Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Trump LOSES in Federal Court TWICE in one day. LMAO

5 hours ago  A federal judge on Thursday ordered six government agencies to offer fired probationary federal workers their jobs back.
2 hours ago  A federal judge on Thursday ordered six federal agencies to rehire thousands of workers with probationary status who had been fired as part ...
10 hours ago  The order extends relief to fired workers at the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury. "It is a ...
Edited by robosmith
  • Like 1
Posted

That's ok. When Schumer shuts down the government, the President then has full authority to fire them permanently.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump LOSES in Federal Court TWICE in one day. LMAO

5 hours ago  A federal judge on Thursday ordered six government agencies to offer fired probationary federal workers their jobs back.
2 hours ago  A federal judge on Thursday ordered six federal agencies to rehire thousands of workers with probationary status who had been fired as part ...
10 hours ago  The order extends relief to fired workers at the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury. "It is a ...

Looks like it's time for the SC to take out its own chainsaw and go to work on the federal court system. We simply have way too many left-wing activists in there. 

Edited by Deluge
Posted

I do not have the time to dig in but most likely it is an issue of existing law being violated. At the state government level, once you get to 5 years, it becomes a legal issue to fire someone without cause. You have to have ironclad proof of misconduct.. such as video, audio, etc. Unlike private sector jobs, in the public sector your pay, vacation, etc are codified into law. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I do not have the time to dig in but most likely it is an issue of existing law being violated. At the state government level, once you get to 5 years, it becomes a legal issue to fire someone without cause. You have to have ironclad proof of misconduct.. such as video, audio, etc. Unlike private sector jobs, in the public sector your pay, vacation, etc are codified into law. 

DOGE may just have to go after entire departments, instead. I mean, how many of those 400+ agencies is America actually going to miss? My guess is less than 25%. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I do not have the time to dig in but most likely it is an issue of existing law being violated. At the state government level, once you get to 5 years, it becomes a legal issue to fire someone without cause. You have to have ironclad proof of misconduct.. such as video, audio, etc. Unlike private sector jobs, in the public sector your pay, vacation, etc are codified into law. 

One of the judge's ruling is short and sweet. Since firing for poor performance is an accepted standard, and he saw many examples of very good performance reviews, he decided that the poor performance reasons given were a MASS SHAM.

Posted
1 minute ago, Deluge said:

DOGE may just have to go after entire departments, instead. I mean, how many of those 400+ agencies is America actually going to miss? My guess is less than 25%. 

From a legal standpoint. your approach would be even less successful. We are talking about a judge so therefore it is a legal issue. If you truly want them off the books.. you have to follow the law. If someone wanted to fire my entire dept.. they would be faced with a series of legal issues. Why? Because our jobs are codified into law. You can change the laws but that takes the legislature and therefore long, drawn out process. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

From a legal standpoint. your approach would be even less successful. We are talking about a judge so therefore it is a legal issue. If you truly want them off the books.. you have to follow the law. If someone wanted to fire my entire dept.. they would be faced with a series of legal issues. Why? Because our jobs are codified into law. You can change the laws but that takes the legislature and therefore long, drawn out process. 

You may be right there. 

DOGE may have to just ignore the activist judges and keep making cuts. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You may be right there. 

DOGE may have to just ignore the activist judges and keep making cuts. 

What they should do, if they want these cuts to be permanent, is be thorough, detailed, and follow existing law. It can be done. Will it be sensational enough for you? No. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

What they should do, if they want these cuts to be permanent, is be thorough, detailed, and follow existing law. It can be done. Will it be sensational enough for you? No. 

"Sensational" has nothing to do with it. This is so much bigger than your stupid agenda. I want the national government lean and mean, not fat and destructive. The corruption is over. 

Posted
Just now, Deluge said:

"Sensational" has nothing to do with it. This is so much bigger than your stupid agenda. I want the national government lean and mean, not fat and destructive. The corruption is over. 

I have no agenda... Its much like explaining to someone that to get your car started, you have to do more than yell, scream, and be self righteous. Imagine that your alternator fails. Do you calmly and thoroughly diagnose the issue? Or do you get on your pulpit and exclaim about your leadership qualities? Having fixed many cars.. I can tell you which choice gets the job done. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You may be right there. 

DOGE may have to just ignore the activist judges and keep making cuts. 

IGNORING any kind of judges is ILLEGAL and a CRIME.

But advocating criminal actions is NOTHING NEW FOR YOU and YOUR FELLOW CRIMINALS. 🤮

Posted
5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IGNORING any kind of judges is ILLEGAL and a CRIME.

But advocating criminal actions is NOTHING NEW FOR YOU and YOUR FELLOW CRIMINALS. 🤮

That's not correct, Deluge does not belong in your group.

Posted
3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It is correct. DELUGINAL belongs to the MAGA CULT. and you're their TROLL.

"your fellow criminals" is inclusive.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

IGNORING any kind of judges is ILLEGAL and a CRIME.

But advocating criminal actions is NOTHING NEW FOR YOU and YOUR FELLOW CRIMINALS. 🤮

I see. 

Are you saying fat ass Leticia James and morbidly obese Alvin Bragg's making up a bunch of bullshit charges to sink their political opponent's presidential campaign is OK? 

No. It's not OK. 

Trump is making cuts in the federal government. You cultists want the DEI funding to continue. We'll find out who's wrong or right when the SC has to step in - AGAIN. 

Posted
1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

I have no agenda... Its much like explaining to someone that to get your car started, you have to do more than yell, scream, and be self righteous. Imagine that your alternator fails. Do you calmly and thoroughly diagnose the issue? Or do you get on your pulpit and exclaim about your leadership qualities? Having fixed many cars.. I can tell you which choice gets the job done. 

No, it's more like Rohan from Lord of the Rings, only it's the US that's at stake. The democrat party is both Saruman and Grima Wormtongue, and DOGE is Gandalf. The new white wizard, of course, expels Saruman (the shadow government) and the restored king (Trump) literally kicks Wormtongue's ass out of Rohan. 

THAT is an accurate portrayal of what's going on. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I see. 

Are you saying fat ass Leticia James and morbidly obese Alvin Bragg's making up a bunch of bullshit charges to sink their political opponent's presidential campaign is OK? 

No. It's not OK. 

It's "not OK" to TRY to make a point with juvenile name calling.

When you do, it ONLY demonstrates YOUR BANKRUPTCY.

No laws were "made up," and that's why Trump was FELONY CONVICTED Duh

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Trump is making cuts in the federal government. You cultists want the DEI funding to continue. We'll find out who's wrong or right when the SC has to step in - AGAIN. 

Thanks for revealing YOUR BANKRUPTCY AGAIN, by PRETENDING 10s of thousands of Federal workers are DEI. 

And PROVING you don't understand that ILLOGIC.

Posted
Just now, Deluge said:

No, it's more like Rohan from Lord of the Rings, only it's the US that's at stake. The democrat party is both Saruman and Grima Wormtongue, and DOGE is Gandalf. The new white wizard, of course, expels Saruman (the shadow government) and the restored king (Trump) literally kicks Wormtongue's ass out of Rohan. 

THAT is an accurate portrayal of what's going on. 

 Fantasy novel... has so much in common with actual federal government work. You always make topics into those of morality and such. This is a legal issue and if you play the legal game... you need more than being self righteous. I know.. I have played it twice. When our dept was sued, we had to do more than yell and scream about how perfect we were. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. It's "not OK" to TRY to make a point with juvenile name calling.

When you do, it ONLY demonstrates YOUR BANKRUPTCY.

2. No laws were "made up," and that's why Trump was FELONY CONVICTED Duh

3. Thanks for revealing YOUR BANKRUPTCY AGAIN, by PRETENDING 10s of thousands of Federal workers are DEI. 

And PROVING you don't understand that ILLOGIC.

1. It's ALWAYS OK to call those two scumbags names - they bring it on themselves and I am only too happy to oblige. 

2. They were trumped up charges and the timing of lowering those charges is STRICTLY politically motivated. Every single one of those a$$holes belongs behind bars for abuse of power and fraudulent claims. 

3. Thank YOU for admitting you pine for fraud, waste and abuse - and for DEI. 

You're a DEI slut, nothing more. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

 Fantasy novel... has so much in common with actual federal government work. You always make topics into those of morality and such. This is a legal issue and if you play the legal game... you need more than being self righteous. I know.. I have played it twice. When our dept was sued, we had to do more than yell and scream about how perfect we were. 

It's a good comparison. And it's certainly better than your lame ass comparison. 

This is a voter mandate, and one way or another, Trump is going to burn the fat off this government.  

As far as legalities go, I see SCOTUS telling the activist judges to go f*ck themselves. 

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It's a good comparison. And it's certainly better than your lame ass comparison. 

This is a voter mandate, and one way or another, Trump is going to burn the fat off this government.  

As far as legalities go, I see SCOTUS telling the activist judges to go f*ck themselves. 

 

 

 

Maybe. My guess is that the SC will say the same thing as myself.... follow existing law. You can get trim the number of employees while following the law. It takes a day or two longer but not all that difficult. I do not mind the idea of having less federal government employees but they should play by the rules that they themselves put into place. Interesting how you think that they should not follow existing law.. very interesting. Your approval of this reality is not necessary but if you follow existing law.. the employee can't sue you or be reinstated later. This makes it permanent. If you do not.. they can sue you, take you to court and be in the right according to existing law. 

Edited by impartialobserver
Posted

What do they mean by "probationary"?

In BC when you first start a job, even a union job, and you're within your probationary period, you can be let go basically without cause. All the employer has to do is say that you're not performing to their standards and that's that. 

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted
2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What do they mean by "probationary"?

In BC when you first start a job, even a union job, and you're within your probationary period, you can be let go basically without cause. All the employer has to do is say that you're not performing to their standards and that's that. 

When you start a federal or state job, you are on "probation" for one year. If you pass all three evaluations given at months 3, 6, and 11 then you deemed to have passed probation. The main difference being how they can fire you. Probationary employees can't be fired on a whim. You still have to have a reason tied to job performance. Nonprobationary employees, you had better have a rock solid case.. videos, screen shots, time card data, audio, etc. whereas the opposite, you can just say that you did not get enough points on an evaluation and so that is all. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,888
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    armchairscholar
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...