So then it shouldn't be hard to show us all exactly what fraud DOGE has found and who is being prosecuted for this fraud.
- 977
Rooting for the fascist takeover is just your words, not mine. As I said, I’m rooting for the best outcome for Americans.Auggie wrote:And now you're saying you're rooting that the fascist takeover happens in a "better" way? How in the world is a more competent fascist takeover better than an incompetent fascist takeover? The best hope for this country is that they fail so badly and hurt so many people that they are forced out come 2028.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025So engaging in dialogue with the other side isn’t why Trump won in 2016 or 2024 and it’s not what has pushed us towards fascism. You’re making that up. In 2024 I’d say Democrats lost because: 1) They weren’t honest about Bidens cognition, 2) they ran a weak candidate without a primary, 3) and I think a lot of their base was frustrated with their centrist approach to Gaza. There are other reasons. Engaging in dialogue ain’t one of them.Auggie wrote: And? Describing how he acts now constitutes.....a personal attack? He has actively done nothing to constitute any of the bullsh*t he spews and to put it in your own words- "has blind faith" in Trump. You're brainwashed if you have blind faith in a person, especially if that person happens to be a grifting fascist.
People like you didn't listen after 2016 or 2020, and now you're refusing to adapt to reality AGAIN. Saying "I'm rooting for" a fascist's take on the fascist government's destruction and then saying "we'll see. Cheers" is beyond abhorrent and utterly useless in combating what's happening in front of our eyes.
You "disagree" with him, but you refuse to provide any evidence to support why he's wrong nor do you make him provide evidence to support why he's right. These types of interactions do nothing but concede ground and will never change anyone's mind because you don't give them a reason to.
At minimum, a combative approach like mine will end with them knowing they can't substantiate their delusions even if it doesn't change their mind.
Your approach (the borader liberal/Democratic approach) has actively sunk the county into fascism, so thank you but I don't think your opinion is very useful when it's been proven to fail on repeat.
I’m not rooting for fascism. I’m rooting for a better outcome vs a worse one on things like tariffs and DOGE, even though I’m confident that won’t happen. Why would I root for an outcome that would be disastrous to my fellow Americans?Saying “cheers” to someone i disagree with is abhorrent? That’s an insufferable approach to life.
I’ve never refused to provide examples as to why Trumps approach to tariffs or DOGE won’t work either.
There’s plenty of evidence as to why your combative approach won’t work in this forum alone. You are a pariah here for a reason.
Just so you know, a combative approach from Democrats would look like doing stuff like calling Trump a "dottering old man who could die at any minute and you're an idiot if you disagree" or "they're sanctioning the genocide of Palestinians as we speak and anyone who supports [Trump/Republicans] is complicit" or "Trump hates you and wants you to die". My combative approach hasn't been used since we'll before the Democrats decided centrism was the way to go. You think FDR got elected 4 times by having "reasonable discussion" with fascists and the Nazi apologists in America?
I'm a pariah here because I'm the only one willing to call out people when they're bullshitting, like you're doing by having "reasonable discussion" with a fascism apologist.
If you’re actually rooting for the worst possible outcome and as many people to be hurt between now and 2028, I guess that’s just where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t root for people to get hurt. Have a little humanity.
- 1,607
Thank you, legendrey. It's nice to see someone else acknowledge Auggie's Chat GPT generated insanity.legendrey wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Two people having a conversation and trying to reason with their opinions is the definition of reasonable. Hijacking a conversation to kick & scream about how only your opinion and experience is the truth is being unreasonable. I try not to engage in these forums very often and you are a big reason why. What is the point of trying to have thoughtful discussions if every time I post I know I'll have to be called names by some random person with too much times on his hands.
- 1,794
Post #390: Lee makes an unsubstantiated claim about righting 60 yr old wrongs (we have no idea what he is talking about and still don’t). He’s rightfully put in his place for such a stupid comment and you immediately begin arguing that a tailored tariff policy is a good idea (again, we don’t even know if Lee was talking about tariffs) but you quickly stepped in to defend him and argue on his behalf.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Where did I say there are merits to Trumps tariff plan or his DOGE plan?JaneJacobsGhost wrote:There are no merits to the tariff plan or DOGE, that’s why both initiatives have been utter failures.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Playing to the center does not equal engaging in dialogue. I agree that centrism has been one of the reasons the Democratic Party is in the position it is in.
