Wrong, I do see positive things in Trump's presidency. The securing of the border, pushing back against woke nonsense, pushing back against trans nonsense, cutting government waste.
However I don't let it blind me from the bad things he is saying and doing.

The transitive property only holds true if the premise is accurate.

You can't help yourself, huh?  Just can't ignore the threads that you've driven into the ground, because you've made them about yourself.

Sad.   

The transitive property is always true.  It's only you and other TDS sufferers who disagree with the premise, but that doesn't make it not true.

Swoosh

I take it you didn't read the threads. Thanks for playing.

Wrong, I do see positive things in Trump's presidency. The securing of the border, pushing back against woke nonsense, pushing back against trans nonsense, cutting government waste.
However I don't let it blind me from the bad things he is saying and doing.

The transitive property only holds true if the premise is accurate.

Can you elaborate on the positive you see about cutting government waste?  Like examples?  U seem to be under the impression that USAID cuts are a bad thing.

Distinction without a difference. Patel isn't a one off case here, Trump has a pattern of picking people who are loyal to him, not loyal to the country. Trump is filling the swamp with his own alligators that will do his bidding. Trump also gets rid of the ones who choose to be loyal to the country rather than him.

Patel published a political enemies list that names those who Trump doesn't like. That is not the behavior you want from the head of the FBI, that is the behavior you expect from someone picked by a dictator.

Being in a Trump cult is blinding you.

Of course you don't understand why he picked who he did. 

Of course you don't understand why he picked who he did.

Trump learned from his first term not to leave a bunch of Democrat Party LOYALISTS in positions that have the ability to interfere with his agenda.

EEF claims our nation allows the people to express their preferences at the ballot box by getting rid of the people we don't agree with and electing those we do.

Funny how in Trump's case, he believes what Trump supporters elected Trump to do doesn't give him a mandate.  He also believes Trump should make the same mistake by keeping those working against his agenda in government positions.

Trump tried it EEF's way the first time and was impeached twice, unable to implement his agenda due to the hoax investigation, and was vilified regardless of the success he achieved.  Wanting Trump to do the same thing while expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

The people that Trump picks share his vision.  Unwaveringly.

That kind loyal.

Not the kiss-ass loyal.  That administration is gone.  The leader of that debunked administration is eating ice cream while sh*tting his pants.

The people that Trump picks share his vision.  Unwaveringly.

That kind loyal.

Not the kiss-ass loyal.  That administration is gone.  The leader of that debunked administration is eating ice cream while sh*tting his pants.

Yep.  The loyalists are the Harris voters who were prior Biden voters and prior to that Hillary voters.

It's easy to call the people you hate (Trump, GOP, Conservatives, right wing, ...) cultists when you're inside a cult that votes for anyone on the Dim ticket no matter how incompetent or evil.  Biden couldn't even finish his reelection campaign, but had he tried, the same Dim loyalists would have voted Biden even though he was mentally feeble with failing memory.

You can't help yourself, huh?  Just can't ignore the threads that you've driven into the ground, because you've made them about yourself.

Sad.   

The transitive property is always true.  It's only you and other TDS sufferers who disagree with the premise, but that doesn't make it not true.

The thread is not about me, it is about Patel. Am I not allowed to criticize Patel now?

I am consistently amazed how often Trump lemmings cite something Trump said as evidence of it being true, especially given Trump's long record of lies. He comes up with a catch phrase MAGA and you jump on believing that he actually wants to make America great again because he said it.

Can you elaborate on the positive you see about cutting government waste?  Like examples?  U seem to be under the impression that USAID cuts are a bad thing.

I never said all USAID cuts are a bad thing. As I said before, I think there is a lot of waste, mismanagement, and abuse in USAID that needs to be addressed but I also think that there is good spending being done by the agency as well. I think we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater essentially.

The positive is that these things are actually getting done instead of taking years to save a miniscule amount and that it is getting attention. The pace is refreshing

Trump learned from his first term not to leave a bunch of Democrat Party LOYALISTS in positions that have the ability to interfere with his agenda.

EEF claims our nation allows the people to express their preferences at the ballot box by getting rid of the people we don't agree with and electing those we do.

Funny how in Trump's case, he believes what Trump supporters elected Trump to do doesn't give him a mandate.  He also believes Trump should make the same mistake by keeping those working against his agenda in government positions.

