Trump promises and proposals tracking thread.

#653
#653
www.foxnews.com

Trump administration offers buyouts to federal employees, including remote workers: 'Deferred resignation'

The Trump administration told federal employees in an email that they are required to return to the office, and for those who don't, they will be offered buyouts.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

"The government-wide email being sent today is to make sure that all federal workers are on board with the new administration’s plan to have federal employees in office and adhering to higher standards," a senior administration official said. "We’re five years past COVID and just 6 percent of federal employees work full-time in office. That is unacceptable."
 
#657
#657
rekinhavoc said:
www.foxnews.com

Trump administration offers buyouts to federal employees, including remote workers: 'Deferred resignation'

The Trump administration told federal employees in an email that they are required to return to the office, and for those who don't, they will be offered buyouts.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

"The government-wide email being sent today is to make sure that all federal workers are on board with the new administration’s plan to have federal employees in office and adhering to higher standards," a senior administration official said. "We’re five years past COVID and just 6 percent of federal employees work full-time in office. That is unacceptable."
Click to expand...


I agree on people returning to the office. I do think sometimes you are better off making accommodations to some employees to get the better talent, if you have to compete with private employers paying higher salaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
#658
#658
NashVol11 said:
Explain how any goalposts were moved by making the exact same point the entire time as people threw s**t at the wall finding different ways to be defensive, I'll wait
Click to expand...
Actually, you are quite the guy for moving goalposts, but in this case I was incorrect. You stood up a straw man arguing about expired visas while the press secretary and reporter mentioned nothing about that specific scenario. It was clear they were talking about those who crossed the border illegally.

I regret the mischaracterization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#659
#659
NashVol11 said:
Yes, the question of how many have criminal records is very clear and "all of them" is both wrong and a cop out. That's not a "stance," it's a fact
Click to expand...
having a criminal record is not what makes one a "criminal". you are putting a spin on the actual debate.

you are a criminal when you break the law. you only have a criminal record if you are caught and lose a court case.
 
#660
#660
rekinhavoc said:
www.foxnews.com

Trump administration offers buyouts to federal employees, including remote workers: 'Deferred resignation'

The Trump administration told federal employees in an email that they are required to return to the office, and for those who don't, they will be offered buyouts.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

"The government-wide email being sent today is to make sure that all federal workers are on board with the new administration’s plan to have federal employees in office and adhering to higher standards," a senior administration official said. "We’re five years past COVID and just 6 percent of federal employees work full-time in office. That is unacceptable."
Click to expand...
this is going to do more to shut down the government than anything.

if it was me, I would take the buyout, sit around for 9 months, maybe work part time, then go back and apply for my same job.
 
#661
#661
LouderVol said:
this is going to do more to shut down the government than anything.

if it was me, I would take the buyout, sit around for 9 months, maybe work part time, then go back and apply for my same job.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we want you back........j/k
 
#662
#662
"45. Revoke Joe Biden’s policies on “gender affirming care”—a process that includes giving kids puberty blockers, mutating their physical appearance, and ultimately performing surgery on minor children."

I think this can be Green-checked:

1738163136696.png

Having taken two years+ of "chemical castration" drugs, I am glad for this change. These drugs beat the hell out of your body and mess with your physical and emotional health. Willingly giving these to teens, who are already going through crazy body changes, just seems crazy to me (absent circumstances where they may be necessary to save or prolong life.)

(Disclaimer: I am not a Doctor. If your doctor recommends this course of treatment to you, please make a responsible choice. There are absolutely physical conditions where these drugs can save or prolong your life. Don't let my comments dissuade your from making the right decision for you. Similarly, if you have particularly strong emotional responses when taking these drugs, be sure to talk to your Dr. There may be other drugs that mitigate those side effects of these hormone blockers. Those side effects can be gradual, or they can come on very, very quickly. Guys especially, don't let pride get in the way of seeking help for detrimental emotional side effects.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, StarRaider, LouderVol and 1 other person
#664
#664
GroverCleveland said:
Actually, you are quite the guy for moving goalposts, but in this case I was incorrect. You stood up a straw man arguing about expired visas while the press secretary and reporter mentioned nothing about that specific scenario. It was clear they were talking about those who crossed the border illegally.

I regret the mischaracterization.
Click to expand...
They were talking about the people ICE rounded up, in general; no one said a word about border crossings.

"Give us the numbers, how many of the 3,500 people detained have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally?"
"All of them are criminals"

^ THAT is a straw man along with a deflection, pointing out that she was still factually wrong (which she was) is not. Good effort though
 
#665
#665
lawgator1 said:
I agree on people returning to the office. I do think sometimes you are better off making accommodations to some employees to get the better talent, if you have to compete with private employers paying higher salaries.
Click to expand...
Not a bad take. Job description needs to be clear. Remote or in office. We have had people take a job and then endlessly whine about waning to work from home.
 
#666
#666
C-south said:
Again, all you have to do is have ICE meet them at the hospital. They can be deported while the child is handed over to the state.
Click to expand...
Why would we want the kid to be handed over to the state? He or she is the parents' responsibility, not the state's. Kiddo can go with the parents and come back when they're 18.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, CagleMtnVol and MemphisVol77
#667
#667
NashVol11 said:
They were talking about the people ICE rounded up, in general; no one said a word about border crossings.

