Some people want a leaner government, but they also want that achieved with care and thoughtfulness by domain experts. Chesterton's fence comes to mind.

This seems unlikely. If even 5% of Trump voters don’t want to see this, that very likely means less than half of voters wanted this. That’s a very small margin to work with. From here in Canada it doesn’t look like this is a popular action to take.

I could be wrong and maybe tons of democrat voters want to see this… But what I’m seeing online indicates otherwise.

No candidate received more than 50% of the votes cast in the last US presidential election.

Okay, what I meant is more like "if only 5% of the largest body of voters don't want what the administration they voted for is doing, it's very possible that more than 50% of all voters combined (regardless of who they voted for) don't want what's happening"

no they didn't.

They voted cuz they like daddy trump, cuz he tells it like it is, or some other similar cult bullshit.

The amount of leopards-eating-face, while satisfying, is also overwhelmingly sad in its significant blast radius for those of us that knew what we were getting into, but had no choice but to go along for the horrible ride.

Yes, this is what was voted in: demolition of the existing adminstrative state, and the collapse of America's reputation as a world leader (to be replaced as the world Bully).

But I hardly think this is what voters actually wanted.

Odd claims and you didn't really support it (I use Google to find everything doesn't matter how well organized the site is). Why do you have inherent bias against public sector tech workers

>My tax dollars are better spent not having a website in most of these cases.

Blame your rep for it then. We don't set the budget. We vote in people we trust are in our best interest to set such spending.

> Why do you have inherent bias against public sector tech workers

huh?

Your comment is flagged now, but I recall you saying seething to the effect of "the idea that a government website is laudable is laughable". There were general sentiments that a government website was naturally disposed to he a chaotic mess. I identified that as a bias against a government website. Aka the workers who work on it.

Sound fcc.gov has not been using the USDS playbook.

The US government was funding Afghan farmers to grow 'crops'. I'm fairly sure that wasn't cotton.

in Seeds Of Terror by Gretchen Peters points out those subsidies helped farmers NOT farm opium for the Taliban. If you think of it from an Afghani farmer's perspective: why would you farm any other crop that pays significantly less per yield when you have a family to feed?

Congress doesn't allow for funding of crops in other counties that compete on the international market.

Seems like they do

It was strawberries.