Trump's Warrior Board

[SavedByGrace3]

That is a two way street. I see very little respect for those who suffer from dysphoria in this forum. I see a lot of disrespectful comments. I see a lot of extremely hurtful comments. I see a lack of empathy and sympathy.

Your proposed sign is less than useless.

You are correct. It will not be a lie detector.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If I owned a gym then I'd message everyone saying that I would like any transgender member to contact me in private to discuss any problems that they or anyone else might be experiencing or they think may experience so that we can work together to address them.

My guess is that signs saying 'Only Biological Women Allowed Here' wouldn't be one of the solutions.

Unfortunately you are now not living in an America that will be cognizant of that view.

There would need to be a more upstream solution, or some sort of "agreed upon" standard.

Just spit balling, I'd suggest that Norway has the right idea with how they approach the situation.

In a nutshell, in order to legally change your gender in Norway, the requirements they have are
- you must be at least 16 years of age
- sign off by a qualified physician stating that the person, indeed, has gender dysphoria and cognitive/behavioral therapy has not worked
- approval by a county medical officer (who reviews the doctor's assessment)
- once the hormone therapy/surgery process has begun, you're assigned a new "Norwegian identification number" (the equivalent to our social security number), which means your old identity (both legally and financially ceases to exist), which means you'd have to reestablish relationships with financial institutions, insurers, etc...

process takes about 2 years and at the end you're assigned a whole new set of documents (just as if you'd been born as that gender)

I learned of the process they have via an interview that was done with one of my favorite comedian's Jim Norton, who was interviewed alongside is wife Nikki (a trans woman from Norway), and the host did a 1-hour deep dive with Nikki asking what the process was in Norway and how that compared to what's going on the US. (interview is way to "blue" to post here, but can be found on youtube)

Nikki's stance was the same as Buck's, which is (paraphrasing) "we're concerned that too many young people are being encouraged to pursue this way too quickly, this isn't (nor should it be viewed as) a costume that one can simply put on and take off on a whim...this is a long journey and process that requires a lot of thought and consideration, the fact that you Americans are letting young kids move forward like this is crazy"



So while I'm sure you still have some of the young people over there doing the whole
"Well, achhctuallly, I'm a non-binary, gender fluid neurodivergent two-spirit, and my identity changes regularly so you have to check in with me once a week to see what my pronouns are", that sort of thing isn't legally recognized legally or for sex-segregated facilities, sporting leagues, etc...

Meaning, their women's sports leagues and changing rooms, legal recognitions, etc... would be restricted to biological women, or those who've gone through the aforementioned process. Not the people who started identifying as trans last month and haven't so much as consulted with a therapist yet.


From what I've read, I'm led to believe that the other Scandinavian countries are similar in that regard.

I'm guessing, in no small part, due to the fact that their healthcare and university systems are nationalized and publicly funded. Meaning they have a vested interest in having some sort of standardized process and don't want to have to micromanage in the way one might under the ruleset of "I can identify as whatever I want (or nothing at all) starting now, and that could change again in 2 weeks"

 

[rjs330]

There would need to be a more upstream solution, or some sort of "agreed upon" standard.

Just spit balling, I'd suggest that Norway has the right idea with how they approach the situation.

In a nutshell, in order to legally change your gender in Norway, the requirements they have are
- you must be at least 16 years of age
- sign off by a qualified physician stating that the person, indeed, has gender dysphoria and cognitive/behavioral therapy has not worked
- approval by a county medical officer (who reviews the doctor's assessment)
- once the hormone therapy/surgery process has begun, you're assigned a new "Norwegian identification number" (the equivalent to our social security number), which means your old identity (both legally and financially ceases to exist), which means you'd have to reestablish relationships with financial institutions, insurers, etc...

process takes about 2 years and at the end you're assigned a whole new set of documents (just as if you'd been born as that gender)

I learned of the process they have via an interview that was done with one of my favorite comedian's Jim Norton, who was interviewed alongside is wife Nikki (a trans woman from Norway), and the host did a 1-hour deep dive with Nikki asking what the process was in Norway and how that compared to what's going on the US. (interview is way to "blue" to post here, but can be found on youtube)

Nikki's stance was the same as Buck's, which is (paraphrasing) "we're concerned that too many young people are being encouraged to pursue this way too quickly, this isn't (nor should it be viewed as) a costume that one can simply put on and take off on a whim...this is a long journey and process that requires a lot of thought and consideration, the fact that you Americans are letting young kids move forward like this is crazy"



So while I'm sure you still have some of the young people over there doing the whole
"Well, achhctuallly, I'm a non-binary, gender fluid neurodivergent two-spirit, and my identity changes regularly so you have to check in with me once a week to see what my pronouns are", that sort of thing isn't legally recognized legally or for sex-segregated facilities, sporting leagues, etc...

Meaning, their women's sports leagues and changing rooms, legal recognitions, etc... would be restricted to biological women, or those who've gone through the aforementioned process. Not the people who started identifying as trans last month and haven't so much as consulted with a therapist yet.


From what I've read, I'm led to believe that the other Scandinavian countries are similar in that regard.

I'm guessing, in no small part, due to the fact that their healthcare and university systems are nationalized and publicly funded. Meaning they have a vested interest in having some sort of standardized process and don't want to have to micromanage in the way one might under the ruleset of "I can identify as whatever I want (or nothing at all) starting now, and that could change again in 2 weeks"

I think that is more in line with what we want and would accept. I'm not sure what all the requirements are, but I would require surgery as part of the process. We still don't want someone who looks like a man has all the man parts to be in women's spaces regardless of his legal name change and bank documents.

I've got no issues with Blair White using a women's restroom because Blair looks just like a woman and no one would have any idea. Same goes for Buck and men's restrooms.

The dude in Golds Gym, yeah that is a hard no.

But I would be just fine with Norways way. I would bump the age to 18 and require surgery, but other than that, I'm good with it. If you honeatly have dysphoria and really believe you are rhe opposite sex, then you are all in.

You don't don't get to be half in and still expect the same things as if you had all the things the opposite sex has. In other words you don't get to be the golds gym guy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that is more in line with what we want and would accept. I'm not sure what all the requirements are, but I would require surgery as part of the process. We still don't want someone who looks like a man has all the man parts to be in women's spaces regardless of his legal name change and bank documents.

I've got no issues with Blair White using a women's restroom because Blair looks just like a woman and no one would have any idea. Same goes for Buck and men's restrooms.

The dude in Golds Gym, yeah that is a hard no.

But I would be just fine with Norways way. I would bump the age to 18 and require surgery, but other than that, I'm good with it. If you honeatly have dysphoria and really believe you are rhe opposite sex, then you are all in.

You don't don't get to be half in and still expect the same things as if you had all the things the opposite sex has. In other words you don't get to be the golds gym guy.

Even just as a baseline level...

I would like to see the medical community (when making decisions about who is an isn't an appropriate candidate for affirming therapies like hormones and surgeries) exercising the same level of caution they do with opioids now.

That was another "medical craze" where meds were getting handed out willy nilly, and it came back to bite us (collectively) in the butts, and they've since decided to be prudent and reign that in.

When you see the stories about Cincinatti Children's Hospital (specifically their gender clinic, the 3rd largest of its kind for that specialty in the US, behind Boston and UCLA), in documents that were revealed due to a case against them by parents of a teen who got treatment there...

Literally everyone who walked through the door were deemed "good candidates for the treatments they provide". That should be red flags all over the place.

Judge paves way for transgender teen to get hormone therapy at Cincinnati Children's Hospital

Before therapy can begin at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the teen must be evaluated by a psychologist not affiliated with the hospital, judge says.

www.cincinnati.com

The judge in that case actually pointed it out, despite ruling in favor of the adolescent and their grandparents over the parents in that particular set of circumstances, still went on the record saying "I find it concerning that 100% of people who present for care are deemed a good fit for this type of treatment", and further went on to stipulate that their ruling was contingent upon the teen being seen a psychiatrist (not affiliated with the Cincy Gender Clinic) as a condition of her ruling, prior to Cincy Gender clinic being allowed to continue any further with that particular patient.


When you hear "100% of people who walk through the door are deemed good candidates for it", that's very VERY reminiscent of the "pain management clinics" (AKA "Pill mills") that were popping up all over the place and dispensing Oxycontin like it was bubble gum and ended up creating a lot of societal problems a few years down the road.

