Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
340d
Democrats were the party of "reinventing government." Then, they decided to weaponize it. The reason Democrats today defend waste, fraud, and abuse, even at the expense of the separation of powers, is because their wealth and their ability to rule depend on it.
2/22/2025, 2:34:46 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
P.P.S. It appears Congress will still need to vote to eliminate USAID entirely, since Congress created it. This ruling simply allows for the job cuts to go forward.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
PS: "If you're tired of starting over, stop giving up." — Master SLB
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
There has long been cynicism about a president's ability to shrink the federal government to make it more efficient.

This ruling proves it can be done, with no "constitutional crisis" required.

As the kids say, "You can just do things."

/END
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The caricature of government employees is that they act entitled to their jobs. Well, that's how these USAID employees behaved.

The plaintiffs claimed that losing their jobs would cause "irreparable damage." But unemployment is repairable. You can get another job.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The plaintiffs themselves admitted when confronted, that many of their claims weren't true, including the notion that the funding freeze had prevented
USAID employees from paying their bills.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The rhetoric employed by the media, USAID's activist labor union, and the taxpayer-funded NGO industrial complex was grossly irresponsible and constituted emotional blackmail.

At various moments, the judge scolds the plaintiffs for being misleading:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi…

The statement and conversation engage in public discourse by discussing government efficiency, job security, and political actions. The tone is critical and somewhat accusatory, particularly towards government employees and political parties.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement criticizes government employees and political parties, potentially causing harm by generalizing and attributing negative motives. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement may not fully respect the dignity of government employees by characterizing them as entitled and misleading. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding towards those potentially losing their jobs, focusing instead on political critique. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in personal attacks against political parties, rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]