nein51 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

Trump on the debate stage in 2016 basically said "all of these people are corrupt, they take my money and do what I ask them to".

There's no doubt large donations come with strings. No one is giving money just because. I don't see the problem with Zuck hedging his bet just like he did when Democrats were in control. It's smart business practice on his part. It's terrible for the country and needs to stop but until rules are put in place to stop it then it's just reality.

And no rules to stop it are coming. Both parties love them some large donors.

---

Yep. Donations get your calls answered. And they get you in the mix. That's what Zuck wants. He is signaling that he will donate more if he gets some consideration when policies are formed.

That is not a bad thing. Donor interests are not irrelevant. Capital formation and preservation are critically important. It's only when donor interests occlude common interest that they become a problem. That's how you end up maintaining globalist policies for decades after they no longer made sense = were doing great harm for no significant benefit.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence. Now Facebook is ok? Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?

There have been reports for several days (weeks?) that Zuck wants a role in the new administration. He's no dummy. He knows who won the election and wants to be at the table. Those does not mean Trump has any reason to trust him or should give him that seat. Maybe a corner to stand in, far from the real action, but probably not even that.

historian said:

---

There have been reports for several days (weeks?) that Zuck wants a role in the new administration. He's no dummy. He knows who won the election and wants to be at the table. Those does not mean Trump has any reason to trust him or should give him that seat. Maybe a corner to stand in, far from the real action, but probably not even that.

---

It would be bad for Trump's credibility. He already has a he is "for sale" stigma, see the Trump Bible, Trump Cologne, Trump Watch, Trump Gold Sneakers, Trump Champaign and my favorite the Trump Action Figure, with 6 pack (JillBear will love that to ogle).

So after hating on Zucker for close to a decade, he let's him in for 1m. Credibility suffers. Don't tell me, it is actually a positive in some strange "Trump-world" fashion...

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

---

Vance is much, much smarter than people are giving him credit for.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence. Now Facebook is ok? Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?

---

again, you are fighting imagined scenarios.

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

---

Vance is much, much smarter than people are giving him credit for.

---

I think Vance is very smart and has done the best job of all in the race at re-creating his image. That was not a shot at Vance, just he will have to deal with the election fallout if there is any sense of payola.

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

---

Vance is much, much smarter than people are giving him credit for.

---

It seemed like Vance got almost universal applause for his debate performance. He is definitely a sharp guy.

In some of the campaign events he did not come off very well when he tried to imitate Trump's off the cuff edgy comments and jokes.

The more he is himself the better he looks

Well...almost half of Americans didn't vote for him...so what did they expect? Not exactly surprising news. Did we really need to run a poll to know this?

Half of Americans have no confidence in Trump's Cabinet picks: Poll https://t.co/c6mqgxPnRi

— Axios (@axios) December 13, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

---

Vance is much, much smarter than people are giving him credit for.

---

I think Vance is very smart and has done the best job of all in the race at re-creating his image. That was not a shot at Vance, just he will have to deal with the election fallout if there is any sense of payola.

---

Vance's autobiography was underwhelming.

Finally dumped it after reading the first 3/4 of the book.

Hope he evolves into a better VP.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

---

Vance is much, much smarter than people are giving him credit for.

---

I think Vance is very smart and has done the best job of all in the race at re-creating his image. That was not a shot at Vance, just he will have to deal with the election fallout if there is any sense of payola.

---

Vance's autobiography was underwhelming.

Finally dumped it after reading the first 3/4 of the book.

Hope he evolves into a better VP.

---

Would you rather tampon Tim?

ScottS said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

I doubt if Trump cares much about such things. He doesn't have to care.

---

No, he doesn't. Vance and the rest of the GOP under 70 do.

---

Vance is much, much smarter than people are giving him credit for.

---

I think Vance is very smart and has done the best job of all in the race at re-creating his image. That was not a shot at Vance, just he will have to deal with the election fallout if there is any sense of payola.

---

Vance's autobiography was underwhelming.

Finally dumped it after reading the first 3/4 of the book.

Hope he evolves into a better VP.

---

Would you rather tampon Tim?

---

No

However Vance isn't presidential material either.