But instead of actually debating the merits of Trumps tariff plan or DOGE, like we had started to do, we are now dealing with Auggie blowing up the conversation again.
But you don’t ask Legendrey to prove otherwise. You instead make reasonable arguments on his behalf and then debate for him.
Post#391: You stated “of course we could find a lot of [in]efficiency in our government” without marshalling a shred of evidence of where. This is a tacit endorsement of DOGE. You try to clean this up in your next post (#393) but you’ve already given credence to the lie that allows DOGE to exist in the first place.
- 977
You’re wrong on both these. I never endorsed a tailored tariff policy. I said we could benefit from negotiating to lower tariffs other countries have on us.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Post #390: Lee makes an unsubstantiated claim about righting 60 yr old wrongs (we have no idea what he is talking about and still don’t). He’s rightfully put in his place for such a stupid comment and you immediately begin arguing that a tailored tariff policy is a good idea (again, we don’t even know if Lee was talking about tariffs) but you quickly stepped in to defend him and argue on his behalf.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Where did I say there are merits to Trumps tariff plan or his DOGE plan?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: There are no merits to the tariff plan or DOGE, that’s why both initiatives have been utter failures.
But you don’t ask Legendrey to prove otherwise. You instead make reasonable arguments on his behalf and then debate for him.
Post#391: You stated “of course we could find a lot of [in]efficiency in our government” without marshalling a shred of evidence of where. This is a tacit endorsement of DOGE. You try to clean this up in your next post (#393) but you’ve already given credence to the lie that allows DOGE to exist in the first place.
On the second point, acknowledging there is a degree of waste / fraud in the government isn’t an endorsement of DOGE itself, and I state that clearly.
We do fundamentally disagree. You want the fascist takeover to be done competently and with the least pain possible while I want it to be incompetent and cause great pain to ensure we remove the fascist government as soon as possible.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Rooting for the fascist takeover is just your words, not mine. As I said, I’m rooting for the best outcome for Americans.Auggie wrote:And now you're saying you're rooting that the fascist takeover happens in a "better" way? How in the world is a more competent fascist takeover better than an incompetent fascist takeover? The best hope for this country is that they fail so badly and hurt so many people that they are forced out come 2028.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025So engaging in dialogue with the other side isn’t why Trump won in 2016 or 2024 and it’s not what has pushed us towards fascism. You’re making that up. In 2024 I’d say Democrats lost because: 1) They weren’t honest about Bidens cognition, 2) they ran a weak candidate without a primary, 3) and I think a lot of their base was frustrated with their centrist approach to Gaza. There are other reasons. Engaging in dialogue ain’t one of them.
I’m not rooting for fascism. I’m rooting for a better outcome vs a worse one on things like tariffs and DOGE, even though I’m confident that won’t happen. Why would I root for an outcome that would be disastrous to my fellow Americans?Saying “cheers” to someone i disagree with is abhorrent? That’s an insufferable approach to life.
I’ve never refused to provide examples as to why Trumps approach to tariffs or DOGE won’t work either.
There’s plenty of evidence as to why your combative approach won’t work in this forum alone. You are a pariah here for a reason.
Just so you know, a combative approach from Democrats would look like doing stuff like calling Trump a "dottering old man who could die at any minute and you're an idiot if you disagree" or "they're sanctioning the genocide of Palestinians as we speak and anyone who supports [Trump/Republicans] is complicit" or "Trump hates you and wants you to die". My combative approach hasn't been used since we'll before the Democrats decided centrism was the way to go. You think FDR got elected 4 times by having "reasonable discussion" with fascists and the Nazi apologists in America?
I'm a pariah here because I'm the only one willing to call out people when they're bullshitting, like you're doing by having "reasonable discussion" with a fascism apologist.
If you’re actually rooting for the worst possible outcome and as many people to be hurt between now and 2028, I guess that’s just where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t root for people to get hurt. Have a little humanity.
We know what competent fascism looks like for even a few years and it's beyond disturbing that you'd even think of posting something like that. Borderline collaborationist.
