885
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
885 points (99.7% liked)
politics
20457 readers
2600 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're unemployed government workers, there are less government jobs now than ever, and their resume literally says DOGE on it. They are taking a risk.
No. They resigned from a job. They were not fired. And as long as they don't break any rules, it's hard to fire them.
I never said they were fired, but since you brought it up, when you're fired, you'll usually get a severance to help during the job search, they won't, they're just unemployed.
... because they resigned. Seriously, what's your point?
If they wouldn't have resigned, they would still have a job. And since they couldn't have been fired easily, they would have continued to have a job for quite a while.
That's not a complex concept, what's so hard to understand about that?
They resigned from a job they believed was wrong, which will lead to substantial financial consequences for them. You tried to dismiss their efforts as if it was nothing, so I called you out for being dismissive. You say "Seriously, what's your point?" As if I'm the one making provocative statements from the sidelines.
Yes, because you're completely missing the point.
There is literally no risk involved for them in just staying. They had their jobs, and they could easily do the right thing by just following the law. If they were to be fired, they would still get severance of some sort. In any case, it would have slowed down Elon at least for a while.
What they did instead is resigning, thus not getting severance, not being able to slow anything down, making room for obedient bootlickers, and finally they're now unemployed.
So tell me again: how is resigning the right move? They made the world worse, and they made their personal life worse. Literally no benefit for anyone.
Your entire argument is ex post. You see the fact that they resigned as a given and try to justify that. Why can't you see that this is not a necessary condition?