Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-over-100-payments-elon-musk-claims-2032774

---

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

BTW, that's an interesting article. Short on facts and evidence, but I do like the part where the guys admits that yes, many dead people are likely still receiving social security benefits but that doesn't mean there is any evidence of widespread fraud.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

OK, Hunter

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

---

No its not. Go away.

Large Scale Social Deception mouthpiece. No one listens to that anymore.

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

---

No its not. Go away.

Large Scale Social Deception mouthpiece. No one listens to that anymore.

---

It is absolutely true that we need ethics safeguards in place for special government employees. I can't imagine a rational person thinking otherwise.

I am willing to give Musk a chance, but he does need to step aside and not personally weigh in when the agency is reviewing the guy investigating one of his companies. That is just obvious.

Trump already said he would on anything that was a conflict of interest.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

---

It's interesting you think the article demonstrates that. I disagree. The article lacks any facts and evidence in support of that position.

I agree it does speculate that's what's going on, which of course is not a surprise considering the author's stated bias.

I agree it's good to read a variety of sources. But swallowing the propaganda - especially when it is unsupported - is never a good idea, regardless of the side.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

---

It's interesting you think the article demonstrates that. I disagree. The article lacks any facts and evidence in support of that position.

I agree it does speculate that's what's going on, which of course is not a surprise considering the author's stated bias.

I agree it's good to read a variety of sources. But swallowing the propaganda - especially when it is unsupported - is never a good idea, regardless of the side.

---

There may not be evidence of actual wrongdoing yet, but that isn't what the article is about. The structural problems with DOGE make it likely if not inevitable, and those problems are demonstrable.

They're saying Trump left the henhouse door open, and you're saying show me the dead chickens. The fact remains that the door is open, and that's not speculation.

Nobody in the bureaucracy was elected. Except for members of Congress, literally everyone complaining about Elon is also unelected. As Stephen Miller pointed out, the president was elected. He is the only person in the country elected at the national level. Civics 101

The system will work fine for those that believe Trump is an honest man.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

---

It's interesting you think the article demonstrates that. I disagree. The article lacks any facts and evidence in support of that position.

I agree it does speculate that's what's going on, which of course is not a surprise considering the author's stated bias.

I agree it's good to read a variety of sources. But swallowing the propaganda - especially when it is unsupported - is never a good idea, regardless of the side.

---

There may not be evidence of actual wrongdoing yet, but that isn't what the article is about. The structural problems with DOGE make it likely if not inevitable, and those problems are demonstrable.

They're saying Trump left the henhouse door open, and you're saying show me the dead chickens. The fact remains that the door is open, and that's not speculation.

---

I beg to differ. The title of the article is "There's No Way Elon Musk's Job is Legal," and then the article goes on to try and make the case based on innuendo and speculation.

As I said above, it's a mere hit piece that doesn't prove a thing. It provides no facts, much less evidence, that DOGE violates any federal law.

---

1. Musk's activities would normally be policed by the Office of Government Ethics.

2. Trump fired the head of the OGE.

3. Trump's press secretary stated that Musk would police himself for conflicts of interest.

These are all statements of fact. Which of them do you believe is speculation?

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The system will work fine for those that believe Trump is an honest man.

---

I asked this earlier, but never got a response. Let me try again:

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

---

I wish I had enough faith in Trump to believe that is whats happening. The supposed SS scam chart was fake. The millions and miillions of condoms to Garza was fake. I just dont understand how anyone csn trusta man that lies so much.Inflation is here and his tarrifs will make it first. His first term he said he would balance to budget. He just signed a 4 trillion dollar increase.

I think America can snd should demand better.

Well, I think you are lying about giving Trump a chance, and this post is just projected bitterness because he's very much on target this time.

And I think you are lying about me lying. How silly.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cry more, Sam.

It's delightful to see you freak out over criminals being exposed.

---

Don't mind me, I'm glad Mother Jones exposed them. I do see a lot of freaking out though...you're not wrong about that.

---

I am curious what you think Mother Jones exposed? The article essentially says Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

BTW, I loved the opening line in the article you posted: "According to Elon Musk's posts on X, the social media platform he acquired through allegedly illegal tactics...." Yes, you know you are going to get a fair, balanced and non-partisan editorial when that's the way it begins.

I also love the article's frequent use of the words "appears," "believed" and "may." Oh, and of course, "allegedly." This is typically the telltale sign your article may be mere speculation and/or a hit piece. Do you regularly use Mother Jones as a source for your news? If so, that explains quite a bit.

---

It's a good idea to read a variety of sources from across the political spectrum.

The point of these ethical safeguards isn't to prove wrongdoing but to prevent it. You make crimes less likely by keeping things out in the daylight. As the article demonstrates, Trump and Musk are doing the opposite.

---

It's interesting you think the article demonstrates that. I disagree. The article lacks any facts and evidence in support of that position.