- 977
Wanting a fascist takeover to be done competently is again just your words not mine. Your approach isn’t going to change anyone’s hearts and minds. If you want to brow beat people you disagree with and stifle any dialogue, take it to the Reddit cesspool.Auggie wrote:We do fundamentally disagree. You want the fascist takeover to be done competently and with the least pain possible while I want it to be incompetent and cause great pain to ensure we remove the fascist government as soon as possible.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Rooting for the fascist takeover is just your words, not mine. As I said, I’m rooting for the best outcome for Americans.Auggie wrote: And now you're saying you're rooting that the fascist takeover happens in a "better" way? How in the world is a more competent fascist takeover better than an incompetent fascist takeover? The best hope for this country is that they fail so badly and hurt so many people that they are forced out come 2028.
Just so you know, a combative approach from Democrats would look like doing stuff like calling Trump a "dottering old man who could die at any minute and you're an idiot if you disagree" or "they're sanctioning the genocide of Palestinians as we speak and anyone who supports [Trump/Republicans] is complicit" or "Trump hates you and wants you to die". My combative approach hasn't been used since we'll before the Democrats decided centrism was the way to go. You think FDR got elected 4 times by having "reasonable discussion" with fascists and the Nazi apologists in America?
I'm a pariah here because I'm the only one willing to call out people when they're bullshitting, like you're doing by having "reasonable discussion" with a fascism apologist.
If you’re actually rooting for the worst possible outcome and as many people to be hurt between now and 2028, I guess that’s just where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t root for people to get hurt. Have a little humanity.
We know what competent fascism looks like for even a few years and it's beyond disturbing that you'd even think of posting something like that. Borderline collaborationist.
It would be like WOTA to agree with a fascism apologist who doesn't understand logicTheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Thank you, legendrey. It's nice to see someone else acknowledge Auggie's Chat GPT generated insanity.legendrey wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Two people having a conversation and trying to reason with their opinions is the definition of reasonable. Hijacking a conversation to kick & scream about how only your opinion and experience is the truth is being unreasonable. I try not to engage in these forums very often and you are a big reason why. What is the point of trying to have thoughtful discussions if every time I post I know I'll have to be called names by some random person with too much times on his hands.
Like a hand and glove.
- 977
But we aren’t talking about agreeing. At no point have I agreed with Legendery’s views on tariffs or DOGE.Auggie wrote:It would be like WOTA to agree with a fascism apologist who doesn't understand logicTheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Thank you, legendrey. It's nice to see someone else acknowledge Auggie's Chat GPT generated insanity.legendrey wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Two people having a conversation and trying to reason with their opinions is the definition of reasonable. Hijacking a conversation to kick & scream about how only your opinion and experience is the truth is being unreasonable. I try not to engage in these forums very often and you are a big reason why. What is the point of trying to have thoughtful discussions if every time I post I know I'll have to be called names by some random person with too much times on his hands.
Like a hand and glove.
- 1,794
You’ve agreed with the premises underpinning the tariff policy and DOGE.
And the premises are BS.
And the premises are BS.
- 1,642
Nobody is being prosecuted, just simply eliminated and unable to continue the same old stuff. Which you apparently think has been a big failure forever anyway. Thanks dAuggie.Auggie wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025So then it shouldn't be hard to show us all exactly what fraud DOGE has found and who is being prosecuted for this fraud.legendrey wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Haha which one of us is living in their bubble in the certainly left leaning online forum. Be serious. Also you asked me to provide evidence of fraud within the US government.... if you need evidence there you're not thinking logically.
- 977
I didn’t though. The premise of Trumps tariffs isn’t at all about negotiating to lower some of the tariffs against us, so i don’t agree with Trumps approach.
The premise of DOGE isn’t to thoughtfully reduce the rate of fraud / waste in the government, so I don’t agree with Trumps approach to that either.
Remember that when you talk to someone who supports Trump in these areas, they see something that has an opportunity to be fixed or improved. It’s ok to acknowledge that and it can be a pathway to a thoughtful dialogue as to why Trumps approach is wrong and dangerous.
The premise of DOGE isn’t to thoughtfully reduce the rate of fraud / waste in the government, so I don’t agree with Trumps approach to that either.
Remember that when you talk to someone who supports Trump in these areas, they see something that has an opportunity to be fixed or improved. It’s ok to acknowledge that and it can be a pathway to a thoughtful dialogue as to why Trumps approach is wrong and dangerous.
- 1,794
I don’t talk to these creeps. These losers are laughing at an innocent man rotting in a prison in El Salvador as Premiere Trump tells SCOTUS to go ***** itself.
