3 ms·
These are the stated reasons for the audit. It is worth at least considering them at face value. No it isn't. It's not an audit, it's a hostile takeover. An ac
by anigbrowl 2y ago
These are the stated reasons for the audit. It is worth at least considering them at face value.
No it isn't. It's not an audit, it's a hostile takeover. An actual audit of the federal government would have involved standards, qualifications, security clearances, and other institutional infrastructure, and stringent controls to avoid conflicts of interest. If you don't see a conflict of interest with the richest man in the world sending a team of kids to take over the main systems in the treasury and personnel departments of the federal government then I envy your child-like innocence.
Reasonable people should be able to debate these things without resorting to reducto-ad-hitlerum.
There was a clear roadmap published by the Heritage Foundation before the election detailing plans for a hostile takeover, and events so far are wholly consistent with that - unsurprising, since one of its lead authors is nominated for a cabinet position.
Also, this is all happening under the aegis of a guy who marked inauguration day by throw Roman salutes to the crowd, a gesture beloved by neo-nazis. At least one of this young engineers barging his way into secure high value systems is a big fan of neo-nazi Nick Fuentes, and I see no reason to think that having neo-nazis in charge is likely to end better than it did with the original version.
- heartbreak 2y agoAn actual audit would have involved actual auditors. A 25yo 3rd year at PwC would be preferable.