Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 194026 times)

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #950 on: January 12, 2017, 07:26:16 AM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference.  I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

My understanding was that it was Trump's staff and supporters who were cheering. Yeah - the cheering was alarming - more like a rally than a press conference. This administration is toxic.
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #951 on: January 12, 2017, 07:29:20 AM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #952 on: January 12, 2017, 07:45:00 AM »
Quote
yeah, they were Muslim but it wasn't at all important to why the society was successful"

Quidnon isn't arguing that Islam wasn't a factor in the success of the society/empire/caliphate etc. He's arguing that you can't credit a religion for individual technological advancements. The credit goes to the people who invented or discovered those things regardless of their faith or the predominant faith of the nation they lived in.

You see this false argument on a lot of misguided (but well meaning) memes that usually go something like:
"Without religion X, we wouldn't have <list of technologies>!"
ex. Without the mystery cult of Apollo, we wouldn't have aqueducts, shaped roads or newspapers!

This is obvious a specious argument since presumably many of the listed technologies would have been discovered regardless of the religion or invented elsewhere.

The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quidnon - if I'm misrepresenting your argument, let me know and I'll delete this.
"There cannot be two skies"

FXF

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #953 on: January 12, 2017, 07:57:52 AM »
This administration is toxic.
Pretty much.

This was last month... Quite some foreshadowing.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 08:03:23 AM by FliXFantatier »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #954 on: January 12, 2017, 08:02:40 AM »
Quote
yeah, they were Muslim but it wasn't at all important to why the society was successful"

Quidnon isn't arguing that Islam wasn't a factor in the success of the society/empire/caliphate etc. He's arguing that you can't credit a religion for individual technological advancements. The credit goes to the people who invented or discovered those things regardless of their faith or the predominant faith of the nation they lived in.

You see this false argument on a lot of misguided (but well meaning) memes that usually go something like:
"Without religion X, we wouldn't have <list of technologies>!"
ex. Without the mystery cult of Apollo, we wouldn't have aqueducts, shaped roads or newspapers!

This is obvious a specious argument since presumably many of the listed technologies would have been discovered regardless of the religion or invented elsewhere.

The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quidnon - if I'm misrepresenting your argument, let me know and I'll delete this.

My point is simply that the two are inseparable.
It isn't fair to say that religion has nothing to do with it, nor is it fair to say that it has everything to do with it. It's impossible to tease out to what degree it factored in to scientific advancement, yet one has to recognize that under those circumstances that region was more prolific, prosperous and stable than most of Europe.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8333
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #955 on: January 12, 2017, 08:26:50 AM »
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?

A small point of contention . . . Islam was at the forefront of scientific research and discovery in the world around the middle ages.  In the west we were rushing desperately trying to catch up to them.

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Agreed. This is mostly an example that a society with Islam as a prominent faith can be as open minded and scientific as a christian nation, in spite of the religion not in any way because of it.

Given the way that medieval religious practices permeated all aspects of life, I'm not sure that your point is entirely valid.  I don't personally believe that religion of any kind necessarily helps or hinders scientific endeavor . . . it's all up to the interpretation of the adherents at the time.  I'd agree that in modern times Islamic states have lost the conditions that gave them intellectual supremacy for so long in the middle ages.

There's a common narrative of Western Christian superiority that often rears up in these sorts of conversations, and all I was trying to do was offer a counterpoint to it.



But if you allow society to be completely ruled by hard line religious zealots driven by faith or a desire to control people that same religion can be used to stifle education, science and tolerance as we see in most if not all current Islamic regimes.

Absolutely.  A viewpoint intolerant of change, and an excess of reverence for the past seems to doom intellectual pursuits and reduce creative output through many means.



A hard line christian state could have many of the same repressive anti education, anti science and anti women qualities that we see with Islam. Probably how ever absent the incentive for Jihad and terrorism.

If you truly believe this, you should read up a bit about Christian history.  St. Augustine's concept of 'Just War', the Crusades, the French Catholic/Protestant Wars . . . Christians have been involved in an awful lot of holy wars.  As far as terrorism, you don't have to look far either.  There have been regular terror attacks by Christians against abortion clinics in the US, the murder/rape/torture performed by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, the NLFT's actions in north east India, etc.