I agree it does speculate that's what's going on, which of course is not a surprise considering the author's stated bias.

I agree it's good to read a variety of sources. But swallowing the propaganda - especially when it is unsupported - is never a good idea, regardless of the side.

---

There may not be evidence of actual wrongdoing yet, but that isn't what the article is about. The structural problems with DOGE make it likely if not inevitable, and those problems are demonstrable.

They're saying Trump left the henhouse door open, and you're saying show me the dead chickens. The fact remains that the door is open, and that's not speculation.

---

I beg to differ. The title of the article is "There's No Way Elon Musk's Job is Legal," and then the article goes on to try and make the case based on innuendo and speculation.

As I said above, it's a mere hit piece that doesn't prove a thing. It provides no facts, much less evidence, that DOGE violates any federal law.

---

1. Musk's activities would normally be policed by the Office of Government Ethics.

2. Trump fired the head of the OGE.

3. Trump's press secretary stated that Musk would police himself for conflicts of interest.

These are all statements of fact. Which of them do you believe is speculation?

---

As already stated, the article acknowledges that Trump is allowed to have a consultant in "special government employee" role, and merely speculates that Musk may not be following the rules in place for same, without of course presenting any facts or evidence in support of such speculation.

In short, none of what you stated above suggests that Musk's job is illegal.

---

Yeah, I can't see why it would be illegal. I get it, libtards want to demean ANYTHING Trump does. But that doesn't make something "illegal".

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The system will work fine for those that believe Trump is an honest man.

---

I asked this earlier, but never got a response. Let me try again:

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

---

I wish I had enough faith in Trump to believe that is whats happening. The supposed SS scam chart was fake. The millions and miillions of condoms to Garza was fake. I just dont understand how anyone csn trusta man that lies so much.Inflation is here and his tarrifs will make it first. His first term he said he would balance to budget. He just signed a 4 trillion dollar increase.

I think America can snd should demand better.

---

So because you can't completely trust everything a politician says, cutting govt spending is bad?

I've seen some odd takes but that's right up there on the Mt. Rushmore of odd takes. Sounds like the Trump loathing just colors everything you think, and that's a shame. Perfect has always been the enemy of good, and it's unfortunate you lack the discernment to see that.

Regarding the statement about Gaza condoms, while the terms used to describe it were colorful, that was not a fake report. The admin stopped $50 million in aid to support family planning programming including emergency contraception; sexual healthcare including prevention and management of sexually transmitted infections (STIs); and adolescent sexual and reproductive health to Gaza.

Think that was a bad idea?

I know you're waiting for the perfect politician to come along so you can vote again, but I am curious, what politicians make the cut for you to actually cast a vote for them?

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-over-100-payments-elon-musk-claims-2032774

---

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

BTW, that's an interesting article. Short on facts and evidence, but I do like the part where the guys admits that yes, many dead people are likely still receiving social security benefits but that doesn't mean there is any evidence of widespread fraud.

---

My problem with Musk is that he's not knowledgeable enough to cut waste. These cuts should be done by the agencies.

He continues to make the splash headlines without consideration to his team's lack of understanding of the data. I can't think of a worse way to do surgery.

What we don't see is cuts to his contracts. He's now proposing replacing FAA jobs with SpaceX. It's not impossible that SpaceX has better technology than is in current us, but if he's wrong or the real world is more complicated, or scenarios are unvetted?

ScottS said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-over-100-payments-elon-musk-claims-2032774

---

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

BTW, that's an interesting article. Short on facts and evidence, but I do like the part where the guys admits that yes, many dead people are likely still receiving social security benefits but that doesn't mean there is any evidence of widespread fraud.

---

My problem with Musk is that he's not knowledgeable enough to cut waste. These cuts should be done by the agencies.

He continues to make the splash headlines without consideration to his team's lack of understanding of the data. I can't think of a worse way to do surgery.

What we don't see is cuts to his contracts. He's now proposing replacing FAA jobs with SpaceX. It's not impossible that SpaceX has better technology than is in current us, but if he's wrong or the real world is more complicated, or scenarios are unvetted?

---

Are you serious? He is the one that bought Twitter and is running the same platform with 20% of the previous workforce. He sounds like he could be very good at this. Would you rather leave it to those that ran up $36T in debt???? SMH.

---

You didn't finish your sentence. He shed 80% of the workforce and 80% of the valuation. He's now in the market trying to raise funding.

But, more importantly, the government ain't Twitter. It's not Tesla or GM or Microsoft. Gutting things you don't understand can cause planes to fall out of the sky, food to become poisonous, and people to go hungry.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The system will work fine for those that believe Trump is an honest man.

---

I asked this earlier, but never got a response. Let me try again:

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

---

I wish I had enough faith in Trump to believe that is whats happening. The supposed SS scam chart was fake. The millions and miillions of condoms to Garza was fake. I just dont understand how anyone csn trusta man that lies so much.Inflation is here and his tarrifs will make it first. His first term he said he would balance to budget. He just signed a 4 trillion dollar increase.

