The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Paingod]

Your environment isn't in any more or less danger than last year.

Trump has placed a man in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency that doesn't believe in Climate Change and is working hard to roll back regulations that were designed to help America cut back on greenhouse emissions. They are scrubbing "Climate" from government websites and replacing it with "Resilient" where applicable, and shutting down sites where it's not. This is causing problems for people who need environmental data to make decisions that could adversely impact biodiversity and climate change.

Here's a list of 87 items being tracked that his administration is doing. Most will cause long-term damage to the environment or leave things open enough to cause more problems. All in the name of denying climate change and increased profits through deregulation.

"Our" environment is also yours. What he wants to do should bother you as much as me.

[GreenGoo]

Your environment isn't in any more or less danger than last year.

Trump has placed a man in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency that doesn't believe in Climate Change and is working hard to roll back regulations that were designed to help America cut back on greenhouse emissions. They are scrubbing "Climate" from government websites and replacing it with "Resilient" where applicable, and shutting down sites where it's not. This is causing problems for people who need environmental data to make decisions that could adversely impact biodiversity and climate change.

Here's a list of 87 items being tracked that his administration is doing. Most will cause long-term damage to the environment or leave things open enough to cause more problems. All in the name of denying climate change and increased profits through deregulation.

Sure, and I agree he's gutting needed departments. I'm just not convinced this makes him orders of magnitude worse than previous presidents. Working hard to roll back regulations falls under the "trying hard but not succeeding" that I originally mentioned.

Even backing out of the Paris Accord, while a terrible decision, hasn't actually caused any damage yet. I mean, you weren't in it in 2016, and you're not in it for 2017 and 2018. It's not like they would have already saved the world if only America had participated.

I get that he sucks, and I get that he's doing shitty things that many (including myself) don't like. I'm just not sure the things he has actually accomplished have been much worse than other Presidents' that I also disagreed with.

Nuking Obamacare using an end run, sure. That's shitty and a huge black mark on his record. These tax cuts will, eventually but not yet, turn crappy.

He's barely in the office, just how much trouble can he get into, from a practical standpoint?

[Paingod]

He's barely in the office, just how much trouble can he get into, from a practical standpoint?

For me, that depends. Will Climate Change wait for the US to get a new President in office that can then undo the damage Trump has done and will do, or will it continue on ahead, hastened by his ignorance, and become a more severe problem for everyone?

Humanitarian, social, and economic policies all take a back seat to this issue in my mind. It won't matter if we have equality for Gays or a strong economy when the surface of the planet is broiling.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, I'm not sure. It's a major clean up job, and the sooner it gets started, the better (well, it's already been started. It started in the 70's). With that said, cleaning up is a long term project, and for the damage to reach apocalyptic scale will also take decades. Do I want to pause and pick up where you left off after 4 years? No. Will irreversible damage be done, like the extinction of animal species (probably) or coastline destroyed (maybe) as a result of this pause?

We can agree he is completely wrongheaded on this and a total chump, making things worse. What is the impact of his 1 year presidency so far? Is it even measurable with regard to something as huge as Climate Change? Are the changes to climate for 2017 directly attributable to Drumpf and his policies/appointments? I assumed no. I could easily be wrong.

[Max Peck]

Watch Scott Adams podcast with Joe Rogan. He clearly says that he's not a Trump supporter and didn't back him in the election.

Funny, that's not how I remember it. Maybe he shares Trump's sense of reality.

As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn’t safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it’s bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.

So, he was "endorsing" Clinton because it wasn't "safe" to support Trump, and he thought it would hurt him professionally (as well as physically?) to do so. Then he stopped pretending he wasn't a Trumpista.

[Paingod]

What is the impact of his 1 year presidency so far? Is it even measurable with regard to something as huge as Climate Change? Are the changes to climate for 2017 directly attributable to Drumpf and his policies/appointments? I assumed no. I could easily be wrong.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to see his impact on the larger scale until it's historical data. If he had his way, that data wouldn't even exist. In 40 years we might be able to see his policies as part of a curve, showing a brief acceleration where it had been staggering before.

The whole thing is compound interest, though. Taking a few years off to let interest accumulate and even throw in some extra to pocket the dividends, and it makes it magnitudes harder to bring back down later.

[Chaz]

What is the impact of his 1 year presidency so far? Is it even measurable with regard to something as huge as Climate Change? Are the changes to climate for 2017 directly attributable to Drumpf and his policies/appointments? I assumed no. I could easily be wrong.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to see his impact on the larger scale until it's historical data. If he had his way, that data wouldn't even exist. In 40 years we might be able to see his policies as part of a curve, showing a brief acceleration where it had been staggering before.

