Was the firing of Linga Fagan unfair discrimination?

Was the firing of Linga Fagan unfair discrimination?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 100.0%

  • Total voters
    6
I don't believe this woman who spent her entire life in the military, rising through the ranks and getting recognized for her achievements, is incompetent, Mr. Earl. She's educated, experienced, served under 6 presidents and trump didn't fire her during his first term. trump first had to make DEI the cause du jour, and use it to justify his discrimination.
I've personally seen that exact thing happen not just once, but repeatedly. In one case, the female officer had been in what's called DEI now, and doing bureaucratic paperwork, getting promoted in part on gender. She was put in a command position for the first time when I had to deal with her. Things got so fouled up, so bad, an admiral and staff showed up to relieve her of command, along with several subordinate officers.

In another case, the officer, again female, was nothing but a figurehead. She did nothing. The unit ran without her doing much of anything. She did her tour and left for who-knows-where, with good riddance from us.

Sure, I've had good female officers too. What I've experienced over a lifetime is females put in leadership or executive positions are far more hit and miss than men. That is, they're either good at it, or horrible. There's no middle ground. No, I can't explain why but that's how it seems to go. Getting stuck with a poor male leader is something subordinates can grudgingly deal or cope with. Being stuck with a poor female leader is a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
What's "misogyn(ist)" about my post? Incompetence is incompetence. If that's the case with her, good riddance. The bio YOU posted made a big deal of her being the first woman / female to hold the post. That is an IRRELEVANT qualification. It is DEI at its worst. What did she actually do in her career that made her a good choice for promotion? That's what counts: Merit.
Do you think a man would have been a better selection? Because the CG struck out with Karl Schultz. What's misogynistic is your leap to saying she's incompetent because of her gender. Maybe when Biden chose her she was the greater among equals, ever think of that?

There are plenty of Fagan bios on the internet. Maybe you should look some up and compare/contrast her with her predecessors.
 
I've personally seen that exact thing happen not just once, but repeatedly. In one case, the female officer had been in what's called DEI now, and doing bureaucratic paperwork, getting promoted in part on gender. She was put in a command position for the first time when I had to deal with her. Things got so fouled up, so bad, an admiral and staff showed up to relieve her of command, along with several subordinate officers.

In another case, the officer, again female, was nothing but a figurehead. She did nothing. The unit ran without her doing much of anything. She did her tour and left for who-knows-where, with good riddance from us.

Sure, I've had good female officers too. What I've experienced over a lifetime is females put in leadership or executive positions are far more hit and miss than men. That is, they're either good at it, or horrible. There's no middle ground. No, I can't explain why but that's how it seems to go. Getting stuck with a poor male leader is something subordinates can grudging deal or cope with. Being stuck with a poor female leader is a nightmare.


Arizonan anecdotes?
 
She is not your friend.

I find her useful, but never, ever trust her.
We are compañeros in this respect…we both have shared experiences in a far land…across the pond.

We disagree politically but not disrespectful.

I appreciate that, it is rare with the left on this forum.
 
She pulled the "misogynist script".


GhDjK_RXMAA0hD6
Yea, I know...

Steps that an argument / discussion with a Leftist follows:

When you present facts they can't refute, they'll change the subject. This is usually some sort of "What about..."

When that doesn't work, they resort to insults and ad hominem.

When that doesn't work, they curse you and refuse to continue the discussion. In person they might physically attack you (ineffectively) and will storm off in a huff mad as hell.
 
New Presidents regularly fire folks and replace them with folks that are more aligned with their political views. Usually nearly every US Attorney is replaced with new appointees, for instance.
 
Do you think a man would have been a better selection? Because the CG struck out with Karl Schultz. What's misogynistic is your leap to saying she's incompetent because of her gender. Maybe when Biden chose her she was the greater among equals, ever think of that?

I think gender was irrelevant to the selection process. But given Biden's other selections being made on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, and not competence, it's highly likely she was promoted on the same basis. Remember, Biden specifically told us his VP was to be a "Black woman." Many of his cabinet picks were "The first (fill in the blank with gay, Native American, transgender, Asian, whatever on the basis of sex and or race) to be selected for the position." Competence was not a qualification for his selections, and it showed big time.
There are plenty of Fagan bios on the internet. Maybe you should look some up and compare/contrast her with her predecessors.

Why? I was responding to the one YOU chose. Clearly YOU think someone's sex / gender, and likely the color of their skin is an important trait for promotion to high executive positions of leadership and authority outweighing merit or you'd have chosen a different biography to present.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I know...

Steps that an argument / discussion with a Leftist follows:

When you present facts they can't refute, they'll change the subject. This is usually some sort of "What about..."

When that doesn't work, they resort to insults and ad hominem.

When that doesn't work, they curse you and refuse to continue the discussion. In person they might physically attack you (ineffectively) and will storm off in a huff mad as hell.
When trump-mass fired thousands of people because of his DEI perception, you think he studied all their qualifications beforehand? His only, and I mean ONLY, qualification for a position in the administration is unquestioned loyalty to himself.

He has an extremely simplistic view of what it takes to run the country, and he ignores the three branches of government.
 
New Presidents regularly fire folks and replace them with folks that are more aligned with their political views. Usually nearly every US Attorney is replaced with new appointees, for instance.


It's only "unfair" when Trump does it, you see.
 
I think gender was irrelevant to the selection process.


Why? I was responding to the one YOU chose. Clearly YOU think someone's sex / gender, and likely the color of their skin is an important trait for promotion to high executive positions of leadership and authority outweighing merit or you'd have chosen a different biography to present.
What? You're saying gender was irrelevant yet this thread and others are all dedicated to trump's fantasies of DEI hires.
 
It's only "unfair" when Trump does it, you see.
It seems that way for every republican. When W fired the US Attorneys it caused a ruckus... the Dems were "outraged"... Until folks pointed out that Clinton did it, as did Carter, Reagan.... If you are a US Attorney and the guy that appointed you loses, you must expect it, if you don't you're are an idiot.

Admirals and Generals are all political appointees, voted in by the Senate and are often replaced with new administrations. If this were Dementia Joe, and he replaced a Trump appointment, you'd barely hear of it.
 
When trump-mass fired thousands of people because of his DEI perception, you think he studied all their qualifications beforehand? His only, and I mean ONLY, qualification for a position in the administration is unquestioned loyalty to himself.

He has an extremely simplistic view of what it takes to run the country, and he ignores the three branches of government.
Show where Trump has been firing people on the basis of gender, race, or other DEI qualities rather than on the basis the person fired is not competent in their position.

Obama, as with Trump, fired a lot of top executives--including in Obama's case nearly all US attorneys then serving--because they wanted people who reflected their expectations in office.
 
What? You're saying gender was irrelevant yet this thread and others are all dedicated to trump's fantasies of DEI hires.
What, because YOU say so? I don't see it that way at all. I see you whining that Trump fired some admiral who is female because, as I see it, on the basis of merit and competence she lacked, while you see it as him doing it because she was female and hired on the basis of DEI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
Back
Top