politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Not eliminate, just privatize and make money off of it by stiffing every person, company, and publicly owned... Oh wait yeah, just hurting everyone.
If the agencies were privatized, they would cease to exist. That is. Eliminated.
You don’t get privatized health care from the government, either.
Doubt they would eliminate the names, that would hurt the "creditibility" beholden by the names they would want to use for their gain. I think it would go more like Amtrak, or the Prison systems. Destroying the pieces they don't want, and making profits off the parts they can. Slowly pushing their agendas hiding behind the name of something they can use a disguise while most of the country never recognizes it changed. The parts they can't profit off of they would leave as a burden to the people, and the profitable and influencial parts they will strip and grab.
Okay, but they literally said they would eliminate them in Project 2025. It's being awful generous to claim they only want to do the lite version of eliminate. Boil the frog is over, MAGA is masks off crazy. They probably won't be able to do it, because odds are good that the House at least will be blue in 2025 thanks to some of the more egregious gerrymanders getting fixed, but that doesn't mean they don't openly want to do it. These people are not smooth operators stealing brand awareness, they are chimpanzees flinging shit at the wall
Where in Project 2025 do they say that? Because it says to break it up and commercialize it everywhere I have seen. So I am saying why that it bad, not just making up that they said to eliminate it where I haven't seen.
Dang, you're right, I was wrong. It calls for NWS to be commercialized, which could technically be interpreted as either sell off the assets to weather.com or as lay off all the employees and pay weather.com 10x their salary in contracts to get the same product. It calls for NOAA to be downsized alongside NWS' commercialization. It calls for FEMA to pay much less out to states and eliminate its preparedness grants and insurance programs. All that in mind, it kind of seems tailor made to specifically fuck over Florida and other hurricane/flooding prone states, but it doesn't call for eliminating the agencies. My bad, thanks for the correction!
You sir, are a good person. I will forever be in your gratitude for following up in research. I always try to follow truth within my arguments. You today helped me know I didn't lie. Thank you
You're forgetting the handful of people that will profit wildly from this, so technically not everyone...just most (99.9% +/-)
It doesn’t hurt any people, in their eyes we’re just living human capital.
Outrageous. Republicans would never withhold important info about a disaster just to make a quick buck!