Now they're much more careful with that...there's no more of the "Go to this special clinic for mild-moderate backpain, and walk out the door with Oxy after your first visit"

I'd like to see them do that same sort of "self-correction" for this facet as well.

 

[rjs330]

Even just as a baseline level...

I would like to see the medical community (when making decisions about who is an isn't an appropriate candidate for affirming therapies like hormones and surgeries) exercising the same level of caution they do with opioids now.

That was another "medical craze" where meds were getting handed out willy nilly, and it came back to bite us (collectively) in the butts, and they've since decided to be prudent and reign that in.

When you see the stories about Cincinatti Children's Hospital (specifically their gender clinic, the 3rd largest of its kind for that specialty in the US, behind Boston and UCLA), in documents that were revealed due to a case against them by parents of a teen who got treatment there...

Literally everyone who walked through the door were deemed "good candidates for the treatments they provide". That should be red flags all over the place.

Judge paves way for transgender teen to get hormone therapy at Cincinnati Children's Hospital

Before therapy can begin at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the teen must be evaluated by a psychologist not affiliated with the hospital, judge says.

www.cincinnati.com

The judge in that case actually pointed it out, despite ruling in favor of the adolescent and their grandparents over the parents in that particular set of circumstances, still went on the record saying "I find it concerning that 100% of people who present for care are deemed a good fit for this type of treatment", and further went on to stipulate that their ruling was contingent upon the teen being seen a psychiatrist (not affiliated with the Cincy Gender Clinic) as a condition of her ruling, prior to Cincy Gender clinic being allowed to continue any further with that particular patient.


When you hear "100% of people who walk through the door are deemed good candidates for it", that's very VERY reminiscent of the "pain management clinics" (AKA "Pill mills") that were popping up all over the place and dispensing Oxycontin like it was bubble gum and ended up creating a lot of societal problems a few years down the road.

Now they're much more careful with that...there's no more of the "Go to this special clinic for mild-moderate backpain, and walk out the door with Oxy after your first visit"

I'd like to see them do that same sort of "self-correction" for this facet as well.

This definately makes a lot of sense.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not just for the military any more.

Loyalty tests and MAGA checks: Inside the Trump White House’s intense screening of job-seekers​

Those seeking jobs have been told they will have to prove their “enthusiasm” to enact Trump’s agenda and have been asked when their moment of “MAGA revelation” occurred.

U.S. intelligence, law enforcement candidates face Trump loyalty test​

Candidates for top intelligence and law enforcement jobs were asked to give “yes” or “no” responses to questions such as: Was Jan. 6 “an inside job?”
And was the 2020 presidential election “stolen?”

These individuals, who did not give the desired straight “yes” answer, were not selected. It is not clear whether other factors contributed to the decision.

One former official familiar with the questions posed to one of the candidates said, “He was not willing to compromise his integrity by saying things he knew weren’t true. He’s not losing any sleep over his decision.”

[From FBI interviews] The questions included: Who were the “real patriots” on Jan. 6? Who won the 2020 election? Who is your “real boss?”

“It’s normal for a new administration to ask potential political appointees about their political views to assure that they align with the new administration,” said John Bellinger III, who served as the senior counsel for the White House National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. “But it’s not appropriate to condition jobs, especially in the intelligence and law enforcement community, on partisan political stances. We want career officials to interpret intelligence and enforce the laws in a neutral way without any partisan preference.” [emphasis added]

 

[BCP1928]

There would need to be a more upstream solution, or some sort of "agreed upon" standard.

Just spit balling, I'd suggest that Norway has the right idea with how they approach the situation.

In a nutshell, in order to legally change your gender in Norway, the requirements they have are
- you must be at least 16 years of age
- sign off by a qualified physician stating that the person, indeed, has gender dysphoria and cognitive/behavioral therapy has not worked
- approval by a county medical officer (who reviews the doctor's assessment)
- once the hormone therapy/surgery process has begun, you're assigned a new "Norwegian identification number" (the equivalent to our social security number), which means your old identity (both legally and financially ceases to exist), which means you'd have to reestablish relationships with financial institutions, insurers, etc...

process takes about 2 years and at the end you're assigned a whole new set of documents (just as if you'd been born as that gender)