The whole thing is compound interest, though. Taking a few years off to let interest accumulate and even throw in some extra to pocket the dividends, and it makes it magnitudes harder to bring back down later.

If I cut your brake lines in the middle of the night, one could make the argument that I haven't caused anything bad to happen yet. The bad thing won't happen until later, when you can't stop and crash into something. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a terrible person for setting up a situation that will lead to something bad happening later, even if that thing hasn't actually happened yet.

[GreenGoo]

What is the impact of his 1 year presidency so far? Is it even measurable with regard to something as huge as Climate Change? Are the changes to climate for 2017 directly attributable to Drumpf and his policies/appointments? I assumed no. I could easily be wrong.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to see his impact on the larger scale until it's historical data. If he had his way, that data wouldn't even exist. In 40 years we might be able to see his policies as part of a curve, showing a brief acceleration where it had been staggering before.

The whole thing is compound interest, though. Taking a few years off to let interest accumulate and even throw in some extra to pocket the dividends, and it makes it magnitudes harder to bring back down later.

We should be able to make some predictions based on what we know, and what we know he is doing though. And we already know he's a moron, so his "thoughts" on things are obviously broken. I'm not interested in what he thinks, or what he's trying to do, only what he has done.

[GreenGoo]

If I cut your brake lines in the middle of the night, one could make the argument that I haven't caused anything bad to happen yet. The bad thing won't happen until later, when you can't stop and crash into something. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a terrible person for setting up a situation that will lead to something bad happening later, even if that thing hasn't actually happened yet.

Sure. We know that having no brakes with result in an accident. What if the brake line was leaking, and we knew that it would run dry eventually and stop working. Is putting off repairing the brakelines going to cause the accident sooner? How much sooner? If the brake lines will work for 5 decades and putting off repairing them means they only work for 4.8 decades, is that HUGE, a minor inconvenience, or what?

[gilraen]

With that said, cleaning up is a long term project, and for the damage to reach apocalyptic scale will also take decades.

If 15,000 scientists are to be believed, we have crossed the point of no return when we hit CO2 levels above 400ppm last year. Technological breakthroughs are still possible to contain the temp increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius in the next 30 years, but those breakthroughs will take time - time, which we are currently double-wasting by going backwards.

[Paingod]

What is the impact of his 1 year presidency so far? Is it even measurable with regard to something as huge as Climate Change? Are the changes to climate for 2017 directly attributable to Drumpf and his policies/appointments? I assumed no. I could easily be wrong.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to see his impact on the larger scale until it's historical data. If he had his way, that data wouldn't even exist. In 40 years we might be able to see his policies as part of a curve, showing a brief acceleration where it had been staggering before.

The whole thing is compound interest, though. Taking a few years off to let interest accumulate and even throw in some extra to pocket the dividends, and it makes it magnitudes harder to bring back down later.

We should be able to make some predictions based on what we know, and what we know he is doing though. And we already know he's a moron, so his "thoughts" on things are obviously broken. I'm not interested in what he thinks, or what he's trying to do, only what he has done.

Based on what I can find in 10 minutes of searching and skimming through, climate change is a freight train on a hill that seems to keep adding cars as we discover new wrinkles, and humans are simply pulling backwards with a rope tied to the end at this point. We need more rope and more people, not more freight cars.

I can't find any sources that predict his specific impact, but then again, that's also a variable as things move along. Does it really help to know that he's made things 43.5% +/- 3% worse, or is it enough to know right now that he's making it worse each day?

[GreenGoo]

If 15,000 scientists are to be believed, we have crossed the point of no return when we hit CO2 levels above 400ppm last year. Technological breakthroughs are still possible to contain the temp increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius in the next 30 years, but those breakthroughs will take time - time, which we are currently double-wasting by going backwards.

Ok, I'm all for the magic of science saving us, but what if it doesn't? I am well aware that the US is often a leader in scientific research, but there is all the rest of the world working on the problem, too. Sure you're responsible for a large part of the problem, but the rest of us aren't awesome either, we're just smaller and in some cases, slightly better on a per capita basis. Does America dropping out for 4 years mean the difference between life or death? Maybe. How do you determine something like that?

I get that doing less instead of more is a bad idea. Is it quantifiably bad? j If not, it becomes difficult to quantify Drumpf's terribleness here. Especially if we're going to claim he's ESPECIALLY terrible as compared to other presidents.