Repressive anti-education, anti-science, and anti-woman qualities tend to show up because of quality of life and the subsequent (mis?)interpretation of a religion.  The idea that Christianity is somehow less dangerous than any other method of worship is an unsupportable one, but one that people from predominantly Christian places cling to.  Religions are liable to change (hence my example of Islam in the middle ages) and how they affect public life depends entirely on popular interpretation and variable ideas of what is acceptable.

Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
  • Location: Germany
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #956 on: January 12, 2017, 12:16:12 PM »
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same time period, but in Spain,  Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together.  The other religions were not dominated, but they coexisted.  It sounds good.  I am sure it was not perfect because perfect does not exist, but peaceful sounds very good.

No, it was not perfect. Jews and Muslims had to pay the dhimma (protection money in order to be left alone and not face execution or enslavement) and were second-class citizens in a lot of respects (made to live in ghettos, not allowed to ride horses, testemony worth little to nothing in court).

Better second-class citizen than a non-citizen (or slave), but "coexistence" makes it sound a lot nicer than it was.

Al-Andalus gets idealized a lot in order to contrast it with the state of affairs in the Christian world back then or Saudi Arabia now.

Realistically, it was not bad as a lot of other times and places but surely no example to emulate today...

And honestly: that this is trumpeted as a prime example of Muslim tolerance centuries later says a lot about Islam practised in other times and places including today....

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #957 on: January 12, 2017, 12:18:55 PM »
Quote
The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quote
It isn't fair to say that religion has nothing to do with it, nor is it fair to say that it has everything to do with it. It's impossible to tease out to what degree it factored in to scientific advancement, yet one has to recognize that under those circumstances that region was more prolific, prosperous and stable than most of Europe.

I would argue that these statements are saying essentially the same thing and that we are in agreement.
"There cannot be two skies"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #958 on: January 12, 2017, 01:07:41 PM »
Quote
The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quote
It isn't fair to say that religion has nothing to do with it, nor is it fair to say that it has everything to do with it. It's impossible to tease out to what degree it factored in to scientific advancement, yet one has to recognize that under those circumstances that region was more prolific, prosperous and stable than most of Europe.

I would argue that these statements are saying essentially the same thing and that we are in agreement.
sounds good to me :-)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Age: 34
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #959 on: January 12, 2017, 05:05:38 PM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #960 on: January 12, 2017, 06:31:26 PM »


Quidnon - if I'm misrepresenting your argument, let me know and I'll delete this.

Gondolin, you said it better than I.  Perhaps I could hire you as my interpreter?
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat


KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #962 on: January 13, 2017, 05:55:26 AM »

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Amen to that.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #963 on: January 13, 2017, 06:08:02 AM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

While I agree that civil service protections can and should be modified (short of filing a fraudulent time card, it is very difficult to fire someone) there are very good reasons why they are in place.

It prevents new administrations from coming and fire everyone over ideological views and installing their own people who may or may not be equipped for the job.  Before the civil service protection laws were put in place, people were fired frequently by new administrations and if you wanted a job with the new administration you had to either be a party member and/or pay off the right people in the party structure to get a job.  By making it hard to clean house every few years, you can build up an institutional knowledge and a much more knowledgeable and capable force.  Are there inefficiencies...yes, but it is a better system than it used to be.

FXF

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #964 on: January 13, 2017, 06:43:17 AM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.
Civil servants for the most part run the country and keep the gears of power turning. They will be there when one administration leaves and another takes over with decades of institutionalized knowledge that is for the most part bipartisan. They can worry about their job and what is best for their department and the country without having to fear repercussions because the new guy or girl in charge sees things (very) differently than the previous one.
This is common place in most (all of?) Europe too, the civil service enjoys such protection above and beyond that granted to employees of private companies.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #965 on: January 13, 2017, 07:28:44 AM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Deadlymonkey and FLiXFantatier did a good job of explaining a few of my concerns.
First, I'd argue its disingenuous to say that this is how employment is "for the rest of the people". Under most corporation jobs, contracts and "working professional" businesses full time employees DO have protections from being fired without cause - including severence packages, minimum notice (with pay) and labor unions to negotiate on your behalf.  Some states have blanket protection for workers if your office is shut down (I know Maine did when I lived there). What this bill would do is prevent civil workers from having similar benefits.

