All valid concerns. I’d argue all also manageable with some education, experience, and common sense.

crypto bullshit

Boom! Thats what I was going for. Lemmy seems so anti-crypto when it has real use cases like this. Even here stumbling into where it’s useful you call it bullshit, why?

What about the face scans through TSA and customs? I assumed those were going into every 3 letter agencies databases.

Justifying the existence of the government commission in terms of a tangible benefit to the public would dispel doubts that it is worth keeping… A point of the question is that disapproving of bullshit firings is not enough to justify a government commission: we may need a separate justification to understand this is absolutely worth fighting for & that would make a more compelling reason to oppose Trump over it.

No one was talking about axing the commission until you showed up. It is not obvious to me from your question the point was about justifying the existence of the commission in a thread about about the firing of the heads of the commission because they had negative review of the 2 vanity projects because sacking the heads does not change its funding status.

We shouldn’t have to state our inner thoughts or explain ourselves to pose a question.

You certainly don’t have to but then it forces others to fave to read into your thoughts to respond. You say I think I’m psychic but it only comes across that way when you’re not sharing what your thoughts are or explaining. We’ve moved past that because you’ve laid out what your thoughts were. Since you have I don’t think it really matters where you stand on the reason for the firings because it seems you’re saying the firing is justified because the commission doesn’t yield objective value (while at the same time acknowledging the firing has no impact on the commissions spending).

Anyway I did some research, here’s a response to your initial question:

• The commission has ensured that taxpayer-funded buildings and infrastructure contribute to the civic environment - often preventing costly design mistakes or preserving assets that would be expensive (or impossible) to recover once lost. This gets to my point earlier that they oppose monstrosities like “Arc de Trump” which is something I think you’d agree with is wasteful.
• They had a pivotal role in transforming Washington, D.C. into a coherent national capital. In the 1900s, Washington’s core was disorganized - eg a railroad ran across the National Mall. The CFA pushed a blueprint to create the National Mall into a broad, open vista linking the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. They oversaw the planning of entire complexes like the Federal Triangle and guided a consistent architectural style. This is not just subjective. They helped create a functionally organized city that accommodates public gatherings, national ceremonies, and tourism. Millions visit these well-planned public spaces each year. At the very least, this “objectively” brings millions of dollars from international visitors.
• the CFA played a central role in the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial which is one of the most acclaimed war memorials in the world. Regardless of your view of the military, monuments like that help give it the impression of respect and honor to soldiers which is important for recruitment. They also review designs for military medals and insignia like the purple heart and medal of honor. Here’s a fun idea - under the next 6 commissioners what do you think the next military medal will look like? A gilded profile of Trump?

The CFA mandate is rooted in the understanding that architecture and urban design are matters of public interest, not just subjective taste. You asked for something non-subjective? The buildings are physical objects standing right there in DC, what is more objective and concrete than actual concrete?

Edit - to be fair I did see spending that seems low valued and pretty loosely aligned to their mandate. $400 million for 2024 for these recipients seems pretty steep. But to say there’s no value in the CFA goes too far and funding of the CFA is a different topic entirely that what is focused on by the OP article which is about Trump firing what is supposed to be an independent organization because he didn’t like their report. The government benefits from independent, non-political groups to ground itself in reality and the inference to be gained from the article is that Trump is bulldozing that concept.

Instead of directly saying what you meant you posed what you thought was a gotcha question. You had an opinion to share which was this:

Fine arts mostly seem like refined subjectivity & a racket for the ultra wealthy to store wealth.

If you’ll allow me to extrapolate, and please correct me if this is wrong, your position boils down to: “good riddance they’re a waste of public spending anyway.”

Which fails to recognize Trump didn’t get rid of the commission, he just fired the 6 members. Theyll be replaced with sycophants and continue to spend whatever money they were before.

Again I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your initial question, but I want you to answer mine because I suspect you’re posting in bad faith and were just trying to hide your opinion (which again if you’re saying they’re a waste of spending they are not being cut just replaced). Why do you think they were fired?

Ok I’ll take back coward since you came out and said it. I don’t want to hash out the value of government funding the arts here as others have written elsewhere on both sides of the subject more persuasively than either of us will do justice here. Suffice to say we likely differ in opinion.

I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your question if you first answer this: Why do you think Trump fired them?

He won the primary so they have to run him.

Democracy in action! Those darned democrats.

I feel like yours is just an unproductive, cynical take. Look what the republicans did to transform from Bush era neo-con to whatever the fuck they are now. Sure the incumbents have an advantage, but parties do shift in their makeup and priorities. Instead of bemoaning the Democratic Party his win within it should be celebrated and a signal that it can be realigned into something people will get out and vote for. Really what is the alternative you are advocating for?

Edit: Read through the other comments eg https://lemmy.world/comment/20106587 I was just trying to highlight Mamdani winning as the system working and that DINOs like Coumo can be replaced. There are a lot of corrupt and entrenched democrats we agree on that.

See reply to another poster - I meant to point out that if governments move to censor sites the payment processors will move in lockstep to the govt in censoring payments.

I should have been more direct - if a site accepts credit card payments then they are working with a payment processor that will absolutely 100% cooperate with the govt in choking off sites access to revenue. So to answer your question did cc’s stop working on websites - yes! on many that a govt has decided needs to be shut down, for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. Wikileaks donations being a famous example but if a site doesn’t comply with Texas you bet they can snap their fingers and all payment processors will jump from that site.

Not a single one of those (collected over years) is as grandiose as those mentioned in the article from a single speech Trump made. If you had any desire to participate in good faith you’d acknowledge there is a 2 orders of magnitude difference between total false/misleading claims and a cursory review of the worst statements differ to the point of insanity.

They clearly were fired for critical opinions about the 2 vanity projects. If their expert opinions were used to help win lawsuits to prevent them from happening it’d be hundreds of millions of dollars saved.

Anyway all value is subjective, even dollars. If you are trying to say fine arts are not worth it then dont be a coward, come out and say it instead of trying to imply it by “just asking questions” Mr Tucker.

I was going to say vimeo but checked the dates to make sure I remembered right - looks like it was up even before youtube 2004 vs 2005.

Isn’t Mamdani a democrat? Can you explain how the democratic party running Mamdani shows they are removed from their voters?

What about payments?

The Democratic Party ran someone 19 years younger than trump and you used the wrong gender pronoun for her.