They might spend the money inefficiently or wastefully, but the stated goals of the group alone do not convince me. I think ANY $ spent on ANY group they're not a part of is enough for most people here to complain about it, sight unseen, without knowing anything about it. I mean, take the T part of LGBTQIAQFAOC+: you, personally, express condescending sympathy for people who have gender dysphoria, insist on calling it mental illness, and refuse to use preferred pronouns. You oppose ALL gender-affirming healthcare for anyone under 18, including pubescent minors, including psychiatric support. The mere recognition and validation of their existence is enough for you to protest. The only thing you know about the use of this $ is the summary of what they do based on what right-wing propaganda tells you, and that's all you care to know before drawing your conclusion.
Do you have the slightest concern with Musk's motives for who he is going after? I mean, I would presume quite safely that there is some waste and inefficiency in every govt dept. Why USAID? I've seen the allegation out there that the USAID was investigating Musk's Starlink partnership w/ Ukraine at the time they were shutdown. (Either they factually were or factually weren't investigating it, whether it had merit or not, but I can't confirm, so I'll call it an "allegation.") Does that not raise valid suspicions about a conflict of interest? Even if Musk were capable of objectivity, isn't the suspicion valid? Or just yesterday, when asked about the parameters of Musk's authority and potential conflicts of interest, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, "The president was already asked, and answered the question this week. He said that if Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, then Elon will excuse himself from those contracts.” That sounds to me like he gets to police himself, basically, with no other oversight or established ethical standards. Does that concern you at all? Or do you at least recognize why others' concerns about it are reasonable?
Look at the UNRWA. A nest of terrorists and those who support them. Recently released hostage was held in a UN facility.
You're muddying up the conversation by diverting the topic with rhetorical questions. We can talk about Musk's motivations, I don't really know. But would his motivation for exposing USAID make their misdeeds less severe? Why are they redirecting tax payers money to fund multiple left wing news agencies? You want to talk about right wing propaganda, show me where our tax dollars go towards right wing propaganda and I will condone it. Of course you'll probably just use Musk as an example.Are we just making up percentages now?
I'm concerned about govt waste and inefficiency wherever it may exist. I don't think you and I will agree about what is wasteful. For example, the last link smashmouth offered cites $ given to Serbia for LGBTQIAQFAOC+ support of some kind. I looked up the specific organization the $ went to. It promotes opportunity and fights workplace discrimination. I don't know anything about the status of that community in Serbia, and neither does anyone else here. Fighting workplace discrimination for people who are frequently marginalized doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. They might spend the money inefficiently or wastefully, but the stated goals of the group alone do not convince me. I think ANY $ spent on ANY group they're not a part of is enough for most people here to complain about it, sight unseen, without knowing anything about it. I mean, take the T part of LGBTQIAQFAOC+: you, personally, express condescending sympathy for people who have gender dysphoria, insist on calling it mental illness, and refuse to use preferred pronouns. You oppose ALL gender-affirming healthcare for anyone under 18, including pubescent minors, including psychiatric support. The mere recognition and validation of their existence is enough for you to protest. The only thing you know about the use of this $ is the summary of what they do based on what right-wing propaganda tells you, and that's all you care to know before drawing your conclusion.
Do you have the slightest concern with Musk's motives for who he is going after? I mean, I would presume quite safely that there is some waste and inefficiency in every govt dept. Why USAID? I've seen the allegation out there that the USAID was investigating Musk's Starlink partnership w/ Ukraine at the time they were shutdown. (Either they factually were or factually weren't investigating it, whether it had merit or not, but I can't confirm, so I'll call it an "allegation.") Does that not raise valid suspicions about a conflict of interest? Even if Musk were capable of objectivity, isn't the suspicion valid? Or just yesterday, when asked about the parameters of Musk's authority and potential conflicts of interest, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, "The president was already asked, and answered the question this week. He said that if Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, then Elon will excuse himself from those contracts.” That sounds to me like he gets to police himself, basically, with no other oversight or established ethical standards. Does that concern you at all? Or do you at least recognize why others' concerns about it are reasonable?
I think I covered that pretty thoroughly when I said, immediately after what you quoted, "I don't know anything about the status of that community in Serbia, and neither does anyone else here. Fighting workplace discrimination for people who are frequently marginalized doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. They might spend the money inefficiently or wastefully, but the stated goals of the group alone do not convince me."
