The discussion centers on the impact of DOGE, particularly in relation to government spending and efficiency. Participants express concerns about the lack of clear objectives and planning from Elon Musk's DOGE initiative, contrasting it with Elizabeth Warren's structured proposals aimed at reducing waste in government departments. Specific examples of alleged wasteful spending are cited, including a projected $500 billion reduction in IRS income due to DOGE's actions. The conversation highlights the tension between fiscal responsibility and the potential erosion of rights and government accountability.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for policymakers, financial analysts, corporate leaders, and anyone interested in the intersection of cryptocurrency, government efficiency, and organizational management.
The connection could that the DOGE cuts are as means to an end, wherever that end will lead.
I think that there are aspects of both in the article but it focuses on genetics and physical attributes throughout the article. With respect to dysphoria, the article doesn't generally refer to people who have clearly defined sex but feel like they are the opposite sex. It's more along the lines of having no clearly defined sex (sometimes even beyond puberty) and that person coming to terms with who they are. When I hear of people who say that they are non-binary or refer to themselves as 'they', I think of this article and how some people truly are neither male or female.
That's probably kinda why I was asking and really did not know.
The issue is that the US is supposed to be a constitutional democracy. If DOGE can cut whatever it likes with no recourse to the US Congress or any other regulatory or legal body, then of course that's a quick way to reduce spending. But, where is the line between that and an arbitrary rule of a few wealthly elites? You shouldn't support illegal actions against others while demanding legal protections for yourself. If you're happy that Musk can do whatever he likes to you and your family, and you have no legal rights, then fine. But, if you believe as a US citizen you have rights and protections under the constitution, then you shouldn't deny those rights to others.
Who ensures that Musk acts within the law?
No one is ensuring that. There really isn't anywhere else to take your question that I can see.
USAID, for example, was set up by an act of congress and legally it should take an act of congress to shut it down. The same applies to a lot of what DOGE is doing. Legally, there should have been a bill through congress before the widespread and sweeping reform of US government.
Asking for a reference does not tell anyone anything about my beliefs in what makes a good government or imply skepticism about what you are saying.
I must confess, as an aside, I can't see the point of evidence-based debate at this stage. The only thing you should be doing is fighting with everything you've got - short of violence. The only hope you have is that your government is taking on not only opposition at home, but almost every other country. Apart from Russia - not a bad word is to be said about Russia. At some point, you have to realise what's happening and oppose it.
Reasoned discussion with people who disagree with me is one of the things I like to think I've got. Such discussion is greatly aided by references, and in any case, if you read the community values you will see where I got "evidence based debate". Please send me a pm if you want to discuss the community values further.
IMO, it's too late for that.
I promise not to post any more. I just stopped by to see what was happening. I'm not interested in debate. I'm only interested in what action Trump's opponents are taking. This is a fight to the political death now.
Feel free to delete my account.
Maybe you need to do some searching. The state and federal judicial systems have oversight over Musk / DOGE. But with the number of progressive/activist judges, many appointed by Obama, you can be sure "High Noon" is coming
I found the below article with a list of judges so far who have ruled against Trump since his return to office. The article also lists the cases they ruled on. Do you any reason to conclude these are progressive/activist judges other than having heard it as a talking point in the media? I know activist judges exist, I live in a county that has a very activist judge and in general judicial activism makes me uncomfortable. IMO Clarence Thomas is an overtly activist judge - as I'm sure you know, activism can be conservative or populist as well as progressive. When I have more time, I'll look for any research that scores judges on the leaning of their rulings or on general activism.
www.newsweek.com
That's not the point. The current birthright rules are based on the constitution. Regardless of whether it's a good idea, Trump cannot change the constitution by executive order.
Taht's a shame, truly.
It really doesn't. Claiming that your screenshot passes for diligence is nonsense.
Unfortunately, you are not alone in being willing to conclude something in an area where you clearly have zero expertise and are unwilling to do any diligence. @Jonathan Scott doesn't live in the US, has much less at stake than you do in how the US government ends up looking four years hence, and he took the 10 minutes or so needed to get basic background on the situation before posting. It isn't that hard or time consuming.
There are so many unsupported implications in that statement I don't know which is the most aggriegous. In the future, when making broad ill-defined claims qualify them with IMO or somesuch, or include references for discussion; or at least say where you heard it if there is no reference becuase its a soundbite from whatever media you are consuming.
If you were born "Mary Jones" and are now "Mary Smith," you cannot prove you are who you say you are unless you have a passport. Only 48% of Americans have valid passports.
That's a strawman argument: birth certificate is proof. And regarding the last paragraph in post # 50. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/quantifying-why-democrats-support-open-borders/
But thanks ya all for the Schadenfreude!
not according to SAVE Act (H.R. 22).
