Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

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.

---

That's not true. The proposed budget entails a $2T cut in spending and $4.5T cut in taxes, as DOGE keeps looking for more places to cut spending.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/26/what-to-know-about-gop-budget-plan/80469749007/

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

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.

---

Are you talking about the debt ceiling?

Yes. Thank you Scott.

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

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.

---

I don't know. Even if the numbers aren't completely accurate, I would think an actual conservative would at least like the money cut so far.

And let's remember, the alternative here was a candidate who was part of an admin that spent more than any admin in history. So when you talk about a 4 trillion increase, it's important to keep in mind that is far less than what Harris would have attempted.

I think the problem for your argument is that the alternative was a big spending liberal who would not have taken ANY steps to cut spending and waste. It's odd you see that as no worse than Trump.

I do wish Trump was a fiscal conservative, but that viable candidate wasn't on the ballot this election cycle.

This old adage applies to your thinking: perfect is the enemy of good.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

sombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

"Please stop Elon Musk from finding all the fraud my heroes have been committing! Its very important that I dont have to face supporting the criminal team my entire life. Its going to be difficult for me to face people on the Baylor Forums."

---

Please list the fraud he has found so far.

---

There's the checks sent to dead people......

the USAID list is a good place to start investigations. Do we think any Republican figures/firms are involved in all that diversity training abroad? How much more do we need to know before we open RICO investigations of the open borders NGOs? They were conspiring to promote illegal activity, were they not? Actually used public funds to do it. Reckon there were any children or spouses or other family members of Democrat electeds involved in management or board of those NGOs?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

"Please stop Elon Musk from finding all the fraud my heroes have been committing! Its very important that I dont have to face supporting the criminal team my entire life. Its going to be difficult for me to face people on the Baylor Forums."

---

Please list the fraud he has found so far.

---

There's the checks sent to dead people......

the USAID list is a good place to start investigations. Do we think any Republican figures/firms are involved in all that diversity training abroad? How much more do we need to know before we open RICO investigations of the open borders NGOs? They were conspiring to promote illegal activity, were they not? Actually used public funds to do it. Reckon there were any children or spouses or other family members of Democrat electeds involved in management or board of those NGOs?

---

What checks sent to dead people? If you're talking about SS, it's a very small #, and it's been known for decades. The issue is that it would cost more to upgrade our systems than continue paying this very small #.

I support stopping all those payments, but those are not fraud. You of all people will know that part of spreading money around the world is paying for pet projects of whomever you're trying to influence. Heck, although illegal under FCPA, it's a huge part of the oil and gas business, too. American companies comply but many around the world do not.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Yes. Thank you Scott.

---

Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations. In principle I get it, but the need to raise it is due to decades of insane spending.

So if you were POTUS, you would refuse to raise the debt ceiling and push unemployment past 10%, kill 12M private sector jobs and shrink the entire economy by 6% within 6 months?

CorsicanaBear said:

---

You can start with this.

---

Uh, let's also look at the 40-49 and 50-59 age group - - - 90 million people collecting SSN benefits with a country having the population of 350 million or so. That's FRAUD as well...

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

---

You and I have never debated that topic.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or just don't recall what this thread was about. Or this is just you moving the goal posts again - as you so often do.

Sam seems to the temporary restraining orders settle the cases.

Son, you haven't won anything, at least not yet.

And cheering against cutting waste and abuse as you so clearly do, well that's just sad.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

---

You and I have never debated that topic.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or just don't recall what this thread was about. Or this is just you moving the goal posts again - as you so often do.

---

So would you agree that the TROs were a legitimate exercise of judicial power?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

---

You and I have never debated that topic.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or just don't recall what this thread was about. Or this is just you moving the goal posts again - as you so often do.

---

So would you agree that the TROs were a legitimate exercise of judicial power?

---

Most of them, no.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

---

You and I have never debated that topic.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or just don't recall what this thread was about. Or this is just you moving the goal posts again - as you so often do.