Practically speaking, federal employees need protection from becoming political footballs. Unlike most businesses, "upper management" (aka the executive branch) shifts every ~4-8 years between opposing factions. Without these protections federal workers could become political footballs, tossed out and replaced with new people... it's a recipe for nepotism and political abuse. This is rampant in the more corrupt governments - political favors and loyalty are traded for government jobs, and competent employees are let go.

I'm actually for revamping the protections for federal workers, having been one myself.  I think its sometimes too hard to get rid of employees for just cause (basic incompetence) but simultaniously it's hard to hire skilled workers because the compensation can be so much less than it is in the private sector (I get paid 2.5x as an independent contractor with less restrictions for doing a job that actually requires slightly less experience).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #966 on: January 13, 2017, 08:00:17 AM »
4 - 8 years in a job, is really not a bad run at all.   Most people nowadays do not spend 20 years with a company,  Also, the changes are very predictable -- if you know your job may only be 4 - 8 years, you can prepare for that.  It doesn't sound all that bad.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #967 on: January 13, 2017, 08:18:07 AM »
4 - 8 years in a job, is really not a bad run at all.   Most people nowadays do not spend 20 years with a company,  Also, the changes are very predictable -- if you know your job may only be 4 - 8 years, you can prepare for that.  It doesn't sound all that bad.
Seriously?  I was speaking about the frequency in changes of the president and his cabinet. The duration of FTE (full time employees) is going to be different; some will have been hired only in the last 1-2 years.
Whether or not the change is predictable does not mean this is a good way to run a government. My major concerns is that this promotes corruption and nepotism while making it harder for the gears of the government to actually work as they're supposed to.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #968 on: January 13, 2017, 08:46:47 AM »
The voters get to check on whether the government is running better or worse every 4 years or so, so it's not that big of a risk.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #969 on: January 13, 2017, 08:49:01 AM »
The voters get to check on whether the government is running better or worse every 4 years or so, so it's not that big of a risk.
Are you talking about the Rokita bill, or responding to something else?
What is "it"?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #970 on: January 13, 2017, 09:04:08 AM »
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Deadlymonkey and FLiXFantatier did a good job of explaining a few of my concerns.
First, I'd argue its disingenuous to say that this is how employment is "for the rest of the people". Under most corporation jobs, contracts and "working professional" businesses full time employees DO have protections from being fired without cause - including severence packages, minimum notice (with pay) and labor unions to negotiate on your behalf.  Some states have blanket protection for workers if your office is shut down (I know Maine did when I lived there). What this bill would do is prevent civil workers from having similar benefits.

Practically speaking, federal employees need protection from becoming political footballs. Unlike most businesses, "upper management" (aka the executive branch) shifts every ~4-8 years between opposing factions. Without these protections federal workers could become political footballs, tossed out and replaced with new people... it's a recipe for nepotism and political abuse. This is rampant in the more corrupt governments - political favors and loyalty are traded for government jobs, and competent employees are let go.

I'm actually for revamping the protections for federal workers, having been one myself.  I think its sometimes too hard to get rid of employees for just cause (basic incompetence) but simultaniously it's hard to hire skilled workers because the compensation can be so much less than it is in the private sector (I get paid 2.5x as an independent contractor with less restrictions for doing a job that actually requires slightly less experience).

I suspect the GOP is pushing 'fire at will' on the feds so that they can threaten and intimidate all the federal scientists who might possibly be publishing factual info that counters their more fantastical forms of ideology.  It's really a horrifying  prospect to have basic research put at the whims of getting on the wrong side of some nutty congressman (which would totally happen in our state). 

But to your bolded point, my husband is a federal research scientist and we would both agree with you.  There's always a handful of crappy employees in every pool. Although most are weeded out at these higher level, high-qualification positions there are still a few.  They create incredible headaches for everyone.  And no one gets more pissed at the inability to demote and or fire them than their functional co-workers.  Some reform is definitely in order.

