Doge Clock...

As and FYI,

This site, that is not really a government website in that it was not created to be secure and can be edited and changed by anyone (like Wikipedia) on public servers (not gov) does not matter?

When they first started and ACTUALLY posted the receipts with full connection to the underlying data the media was able to prove almost ALL of their claims to be lies or MASSIVE exaggerations which lead them to stop posting the data that they said informed their findings and instead said 'you can find it yourself as the gov't data is all open source' (a ridiculous thing to say) and have since continued to make these claims that largely cannot be verified as a result.

It certainly seems that Damo SO BADLY WANTS TO BELIEVE this that it makes him overlook that this site has zero credibility and is no better than me creating a site tracking how much Doge is costing taxpayers with no verifiable data and updating that and Damo citing my website as if proof?
 
QP! said:
Why do you think any of that matters? Serious question.

Would you agree you are just immensely pliable and easily swayed by a desire for confirmation bias?
Click to expand...
I literally am posting a link to the website with a line by line on what they have done and where their numbers come from. You can refute the information or not. I'm guessing not since you post this trying to make it about me personally and suggest I am somehow prone to "confirmation bias".

So. Since it is clear you cannot refute any of the items, it may take some introspection on your behalf to find the "confirmation bias".
 
Damocles said:
I literally am posting a link to the website with a line by line on what they have done and where their numbers come from. You can refute the information or not. I'm guessing not since you post this trying to make it about me personally and suggest I am somehow prone to "confirmation bias".

So. Since it is clear you cannot refute any of the items, it may take some introspection on your behalf to find the "confirmation bias".
Click to expand...
Right. So you have just proved this is entirely on 'what you want to believe' and you being, what i have said prior, is the exact type of dupe Trump and magats rely upon. NOt the core hardcore magat but more the mushy edge who they need to identify as EASILY DUPED as i have pointed out to prior, MANY TIMES, that Doge STARTED giving verifiable data but switched that and is giving now MOSTLY only giving links to an entire area WITHOUT giving specifics.,

So the typical Doge way to claim data is to link to the 'health and services government website' and basically tell you what they claim and the data to back it up, is in there, so you just have to go find it.

An IMPOSSIBILITY and they know it, but they could on people like you, Damo, who will fall for it.
 
QP! said:
Right. So you have just proved this is entirely on 'what you want to believe' and you being, what i have said prior, is the exact type of dupe Trump and magats rely upon. NOt the core hardcore magat but more the mushy edge who they need to identify as EASILY DUPED as i have pointed out to prior, MANY TIMES, that Doge STARTED giving verifiable data but switched that and is giving now MOSTLY only giving links to an entire area WITHOUT giving specifics.,

So the typical Doge way to claim data is to link to the 'health and services government website' and basically tell you what they claim and the data to back it up, is in there, so you just have to go find it.

An IMPOSSIBILITY and they know it, but they could on people like you, Damo, who will fall for it.
Click to expand...
Right, so you cannot refute any of what they listed.
 
I do not expect @Damocles can or will read the below as it would shatter the world view he needs to keep telling himself and he WANTS to live in his delusion.

I have provided this type of data before but he just keeps coming back every couple of weeks, like he never saw it, and carries on with this BS as usual.

And the work below has verifiable citations unlike what Damo and the Doge site do not.


--------------

AI Summary:




The data on Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s website is frequently not reliably traceable or verified. Many of its “savings” claims appear overstated or unsubstantiated. opb+2CBS News+2



🔎 What we know about DOGE’s data-claims and their problems​


  • The DOGE site published a “wall of receipts” listing cancelled federal contracts, leases, and other savings, claiming large totals (initially ~$55 billion, later larger numbers). VPM+1
  • But independent reviews (by NPR, news outlets, and contract-tracking organizations) found major issues: many entries are inflated, mis-typed, or double/triple counted. In one case a contract was listed as $8 billion when the real ceiling was $8 million. opb+2WJCT News 89.9+2
  • Of the first ~500 “cancelled” contracts DOGE claimed, external auditors verified only a fraction — with the total actual savings closer to $2 billion rather than the $8–16 billion DOGE initially claimed for that set. VPM+2KPBS Public Media+2
  • Many listed entries are missing critical information: contract IDs, whether the contract was partially or fully canceled, whether payments were already made, etc. That makes cross-checking with public government contract databases (e.g. FPDS, USASpending.gov) difficult or impossible. wvia.org+1
  • Some of the “savings” appear to come from canceling contracts that had already expired or been fully executed — meaning “cancellation” didn’t actually avert spending. VPM+1
  • Further, large headline numbers like total claimed savings (e.g. “$170 billion”) include projections, non-itemized “regulatory savings,” workforce reductions, or “fraud detection,” for which the underlying data or documentation is often missing or unclear. CBS News+2X (formerly Twitter)+2


⚠️ Why many experts and watchdogs call the claims untrustworthy​


  • Contract auditing and procurement experts note that DOGE often omits key data needed for verification (contract ID, award methods, expenditure history). That makes it impossible to confirm whether a cancellation actually yields savings. wvia.org+1
  • The pattern of overstated contract values, inflated totals, and double-counting suggests systemic issues rather than mere occasional mistakes. TIME+2CBS News+2
  • Even after corrections, DOGE has often kept the original inflated totals on its public “savings” counters. opb+1
  • For many claimed “cuts” (grants, leases, regulatory savings), there is no publicly verifiable record — raising serious doubts whether they produced any net fiscal benefit. Wikipedia+1

Assessment (As of Nov 2025)​


DOGE’s savings claims are largely unsubstantiated. While some real contract cancellations and minor savings exist, the vast majority of the large-dollar totals rest on incomplete, mis-reported, or unverifiable data. The “wall of receipts” and total-savings counters often exaggerate or double-count, while missing enough detail that third-party auditing is difficult.


