[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.
Foreign aid might be a better search term as that's what people would normally complain about rather than saying USAID
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, there's always been quite a few people who thought we were giving too much away. Our media is really bad at explaining things like what you can actually buy with $1 billion or even what the federal budget goes to. So naturally a lot of people are going to think it's more than a pittance. These are also exactly the same people who never heard USAID mentioned in their entire life.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I mean $1 billion in spending could instead be used to give everyone a ~$3 tax cut. Do that 50 times or so and that's a nice bit of spare change. I think if you asked Americans if they would be fine axing all this shit in exchange for $150 bucks a year they'd take it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, I would too. But it's fricking bonkers to expect that the federal government isn't going to waste $20 million on one thing or another. It's like all the other crimes. Murder is always going to be with us. It'll never go away, but you can suppress it to the lowest level possible.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We've accumulated a lot of nonsense $20m expenditures, and now we've decided it's time to finally clean it up.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
lol
!remindme 10 years
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I will be messaging you on 09.02.2035, 07:26 UTC to remind you of this comment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeahhhhhh neighbor! I probably will be a warlord by then but maybe we'll still have internet
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
By sending in a bunch of zoomers? Are any of them even accountants?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'll take it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's also bonkers to expect people to just accept our federal government spending like a black women at a crab legs and daiquiri bar
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, "why are fricking we giving money to other countries when things are so fricking fricked up here" has honestly been a fricking bipartisan sentiment for awhile.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You hear it all over the world. Ask an Iranian if they're happy about all the billions of dollars that were wasted on Hezbollah. They were pissed off about that even back when Hezbollah was popular.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Pretty much. Saying "no one was looking up USAID a decade ago" is like saying "no one was looking up DEI a decade ago". It's not because people just now started taking issue with it, it's because it used to be called "affirmative action". It's not a perfect analogy since the United States Agency for International Development has been around since the 1960s, but it's the same general idea. A change in vocabulary doesn't indicate a change in ideology, despite what proponents of linguistic relativity/determinism would have you believe.
!marseyartists, can we get a SapirβWhorf Marsey? 1,000 DC for the best one.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You fricking r-slurs: I am NOT talking about foreign aid over the last billion years. I have tried to drill this through your thick Cro-Magnon skulls about 10 times by now. I am very specifically talking about accusations of corruption within USAID.
That's it. I'm just not responding anymore to tards trying to argue with me about something I never said. Especially when I have repeatedly laid out very very precisely exactly what I'm talking about. It is kinda interesting tho how almost everyone has tried to deflect the conversation onto some other topic. Is it perhaps because I'm right and you know it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why do you think this is different? You're acting like USAID is this mysterious unknown thing totally unrelated to foreign aid. It's like you're going to someone who hates big pharma "Oh, you also hate this particular company called Pharmacorp even though you only just heard about it?"
B-word it's all the same shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I feel like Redactor 0 was baiting everyone and you idiots swallowed it fully.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Maybe I just wanted an excuse to ask for a SapirβWhorf Marsey and used
@Morpheuswipe's comment to do it. Ever think of that, smarty-pants? 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm gonna spend years studying linguistics so that someday I can get in some prestigious journal with "A New Take on the Whofian Hypothesis". And then when you turn to that page there's a big picture of Lt. Cmdr. Worf.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context