5 ms·

Hilarious irony here, given that these qualified and legally hired people built the most morally reprehensible weapon in history

UltraSane 2y ago
Likewise what Musk is doing is also morally reprehensible. It is the most unconstitutional power grab any US Citizen has tried is a very long time.
- sam345 2y ago
  Please explain that to me? Where is the illegality and unconstitutionality? Agencies are part of the executive branch. This particularly agency was created by executive order. The executive branch can police itself. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal. What is illegal is USAID spending money that is violating the current president's executive order. Bringing that to light is not illegal. In fact it is the duty of the executive to make sure that his orders are being carried out.
  - sgarland 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - SmarsJerry 2y ago
    I dont know if people are lying and/or intentionally gaslighting. DOGE brings information to Trump, Trump acts on it. The illegal part is made up by their political opponents who have apparently being using governmental agencies use to influence other countries to also influence the US - that’s where they went wrong.
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - SmarsJerry 2y ago
        You keep saying Musk and you are right Musk has no power, he just reports information to the President Trump who makes any call. So that part is irrelevant. The government can say we want to spend $1,000,000 on hammers but it doesn’t mean you have to spend $1,000,000 on one hammer. If the president finds you can buy a hammer for $10 then he can direct to 100,000 of them there instead. Also, if he finds government agencies are not performing on their obligations he can get rid of them. And lastly, a lot of changes are going to take effect until the next budget, which will be ratified by congress. Just because he says “we’re cancelling X” it doesn’t mean he’s stopping it now but once a new budget it passed.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        If congress passes a law to give X dollars to Y department or organization than it is blatantly and utterly illegal for the Executive branch to just say "Nah" and not do so. "The government can say we want to spend $1,000,000 on hammers but it doesn’t mean you have to spend $1,000,000 on one hammer." This isn't the level of detail we are concerned with. Congress says that USAID gets $5 billion a year then the Executive branch HAS to transfer that money or else it is in direct violation of the US constitution. Your entire argument is nonsensical and irrelevant.
        SmarsJerry 2y ago
        There must be some confusion because they aren’t cutting programs approved by congress. They are literally cutting funds that were NOT explicitly approved by congress only.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        "There must be some confusion because they aren’t cutting programs approved by congress." Yes they are "They are literally cutting funds that were NOT explicitly approved by congress only." This is false. You really need to realize that Musk is a liar who lies all the time and he is lying about what DOGE is doing.
  - phonon 2y ago
    That's not how our government works. The executive branch does not get to pick and choose what parts of the budget approved by Congress it wants to execute. [0] Also, a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency.[1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_... [1] https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-u...
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    Congress controls spending and no one person can just decide not to transfer the funds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse#United_Stat... In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause). The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power. https://www.marketplace.org/2025/02/04/congress-president-trump-spending/ https://www.marketplace.org/2025/02/04/congress-president-tr... How Congress — and not the president — controls how taxpayer money is spent
LeafItAlone 2y ago
>built the most morally reprehensible weapon in history That’s obviously arguable. Did the weapon and its usage cause more or fewer deaths and destruction than without it?
- catmanjan 2y ago
  By that logic killing all humans now would be better than letting future generations die
Capricorn2481 2y ago
"Let's not hire experts. Experts built the bomb, ya know."
- muddi900 2y ago
  Funny that this comment is in defense of DOGE disregarding all expertise and handing keys over to a bunch non-experts.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    It is unironically DEI for nerds.
  - Capricorn2481 2y ago
    It was a sarcastic comment disparaging DOGE and the comment above. How did you get that it defends DOGE?
steve_adams_86 2y ago
They weren’t the only ones building it, for what it’s worth. They were well aware of that. If you knew a country wanted to build a weapon to cripple your own country, and you had the necessary skills to build that weapon, would you feel come compulsion to try and build it first in order to protect your family and friends? To protect yourself?
rangestransform 2y ago
Making war between (certain) nations unconscionable and apocalyptic may have done more for peace than anything created for the purpose of peace

