- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 36,151
- Reaction score
- 40,972
But then why use his name if it has nothing to do with him? I don't know how long this has agency was around, but why not say "over the last 4, 9, 23 years"? I'm not even giving an opinion on this topic because I don't know anything about it. I'm just reading this thread and notice yet-a-fucking-gain more Trump good Biden bad. You say it's not about Biden, but that's a tough sell when his name is you're reference point is all I'm saying.
No, it provides perfect context. Because during the last 4-5 years, under the previous administration, they obviously did a shitty job, losing track of those minors and all the other people being trafficked.
Now the new administration, which ran on cutting wasteful government spending, sees this agency that was basically ineffective and doing a clearly horrible job. So cut it and reallocate the resources or simply cut spending. The people should be fired anyways, so they would have to rebuild or reform the office anyways.
My post clearly presents that, by saying “under Biden they lost track of all the trafficked kids they were supposedly monitoring, clearly not doing their job effectively”. Which was the gist of my post, implying this is a good cut