Closing USAID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The POTUS is already in charge of what happens abroad in diplomacy through the U.S. Ambassadors. They know what is going on in each country. They are in charge of US territory abroad and ALL US GOVERNMENT workers OVERSEAS. This is always the case and is already happening.

The command is president, Secretary of State Ambassador in each county, the all the worker bees. Fire the Ambassadors and question them too. Military is separate and their chain of command is separate. That goes President, Head of DOD, then the down to the various branches of the armed forces (Coast Guard is also considered an army force but they are like the USAID of the military community).

Why, exactly, are you suggesting the firing of all US Ambassadors? I'm not following your logic.

Clean house. All the talking billionaires out. Clean out the military too while you are at it. It’s bloated with 3 million staff working for the DOD. Musk will fix it with automation. Ships can guide themselves

[Anonymous]

The US military would date the USAID women abroad. Now what are they going to do?

Americans can only date Americans
No one has thought through this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

Not sure if serious?

Dead serious. If we can have legislative and judicial powers residing in the executive branch (via the regulatory agencies, for example) then DOGE can also exercise legislative and judicial powers.

Yeah, there are some very serious conservatives that I follow online who also authoritatively state nonsense like this. They ignore legislative history in favor of their own ideas and call themselves rational rather than partisan.

Once upon a time, conservative did not mean "making stuff up". That time is no more.

Do you have links to an attempt at a well-reasoned defense of this?

I keep coming back to THE LAW. So much of this is statutorily or administratively illegal, and ultimately the executive is going to have to ignore court orders to destroy the government.

How do you defend that?

[Anonymous]

who -conservatives- do you follow on line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The POTUS is already in charge of what happens abroad in diplomacy through the U.S. Ambassadors. They know what is going on in each country. They are in charge of US territory abroad and ALL US GOVERNMENT workers OVERSEAS. This is always the case and is already happening.

The command is president, Secretary of State Ambassador in each county, the all the worker bees. Fire the Ambassadors and question them too. Military is separate and their chain of command is separate. That goes President, Head of DOD, then the down to the various branches of the armed forces (Coast Guard is also considered an army force but they are like the USAID of the military community).

Why, exactly, are you suggesting the firing of all US Ambassadors? I'm not following your logic.

The Ambassadors were not doing their jobs. They have direct lines to the president because they are top campaign donors and purchased their tony jobs. They could have called and said “I don’t like these projects.” The projects would be quashed. They should all be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/27/health/usaid-contract-terminations.html

Do we expect other countries to pick up the programs we're dropping for TB clinics and polio? I can't imagine other wealthy countries are not going to step in to take these over knowing that these diseases can impact everyone worldwide. It's terrible to imagine these protective measures could be completely abandoned.

You should start a GoFundMe!

So in other words, there are people who miss polio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Fox News, they said the U.S. doesn't have anything like China's Belt and Road Initiative, which is hilarious.

Uh, yes, we did.

It was called USAID.

It was a grift operation. Start an NGO, apply for grants and pay your NGO employees handsomely. You dems finally got caught.

OK. But then all of our work overseas is. I can buy that. Lots of companies get rich “helping” US War campaigns. Now the Taliban have a bunch of our guns and helicopters and planes. We left them there. Ooops. Good job America!

[Anonymous]

AI Overview (The taliban were the best grifters of all, it seems):

The Taliban have access to a number of US-made aircraft, including Black Hawks, MD-530s, and C-208 and AC-208 cargo aircraft. However, there is no definitive number of US aircraft the Taliban have.
US aircraft in Taliban possession
Black Hawks: The Taliban have a small number of airworthy US-made Black Hawk helicopters.
MD-530s: The Taliban have US-made MD-530s.
C-208 and AC-208 cargo aircraft: The Taliban have US-made C-208 and AC-208 cargo aircraft.
A-29 attack fighters: The Taliban have some serviceable A-29 attack fighters, which were provided by the US to the former Afghan government.

[Anonymous]

Good job military! Good job US contractors!
Go home to your pudgy, thick-ankled wives and laptop porn fantasies. You have been deleted.

[Anonymous]

Explains why all the trolls were on here last year badmouthing USAID. It was all a part of their plot.

[Anonymous]

Elon Musk pulled a lot of long-skirted makeup- less American women out rural fields. Trump then circulated a sponge bob cartoon that all these women were crying. (Smudge free tears). NOT HARD.

Now I want to see him pull out , take back our planes from Afghanistan.

I want my stuff back.
They I will call him a real man with real power.

[Anonymous]

Lawyers for USAID vs government- Supreme Court may not review the order given by the district court.

[Anonymous]

Elon Musk just invented a time machine today. The American public got back a Refund for the $2 trillion it spent on the war in Afghanistan.

(That's $300 million dollars per day, every day, for two decades). All the while the Taliban remained in charge, btw.

Musk also reversed the war in Iraq and yesterday gave the American people back a grand total of FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS!

So let’s look at the units please. You are not used to big numbers Mr Musk. You are used to small projects and small refunds. Go cut your coupons in Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers for USAID vs government- Supreme Court may not review the order given by the district court.

Since it's a TRO, this isn't wrong. Sort of missing the point, though.

We'll see if the Supreme Court really wants to use this case to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to the "unitary executive" theory. My hunch is that they would prefer to punt or split the middle or wait a little while longer, but I could be totally wrong.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court opinion came down - Trump lost. The government needs to pay its already incurred bills.