So if you treat DOGE’s site at face value — e.g. “DOGE saved $170 billion” — that is not a reliable, data-verified claim. At best, a small fraction (likely low single-digit percent) of that claim could credibly reflect real, traceable savings.
 
Everyone needs to understand this as you can see Damocles is unable to understand this...

Damocles said:
Right, so you cannot refute any of what they listed.
Click to expand...
It is impossible by design.

They know that and count on people like you (stupid) to think that means anything.


If i tell you in a park there is billion dollars that you can find and keep, but i refuse to tell you where you it is, you Damo can scour every inch searching for it, and if you say to me to 'i could not find it', i can still claim it was there and you just missed it.

I can say 'you never proved it was not there... no matter how many times you searched and failed... as you are just a failure'

I can repeat the 'proof is there' and there is NO WAY for you to prove it is not.

I can, however prove it IS THERE, by pointing at it.

Doge REFUSES to point out the data they are using. What they do is say 'the proof is in the Health and human Services data base... go find it'.

Anyone not Damocles should not be stupid enough to fall for that but Damo will fall for it each and every time.

Damocles will then repeat 'so you could not prove it wrong' as if that means anything.
 
Damocles said:
I believe you found your confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Those are citations with facts and the answer could have came back saying the opposite. I did not need to shop for it and exclude other source which is what you are doing. You can pump into any AI engine or use google search to find what i cited above. But you do NONE of that. You stick to one site already exposed... ALREADY BUSTED FOR BAD USE OF DATA AND LIES and you 'trust it'.
 
Damocles said:
I believe you found your confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
And even @FastLane, or maybe it was @T. A. Gardner knows what you do not know.

They admitted, when we dug in to this prior, that Doge switched from pointing at specific data to just saying 'this saving is sourced from data in the Health and Human Services open data set... and it is up to you to find the specifics which are in there', but they said it was fine to do that, since the data set is open sourced.

But as i stated then and now, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for any one to prove something is not in a massive large data set. You saying you searched and could not find it, does not prove it is not there. It only proves you did not find it. And that is exactly why Doge switched to not linking to the exact data and instead mostly only cites the source bucket.
 
QP! said:
And even @FastLane, or maybe it was @T. A. Gardner knows what you do not know.

They admitted, when we dug in to this prior, that Doge switched from pointing at specific data to just saying 'this saving is sourced from data in the Health and Human Services open data set... and it is up to you to find the specifics which are in there', but they said it was fine to do that, since the data set is open sourced.

But as i stated then and now, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for any one to prove something is not in a massive large data set. You saying you searched and could not find it, does not prove it is not there. It only proves you did not find it. And that is exactly why Doge switched to not linking to the exact data and instead mostly only cites the source bucket.
Click to expand...
:bullshit:
 
Stating it is "impossible" to prove <insert something here> but "some experts" believe <insert your own bias confirmed by what those "some experts say"> is working from confirmation bias.
 
Damocles said:
Stating it is "impossible" to prove <insert something here> but "some experts" believe <insert your own bias confirmed by what those "some experts say"> is working from confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Unicorns exist. I know they do as i have seen them in the forest where they live. I will not tell you where that is.

But you cannot prove they do not exist, therefore my claim they exist is not disproven by you. /Doge /Damocles


@Damocles cannot understand why the above is impossible to prove 'unicorns do not exist' and only the person claiming they exist can verify it.

It is the EXACT SAME for Doge claiming the 'data does exist to prove they got these savings' and you just need to look in to the government data base yourself ("forest") to find it. And if you can not find it (the unicorn or data) then my claim they do exist stands.

@ Damocles reads the above and his brain fries and rejects it and he WANTS TO BELIEVE what he wants to believe and it does not matter that there are entire media groups and other agencies who would LOVE to trace and verify Doge claims, since they busted them lying before and they ALL NOW REPORT, most Doge claims cannot be traced as Doge ONLY cites the database they got it from and not the data itself.
 
and i say this is earnestly as i can that i am not sure if it is because Damo is dumb or just willfully blind that he is unable to comprehend the above and will always return to this thread and PRETEND the Doge claims are sourced, when they are not.
 
Damocles said:
I guess I'll have to pin this up. DOGE has 2.5 years to come up with 2 Trillion in savings (I think that was their goal). This clock tracks their progress.

dogegov.com

DOGE Clock | DogeGov Memecoin

DogeGov is a community-run memecoin based on the DOGE. We use the power and virality of memes to help spread the good word about DOGE's latest work.
dogegov.com dogegov.com

Maybe I can figure out a way to embed the thing...

doge.gov

DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency

DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency
doge.gov doge.gov

That one is the official government one, it isn't real time yet... I look forward to it though. I hope that they'll make it embed capable...
Click to expand...
Trump team numbers are lies you dupe
 
QP! said:
and i say this is earnestly as i can that i am not sure if it is because Damo is dumb or just willfully blind that he is unable to comprehend the above and will always return to this thread and PRETEND the Doge claims are sourced, when they are not.
Click to expand...
He’s not the same person who started this site

Either by mental collapse or actual replacement by someone who bought the site years back
 
evince said:
Trump team numbers are lies you dupe
Click to expand...
But... but... they link to the forest, errr i mean the entire gov't data base where they say you can find the data yourself to prove or disprove their claims.

That they give no specifics does not matter. That you CANNOT prove them wrong, does not matter.

I, Damocles just cite you cannot 'prove it wrong' and that should be enough. As Unicorns do exist... prove me wrong. /Damocles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top