Also you said "going backwards" and I guess that's true, but is drilling in Alaska or a sea shelf really going to materially affect the climate? I mean, he's no friend of the environment, and that sucks, but not everything he's done relating to the environment also impacts Climate Change.

Obama restricting drilling was a "nice to have", but did it materially affect the climate?

I'm in no way suggesting that what Drumpf is doing is bad. I'm just not sure it's ESPECIALLY bad compared to past presidents. Bush went to war, spent billions and burned a lot of fossil fuel. Did he make any great strides with regard to Climate Change? Honest question, I don't know the answer to it.

[GreenGoo]

Does it really help to know that he's made things 43.5% +/- 3% worse, or is it enough to know right now that he's making it worse each day?

It only matters if you're going to single him out. Does it matter if he puts another 20 lbs on the freight train? 100 lbs? A 1000 lbs? How close are we to stopping the freight train now? I mean, obviously contributing to the fall of mankind is bad, and contributing to the salvation of mankind is good. How much good stuff does it take to make a difference, and how much bad stuff does it take to make a difference? Is a prius driver a superhero and a pickup driver a super villain? One guy is doing a little more to bring about the end of the world and the other guy is doing a little less. Is that gap between the two the difference between heaven and hell?

[YellowKing]

Obviously we can't truly judge how good or bad a President is without the benefit of historical hindsight.

I think we can make educated opinions about Trump based on historical Presidencies, however. And by those criteria, Trump's done a lot of things that other administrations don't typically do. Like hire total incompetents for the heads of various agencies, or go to war with their own intelligence agencies, or legislate via Twitter.

In other words, I think Trump's an unknown variable. We can't compare apples to apples in this case. We're comparing apples to a (literal) orange.

[Paingod]

I haven't eaten a dead animal in 12 months, and my reduced meat consumption is helping to offset the meat consumption of another person, knowing that the meat industry is a substantial producer in greenhouse gasses. Every person that joins in to offset someone else is helping. The ONLY way we come out on top in this is if every single person that can make a change does so in every way they can, and if every agency out there works towards the same goal.

I drive a relatively fuel-efficient car and dream of buying electric. My wife does too. We "buy" power generated in renewables like solar and hydro. We've stopped eating meat to lower our methane footprint (methane is worse than carbon in terms of the greenhouse). We recycle what we can, compost if we can. We heat the house with oil only because a geothermal/electric renovation is out of our price range.

I don't consider myself a hero, but I am saddened that more people aren't even trying.

[malchior]

Obviously we can't truly judge how good or bad a President is without the benefit of historical hindsight.

I think we can make educated opinions about Trump based on historical Presidencies, however. And by those criteria, Trump's done a lot of things that other administrations don't typically do. Like hire total incompetents for the heads of various agencies, or go to war with their own intelligence agencies, or legislate via Twitter.

In other words, I think Trump's an unknown variable. We can't compare apples to apples in this case. We're comparing apples to a (literal) orange.

I agree. Without historical context it is difficult. However it is reasonable to say that there is a whole lot of risk in the world that carefully and constantly needs to be managed. Too bad we put utter incompetents and sociopaths at the controls. Disaster is possibly just a pull-down menu away. Maybe one with an idiotic UI that has 'Missile Alert' and 'Test Missile Alert' in the same workflow to push alerts to a population's phones...

[GreenGoo]

Obviously we can't truly judge how good or bad a President is without the benefit of historical hindsight.

I think we can make educated opinions about Trump based on historical Presidencies, however. And by those criteria, Trump's done a lot of things that other administrations don't typically do. Like hire total incompetents for the heads of various agencies, or go to war with their own intelligence agencies, or legislate via Twitter.

In other words, I think Trump's an unknown variable. We can't compare apples to apples in this case. We're comparing apples to a (literal) orange.

Fair enough. He has certainly broken the presidential mold, and not in a good way. that said, being an asshole doesn't automatically make you a bad president. You have to actually DO things that are bad for the country, and so far I'm just not seeing how the things he's done are especially awful, historically.

It's safe to say he's a bad president. Maybe I was being too kind when I said he wasn't doing overly bad things, yet.

[GreenGoo]

I haven't eaten a dead animal in 12 months

Holy shit, you eat live animals?!

I don't consider myself a hero, but I am saddened that more people aren't even trying.

Absolutely. My point isn't that there are practices that contribute more or less to climate change, only that it's a scale and it's very hard to determine whether driving a prius is "enough" or driving a prius and composting is "enough" or driving a prius, composting and switching to a mostly vegetable diet is "enough" etc.

