So basically, you really have no info to back up your statements on USAID.  I'm going by what's being reported by the POTUS and the head of DOGE.  Where you just stated "I think it's hard to tell without really diving deep into it".

We're getting off track of this thread, maybe move this convo to the DOGE thread if you want to continue it.  But I see no reason for you to reply further about it, unless you chose to argue since you haven't really dived deep into it and aren't going by what the best 2 people to make decisions are doing.

Do calls for objectivity need to be backed up? Does one need evidence to justify a position of wanting to look at the spending case by case?

The whole thing is so politicized meaning that I don't really trust all the reports of waste being found in USAID. Both sides are sensationalizing the story, the left is talking about starving poor and the right is making huge claims of waste and money saved.

I agree though, this is way off topic from my criticisms of Kash Patel.

Do calls for objectivity need to be backed up? Does one need evidence to justify a position of wanting to look at the spending case by case?

The whole thing is so politicized meaning that I don't really trust all the reports of waste being found in USAID. Both sides are sensationalizing the story, the left is talking about starving poor and the right is making huge claims of waste and money saved.

I agree though, this is way off topic from my criticisms of Kash Patel.

The right only has 1 story that is shown to be true. Wasteful spending.  It's the left that is sensationalizing the story and trying to fight it cause in the end, the money trail will lead to politicians. 

Yes, calls for YOUR "objectivity" need to be backed up because you lack the ability when to be objective.  Time and time again, facts are presenting that prove 1 side of the arguement is right and you refuse to accept it. Then you enter your "objective" nonsense just to argue.  Granted, there are times where it would make sense, but majority of the time it doesn't. 

The right only has 1 story that is shown to be true. Wasteful spending.  It's the left that is sensationalizing the story and trying to fight it cause in the end, the money trail will lead to politicians. 

Yes, calls for YOUR "objectivity" need to be backed up because you lack the ability when to be objective.  Time and time again, facts are presenting that prove 1 side of the arguement is right and you refuse to accept it. Then you enter your "objective" nonsense just to argue.  Granted, there are times where it would make sense, but majority of the time it doesn't.

You seem to fail to understand objectivity, there is not my objectivity or your objectivity, there is only objectivity.

Facts are presented proving 1 side you say which not questioning whether DOGE is presenting you accurate facts. You fail to understand how to apply objectivity.

You seem to fail to understand objectivity, there is not my objectivity or your objectivity, there is only objectivity.

Facts are presented proving 1 side you say which not questioning whether DOGE is presenting you accurate facts. You fail to understand how to apply objectivity.

Hahahhaha, that's what you think by what you post on this forum.

Hahahhaha, that's what you think by what you post on this forum.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Hahhahaa, revives a dead thread again just to be wrong again.

Hahhahaa, revives a dead thread again just to be wrong again.

So being a "dead thread" is a defense to you being wrong?  Didn't know I wasn't allowed to respond to you 11 days after you post BS. Sorry Forum Nazi

So being a "dead thread" is a defense to you being wrong?  Didn't know I wasn't allowed to respond to you 11 days after you post BS. Sorry Forum Nazi

Wrong? Hahahhaha u have a nice imagination.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk