What happens to the Republican Party now? (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I can't speak for her, but I can speak for myself, I get far more done working at home than I do at the office. For example, it takes me less time to process entires at home because the office location where I work has more service interruptions than I do at home.

I get interrupted from what I'm working on much less than I do in the office. Meetings go quicker when done via teams and we don't have to spend time reserving an interpreter for a given on site meeting. Same for individual meetings. I use Teams and the relay service. I can use them in the office as well, but it's easier from my home office.

And there's travel. Instead of wasting 2 hours a day commenting, I can put in a little extra time to finish projects or transactions I'm working on.

Those are all good reasons. I think a lot of private sector companies are encouraging workers to work from home for those reasons. I don't think it is a good idea for federal workers, but the case can be made.

Here is my concern: That lady is the director of the Office of Personnel management. So she should be well-versed in numbers of employees working from home. She refuses to provide that information, having been asked it many times by representatives of the people.

That is fantastically disrespectful to the people who pay her salary and are supposed to be the owners of our government. We need transparency in government or democracy becomes meaningless.

Maybe you should be the director of OPM, since you can at least answer questions.

I'm frustrated with you because you're attacking people like me who are actually trying to make an honest living and and you have no idea until you're in my shoes. Until you do, I suggest you have a little empathy. The way you talk makes me feel like you're only interested in winning an argument and don't care about people. That's what I get from reading your posts.

I believe that I give as much empathy as I get, and more. IIRC correctly, I had you on ignore for a time because you jumped in a silly non-debate that I had agreed to disagree about and you just had to stir the pot anyway. I believe that was less than a week after I started posting.

I care about people. The taxpayers that pay federal workers to stay home are people. You complained about a 5% COLA? In my school district, where we show up every day or we get fired, we just got a 1.5% COLA. But I don't complain about it. Teaching pays what it pays, and it sure pays more in public school than in private school.

If someone comes on and says teachers are groomers, teachers only work three fourths of the year, etc., I disagree, but I don't get mad about it.

Just out of curiosity, is today a work day for you? I'm on a one-week break from summer school.

Fwiw, I deleted a couple of posts because yeah, I was angry.

I'm going to respectfully recommend that you not get angry over a poster on a message board. There are two posters on here who use the pronoun "she" when speaking of each other. They have been working hard to try to change me since I got here. If they cannot, you are unlikely to be able to.

I recommend putting me on ignore, though I understand that it can be annoying to see posts replying to an ignored poster. What I do is put people on ignore when they annoy me, or when I'm responding to too many posters at the same time, to cut down on clutter.

Then, curiosity gets the better of me and I take everyone off.

 

[Snarky Sack]

@Snarky Sack i know you have mentioned it in other threads,but i don't remember. what do you do for a living?

As I said above, I teach.

Specifically, I teach special education students with behavioral disabilities.

 

[Snarky Sack]

For all of the complaining you do about how you are treated here- and this is for @SaintForLife to look at as well since he has an issue with how conservatives are treated- this is the most ridiculous personal attack I've seen on this board. If you are genuinely a 60-something-year-old guy, you ought to be ashamed that you behave like a child.

I don't complain about how I am treated here. I refute obviously incorrect claims that I was treated with respect on this forum until I "brought it on myself."

 

[DaveXA]

Those are all good reasons. I think a lot of private sector companies are encouraging workers to work from home for those reasons. I don't think it is a good idea for federal workers, but the case can be made.

Here is my concern: That lady is the director of the Office of Personnel management. So she should be well-versed in numbers of employees working from home. She refuses to provide that information, having been asked it many times by representatives of the people.

That is fantastically disrespectful to the people who pay her salary and are supposed to be the owners of our government. We need transparency in government or democracy becomes meaningless.
Maybe you should be the director of OPM, since you can at least answer questions.

There's actually plenty of transparency. OPM and other agencies submit reports made to the public and to Congress on salaries, employees numbers, trends etc. They're not hiding anything. It's also required by law.

I don't work for OPM and i cant speak for the director and i don't follow the going on there. She's accountable to the President and Congress as i believe hers is an appointed position.

I believe that I give as much empathy as I get, and more. IIRC correctly, I had you on ignore for a time because you jumped in a silly non-debate that I had agreed to disagree about and you just had to stir the pot anyway. I believe that was less than a week after I started posting.

I care about people. The taxpayers that pay federal workers to stay home are people.

To be sure, they don't pay for federal workers to stay home. They pay them to perform their jobs. You do realize they actually can be disciplined or even fired if they don't report to work when working from home? They also can get poor evaluation by their supervisors if they don't get their assigned tasks done in a timely manner? Whether they work from the office or at home, we are still expected to complete our tasks all the same.

You complained about a 5% COLA? In my school district, where we show up every day or we get fired, we just got a 1.5% COLA. But I don't complain about it. Teaching pays what it pays, and it sure pays more in public school than in private school.

If someone comes on and says teachers are groomers, teachers only work three fourths of the year, etc., I disagree, but I don't get mad about it.

I can assure you, most, if not all posters here have a great deal of respect for teachers. I have good friends who are teachers, and i couldn’t do it. They don't get paid anywhere near enough for the work they do. And the 5% cola i mentioned was at its peak and still well below inflation. This year it was much less and next year will probably return to normal levels, typically beween 1 and 2%. Teachers should get more.

Just out of curiosity, is today a work day for you? I'm on a one-week break from summer school.

Today is technically a half day, but I took a full day for a long weekend. The half day was granted by our agency. Other agencies have discretion to grant leave today or not.

I'm going to respectfully recommend that you not get angry over a poster on a message board.

It happens if you're human.

There are two posters on here who use the pronoun "she" when speaking of each other. They have been working hard to try to change me since I got here. If they cannot, you are unlikely to be able to.

Eh, ok then. Not sure why you brought up the pronoun thing tho.

I recommend putting me on ignore, though I understand that it can be annoying to see posts replying to an ignored poster. What I do is put people on ignore when they annoy me, or when I'm responding to too many posters at the same time, to cut down on clutter.

I haven't put a single poster on ignore. Don't need or want to.

Then, curiosity gets the better of me and I take everyone off.

 

[Snarky Sack]

There's actually plenty of transparency. OPM and other agencies submit reports made to the public and to Congress on salaries, employees numbers, trends etc. They're not hiding anything. It's also required by law.

Is information about how many federal employees work from home available? Nope, but it supposedly will be.

It’s not clear from available data whether federal office workers are teleworking at higher rates than their private-sector counterparts. The US Office of Personnel Management says 47% of the government’s roughly 2 million civilian employees across the country were teleworking in 2021 but it doesn’t have a more up-to-date figure. This week it ordered agencies to begin tracking the data in payroll reports.

So, the information is not currently available. OPM, the agency that lady represents ordered that it be tracked. That order came in March. We'll see if they make the data available. I'm guessing the data will not be available, but they will reluctantly answer questions at least.

I believe that an employee who works from home 80% of the time would be counted by OPM as an employee who works at the office.

A newly empowered GOP leadership has trumpeted the issue, which plays to resentments of blue-collar constituents who mostly don’t get the chance to do their jobs from home. The SHOW UP Act to force civil servants to work from their offices was one of the first bills passed by the House this year, though the Democratic-led Senate is unlikely to take it up. The oversight committee Comer chairs is pressing the issue in hearings, including one Thursday in which members peppered the federal government’s chief personnel officer with questions.

The Democratic-led Senate should take this up, if they want the Senate to stay Democratic-led. I talk to blue collar people all the time, and there is a LOT of resentment of the perceived pampering of the federal empoyees whose salary they pay.

I don't work for OPM and i cant speak for the director and i don't follow the going on there. She's accountable to the President and Congress as i believe hers is an appointed position.

To be sure, they don't pay for federal workers to stay home. They pay them to perform their jobs. You do realize they actually can be disciplined or even fired if they don't report to work when working from home? They also can get poor evaluation by their supervisors if they don't get their assigned tasks done in a timely manner? Whether they work from the office or at home, we are still expected to complete our tasks all the same.

I'm telling you their perceptions. Unless you want the next head of OPM to be a Republican appointee, you should hope that your leaders address those perceptions.

I can assure you, most, if not all posters here have a great deal of respect for teachers. I have good friends who are teachers, and i couldn’t do it. They don't get paid anywhere near enough for the work they do. And the 5% cola i mentioned was at its peak and still well below inflation. This year it was much less and next year will probably return to normal levels, typically beween 1 and 2%. Teachers should get more.

