[I have to make this edit because I overestimated you tards. ENGLISH MOTHERLOVERS. Do you speak it? This post is not about foreign aid in general, whether USAID is corrupt (probably is 
), etc. It is about chuds' attitude to the specific institution USAID over time.]
Above is the google searches for "usaid" over the last 5 years, so it goes all the way back to Trump's first term.
Here's the last month. Notice it has nothing to do with Trump's inauguration. It just suddenly fires up one day when the NPCs got their firmware update.
I've seen chuds all over this place acting like they always knew USAID is corrupt and this has been common knowledge throughout society for a long time.
Here's a good example from @finbarfin: USAID, one of the more infamous money laundering arms of our sprawling government
Infamous? Like Charles Manson? Benedict Arnold? Idi Amin? That Borgia chick who poisoned people? I've never in my life heard someone describe a person as "infamous" because they just became hated by a fraction of the population in the last week.
But Redactor, we've always hated USAID! We've been railing against their corruption for so long.
This site's users are neurodivergent, highly political, mostly right-wing so surely it has come up. Well, let's look at the data. (I know that's what the DOGE boys would do.) It was mentioned in 58 posts, of which 7 are from more than a month ago. It was mentioned in 134 comments, 13 from more than a month ago. Most of these just mention it in passing. Quite a few are negative, but not in the way our current chud program says. Most of these are attacking the politicians who ordered USAID to do something, third world people for stealing, or pointing out the actually true fact that it's largely a corporate welfare program for farmers. I'm not finding anything about corruption in the agency itself.
Did anyone post any evidence that they actually gave a shit about the internal workings of USAID back then? There was one person. Just one person. Can you guess who it was? I'll give you some time to think this over.
It was me! Little old Redactor. Not only did I care, I cared enough to read the entire fricking section of Project 2025 about it.
And what was my opinion of it? It must be some woke soy libtard response. I probably cried on the shoulders of another guy in my polycule. You know me, the left-wing extremist.
I skimmed through Intelligence and USAID. It actually wasn't too scary. Most of it was just boilerplate "we should do things more efficiently" bullshit that could just as easily come from the Democrats. Their only new ideas were funneling aid money to missionaries in Africa and using aid to hurt Iran somehow.
Why did I choose those two sections? Why not health care, education, finance, other more important stuff? Because this was what I felt I was most qualified to evaluate.
I am the only one of you r-slurs who actually knew anything about your issue du jour before now. I even knew what was supposed to be Daddy's game plan for it. You can't deny it. I am the King of Chuds. It's time for you to crown me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I have always been critical of it and I know for a fact that a lot of chud pundits have railed against USAID for a long time--probably going back decades.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I know you well enough to believe that. But for every one of you there's 1,000 chuds who suddenly started caring about it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I mean, of course you're correct, that's how these things work, but it's valid to point it out.
It doesn't mean individuals weren't aware or didn't have a general belief that USAid was bad, yes, most of the opinion of it is new. But I do think for a lot of chuds, it's the specifics they can now point to that confirms the 'Democrats woke DEI care more about foreigners than their own people' narrative they already had, and was in the same basket as 'Why are they letting all these illegal immigrants in?' They could point to effects, but this is a cause they can blame.
Checking it against site posters isn't anything though. As a drama site that's reactive, it would have had to be a subject that others were talking about first. And for example the quote example you use is
@finbarfin posting an article from elsewhere, not their own words. It means very little that it wasn't brought up here because as you point out it wasn't being brought up anywhere else.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Some of these are legitimate fears. I just wish that foreign aid was not caught up with this. One of its purposes is so they don't want to emigrate. This is way cheaper than more border patrols. And that they went after the people appropriating the funding on our end and the ones stealing on the third world end. I know for a fact that both of these groups are extremely corrupt. USAID between them? Could be as bad, but they sure as heck ain't worse.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But the ones people are pointing to have nothing to do with making it so people don't try to go to the US. They might not be much in the scheme of things, but spreading atheism in Tibet or helping fund
plays anywhere have nothing to do with anything except obvious corruption and/or obvious ideological pressure. Very easy to extrapolate that to all the media outlets, advocacy groups, etc.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, that's politics. They point out the $20 million to
s and don't mention the $2 billion in grain. If Musk was just slashing stuff like "LGBTQ advocacy" in Africa, that would be great. I've been wanting that for 10 or 20 years. My problem is him gutting the whole agency and causing a bunch of illegals to come here, and causing a bunch of kids to starve to death all over some stupid twitter culture war.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You need to stop worrying about the years later knock-on effects from declared intentions, and embrace the drama of the now, before half these things get rolled back or declared illegal and creates that drama.
They're pummelling a boogeyman right now, so everyone's either cheering them on or defending their target, depending. It's a big, dramatic action, but you can't assume how much of it will last. I'm not saying you're wrong, though you might be. I'm saying it's far too early to even know what's going to happen to leave a knock-on effect.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
That's because chuds wait tirelessly to wait on what dear leader suddenly decides warrants their new two minute hate.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context