I've said already, anything is better than nothing. How much better is kind of important, I would think.

[gilraen]

You have to actually DO things that are bad for the country, and so far I'm just not seeing how the things he's done are especially awful, historically.

It's safe to say he's a bad president. Maybe I was being too kind when I said he wasn't doing overly bad things, yet.

You mean other than completely destroy whatever global credibility the U.S. still had? Because any sane world leader is now aware that the U.S. treaties and agreements can only be trusted as far as one presidential cycle.

[GreenGoo]

You have to actually DO things that are bad for the country, and so far I'm just not seeing how the things he's done are especially awful, historically.

It's safe to say he's a bad president. Maybe I was being too kind when I said he wasn't doing overly bad things, yet.

You mean other than completely destroy whatever global credibility the U.S. still had? Because any sane world leader is now aware that the U.S. treaties and agreements can only be trusted as far as one presidential cycle.

Yes. Other than that. Also, what treaties or agreements has he broken? I haven't been keeping count.

[RunningMn9]

GreenGoo, your take here is puzzling to me.

Gross incompetence is it’s own thing. This fucking dummy is the most singularly unqualified pile of human excrement that has ever won high elected office in this country. He has compounded that by appointing almost comically unqualified people to nearly every department of the Executive branch (at this point I would argue that the only Dept headed by a competent individual is Defense).

You are focusing on what he’s done that affects today. You are ignoring what he’s done that will take decades before the affects are known (as an example, the loss of innovation as more forward thinking nations bribe away our scientific talent). You are ignoring the corrosive effect that this piece of shit is raining down on our Democratic institutions. The impact of his gross corruption and greed.

But most importantly you are ignoring the future cost of him not doing anything. We have serious problems that require immediate action (i.e. climate change, infrastructure). All are suffering at the hands of his incompetence and the GOPs inability to understand what it means to govern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[malchior]

Policy changes -- especially in sane times -- are more like steering an aircraft carrier than a speedboat. Especially at our scale. When the Captain points the front of the boat at the shore, climbs into his private escape boat and says, 'Don't worry - I'm making this boat great again'...we might not be too comforted by his words and/or future stable genius-like actions.

[GreenGoo]

GreenGoo, your take here is puzzling to me.

Gross incompetence is it’s own thing. This fucking dummy is the most singularly unqualified pile of human excrement that has ever won high elected office in this country. He has compounded that by appointing almost comically unqualified people to nearly every department of the Executive branch (at this point I would argue that the only Dept headed by a competent individual is Defense).

Ok, sure.

You are focusing on what he’s done that affects today. You are ignoring what he’s done that will take decades before the affects are known (as an example, the loss of innovation as more forward thinking nations bribe away our scientific talent). You are ignoring the corrosive effect that this piece of shit is raining down on our Democratic institutions. The impact of his gross corruption and greed.

I'm focusing on the things he has done that have had a negative material impact on the US of A. If he's gone in 4 years (not a sure thing, apparently. Earlier would be sweeter) then chances are WHOEVER replaces him will undo a significant amount of his work. If we replaced all the incompetents with competents today, how much would change? If you did it in 3 years, how much would change? I don't think these are unreasonable questions.

But most importantly you are ignoring the future cost of him not doing anything. We have serious problems that require immediate action (i.e. climate change, infrastructure). All are suffering at the hands of his incompetence and the GOPs inability to understand what it means to govern.

I absolutely am not. I don't think attempting to quantify the harm is unreasonable, particularly when the implication is that he is the worst president evar by orders of magnitude. He's a shitty person who is doing shitty things. How big an impact have these shitty things had, or will have in the future? Every president does things that you agree with and things that you don't, so just pointing to something he's done that you don't like is not enough. Given that he has control of the executive and legislative branches of government, and just appointed a new member to SCOTUS, I'd say the damage is remarkably mild. The damage to the democratic system is a big one that will take a long time to repair.

But honestly, I'm just trying to quantify or at least get some sort of idea about the magnitude of the impact of his actions, rather than "this" is bad and "that" is also bad.

[YellowKing]

I agree from a personal perspective, Trump's presidency hasn't made much of an impact at all on my life (other than causing me undue stress every day). And that in and of itself is not much different than other administrations.

However, I think it's incorrect to attribute this to Trump somehow not being any worse than any other President. Instead, I think it's simply attributable to the fact that presidents work at a macro level. Changes they make take time to trickle down to individuals. If you go back to the source, there's no doubt that his policy decisions are going to have long-term, significant effects.