No doubt, that people on here respect teachers. Nearly all of the criticisms of teachers that I hear comes from conservatives. Sometimes a person I meet will learn that I am a Trump supporter before they learn that I am a teacher. They will kind of hesitantly ask if I support the transgenderization of children, and pornographic books in the library. I don't get mad, I have a dialogue with them.

Today is technically a half day, but I took a full day for a long weekend. The half day was granted by our agency. Other agencies have discretion to grant leave today or not.

Nice.

It happens if you're human.

Eh, ok then. Not sure why you brought up the pronoun thing tho.

Because the stereotype is that women like to "fix"men, and can be very persistent about it. I talked about their pronouns because if I said "two women posters," I would cause anger and be slammed. Some would slam me for assuming that they are women and some would be mad because they don't know what the word "woman" means.

I haven't put a single poster on ignore. Don't need or want to.

That's another approach. You know what is best for you. My advice was meant in the best spirit. I work with students who need such advice, and sometimes that habit shows up in my postings.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm going to respectfully recommend that you not get angry over a poster on a message board. There are two posters on here who use the pronoun "she" when speaking of each other. They have been working hard to try to change me since I got here. If they cannot, you are unlikely to be able to.

Because the stereotype is that women like to "fix"men, and can be very persistent about it. I talked about their pronouns because if I said "two women posters," I would cause anger and be slammed. Some would slam me for assuming that they are women and some would be mad because they don't know what the word "woman" means.

Go ahead and name them, then. Who are these two posters that you have stereotyped as needing to "fix" you?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Go ahead and name them, then. Who are these two posters that you have stereotyped as needing to "fix" you?

You and @MT15. I wasn't hiding it from y'all, I assumed you would know I meant you and she.

I await your correction.

 

[DaveXA]

Is information about how many federal employees work from home available? Nope, but it supposedly will be.

What that article doesn't address is more and more businesses are attracting workers by offering work from home options for certain positions. They want to remain competitive in the human capital space and offering WFH options is actually a key hiring strategy. Employees are actually realizing in this job market, they can be choosy and look for WFH or hybrid options. There are actually quite a few private sector work from home jobs out there. Some people don't like to talk about it because they can't work from home themselves, but it's happening and something people expect for certain jobs.

It’s not clear from available data whether federal office workers are teleworking at higher rates than their private-sector counterparts. The US Office of Personnel Management says 47% of the government’s roughly 2 million civilian employees across the country were teleworking in 2021 but it doesn’t have a more up-to-date figure. This week it ordered agencies to begin tracking the data in payroll reports.

So, the information is not currently available. OPM, the agency that lady represents ordered that it be tracked. That order came in March. We'll see if they make the data available. I'm guessing the data will not be available, but they will reluctantly answer questions at least.

I believe that an employee who works from home 80% of the time would be counted by OPM as an employee who works at the office.

Our agency requires all employees to work a minimum 2 days per pay period, or once a week. If we're going by that, the percentage is likely going to be 80%+ working in the office. Everyone in our office, 20 people, are in the office once a week. I know some employees have exemptions, i.e. health reasons or whatever for working at home, but those are the exception, not the norm. What I hope happens is we settle on the minimum 1 day per week and 4 days WFH. I've already listed why in an earlier post.

A newly empowered GOP leadership has trumpeted the issue, which plays to resentments of blue-collar constituents who mostly don’t get the chance to do their jobs from home. The SHOW UP Act to force civil servants to work from their offices was one of the first bills passed by the House this year, though the Democratic-led Senate is unlikely to take it up. The oversight committee Comer chairs is pressing the issue in hearings, including one Thursday in which members peppered the federal government’s chief personnel officer with questions.

The Democratic-led Senate should take this up, if they want the Senate to stay Democratic-led. I talk to blue collar people all the time, and there is a LOT of resentment of the perceived pampering of the federal empoyees whose salary they pay.

I'm telling you their perceptions. Unless you want the next head of OPM to be a Republican appointee, you should hope that your leaders address those perceptions.

Idk, I think Republicans are doing what they've long done, playing on people's fears, prejudices and emotions by demonizing those who aren't like them. And I guess it works, but for what, I really don't know.

No doubt, that people on here respect teachers. Nearly all of the criticisms of teachers that I hear comes from conservatives. Sometimes a person I meet will learn that I am a Trump supporter before they learn that I am a teacher. They will kind of hesitantly ask if I support the transgenderization of children, and pornographic books in the library. I don't get mad, I have a dialogue with them.

Nice.

Because the stereotype is that women like to "fix"men, and can be very persistent about it. I talked about their pronouns because if I said "two women posters," I would cause anger and be slammed. Some would slam me for assuming that they are women and some would be mad because they don't know what the word "woman" means.

That's another approach. You know what is best for you. My advice was meant in the best spirit. I work with students who need such advice, and sometimes that habit shows up in my postings.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You and @MT15. I wasn't hiding it from y'all, I assumed you would know I meant you and she.

I await your correction.

Here's one: nobody on here, to my knowledge, has referred to me by any female pronoun. I'm a cisgender male.

 

[Snarky Sack]

What that article doesn't address is more and more businesses are attracting workers by offering work from home options for certain positions. They want to remain competitive in the human capital space and offering WFH options is actually a key hiring strategy. Employees are actually realizing in this job market, they can be choosy and look for WFH or hybrid options. There are actually quite a few private sector work from home jobs out there. Some people don't like to talk about it because they can't work from home themselves, but it's happening and something people expect for certain jobs.

The difference between a private sector work at home job and a public sector work at home job is that the private sector self-corrects for poor job performance. If the CEO of the XYZ processing company agrees that processors can process at home just as well, they will allow remote work. If at the end of the month, the operations manager reported a 10% drop in productivity of employees working remotely, the CEO is going to have a few choice words and order everyone back to the office.

In government, they don't like to admit something doesn't work and stop doing it. Instead the try to find ways to make it work, often hiding how badly it is going from the public.

Again, I ask, if working from home is so successful, why is OPM not bragging about it? Instead they are hiding it.

Our agency requires all employees to work a minimum 2 days per pay period, or once a week.

I think you meant to say "all employees to come into the work location" not "all employees to work." But the way you said it is the way private sector workers will hear it. Automotive techs changing oil eight to ten hours a day in an oil bay open to the outside air, don't like the idea that they pay people to go to the beach with their iPad and call that a work day, and play video games or pleasure themselves during Zoom meetings and be on the clock for that.

If we're going by that, the percentage is likely going to be 80%+ working in the office. Everyone in our office, 20 people, are in the office once a week.

Which is the math that I said that OPM lady will use. Or she may even say that if employees are required to stop by once per month, that means everyone is working at the office. Maybe that makes sense to you and your colleagues, but to the tax payers what you describe looks like 80% of the workforce is at home at any given time, not that 80% are working in the office.

I know some employees have exemptions, i.e. health reasons or whatever for working at home, but those are the exception, not the norm. What I hope happens is we settle on the minimum 1 day per week and 4 days WFH. I've already listed why in an earlier post.

You "settle" for being able to stay home four days per week and being paid as a full timer? Again, maybe you did not mean that the way it sounds, but that is how Joe and Jill who work on the construction site all day will see it.

Idk, I think Republicans are doing what they've long done, playing on people's fears, prejudices and emotions by demonizing those who aren't like them. And I guess it works, but for what, I really don't know.

Invective is easier on the cognitive resources than self-reflection, I suppose.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here's one: nobody on here, to my knowledge, has referred to me by any female pronoun. I'm a cisgender male.

I stand corrected, sir.

 

[DaveXA]

The difference between a private sector work at home job and a public sector work at home job is that the private sector self-corrects for poor job performance. If the CEO of the XYZ processing company agrees that processors can process at home just as well, they will allow remote work. If at the end of the month, the operations manager reported a 10% drop in productivity of employees working remotely, the CEO is going to have a few choice words and order everyone back to the office.

In government, they don't like to admit something doesn't work and stop doing it. Instead the try to find ways to make it work, often hiding how badly it is going from the public.

Again, I ask, if working from home is so successful, why is OPM not bragging about it? Instead they are hiding it.

You're simply parroting anti-government talking points. I work for the government. Now, you don't have to take my work for it, that's your prerogative, but what you're posting is simply and plainly not true. You don't know what you're talking about, period.

In my agency, we have performance evaluations every 6 months, we have many hours of CE courses we have to take to keep our credentials active. We regularly have meetings discussing where we're having issues or what's working and not working.

And yes, they're actually evaluating as to whether we should go to more hours in the office or not. It's a big topic of discussion. I can safely say this. We're getting more done as a team now than we did pre-Covid with more employees. Meaning, we're more efficient now WFH that we were when we were working full time in the office.

We're all adults in our office and take our work seriously. We depend on each other to meet the expectations of our leaders. I'm just speaking for myself and the office I work in.

And again, I don't work for OPM and can't speak for them.

I think you meant to say "all employees to come into the work location" not "all employees to work."

I meant what i said. There's nothing about my job I can't do at home. Not all jobs are like that, obviously. But those who work an office job can usually do everything they need to do from their home office. We actually to work at home. And I've already explained how our office is more efficient now than when we were 100% in the office.

But the way you said it is the way private sector workers will hear it. Automotive techs changing oil eight to ten hours a day in an oil bay open to the outside air, don't like the idea that they pay people to go to the beach with their iPad and call that a work day, and play video games or pleasure themselves during Zoom meetings and be on the clock for that.

You think I play video games or whatever else? If people think thats what most workers do WFH, then they're idiots. I guess they must think work just magically gets done on it's own. It's a stupid assumption when there is accountability in place. I've already explained that so I'm not gonna repeat it yet again.

Which is the math that I said that OPM lady will use. Or she may even say that if employees are required to stop by once per month, that means everyone is working at the office. Maybe that makes sense to you and your colleagues, but to the tax payers what you describe looks like 80% of the workforce is at home at any given time, not that 80% are working in the office.

I can't help people's misguided assumptions. They need to talk to people who actually work for the government and not silly contrived talking points.

You "settle" for being able to stay home four days per week and being paid as a full timer? Again, maybe you did not mean that the way it sounds, but that is how Joe and Jill who work on the construction site all day will see it.

By settle, I mean figure out what's the ideal scenario. I mean, we should justify what the best scenario would be. If I had my way, all office jobs would be done from home. Imagine how much tax money we could save by selling the office building that are being used. I mean, it would seem like something you'd support.

Invective is easier on the cognitive resources than self-reflection, I suppose.

I'm just not in the mood to do your homework for you.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You're simply parroting anti-government talking points.

Why lead with that, Dave, if you are honestly interested in an adult conversation?

I work for the government. Now, you don't have to take my work for it, that's your prerogative, but what you're posting is simply and plainly not true. You don't know what you're talking about, period.

In my agency, we have performance evaluations every 6 months, we have many hours of CE courses we have to take to keep our credentials active. We regularly have meetings discussing where we're having issues or what's working and not working.

And yes, they're actually evaluating as to whether we should go to more hours in the office or not. It's a big topic of discussion. I can safely say this. We're getting more done as a team now than we did pre-Covid with more employees. Meaning, we're more efficient now WFH that we were when we were working full time in the office.

We're all adults in our office and take our work seriously. We depend on each other to meet the expectations of our leaders. I'm just speaking for myself and the office I work in.

Again - if WFH is such a success, why did the director of OPM not explain that to congress instead of stonewalling? That's why I cannot take your word for it. If what you say is true, she is not putting a good look on your and your colleagues' efforts.

And again, I don't work for OPM and can't speak for them.

OPM is in charge of personnel policy for all federal employees. Therefore, they should be providing congress and the taxpayers with information on their policies.

BTW, it isn't just republicans:

It’s not just Republicans. Washington’s Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, in January used her third-term inaugural address to call for “decisive action” from the Biden administration to bring “most federal workers back to the office most of the time.”

Other big city leaders, such as New York’s Eric Adams, have urged employers to bring their workers back to counter swelling office vacancy rates. The nature of working for the taxpayers, however, places an extra burden on the the public-employee unions to justify telework as they fight return-to-office orders, such as a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation policy requiring full-time workers to come into the office at least once every two weeks.

 

[DaveXA]

Why lead with that, Dave, if you are honestly interested in an adult conversation?

It sure sounds like talking points I've heard before.

