4 ms·

Evidence is being presented in real-time on X for each of the things you mentioned. Suggest you do some homework instead of gleaning headlines from old media, w

Evidence is being presented in real-time on X for each of the things you mentioned. Suggest you do some homework instead of gleaning headlines from old media, who btw, was getting money from USAID - the latest series of evidence coming out on X today. You really need to take a hard look at who is gullible here.

yibg 2y ago
Can you point me to some of the evidence being presented? I know elon's been posting claims of fraud and abuse, but I'm only seen his claims, without any evidence.
- justanotheratom 2y ago
  way too many to list: Govt money going to NYTimes, AP, Reuters, Politico: https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887191056074350690 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887191056074350690 https://x.com/Austen/status/1887179699874304210 https://x.com/Austen/status/1887179699874304210 https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1887179349440290883 https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1887179349440290883 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887184877197410455 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887184877197410455 https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1887147866688213254 https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1887147866688213254 This guy has been providing evidence for a decade: https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber Long list of questionable funding by USAID: https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 ...
  - yibg 2y ago
    Thanks for the info, I'll read into it more. EDIT to make my current position clear, I do think there is probably waste in various government agencies. My objection with the current approach is mainly 2 folds: 1. The lack of transparency and accountability 2. Some of the statements from the administration that are false or misleading. e.g. the 50 million on condoms. The 2 combined makes it difficult to have trust on what's happening.
  - einrealist 2y ago
    There is ZERO context in those Tweets. Only showing a line item, with a dense description is NOT evidence for fraud. Its like if I were looking at your bank transactions and assuming the worst. Don't get me wrong. There is certainly fraud and overpayment happening in government operations. But just looking at receipts is not the smoking gun. If anyone suspects fraud, there are a processes. Inspectors Generals are (were) one way to have those payments investigated, DOJ and FBI would be another step. The IGs were fired last week. I wonder why... Also, this "Ian Miles Cheong" guy is literally a Kremlin operative - really someone worth blocking. So that's important to know about his motivations to sow doubt in US Democracy.
    - einrealist 2y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/business/trump-politico-usaid-spending-conspiracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/business/trump-politico-u...
    - justanotheratom 2y ago
      There is no fraud that can be proven! NIH Official account is saying last year $9B of the $35B in grant money was for "administrative overhead". Not fraud. But does that sound reasonable to you?? https://x.com/NIH/status/1888004759396958263 https://x.com/NIH/status/1888004759396958263
      - einrealist 2y ago
        Fraud can be proven. But its a process and its not as easy than just claiming something to be fraud. We (hopefully still) have a justice system, with due process for the same reason. That $9B is just a number. Whether it is reasonable or not can only be determined by looking into the details: - What accounts as overhead? - What were decisions that lead to that overhead? - Were there alternatives that would have costs less? - Why and how were those decisions made? - Can we learn for future decisions? - Was there actual fraud? - When there was fraud, why wasn't it referred to DOJ to be investigated properly? "Administrative overhead" is not bad by itself. Outside government, its simply called "Operating Expense" and "Cost of Revenue" (not a concern of government luckily). I am certain, if you look into SpaceX' or Tesla's expenses, you would find fraud too. Because Musk and his brainwashed followers can claim stuff on Twitter doesn't make it true. And it certainly MUST NOT be basis to destroy Democracy and democratic processes.
  - nmz 2y ago
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usaid-payments-to-politico/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Threads#Echobox=1739548337-1 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usaid-payments-to-politico... > The above claim was false. Publicly available records showed that in 2023 and 2024, the USAID paid a total of $44,000 — not $8 million — to Politico, and the payments were earmarked for institutional subscriptions to E&E News, a Politico publication. No other transactions between USAID and Politico were listed for the entire previous decade. Nice, how much are you getting to propagandize?
- l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
  https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04.2024-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04...
sirbutters 2y ago
Bro gets his news from X. hahahahaha. Adorable.
- justanotheratom 2y ago
  where do you get your "curated" news sir?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

yibg 2y ago

Can you point me to some of the evidence being presented? I know elon's been posting claims of fraud and abuse, but I'm only seen his claims, without any evidence.

justanotheratom 2y ago
way too many to list: Govt money going to NYTimes, AP, Reuters, Politico: https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887191056074350690 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887191056074350690 https://x.com/Austen/status/1887179699874304210 https://x.com/Austen/status/1887179699874304210 https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1887179349440290883 https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1887179349440290883 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887184877197410455 https://x.com/stillgray/status/1887184877197410455 https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1887147866688213254 https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1887147866688213254 This guy has been providing evidence for a decade: https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber Long list of questionable funding by USAID: https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1887151291895267553 ...
- yibg 2y ago
  Thanks for the info, I'll read into it more. EDIT to make my current position clear, I do think there is probably waste in various government agencies. My objection with the current approach is mainly 2 folds: 1. The lack of transparency and accountability 2. Some of the statements from the administration that are false or misleading. e.g. the 50 million on condoms. The 2 combined makes it difficult to have trust on what's happening.
- einrealist 2y ago
  There is ZERO context in those Tweets. Only showing a line item, with a dense description is NOT evidence for fraud. Its like if I were looking at your bank transactions and assuming the worst. Don't get me wrong. There is certainly fraud and overpayment happening in government operations. But just looking at receipts is not the smoking gun. If anyone suspects fraud, there are a processes. Inspectors Generals are (were) one way to have those payments investigated, DOJ and FBI would be another step. The IGs were fired last week. I wonder why... Also, this "Ian Miles Cheong" guy is literally a Kremlin operative - really someone worth blocking. So that's important to know about his motivations to sow doubt in US Democracy.
  - einrealist 2y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/business/trump-politico-usaid-spending-conspiracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/business/trump-politico-u...
  - justanotheratom 2y ago
    There is no fraud that can be proven! NIH Official account is saying last year $9B of the $35B in grant money was for "administrative overhead". Not fraud. But does that sound reasonable to you?? https://x.com/NIH/status/1888004759396958263 https://x.com/NIH/status/1888004759396958263
    - einrealist 2y ago
      Fraud can be proven. But its a process and its not as easy than just claiming something to be fraud. We (hopefully still) have a justice system, with due process for the same reason. That $9B is just a number. Whether it is reasonable or not can only be determined by looking into the details: - What accounts as overhead? - What were decisions that lead to that overhead? - Were there alternatives that would have costs less? - Why and how were those decisions made? - Can we learn for future decisions? - Was there actual fraud? - When there was fraud, why wasn't it referred to DOJ to be investigated properly? "Administrative overhead" is not bad by itself. Outside government, its simply called "Operating Expense" and "Cost of Revenue" (not a concern of government luckily). I am certain, if you look into SpaceX' or Tesla's expenses, you would find fraud too. Because Musk and his brainwashed followers can claim stuff on Twitter doesn't make it true. And it certainly MUST NOT be basis to destroy Democracy and democratic processes.
- nmz 2y ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usaid-payments-to-politico/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Threads#Echobox=1739548337-1 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usaid-payments-to-politico... > The above claim was false. Publicly available records showed that in 2023 and 2024, the USAID paid a total of $44,000 — not $8 million — to Politico, and the payments were earmarked for institutional subscriptions to E&E News, a Politico publication. No other transactions between USAID and Politico were listed for the entire previous decade. Nice, how much are you getting to propagandize?
l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04.2024-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04...

sirbutters 2y ago

Bro gets his news from X. hahahahaha. Adorable.

justanotheratom 2y ago
where do you get your "curated" news sir?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]