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #971 on: January 13, 2017, 09:05:54 AM »
4 - 8 years in a job, is really not a bad run at all.   Most people nowadays do not spend 20 years with a company,  Also, the changes are very predictable -- if you know your job may only be 4 - 8 years, you can prepare for that.  It doesn't sound all that bad.

I think all the arguments trashing the Federal work force (or teachers) have some seriously faulty logic and suffer from magical thinking. Turning over even a few thousand positions a year (on top of political appointments and ambassadorships) would mean incredible additional outlays of time and money. Time to pick people AND time as well as significant amounts of money running security investigations on them all (not to mention more investigators). A very large portion of the Federal work force has a clearance, and the higher that clearance is the more expensive it was to complete. They already can take a year to complete, so that's a lot of time for people to work with only the most cursory of background check/finger print check.

I highly doubt anyone is actually disagreeing with the idea that it would be nice to have an easier method of firing bad Federal employees, to keep them accountable for their work. Everyone raising concerns regarding the Holman rule/Rokita's bill are actually trying to explain that there is a significant space for nepotism, cronyism, and dysfunction/failure.

Does no one care about the long-term view anymore? Are we doomed to only govern in 4-to-8 year blocks? Because seriously, that path leads to the end of our experiment.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #972 on: January 13, 2017, 09:11:34 AM »
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.  That's the thing about being the leader, you actually get to have the control and power.

It's ridiculous to say to the new boss, here you go, but you don't get to fire anyone.  Then you have the inmates running the asylum.  People's jobs are not life appointments and they should not be ever treated or thought of as such. 


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8333
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #973 on: January 13, 2017, 09:15:32 AM »
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.  That's the thing about being the leader, you actually get to have the control and power.

It's ridiculous to say to the new boss, here you go, but you don't get to fire anyone.  Then you have the inmates running the asylum.  People's jobs are not life appointments and they should not be ever treated or thought of as such.

The power you're talking about doesn't exist because of how prone it is to abuse.  If a CEO takes over the company that you work for tomorrow, he doesn't have the ability to fire you without cause though.  If he does then he'll end up paying for it from the severance that they have to pay to prevent you from suing, or the money you'll get when you win your wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

Nobody's arguing that jobs should be life appointments.  Being fired without notice or cause is patently unfair though.

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #974 on: January 13, 2017, 09:23:09 AM »
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.  That's the thing about being the leader, you actually get to have the control and power.

It's ridiculous to say to the new boss, here you go, but you don't get to fire anyone.  Then you have the inmates running the asylum.  People's jobs are not life appointments and they should not be ever treated or thought of as such.

I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that getting a Federal position should be a life long job - regardless of whether or not you suck at it. The argument is that there are ways to structure the presumed goal (a better way to get rid of bad/low productivity employees) without creating an environment that encourages people to shut up and tow the party line. Putting a block between a micro-managing ideologue (of any kind) and a Federal employee doing their job is vital to the health of our government.

And the new boss gets to fire plenty of people. There are a significant number of presidential appointments and ambassadorships that turn over with every new president. These people head the departments and dictate the direction to the Federal employees who then create the policy that makes it happen. The guy in State running a program to push for LGBTQ/women's rights in whatever country isn't making the choice for State's direction - he's doing the job his fucking boss assigned him. Whether or not Pence (or whoever) has issue with that is irrelevant, and the potential of these new rules to cost that guy his job make them a problem.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5211
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #975 on: January 13, 2017, 09:28:29 AM »
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.

Does it make you at all nervous that they requested lists of names of federal employees working on climate change and gender equity issues at the same time they passed a rule allowing them to fire any federal employee by name, without cause?

Maybe just coincidence?  Maybe not?

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #976 on: January 13, 2017, 10:13:22 AM »
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #977 on: January 13, 2017, 10:17:41 AM »
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.

Does it make you at all nervous that they requested lists of names of federal employees working on climate change and gender equity issues at the same time they passed a rule allowing them to fire any federal employee by name, without cause?

