#tregret

[SCS422 30]

6 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Musk and Trump are "trimming waste and inefficiency in the government" in the same way that Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease only ablates the parts of the brain you don't really need.  I suspect the motivation really is to render most of the government (the parts that actually deliver services to the people) unable to function, in order to then abolish them altogether.  It's not a coincidence that the people driving this destruction are either oligarchs who stand to profit off the wreckage, or Christian Nationalists (such as Russel Vought and Pete Hegseth) who see evangelical Christian churches taking over once secular government is out of the way.

Explain to me in concise detail how abolishing  government entities that actually deliver services to the people in order to abolish them would benefit ANYBODY???????  and how you could actually profit off that.  also what reliable source can you quote that show's Vought and Hefgseth  believing that christian churches are going to take over once secular govt. is gone?????

[JerryBaumchen 1,384]

31 minutes ago, SCS422 said:

I am going to do a search for that info.        I did a little search on that subject and your right it is an extensive subject however there are quite a few options left to the fired personnel.  There are many options left open and it is tough to just discriminate in the firing process.

Hi 422,

Re:   there are quite a few options left to the fired personnel

OK, I agree with you.  They, each of them, can take the Trump admin to court.

The problem is they have lost their job[s].  They just might lose their house[s], they might end up on the sidewalk in a tent, their kids cannot got to college, on and on. 

Then one day, the courts say that Trump was wrong. 

Oh, that 'one day' was 7+ yrs later.

If it were you, would you be OK with that?

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 2,056]

2 hours ago, SCS422 said:

Typical liberal "out of context reply"

I suggest the context is perfect.  Rich guys indifferent to cuts for the "surplus" of poor and unemployed, in order that they get richer. 

[jakee 1,528]

1 hour ago, SCS422 said:

O.K. quote me which laws he is breaking?????????????????

Why do you think the courts are already blocking many of the attempted firings?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/21/trump-mass-firings-federal-government-bill

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/03/06/judge-blocks-trump-from-firing-labor-board-member-heres-where-trump-and-musk-are-winning-and-losing-in-court/

[jakee 1,528]

1 hour ago, SCS422 said:

O.K. quote me which laws he is breaking?????????????????

Why do you think the courts are already blocking many of the attempted firings?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/21/trump-mass-firings-federal-government-bill

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/03/06/judge-blocks-trump-from-firing-labor-board-member-heres-where-trump-and-musk-are-winning-and-losing-in-court/

[jakee 1,528]

1 hour ago, SCS422 said:

Explain to me in concise detail how abolishing  government entities that actually deliver services to the people in order to abolish them would benefit ANYBODY???????  

I don't think you need to be an expert in economics to figure that out, do you?

[nigel99 521]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

How do you define effectively?

Wendy P. 

Effective != efficient.

Effective government is never going to be as efficient as a private enterprise as they have different objectives.

Unfortunately the foxes are guarding the chicken run. The first place to start would be term limits for all politicians, aligning their benefit packages with those of other public servants, getting rid of big business in political donations and limiting their ability for insider trading.

One of the problems with the 4 year election cycle is that large scale changes can take years. This incentivises politicians to implement quick fixes, and also muddies the waters. The administration often gets the blame or credit for actions from a prior administration.  

[JerryBaumchen 1,384]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

Effective != efficient.

Effective government is never going to be as efficient as a private enterprise as they have different objectives.

Unfortunately the foxes are guarding the chicken run. The first place to start would be term limits for all politicians, aligning their benefit packages with those of other public servants, getting rid of big business in political donations and limiting their ability for insider trading.

One of the problems with the 4 year election cycle is that large scale changes can take years. This incentivises politicians to implement quick fixes, and also muddies the waters. The administration often gets the blame or credit for actions from a prior administration.  

Hi Nigel,

Re:  aligning their benefit packages with those of other public servants

It has been 25 yrs since I retired from the US federal gov't.  At that time, the US Congress Critters could chose to retire under Soc Sec or they could elect to retire under the same program that I did.  They had to make those choices early in their careers.

Everyone that I knew about [ not that many ], chose to use the CSRS; that's what I used.  IMO far better than Soc Sec.

Re:  The first place to start would be term limits for all politicians

Nice idea; but, in reality, a pipe-dream.  They are the ones making the rules.  Would you change that if you were one of them?

Jerry Baumchen

[nigel99 521]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

Re:  aligning their benefit packages with those of other public servants

It has been 25 yrs since I retired from the US federal gov't.  At that time, the US Congress Critters could chose to retire under Soc Sec or they could elect to retire under the same program that I did.  They had to make those choices early in their careers.

Everyone that I knew about [ not that many ], chose to use the CSRS; that's what I used.  IMO far better than Soc Sec.

Re:  The first place to start would be term limits for all politicians

Nice idea; but, in reality, a pipe-dream.  They are the ones making the rules.  Would you change that if you were one of them?

Jerry Baumchen

Exactly, self policing politicians is a disaster. Probably the one good thing an initiative like DOGE could achieve (I’m not on crack, not suggesting Musk is the one).

[SCS422 30]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

Why do you think the courts are already blocking many of the attempted firings?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/21/trump-mass-firings-federal-government-bill

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/03/06/judge-blocks-trump-from-firing-labor-board-member-heres-where-trump-and-musk-are-winning-and-losing-in-court/

 

2 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Exactly, self policing politicians is a disaster. Probably the one good thing an initiative like DOGE could achieve (I’m not on crack, not suggesting Musk is the one).

Blocking does not equate to breaking!

[billvon 3,028]

1 hour ago, SCS422 said:

Blocking does not equate to breaking!

Courts actually do decide what is legal and what is not - and block illegal actions.  That's how they work.

For example, if you were a landlord who evicted all your black tenants because they are DEI - that would be illegal, and courts would block you from doing that.  It happened to Trump.

[jakee 1,528]

2 hours ago, SCS422 said:

Blocking does not equate to breaking!

Don't be that guy.

When Trump ordered all probationary employees in every agency to be fired, why do you think they all received messages saying they were being let go because their performance had been assessed as substandard? If everything was above board, why do you think the Trump admin was trying to cover its ass?

[JoeWeber 2,760]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Don't be that guy.

When Trump ordered all probationary employees in every agency to be fired, why do you think they all received messages saying they were being let go because their performance had been assessed as substandard? If everything was above board, why do you think the Trump admin was trying to cover its ass?

Because like too many conservatives here and elsewhere they either don’t believe the news, think it’s fake news, or consume right wing propaganda and think they’re truly informed. 

[SCS422 30]

16 hours ago, jakee said:

Why do you think the courts are already blocking many of the attempted firings?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/21/trump-mass-firings-federal-government-bill

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/03/06/judge-blocks-trump-from-firing-labor-board-member-heres-where-trump-and-musk-are-winning-and-losing-in-court/

You still haven't answered the question.  I don't see any laws being broken here only court orders staying the action.

[normiss 814]

1 minute ago, SCS422 said:

You still haven't answered the question.  I don't see any laws being broken here only court orders staying the action.

Your response is the answer you seek.

[billvon 3,028]

6 minutes ago, normiss said:

Your response is the answer you seek.

This sounds like the whole "he didn't REALLY rape her" argument all over again.

Trump didn't REALLY rape E. Jean Carroll because:

"She's ugly"
"She's a cunt"
"She's a bitch"
"She's a whore"
"It was a civil not a criminal court"
"It was only forcible penetration against her will, not REAL rape"
"The DNA probably isn't his anyway"
"He never saw her before"
"She's not his type"
"She said she had a rape fantasy once"
"She's a Dem"

 

[jakee 1,528]

3 hours ago, SCS422 said:

You still haven't answered the question.  I don't see any laws being broken here only court orders staying the action.

Then you didn’t look very hard.

Judge Beryl Howell issued an order saying the Trump administration cannot fire NLRB board member Gwynne Wilcox—which is a final ruling that will remain in place unless a higher court overturns it—ruling Trump firing her is a “blatant violation” of federal law

[SCS422 30]

48 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then you didn’t look very hard.

Judge Beryl Howell issued an order saying the Trump administration cannot fire NLRB board member Gwynne Wilcox—which is a final ruling that will remain in place unless a higher court overturns it—ruling Trump firing her is a “blatant violation” of federal law

Which law?  staying it's a "blatant violation" and then not quoting statutes is meaningless. and  notice he quotes the Trump administration not the president and this is only ONE firing 
 

Edited Friday at 07:29 PM by SCS422

[SCS422 30]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

This sounds like the whole "he didn't REALLY rape her" argument all over again.

Trump didn't REALLY rape E. Jean Carroll because:

"She's ugly"
"She's a cunt"
"She's a bitch"
"She's a whore"
"It was a civil not a criminal court"
"It was only forcible penetration against her will, not REAL rape"
"The DNA probably isn't his anyway"
"He never saw her before"
"She's not his type"
"She said she had a rape fantasy once"
"She's a Dem"

 

This is water under the bridge

[normiss 814]

1 minute ago, SCS422 said:

Which law?  staying it's a "blatant violation" and then not quoting statutes is meaningless. and  notice he q
 

Stop being lazy and dishonest.

 

She ruled that the president's firing of Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB violated federal law that allows for a board member to be removed only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," and declared her termination void.

[JerryBaumchen 1,384]

1 minute ago, SCS422 said:

Which law?  staying it's a "blatant violation" and then not quoting statutes is meaningless. and  notice he q
 

Hi 422,

Re:  Which law?

You continue to ask these types of things.  It reminds me of the little kid who won't stop  asking, 'Why?'

Jerry Baumchen

[normiss 814]

1 minute ago, SCS422 said:

This is water under the bridge

Not really. He's STILL a felon, he's STILL a rapist, and he's STILL lying.

[SCS422 30]

2 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi 422,

Re:  Which law?

You continue to ask these types of things.  It reminds me of the little kid who won't stop  asking, 'Why?'

Jerry Baumchen

Come on Jerry if you're going to post "he's breaking the law". then Come up with it!

[SCS422 30]

7 minutes ago, normiss said:

Stop being lazy and dishonest.

 

She ruled that the president's firing of Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB violated federal law that allows for a board member to be removed only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," and declared her termination void.

If your calling me lazy and dishonest then F--k you, I haven't personally attacked anybody here for their political beliefs and take serious umbrage at your bull shit answer

Edited Friday at 07:34 PM by SCS422

[normiss 814]

1 minute ago, SCS422 said:

Come on Jerry if you're going to post "he's breaking the law". then Come up with it!

Because the facts are THAT fecking difficult for you to find or verify?

Not like it's been all over the news or anything.

Some things start making sense when subjects like this surface.