UltraSane 2y ago

Likewise what Musk is doing is also morally reprehensible. It is the most unconstitutional power grab any US Citizen has tried is a very long time.

sam345 2y ago
Please explain that to me? Where is the illegality and unconstitutionality? Agencies are part of the executive branch. This particularly agency was created by executive order. The executive branch can police itself. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal. What is illegal is USAID spending money that is violating the current president's executive order. Bringing that to light is not illegal. In fact it is the duty of the executive to make sure that his orders are being carried out.
- sgarland 2y ago
  [flagged]
- SmarsJerry 2y ago
  I dont know if people are lying and/or intentionally gaslighting. DOGE brings information to Trump, Trump acts on it. The illegal part is made up by their political opponents who have apparently being using governmental agencies use to influence other countries to also influence the US - that’s where they went wrong.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - SmarsJerry 2y ago
      You keep saying Musk and you are right Musk has no power, he just reports information to the President Trump who makes any call. So that part is irrelevant. The government can say we want to spend $1,000,000 on hammers but it doesn’t mean you have to spend $1,000,000 on one hammer. If the president finds you can buy a hammer for $10 then he can direct to 100,000 of them there instead. Also, if he finds government agencies are not performing on their obligations he can get rid of them. And lastly, a lot of changes are going to take effect until the next budget, which will be ratified by congress. Just because he says “we’re cancelling X” it doesn’t mean he’s stopping it now but once a new budget it passed.
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        If congress passes a law to give X dollars to Y department or organization than it is blatantly and utterly illegal for the Executive branch to just say "Nah" and not do so. "The government can say we want to spend $1,000,000 on hammers but it doesn’t mean you have to spend $1,000,000 on one hammer." This isn't the level of detail we are concerned with. Congress says that USAID gets $5 billion a year then the Executive branch HAS to transfer that money or else it is in direct violation of the US constitution. Your entire argument is nonsensical and irrelevant.
        SmarsJerry 2y ago
        There must be some confusion because they aren’t cutting programs approved by congress. They are literally cutting funds that were NOT explicitly approved by congress only.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        "There must be some confusion because they aren’t cutting programs approved by congress." Yes they are "They are literally cutting funds that were NOT explicitly approved by congress only." This is false. You really need to realize that Musk is a liar who lies all the time and he is lying about what DOGE is doing.
- phonon 2y ago
  That's not how our government works. The executive branch does not get to pick and choose what parts of the budget approved by Congress it wants to execute. [0] Also, a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency.[1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_... [1] https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-u...
- UltraSane 2y ago
  Congress controls spending and no one person can just decide not to transfer the funds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse#United_Stat... In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause). The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power. https://www.marketplace.org/2025/02/04/congress-president-trump-spending/ https://www.marketplace.org/2025/02/04/congress-president-tr... How Congress — and not the president — controls how taxpayer money is spent

LeafItAlone 2y ago

>built the most morally reprehensible weapon in history That’s obviously arguable. Did the weapon and its usage cause more or fewer deaths and destruction than without it?

catmanjan 2y ago
By that logic killing all humans now would be better than letting future generations die

Capricorn2481 2y ago

"Let's not hire experts. Experts built the bomb, ya know."

muddi900 2y ago
Funny that this comment is in defense of DOGE disregarding all expertise and handing keys over to a bunch non-experts.
- blitzar 2y ago
  It is unironically DEI for nerds.
- Capricorn2481 2y ago
  It was a sarcastic comment disparaging DOGE and the comment above. How did you get that it defends DOGE?

steve_adams_86 2y ago

They weren’t the only ones building it, for what it’s worth. They were well aware of that. If you knew a country wanted to build a weapon to cripple your own country, and you had the necessary skills to build that weapon, would you feel come compulsion to try and build it first in order to protect your family and friends? To protect yourself?

rangestransform 2y ago

Making war between (certain) nations unconscionable and apocalyptic may have done more for peace than anything created for the purpose of peace