It makes me, personally, very nervous. My entire job is looking at changing aquatic ecosystems and how recent and predicted shifts alter fisheries. Today I'm literally writing a grant to start a new project, and there's a vivid string of emails about whether we try to avoid ever using the words "Change" or "shift" or "warming" at all in the proposal, even though we aren't specifically addressing climate change.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #978 on: January 13, 2017, 10:34:47 AM »
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

I'm not sure what this is referencing. In regards to Trump's intended direction forward - that's true. In regards to some random dude in State that's also true. So...? What's the issue here that deserves bolded text?

The problem I see is some random dude in State potentially getting fired over work he did under a different administration with a different direction or for a personally held belief. Or some random chick in the EPA getting fired because she's a scientist and human caused climate change is, short of any new compelling data currently not really in existence, a scientific reality. Or some lawyer in the DoJ getting fired because they don't believe a particular case might have merit - or because they do.

They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.

Does it make you at all nervous that they requested lists of names of federal employees working on climate change and gender equity issues at the same time they passed a rule allowing them to fire any federal employee by name, without cause?

It makes me, personally, very nervous. My entire job is looking at changing aquatic ecosystems and how recent and predicted shifts alter fisheries. Today I'm literally writing a grant to start a new project, and there's a vivid string of emails about whether we try to avoid ever using the words "Change" or "shift" or "warming" at all in the proposal, even though we aren't specifically addressing climate change.

What I do isn't as directly involved in areas of interest that Republicans generally don't value, and I'm terrified. I'm not a Federal employee, but I can certainly see many potential conflicts of interest and suppression of workers voices.

The last thing we need right now is a civilian force of yes men, scared to speak out when we really need them to (while always hoping there is no need to) because they'll loose their jobs and livelihoods.

eta: words

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5211
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #979 on: January 13, 2017, 10:41:09 AM »
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

Say for example you have been hired by the EPA to determine what causes a massive fish kill in Ohio.  You investigate, you draw samples, you analyze results, and you determine that the fish died because a nearby mining operation illegally dumped waste materials into the lake.  You report these findings, and President Trump fires you because the mining conglomerate is a profitable business that donated to his campaign.  Are you okay with that?

These are the sorts of things civil service protections were designed to prevent.  Federal scientists, like university professors, are some of the jobs that require a certain level of protection from political shenanigans in order to be done effectively.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #980 on: January 13, 2017, 11:24:08 AM »
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

Say for example you have been hired by the EPA to determine what causes a massive fish kill in Ohio.  You investigate, you draw samples, you analyze results, and you determine that the fish died because a nearby mining operation illegally dumped waste materials into the lake.  You report these findings, and President Trump fires you because the mining conglomerate is a profitable business that donated to his campaign.  Are you okay with that?

These are the sorts of things civil service protections were designed to prevent.  Federal scientists, like university professors, are some of the jobs that require a certain level of protection from political shenanigans in order to be done effectively.

My guess is that Kbecks is, indeed, okay with that.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #981 on: January 13, 2017, 11:42:36 AM »
I worry about the scenario Sol describes.
I also worry that it is ripe for corruption and nepotism for reasons outlined above my myself and others.
Additionally, it creates an obvious end-run for the executive branch to circumvent programs put into place by Congress. Don't like a program? Fire everyone on it and it's effectively dead in the water. Want to pressure a particular lawmaker into voting one way or another? Put the job(s) of a particular workforce into the cross-hairs.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #982 on: January 13, 2017, 12:07:29 PM »
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #983 on: January 13, 2017, 12:14:25 PM »
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.

It's also decidedly NOT like many corporate layoffs, where contract employees are given severence pay, advocated for by their unions and contractually protected from being individually fired without just cause.
Yes, he could use it to gut a department that was underperforming in his view, but it could also be used to do the nefarious things Sol and others have suggested.  That's what we are objecting to.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #984 on: January 13, 2017, 01:54:29 PM »
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Ah, so that's how you want to "make America great again". Fire people. Tell me, again, how any of this is going to create the jobs he's been promising, or how firing entire segments of government workers because he just doesn't like their mission puts the country on firmer standing, or bridges the divides between us as a people, or really does anything positive?

Or is it just about fucking ideology? (Don't answer that, from your other posts I already know what it is.)

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #985 on: January 13, 2017, 03:02:27 PM »
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.


