No Pre-Meds on DOGE's Team?

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
clubdeac said:
This list came from a reputable source that has rarely ever steered me wrong. Retired college professor

Why should anyone believe you when you say these numbers are fabricated or misrepresented? What data/facts do you have other than your own biases and presuppositions? I’d be interested in seeing your data
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to say the same thing before you actually read it? The very first item on your list says:
clubdeac said:
— $7.9 million to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid “binary-gendered language”
Click to expand...
This Fox News article discusses the program:

US taxpayer-funded program teaches Sri Lankan journalists to state pronouns, avoid ‘binary-gendered language' | Fox News

'Normalize the sharing of gender pronouns by actively sharing your own,' MEND program says
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I went with Fox so you wouldn’t have to worry about “liberal bias.” The article is complaining about the organization teaching gender and pronouns but at least they state the facts. The program was funded $7.9 million for 6 years (2017-2023). During that time they produced 4 presentations about gender - a tiny fraction of their overall activity. Your list conflates one small part of their activity with the whole funding amount. I’ll say it for the third time: that’s as misleading as saying the US spends $49 trillion on transgender care.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
How many times do I have to say the same thing before you actually read it? The very first item on your list says:

This Fox News article discusses the program:

US taxpayer-funded program teaches Sri Lankan journalists to state pronouns, avoid ‘binary-gendered language' | Fox News

'Normalize the sharing of gender pronouns by actively sharing your own,' MEND program says
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I went with Fox so you wouldn’t have to worry about “liberal bias.” The article is complaining about the organization teaching gender and pronouns but at least they state the facts. The program was funded $7.9 million for 6 years (2017-2023). During that time they produced 4 presentations about gender - a tiny fraction of their overall activity. Your list conflates one small part of their activity with the whole funding amount. I’ll say it for the third time: that’s as misleading as saying the US spends $49 trillion on transgender care.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I read the article which doesn’t support your argument. In fact it’s even more infuriating than I thought. Why the hell are we indoctrinating other countries with this garbage?!? The article simply gave a few most recent examples of this nonsense. It didn’t say these were the only examples and it certainly didn’t give any positive examples of how the money was used. The waste and corruption is sickening. Here’s Senator Kennedy saying the same thing I posted on the senate floor @Ducttape. There’s your evidence

 
clubdeac said:
Hmmm, I read the article which doesn’t support your argument. In fact it’s even more infuriating than I thought. Why the hell are we indoctrinating other countries with this garbage?!? The article simply gave a few most recent examples of this nonsense. It didn’t say these were the only examples and it certainly didn’t give any positive examples of how the money was used. The waste and corruption is sickening. Here’s Senator Kennedy saying the same thing I posted on the senate floor @Ducttape. There’s your evidence

Click to expand...

The article cites 4 PowerPoints on gender, which is everything Fox could dig up, certainly. That’s over 4 years. So again, saying that we spent $7.9 million to teach them about pronouns is false. We spent $7.9 million to promote independent media and media literacy, of which a tiny amount was spent on gender and pronouns. Probably some volunteer intern with pink hair who put those together.

Whether $7.9 million on media literacy is justifiable is an entirely different debate. One that starts with accurately portraying the spending instead of lying about it.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
The article cites 4 PowerPoints on gender, which is everything Fox could dig up, certainly. That’s over 4 years. So again, saying that we spent $7.9 million to teach them about pronouns is false. We spent $7.9 million to promote independent media and media literacy, of which a tiny amount was spent on gender and pronouns. Probably some volunteer intern with pink hair who put those together.

Whether $7.9 million on media literacy is justifiable is an entirely different debate. One that starts with accurately portraying the spending instead of lying about it.
Click to expand...
To be fair, you don’t really know how the money is spent. It could be overhead for four executives who make $300,000 a year for four years and then they hire one guy to give 4 presentations. But if you press on the Grant summary page link, you can break it down a little. I don’t really want any amount for this tbh.

“USAID helped launch MEND in August 2017, with a total projected cost of $7.9 million. The program is set to run until at least April 14, 2023, according to the grant summary on USASpending.gov. USAID’s last payment for the program, which is overseen by the International Research & Exchanges Board, was for $1,910,000 on May 17, 2021.”
 
callmeanesthesia said:
The article cites 4 PowerPoints on gender, which is everything Fox could dig up, certainly. That’s over 4 years. So again, saying that we spent $7.9 million to teach them about pronouns is false. We spent $7.9 million to promote independent media and media literacy, of which a tiny amount was spent on gender and pronouns. Probably some volunteer intern with pink hair who put those together.

