5 ms·
>I think that's something that needs to be proven. No, the burden of proof is on the opposite side. You don't take money from the people and from other project
by TaurenHunter 2y ago
>I think that's something that needs to be proven.
No, the burden of proof is on the opposite side. You don't take money from the people and from other projects, to throw at woke projects. There has to be some clean up, even more so since the government spending levels are at a crucial point.
And who is doing the Ctrl F cut? Has it happened already?
There wasn't any cut yet. Ctrl F would be the very first step in reexamining the entire set - of which the author of the article only looked at a 100.
The fact is that these complaints are against transparency and responsibility in this process, which is incoming and much needed.
- duxup 2y agoNaw I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The process of awarding grants is available for people to look at. Your claim is not. I want to ask as respectfully as possible if you read the article? These are vague claims made by a politician, he is not demonizing these grants because he wants them to continue ... the intent here is not a mystery. I'm all for removing any strange inclusion type requirements, but maybe see what happens after you do that for a while? But let's be honest, Cruz and the current administration don't care about that, they want people scared and to make cuts. "Woke" does that for them.
- TaurenHunter 2y agoThe burden is absolutely on you to justify all that woke waste (that was promoted by other politicians that you favor) when the country is at a critical crossroad regarding unsustainable spending. And that tactic of calling others names ("you're anti-science, anti-vaxx, anti-this, anti-that") is overused. Thankfully, no one outside your bubble is buying it anymore.