Democratic Fortunes

[rogue06]

Amazing how so many from the right just delight in taking swipes at the FBI and DOJ, but if someone even considers criticizing the front line police force or ICE, they are all aghast!

You mean they support those who actually work and put their lives on the line but are critical of paper-pushing desk jockeys with political agendas? Yeah, go figure.

[Bill the Cat]

...you mean the positions Trump was responsible for appointing and their direct subordinates?

Nah. They pre-date Trump, like Comey...

[carpedm9587]

You mean they support those who actually work and put their lives on the line but are critical of paper-pushing desk jockeys with political agendas? Yeah, go figure.

Wow - you really need a broader brush, Rogue. I think you missed a few people in your incredibly wide stroke....

[carpedm9587]

Nah. They pre-date Trump, like Comey...

Bill - last I checked, the President appoints the top of the department - the top of the department then selects its leaders - and so on down the food chain. Comey has been gone for 18 months. You're telling me that in that time the new leadership has not been able to "clean house?"

Or maybe the fact is that one investigation after another has found little or nothing to be corrected - and few with cause to be fired - even when those investigations are being done externally - and by a Republican-led Congress.

This is a lot of blown smoke, IMO.

[Bill the Cat]

Bill - last I checked, the President appoints the top of the department - the top of the department then selects its leaders - and so on down the food chain. Comey has been gone for 18 months. You're telling me that in that time the new leadership has not been able to "clean house?"

You obviously don't know just how hard it is to get rid of a government employee who isn't a direct nomination.

Or maybe the fact is that one investigation after another has found little or nothing to be corrected - and few with cause to be fired - even when those investigations are being done externally - and by a Republican-led Congress.

This is a lot of blown smoke, IMO.

Perhaps. I've not looked into the issue that much.

[carpedm9587]

You obviously don't know just how hard it is to get rid of a government employee who isn't a direct nomination.

It's actually not that hard. You simply have to show "just cause." My Republican sister was Secretary of Transportation for the State of Vermont for several years. Yes, states are slightly different from federal, but the general processes are the same. She had no problem "cleaning house" when she took over and found herself with a department significantly populated by career employees who had ceased to be of significant value to the organization. She began by setting clear expectations for each job position, in written form, and conducting employee reviews bi-annually. Two poor reviews and she eliminated the person and refilled the position.

Perhaps. I've not looked into the issue that much.

I've been following it fairly closely. But this is an odd statement to me. If you haven't looked into this issue very much, yet you are making comments about the corrupt leadership in the DOJ and FBI, does that not imply that you are simply parroting the party line without actually looking into the facts?

[Sparko]

You mean they support those who actually work and put their lives on the line but are critical of paper-pushing desk jockeys with political agendas? Yeah, go figure.

I have no problem with FBI agents. The problem I see with the FBI is the political leadership.

[Bill the Cat]

It's actually not that hard. You simply have to show "just cause." My Republican sister was Secretary of Transportation for the State of Vermont for several years. Yes, states are slightly different from federal, but the general processes are the same. She had no problem "cleaning house" when she took over and found herself with a department significantly populated by career employees who had ceased to be of significant value to the organization. She began by setting clear expectations for each job position, in written form, and conducting employee reviews bi-annually. Two poor reviews and she eliminated the person and refilled the position.

That's not how federal service works. You basically have to be surfing porn at work or stealing to get fired.

I've been following it fairly closely. But this is an odd statement to me. If you haven't looked into this issue very much, yet you are making comments about the corrupt leadership in the DOJ and FBI, does that not imply that you are simply parroting the party line without actually looking into the facts?

All I said about it was:

...you mean the positions Trump was responsible for appointing and their direct subordinates?

Nah. They pre-date Trump, like Comey...

I didn't fight vehemently or otherwise about any investigations into wrongdoing.

[carpedm9587]

That's not how federal service works. You basically have to be surfing porn at work or stealing to get fired.

