4 ms·
>DOGE never seriously tried, or even discussed, tackling that problem. They got shut down and the Trump-Musk thing flared up more or less the nanosecond they l
by potato3732842 1y ago
>DOGE never seriously tried, or even discussed, tackling that problem.
They got shut down and the Trump-Musk thing flared up more or less the nanosecond they looked at the DOD. Sad, but they never had the political capital to win that fight. They probably could've done some good slashing around in there.
- btreecat 1y ago> >DOGE never seriously tried, or even discussed, tackling that problem. > > They got shut down and the Trump-Musk thing flared up more or less the nanosecond they looked at the DOD. Sad, but they never had the political capital to win that fight. They probably could've done some good slashing around in there. What "good slashing" did they actually do anywhere to assume they would have done good there?
- potato3732842 1y agoAll I said was they probably could've done some good slashing around in the DOD. Nothing more, nothing lesee. Take your strawman and get lost.
- scott_w 1y agoThere’s no straw man in the question. You’re being asked to substantiate your belief by showing where the people who would be responsible for “good slashing” demonstrated their ability to do some “good slashing” elsewhere.
- snowwrestler 1y agoThe general sense in DC was that DOGE was never going to make it to DoD because a) many of the individual people leading DOGE benefit personally from DoD spending (which is not true of IRS, HHS, USAID, etc), and b) most civilian policy leaders in this administration have built their political brand around boosting the military, and dramatic cuts don’t align with that.