Whether $7.9 million on media literacy is justifiable is an entirely different debate. One that starts with accurately portraying the spending instead of lying about it.
Click to expand...
Suggesting that it's only 4 power points is as egregiously misleading as anything else being said.

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov www.usaspending.gov
 
hyperalgesia said:
Suggesting that it's only 4 power points is as egregiously misleading as anything else being said.

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov www.usaspending.gov
Click to expand...
You posted a link to a completely different grant program. I actually agree that the government does a lot of wasteful things. That’s a different conversation but one we need to have with facts, not with lies. My point, and I’m sticking to it, is that the list he keeps posting is deliberately misleading. We can debate the merit of whether sending money to promote independent journalism in Sri Lanka is worthwhile. I honestly don’t have enough foreign policy knowledge to know whether that’s a worthwhile expenditure, for example to counter anti-US propaganda in a strategically important area.

We can’t debate whether it was worthwhile for the US to send $7.9 million to Sri Lanka to teach journalists the about pronouns, because that’s not a thing that happened. Therefore, whoever put that list together is motivated by manipulation, not by a desire to have an honest discussion about US policy, and should be completely disregarded.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
You posted a link to a completely different grant program. I actually agree that the government does a lot of wasteful things. That’s a different conversation but one we need to have with facts, not with lies. My point, and I’m sticking to it, is that the list he keeps posting is deliberately misleading. We can debate the merit of whether sending money to promote independent journalism in Sri Lanka is worthwhile. I honestly don’t have enough foreign policy knowledge to know whether that’s a worthwhile expenditure, for example to counter anti-US propaganda in a strategically important area.

We can’t debate whether it was worthwhile for the US to send $7.9 million to Sri Lanka to teach journalists the about pronouns, because that’s not a thing that happened. Therefore, whoever put that list together is motivated by manipulation, not by a desire to have an honest discussion about US policy, and should be completely disregarded.
Click to expand...
Are you surprised that your tax dollars have been funding DEI in Serbia? Are you glad that DOGE brought it to your attention and that is getting shut down?
 
hyperalgesia said:
Are you surprised that your tax dollars have been funding DEI in Serbia? Are you glad that DOGE brought it to your attention and that is getting shut down?
Click to expand...
Am I surprised that our government is full of waste and pork barrel spending? No. Are you? Because I thought you were smarter than that.

I think the way it’s being done is reckless, and I think the specifics they’re choosing to focus on are driven by far right ideology. Spending on DEI is tiny. Let’s look at farm subsidies, corporate tax loopholes. Let’s have an AI program analyze every piece of legislation from the past 20 years, its amendments, committees, and who voted for it, and pull out all the pork barrel projects.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
Am I surprised that our government is full of waste and pork barrel spending? No. Are you? Because I thought you were smarter than that.

I think the way it’s being done is reckless, and I think the specifics they’re choosing to focus on are driven by far right ideology. Spending on DEI is tiny. Let’s look at farm subsidies, corporate tax loopholes. Let’s have an AI program analyze every piece of legislation from the past 20 years, its amendments, committees, and who voted for it, and pull out all the pork barrel projects.
Click to expand...
I think they're focusing on DEI because it's very unpopular. It seems like you're suggesting that this approach is "far right"?

To me, and I believe most Americans, the DEI LGBTQIA agenda is far Left/radical. Utterly abolishing it is not extreme, but obvious, centrist, and popular.

Agree with you completely about the pork. I don't see any purpose in exposing the past but it would be awesome if DOGE exposes and humiliates every lawmaker that makes their vote contingent on their pet project.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
The article cites 4 PowerPoints on gender, which is everything Fox could dig up, certainly. That’s over 4 years. So again, saying that we spent $7.9 million to teach them about pronouns is false. We spent $7.9 million to promote independent media and media literacy, of which a tiny amount was spent on gender and pronouns. Probably some volunteer intern with pink hair who put those together.

