• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

I heard yesterday he rakes in 1.6 million every hour. I don't know if that's based on an 8 hour day of work or every hour of every day.

and that’s basically cracking into his top 10 in dollar amounts of charitable endeavors
 
When people ask me for an example of "begging the question", this will be idea. Thanks.
Oh, this ought to be good. Is it your contention that Guatemala wants us funding LGBTQ+ activism? Or that we haven't been funding LGBTQ+ activism? Please, expand.
 
Oh, this ought to be good. Is it your contention that Guatemala wants us funding LGBTQ+ activism? Or that we haven't been funding LGBTQ+ activism? Please, expand.
Well, I have absolutely no idea what the US funds through its USAid programme, except insofar as the name is a clue. My contention is that the people who have halted it all, at least until they sift through and see if they approve, quite possibly have little more idea than I do, but they sure do have opinions.

What I'm saying is that you appear to be assuming that shutting down USAid can't harm anyone that matters and can't harm the US's international reputation because you just assume that all it's funding is silly fluff you don't care about, exemplified by queer activism in faraway places.

That assumption is a fine example of begging the question.
 
What I'm saying is that you appear to be assuming that shutting down USAid can't harm anyone that matters and can't harm the US's international reputation because you just assume that all it's funding is silly fluff you don't care about, exemplified by queer activism in faraway places.
I wonder if the same is thought about the CIA, which is also being dismantled. The CIA is notoriously fluffy and liberal and dreamy, right?
 
What I'm saying is that you appear to be assuming that shutting down USAid can't harm anyone that matters and can't harm the US's international reputation because you just assume that all it's funding is silly fluff you don't care about, exemplified by queer activism in faraway places.
Not quite. Rather, I'm questioning the assumption that pausing USAID for 90 days will do any serious reputational harm. Funny how you didn't seem to notice that that even was an assumption. But it was, and the fact that you didn't notice is itself telling.
 
I wonder if the same is thought about the CIA, which is also being dismantled. The CIA is notoriously fluffy and liberal and dreamy, right?
Exactly. Look at the trade deficit the US government has with the CIA. They keep subsidising it with lots of money but how much money does the nasty CIA send back? 20% tariffs on all spying until they see sense.
 
Not quite. Rather, I'm questioning the assumption that pausing USAID for 90 days will do any serious reputational harm. Funny how you didn't seem to notice that that even was an assumption. But it was, and the fact that you didn't notice is itself telling.
Like I said elsewhere, this is like asking a doctor for a second opinion and they order a halt to all treatment of the patient for 90 days while they think about it.
 
Unless it is written on a death certificate "cause of death: withdrawal of USAID funding" then well we can never know can we....
 
People keep saying this, but they never point to specific spending which will cost lives. I'm putting this argument in the "to be shown" category.

And I'm not so sure about reputational damage either. Do you really think Guatemala is going to resent us because we stopped funding LGBTQ+ activism in their country? Or might it be possible that they might consider that a positive step that we aren't pushing our crap on them?

And lastly, as far as there being a more responsible way to do this, maybe. And yet, nobody actually did it before. Nobody actually held USAID accountable for their spending. If the choice is between doing it "irresponsibly" and not doing it at all, then I'll choose doing it "irresponsibly." Because nobody else (both Democrat and Republican) actually offered to do it "responsibly".

Complaining that the bandaid is coming off too fast isn't an argument to keep it on.

You seem to be very informed about any USAID program involving activities you personally find distasteful but are strangely in the dark about the humanitarian aid they provide.

It’s almost as if you weren’t even aware of USAID until recently and only get your information from biased right wing sources.
 
Wow, the Tantrump defenders will try and justify anything the Dear Leader does?

This is only the test case. They’re starting with a relatively easy target by questionable legal means to lay the groundwork for when they move on to bigger agencies using undeniably illegal means.

When that happens, the Trump supporters defending this nonsense will either regurgitate the same right wing talking points or say nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
Further sign that NOAA is the next target:
In the week that temperatures at the North Pole are 20C higher than average, and the ice is melting. Just what we need.
 

Back
Top Bottom