TBayXXXVII

The point is, anyone that anybody brings on to look into wasteful spending is going to be someone they have ties to. Let's say that Harris won this past election and she wanted to look into this. Who do you think she'd bring in? It would be a DNC donor. There's a 0.0% chance that anyone in the White House wouldn't bring in someone they or the party is comfortable with. That person will be a political donor... guaranteed. So, that's why I said, "you mean someone on your side". You're ok with a Democrat president doing what Trump is doing and you'll acquiesce to whomever they choose to do what Musk is doing.

Yup, moving in the right direction.

That's actually pretty funny.

I believe that was coal miners he said that to.

Sure it's not.

Ok, so you don't want to answer the question. I mean, it was a "yes" or "no" question.

So no then. Got it. Why didn't you just say that you want your side to do it? At least you'd be honest.

Well, then I'm sure you have a list of names to share, right?

You mean like when a VP openly admits to a quid quo pro (which was proven to have happened), on national tv (which gets ignored), using government money to protect his son?

So a far leftist politician then?

Who said anything about research? It was a simple question. I'm asking if you'd have a problem with the government funding your so called "Some conservative dark money non-profit propaganda outfit", to make these ad campaigns against the Cleveland Clinic.

Nope, not confused at all. I'm simply asking if you'd have a problem with the government funding your so called "Some conservative dark money non-profit propaganda outfit", to make these ad campaigns against the Cleveland Clinic.

This thread is a perfect example of how 90% of the country agrees with Trump on this issue while the other 10% don't. While that is the case, the left side of the aisle will champion the cause of the 10% because they don't like the person leading the 90%. But when the left side of the aisle gets back into power, they'll eliminate men playing women's sports and take credit for it.

For our board leftists... to be clear, you're saying that if the federal government funneled tax dollars into "Some conservative dark money non-profit propaganda outfit", who's job it was to target organizations like the Cleveland Clinic in this fashion, you wouldn't want Trump and DOGE to shut it down?

Winner!

No, he blocks me because I prove how stupid he is all the time. He doesn't like that.

Yeah, that would be funny.

Nah, states rights. If the people in the state don't like it, they can elect someone to change the law.

The NCAA is the rule of law for universities. The E.O. states that men can be a part of the team, but can not compete. The NCAA is complying with that, so if a school like San Jose St wants to keep the dude on their Volleyball team, they're allowed to do so, he just can't actually play. I don't believe there's a work-around. Is it possible that SJSU and UCLA agree to let the dude play? Maybe. If that's the case, I'm ok with it as long as all the ladies involved are 100% unanimous in letting it happen. If 1 woman says "no", it's "no".

Tom Chambers

How would you know, you ignore all of us.

It wouldn't get to that point. If a team in Maine travels to a state upholding federal law, the dude can not compete. If they refuse, they forfeit. They'd travel for nothing. No one would be arrested.

State's rights. I'm fine with this. The thing is, the executive order protects the states that want to protect the rights of women against the ones who don't. So, if a team from Maine or California travels to say, Ohio, for example... any men on those women's teams will not be allowed to participate in those sporting events. Schools in states that want to protect women's rights, can decide for themselves if they want to schedule sporting events in states where they don't want to protect women's rights. The NCAA is currently saying that they will uphold the executive order, so this would mainly be for high school and lower level sports... is my guess. If the constituents of those states don't like their laws, they're free to elect someone who will change them.

ThEy WrOtE a BoOk!!!

All I need to see is what's happening right now. Democrats are absolutely furious... NOT at the actual programs being targets (i.e., trans operas and such), but the groups (i.e. USAID). This tells me that they don't care where the actual money is going, but how it's getting there. It tells me that there's even more than what we know about. I also see the Republicans very quiet. If they were on the side of stopping this, they'd be all gung ho in criticizing and pointing specific bills and whatnot, that had ear marks they don't like. But they're mum. That tells me that they're just as guilty.