Not a very sexy sounding topic, but a pretty important one to be aware of.
John Oliver explains:
https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=lL8xm2HBpeZQUGWP
Discuss…
Peru has a system that mirrors something like Schedule F, and it’s a massive problem. Basically, very little gets done in the first year of a new government in Peru, because the civil service is filled with new employees who don’t know how to run the country.
Trump’s version could mean as many as 50,000 federal workers are fired, and replaced by “yes†people, raising serious concerns about the effectiveness, accountability and sufficiency of the civil service.
Yeah. He did some real damage first time around.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state
I shudder to think what could be coming.
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
You should stick to the Babylon Bee.
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
This coming from Slowtwitch’s Lord of Satire, synthetic.
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
I would say two things:
-
John Oliver is the epitome of an “opinion piece.†And he has a very well researched show that continues to win awards every year. Criticizing him for expressing his opinion is not understanding his show.
-
Beyond criticizing the messenger, what are your thoughts on the content of the message?
Oliver never was a pure comedian and has always leaned hard into the political arena as a liberal bent on criticizing the right.
If you find his delivery off putting, try these two references to appreciate better the plus and minus to the Political spoils patronage versus the merit based civil service system.
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/trumps-schedule-f-plan-explained/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
A key here in resolving is the oath taken and the loyalty declared therein. We all work in support of the boss and his policies, but our loyalty is sworn to the constitution.
Oliver never was a pure comedian and has always leaned hard into the political arena as a liberal bent on criticizing the right.
If you find his delivery off putting, try these two references to appreciate better the plus and minus to the Political spoils patronage versus the merit based civil service system.
https://protectdemocracy.org/...le-f-plan-explained/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
A key here in resolving is the oath taken and the loyalty declared therein.** We all work in support of the boss and his policies, but our loyalty is sworn to the constitution**.
I think you can break that down into two different discussions. It is possible that you could consider an expansion of the number of political appointees in the executive agencies. In particular those that work policy. Not everyone who is a civil servant supports the current administration’s policies.
Requiring loyalty oaths to the President for political appointees a separate issue. One that could be addressed by allowing increased congressional oversight in the confirmation process. And that might be the ultimate issue with what Trump’s team is trying to do. At the moment, Congress as some say in the political appointees, but if you expand them too much that will be diluted.
Yeah. He did some real damage first time around.
https://www.newyorker.com/...mp-vs-the-deep-state
I shudder to think what could be coming.
In my old job I needed to interact with a number of EPA folks. It was normal for an incoming President to have “transition teams” come in and review all operations. With Trump, they were called “beachhead teams” and they had specific agendas, along with an undertone of pure harassment. It was bizarre.
They caused a lot of unnecessary disruption with people who were career, centrist, middle of the road scientists.
On the other hand I worked with one horrible obstructionist EPA attorney who abruptly resigned a couple of days after Trump took office; so I have to thank him for removing that particular thorn from my side!
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
I would say two things:
-
John Oliver is the epitome of an “opinion piece.†And he has a very well researched show that continues to win awards every year. Criticizing him for expressing his opinion is not understanding his show.
-
Beyond criticizing the messenger, what are your thoughts on the content of the message?
-
i have been watching the show for years. but lately some recent episodes just made to put out content (ex ufo episode) and yea, he is not a comedian, but one of his wirters has to go with the weird attempt of sexual fetish jokes
-
as for content of message, nothing new of whats been happening in past political waves
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
I would say two things:
-
John Oliver is the epitome of an “opinion piece.†And he has a very well researched show that continues to win awards every year. Criticizing him for expressing his opinion is not understanding his show.
-
Beyond criticizing the messenger, what are your thoughts on the content of the message?
-
i have been watching the show for years. but lately some recent episodes just made to put out content (ex ufo episode) and yea, he is not a comedian, but one of his wirters has to go with the weird attempt of sexual fetish jokes
-
as for content of message, nothing new of whats been happening in past political waves
Can you point to previous (non-Trump) efforts to remove protection for civil servants? Seems so obvious to you, so it should be easy. We’ll wait.
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
I would say two things:
-
John Oliver is the epitome of an “opinion piece.†And he has a very well researched show that continues to win awards every year. Criticizing him for expressing his opinion is not understanding his show.
-
Beyond criticizing the messenger, what are your thoughts on the content of the message?
-
i have been watching the show for years. but lately some recent episodes just made to put out content (ex ufo episode) and yea, he is not a comedian, but one of his wirters has to go with the weird attempt of sexual fetish jokes
-
as for content of message, nothing new of whats been happening in past political waves
Re:
-
I honestly have no idea what you’re saying. Your initial comment was to criticize him for suggesting who viewers should vote for. Given the episode was highlighting the dangers of the proposed policies, that would have been implied anyway.
-
Really? Past presidents have gutted the civil service in place of tens of thousands of “yes men?†Who has done this?
Oliver never was a pure comedian and has always leaned hard into the political arena as a liberal bent on criticizing the right.
If you find his delivery off putting, try these two references to appreciate better the plus and minus to the Political spoils patronage versus the merit based civil service system.
https://protectdemocracy.org/...le-f-plan-explained/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
A key here in resolving is the oath taken and the loyalty declared therein.** We all work in support of the boss and his policies, but our loyalty is sworn to the constitution**.
I think you can break that down into two different discussions. It is possible that you could consider an expansion of the number of political appointees in the executive agencies. In particular those that work policy. Not everyone who is a civil servant supports the current administration’s policies.
Requiring loyalty oaths to the President for political appointees a separate issue. One that could be addressed by allowing increased congressional oversight in the confirmation process. And that might be the ultimate issue with what Trump’s team is trying to do. At the moment, Congress as some say in the political appointees, but if you expand them too much that will be diluted.
As you say there is more than enough wiggle room to tinker with the numbers to make improvement to accommodate a more powerful executive policy team and still retain a competent work force with experience. This Project 2025 plan and the major change with schedule F is nowhere near that. In its sum it is scary more than it is bold. The scariness is evident in the trump campaign’s continued disclaimer that Trump has not endorsed it in its entirety.
- as for content of message, nothing new of whats been happening in past political waves
I’m sure you are really busy, so just checking in on your search for when this has happened in the past. Thanks!
Interesting that none of the Conservatives here are interested in discussing, much less defending, these proposed policies.
One would think they would have a view on the most significant potential changes to our civil service department in generations.
Ahh I see the sarcasm, so you choose to insult me to search harder? Then I won’t play that game. But before your post quickly found Biden A team turn over 71%, cabinet 13%
Ahh I see the sarcasm, so you choose to insult me to search harder? Then I won’t play that game. But before your post quickly found Biden A team turn over 71%, cabinet 13%
That isn’t the question. The question was for past attempts to remove civil service protections. The bureaucrats that actually keep a functioning government no matter who wins. Trump has decided to make them the enemy. They are actually pretty vital in keeping stability.
olivers content is declining. here he is telling you who to vote for straight out. if you are going to be satrical comedy guy , need to cater to both sides some how
Why? Satire doesn’t have to both sides anything.
Why? Satire doesn’t have to both sides anything.
Because in this type of comedy becomes yes man audience. The joke may actually not be funny or something you agree with, yet provide a chuckle when the guy lights up the “applause” sign… maybe this is a trend in all of comedy now, such as it happens in fictional tv shows where they use that piano to simulate audience laughter. Can be seen on new show “night court” which I stumbled on
“With a $100,000 grant from the Heritage Foundation, the goal is to post 100 names of government workers to a website this summer to show a potential new administration who might be standing in the way of a second-term Trump agenda — and ripe for scrutiny, reclassifications, reassignments or firings.”