5 ms·

What fraud has this "rooted out"? For you, is it the chart of 100+ aged in Social Security and the lies that Mosk et all push about Social Security? There wer

What fraud has this "rooted out"? For you, is it the chart of 100+ aged in Social Security and the lies that Mosk et all push about Social Security? There were the boring "bureaucratic reports" about this issue, which shows there was no fraud. https://apnews.com/article/social-security-payments-deceased-false-claims-doge-ed2885f5769f368853ac3615b4852cf7 https://apnews.com/article/social-security-payments-deceased... Don't let reality bring you down tho!

_heimdall 2y ago
There have been plenty of claims of specific waster and fraud found. The problem is knowing what is actually true and accurate right now. Things have been moving quickly and its become such a political firestorm that it's extremely difficult to find unbiased reporting.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Therefore, claims of waste and fraud should be assumed false until proven otherwise, and confirmed by an unbiased third party.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I'd tweak that slightly. I think they should be considered unproven or unsubstantiated, that doesn't make them false. Assuming they're false because they haven't been nearly immediately proven publicly makes it too easy for those concerns and allegations to be written off and ignored.
    - monocasa 2y ago
      Musk et al have been caught lying several times here. It's fair to treat everything they say in this realm as a lie until proven otherwise, or until they work to build a modicum of trust.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Doesn't that apply to all, or nearly all, politicians at the federal level? Even the names they give major bills are technically a lie, any legislator that supports or votes for it is lying. Campaign speeches and promises are riddled with lies and omissions. Presidents lie while in office. I don't mean to play whataboutism here. I'm all for calling out lying politicians here, but I'd extend that to everyone that fits the bill.
    - watwut 2y ago
      A guy with history of lies including false accusation of pedophilia working for a guy who lies constantly are not a duo to be trusted.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        A potential fact coming from an untrustworthy person isn't immediately false. An untrustworthy person can be right and a trustworthy can be wrong. The point is that we can't consider a claim true or false. We need evidence to prove it is true, and we can never really prove its false unless we can see all information that could possibly be related to the question. I don't personally see the government release all information that could possibly be related to any question of fraud or abuse, so we're left either proving it true or considering it unsubstantiated or unproven.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        > A potential fact coming from an untrustworthy person isn't immediately false. An untrustworthy person can be right and a trustworthy can be wrong. An untrustworthy person is trying to convince you of something, and has access and control of all the information to substantiate everything he's saying. Why is anything left unproven? Because he's relying on information asymmetry to confound you. It's the same thing he did with the so-called "Twitter Files", where he selectively leaked one-sided information to spin a narrative. He's doing the same thing with Doge and people are falling for it. Probably the same ones who fell for the "Twitter files". Proven liars rely on credulous people like yourself to continue operating once their lies are widely known. That's why when such a liar has power, the only rational stance is extreme skepticism until, like I said, an independent verification can be obtained. Otherwise you open yourself to be taken advantage of. > I don't personally see the government release all information that could possibly be related to any question of fraud or abuse We're not asking for that kind of a standard. I would be satisfied with releasing the necessary information that would be sufficient in proving specific questions of fraud raised by Musk to the public. Trusted third parties with appropriate clearances can handle sensitive information, and it can be appropriately redacted for public consumption.
- turtlesdown11 2y ago
  Can you cite them? I reviewed their list and found none.

_heimdall 2y ago

There have been plenty of claims of specific waster and fraud found. The problem is knowing what is actually true and accurate right now. Things have been moving quickly and its become such a political firestorm that it's extremely difficult to find unbiased reporting.

ModernMech 2y ago
Therefore, claims of waste and fraud should be assumed false until proven otherwise, and confirmed by an unbiased third party.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'd tweak that slightly. I think they should be considered unproven or unsubstantiated, that doesn't make them false. Assuming they're false because they haven't been nearly immediately proven publicly makes it too easy for those concerns and allegations to be written off and ignored.
  - monocasa 2y ago
    Musk et al have been caught lying several times here. It's fair to treat everything they say in this realm as a lie until proven otherwise, or until they work to build a modicum of trust.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Doesn't that apply to all, or nearly all, politicians at the federal level? Even the names they give major bills are technically a lie, any legislator that supports or votes for it is lying. Campaign speeches and promises are riddled with lies and omissions. Presidents lie while in office. I don't mean to play whataboutism here. I'm all for calling out lying politicians here, but I'd extend that to everyone that fits the bill.
  - watwut 2y ago
    A guy with history of lies including false accusation of pedophilia working for a guy who lies constantly are not a duo to be trusted.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      A potential fact coming from an untrustworthy person isn't immediately false. An untrustworthy person can be right and a trustworthy can be wrong. The point is that we can't consider a claim true or false. We need evidence to prove it is true, and we can never really prove its false unless we can see all information that could possibly be related to the question. I don't personally see the government release all information that could possibly be related to any question of fraud or abuse, so we're left either proving it true or considering it unsubstantiated or unproven.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > A potential fact coming from an untrustworthy person isn't immediately false. An untrustworthy person can be right and a trustworthy can be wrong. An untrustworthy person is trying to convince you of something, and has access and control of all the information to substantiate everything he's saying. Why is anything left unproven? Because he's relying on information asymmetry to confound you. It's the same thing he did with the so-called "Twitter Files", where he selectively leaked one-sided information to spin a narrative. He's doing the same thing with Doge and people are falling for it. Probably the same ones who fell for the "Twitter files". Proven liars rely on credulous people like yourself to continue operating once their lies are widely known. That's why when such a liar has power, the only rational stance is extreme skepticism until, like I said, an independent verification can be obtained. Otherwise you open yourself to be taken advantage of. > I don't personally see the government release all information that could possibly be related to any question of fraud or abuse We're not asking for that kind of a standard. I would be satisfied with releasing the necessary information that would be sufficient in proving specific questions of fraud raised by Musk to the public. Trusted third parties with appropriate clearances can handle sensitive information, and it can be appropriately redacted for public consumption.
turtlesdown11 2y ago
Can you cite them? I reviewed their list and found none.