No. I refer you to this. Despite what many on the right would like to think, the federal government is not a stupid organization. Yes, there is bureaucracy, as there is in ANY large organization - and the federal government is the largest organization in the U.S. - so there is a lot of bureaucracy. But poor performance is still poor performance. Good leadership can weed it out.

All I said about it was:

I didn't fight vehemently or otherwise about any investigations into wrongdoing.

I was referring to the earlier post in which you pointed out that the corruption in the DOJ and FBI was at the upper levels.

[Mountain Man]

Despite what many on the right would like to think, the federal government is not a stupid organization.

We don't think it's stupid, we think it's too big, too powerful, and corrupt.

[carpedm9587]

We don't think it's stupid, we think it's too big, too powerful, and corrupt.

You might want a broader brush, MM. That one doesn't seem to cover everything.

Not to mention - it's a meme with little no supporting evidence. Yes - there is corruption in government - as there is pretty much everywhere to some degree. But the government is 1.4 million people - most of whom are just doing their jobs to the best of their ability. Our government is not out of line (size-wise) with the per-capita ratios of most countries. And "too powerful" is a matter of opinion - usually an opinion held when the government does something you don't want them to be doing. Not all Americans agree with that assessment, which is basically why the government is the size that it is.

[Mountain Man]

...a matter of opinion...

Yes, it is, and since you responded with an opinion, I suppose that makes us even.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, it is, and since you responded with an opinion, I suppose that makes us even.

Actually - a mixture of opinion and data. The per capita number is hard data and speaks to "size." The "most people simply doing their jobs" is just common sense. The suggestion that 1.4 million people (or even a majority of them) are corrupt is simply unsupported assertion. We do, after all, live in a country that values "innocent until proven guilty." That leaves "too powerful" - which is indeed a matter of opinion. I have no problem with the current power of the government. I would like to see less big money in politics, but until we have a more left-leaning court, that is not likely to happen - so the corruption in the political process will probably continue. I think you can thank the conservative members of SCOTUS for that state of affairs.

[Bill the Cat]

No. I refer you to this. Despite what many on the right would like to think, the federal government is not a stupid organization. Yes, there is bureaucracy, as there is in ANY large organization - and the federal government is the largest organization in the U.S. - so there is a lot of bureaucracy. But poor performance is still poor performance. Good leadership can weed it out.

I've worked for the government/military since 1987. I've seen and reported all manner of laziness, fraud, waste, and abuse. It typically gets swept under the rug by the union. I've only seen 2 people fired in those 30 plus years. One was for child porn on his government workstation and one was for physically assaulting his supervisor on 2 separate occasions. I saw a guy steal hundreds of dollars of tools, get CAUGHT RED HANDED, and just get reassigned because the union said the guards had no jurisdiction in the offsite parking lot. Saw another get reassigned because he kept sleeping on the job. A third guy got caught on his desk with his secretary and got promoted and relocated to HQ.

I was referring to the earlier post in which you pointed out that the corruption in the DOJ and FBI was at the upper levels.

Which post?

[Mountain Man]

Actually - a mixture of opinion and data. The per capita number is hard data and speaks to "size." The "most people simply doing their jobs" is just common sense. The suggestion that 1.4 million people (or even a majority of them) are corrupt is simply unsupported assertion. We do, after all, live in a country that values "innocent until proven guilty." That leaves "too powerful" - which is indeed a matter of opinion. I have no problem with the current power of the government. I would like to see less big money in politics, but until we have a more left-leaning court, that is not likely to happen - so the corruption in the political process will probably continue. I think you can thank the conservative members of SCOTUS for that state of affairs.

Your opinions are based on the data, but that doesn't make your opinions fact. For example, you said, "Our government is not out of line (size-wise) with the per-capita ratios of most countries." This might be fact, but your implied conclusion that therefore our government is not unnecessarily large is an opinion. I could just as easily use that same data and opine that this simply proves that most governments are unnecessarily large.