Now, there is certainly an unknown. How many of those long-term policy decisions will have impacts that can't be fixed by the next administration? All of them? None of them? Some? Which ones? Who knows.

Ultimately all we can go by is what we know at the present time. And all those indicators point to him sucking.

[GreenGoo]

Sure. It's not like we haven't had this discussion before, about who was the worst or second worst president of all time, and the reasonings behind peoples' opinions on those. I'm just trying to see how and where Drumpf fits into that discussion, given what he's done so far, not what he says he wants to do, or what he's tried to do.

[gilraen]

You have to actually DO things that are bad for the country, and so far I'm just not seeing how the things he's done are especially awful, historically.

It's safe to say he's a bad president. Maybe I was being too kind when I said he wasn't doing overly bad things, yet.

You mean other than completely destroy whatever global credibility the U.S. still had? Because any sane world leader is now aware that the U.S. treaties and agreements can only be trusted as far as one presidential cycle.

Yes. Other than that. Also, what treaties or agreements has he broken? I haven't been keeping count.

Easy ones:
- TPP
- Paris Accords
- UNESCO

More obscure:
- UN Global Compact on Migration

Also, there are threats to scrap KORUS (U.S.-South Korea trade agreement), pull the U.S. from NAFTA, and decertify the Iran nuclear deal. While neither one of these things is ultimately likely, it just serves to create more uncertainty and instability in U.S. foreign and trade relations.

[malchior]

TPP is easily the big one - it basically gave the Chinese a huge boost that'll become manifest in a decade if not sooner. It wasn't just a trade deal. It was a lever to act as a counterweight to Chinese soft power in the region. It would have needed re-working in a Clinton administration but it would have been done. She wouldn't have been such a blithering fucking moron.

[LordMortis]

I'm focusing on the things he has done that have had a negative material impact on the US of A. If he's gone in 4 years (not a sure thing, apparently. Earlier would be sweeter) then chances are WHOEVER replaces him will undo a significant amount of his work.

I'm not sure how you undo a $1.5 Trillion multinational corporate giveaway or walk back the righteousness of WASPish nazism being passed on as we were trying to snuff it out once and for all or how you ask people to trust in processes that have been made to be fragile by an improbably election that reveals as ubiquitously powerful willfully ignorant electorate whose mantras are "evolution is just a theory" and "the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots" and want to restart the Crusades and what of the chasing away of our allies while we cuddle with the Bear. Does the west just shrug it off with, "they had too much to drink 2016."

[Holman]

After Trump's wrecking crew gets done with the government, it will be harder and harder to attract good people even to the most important positions. This is true at all levels of the bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and other areas of government (many of which already depend on a spirit of public service to make up for lower salaries).

This impacts other industries as well. I wonder how many bright scientists are already steering clear of climate research on the assumption that it will suffer from poor funding or government meddling.

[LordMortis]

After Trump's wrecking crew gets done with it, it will be harder and harder to attract good people even to the most important positions. This is true at all levels of the bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and other areas of government (many of which already depend on a spirit of public service to make up for lower salaries).

This impacts other industries as well. I wonder how many bright scientists are already steering clear of climate research on the assumption that it will suffer from poor funding or government meddling.

Or simply leaving. When people flee the US. They're sending their best and brightest and some I imagine are shitty Oligarchs.

[Zaxxon]

It's not like we haven't had this discussion before, about who was the worst ... president of all time

Bright side: that discussion will be super-quick in the future.

I'm also at a loss as to GG's persistence in this. We can have a discussion and try to qualify which terrible Trump decisions make the most impact now, and to quantify the impact they have on this year vs next year vs 10 years from now. But it's clear--and I mean crystal clear--to me that his gross incompetence, insatiable narcissism, and active maligning of the press and, well, functional democratic government will be seen by future historians as 'the worst' of any President thus far in their effects on the USA and likely the world at large in any given time slice that one chooses to examine.

Like, we're actually under some threat of never going back to 'real' democracy by the time this guy is through.

And frankly I'm surprised that you're apparently not on the same page on that.

[Moliere]

And frankly I'm surprised that you're apparently not on the same page on that.

Seriously. How can anyone have a contrary opinion? What's wrong with these people?

[LordMortis]

Like, we're actually under some threat of never going back to 'real' democracy by the time this guy is through.

That's how good he is at distraction. I totally left that off my min-list, even though, short of daily fearing getting us involved a shtshow war, that's the number one potential problem, even ahead of total economic collapse.