I learned of the process they have via an interview that was done with one of my favorite comedian's Jim Norton, who was interviewed alongside is wife Nikki (a trans woman from Norway), and the host did a 1-hour deep dive with Nikki asking what the process was in Norway and how that compared to what's going on the US. (interview is way to "blue" to post here, but can be found on youtube)

Nikki's stance was the same as Buck's, which is (paraphrasing) "we're concerned that too many young people are being encouraged to pursue this way too quickly, this isn't (nor should it be viewed as) a costume that one can simply put on and take off on a whim...this is a long journey and process that requires a lot of thought and consideration, the fact that you Americans are letting young kids move forward like this is crazy"



So while I'm sure you still have some of the young people over there doing the whole
"Well, achhctuallly, I'm a non-binary, gender fluid neurodivergent two-spirit, and my identity changes regularly so you have to check in with me once a week to see what my pronouns are", that sort of thing isn't legally recognized legally or for sex-segregated facilities, sporting leagues, etc...

So what?

Meaning, their women's sports leagues and changing rooms, legal recognitions, etc... would be restricted to biological women, or those who've gone through the aforementioned process. Not the people who started identifying as trans last month and haven't so much as consulted with a therapist yet.


From what I've read, I'm led to believe that the other Scandinavian countries are similar in that regard.

I'm guessing, in no small part, due to the fact that their healthcare and university systems are nationalized and publicly funded. Meaning they have a vested interest in having some sort of standardized process and don't want to have to micromanage in the way one might under the ruleset of "I can identify as whatever I want (or nothing at all) starting now, and that could change again in 2 weeks"

It's a good idea and I approve of it, but it wouldn't work here because we make such a moral; issue out of it. There is no real reason that gender non-conforming behavior which does not infringe on sensible legal restrictions such as the Scandiavians employ should not be allowed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's a good idea and I approve of it, but it wouldn't work here because we make such a moral; issue out of it. There is no real reason that gender non-conforming behavior which does not infringe on sensible legal restrictions such as the Scandiavians employ should not be allowed.

The thing that turns it into an "issue" is a two-way street.

Yes, there are certainly some who say "anything that goes against my religious code shouldn't be tolerated"
But on the flipside of the coin, there are some pretty big implications, demands, and asks coming from the other side of the debate as well.


There were some pretty stark differences between the original movement for LGB rights/equality, vs. the present-day activism for everything including and after the "T" in the acronym.

- Gay people weren't looking to obfuscate and "un-define" commonly held terms and nomenclature.
- They weren't demanding that the rest of society had to acknowledge what they were doing as a "good thing"
- Their demands didn't include anything involving children (in fact, they intentionally distanced themselves from that aspect)
- Their demands didn't involve anything in the realm of medical interventions that can't be "un-done"

In a nutshell, their demands were pretty simple and straight forward... Protection from employment/housing/military discrimination, and legal recognition for their partnerships. About as confrontational as their messaging got was "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"

...and I certainly never got the sense that most of them were doing what they were doing merely for a sake of bucking norms, and they weren't using "being gay/lesbian/bi" as some sort of campus status symbol.

The gender non-conforming community already has all of the things the gay community has. It becomes a hot button debate because they're asking for much more.

And there are some moral implications to it, and some aren't even religiously rooted.

For instance, there is NIH published research suggesting that rates of Gender Identity Disorder are much higher among those with Schizophrenia and folks diagnosed as being on the Autistic spectrum.

So if every case of "person says they feel like they're the other gender" is socially mandated to be met with nothing but affirmation, that could be problematic.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

U.S. intelligence, law enforcement candidates face Trump loyalty test​

Candidates for top intelligence and law enforcement jobs were asked to give “yes” or “no” responses to questions such as: Was Jan. 6 “an inside job?”
And was the 2020 presidential election “stolen?”

These individuals, who did not give the desired straight “yes” answer, were not selected. It is not clear whether other factors contributed to the decision.

One former official familiar with the questions posed to one of the candidates said, “He was not willing to compromise his integrity by saying things he knew weren’t true. He’s not losing any sleep over his decision.”

[From FBI interviews] The questions included: Who were the “real patriots” on Jan. 6? Who won the 2020 election? Who is your “real boss?”

