Originally Posted by Buck Rogers (Post 2850649)

Well, that's an interesting take. MSNBC much?

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 2850648)

So you are saying our "whistleblower" in question is the rational entity here?

One person's "whistleblower" is another's toxic personality/messiah complex sort with an agenda.

Of course the trick is figuring out who really DOES have a legitimate claim, and who doesn't. Kind of like the following I learned in a college class. "I" is the positive connotation of a statement, "you" is the neutral, and "he" is the negative--but they all say the same thing.

I am reconsidering an issue.

You changed your mind.

He went back on his word.



I am a naturalist healer.

You are a medicine man.

He is a witch doctor.

Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey (Post 2850653)

Not necessarily. I have read a lot of what KP has written and I don't have a lot of positive things to say about her. The optics, however, SHOULD be bad for Dickson because he fired a whistleblower and she got her job back. The current ruling party in the Senate more times than not sides with business so while it should look bad, especially considering the attention it's gotten, I highly doubt it will move the needle on them.

Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey (Post 2850653)

Not necessarily. I have read a lot of what KP has written and I don't have a lot of positive things to say about her. The optics, however, SHOULD be bad for Dickson because he fired a whistleblower and she got her job back. The current ruling party in the Senate more times than not sides with business so while it should look bad, especially considering the attention it's gotten, I highly doubt it will move the needle on them.

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2850655)

Correction: she was never fired. She was placed on PAID leave while Section 15 proceedings were executed

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey (Post 2850641)

He'll more than likely get confirmed. The majority in the Senate drools over people who fire whistleblowers without cause. I'm sure most of them would like to see whistleblowers prosecuted for interfering with business interests

Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey (Post 2850653)

Not necessarily. I have read a lot of what KP has written and I don't have a lot of positive things to say about her. The optics, however, SHOULD be bad for Dickson because he fired a whistleblower and she got her job back. The current ruling party in the Senate more times than not sides with business so while it should look bad, especially considering the attention it's gotten, I highly doubt it will move the needle on them.

Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey (Post 2850717)

Got ya. I still stand by everything else.

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 2850771)

What is there to stand by if she wasn't fired? It was stated as the basis for the majority of your opinion.

Another interpretation based on correct events is that Dickson is a hero, because he placed a pilot on paid leave to protect the flying public from a potential safety risk.

Originally Posted by ChecklistMonkey (Post 2850776)

Replace fired with disciplined. What would the general public think of his heroism that she is still flying the line?

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2850781)

She was not disciplined. She was placed on PAID leave until the Section 15 proceedings were executed.

A suspension or termination would have been discipline.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 2850784)

So she should have welcomed the process and it's NBD? Would you view the process as ordinary course of business and not a threat to you but just a vacation?