---

So would you agree that the TROs were a legitimate exercise of judicial power?

---

Traditional...yes.

Legitimate....no.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

---

You and I have never debated that topic.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or just don't recall what this thread was about. Or this is just you moving the goal posts again - as you so often do.

---

So would you agree that the TROs were a legitimate exercise of judicial power?

---

Different topic for a different thread. I'm still interested in the thread's premise. Do you believe the Supreme Court denying the govts request proves Elon's position is illegal or no?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court upholds a lower court order to force USAID to pay contractors

---

You must be thrilled.

---

Just tired of winning.

---

Yes you do love you some big govt.

---

I was referring to our legal debates.

Failing to rein in big government would be a loss, but again, that's just another reason we need to go about it the right way.

---

If you think that the Supreme Court ruled that Musk's position is illegal, it appears you didn't actually read its opinion (or your article), or are simply making unwarranted assumptions based on the supreme courts rejection of the admin's emergency application.

I appreciate the lip service that is your second paragraph, but you've lost the ability to claim you are for limited govt. Your positions during COVID proved that you are definitely not.

---

Of course they haven't ruled on the substance of the case. That's been my point all along.

---

Actually, the point of this thread, as stated in the article you posted, was that Musk's position is likely illegal.

What are you now claiming to be your position? And what legal position do you believe the Supreme Court's recent ruling supports/refutes?

---

My point with regard to the litigation was that the district courts didn't overstep their bounds by issuing temporary orders. The Supreme Court ruling supports that position.

---

You and I have never debated that topic.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or just don't recall what this thread was about. Or this is just you moving the goal posts again - as you so often do.

---

So would you agree that the TROs were a legitimate exercise of judicial power?

---

Different topic for a different thread. I'm still interested in the thread's premise. Do you believe the Supreme Court denying the govts request proves Elon's position is illegal or no?

---

No, and that isn't the premise of the thread. We have moved on somewhat from the OP.

Care to answer the question, or not? It's up to you.

Here is the title of the thread: "There's No Way Elon Musk's Job Is Legal." Now you are saying that's not the thread's premise???

Are you saying your premise has evolved? If so, I apparently missed it. What's the new premise if it's not the title of the thread and subject matter of the article?

I know you understandably want to move on, but let's clear that up before we move to a new topic. I'm still trying to figure out how you've won our legal debate.

Mothra said:

---

Here is the title of the thread: "There's No Way Elon Musk's Job Is Legal." Now you are saying that's not the thread's premise???

Are you saying your premise has evolved? If so, I apparently missed it. What's the new premise if it's not the title of the thread and subject matter of the article?

I know you understandably want to move on, but let's clear that up before we move to a new topic. I'm still trying to figure out how you've won our legal debate.

---

The thread's premise is not that SCOTUS proved Elon's position to be illegal. Apologies if I misunderstood your post, or if I confused other posters' arguments with yours.

Many here have insisted that the district courts are acting outside their legitimate powers by issuing the TROs. I'm still curious whether you agree.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

"Please stop Elon Musk from finding all the fraud my heroes have been committing! Its very important that I dont have to face supporting the criminal team my entire life. Its going to be difficult for me to face people on the Baylor Forums."

---

Please list the fraud he has found so far.

---

There's the checks sent to dead people......

the USAID list is a good place to start investigations. Do we think any Republican figures/firms are involved in all that diversity training abroad? How much more do we need to know before we open RICO investigations of the open borders NGOs? They were conspiring to promote illegal activity, were they not? Actually used public funds to do it. Reckon there were any children or spouses or other family members of Democrat electeds involved in management or board of those NGOs?

---

What checks sent to dead people? If you're talking about SS, it's a very small #, and it's been known for decades. The issue is that it would cost more to upgrade our systems than continue paying this very small #.