“It’s normal for a new administration to ask potential political appointees about their political views to assure that they align with the new administration,” said John Bellinger III, who served as the senior counsel for the White House National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. “But it’s not appropriate to condition jobs, especially in the intelligence and law enforcement community, on partisan political stances. We want career officials to interpret intelligence and enforce the laws in a neutral way without any partisan preference.” [emphasis added]

I prefer straight yes and no answers.
"Was Jan 6 an inside job?" Yes, instead of yes, set up by President Trump to overthrow the government by having the Vice President use fake electoral votes to claim Trump that Trump won.

One answer gets me the job, the other a reeducation camp.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not just for the military any more.

Loyalty tests and MAGA checks: Inside the Trump White House’s intense screening of job-seekers​

Those seeking jobs have been told they will have to prove their “enthusiasm” to enact Trump’s agenda and have been asked when their moment of “MAGA revelation” occurred.

Not just for the White House staff any more.​

Trump administration to prioritize ‘patriotic Americans’ for federal jobs​

Under the plan, all federal job vacancy announcements starting at the GS-5 pay grade or above will require short essay responses to questions about their commitment to the Constitution, how they plan to improve government efficiency, how they plan to advance Trump’s executive orders and policy priorities, and about their work ethic.

Critics called the requirements a loyalty test for the administration, while saying they could make future recruiting even harder.

It’s important to hire federal workers based on their skills, said Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service. But “asking every federal applicant to demonstrate work toward presidential policy priorities should not be part of the criteria.”

“Many federal employees are air traffic controllers, national park rangers, food safety inspectors and firefighters who carry out the missions of agencies that are authorized by Congress,” she said. “These public servants, who deliver services directly to the public, should not be forced to answer politicized questions that fail to evaluate the skills they need to do their jobs effectively.”

 

[RDKirk]

Not just for the White House staff any more.​

Trump administration to prioritize ‘patriotic Americans’ for federal jobs​

Under the plan, all federal job vacancy announcements starting at the GS-5 pay grade or above will require short essay responses to questions about their commitment to the Constitution, how they plan to improve government efficiency, how they plan to advance Trump’s executive orders and policy priorities, and about their work ethic.

Critics called the requirements a loyalty test for the administration, while saying they could make future recruiting even harder.

It’s important to hire federal workers based on their skills, said Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service. But “asking every federal applicant to demonstrate work toward presidential policy priorities should not be part of the criteria.”

“Many federal employees are air traffic controllers, national park rangers, food safety inspectors and firefighters who carry out the missions of agencies that are authorized by Congress,” she said. “These public servants, who deliver services directly to the public, should not be forced to answer politicized questions that fail to evaluate the skills they need to do their jobs effectively.”

A GS-5 is about the lowest level you find working at a desk instead of pushing a broom. Those are about $35-40,000 a year jobs.

 

[RDKirk]

If officers in the military at the top levels of the armed forces do NOT fully support the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief, why should they remain at the top levels of command in the military?

There is a world of difference between an officer making an oath to obey the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief and vowing to be personally loyal to a particular president.

 

[RDKirk]

Woke isn't diversity. We have a diverse military because we have a diverse nation. People of all ethnicities are American and sign up to serve militarily.

Woke is DEI initiatives, promotion of military personnel based not on merit, but on skin color or gender and more.

This type of thing is antithetical to the military - if you want a military that's in the top fitness for any war.

@essentialsaltes - and any of the brass who is putting into practice initiatives that ultimately weaken our military and by extension our nation is not fit to lead the military personnel under him.

Now, here is where you have to think at more than one level.

Yes, we have a diverse nation and correspondingly a diverse military.

Because we have a diverse military, all members must believe the promotion system is both meritocratic and not majority-supremacist. That is to say, everyone must believe that they are not unduly shut out of promotions by arbitrary social classification. This is not a "nice-to-have" social consideration, this has been found to be vital to fighting and winning wars.

However, it's also true that there are usually more than enough fully qualified persons to fill every promotion slot. For instance, there may be 50 promotion slots to be filled and 75 fully qualified persons to fill them.

So, there are two requirements facing the promotion board: First, to select fully qualified persons...which is relatively easy because there is usually a surplus of fully qualified people--and second to make sure the promotion process both is and appears to be fair to all social classifications.