Trump tried it EEF's way the first time and was impeached twice, unable to implement his agenda due to the hoax investigation, and was vilified regardless of the success he achieved.  Wanting Trump to do the same thing while expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

Strawman.
I didn't say that Trump's election doesn't give him the power and authority to implement his plans. I only said I didn't consider 49.8% of the vote to be a mandate. You were using a different definition of the word mandate than I was.

Another strawman
I have no problem with Trump replacing staff. I am criticizing some of his staff picks.

[snip blah blah]
I have no problem with Trump replacing staff. I am criticizing some of his staff picks.

And yet, most of Trump's picks have more experience, skills and focus on what's important to do their jobs than most of the nominees under Obama and Biden.

Where are your posts criticizing those appointees?

And yet, most of Trump's picks have more experience, skills and focus on what's important to do their jobs than most of the nominees under Obama and Biden.

Where are your posts criticizing those appointees?

Whataboutism.

I have criticized Biden appointees before, just not on this forum. There aren't many people praising Biden here so it isn't like it comes up that often to where I need to point out how bad his decisions were.

I never said all USAID cuts are a bad thing. As I said before, I think there is a lot of waste, mismanagement, and abuse in USAID that needs to be addressed but I also think that there is good spending being done by the agency as well. I think we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater essentially.

The positive is that these things are actually getting done instead of taking years to save a miniscule amount and that it is getting attention. The pace is refreshing

So are the cuts a good thing? Since you never said that they're bad.

What kind of waste and mismanagement and abuse do you think there is going on with USAID, since you didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase.

Whataboutism.

I have criticized Biden appointees before, just not on this forum. There aren't many people praising Biden here so it isn't like it comes up that often to where I need to point out how bad his decisions were.

Hahhahahaha

So are the cuts a good thing? Since you never said that they're bad.

What kind of waste and mismanagement and abuse do you think there is going on with USAID, since you didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase.

Some are good, some also seem bad. It isn't an all or nothing, each program cut has to be evaluated individually.

Some are good, some also seem bad. It isn't an all or nothing, each program cut has to be evaluated individually.

So at what point do you consider the entire department OK to be cut? 51 bad and 49% good?

So at what point do you consider the entire department OK to be cut? 51 bad and 49% good?

I am not sure I would ever cut the entire department. I would work on replacing staff within the department to make the department function efficiently and properly. But the problem isn't just USAID, it is what congress has approved, we could eliminate USAID and still have the problem of congress allocating money to stupid programs.

I am not sure I would ever cut the entire department. I would work on replacing staff within the department to make the department function efficiently and properly. But the problem isn't just USAID, it is what congress has approved, we could eliminate USAID and still have the problem of congress allocating money to stupid programs.

I think it would take too long to audit every single dollar. So an across the board cut is the best.  Esp after lots of money has been shown to be wasted.  It's not like we're talking about $1 out of the entire departments budget is going to LGBT Seasame Street in the UAE.  It's much more and then add in all the other waste.

Repalcing staff doesn't solve the problem if the departments are wasteful to begin with.

I think it would take too long to audit every single dollar. So an across the board cut is the best.  Esp after lots of money has been shown to be wasted.  It's not like we're talking about $1 out of the entire departments budget is going to LGBT Seasame Street in the UAE.  It's much more and then add in all the other waste.

Repalcing staff doesn't solve the problem if the departments are wasteful to begin with.

Another part of the problem for me is that I don't believe that things are as bad as being reported. In the same way that incompetence and political bias can infect government work, so can it infect DOGE's audit of places like USAID. There was already one big story about how Musk reported an $8 Billion dollar savings with one cut but it turned out to be only $8 million. In other words the same type of waste or incompetence is found in people making the cuts as the programs they are trying to cut. Then throw in political biases which distorts things up more. I believe nether all the criticism of Musk nor do I believe all that Musk is claiming to have cut.

Maybe USAID does need to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, I think it is hard to tell without really diving deep into it.

Another part of the problem for me is that I don't believe that things are as bad as being reported. In the same way that incompetence and political bias can infect government work, so can it infect DOGE's audit of places like USAID. There was already one big story about how Musk reported an $8 Billion dollar savings with one cut but it turned out to be only $8 million. In other words the same type of waste or incompetence is found in people making the cuts as the programs they are trying to cut. Then throw in political biases which distorts things up more. I believe nether all the criticism of Musk nor do I believe all that Musk is claiming to have cut.

Maybe USAID does need to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, I think it is hard to tell without really diving deep into it.

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.