Screw them.
Screw them.
Not directed @ youDebaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025But we aren’t talking about agreeing. At no point have I agreed with Legendery’s views on tariffs or DOGE.Auggie wrote:It would be like WOTA to agree with a fascism apologist who doesn't understand logicTheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Thank you, legendrey. It's nice to see someone else acknowledge Auggie's Chat GPT generated insanity.
Like a hand and glove.
Again, show us please. Show us exactly what massive fraud has been found. Basic logic is "if/then" statements. If you cannot support the positions you're taking, then there's no reason to anyone to believe you or take you seriously.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Nobody is being prosecuted, just simply eliminated and unable to continue the same old stuff. Which you apparently think has been a big failure forever anyway. Thanks dAuggie.Auggie wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025So then it shouldn't be hard to show us all exactly what fraud DOGE has found and who is being prosecuted for this fraud.legendrey wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Haha which one of us is living in their bubble in the certainly left leaning online forum. Be serious. Also you asked me to provide evidence of fraud within the US government.... if you need evidence there you're not thinking logically.
And no one is being prosecuted because it's made up for the sheep to chew on.
Just so you know, the fascist administration is using polls that ask "Should we get rid of fraud and waste in government" as evidence that DOGE is strongly supported by the population. They are literally using arguments like yours (the idea that we can "agree" that there's fraud and waste that needs to be removed) to create the image of a popular mandate. This is exactly why ideas like yours should be avoided at all costs.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025I didn’t though. The premise of Trumps tariffs isn’t at all about negotiating to lower some of the tariffs against us, so i don’t agree with Trumps approach.
The premise of DOGE isn’t to thoughtfully reduce the rate of fraud / waste in the government, so I don’t agree with Trumps approach to that either.
Remember that when you talk to someone who supports Trump in these areas, they see something that has an opportunity to be fixed or improved. It’s ok to acknowledge that and it can be a pathway to a thoughtful dialogue as to why Trumps approach is wrong and dangerous.
- 977
Here’s a report that’s pre Trump, from 2024. Published by the government itself. By their definition of fraud it’s estimated at 3%-7% of spending or up to $521B annually. Let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge fraud exists in an operation with the size and complexity of the Federal Government.Auggie wrote:Again, show us please. Show us exactly what massive fraud has been found. Basic logic is "if/then" statements. If you cannot support the positions you're taking, then there's no reason to anyone to believe you or take you seriously.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Nobody is being prosecuted, just simply eliminated and unable to continue the same old stuff. Which you apparently think has been a big failure forever anyway. Thanks dAuggie.Auggie wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025So then it shouldn't be hard to show us all exactly what fraud DOGE has found and who is being prosecuted for this fraud.
And no one is being prosecuted because it's made up for the sheep to chew on.
Is Trump going to leave the government in a better place following DOGE? Of course not.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105 ... _recommend
The idea of reducing government waste is popular with both sides of the aisle. Why wouldn’t be? DOGE itself is not popular because it isn’t an effective fix.Auggie wrote:Just so you know, the fascist administration is using polls that ask "Should we get rid of fraud and waste in government" as evidence that DOGE is strongly supported by the population. They are literally using arguments like yours (the idea that we can "agree" that there's fraud and waste that needs to be removed) to create the image of a popular mandate. This is exactly why ideas like yours should be avoided at all costs.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025I didn’t though. The premise of Trumps tariffs isn’t at all about negotiating to lower some of the tariffs against us, so i don’t agree with Trumps approach.
The premise of DOGE isn’t to thoughtfully reduce the rate of fraud / waste in the government, so I don’t agree with Trumps approach to that either.
Remember that when you talk to someone who supports Trump in these areas, they see something that has an opportunity to be fixed or improved. It’s ok to acknowledge that and it can be a pathway to a thoughtful dialogue as to why Trumps approach is wrong and dangerous.