It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #986 on: January 13, 2017, 03:13:23 PM »

It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do. What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?

Trump is draining the swamp?!?!!!

That's the best laugh I've had in quite a while.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #987 on: January 13, 2017, 03:23:55 PM »
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.


It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?

ok, what we are talking about here are contract employees (FTEs) - and the proposed bill extends beyond the Executive branch to all civil servants (there are dozens of independent agencies in the federal government, including the EPA, FCC, NASA, the NSF...).

What did I think the moniker "drain the swamp" meant?  Well certainly I've been disappointed to see a bunch of Goldmans Sachs alumns paraded through (4 at last count) plus billionaires and hundred-millionaires and everyone who curried favor with Trump from Perry to Carson, plus some of his biggest donors over the years.  Pretty much the very kinds of people that he accused HRC of being too cozy with. The "swamp" hasn't been drained - it's just been refilled.

Also - it's pretty offensive to say "welcome to the real world" as if we're somehow not living in it. I'm not currently in the government, though I have been in the past.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #988 on: January 13, 2017, 03:29:01 PM »
It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?
If ever a President needed someone to speak truth to him it's Trump.  And he is being given the powers to say "you're fired" to any government worker who tries to speak truth to him.  Including presumably any member of the FBI or CIA who says anything unfavourable about Putin, or any government lawyer who says that there is no good cause to prosecute Hilary Clinton, or any public servant who objects to an order to use forms of torture more extreme than waterboarding.

It makes Trump into a fucking dictator.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #989 on: January 13, 2017, 03:32:43 PM »
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.


It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?

ok, what we are talking about here are contract employees (FTEs) - and the proposed bill extends beyond the Executive branch to all civil servants (there are dozens of independent agencies in the federal government, including the EPA, FCC, NASA, the NSF...).


There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Quote
What did I think the moniker "drain the swamp" meant?  Well certainly I've been disappointed to see a bunch of Goldmans Sachs alumns paraded through (4 at last count) plus billionaires and hundred-millionaires and everyone who curried favor with Trump from Perry to Carson, plus some of his biggest donors over the years.  Pretty much the very kinds of people that he accused HRC of being too cozy with. The "swamp" hasn't been drained - it's just been refilled.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different swamp.  I'm pretty sure that Trump was referring to the semi-permanent bureaucracy that runs most of the federal government.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #990 on: January 13, 2017, 03:34:06 PM »

It makes Trump into a fucking dictator.

Time will tell.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #991 on: January 13, 2017, 03:42:24 PM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #992 on: January 13, 2017, 03:42:40 PM »
You're pretty sure?  That is flippin laughable.  Seems like he was pretty damn clear throughout the campaign that he meant all the toadies cozying up and doing corrupt backroom deals.  And it was clear he was just pissed because he couldn't drain the swamp into his own pocket.  Trump is not for America or the miners or the working class or anyone else, Trump is for Trump.   


Quote
What did I think the moniker "drain the swamp" meant?  Well certainly I've been disappointed to see a bunch of Goldmans Sachs alumns paraded through (4 at last count) plus billionaires and hundred-millionaires and everyone who curried favor with Trump from Perry to Carson, plus some of his biggest donors over the years.  Pretty much the very kinds of people that he accused HRC of being too cozy with. The "swamp" hasn't been drained - it's just been refilled.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different swamp.  I'm pretty sure that Trump was referring to the semi-permanent bureaucracy that runs most of the federal government.




Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #993 on: January 13, 2017, 03:49:24 PM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #994 on: January 13, 2017, 03:52:27 PM »

Perhaps you are thinking of a different swamp.  I'm pretty sure that Trump was referring to the semi-permanent bureaucracy that runs most of the federal government.
Trump campaigned on Clinton being "too cozy with wall street." - now he's hired 4 former Goldmans Sachs executives
He attacked the Clinton Foundation as a "pay to play" organization - his Small Business Cabinet choice is the largest donor to the Trump Foundation
He claimed he was the populist and anti-establishment candidate. - I count tthree congressmen, a senator, two state governors, two CEOs of fortune 100 companies, at least four billionairs...

so: what we've got is basically career politicians, wall street executives and people who donated money who now have high profile positions.
I did not care for HRC's interdependance on wall street firms and large corporations, but Trump's administration is even more heavily weighted in this direction.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6142
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #995 on: January 13, 2017, 04:03:05 PM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.
again, no. You're dancing around this issue and making untrue comparisons, like how no one in the 'real world' gets severence pay, notice, labor representation, etc. That is the STANDARD for contract employees in developed countries (not just the US).  We are also not talking abotu layoffs here, but actual firings.

