• 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

Again "I wouldn't be at all surprised if a couple of them were Ruzzian sleeper agents" is not a claim that they are agents.

They don't need to have been FSB trained in Moscow to be a security threat. Being blackmail-vulnerable would do. Imagine if one of them had, say, an unpleasant history of social media posts which might be career-wrecking if revealed. That doesn't seem inconceivable, does it?
 
Ziggurat said:
No it isn’t. Starlink terminals provided to Ukraine are in the physical possession of Ukraine. Want to know what the Starlink terminals provided to Ukraine are being used for? You need to ask Ukraine. Starlink here refers to the terminals, not the company, because the company wasn’t provided to Ukraine, the terminals were. And once those terminals were handed over to USAID, the company wasn’t in control of them. There would be no point in investigating the company to figure out what Ukraine did with them.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting the idea that the investigation was to determine "what Ukraine did with them" or "what they were being used for"? I don't see that anywhere. The terminals are the property of the company. And the company most certainly has "control" of them. It could literally render them useless on a moment's notice if it wanted to!
 
Ziggurat said:
No, you tried to straw man me to avoid having to argue your position on its merits.
Click to expand...

The merits of my position are as follows:

Musk has business interests with foreign governments hostile to U.S. interests and he and his unvetted team are currently rooting through our sensitive government data.

I'm pretty sure I've been arguing this position from the beginning.

The only one who's been avoiding that argument is you.
 
stanfr said:
Where are you getting the idea that the investigation was to determine "what Ukraine did with them" or "what they were being used for"?
Click to expand...
Because that's what you're supposed to do with aid that you give to foreign countries. You're always supposed to look into what you give them to make sure they're using it for the intended purpose, and not being sold off to line the pockets of local officials. Is this a new concept to you?
stanfr said:
And the company most certainly has "control" of them. It could literally render them useless on a moment's notice if it wanted to!
Click to expand...
Sure, the company can turn them off. But what the company cannot do is change their use. That use is controlled by whoever actually has physical possession of the terminal, for reasons I hope would be obvious. That's why if you want to know how they're being used, you have to ask the people actually using them. And that's Ukraine, not Starlink.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Again "I wouldn't be at all surprised if a couple of them were Ruzzian sleeper agents" is not a claim that they are agents.

They don't need to have been FSB trained in Moscow to be a security threat. Being blackmail-vulnerable would do. Imagine if one of them had, say, an unpleasant history of social media posts which might be career-wrecking if revealed. That doesn't seem inconceivable, does it?
Click to expand...

Gee, it's almost as if that's why we have a security clearance system in the first place.
 
A known criminal, and repeat offender, has another known criminal going through everyone in America's personal and secure information and the right-wing is okay with it.....
 
thaiboxerken said:
A known criminal, and repeat offender, has another known criminal going through everyone in America's personal and secure information and the right-wing is okay with it.....
Click to expand...
Yes, why wouldn't they be?
Wake up! You can't judge the current situation with your understanding of the morals, rules and regulations of yesterday. That's not the kind of world you Iive in anymore.
Those guys are way past that, at this point.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Again "I wouldn't be at all surprised if a couple of them were Ruzzian sleeper agents" is not a claim that they are agents.

They don't need to have been FSB trained in Moscow to be a security threat. Being blackmail-vulnerable would do. Imagine if one of them had, say, an unpleasant history of social media posts which might be career-wrecking if revealed. That doesn't seem inconceivable, does it?
Click to expand...
All that needs to happen is public exposure, e.g. the rummaging techbros sharing interesting titbits of secure nfo via Xitter. Then the whole world can see it.
 
dann said:
You obviously can't come up with one single argument for why my links are "(literally!) communist propaganda," even though the use of the word literally implies that it should be extremely easy for you to do so. Your knee-jerk reaction is no argument. Even when you are dealing with "putin, Drumpf, or Musk," the mere mentioning of their names is not enough to argue that what they say must be wrong. Who told you that that is how skepticism works? You actually have to deal with the arguments and alleged facts that they present.

It doesn't even seem to get through to you that, in addition to the Cuban sources ...


... I also presented you with these, all of which aren't Cuban and most of which aren't communist at all:


But feel free to feel in your heart of hearts that anything that criticizes your pipe dreams must be propaganda.
It's something you and Puppycow have in common with MAGA.
And I still haven't seen a single argument for why any of my sources are supposed to be communist propaganda - other than your knee-jerk outbursts that it must be the case.
It's bloody awful that this is what skepticism appears to have been reduced to.
Click to expand...
I really don't know what to even reply to this. Except maybe sorry you keep completely misunderstanding so much of what I write to you? There's so many incorrect assumptions in this post I'm even sure where to begin.

Look, I know we live in polarized, heated times, but maybe take a deep breath, go for a walk, pet a passing dog or something, and come back and actually read what we're writing to you. I don't mean that in a condescending way, I mean it sincerely. You're attacking positions I don't hold and, in at least one case, that I've specifically said already that I do not hold. Also, grumpy strawmen like "you're calling something propaganda because of a name" or "you're calling everything that criticizes their pipe dream (what pipe dream? I never harboured an illusion that USAID was all sunshine and rainbows and I've already said so) is propaganda" aren't conductive to good discussion either.

Look, America is in a crisis and picking pointless fights with people on your own side isn't going to help.

Also I recommend I'm Starting to Worry About This Black Box of Doom. It's largely about how the Internet makes people pick pointless fights like this, with people who for the most part don't even disagree with them! I suggest you read it. It's a real eye-opener.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because that's what you're supposed to do with aid that you give to foreign countries. You're always supposed to look into what you give them to make sure they're using it for the intended purpose, and not being sold off to line the pockets of local officials. Is this a new concept to you?

Sure, the company can turn them off. But what the company cannot do is change their use. That use is controlled by whoever actually has physical possession of the terminal, for reasons I hope would be obvious. That's why if you want to know how they're being used, you have to ask the people actually using them. And that's Ukraine, not Starlink.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the investigation. Here, I'll quote from Wikipedia, maybe that will hep you. If you disagree with their assessment, I'm sure Wikipedia would welcome your expert opinion on the matter:
"Starlink was part of an investigation by USAID into sexual exploitation and abuse in Ukraine when USAID's Inspector General was fired by President Trump and all employees put on administrative leave. The USAID website was scrubbed of all information related to the Starlink probe"
 
stanfr said:
You are ignoring the investigation. Here, I'll quote from Wikipedia, maybe that will hep you.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't help. Wikipedia is an information aggregator, it is not an information source. Their source is another article:
futurism.com

Elon Musk Reportedly Has a Huge Conflict of Interest Motivating Him to Gut USAID

Besides the billionaire's racist and xenophobic ideologies, Musk's singling out of USAID was more than likely self-serving.
futurism.com futurism.com
But that article isn't the original source either. It's all just a big circle jerk of lefty journalists inventing an investigation that isn't real. Want to know the reality? Go to the actual source.

PROJECT ANNOUNCEMENT: Inspection of USAID's Oversight of Starlink Terminals Provided to the Government of Ukraine | Office of Inspector General

oig.usaid.gov oig.usaid.gov
USAID said:
The USAID Office of Inspector General, Inspections and Evaluations Division, is initiating an inspection of USAID’s oversight of Starlink satellite terminals provided to the Government of Ukraine.

Our objectives are to determine how (1) the Government of Ukraine used the USAID-provided Starlink terminals, and (2) USAID monitored the Government of Ukraine’s use of USAID-provided Starlink terminals.
Click to expand...
Like I said. They were investigating how Ukraine was using Starlink. They were not investigating SpaceX. Which should have been obvious, because investigating Ukraine makes sense for USAID, investigating SpaceX doesn't.
 
theprestige said:
You'd think the creator of the law would know better than to fall into its trap.
Click to expand...

I think the creator of the law knows how best to apply it. Certainly better than a Trump sycophant who spreads mindless conspiracy theories about USAID being an unsupervised slush fund.
 
theprestige said:
You'd think the creator of the law would know better than to fall into its trap.
Click to expand...
Question for you: is there any action that Trump could commit that would cause you to consider that the comparison is apt? Is there a line you can draw? If Trump manages to cancel or postpone the midterm elections, for instance, would you be willing to consider that dictatorial? How about if he managed to cancel or postpone the next presidential election, or declares himself president-for-life? Would you consider that to be dictatorial? What if he shuts down Congress, or removes elected representatives from office, or manages to prevent Congress from holding sessions?

You're thinking (or pretending to think) that Trump would never do any of those things.

Which should make it easy for you to agree and say YES, Trump doing any of those things would be crossing a line, making him dictatorial, and inviting apt comparison to Hitler.

So say it. And hopefully we'll never reach a day when someone has to dredge up this post and ask you why you changed your mind about it.

So what do you say? Are you willing to stake out, in advance, that these things would be the actions of a dictator? Or do you want to keep your options open so you don't look gullible if Trump tries or succeeds in doing any of these things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom