this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
1101 points (98.8% liked)

politics

20346 readers
4009 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the past week or so, the courts have begun to try to set some boundaries on the Musk–Miller–Trump administration’s early blitz of recklessness.

. . .

This judicial review provides at least a small reprieve, hope that some of the administration’s most destructive impulses will be stopped. Or at least pared back. But even with the courts stepping up, and even with the reality of the administration’s ineptitude sinking in, this early Musk–Miller–Trump blitz remains very—maybe irreparably—damaging. Of course, there are a lot of moles to whack: the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are being dismantled at an alarming rate, and the court system is not known for being nimble. The administration is betting, perhaps rightly, that at least some of its thoughtless, lawless efforts will slip through the cracks.

But even if the courts caught them all—and even if every court facing each lawless escapade said, “Nope, that’s not a thing”—still the entire process would be doing serious damage to our institutions. Think of it as someone spoofing your identity and going on a shopping spree with your credit cards. Even if the goon gets caught, you still have to go store by store to argue that the fraudulent purchase wasn’t legitimate and hope the debt is forgiven. And all the while, perhaps long after all the debts are dealt with, the torrent of uncertainty kills your credit score.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nwilz -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have no idea why you think this is what money is being wasted on. We're already seeing the effect of downsizing the FAA. Do you think regular plane crashes are going to lower taxes?

[–] nwilz -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First that's a strawman, I never made that argument, but if I did you would have to provide evidence that downsizing the faa would cause regular plane crashes.

[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's literally already happening.

And it's hard to know what argument you're making when your responses are one and two words.

[–] nwilz -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Regular crashes are not happening. Also they rejected over 1000 applicants for traffic controllers because of there race while having a staffing shortage. Maybe don't do that

it's hard to know what argument you're making when your responses are one and two words.

Should be pretty easy when I don't use words like faa and plane crashes

[–] AbidanYre 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

rejected over 1000 applicants for traffic controllers because of there race while having a staffing shortage

Where do you people even come up with this nonsense?

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 1 week ago (35 children)

This was your entire argument:

You didn't even bother defining what you think is waste. Is every government employee a waste?

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] jordanlund 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They aren't interested in cutting waste. If they were, they would be slashing the Pentagon budget. Notice how all this talk of cost cutting, nobody is breathing a word about the Pentagon?

Because that's where the fraud, waste and abuse is.

Remember the last time someone was supposed to take Pentagon waste seriously? No, of course not, because it was 9/10/2001.

https://youtu.be/xU4GdHLUHwU

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This person has reached the absurd point with me of "it's fine that Trump is firing the people responsible for safeguarding our nuclear weapons [which he's in the process of doing] because they aren't all that important to the safety of our nuclear weapons," so I wouldn't hold out much hope for their understanding what you're saying.

[–] nwilz 1 points 6 days ago

Again, never made that argument

[–] nwilz -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They haven't gotten that far yet. They can't audit every department in one day.

https://youtu.be/Leor8ual9tw

[–] jordanlund 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's not that they haven't gotten that far, it's that they simply are not interested in the largest source of fraud, waste, and abuse.

If they were, they would have started with the biggest piece of the budget, not tiny slices like USAID.

USAID makes up $40 billion... which sounds like a lot until you realize the DoD budget is $850 billion.

[–] nwilz 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The director literally said he welcomes them