I've been on these kinds of selection boards. We have a surplus of people fully meeting all objective standards, and sometimes further discrimination standards are admittedly personal and subjective. With the example of 50 slots and 75 people meeting the objective standards, we would do just as well to flip coins.

But there is that second requirement: We also want the process to be and appear to be a process that does not shut out any social classification. And we know that prejudice does still exist among individuals, and it only takes one prejudiced member of a promotion board to do evil. So, we don't merely flip coins. We do look at percentages of representation and place that against those 75 people who meet all the objective standards.

The services vary in how they do that. Now, my direct information is dated pre-DEI...this might have changed since 2000. But in the pre-DEI days, a Navy enlisted promotion board, for instance, would look at the 50 persons they had initially selected for promotion and compare them to the percentages of the targeted social classifications (women, blacks, Latinos, whatever was in flavor that year). If they realized that they'd selected only 50 white sailors, for instance, they'd look again at the highest rated non-selected black sailor. I'll say that again: The highest rated non-selected black sailor. They would compare his record with the white sailors they had selected, and if on that second look the board realizes that black sailor's record is indeed equal to those white sailors they had selected, they would add that black sailor to the selectee list. In other words, they would promote 51 sailors (or perhaps more) that cycle; none of the originally selected white sailors would suffer.

But if the highest rated non-selectee's record, on that second review, was actually not equal to those selected...then the process would stop. This is important to note. They would go ahead with a selection list that did not "look like the force," but with full conviction that they'd done their best.

Then they would do the same kind of comparison and review of the other targeted social classifications.

 

[RDKirk]

I can tell people who have been in the military and those who have not. You obey the orders of your ranking officer. The President is the Commander in Chief. He is not asking for your opinions or making suggestions. He is the General's General. Do what he commands, or you will be out. If you cannot carry out his orders, leave before you get yourself in a position where you must be removed with possible charges.

You obey the lawful orders or your ranking officer.

You have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

An unlawful order is to commit an action that is unlawful.

We got re-trained on that every year.

 

[RDKirk]

Are y'all forgetting just how very effective Trump's foreign policy was in his first term? Do y'all understand that Trump has a much higher amount of support from the rank and file Servicemembers of the US military than did Biden or Harris? I know for a fact that the vast majority of Servicemembers are sick and tired of the woke agenda that was shoved down our throats by "top officers" who were obeying the progressive left wing ideology of Joe Biden and the leadership of the Democratic Party.

You don't know that "for a fact," but it's a decent guess.

 

[Postvieww]

Not just for the White House staff any more.​

Trump administration to prioritize ‘patriotic Americans’ for federal jobs​

Under the plan, all federal job vacancy announcements starting at the GS-5 pay grade or above will require short essay responses to questions about their commitment to the Constitution, how they plan to improve government efficiency, how they plan to advance Trump’s executive orders and policy priorities, and about their work ethic.

Critics called the requirements a loyalty test for the administration, while saying they could make future recruiting even harder.

It’s important to hire federal workers based on their skills, said Jenny Mattingley, vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service. But “asking every federal applicant to demonstrate work toward presidential policy priorities should not be part of the criteria.”

“Many federal employees are air traffic controllers, national park rangers, food safety inspectors and firefighters who carry out the missions of agencies that are authorized by Congress,” she said. “These public servants, who deliver services directly to the public, should not be forced to answer politicized questions that fail to evaluate the skills they need to do their jobs effectively.”

Why would any employer in any endeavor hire someone who vows to undermine the company? How many MAGA supporters did the Biden administration hire?

 

[RDKirk]

Why would any employer in any endeavor hire someone who vows to undermine the company? How many MAGA supporters did the Biden administration hire?

Most government workers are classical conservatives...their basic nature is to maintain the status quo and resist radicalism.

 

[Vambram]

There is a world of difference between an officer making an oath to obey the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief and vowing to be personally loyal to a particular president.

I agree, but that was not the question I asked.

 

[Vambram]

Most government workers are classical conservatives...their basic nature is to maintain the status quo and resist radicalism.

If only that was really true of their administrative leadership.

 

[Postvieww]

Most government workers are classical conservatives...their basic nature is to maintain the status quo and resist radicalism.

Not sure this is accurate as a general rule. Do you have a source? DC is mostly democratic as far as elections.