Time For A Purge

[Billy_Kinetta]

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees.

When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

The job of a Civil Service employee is laid out in the regulations, it does not change with who is sitting in the White House.

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

If the president tells the appointee to clean house of those interfering with legal company business, it's guaranteed the appointee will clean house.

According to Civil Service regulations.

Easy enough. I have never said otherwise.

I suspect those regulations will change within the next two years.

Doubtful.

Hardly. Moves are already being made to make removing uncooperative and unproductive employees without jumping through miles of regulatory hoops a piece of cake.

 

[martybegan]

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees. When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

Thank you, but hardly the point we were addressing.

it the root cause of the point, i.e. civil service idiots deciding their politics outweigh the President's.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees.

When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

The job of a Civil Service employee is laid out in the regulations, it does not change with who is sitting in the White House.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

If the president tells the appointee to clean house of those interfering with legal company business, it's guaranteed the appointee will clean house.

According to Civil Service regulations.

Easy enough. I have never said otherwise.

I suspect those regulations will change within the next two years.

Doubtful.

Hardly. Moves are already being made to make removing uncooperative and unproductive employees without jumping through miles of regulatory hoops a piece of cake.

Let me know how that works out. Very little changes in any part of the government that fast.

 

[martybegan]

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees.

When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

The job of a Civil Service employee is laid out in the regulations, it does not change with who is sitting in the White House.

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

If the president tells the appointee to clean house of those interfering with legal company business, it's guaranteed the appointee will clean house.

According to Civil Service regulations.

Easy enough. I have never said otherwise.

I suspect those regulations will change within the next two years.

Doubtful.

The person in the White House sets the regulations, if so decreed via congress.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees.

When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

The job of a Civil Service employee is laid out in the regulations, it does not change with who is sitting in the White House.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

If the president tells the appointee to clean house of those interfering with legal company business, it's guaranteed the appointee will clean house.

According to Civil Service regulations.

Easy enough. I have never said otherwise.

I suspect those regulations will change within the next two years.

Doubtful.

The person in the White House sets the regulations, if so decreed via congress.

You think the guy in the White House sets the regulations for every Fed civil service position?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees. When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

Thank you, but hardly the point we were addressing.

it the root cause of the point, i.e. civil service idiots deciding their politics outweigh the President's.

But they are not doing that, they are basing them on whatever discipline their job is. Science did not change on Jan 20th. Statistics did not change on Jan 20th. Food safety did not change on Jan 20th.

 

[martybegan]

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees.

When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

The job of a Civil Service employee is laid out in the regulations, it does not change with who is sitting in the White House.

If the president tells the appointee to clean house of those interfering with legal company business, it's guaranteed the appointee will clean house.

According to Civil Service regulations.

Easy enough. I have never said otherwise.

I suspect those regulations will change within the next two years.

Doubtful.

The person in the White House sets the regulations, if so decreed via congress.

You think the guy in the White House sets the regulations for every Fed civil service position?

he sets the direction on what they want to accomplish, within the limits of the legislation that set the regulations in question.

So if the legislation leaves it to the executive branch to figure it out, A new president can change whatever he feels like under those constraints.

 

[martybegan]

Appointees, YES; Civil Service, NO.

Thank you, concise and correct. A civil service employee of the Executive branch has a job that is defined by the current regulations and that does not change jsut because someone new is sitting in the White House.

A person with a Civil Service title is supposed to be an apolitical executor of the policies of the elected officials and their political appointees. When you have Civil Service people DECIDING policy instead of EXECUTING policy the system is broken.

Thank you, but hardly the point we were addressing.

it the root cause of the point, i.e. civil service idiots deciding their politics outweigh the President's.

But they are not doing that, they are basing them on whatever discipline their job is. Science did not change on Jan 20th. Statistics did not change on Jan 20th. Food safety did not change on Jan 20th.

The President did, and unless the legislation that created the regulations is specific, the Executive, i.e. the President gets to figure out how the executive agencies accomplish the tasks laid out by the legislation.

So if Congress says "regulate mercury" and Obama set the standard at "X", Trump can change it to "Y" and the civil service has to implement that, even if they disagree with it.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe they feel free to use the word during republican administrations but it's not a "purge". A purge is when you arrest (and execute?) disloyal political rivals. It's business as usual to fire employees when they were appointed by opposing administrations or they are found to be incompetent to deal with certain political agendas.

 

[Timmy]

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Employees of the Executive Branch take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Not to blindly follow the orders of the POTUS.

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

That’s not true . Appointed department heads may fall under that , but the workers have rights . Especially unionized workers .