Again - if WFH is such a success, why did the director of OPM not explain that to congress instead of stonewalling? That's why I cannot take your word for it. If what you say is true, she is not putting a good look on your and your colleagues' efforts.

I work for a government agency that doesn't fall under the purview of OPM.

OPM is in charge of personnel policy for all federal employees.

Not true. Most, not all. I've worked for 2 different agencies that don't fall under the purview of OPM. One was Architect of the Capitol where i worked as a Tech/Policy writer. The other in my current position is an agency under the DOD umbrella, and isn't subject to OPM rules.

Therefore, they should be providing congress and the taxpayers with information on their policies.

They should and do for the most part.

BTW, it isn't just republicans:

It’s not just Republicans. Washington’s Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, in January used her third-term inaugural address to call for “decisive action” from the Biden administration to bring “most federal workers back to the office most of the time.”

Bowser has a motive though. She wants the money that federal employees bring to the city when they go to their offices in DC. Either that or she wants federal agencies to sell buildings that aren't being utilized, which I wouldnt have an issue with.

Other big city leaders, such as New York’s Eric Adams, have urged employers to bring their workers back to counter swelling office vacancy rates. The nature of working for the taxpayers, however, places an extra burden on the the public-employee unions to justify telework as they fight return-to-office orders, such as a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation policy requiring full-time workers to come into the office at least once every two weeks.

FYI, I accidentally hit submit on my earlier post and edited it with further comments.

 

[Dragon]

Why lead with that, Dave, if you are honestly interested in an adult conversation?

Again - if WFH is such a success, why did the director of OPM not explain that to congress instead of stonewalling? That's why I cannot take your word for it. If what you say is true, she is not putting a good look on your and your colleagues' efforts.

OPM is in charge of personnel policy for all federal employees. Therefore, they should be providing congress and the taxpayers with information on their policies.

BTW, it isn't just republicans:

It’s not just Republicans. Washington’s Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, in January used her third-term inaugural address to call for “decisive action” from the Biden administration to bring “most federal workers back to the office most of the time.”

Other big city leaders, such as New York’s Eric Adams, have urged employers to bring their workers back to counter swelling office vacancy rates. The nature of working for the taxpayers, however, places an extra burden on the the public-employee unions to justify telework as they fight return-to-office orders, such as a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation policy requiring full-time workers to come into the office at least once every two weeks.

You do understand that this is about money right? Like taxpayers money.

They want people back in the offices to keep those expensive office buildings occupied and the restaurants and sandwich shops full every day. This really has nothing to do with how efficiently people work from home

 

[Snarky Sack]

It sure sounds like talking points I've heard before.

Everything sounds like a talking point except for the first time you see somone say it.

I could respond to every statement you make with "that sounds like a ________ talking point." That would be a true statement, but meaningless in a discussion.

I work for a government agency that doesn't fall under the purview of OPM.

Not true. Most, not all. I've worked for 2 different agencies that don't fall under the purview of OPM. One was Architect of the Capitol where i worked as a Tech/Policy writer. The other in my current position is an agency under the DOD umbrella, and isn't subject to OPM rules.

Alright, then.

They should and do for the most part.

That OPM lady is not being transparent, correct?

Bowser has a motive though. She wants the money that federal employees bring to the city when they go to their offices in DC. Either that or she wants federal agencies to sell buildings that aren't being utilized, which I wouldnt have an issue with.

FYI, I accidentally hit submit on my earlier post and edited it with further comments.

We will have to agree to disagree on the WFH issue. If the GOP gets back in power, you may find yourself back at the office.

 

[DaveXA]

Everything sounds like a talking point except for the first time you see somone say it.

I could respond to every statement you make with "that sounds like a ________ talking point." That would be a true statement, but meaningless in a discussion.

I said what I said...moving on.

Alright, then.

That OPM lady is not being transparent, correct?

That's your interpretation.

We will have to agree to disagree on the WFH issue. If the GOP gets back in power, you may find yourself back at the office.

Fine, I'm just saying, it's going to be less efficient when we return to the office. If you want less efficient dollars at work. So be it then.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's your interpretation.

How could you possibly disagree? She literally refused to answer the question.

Fine, I'm just saying, it's going to be less efficient when we return to the office. If you want less efficient dollars at work. So be it then.

That sounds like a public employee talking point.