I support stopping all those payments, but those are not fraud. You of all people will know that part of spreading money around the world is paying for pet projects of whomever you're trying to influence. Heck, although illegal under FCPA, it's a huge part of the oil and gas business, too. American companies comply but many around the world do not.

---

lol. people are cashing those checks......

stand back & look at your post for a minute. you are making the case there cannot be any significant fraud in a $7t budget, $2t of it deficit spending, and a very large percentage of the deficit number being highly questionable monies hand out in ways that empower Democrats. And this is before a single investigation starts.

You are not thinking clearly.

People have lost trust in government. Not without good cause. "it will cost more to fix the fraud than pay the fraud" is perhaps the worst possible plan to restore confidence.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

"Please stop Elon Musk from finding all the fraud my heroes have been committing! Its very important that I dont have to face supporting the criminal team my entire life. Its going to be difficult for me to face people on the Baylor Forums."

---

Please list the fraud he has found so far.

---

There's the checks sent to dead people......

the USAID list is a good place to start investigations. Do we think any Republican figures/firms are involved in all that diversity training abroad? How much more do we need to know before we open RICO investigations of the open borders NGOs? They were conspiring to promote illegal activity, were they not? Actually used public funds to do it. Reckon there were any children or spouses or other family members of Democrat electeds involved in management or board of those NGOs?

---

What checks sent to dead people? If you're talking about SS, it's a very small #, and it's been known for decades. The issue is that it would cost more to upgrade our systems than continue paying this very small #.

I support stopping all those payments, but those are not fraud. You of all people will know that part of spreading money around the world is paying for pet projects of whomever you're trying to influence. Heck, although illegal under FCPA, it's a huge part of the oil and gas business, too. American companies comply but many around the world do not.

---

lol. people are cashing those checks......

stand back & look at your post for a minute. you are making the case there cannot be any significant fraud in a $7t budget, $2t of it deficit spending, and a very large percentage of the deficit number being highly questionable monies hand out in ways that empower Democrats. And this is before a single investigation starts.

You are not thinking clearly.

People have lost trust in government. Not without good cause. "it will cost more to fix the fraud than pay the fraud" is perhaps the worst possible plan to restore confidence.

---

What?

I support what DOGE is trying to do and I have no doubt there is more fraud than we even think.

But so far DOGE has over promised and under delivered and has resorted to lying and misinformation.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

"Please stop Elon Musk from finding all the fraud my heroes have been committing! Its very important that I dont have to face supporting the criminal team my entire life. Its going to be difficult for me to face people on the Baylor Forums."

---

Please list the fraud he has found so far.

---

There's the checks sent to dead people......

the USAID list is a good place to start investigations. Do we think any Republican figures/firms are involved in all that diversity training abroad? How much more do we need to know before we open RICO investigations of the open borders NGOs? They were conspiring to promote illegal activity, were they not? Actually used public funds to do it. Reckon there were any children or spouses or other family members of Democrat electeds involved in management or board of those NGOs?

---

What checks sent to dead people? If you're talking about SS, it's a very small #, and it's been known for decades. The issue is that it would cost more to upgrade our systems than continue paying this very small #.

I support stopping all those payments, but those are not fraud. You of all people will know that part of spreading money around the world is paying for pet projects of whomever you're trying to influence. Heck, although illegal under FCPA, it's a huge part of the oil and gas business, too. American companies comply but many around the world do not.

---

lol. people are cashing those checks......

stand back & look at your post for a minute. you are making the case there cannot be any significant fraud in a $7t budget, $2t of it deficit spending, and a very large percentage of the deficit number being highly questionable monies hand out in ways that empower Democrats. And this is before a single investigation starts.

You are not thinking clearly.

People have lost trust in government. Not without good cause. "it will cost more to fix the fraud than pay the fraud" is perhaps the worst possible plan to restore confidence.

---

What?

I support what DOGE is trying to do and I have no doubt there is more fraud than we even think.

But so far DOGE has over promised and under delivered and has resorted to lying and misinformation.

---

LOL it's the opposite. They've shown closer to a trillion dollars of incredibly wasteful spending. They have NOT launched off calling any of it fraud. They're waiting for investigations before doing that. NGOs are (or should be) the real target. They became a vehicle for organizing illegal activity (illegal immigration flows) = taxpayer money spent to organize end runs on statute. It will take time to get the goods on them.

alphabet media is bad for perception of reality.....

Where do you see savings close to a $ trillion? I've seen only small change.

BTW I 100% support the NGO crackdown. It's just not much $.

In the early-to-mid-20th century, "dollar-a-year men" were business and government executives who helped the government mobilize and manage American industry during periods of war, notably World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. U.S. law generally forbids the government from accepting the services of unpaid volunteers,

sombear said:

---

Where do you see savings close to a $ trillion? I've seen only small change.

BTW I 100% support the NGO crackdown. It's just not much $.

---

dig a little deeper. ONE migrant NGO entity received $800m. ONE.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/revealed-the-charities-making-billions-off-of-the-border-crisis/ar-BB1mnIQi

There are approx 1.5 million NGOs, all of which operate tax exempt and most of which receive federal money, under both direct grants as well as participating in foreign aid programs. They also received direct federal contracts for services..... a hundred million here and a billion or three there add up in a little while. NGO grift alone might be a quarter or more of the target of $1T.

Stopping the Ukraine war alone would cut nearly 10% of the target (annually). I'm a supporter of the war but have never argued there is no fraud there. There's always profiteering and fraud in war. Every time. Every where. It comes with the territory. Easiest way to deal with it is to win the war quickly. But not Biden. Oh no. "....as long as it takes...." Pffft what a goober. If you're going to fight a war....WIN IT! If you're not willing to win it, don't fight it.

Federal salaries AVERAGE $143k in total compensation. Reduce federal payroll by just ten people, you save 1.43m. Reduce by a hundred = $14.3m. By a thousand = $143m. By 10 thousand = $1.43b. By a hundred thousand = $14.3b. And we are already there with voluntary departures, before any terminations or job eliminations. Payroll adjustments might get to 15-20% of the $1T target.

DOGE is going to find a pathway to $1T. Somehow. Someway. And Trump is going to act on it. It will involve closure of entire programs, offices, divisions, and agencies. It will involve divestiture of real estate. That's when the litigation really starts. And I suspect there will be some NGO activity that gets taxed, too.

There will be lots of bites on this elephant. To include just not sending NGOs any money at all (so that those dependent upon federal funding will fail)...... The courts can rule as they wish, but if USG holds on to the money long enough, the NGO pool will self-attrit, no matter what is the final ruling.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Here is the title of the thread: "There's No Way Elon Musk's Job Is Legal." Now you are saying that's not the thread's premise???

Are you saying your premise has evolved? If so, I apparently missed it. What's the new premise if it's not the title of the thread and subject matter of the article?

I know you understandably want to move on, but let's clear that up before we move to a new topic. I'm still trying to figure out how you've won our legal debate.

---

The thread's premise is not that SCOTUS proved Elon's position to be illegal. Apologies if I misunderstood your post, or if I confused other posters' arguments with yours.

Many here have insisted that the district courts are acting outside their legitimate powers by issuing the TROs. I'm still curious whether you agree.

---

Apology accepted.

Of course, a district court has the power to issue a TRO, which is generally issued to protect the status quo, and to prohibit parties from engaging in activities that would change same. I think the closer legal question in this case is whether the court can force a party to do something (typically, a TRO prevents a party from doing something) like pay monies.

I haven't looked at the issue from a federal perspective, but I know in Texas that a court generally cannot force a party to do something under a TRO. I got a Bexar County District Court reversed several years ago when it attempted to have my client continue to allow another party to perform under a contract and get paid for its work, even though my client had terminated the contract.

This is a much closer issue, given the court's 5-4 decision.