A great deal of posting to reestablish the notion of an incompetent president.

(January 21, 2025 at 1:30 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(January 21, 2025 at 1:25 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Page 21: EO and the process of democracy; no answer.
Page 22: I answer your question; response is that power can be abused and will be abused, what guard rails exist to stop abuse? Accusation that I am affiliated with people who think Michel Obama is a man. No answer.
Page 23: Personal experience in Florida, we've been here before. No answer.
Page 24: Return to, "I've already answered." No answer.

It's not a hard question, in fact for anyone who has been anywhere near a position of power it should be an unbelievably and immediate answer; "No."

Employing someone merely by the merit of them being "experienced" is not good business as "experienced" is a catch-all phrase; experienced when? How long, how long ago, how long at one time?

Experienced how? By being good at the job, or by simply having done it? And does that job provide meaningful and profitable value to the organization or could you be terminated and the net-benefit outweigh the loss of your productivity and talents?

Who are you experienced under? What have they done, what were there agendas, do they align with how the new adminstration intends to operate? 

When these questions come up short, there should be *no* bureaucratic red tape preventing the termination of this employee.

That's a lot of words to avoid acknowledging that Schedule F is an answer to a nonexistent problem that you have no evidence exists.  Then what's it for?

Also lots of words to accuse you of not answering questions you answered

The lengths this guy will go to pretend that this policy isn't about purging or intimidating  people Trump doesn't like or about installing yes men and sycophants into positions of power is hilarious

(January 21, 2025 at 1:30 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(January 21, 2025 at 1:25 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Page 21: EO and the process of democracy; no answer.
Page 22: I answer your question; response is that power can be abused and will be abused, what guard rails exist to stop abuse? Accusation that I am affiliated with people who think Michel Obama is a man. No answer.
Page 23: Personal experience in Florida, we've been here before. No answer.
Page 24: Return to, "I've already answered." No answer.

It's not a hard question, in fact for anyone who has been anywhere near a position of power it should be an unbelievably and immediate answer; "No."

Employing someone merely by the merit of them being "experienced" is not good business as "experienced" is a catch-all phrase; experienced when? How long, how long ago, how long at one time?

Experienced how? By being good at the job, or by simply having done it? And does that job provide meaningful and profitable value to the organization or could you be terminated and the net-benefit outweigh the loss of your productivity and talents?

Who are you experienced under? What have they done, what were there agendas, do they align with how the new adminstration intends to operate? 

When these questions come up short, there should be *no* bureaucratic red tape preventing the termination of this employee.

That's a lot of words to avoid acknowledging that Schedule F is an answer to a nonexistent problem that you have no evidence exists.  Then what's it for?

It was a load of word because I thought maybe you would show some respect and admit you made a mistake; it happens, it's fine.

If it's a problem that doesn't exist then there should be nothing to worry about - but given the failed audits and mismanagement of government agencies, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Except she made no mistakes got nothing wrong and totally decimated you and all you can counter with is a wall of word salad to try to desperately make Trumps idiotic and corrupt policy seem reasonable 

(January 21, 2025 at 2:24 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Except she made no mistakes got nothing wrong and totally decimated you and all you can counter with is a wall of word salad to try to desperately make Trumps idiotic and corrupt policy seem reasonable 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew damn well what you were doing when you mentioned "word salad" - well played, Architect. Well played - self-reflection is one of the peaks of comedy, because it helps bring us to a better understanding of ourselves and turns comedy into beneficial outcomes.

Love to see the progress.

Quote:'m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew damn well what you were doing when you mentioned "word salad" - well played, Architect. Well played - self-reflection is one of the peaks of comedy, because it helps bring us to a better understanding of ourselves and turns comedy into beneficial outcomes.

Love to see the progress.

Yes it's the perfect description of the wall of blather you posted, and the only comedy is your attempts to pretend you have not been utterly curve stomped on this thread it's flipping hilarious, almost as funny as you of all people bringing up the concept of self reflection. It's pure comedy gold .... Hilarious 

(January 20, 2025 at 9:09 pm)Jackalope Wrote: At the end of it - and there will be an end to it - collaborators ought to remember what historically happens to collaborators.

Don't forget to resist.

Being German I can tell you that you are going to be shocked how wrong you are going to be in many instances. You better lower your expectations.

(January 21, 2025 at 12:16 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: Let's try again, and lets do a better job of pretending to be logical and rational - would you continue to employ someone incompetent merely based on the merit of, "experience?"

Of course not; incompetence should be eliminated. But your framing here entirely ignores the countervailing and valid point that removing basic protections regarding political views expressed outside the workplace simply invites the abuse of an employer's power to curtail the free expression of political views outside the workplace.

If one can be fired by their government employer for political views, that is a clear abrogation of one's First Amendment rights. Are you actually supporting these limits on free speech?

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who claim to ‘love America’, but have this disturbing adoration of a man who clearly hates Americans.

Boru