3 ms·
That's open to interpretation; Obviously, someone has a clue since it's part of a plan. It may just be that the people who have no clue are put there to make fo
by imoverclocked 1y ago
That's open to interpretation; Obviously, someone has a clue since it's part of a plan. It may just be that the people who have no clue are put there to make following the plan easier.
- brokencode 1y agoJust because they have a plan, doesn’t mean they have a clue. Their reasoning for this could be as simple as “government bad”. Just look at the wild abandon with which DOGE has gone about its cuts. They literally fired the experts who inspect our nuclear arsenal, then had to scramble to hire them back because you know.. it’s literally nuclear bombs we’re talking about.
- imoverclocked 1y agoThey have caused a lot of mayhem for federal employees. They have suppressed a ton of information and research. They have kept a significant amount of the public in the dark about their actions. Yeah, they have done things we would both deem as "dumb" but their internal motive is what decides whether or not they have a clue. Furthering our motives has nothing to do with that.
- kingkawn 1y agoIf the plan is “break things” it does not imply any underlying of understanding, both of the things in question or even how to effectively break them