Read his autobiography. Suspect you will reach a similar conclusion.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.


I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

As someone who's worked in academia for 30+ years, I'll just say this:

Most American academics & admins will say & do _anything_ to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing to their labs & universities (e.g. as research grants & tuition support).

They will _never_ support actual free…

— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) December 14, 2024

pic.twitter.com/cblHSwykNq

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) December 14, 2024

It’s funny how non-white voters flat out say why they’re shifting right and these advocacy orgs are still confused https://t.co/5Ps7uxZYlF https://t.co/R51cUAgiPP pic.twitter.com/qaWZ5CeV6d

— Dhaaruni ✨✨✨ (@dhaaruni) December 14, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

It’s funny how non-white voters flat out say why they’re shifting right and these advocacy orgs are still confused https://t.co/5Ps7uxZYlF https://t.co/R51cUAgiPP pic.twitter.com/qaWZ5CeV6d

— Dhaaruni ✨✨✨ (@dhaaruni) December 14, 2024

---

Imagine, nobody went to prison

ABC News will pay Donald Trump $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit that the president-elect brought against the network and anchor George Stephanopoulos in March.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

What does he have to do with anything?

Let me guess you are for indiscriminate cuts without regard for what they are for or if needed. Yeah, sounds smart... Your sure a keeper...

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

More like he is into Liz Cheney

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

What does he have to do with anything?

Let me guess you are for indiscriminate cuts without regard for what they are for or if needed. Yeah, sounds smart... Your sure a keeper...

---

When the economy or an industry goes sour, companies have to make cuts across the board all the time.

There is no question our government has become bloated to the point that cuts are needed everywhere.

It's chainsaw time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

What does he have to do with anything?

Let me guess you are for indiscriminate cuts without regard for what they are for or if needed. Yeah, sounds smart... Your sure a keeper...

---

When the economy or an industry goes sour, companies have to make cuts across the board all the time.

There is no question our government has become bloated to the point that cuts are needed everywhere.

It's chainsaw time.

---

You are pretty thick. What part of data driven cuts don't you get? You think companies just fire employees with odd SS#s? What world do you live? Another prize, MAGA seems full of you guys...

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

I think Romney would have been a really good POTUS. He is very smart, moral and self made. Yes, he comes from privilege , but many times, that make people successful. Starting Bain Capital speaks for itself. Romney is a person is someone I would like my son to look up to.

The past ten years were retarded. pic.twitter.com/hXK35esQ4b

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) December 15, 2024

J.R. said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

I think Romney would have been a really good POTUS. He is very smart, moral and self made. Yes, he comes from privilege , but many times, that make people successful. Starting Bain Capital speaks for itself. Romney is a person is someone I would like my son to look up to as a Man.

---

Romney flip flops more than a fish out of water! He's one of the worst RINO's.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

What does he have to do with anything?

Let me guess you are for indiscriminate cuts without regard for what they are for or if needed. Yeah, sounds smart... Your sure a keeper...

---

When the economy or an industry goes sour, companies have to make cuts across the board all the time.

There is no question our government has become bloated to the point that cuts are needed everywhere.

It's chainsaw time.

---

You are pretty thick. What part of data driven cuts don't you get? You think companies just fire employees with odd SS#s? What world do you live? Another prize, MAGA seems full of you guys...

---

So, you got spite and bile and nothing else.

Have a nice day. Ms. Cheney ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donates $1,000,000 to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. pic.twitter.com/GcC3PF4sp2

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) December 12, 2024

---

Amazing how winning does that. Threaten with DOGE to cut out Govt contracts and subsidies, watch the money roll in to Trump.

So, do we take bets on how much actually gets cut and who it effects?

You guys don't see any potential for abuse? I am the strange one saying this doesn't smell right? Elections have consequences, in this case financial.

---

There is potential for abuse at virtually all levels of government.

Here's an idea, how about going after the known abuses before chasing imagined ones.

You're like the abused wife that stays in the marriage because she knows she can get groceries on a regular basis.

---

Huh?