Again, I didn't present it as truth or assess how true they are to their mission, and neither have any of y'all blindly parroting right-wing propaganda, which also didn't do any more than frame it in a politically compromised way.
Same with UNRWA: you know nothing about them but what unvetted right-wing propaganda told you. Even Fox News quotes UNRWA saying they consider the allegation that hostages were held in their facilities serious and they're looking into it. I have yet to see you, personally, distinguish between Israeli self-defense and Israeli human rights abuse, between the right to Palestinian sovereignty and Hamas, between Palestinians and terrorists. I find it entirely believable that some humanitarian aid from the UN does get hijacked by terrorists. Like I said, I presume there is some waste and inefficiency in every govt dept, and that extends to those outside groups we fund, too. Tighten up? Sure. Expect perfection or cut it off completely? Not so sure.
The good thing is the MSM would never cover anything up or give someone pause when it comes to trusting them...oh wait.
I wonder if someone took the time to find out, would they find that the money for LGBTQ+APDR in Serbia, actually made it to Serbia. Or would they find that it circled back into someone else's pockets?
Nothing I asked was rhetorical. I don't trust that you acknowledge anything counter to your personal beliefs as a reasonable concern.
Musk's motives would absolutely create suspicion about the accuracy of alleged misdeeds.
Who, USAID is redirecting $ to left-wing news agencies? Are they, though? I 've already looked into one cited expenditure -- the thing in Serbia -- and factually proved there is more to this than any sources y'all are citing have reported. (I didn't prove it wrong, just incomplete.) You really think you're getting (as close as possible to) the objective truth from the unvetted right-wing media y'all limit yourselves to? There are too many examples y'all can throw out there for me to research them all. I am very confident I could find omitted facts that reveal more than what y'all are considering.
You'll... condone tax dollars spent for right-wing propaganda? As in, you approve of using tax dollars in that way? I'm hoping you just typed that wrong... Everything the President says -- pre-Obama, Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump, post-47 -- and any other politician has the potential to be putting propaganda out there from one side or the other, and I guess you could say that's our tax dollars going toward any-wing propaganda. As an EO extension of our President's authority and a businessman with potential conflicts of interest, the same possibility exists with Musk.
Last edited:
Have any of y'all heard of Ground News? I keep seeing ads for it. It's a pay subscription and I haven't looked into it any further, but it sounds pretty awesome. It basically shows you what stories various media are reporting, and how. It gives you a clear breakdown of what stories aren't being covered within your regular reading habits (Laken Riley's murder is under-reported on the left and over-reported on the right, for example), and how coverage is shaded/manipulated/etc. From what I understand, it doesn't judge content itself; it just presents you with the info. If it's as good as it sounds, it seems like it could be a great tool for closing some of the division among us.
I've been meaning to bring this up for a while now, and this post reminded me.
Anyhoo... pretty much all media leave something out. There's too much something out there for one media outfit to cover it all. That's not evidence of a cover-up. There's truly not enough room for everything. And while I accept media cover-ups probably exist, I think they usually have a lot more to do w/ not offending advertisers/owners than w/ any political subterfuge. Like, The Washington Post's not endorsing Kamala Harris for President was because owner Jeff Bezos wouldn't allow it. It wasn't that the editors and staff themselves were trying to help Trump. Even a published endorsement isn't something nefarious. They're published as editorials and they are thoroughly, professionally reasoned on both the left and the right. People can disagree w/o constantly demonizing the other side.
Are you wondering that based off of anything? Or are you just creating that suspicion all on your lonesome?
BBC reports that Emily Damari, recently released Israeli hostage , claims that she was held for some time in a UN facility.
What part of direct hostage testimony and the BBC shouts “right wing propoganda”?
Of course, UNRWA says they’ll “look into it”. They don’t want more countries to cut off funding. At least seven employees were directly involved in the Oct 7 attack. This has been reported by news orgs covering a broad political spectrum.
Wow. So UNRWA acknowledges that holding hostages in their facilities is serious. Wow, I sure hope they get to the bottom of it.
Well, the government surely hasn't given us any reason to be suspicious. So obviously I am just creating it on my lonesome.