Whether $7.9 million on media literacy is justifiable is an entirely different debate. One that starts with accurately portraying the spending instead of lying about it.
Click to expand...
A lot of assumptions here. Still we’re wasting billions of taxpayer funds. How bout this, the government can waste as much money as you want as long as one of you libs pay my tax bill every year. I mean do you think you’re really paying your fair share?
 
the fact that you are basing your statements on a known liar politician invalidates your point

hyperalgesia said:
Are you surprised that your tax dollars have been funding DEI in Serbia? Are you glad that DOGE brought it to your attention and that is getting shut down?
Click to expand...
any funding of such small amounts to make the rest of the world appreciate US and be willing to fight with us against our main protagonists - Russia, China, Iran, S Korea - is money of such infinitesimal amounts to be worth spending.

hyperalgesia said:
I think they're focusing on DEI because it's very unpopular. It seems like you're suggesting that this approach is "far right"?

To me, and I believe most Americans, the DEI LGBTQIA agenda is far Left/radical. Utterly abolishing it is not extreme, but obvious, centrist, and popular.
Click to expand...

actually, and as expected, most americans support dei in the workplace.

Workers’ views on DEI in the workplace​

About half of workers (52%) now say focusing on increasing DEI at work is mainly a good thing, down from 56% in February 2023. The share of workers who say this is a bad thing (21%) is up 5 percentage points since last year. About a quarter (26%) say focusing on DEI is neither good nor bad.
Click to expand...
www.pewresearch.org

Views of DEI have become slightly more negative among U.S. workers

About half of workers (52%) now say focusing on increasing DEI at work is mainly a good thing, down from 56% in February 2023.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

it has gone down, im guessing most likely because of trump, but it is still 2:1 good:bad

so DEI is not unpopular except amongst his base and it is an excellent distraction from his thus far broken promises.
 
clubdeac said:
A lot of assumptions here. Still we’re wasting billions of taxpayer funds. How bout this, the government can waste as much money as you want as long as one of you libs pay my tax bill every year. I mean do you think you’re really paying your fair share?
Click to expand...
sure, and most of the waste is in the defense budget.



you are aware that a 4.7% interest on the total US defense budget would be equivalent to the total USAID budget?


we currently outspend the top 10 nations (other than the US) in defense spending.
 
Ducttape said:
sure, and most of the waste is in the defense budget.



you are aware that a 4.7% interest on the total US defense budget would be equivalent to the total USAID budget?


we currently outspend the top 10 nations (other than the US) in defense spending.
Click to expand...
To me defense is significantly more important than a lot of the other expenditures. That is unless we spend billions in military artillery, weapons, planes, tanks etc and then hand them over to the Taliban. How freaking egregious. Should infuriate every American including you. Talk about waste. Not only wasteful but extremely dangerous for not only those in the area but globally

These are the things that infuriate most Americans and that’s why your candidate lost
 
DoD is the prime target.

the USAID stuff is just red meat for the base.

you want to make a dent on spending, it is 3 areas: 1 DoD. 2. medicare. #3. social security. anything else is pennies on the dollar
 
Last edited:
SSdoc33 said:
DoD is the prime target.

the USAID stuff is just red meat for the base.

you wan to make a dent on spending, it is 3 areas: 1 DoD. 2. medicare. #. social security. anythingg else is pennies on the dollar
Click to expand...
They're gonna have a field day at DOD. Not only is there more waste, but it's much more hidden. Go get em boys.
 
Ducttape said:
actually, and as expected, most americans support dei in the workplace.


www.pewresearch.org

Views of DEI have become slightly more negative among U.S. workers

About half of workers (52%) now say focusing on increasing DEI at work is mainly a good thing, down from 56% in February 2023.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

it has gone down, im guessing most likely because of trump, but it is still 2:1 good:bad

so DEI is not unpopular except amongst his base and it is an excellent distraction from his thus far broken promises.
Click to expand...
In that case, Democrats should make it front and center in every election.

Kamala is planted as the nominee again because she checks all the boxes.

DEI is finally vindicated and the trans people have defeated the white supremacist army!

Wake up ducttape, it was just a dream...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

drusso
  • Poll Poll
Is it time to DOGE pain?
Replies
12
Views
1K
DrSpine
D
drusso
What will happen if Musk/DOGE discovers SOS d(f)??
Replies
22
Views
2K
SpineandWine
SpineandWine
R
Pre-op abx --no IV
Replies
6
Views
576
soccrwz
S
H
No Skin Prep before SCS Implant
Replies
23
Views
2K
CleanUp
CleanUp
drusso
ASPN Guidance on Responsible Conduct on Social Media
Replies
8
Views
1K
drrosenrosen
drrosenrosen
Top