oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

THIS IS HOW YOU MAGA!

---

This is a historic day for American foreign policy. USAID viewed itself as serving the int’l humanitarian community—not the American people or taxpayers. Its failed model resulted in waste, dependency & the erosion of US global influence.

That ends today. Under @POTUS and… https://t.co/2ai3scgWly

— DOGE State (@DOGE_STATE) July 1, 2025

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

If the administration actually wanted to funnel the aid in this direction, then they could have done that in an orderly way that people could plan for, instead of just instantly cutting off the money and allowing starving kids to die. You guys have been falsely presenting the issue like it's some binary choice.

---

OMG. State Dept Spokeswoman Tammy Bruce says 90% of foreign aid never actually made it to its intended destination.

The amount of fraud is mind-boggling. This is why Democrats fought DOGE so hard.

We need more arrests. pic.twitter.com/V24D8ibtoQ

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 2, 2025

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

If the administration actually wanted to funnel the aid in this direction, then they could have done that in an orderly way that people could plan for, instead of just instantly cutting off the money and allowing starving kids to die. You guys have been falsely presenting the issue like it's some binary choice.

---

The Democrats had their chance to fix USAID so millions of starving children in Africa don't have to die.

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

If the administration actually wanted to funnel the aid in this direction, then they could have done that in an orderly way that people could plan for, instead of just instantly cutting off the money and allowing starving kids to die. You guys have been falsely presenting the issue like it's some binary choice.

---

The Democrats had their chance to fix USAID so millions of starving children in Africa don't have to die.

---

Or . . . Republicans could have fixed it themselves while not causing starving children to die. Why is everything always the Democrats' problem?

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

If the administration actually wanted to funnel the aid in this direction, then they could have done that in an orderly way that people could plan for, instead of just instantly cutting off the money and allowing starving kids to die. You guys have been falsely presenting the issue like it's some binary choice.

---

The Democrats had their chance to fix USAID so millions of starving children in Africa don't have to die.

---

Or . . . Republicans could have fixed it themselves while not causing starving children to die. Why is everything always the Democrats' problem?

---

Because money was funneling to groups associated with Democrats?
Because Democrats were opposing Musk and DOGE efforts from the beginning?

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

If the administration actually wanted to funnel the aid in this direction, then they could have done that in an orderly way that people could plan for, instead of just instantly cutting off the money and allowing starving kids to die. You guys have been falsely presenting the issue like it's some binary choice.

---

The Democrats had their chance to fix USAID so millions of starving children in Africa don't have to die.

---

Or . . . Republicans could have fixed it themselves while not causing starving children to die. Why is everything always the Democrats' problem?

---

Because money was funneling to groups associated with Democrats?
Because Democrats were opposing Musk and DOGE efforts from the beginning?

---

Republicans have majorities in both houses.

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

USAID means United States Agency For International Development

It's a intelligence cutout that has nothing to do with saving children lol. Oh and the Washington Post is the mouthpiece for the CIA.

---

So these funding cuts did not kill any of these children, is that what you're saying? All of that reporting is false?

---

No the funding cuts didn't kill any children. That's actually ridiculous to say that. This is american taxpayer money that is suppose to be going to places that benefit the american people. The United States is not a charity. You know what is a charity? Churches. You know what American churches spent their charity money doing? Flooding the United States with immigrants from all over the world and profited off it. Go do some research on Catholic Charities of San Antonio and see what they spent their millions on.

---

So if money was going to something (like food services for children) and then that money was cut off and the children didn't get the food, you would say that the funding cuts had nothing to do with the children starving?

Interesting perspective.

---

I would say the money should never have went to that in the first place which is why the entire USAID got cut out of the government. Hello, is anybody home there? The CIA was using it to fund rebel groups and horrible dictators .

---

So the money should never have been spent to save starving children because the CIA did other bad things. Okay.

EDIT: I just want to point out here that the argument went from "no the spending cuts did not kill the children" to "okay they kind of did but we shouldn't have been spending that money anyway," within the span of about 40 minutes. Remarkable. I await the next step which will surely be "it's good those kids died, actually."

---

It really is mind boggling. MAGA doesn't want anything to do with reality at this point. So, for them, moving the goalposts is easy peasy. Anyway, I just love his "hello, is anybody home there?" It is the cherry on top.

---

And of course we have oski003 stupidly arguing above that Democrats should have scrambled a massive operation to immediately replace a thing the US government has been doing in multiple countries for years. I forgot, it's always the Democrats' fault!

---

No, I am arguing that this aid generally shouldn't come from U.S. taxpayers. If it does, it should be out in the open, instead of funneled by a secretive organization. I'd be much more comfortable if they spearheaded donor initiatives to help impoverished Africans.

---

If the administration actually wanted to funnel the aid in this direction, then they could have done that in an orderly way that people could plan for, instead of just instantly cutting off the money and allowing starving kids to die. You guys have been falsely presenting the issue like it's some binary choice.

---

The Democrats had their chance to fix USAID so millions of starving children in Africa don't have to die.

---

Or . . . Republicans could have fixed it themselves while not causing starving children to die. Why is everything always the Democrats' problem?

---

Because money was funneling to groups associated with Democrats?
Because Democrats were opposing Musk and DOGE efforts from the beginning?

---

Republicans have majorities in both houses.

---

Thus, USAID is gone.

---

sycasey said:

---

And too bad about the dead kids.

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

And too bad about the dead kids.

---

This is dishonest because there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from donating to NGO's.

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

And too bad about the dead kids.

---

This is dishonest because there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from donating to NGO's.

---

And as I said, nothing stopping the Trump government from finding another way to aid those people instead of just cutting them off. They won't, though.

---

Big Beautiful Bill said:

---

I never seen a group of people so smug about losing an election https://t.co/q0iLikPwpI

— Revolutionary Blackout🥋 (@SocialistMMA) June 22, 2025

---

.@epaleezeldin: "The EPA has now cancelled over $22 billion worth of contracts -- $2 billion going to this NGO that Stacey Abrams was tied to. They received only $100 in 2023 and then the Biden administration gave them $2 billion -- The director of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction… pic.twitter.com/wflmrovrL4

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 24, 2025

7/11 2025. 1,300 permanent career Blobicrats, considered for decades to be untouchable, were mass terminated from the US State Department, the center of the Blobiverse. Nothing like it in US statecraft history. "Can you hear the people sing?" pic.twitter.com/MJXVyGwjGs

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) July 12, 2025

https://t.co/SqkwbxYFE1

— @amuse (@amuse) July 13, 2025