"Give us the numbers, how many of the 3,500 people detained have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally?"
"All of them are criminals"

^ THAT is a straw man along with a deflection, pointing out that she was still factually wrong (which she was) is not. Good effort though
Click to expand...
Go to the 58 second mark for the context. She first clearly states “ entered the country illegally”. Later the context was the 500 ICE arrests. Yes you are making a straw man. And yes this is the argument I was making but not the one you were “winning”. As you say good effort though!

 
#668
#668
NashVol11 said:
"How many have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally" was the question, verbatim, and now that's "spin" lol
Click to expand...
Both sides played the "verbal sparring" game on this one.

Reporters kept asking about "criminal records", Leavitt kept answering about "criminals" - which she defined as those who break the law (she said nothing about "records".) Neither side was letting the other set the narrative. I am fine with that, mainly because I expect the game, so I can hear it and process it for what it is.

It doesn't mean Leavitt said everyone deported had a criminal record. She didn't. It doesn't mean she answered the question she was asked by the reporter. She didn't.

It means what it means: The media is trying to get the WH to publicly say many of those deported don't have criminal records in order to make the WH look bad. Leavitt avoids the question because she knows any further explanation will be cut from the tape, so she answers with the further explanation: The WH considers those who entered the country illegally to be "criminals" subject to deportation.

Both sides are pushing their narrative. We, the audience, should be able to agree or disagree regarding the best policy without putting words, or taking them, from the mouths of either reporters or WH spokespersons. If we can't, we aren't really engaging in dialogue with each other because we are talking about two entirely different conversations ("records" vs "criminals") and making them one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, 825VOL, LouderVol and 1 other person
#669
#669
EasternVol said:
Why would we want the kid to be handed over to the state? He or she is the parents' responsibility, not the state's. Kiddo can go with the parents and come back when they're 18.
Click to expand...
Makes sense until I realize that we would be allowing foreign nationals to remove our minor citizens to another country without informed consent. Not sure I like that as a policy, either. Maybe those babies should be born somewhere else.
 
#670
#670
NorthDallas40 said:
Go to the 58 second mark for the context. She first clearly states “ entered the country illegally”. Later the context was the 500 ICE arrests. Yes you are making a straw man. And yes this is the argument I was making but not the one you were “winning”. As you say good effort though!

Click to expand...

Completely different conversation as "context" 😭 people can't handle that her statement was a blatant deflection and was still wrong anyway
 
#671
#671
Ritzwatch said:
Both sides played the "verbal sparring" game on this one.

Reporters kept asking about "criminal records", Leavitt kept answering about "criminals" - which she defined as those who break the law (she said nothing about "records".) Neither side was letting the other set the narrative. I am fine with that, mainly because I expect the game, so I can hear it and process it for what it is.

It doesn't mean Leavitt said everyone deported had a criminal record. She didn't. It doesn't mean she answered the question she was asked by the reporter. She didn't.

It means what it means: The media is trying to get the WH to publicly say many of those deported don't have criminal records in order to make the WH look bad. Leavitt avoids the question because she knows any further explanation will be cut from the tape, so she answers with the further explanation: The WH considers those who entered the country illegally to be "criminals" subject to deportation.

Both sides are pushing their narrative. We, the audience, should be able to agree or disagree regarding the best policy without putting words, or taking them, from the mouths of either reporters or WH spokespersons. If we can't, we aren't really engaging in dialogue with each other because we are talking about two entirely different conversations ("records" vs "criminals") and making them one.
Click to expand...
The people rounded up by ICE aren't "all criminals" either, even her deflection was still wrong. She didn't say "those who entered the country illegally" at all, the question was specifically about ICE arrests
 
#672
#672
NashVol11 said:
Completely different conversation as "context" 😭 people can't handle that her statement was a blatant deflection and was still wrong anyway
Click to expand...
Actually sport it looks to me like you’re struggling that we won’t buy your invented argument that you’re absolutely slam dunking on … that no one else is having.
 
#673
#673
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually sport it looks to me like you’re struggling that we won’t buy your invented argument that you’re absolutely Alan dunking on … that no one else is having.
Click to expand...
I agree, "they're all criminals" is something most people have stopped trying to defend given that it's inarguably wrong but you're here arguing about nothing anyway. "Invented argument" and it's the words she said herself 😭
 
#674
#674
NashVol11 said:
The people rounded up by ICE aren't "all criminals" either, even her deflection was still wrong. She didn't say "those who entered the country illegally" at all, the question was specifically about ICE arrests
Click to expand...
58 second mark of the video I linked. The question was asked and in her reply she clearly predicated the stance with people entering the country illegally. Do you have details showing the status of the 500 detainees indicating not all had criminal records? Because that was the context of that immediately following exchange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#675
#675
NashVol11 said:
They were talking about the people ICE rounded up, in general; no one said a word about border crossings.

"Give us the numbers, how many of the 3,500 people detained have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally?"
"All of them are criminals"

^ THAT is a straw man along with a deflection, pointing out that she was still factually wrong (which she was) is not. Good effort though
Click to expand...
Your argument was specifically about expired visas. Strawman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top