I think America can snd should demand better.

---

The issues people have with you:

1.) You fall for disinformation/lies. You get your news from MSM.

2.) If Trump falls short of perfection then you assume you're correct about all of your criticisms of him.

3.) You don't have a history of criticizing or being worried about democrats.

This leads us to believe you're a neoliberal at heart and searching for a return to an America where corruption and corporations make the calls behind the scenes.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

My problem with Musk is that he's not knowledgeable enough to cut waste. These cuts should be done by the agencies.

---

A bloated and ineffective agency can't fix itself. If it could have, it would have. The incentives and processes are all too entrenched - requires external disruption.

---

Who knows? Who should you trust more to make cuts at the FAA or HHS? A person who understands their mission or a guy who doesn't?

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

My problem with Musk is that he's not knowledgeable enough to cut waste. These cuts should be done by the agencies.

---

A bloated and ineffective agency can't fix itself. If it could have, it would have. The incentives and processes are all too entrenched - requires external disruption.

---

Who knows? Who should you trust more to make the FAA or HHS? A person who understands their mission or a guy who doesn't?

---

Can't be done from the inside. If it could be, it wouldn't be rotten.

---

I've been involved with a few corporate turnarounds and cost Cuts, and the failures always have some things in common.

1. Obvious people. The "obvious" people scream the loudest that things they don't know don't make any sense. "I saw the UPS driver across the street; he didn't deliver my package for two more hours, he obviously doesn't know what he's doing."

2. Big Time Consultants (McKinsey, BCG) They're very polished but inexperienced. They often recommend things that staff could never implement or that you'd never do in a business. "We can centralize customer service and cut all those jobs from the local branches."

3. Data driven consultants. They accept the data as correct without validating and analyzing. I once had a data team from India whose database was wrong and wanted to reprogram the source code instead of knowing that India's and US's date formats are different. I arrived after they had spent months on this road.

As an aside, Know what you don't know. I'm not a finance guy. I don't fix chart of accounts.

I'm seeing lots of these in DOGE.

Didn't he just tell the truth about the valuation?

Married A Horn said:

---

Didn't he just tell the truth about the valuation?

---

He's raising money with a valuation that is different than others are saying. Fidelity believes it's 75% less than what he paid for it.

Private company. Hard to know.

Mitch can be funny at times, especially when he is trying to sound credible.

But anecdotal quips from his past, and I have met some of the same, in no way prove even one of his claims about DOGE.

What I believe Mitch is missing here, is that planning and team building for DOGE began months ago, and while I am sure the press releases are flavored by Musk and Trump's musings of the moment, there is real substance for the most part so far, and we are just now getting into the heavy duty data

Never forget there are multiple objectives here, and this is not just a simple forensic audit.

As it happens, I AM a Chart of Accounts guy, and have endured/enjoyed more than one deep dive into what wrecked a company. It's amazing sometimes how people remain in denial long after you show them a series of bad decisions they made; they will insist it had to be something else, someone else.

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The system will work fine for those that believe Trump is an honest man.

---

I asked this earlier, but never got a response. Let me try again:

As a purported small govt. conservative who constantly complains about govt. spending, are you unhappy that DOGE is cutting govt. waste? Or is anything associated with the hated one bad, in your book?

---

I wish I had enough faith in Trump to believe that is whats happening. The supposed SS scam chart was fake. The millions and miillions of condoms to Garza was fake. I just dont understand how anyone csn trusta man that lies so much.Inflation is here and his tarrifs will make it first. His first term he said he would balance to budget. He just signed a 4 trillion dollar increase.

I think America can snd should demand better.

---

So because you can't completely trust everything a politician says, cutting govt spending is bad?

I've seen some odd takes but that's right up there on the Mt. Rushmore of odd takes. Sounds like the Trump loathing just colors everything you think, and that's a shame. Perfect has always been the enemy of good, and it's unfortunate you lack the discernment to see that.

Regarding the statement about Gaza condoms, while the terms used to describe it were colorful, that was not a fake report. The admin stopped $50 million in aid to support family planning programming including emergency contraception; sexual healthcare including prevention and management of sexually transmitted infections (STIs); and adolescent sexual and reproductive health to Gaza.

Think that was a bad idea?

I know you're waiting for the perfect politician to come along so you can vote again, but I am curious, what politicians make the cut for you to actually cast a vote for them?

---

He actually doubled down and make it $100 million bomb making condoms for Hamas.. Last week Elon admitted it was not true.

He just signed a 4 trilion dollar increase for our budget after saying he has decreased spending. He claoimed he would fix inflation. I

I would be all for him if I thought half of his crazy statements were true. But liars will lie. <ooks like about haf of Americans actually believe him. Gulp.