I don't think you read what I wrote. I said the fascist government uses the popularity of getting rid of "fraud and waste" to say that DOGE has a popular mandate. Which is why your centrist ideals of bipartisanship just doesn't help at all. This isn't George Bush.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025The idea of reducing government waste is popular with both sides of the aisle. Why wouldn’t be? DOGE itself is not popular because it isn’t an effective fix.Auggie wrote:Just so you know, the fascist administration is using polls that ask "Should we get rid of fraud and waste in government" as evidence that DOGE is strongly supported by the population. They are literally using arguments like yours (the idea that we can "agree" that there's fraud and waste that needs to be removed) to create the image of a popular mandate. This is exactly why ideas like yours should be avoided at all costs.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025I didn’t though. The premise of Trumps tariffs isn’t at all about negotiating to lower some of the tariffs against us, so i don’t agree with Trumps approach.
The premise of DOGE isn’t to thoughtfully reduce the rate of fraud / waste in the government, so I don’t agree with Trumps approach to that either.
Remember that when you talk to someone who supports Trump in these areas, they see something that has an opportunity to be fixed or improved. It’s ok to acknowledge that and it can be a pathway to a thoughtful dialogue as to why Trumps approach is wrong and dangerous.
Back to debating for the fascist apologist. This borderline fascist apology from you.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Here’s a report that’s pre Trump, from 2024. Published by the government itself. By their definition of fraud it’s estimated at 3%-7% of spending or up to $521B annually. Let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge fraud exists in an operation with the size and complexity of the Federal Government.Auggie wrote:Again, show us please. Show us exactly what massive fraud has been found. Basic logic is "if/then" statements. If you cannot support the positions you're taking, then there's no reason to anyone to believe you or take you seriously.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025
Nobody is being prosecuted, just simply eliminated and unable to continue the same old stuff. Which you apparently think has been a big failure forever anyway. Thanks dAuggie.
And no one is being prosecuted because it's made up for the sheep to chew on.
Is Trump going to leave the government in a better place following DOGE? Of course not.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105 ... _recommend
I haven't denied or confirmed the existence for fraud. All I did was ask what DOGE found. Which appears to be nothing since he has refused to provide it.
- 977
Nothing about what i am saying is centrist or has anything to do with Bush. I’ll am doing is acknowledging there is fraud, just like you did.Auggie wrote:I don't think you read what I wrote. I said the fascist government uses the popularity of getting rid of "fraud and waste" to say that DOGE has a popular mandate. Which is why your centrist ideals of bipartisanship just doesn't help at all. This isn't George Bush.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025The idea of reducing government waste is popular with both sides of the aisle. Why wouldn’t be? DOGE itself is not popular because it isn’t an effective fix.Auggie wrote: Just so you know, the fascist administration is using polls that ask "Should we get rid of fraud and waste in government" as evidence that DOGE is strongly supported by the population. They are literally using arguments like yours (the idea that we can "agree" that there's fraud and waste that needs to be removed) to create the image of a popular mandate. This is exactly why ideas like yours should be avoided at all costs.
You can’t explain at all how I’m debating or defending fascism. You’re just throwing around the term like you just learned what it means. I wish I could’ve had a productive discussion with someone how I think is misguided on things like DOGE and tariffs. Could’ve made some progress, but you just blow up the conversation with personal attacks like always.Auggie wrote:Back to debating for the fascist apologist. This borderline fascist apology from you.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025Here’s a report that’s pre Trump, from 2024. Published by the government itself. By their definition of fraud it’s estimated at 3%-7% of spending or up to $521B annually. Let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge fraud exists in an operation with the size and complexity of the Federal Government.Auggie wrote: Again, show us please. Show us exactly what massive fraud has been found. Basic logic is "if/then" statements. If you cannot support the positions you're taking, then there's no reason to anyone to believe you or take you seriously.
And no one is being prosecuted because it's made up for the sheep to chew on.
Is Trump going to leave the government in a better place following DOGE? Of course not.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105 ... _recommend
I haven't denied or confirmed the existence for fraud. All I did was ask what DOGE found. Which appears to be nothing since he has refused to provide it.
You sound like a German citizen saying "We all agree that the economy needs to rebound" in 1933.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 16, 2025Nothing about what i am saying is centrist or has anything to do with Bush. I’ll am doing is acknowledging there is fraud, just like you did.Auggie wrote:I don't think you read what I wrote. I said the fascist government uses the popularity of getting rid of "fraud and waste" to say that DOGE has a popular mandate. Which is why your centrist ideals of bipartisanship just doesn't help at all. This isn't George Bush.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2025The idea of reducing government waste is popular with both sides of the aisle. Why wouldn’t be? DOGE itself is not popular because it isn’t an effective fix.