[Zaxxon]

And frankly I'm surprised that you're apparently not on the same page on that.

Seriously. How can anyone have a contrary opinion? What's wrong with these people?

I get where you're coming from, discussion board, yadda yadda, etc etc. But there are things that are objectively true. This may or may not be one of them, but...

[GreenGoo]

Because, except for when I persist in asking for examples, I don't get anything specific.

It's unlikely that anyone on this board loathes him more than I do, and I especially loathe him for thinking he's worthy of being president and loathe every single person who thought it would be a good idea to reinforce that idea.

I've read along with the rest of you, but I also read along during Obama's tenure, and 1.6 terms of Bush+. In general I have an idea what either side liked/didn't like about the two previous presidents.

Drumpf has absolutely soiled the office. No one should ever again be able to suggest that even if you don't respect the man, you should respect the office with a straight face.

End run on Obama care? Brutal.

Taxes breaks for the rich and corporations with no way to pay for it? Brutal.

Pull out of TPP? This is my bad, I thought there was no agreement in place prior to bailing. Ditto with the Paris Accords. It should be noted that getting the TPPin place was not a congressional slam dunk, with many democrats resisting. UNESCO doesn't make me blink, really, because it's not the first time the US has bailed on this one, and in the last 30 years the US has been out of it more than in. Whether you think it's good/bad, it's not uniquely terrible to back out.

Appoint the exact opposite of what each department needs? Brutal. Eventually.

SCOTUS appointment? Meh. That it was stolen by repubs with no backlash at all is criminal, but given what's passes as acceptable today, that was both fair and even. The appointment itself isn't great. Hopefully nature takes its course sooner rather than later.

Shrug. He just hasn't accomplished as much damage as he wants, and while I don't know my American history, I would be really surprised if there weren't other presidents that maybe interned American Japanese, or whatever.

Obviously, once it is proven that he's guilty of collusion with a foreign power to undermine the democratic process, then it doesn't really matter what he does, he could cure cancer and still be the worst president of all time.

[RunningMn9]

I see someone talked about the public sector brain drain. The next Administration can’t just replace the career folks that are being lost from the State Dept, Pentagon, etc.

Once those people leave, that’s pretty much that. Coming back to the federal govt is hard - just from a logistical perspective, not even accounting for the fact that you will almost certainly have to eat a large pay cut to do it.

In other words, it’s not like the next President can simple fix some of this stuff. That experience and competence isn’t coming back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[noxiousdog]

One of his biggest blunders is destroying the credibility of journalism. The same "all politicians lie" has now been extended to news media.

[GreenGoo]

I see someone talked about the public sector brain drain. The next Administration can’t just replace the career folks that are being lost from the State Dept, Pentagon, etc.

Once those people leave, that’s pretty much that. Coming back to the federal govt is hard - just from a logistical perspective, not even accounting for the fact that you will almost certainly have to eat a large pay cut to do it.

In other words, it’s not like the next President can simple fix some of this stuff. That experience and competence isn’t coming back.

That's a tough one to call.

These people are in public service for a reason (whatever that might be). They had already decided to not take the higher salary in private industry. Would these reasons change once the public service starts hiring again? Who knows? Almost certainly you are correct for a certain portion of these public servants. For the scientists and midrange civil servants, having their pension interrupted/cashed out/started at reduced value has got to hurt, and a way to make that up would be to stay at the private salary as you say.

Will they come back? Maybe. There are a huge number of factors. Drumpf has damaged the federal government's ability to function competently, and fixing that would be a long term project, for sure.

So Drumpf has reduced the size of the Federal Government, but increased both the deficit and the debt. Libertarians have got to be confused about whether this is a win for them or not.

[Moliere]

So Drumpf has reduced the size of the Federal Government, but increased both the deficit and the debt. Libertarians have got to be confused about whether this is a win for them or not.

I think most libertarians have come to terms that neither party is willing to cut spending. Things like Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, and the national debt are just cans to kick down the road.

[RunningMn9]

The reasons that they originally decided to become civil servants aren’t relevant. The problem is the mechanics of how positions are filled. A GS-14 that is sent packing or leaves generally cannot come back in as a GS-14. Coming back can set them back decades from where they were. There are institutional barriers to leaving and returning.

And there is a difference between forgoing a higher salary when starting out, and having to give up a significantly higher salary that your actually making to come back.

I will chalk this up to you just not being aware of the mechanics of how things work in the US federal govt.