(January 21, 2025 at 12:57 am)Angrboda Wrote:(January 21, 2025 at 12:52 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: You told me what you believed Trump's EO was for; you told me that democracies work slow.
Neither of which is an answer to, "Would you continue to employ someone incompetent merely based on the merit of, "experience?" - and the lack of answer is becoming an answer in itself.
If you say so. Your question only makes sense in this context if incompetence among civil servants is sufficiently widespread. What is your evidence that it is?
And no, you didn't keep up. You apparently missed at least two additional comments I addressed to the question. Please try to keep up.
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.
