Fire every federal bureaucrat/employee caught undermining the administration.

[hadit]

What does “undermining the administration” even entail?

Doing whatever you can to impede, disrupt, or oppose actions by the administration. That depends on your job and what you have access to do.

 

[braalian]

Doing whatever you can to impede, disrupt, or oppose actions by the administration. That depends on your job and what you have access to do.

Still being vague….

 

[Marener]

I did not say illegal things. Do you think federal employees should have the right to undermine the President and/or his legitimate authority or agenda?

If it’s a legitimate agenda, sure. If it’s illegal or inappropriately political, they should refuse.

Sometimes the president needs to be told his ideas are really goddamn stupid.

People in Trump’s previous administration had to do all of the above. Kind of a lot.

 

[westwall]

Put them up against the wall! Burn the Reichstag! Get the trains running on time to the concentration camps!

Pretty much what YOUR masters have been trying to accomplish.

Thanks for the admission.

 

[westwall]

Still being vague….

Not really.

 

[braalian]

Not really.

Yes, it is

It’s too broad

You people will try to say simply not being a Trump supporter constitutes as “undermining the administration”

 

[westwall]

Yes, it is

It’s too broad

You people will try to say simply not being a Trump supporter constitutes as “undermining the administration”

No, it isn't. If the president says to do something, you do it in as expeditiously a manner as you can.

If you slow walk it, or lose the order, or whatever, that is materialy impeding the president's order and you should be punished by firing at the very least.

 

[hadit]

Still being vague….

That's because you're limited by your job description in what you can do, and there are a lot of jobs with different description. Ask me what I can do as a database administrator and I can give you a handful of things.

 

[hadit]

No, it isn't. If the president says to do something, you do it in as expeditiously a manner as you can.

If you slow walk it, or lose the order, or whatever, that is materialy impeding the president's order and you should be punished by firing at the very least.

Exactly. You can hate the president all you want, but if you're the White House chef, you make the best food you can. If you're his limo driver, you drive where you're told to drive and you do it the best way you can. If you're a paper pusher, you push those papers as fast and as accurately as possible. You keep your opinion out of the workplace.

 

[MisterBeale]

What does “undermining the administration” even entail?

https://archive.ph/jROnq

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Foxfyre]

If it’s a legitimate agenda, sure. If it’s illegal or inappropriately political, they should refuse.

Sometimes the president needs to be told his ideas are really goddamn stupid.

People in Trump’s previous administration had to do all of the above. Kind of a lot.

You do realize your statement that I bolded says federal employees should not have to work as directed to further the President's policies or agenda?

Did you mean that? If so, how do you justify that?

This has nothing to do with the opinions of the federal employees who may hate the President's guts and all his policies. But if they are drawing a government paycheck, they should be honor bound to work for the people's choice as President the same as they would work for one they like.

In the OP I allowed for protection of whistle blowers who observe or are ordered to do something illegal. The point here however has nothing to do with illegality but rather with policy and agenda they disagree with and doing what will undermine that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Put them up against the wall! Burn the Reichstag! Get the trains running on time to the concentration camps!

Would you settle for just firing them?

 

[postman]

Was Hillary indicted by the DOJ between 2016 and 2021, yes or no?

We're reporting what Trump said he would do.
Not what he was competent to actually do.

Did Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall?
Did Trump repeal Obamacare?
Did Trump deport the 12 million illegals?

You're trying to argue we shouldn't take what Trump says seriously.

 

[hadit]

If it’s a legitimate agenda, sure. If it’s illegal or inappropriately political, they should refuse.

If it's unconstitutional, sure. If it's just that you think the president is a poopyhead and you don't like him so you're going to be a jerk about it (which is where most of these people really are), no.

Sometimes the president needs to be told his ideas are really goddamn stupid.

Which is his advisers' job to do, not a 4th level paper pusher deliberately slowing things down because he wants to "resist" everything and thinks he's being important.

People in Trump’s previous administration had to do all of the above. Kind of a lot.

Every president hears a whole lot more than you ever know about. Some just have more loudmouths who want 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Marener]

You do realize your statement that I bolded says federal employees should not have to work as directed to further the President's policies or agenda?

Did you mean that? If so, how do you justify that?

This has nothing to do with the opinions of the federal employees who may hate the President's guts and all his policies. But if they are drawing a government paycheck, they should be honor bound to work for the people's choice as President the same as they would work for one they like.

In the OP I allowed for protection of whistle blowers who observe or are ordered to do something illegal. The point here however has nothing to do with illegality but rather with policy and agenda they disagree with and doing what will undermine that.

The line between legal and illegal isn’t necessarily clear and it’s also not totally sufficient.

That’s why I bring up politicization. I don’t know of any law that would make this illegal, per se. Yet I think we all agree that there are significant parts of government that shouldn’t be politicized.

There was an FBI agent who refused to go serve an arrest warrant on someone that he felt was inappropriate. I believe he became a whistleblower for Republicans in Congress.

Now, it’s pretty clear there wasn’t anything illegal about getting a task force of armed officers to arrest someone. Are we to believe he was honor bound to execute the warrant as instructed?

 

[postman]

If it’s a legitimate agenda, sure. If it’s illegal or inappropriately political, they should refuse.

Sometimes the president needs to be told his ideas are really goddamn stupid.

People in Trump’s previous administration had to do all of the above. Kind of a lot.

Like when Trump suggested dropping nuclear weapons on hurricanes. The folks in the armed forces opposed the presidents idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

The line between legal and illegal isn’t necessarily clear and it’s also not totally sufficient.

That’s why I bring up politicization. I don’t know of any law that would make this illegal, per se. Yet I think we all agree that there are significant parts of government that shouldn’t be politicized.

There was an FBI agent who refused to go serve an arrest warrant on someone that he felt was inappropriate. I believe he became a whistleblower for Republicans in Congress.

Now, it’s pretty clear there wasn’t anything illegal about getting a task force of armed officers to arrest someone. Are we to believe he was honor bound to execute the warrant as instructed?

So you do support federal employees using their jobs to undermine the elected President's legitimate authority, policies and agenda? You can't say that they should not be allowed to do that?

 

[Marener]

So you do support federal employees using their jobs to undermine the elected President's legitimate authority, policies and agenda? You can't say that they should not be allowed to do that?

I took time to write a thoughtful response, which you seemingly didn’t absorb or consider at all in this response.

If you want to engage in a dialogue, let me know.

 

[martybegan]

he wanted to do that. He was told he can’t. Now, according to you this shouldn’t have happened.

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton (Published 2018)

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how President Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies.

www.nytimes.com

The only reason it didn’t happen is because he was refused by people loyal to the country and not the president.

That's all speculation.

 

[martybegan]

Tell me how you concluded that the DoJ prosecuting Trump was political. These prosecutions weren’t filed by Garland and weren’t ordered by Biden.

Show me a Trump politicized DOJ prosecution.

The Biden ones include the over-prosecution of J6, as well as the over-prosecution of those pro-life protesters.