 

[LordBrownTrout]

`
`
Stalin purged tens of millions (permanently) of those he considered disloyal. Like father, like son.

And you're saying that trump is going to do the same?

 

[martybegan]

Maybe they feel free to use the word during republican administrations but it's not a "purge". A purge is when you arrest (and execute?) disloyal political rivals. It's business as usual to fire employees when they were appointed by opposing administrations or they are found to be incompetent to deal with certain political agendas.

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Employees of the Executive Branch take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Not to blindly follow the orders of the POTUS.

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

That’s not true . Appointed department heads may fall under that , but the workers have rights . Especially unionized workers .

And that is the crux of the issue. They should either have civil service protections, or union protections, but not both.

We have created a newer version of the old Russian bureaucracy, with a new nobility working as the cogs of our government, unaccountable to anyone.

 

[Windparadox]

And you're saying that trump is going to do the same?

`
Figuratively speaking. I thought that was self-evident, which was obviously a mistake. I guess I need to start labeling everything.

 

[jillian]

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Science doesn't change because you fools elected a game show host who doesn't understand it.

yup, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, "science exists whether you believe in it or not"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Science doesn't change because you fools elected a game show host who doesn't understand it.

yup, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, "science exists whether you believe in it or not"

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
- Carl Sagan

 

[Wry Catcher]

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Employees of the Executive Branch take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Not to blindly follow the orders of the POTUS.

UCMJ does require members of the US Military and the actual Militias (National Guard and USNR) to obey all legal orders from NCO's up to the POTUS.

However:

"The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.

" (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity)."

and,

"The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.

"The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal."

Here's What to Know About Obeying an Unlawful Military Order

 

[Timmy]

Maybe they feel free to use the word during republican administrations but it's not a "purge". A purge is when you arrest (and execute?) disloyal political rivals. It's business as usual to fire employees when they were appointed by opposing administrations or they are found to be incompetent to deal with certain political agendas.

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Employees of the Executive Branch take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Not to blindly follow the orders of the POTUS.

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

That’s not true . Appointed department heads may fall under that , but the workers have rights . Especially unionized workers .

And that is the crux of the issue. They should either have civil service protections, or union protections, but not both.

We have created a newer version of the old Russian bureaucracy, with a new nobility working as the cogs of our government, unaccountable to anyone.

What would you rather have . Politician X swoop in and replace qualified experienced employees with all is dumb unqualified buddies? Which is what u see now .

 

[martybegan]

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Science doesn't change because you fools elected a game show host who doesn't understand it.

yup, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, "science exists whether you believe in it or not"

I bet the same thing was said 1000 years ago when the smartest people of the time scoffed at the idea that the 4 humors were not true, or disease was not caused by bad air, or the sun did not revolve around the Earth.

True foolishness is thinking that all of a sudden our generation understands everything and there is no more room for improvement on that understanding.

 

[martybegan]

Maybe they feel free to use the word during republican administrations but it's not a "purge". A purge is when you arrest (and execute?) disloyal political rivals. It's business as usual to fire employees when they were appointed by opposing administrations or they are found to be incompetent to deal with certain political agendas.

Any Executive branch employee found to be undermining Trump's agenda needs a boot in the ass out the door.

Washington Bureaucrats Are Chipping Away at Trump’s Agenda

Employees of the Executive Branch take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Not to blindly follow the orders of the POTUS.

Executive branch employees work solely at the pleasure of the President. Period.

That’s not true . Appointed department heads may fall under that , but the workers have rights . Especially unionized workers .

And that is the crux of the issue. They should either have civil service protections, or union protections, but not both.

We have created a newer version of the old Russian bureaucracy, with a new nobility working as the cogs of our government, unaccountable to anyone.

What would you rather have . Politician X swoop in and replace qualified experienced employees with all is dumb unqualified buddies? Which is what u see now .

I would like to see those qualified employees turn like the cogs they are supposed to be to the beat of the political winners of the last election.

 

[Wry Catcher]

`
`
Stalin purged tens of millions (permanently) of those he considered disloyal. Like father, like son.

Non sequitur. That was a pogrom, not a purge.

Wrong! ^^^

To compare Trump to Stalin makes you more an idiot than previously suspected.

"Pogrom is a Russian word meaning “to wreak havoc, to demolish violently.” Historically, the term refers to violent attacks by local non-Jewish populations on Jews in the Russian Empire and in other countries."
Pogroms

The Great Purge or the Great Terror (Russian: Большо́й терро́р) was a campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union which occurred from 1936 to 1938. It involved a large-scale purge of the Communist Party and government officials, repression of peasants and the Red Army leadership, widespread police ...

purges russia - Google Search