placeholder

If you believe that the man making fraudulent claims is exposing fraud, then you are a sucker.

It's not a matter of having it my way. He made and passed along also claims that were false. It's not about exaggerating numbers, it's about qualitative falsehoods.

No, Musk isn't just exaggerating some things. He's lying and promoting lies.

If you believe that the fraudulent claims made by that man who claims to be exposing the fraud, then you are a sucker:. https://archive.ph/InvFn https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/02/10/elon-musk-pushes-false-claim-ex-usaid-chief-earned-23-million-the-biggest-doge-hoaxes-spread-on-x/

Billionaire government efficiency chief Elon Musk has repeatedly spread baseless or false claims about the gutted U.S. Agency for International Development on X, including an unsupported claim the agency was a form of “money laundering” and that it paid celebrities millions to visit Ukraine. Many false and misleading claims about USAID spending practices have spread quickly on X, propped up by billionaires including Musk and Bill Ackman. https://archive.ph/InvFn https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/02/10/elon-musk-pushes-false-claim-ex-usaid-chief-earned-23-million-the-biggest-doge-hoaxes-spread-on-x/

Another rightwing mindreading act. You've got nothing.

Another apparently inexhaustible source of irony.

I'm going to devotemy time to reading a decision based on your assertion that it supports your case? Why should I trust you? If you have evidence from that decision to offer, offer it.

If you have evidence that what I've said is false point to it. I've provided a link to the evidence. If you can't be bothered to read what is linked to, there is nothing I can do about your willful ignorance. Stay ignorant for all I care. And the charge of lying is particularly entertaining coming from you. Remember your claim that 4 children in the elementary school you were attending died from measles vaccines in 1952? Even though there were no measles vaccines on offer until about a decade later? You truly are a lowlife.

I wonder what garbage dump of a website you got that piece of case law from. Myers is about the right of the President to remove appointed officials. That is not the issue in the USAID case. Clearly, you don't have a clue what constitutes relevant case law.

I can't help you and your apparently limited level of literacy any further. If you can't be bothered to read the article i linked to, there's nothing more I plan to do. Of course, if you are willing to pay me for reading lessons, we may come to some sort of agreement.

Actually, the Biden administration didn't take money from FEMA emergency funds to fund immigrations related matters. That honor belongs to the Trump administration Trump administration moved FEMA funding to immigration efforts When Trump was president, his administration shifted FEMA funding, including money from the Disaster Relief Fund, to address immigration. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was “reprogramming” some funds Congress had set aside.The department said it would transfer $271 million to immigration efforts. That included about $155 million from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund base budget. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/fema-hurricane-milton-money-spent-immigrants/

Biden administration didn’t steal $1 billion from FEMA for migrants. Trump’s claim is Pants on Fire! Here are the facts: Current FEMA funding for migrants does not come at disaster relief’s expense. Neither of FEMA’s two programs for migrants uses money from the agency’s Disaster Relief Fund, which is primarily used after natural disasters. Congress funds the migrant and disaster relief programs separately. And Trump’s administration, not Biden’s, shifted FEMA funding — including money from the Disaster Relief Fund — to address immigration. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/fema-hurricane-milton-money-spent-immigrants/

The only way your claim to American citizenship makes sense, is if there's a positive correlation between US citizenship and ignorance of American laws and politics. But if you've got evidence to offer to support your position, go ahead and do so. You've got nothing.

Well, if Elon Musk says it's a lie... Such moronic comments from you and Musk. FEMA isn't just given X amount of funding to allocate how it pleases. Congress stipulates how those funds are to spent.

You questioned whether or not the evidence I cited from the BBC was valid. It is. I cited that evidence to refute theblether's claim that the judges ruling was just about employment issues. Stop trying to deflect. You've got nothing.

What makes your comment particularly moronic is that the piece of the article I used includes a direct quote from the lawsuit. Or you so clueless as to claim that the BBC is making that up, too?

Your lack of any evidence to counter what the BBC says is typical and shows why your posts are generally worthless. Put up or shut up.

Another moronic comment. Instead of replying to the substance of a comment, you go after a member for not being American. What's sad is that you haven't demonstrated that you have the intellectual resources it takes to discuss issues intelligently.

Please link me to proof that the people in the article are leftists. Otherwise it's just your typical dishonest name-calling.

That power actually is not delineated in the Constitution. It was Madison vs. Marbury that the Supreme Court under John Marshall first made a ruling on constitutional grounds.

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide if that is the case. Not Donald Trump nor Elon Musk.

I don't pretend to be an expert. That's why I cite those who are. Whereas your information looks like the kind that is gleaned from made-for-tv movies.

Thanks for sharing with us your expertise. It is to laugh.

Crack vs. powder cocaine: Were differences exaggerated? During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powder cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before. Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack. https://archive.ph/g0fIx#selection-1585.4-1585.59 . In the United States during the mid-1980s, for example, crack cocaine was believed to be so powerfully addictive that even first-time users would become addicted. Even more worrisome was the perception that the drug produced unpredictable and deadly effects. Despite the fact that there was virtually no real evidence supporting these claims, in 1986, the United States Congress passed the now infamous Anti-Drug Abuse Act setting penalties 100 times harsher for crack than for powder cocaine convictions. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/43c2d274-ab5d-4c77-b162-f29034de40a8/methamphetamine-dangers-exaggerated-20140218.pdf