• 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

johnny karate said:
Those are legitimate things to be concerned about.
Click to expand...
But you weren't concerned about them until you were told to be.
johnny karate said:
The act of being concerned about them isn’t born of instruction but rather awareness.
Click to expand...
Really? Can that argument not apply to other people?

No, of course not. You get every benefit of the doubt. Anyone who doesn't agree with you gets none.
 
Ziggurat said:
But you weren't concerned about them until you were told to be.
Click to expand...

I became concerned about them when I was made aware of them. And my awareness coincides with their occurrence. This crazy ◊◊◊◊ wasn't happening two weeks ago, so I wasn't concerned because it hadn't yet occurred. This is how linear time works.

USAID, on the other hand, has been around for decades, has had the same "woke" agenda for decades, and has had the same level of accountability and transparency for decades, but only now are Trump supporters suddenly concerned about it, which neatly coincides with Trump and Musk politicizing it with their lies and conspiracy theories.

Ziggurat said:
Really? Can that argument not apply to other people?

No, of course not. You get every benefit of the doubt. Anyone who doesn't agree with you gets none.
Click to expand...

I don't ask for the benefit of the doubt nor do I freely give it. The facts I have presented speak for themselves.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes. That's literally what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
Well why didn't you say so?

Did they talk about why it was necessary to the national interest? I.e., why we need an unsupervised presidential slush fund for the purpose?

Did they talk about any unnecessary things this slush fund has invested in? Did they talk about how the AIDS thing made a net benefit for the fund?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
And then nothing happens.

Perhaps you meant a redundancy. But it's not, because by design the GAO is only intended to track down certain kinds of waste. The GAO essentially looks for inefficiencies and waste in executing policy, but it isn't intended to ask whether or not the policy itself is a waste. And so all it can do is tidy up a bit around the fringes. It never accomplishes fundamental change.
Click to expand...
Nothing changes because they report to Congress, because Congress pays the bills, not the White House. And things do change once in a while. But there's a right way to do things, and a wrong way. As far as this board in concerned the GAO did the best investigation into Roswell Incident of 1947, much better than the USAF version. And like everything else the GAO did, the report was ignored.
 
theprestige said:
Well why didn't you say so?
Click to expand...
Well, because you would have known that if you watched it, obviously.

But you're right, I should have given some reasons for you to watch it.
theprestige said:
Did they talk about why it was necessary to the national interest? I.e., why we need an unsupervised presidential slush fund for the purpose?
Click to expand...
Yes they did and it's not an unsupervised presidential slush fund. You saying that it is speaks volumes about your ignorance of the international aid and development industry, which I remind you again is an industry that I worked in for several years.
theprestige said:
Did they talk about any unnecessary things this slush fund has invested in? Did they talk about how the AIDS thing made a net benefit for the fund?
Click to expand...
"The AIDS thing". Nice. Learn a thing or two before you start chucking ◊◊◊◊ at what was my area of professional expertise.
 
JayUtah said:
We already covered this. They were auditing the Ukraine side of the deal. But it speaks to the issue of whether USAID was interested in looking at fraud, waste, and abuse.
Click to expand...
I just read this today--a deal always involves two parties. What are the odds that fraud or corruption on the part of Starlink/Musk would be revealed by the investigation? At the very least--it is a clear conflict of interest on the part of Musk. At worst, it would certainly explain why Musk and Trump were so gung ho about completely obliterating USAID.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Uh, no. They were investigating Ukraine. Which they are supposed to do. USAID provided Ukraine with a bunch of Starkink terminals, and they were investigating the use of those terminals to make sure that they were being used for what they are supposed to be used for, and not being diverted to other uses through corruption in Ukraine. Which is a good idea to make sure our aid is being effective. Nothing about that is an investigation of SpaceX or Musk.
Click to expand...
That's not how it sounds to me, they were investigating the Ukraine 'side' but the investigation was of Starlink:
Newsweek
One relevant quote:
"This raises a potential conflict of interest, as Musk's company was under investigation by USAID shortly before he began calling for the shutdown. Starlink's activity in Eastern Europe has been criticized, with many Russian operatives claiming to have access to Starlink despite Musk's assurances that only Ukraine was using the service."
If there was an investigation of this, it could have been potentially been embarrassing and/or damaging to Musk, which would could explain his otherwise irrational disdain for USAID.
ETA:
The IG Paul Martin said:
Martin testified to the committee, “In addition to another ongoing audit on direct budget support, we are examining USAID’s Energy Security Project, USAID’s oversight of Starlink Satellite Terminals provided to the Ukrainian government, and USAID’s efforts to protect against sexual exploitation and abuse in Ukraine. When completed, we look forward to sharing the findings of these reports with the subcommittee.”
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Talk about too little, too late!

Anyway, what category of "need" are we talking about, here? I'm pretty sure the country will get along just fine, without this particular executive branch slush fund.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Well why didn't you say so?

Did they talk about why it was necessary to the national interest? I.e., why we need an unsupervised presidential slush fund for the purpose?

Did they talk about any unnecessary things this slush fund has invested in? Did they talk about how the AIDS thing made a net benefit for the fund?
Click to expand...

That you keep calling USAID a “slush fund” is clownishly, embarrassingly stupid.
 
stanfr said:
The IG Paul Martin said:
Martin testified to the committee, “In addition to another ongoing audit on direct budget support, we are examining USAID’s Energy Security Project, USAID’s oversight of Starlink Satellite Terminals provided to the Ukrainian government, and USAID’s efforts to protect against sexual exploitation and abuse in Ukraine. When completed, we look forward to sharing the findings of these reports with the subcommittee.”
Click to expand...
That matches what I said. Everything else is innuendo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom