• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

theprestige said:
Who. Signed. The. Orders?
Click to expand...
I had an argument with my parents about this. One of my parents is angry about federal employees being laid off, and is currently under the impression that it's illegal for Musk to fire people. My response was that Musk isn't firing people; Musk is making a recommendation on how many people at each agency should be let go. Other people in Trump's administration are passing those recommendations on to the agencies, and the heads of the agencies are determining who stays and who goes. And they should be doing their darndest to make good determinations on that, and when necessary make a counter argument to retain a higher number of people. None of that is even remotely out of norm for a business that is underwater financially, it's just not something the government has done (except the military, which is a bit different).

It was very frustrating. I kept trying to get across that they're perfectly entitled to be angry at that many people losing their jobs - I'm not particularly happy about it either. I was trying to make sure that their anger is focused at the right target. Be angry, but don't be angry about false information.
 
theprestige said:
Sure, sure. Someone's on your doorstep, pitching a substance or preparation used in treating disease. That fits your definition of medicine, so of course you buy up the entire stock, and put it into your body at the first opportunity. It never occurs to you to enquire about dosage, or ingredients, or regulation, or any of that. You have a dictionary! Bottoms up!
Click to expand...
FWIW, I don't have a vested interest in this argument. I don't particularly care, I don't have any objection to marijuana. I was just commenting on the strategy and tactics used to achieve decriminalization. That's all.
 
theprestige said:
Who. Signed. The. Orders?
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. Politico reported, "“The record supports the conclusion that the USAID officials were not actually independent actors and that even if they were, they in fact would predictably sign off on the actions directed or taken by” Musk and DOGE, the judge wrote."
 
Emily's Cat said:
I had an argument with my parents about this. One of my parents is angry about federal employees being laid off, and is currently under the impression that it's illegal for Musk to fire people. My response was that Musk isn't firing people; Musk is making a recommendation on how many people at each agency should be let go.
Click to expand...
Christ! I bet they must have been extremely grateful for this kind of commissariat Doublethink coming from their daughter. Or did they stare dumbfounded at the effort you put in to ease the cognitive dissonance?
 
Wow. The Nazis are fully trying to convince us that their Nazi leaders aren't breaking laws, despite all the evidence and court rulings.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
You are missing the point.
Click to expand...
He's falling back on the same formalistic claim that failed to convince the judge. The issue before the judge is whether the administration is trying to cobble up the semblance of regularity as cover for a de facto Musk leadership. The fact that Sec. Rubio's and others' signatures appear on some (but not all) orders pertaining to USAID is being postured as the end of the story. But to explain other activities such as the shuttering of the agency per se that have no trail of authority, the judge is perfectly within his authority to note that as a significant irregularity. Musk's attempt to dress down Sec. Rubio in a cabinet meeting for not carrying out Musk's orders is admissible evidence of de facto leadership, as is Musk's behavior with respect to other agencies. The President's prepared statements to Congress are admissible evidence of the administration's intent. Judges are not only allowed to challenge what appears to be cover for the complained of activity, they are expected to do so.
 
JayUtah said:
A judge has a burden of proof?
Click to expand...
In a sense, yes. Their rulings are supposed to be supported by the evidence and law that they cite, and the reasoning that they explain. When they fail to do so adequately, they can get overturned on appeal.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I had an argument with my parents about this. One of my parents is angry about federal employees being laid off, and is currently under the impression that it's illegal for Musk to fire people. My response was that Musk isn't firing people; Musk is making a recommendation on how many people at each agency should be let go. Other people in Trump's administration are passing those recommendations on to the agencies, and the heads of the agencies are determining who stays and who goes. And they should be doing their darndest to make good determinations on that, and when necessary make a counter argument to retain a higher number of people. None of that is even remotely out of norm for a business that is underwater financially, it's just not something the government has done (except the military, which is a bit different).

It was very frustrating. I kept trying to get across that they're perfectly entitled to be angry at that many people losing their jobs - I'm not particularly happy about it either. I was trying to make sure that their anger is focused at the right target. Be angry, but don't be angry about false information.
Click to expand...
Within this thread we have seen evidence of the following: food and medicine going to waste, clinical trials halted in mid-stream, Agent Orange clean up stopped, contractors who are not being paid for work completed, and probably many more things that I cannot recall offhand. With respect to the clinical trials being halted before completed it was cogently argued that this was actually worse than building 80% of a bridge and then stopping. With respect to cleaning up after Agent Orange and paying for work that is completed, those are our obligations.

With all due respect your analogy to a company's being underwater is inapt in many ways. One, if the goal is simply to spend less, why did Musk and others make misleading/false statements about fraud and waste? Two, why did they not hire forensic accountants to look for fraud, and why did the executive branch get rid of inspectors general and other people involved in good governance? Three, why cut USAID and not (for example) corporate welfare, which costs more and provides less value? Four, government is not a business. We can raise revenue by letting the 2017 tax cuts expire. I would be happy to see my tax bill increase if that is what is necessary to pay contractors and to clean up Agent Orange.
 
theprestige said:
"likely violated the constitution" is appropriate to the preamble of a prosecutor's argument, not a judge's ruling. Unless the judge goes on to spell out the exact constitutional violations they've found, they're abusing their authority.
Click to expand...

I believe that the judge issued a preliminary injunction. which means that he thinks that the plaintiffs have a reasonable chance of winning their case and would be harmed if the defendant's action was not reversed. Therefore, to state that the defendant "likely violated the constitution" is completely appropriate, as he has not issued his final judgement on the case.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is there usually needs to be a preponderance of evidence if a judge thinks a case is likely to succeed if pursued. And there certainly is in this case. Not only were a whole lot of administration/DOGE ducks not in a row, most of the ducks were missing or were plastic fakes. If Muskrat stands by this and loses, he might be going to jail.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I believe that the judge issued a preliminary injunction. which means that he thinks that the plaintiffs have a reasonable chance of winning their case and would be harmed if the defendant's action was not reversed. Therefore, to state that the defendant "likely violated the constitution" is completely appropriate, as he has not issued his final judgement on the case.
Click to expand...
Correct. The "likely" language is the formula for a finding in favor of a preliminary injunction. The judge must find that a party "is likely to succeed on the merits," which naturally invokes some prognostication for how an eventual trial will test those merits. The handwringing we're seeing here over the judge's alleged dereliction of duty is just ignorance for what must be argued and found at this stage.
 
Ziggurat said:
In a sense, yes.
Click to expand...
No, not in a correct sense.

Ziggurat said:
Their rulings are supposed to be supported by the evidence and law that they cite, and the reasoning that they explain. When they fail to do so adequately, they can get overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...
Weighing evidence is not a burden of proof. Applying proper legal reasoning is not a burden of proof. These are indeed things judges must do conscientiously, fairly, and dispassionately in order for a ruling to survive an appeal. But it is not a burden of proof.

A burden of proof arises under the law when the law prescribes a presumption that must be overcome to a prescribed standard of proof. A plaintiff has the burden of proof overall. The proffer of an affirmative defense incurs a burden of proof. A defendant's motion to dismiss incurs a burden of proof over the presumption of factual correctness in the non-moving party's claims. Parties have a burden of proof. Judges do not.
 
Last edited:
You guys remember at the beginning of the thread when the argument was that Trump is the one in charge and has full authority over USAID?

Yeah, me too:
theprestige said:
Why?
If the Executive has full authority over the use of those funds, he can simply curtail their use.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
They're good with numbers, which is what this stage is about.
And they're accountable to Trump because he can easily fire them.
Click to expand...

Now we’re pretending that he’s just a random guy and what he says about what’s happening with USAID doesn’t matter.

So much flailing disingenuous nonsense from Trump supporters that they can’t even maintain a coherent and consistent argument.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not quite. Rather, I'm questioning the assumption that pausing USAID for 90 days will do any serious reputational harm. Funny how you didn't seem to notice that that even was an assumption. But it was, and the fact that you didn't notice is itself telling.
Click to expand...
And we are now supposed to believe that because of this...pause...that 83% of USAID deserved being put into the wood chipper?
 
Norman Alexander said:
My understanding is there usually needs to be a preponderance of evidence if a judge thinks a case is likely to succeed if pursued. And there certainly is in this case. Not only were a whole lot of administration/DOGE ducks not in a row, most of the ducks were missing or were plastic fakes.
If Muskrat stands by this and loses, he might be going to jail.
Click to expand...

Not a chance of that happening, his pardons are prepaid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom