fishbane

I am sure that a deal could have been signed without a trip to Washington. What I doubt is if the deal had been hammered out to what either side thought was it's final form before the trip. The drafts that have been reported on were vague both in terms of what money the US would get from the mineral fund and what the US would provide in terms of security. Those seem like the most important parts to both parties.

I asked a question. I did not make any claims. With little doubt Trump and his administration were responsible for the media being at this meeting. I have to guess but I think Zalensky was willing to sign the mineral rights deal and is open to a cease fire, but without security guarantees of some form there is not much point in doing either. There likely was some disagreement in private before this meeting which had not been made public. I would be surprised if the problem of Zalensky wanting security guarantees and Trump only offering the guarantee that "Putin has not broken a deal with me" failed to come up. Why go through with the press Q and A on a deal with such an apparent problem? Doesn't seem like a solid idear to me. Wait until you have an agreement ready to sign. Vance added absolutely nothing to the affair. Why demand a thank you? Letting a lack of a thank you kibosh a deal to end a war doesn't jump out to me as master negotiation. I wonder if Vance will make similar demands of Putin...

Zalensky was responsible for the press being at this meeting?

If this isn't by far the best value for money for the taxpayer I am sure DOGE will cancel it and apply the savings to the national debt.

This is laughable dumb. Musk has been lying and pushing vaporware for well over a decade all whilst his support swung from one political party to the other. When the SEC went after Musk in 2018 after he falsely tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private at a premium was that because he supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016? Did the SEC go after him more recently for failing to disclose his purchase of twitter shares in a timely manner because he supported Trump? If the enforcement actions follow him regardless of who he supports it might just be because he is breaking the law and openly posting about it on the internet.

I don't think Ono would have expected Gilman to be there when he made the trip. Flo put out a video of him wrestling with Jordan Conaway up the other day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKoGJw8LGSQ

That's up at 165. Who knows what his training situation was like between OSU and now. Parco's leaving too. He could be a NQ at 149 or 157. Is he transferring? Probably a better option. Still have to replace Parco.

I am familiar with the concept. Not sure it applies. He often gets in trouble for stuff he says openly at public product release events or tweets about. It wasn't the result of some massive targeted invesitagion that resulted in the SEC looking into him. He for whatever reason tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private at rather large premium over market price. Huge swings in the stock price followed and surprisingly Tesla was never went private. It's like when he called the British diving expert that rejected his Space X built mini-sub for the cave rescue that "Pedo guy" on twitter." Musk initially apologized only to tweet months later "You don’t think it’s strange he hasn’t sued me? He was offered free legal services.” Eventually after that tweet he got sued. He's just minding his own business and trouble finds him...

No tax on tips would encourage more businesses to try ans incorporate them. I wouldn't want that. Is this really a partisan issue. Who wants to see more tablets at checkout that are going to "ask you a question?"

Couldn't he be a fit at 157? Iowa loses Teemer after this year.

On what basis?

51% of voters say Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments are needed in government. You think that was rigged too?

With the condoms mix up I wasn't trying to justify it as an unnecessary cut vs a necessary one it was more to point out how DOGE is proceeding in such a careless manner that they do not realize what they did not even notice the difference. I don't know how anyone can conclude whether or not what they did was wise at this juncture. I would find it impossible to grade their actions as positive being even they don't seem to fully realize what all they have done. It may work out to be far less than advertised. Making mistakes on how much is being saved is the same as making mistakes on how much is actually being spent. Government agencies that can't pass an audit is a problem that any serious undertaking to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse must tackle. DOGE hastily posting misleading and inaccurate savings further obfuscates actual spending levels from the public.

The crack team at DOGE initially reported USAID spent $50MM on condoms sent to Gaza. Trump and his officials thought it was wasteful to send this to Palestine and implied it was likely misappropriated by Hamas to buy bombs because they have no use for condoms. The condoms were sent to Gaza, but it was Gaza the Providence in the country of Mozambique where over 10% of the adult population has HIV... DOGE are cutting things they don't understand in a chaotic and disorganized manner. That ain't efficiency. A bunch of workers in the Department of Energy were hastily let go. Turns out many had important positions managing warheads and disposing of nuclear waste. Now they are trying to hire them back. https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-doge-firings-trump-federal-916e6819104f04f44c345b7dde4904d5 That isn't removing fat so much as cutting off your own foot only to then realize your folly and then have to try and reattach it. No one is complaining about cancelling unnecessary WinZip licenses, superfluous subscriptions, or stopping payments to actually dead or nonexistant people. Not many would complain about trimming the federal workforce in a well thought out and organized manner but why do it in a way that antagonizes those managing our nuclear weapons?

Conservatives have fewer complaints about overspending when it's a Republican in office doing it. Liberals complain less about budget cuts when Democrats are carrying them out.