Zuckerberg just donated 1m to Trump. Facebook, the anti-Trump. You don't think that is interesting? That is imagined. No intent for favoritism there. Mark just saw the light? Yeah, no need to watch this set up... Let's focus on the 55k a year clerk, that is the real problem...

---

Donors donate to get access. To both sides of the aisle........

So why is it that only a concern when a guy donates to Trump?

---

You are a Trump troll... It just hit me. You come off as an analytical sort, in reality you are a Trump troll. He can do no wrong... You are as bad as JillBear.
How is the eminently practical observation that donors want access to both sides of the aisle a troll for anything/anyone?

The question is not why is it only bad for Trump, why is Mr. MAGA, ideolog that he is, accepting his money and influence.
Again, why is it only an outrage when Trump accepts donor money? Doesn't his willingness to work with people who've wronged him show pragmatism rather than ideological fervor?

Now Facebook is ok?
Well, it exists and it is decidedly a part of team Blue. Kicking Zuckerberg in the teeth is not going to make it any less partisan for Team Blue. Only engagement does that. And engagement is normally a sign of the pragmatist rather than ideologue.

Gonna put him on the Gold Star Panel to determine what gets funded?
Probably not. Zuck is donating as a defensive maneuver, to lessen odds his empire will be subjected to retaliatory regulation (like what happened to Musk). DOGE, as is the case on the numerous like-commissions before it, exists not to fund but to defund.

---

ya know, the ad hominem attack is usually a sign that you've lost the argument.

Donors give so they will have access to electeds, have private cell phone numbers of electeds, and yes, they even donate in order to be in position to threaten to withdraw the donation if they are harmed by policy.

Why does USG give foreign aid all over the world?
In no small part, it's so that we can punish bad behavior of a state by threatening to withhold our aid, or redirect it to an adversary of that state, or rewarding good behavior of that state. Pretty much the same dynamic with the donor class. They matter, too. Disproportionately so. You have to get them on board for your agenda if you want to be effective. And they do tend to be successful people who know how to be effective.......

---

There is no lost on this. This is opinion, you have yours and I have mine. Ad hominin add a little spark and levity to something that will not be solved until after the fact. Then, conveniently, no one remembers or talks about it.

My bet -

Musk does not lost one penny in Govt contracts and he gets rid of the oversight on his biotech implants and space flights (or tries)
Why shouldn't he make money on govt contracts?
Regulatory reform is not synonymous with "getting rid" of oversight.

Vivek loses interest when he finds out the complexity of what implementing election rhetoric really entails.
He'll leave DOGE when he gets appointed to replace Vance in the Senate.

I like teasing with you (and several others) on these arguments because you are one of the few that will do it back, but not get really pissed.

---

Odds are, DOGE will have similar impact to Grace - not substantial. If they take too big of a bite with executive action, the courts will intervene. And they don't have the votes in congress to get it done that way.

But who knows. SCOTUS has already punctured the shield of the administrative state, so DOGE might get more done than we imagine. There is considerably more public support for DOGE than for any prior effort, which means there will be a political cost to opposing it.

---

A sound data based approach would go a long way to help. If there are obsolete areas, stating that and where we need to go would help with credibility. Don't just identify problems and then start the red pen, give answers and what the vision is that we are trying to attain. One thing Kennedy and Reagan did better than any other Presidents is they provided the vision of where we needed to go. The American people respond to that better than any others in the world. Tie it to the vision and how it makes the US better or wins. We are lacking that, we are just a melting pot that has diluted to mediocrity. We used to do things to be the best, now we don't know what the best is.

---

Let me guess, Mitt Romney is your hero?

---

What does he have to do with anything?

Let me guess you are for indiscriminate cuts without regard for what they are for or if needed. Yeah, sounds smart... Your sure a keeper...

---

When the economy or an industry goes sour, companies have to make cuts across the board all the time.

There is no question our government has become bloated to the point that cuts are needed everywhere.

It's chainsaw time.

---

You are pretty thick. What part of data driven cuts don't you get? You think companies just fire employees with odd SS#s? What world do you live? Another prize, MAGA seems full of you guys...

---

So, you got spite and bile and nothing else.

Have a nice day. Ms. Cheney ...

---

You too JillBear...