6 ms·

> So now we have a large civil service full of loyal people that seemingly often sabotage each other, fighting one loyal group against another loyal group. Can

> So now we have a large civil service full of loyal people that seemingly often sabotage each other, fighting one loyal group against another loyal group. Can you name even a single time when two groups of civil servants sabotaged each other in this way? If civil servants engage in this kind of sabotage, how has Trump been able to enact things that are both controversial and flagrantly unlawful without being sabotaged?

mothballed 11mo ago
>an you name even a single time when two groups of civil servants sabotaged each other in this way? DOGE vs USAID >If civil servants engage in this kind of sabotage, how has Trump been able to enact things that are both controversial and flagrantly unlawful without being sabotaged? I mean they have, look at all the civil servants who were fired and then sued for their jobs back with the leverage of judges who were prior appointed by Democrat leaning politics. Trump's attempt to eliminate large portions of the civil service has failed pretty spectacularly.
- SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
  Yes, it’s true that Trump specifically has instructed civil servants to sabotage each other. You know why this is a dishonest answer, so I don’t see the point of continuing this conversation. The day will come when your heroes face the consequences of pointlessly killing all the children USAID helped, and you beg for everyone to forget you ever supported it; I look forward to rubbing the salt in your wounds, but until then I have no interest in what you have to say.
- miltonlost 11mo ago
  DOGE were not "civil servants" in the slightest. And USAID tried to sabotage DOGE?? Your entire worldview is backwards. (Looking through your past posts and yiikes yeah)
rayiner 11mo ago
There was massive sabotage of the first Trump administration. We're talking about administration lawyers not reporting case developments to political employees in order to keep the political appointees in the dark.
- SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
  Which activities specifically were sabotaged? Trump was, for example, famously able to implement what he called a "Muslim ban" - previous administration hires can't have been happy about that, yet I don't recall any stories about civil servants sabotaging the implementation of it. My impression is that many of Trump's political appointees simply don't understand due process requirements, and interpret any legal obstacles to executing their will as sabotage by shadowy figures. You mention case developments, but as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win.
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    > You mention case developments, but as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win. I think you are correct here, but it still leaves the open question whether the government's case is weak because it is weak on merits or because the people in charge of defending/executing/prosecuting the case intentionally made holes in it or botched it to make it weak. I won't claim either is the case, only point out either or a mixture of both is hypothetically possible and merely making your assertion true doesn't rule out the latter being true.
    - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
      Again, this isn’t a hypothetical. The administration has recently been deploying political appointees to prosecute cases the career employees thought were too weak, and they’ve had little success at even securing indictments. The reason Trump and his supporters insist on dragging the discussion to hypotheticals is that all of the concrete things they feel have been “sabotaged” are either impossible or illegal.

mothballed 11mo ago

>an you name even a single time when two groups of civil servants sabotaged each other in this way? DOGE vs USAID >If civil servants engage in this kind of sabotage, how has Trump been able to enact things that are both controversial and flagrantly unlawful without being sabotaged? I mean they have, look at all the civil servants who were fired and then sued for their jobs back with the leverage of judges who were prior appointed by Democrat leaning politics. Trump's attempt to eliminate large portions of the civil service has failed pretty spectacularly.

SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
Yes, it’s true that Trump specifically has instructed civil servants to sabotage each other. You know why this is a dishonest answer, so I don’t see the point of continuing this conversation. The day will come when your heroes face the consequences of pointlessly killing all the children USAID helped, and you beg for everyone to forget you ever supported it; I look forward to rubbing the salt in your wounds, but until then I have no interest in what you have to say.
miltonlost 11mo ago
DOGE were not "civil servants" in the slightest. And USAID tried to sabotage DOGE?? Your entire worldview is backwards. (Looking through your past posts and yiikes yeah)

rayiner 11mo ago

There was massive sabotage of the first Trump administration. We're talking about administration lawyers not reporting case developments to political employees in order to keep the political appointees in the dark.

SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
Which activities specifically were sabotaged? Trump was, for example, famously able to implement what he called a "Muslim ban" - previous administration hires can't have been happy about that, yet I don't recall any stories about civil servants sabotaging the implementation of it. My impression is that many of Trump's political appointees simply don't understand due process requirements, and interpret any legal obstacles to executing their will as sabotage by shadowy figures. You mention case developments, but as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win.
- mothballed 11mo ago
  > You mention case developments, but as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win. I think you are correct here, but it still leaves the open question whether the government's case is weak because it is weak on merits or because the people in charge of defending/executing/prosecuting the case intentionally made holes in it or botched it to make it weak. I won't claim either is the case, only point out either or a mixture of both is hypothetically possible and merely making your assertion true doesn't rule out the latter being true.
  - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
    Again, this isn’t a hypothetical. The administration has recently been deploying political appointees to prosecute cases the career employees thought were too weak, and they’ve had little success at even securing indictments. The reason Trump and his supporters insist on dragging the discussion to hypotheticals is that all of the concrete things they feel have been “sabotaged” are either impossible or illegal.