News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/42981756. Parent comment

Re: by ganoushoreilly on Monday February 10, 2025 @12:15PM (#43002622)
Then bring charges and challenge actions in court. That's how the law works.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by DiogenesKynikos on Monday February 10, 2025 @12:56PM (#43003101)
You first justified the Trump administration's blatantly illegal actions by saying Americans voted for Trump. Now, you're saying it's all fine, because anyone can challenge Trump's illegal actions in court.

The fact that the president is taking one extreme, illegal action after the next in rapid succession is itself extremely alarming and unprecedented in American history. The fact that the Vice President has publicly declared that courts have no right to overrule the President's illegal actions is equally alarming.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by ganoushoreilly on Monday February 10, 2025 @01:14PM (#43003308)
He is the president, the population elected him. You have a process to rectify it if you feel so inclined. He won and now your views aren't the views of power and it must suck, I sympathize with that but progress is going to continue regardless if it's your vision. Plenty would say the same is true about the prior president and the excessive heavy handed actions taken towards DEI and other programs that have been found to be unconstitutional, you know, within the courts as the system requires. There is a process. If you don't want to play the game, using the process, any outcomes you don't like are on you for failing to change it. You as in the collective of opinion.

Go outside, take a walk, breath, it's going to be ok.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by DiogenesKynikos on Monday February 10, 2025 @02:02PM (#43003862)
> He is the president, the population elected him.

That doesn't give him the right to shred the Constitution.

> You have a process to rectify it if you feel so inclined.

A process that the Vice President has said the President is free to ignore.

You're justifying an all-out assault on the Constitution of the US. The President isn't following "the process" - which seems not to concern you in the slightest.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by almosthere on Monday February 10, 2025 @02:07PM (#43003944)
Why not get mad at all the money appropriated to USAID to fund specific causes and find out most of that money went to pay for houses near Langley, VA and Politico accounts? That's a much larger scandal than this super transparent process happening.

The scandal is now super deep. They just caught FEMA funding another $60 M going to hotels in NYC! Prepare for this to get deeper. I hope they root out all corruption. My hat is off to them, I'm extremely overjoyed they're finally fixing our government. This is the best government the USA has ever had.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by DiogenesKynikos on Monday February 10, 2025 @03:07PM (#43004571)
> Why not get mad at all the money appropriated to USAID to fund specific causes and find out most of that money went to pay for houses near Langley, VA and Politico accounts?

It didn't, and I'm disappointed to see that there are people on HN who fall for such absurd falsehoods.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by almosthere on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @01:44AM (#43009733)
https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-check-politico-usaid-fu...

See corrections at the bottom. It's confirmed that $8.2M from USAID and other us gov agencies went to politico!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by DiogenesKynikos on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @03:26AM (#43010371)
Have you even read the article you linked to? It says that USAID only paid $44k to Politico, for subscriptions to a publication it runs.

$44k is nowhere near "most" of USAID's budget. It's less than 0.0001%. If you want USAID to stop subscribing to publications, that's a very minor change. You don't shut down an entire agency over that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by almosthere on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @11:58AM (#43015133)
Comically they wrote an article, then fact checked themselves in the correction basically saying they the original reporting was correct.

> Also, the $8.2 million figure cited refers to payments in the 12 months leading up to February 2025, not dating back to 2016.

Talk about lying profusely. USAID is an ARM of the CIA, why would you want that?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by DiogenesKynikos on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @03:50PM (#43018183)
You still haven't addressed the fact that USAID only paid $44k to Politico (over two years, for subscriptions), which is less than 0.0001% of USAID's budget.

You said USAID spends most of its budget on Politico and apartments near Langley. Are you going to admit that that was nonsense, before switching to your next argument?

[ Parent | on HN ]