Why the American People and the Courts mostly approve DOGE

[Robert W]

You can address what I said or not. I suppose it's going to be not.

Having conversations with you is similar to trying to converse with a dog or cat.

 

[Robert W]

Why the American People and the Courts mostly approve​

You were not clear earlier. Her title however was not discussed by her.

 

[pknopp]

Having conversations with you is similar to trying to converse with a dog or cat.

You can address what I said or spin what I said. Spin is what you opted for.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not trolling. Just stating the info you expect is out there. It's quite possible you need to venture out.

If the information as you put it is out there, you can surely provide one link from a credible source. Making derogatory posts and juvenile insults without any evidence to back them up is pretty much the definition of trolling.

 

[pknopp]

You were not clear earlier. Her title however was not discussed by her.

Why be clear when all you will do is spin it?

 

[Foxfyre]

You can address what I said or spin what I said. Spin is what you opted for.

I have addressed what you said and have asked that you support it with any credible evidence. That you seem incapable of doing.

 

[Robert W]

To Dante okfine pknopp or any other leftists, the question in the OP is:

Question: What justification do those on the left have to oppose cutting the waste, fraud, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, incompetence, corruption out of our federal government?

Will any of you answer that question?

His answer was not to your question. He defined himself as a Republican.

 

[pknopp]

I have addressed what you said and have asked that you support it with any credible evidence. That you seem incapable of doing.

I posted the Supreme Court case and noted that you can read the many cases posted here.

 

[Robert W]

Why be clear when all you will do is spin it?

That is what I mean by saying conversing with you is similar to chatting with animals.
Why be clear? It promotes excellent conversation.

 

[okfine]

If the information as you put it is out there, you can surely provide one link from a credible source. Making derogatory posts and juvenile insults without any evidence to back them up is pretty much the definition of trolling.

One judge says Musk can go forward. You make it sound like every judge sides with Musk.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-extends-block-musks-doge-treasury-systems-2025-02-21/

 

[pknopp]

That is what I mean by saying conversing with you is similar to chatting with animals.
Why be clear? It promotes excellent conversation.

I was clear and you spun it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump wanted them to rule for him NOW. They refused. He didn't get what he wanted. Spin it all you want.

I have seen no account anywhere in which NOW appears in the request. He asked for SCOTUS opinion. SCOTUS chose to wait until a federal court made its ruling. I'm pretty sure Trump is okay with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

False fake, question.

The narrative spin is undeserving of a serious response.

Nobody is opposing cutting the waste, fraud, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, incompetence, corruption out of our federal government. Framing it as if they do is despicable, disingenuous, deceitful, and downright demented.

Then why are are you condemning Trump/Musk/DOGE for cutting waste, fraud, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, incompetence, corruption out of our federal government? How else should I frame it?

Please enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Foxfyre]

When intelligent people look into a full context they grasp the nuances and more. But then you are just trolling with weak arguments, false narrative sand bullshit as dessert

But you seem to be unable to say why they are 'weak arguments, false narrative sand bullshit.' Why is that?

 

[daveman]

Then why are are you condemning Trump/Musk/DOGE for cutting waste, fraud, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, incompetence, corruption out of our federal government? How else should I frame it?

Please enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know.

You're just not "nuanced" enough. That's why he tried on me.

 

[Robert W]

Most court cases have went against Trump and Musk.

Temporarily is all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh please, on numerous occasions you have failed to do what you request now. Doing such is just a waste of time and effort as you would surely ignore and talk over any real specific examples, from verifiable by credible sources. You support Tucker Carlson, FOX News and other discredited media. You have denied and ignored violence on Jan 6, 2021.

You have along history here, and it supports what Dante is claiming here. Anyone interested in the facts can use the SEARCH feature right here at usmb

I provided examples and a rationale in the OP which you have refused to address. When I cite fact I can defend it with reason, logic, and/or credible evidence.

Can you do that? Have you ever done that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Temporarily is all.

Not even most actually. The only ones ruling against Trump are the most woke, partisan judges so far and they are ruling against the constitutional authority of the President of the United States. They hardly can be taken seriously.

 

[pknopp]

Temporarily is all.

Whether they are or not, they have not went for Trump which is counter to the thread title.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're just not "nuanced" enough. That's why he tried on me.

And I'll give you full credit for not taking their bait and being able to defend your arguments.