We lost it in November. People said what they wanted. They are getting it. If you re-ran the election today, it would have the same result.

If you've got a problem with that, you've got a problem with democracy itself. And so do I. But you won't solve it by "raising hell". Their one and only reply is "We won, you lost, and if you do anything more violent than shake your fist in frustration, we will throw you in jail -- and it will be legal."

If I had a better idea, I'd have done it months ago. You're here hoping to change some minds, and from the comments you've received so far, you've failed. One is telling you that the NSF is communism. Another mocks gender studies. One more cites the independence of Nikola Tesla.

We lost this fight a long time ago. And you might as well "raise hell" because you've got nothing else to do. But you should reconcile yourself to the fact that it's not going to accomplish anything.

A sizeable chunk was promoting Progressive politics disguised as science. People who disagreed with them were filtered so only people in dominant groups got most of the money. Research money went to people who believed those things to produce more "evidence" of those things to establish a false "consensus" on these subjects. Voters watched the damage done.

When I look at it, I've seen plenty of works that were useful the NSF funded. Yet, I've seen much more which is hard to imagine the use of. Researchers have also told me they're actively discouraged from trying to turn ideas into something production-worthy because the system rewards paper quantity, not quality or production use. Add the replication crisis on top of that and it's hard to say what we're losing outside specific groups I respect.

One other thing to keep in mind is this is taxpayers funded research. What that means is people's money is forcibly taken by the government, a percentage allocated for NSF, and a portion spent on waste or opposing politics. Government leaders, outside or inside NSF, made it that way. So, people who don't want their money taken by the government or want it invested differently (eg into businesses or new housing) might want NSF cut. That's a lot of Trump voters and many Democrats, too.

Optimizing for the above goals, I'd definitely like to see cuts at NSF. I'd like a shift of what remains to real science with practical application. A percentage being pure or theoretical research that undergirds that. Nothing to advance political agendas of favoring specific groups. All run by people already doing real science, solid reviews, and replication. People leading groups doing science right lead policy changes to get the most out of what tax dollars remain.

Be strong, independent on state with money from our taxes, you'll be happier.