To state this very clearly, no administration should be able to terminate employees without cause at any time and without any labor representation. To allow for such gives too much power, promotes corruption and threatens the functioning of our government.
I fully support methods that will allow us to cut out dead wood from departments (i.e. allowing people to be domoted or fired with cause), but that's not what's being discussed here.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #996 on: January 13, 2017, 04:03:55 PM »

Perhaps you are thinking of a different swamp.  I'm pretty sure that Trump was referring to the semi-permanent bureaucracy that runs most of the federal government.
Trump campaigned on Clinton being "too cozy with wall street." - now he's hired 4 former Goldmans Sachs executives
He attacked the Clinton Foundation as a "pay to play" organization - his Small Business Cabinet choice is the largest donor to the Trump Foundation
He claimed he was the populist and anti-establishment candidate. - I count tthree congressmen, a senator, two state governors, two CEOs of fortune 100 companies, at least four billionairs...

so: what we've got is basically career politicians, wall street executives and people who donated money who now have high profile positions.
I did not care for HRC's interdependance on wall street firms and large corporations, but Trump's administration is even more heavily weighted in this direction.

While this is true enough, I don't see it the same way.  It looks to me like Trump has been choosing his cabinet based upon a mostly common way of looking at the world, a personal history of success in their own fields, and their high probability of causing the political left enough stress to stroke out.  I'm not saying I think that he will be a good president, although I'm fairly certain he will be one of the more memorable of presidents across history.  But he certainly is going to be entertaining, at least for myself.  It all reminds me of the role of the President of the Galaxy in Douglas Adam's The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, who has no other role than to create constant controversy to distract from the true rulers as they go about their business.  I just hope that the monarch isn't really an old, senile madman who lives alone on a deserted island in a run down wooden shack.

I really don't look at the world the same way most of you seem to.  I'm not even sure that I look at the world the same way anyone here does, but I know my viewpoint isn't unique by any stretch.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #997 on: January 13, 2017, 04:16:04 PM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.
again, no. You're dancing around this issue and making untrue comparisons, like how no one in the 'real world' gets severence pay, notice, labor representation, etc. That is the STANDARD for contract employees in developed countries (not just the US). We are also not talking abotu layoffs here, but actual firings.

Not what I said. I said it was "at will" employment, which is the standard for those without a labor contract.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Pretty much anyone in any of these agencies that could be considered "management" level employees do not, or should not, have labor contract protections, and can be dismissed "at will" by their higher management.  The top of that management stack is the president in most cases.  You don't have to agree, or even like, that reality; but it is the reality.  In many ways, these new bills are more of a formality.  I accept that these bills will invalidate the contract protections of a great many unionized government workers also.  As the "I'm the greatest president ever" famously said shortly after taking office, elections have consequences.  The Republicans have nearly total control of government, and they intend to put the screws to their opposition to whatever degree they can get away with. 


Quote
To state this very clearly, no administration should be able to terminate employees without cause at any time and without any labor representation. To allow for such gives too much power, promotes corruption and threatens the functioning of our government.
I fully support methods that will allow us to cut out dead wood from departments (i.e. allowing people to be domoted or fired with cause), but that's not what's being discussed here.

That has always been a power of the presidency, over most of those federal agencies.  Your opinion about whether they should be able to does not matter.  If you work in one of these agencies, perhaps you should update your resume.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #998 on: January 13, 2017, 04:27:10 PM »
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

Seems about right. Perfect formula to get morons to vote for you...

-W

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #999 on: January 13, 2017, 04:31:37 PM »
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

Seems about right. Perfect formula to get morons to vote for you...

-W

You just openly insulted a decent number of forum members, not to mention about 123 million adults in the US.  Isn't this a violation of the forum rules?
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat