This Will Drive the Deep State Nuts: Trump Preparing for a Major House-Cleaning

[pknopp]

No employee should be asked to do something unconstitutional. Yes, they should push back if they are. Not only that, we should support those who push back and say no but unfortunately we support politics as long as the politics are ours.

Spying by the Obama administration is a perfect example of this. People tried to blow the whistle on this. The government went after them. Snowden finally had to do what he did. The courts ruled against the administration but liars were able to get away with their lies and Snowden is still condemned by many unfortunately.

Now, where was I trying to be "slick"?

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

 

[martybegan]

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

 

[martybegan]

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

its the same subject, you just don't like where the discussion is going.

Cogs, not whistleblowers, should resign if they can't implement the policies chosen by the ELECTED President.

 

[pknopp]

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

its the same subject, you just don't like where the discussion is going.

Cogs, not whistleblowers, should resign if they can't implement the policies chosen by the ELECTED President.

As long as it's not Unconstitutional. Right back where we started.

 

[martybegan]

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

its the same subject, you just don't like where the discussion is going.

Cogs, not whistleblowers, should resign if they can't implement the policies chosen by the ELECTED President.

As long as it's not Unconstitutional. Right back where we started.

What many of you are claiming as "Unconstitutional" is clearly not. You throw the word around without backing it up.

 

[Dale Smith]

What they may think is "unconstitutional" is 99% of the time merely a policy disagreement.

Again, they are there to implement policy, not decide it.

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

No president was as hard on whistleblowers than the Obamapuppet. The whistleblowers were not passing on gossip nor did they have an agenda. Benghazi whistleblowers were demoted and had to sign NDAs. John Haney "See Something Say Nothing" author was demoted, lost his security clearance when he brought attention to the fact that information on muslim migrants with ties to extremist groups was scrubbed thus denying other 3 letter agencies the intel. All former Barrypuppet and Clinton loyalists should have been kicked to the curb. Their marxist ideals have no place in this admin. Why would they even want to stay unless it was to undermine their boss?

 

[pknopp]

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

its the same subject, you just don't like where the discussion is going.

Cogs, not whistleblowers, should resign if they can't implement the policies chosen by the ELECTED President.

As long as it's not Unconstitutional. Right back where we started.

What many of you are claiming as "Unconstitutional" is clearly not. You throw the word around without backing it up.

I claimed nothing but what I said. You have a guilty complex.

 

[martybegan]

People with political disagreements over policy are not whistleblowers.

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

its the same subject, you just don't like where the discussion is going.

Cogs, not whistleblowers, should resign if they can't implement the policies chosen by the ELECTED President.

As long as it's not Unconstitutional. Right back where we started.

What many of you are claiming as "Unconstitutional" is clearly not. You throw the word around without backing it up.

I claimed nothing but what I said. You have a guilty complex.

There's that whole trying to be slick again.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not really interested in your generalizations. I pointed out a specific example.

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

No president was as hard on whistleblowers than the Obamapuppet. The whistleblowers were not passing on gossip nor did they have an agenda. Benghazi whistleblowers were demoted and had to sign NDAs. John Haney "See Something Say Nothing" author was demoted, lost his security clearance when he brought attention to the fact that information on muslim migrants with ties to extremist groups was scrubbed thus denying other 3 letter agencies the intel. All former Barrypuppet and Clinton loyalists should have been kicked to the curb. Their marxist ideals have no place in this admin. Why would they even want to stay unless it was to undermine their boss?

That is true about Obama and I did not support or vote for him. That Hillary was the same is why I did not vote for her. Wrong is wrong is wrong. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many.

I made NO statement on this administration. I do not believe I have even ever spoke on what you are going on about. If an employee refuses to carry out a lawful program they can be dealt with. If it's not lawful they should push back and we should support them. Period.

 

[Dale Smith]

So we have changed the subject. I'll take that as you conceding the original point.

its the same subject, you just don't like where the discussion is going.

Cogs, not whistleblowers, should resign if they can't implement the policies chosen by the ELECTED President.

As long as it's not Unconstitutional. Right back where we started.

What many of you are claiming as "Unconstitutional" is clearly not. You throw the word around without backing it up.

I claimed nothing but what I said. You have a guilty complex.

There's that whole trying to be slick again.

The problem with "unamed sources" that the New York Times and Washington Post use for articles are always proven to be false. I avoid lamestream media as a source as they are not trustworthy, have an agenda because the CIA still influences all of it. Operation Mockingbird never ceased even after the Church Committee hearings.

 

[Dale Smith]

He at least went public with his issues, he didn't sit there and try to gum up the works.

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

No president was as hard on whistleblowers than the Obamapuppet. The whistleblowers were not passing on gossip nor did they have an agenda. Benghazi whistleblowers were demoted and had to sign NDAs. John Haney "See Something Say Nothing" author was demoted, lost his security clearance when he brought attention to the fact that information on muslim migrants with ties to extremist groups was scrubbed thus denying other 3 letter agencies the intel. All former Barrypuppet and Clinton loyalists should have been kicked to the curb. Their marxist ideals have no place in this admin. Why would they even want to stay unless it was to undermine their boss?

That is true about Obama and I did not support or vote for him. That Hillary was the same is why I did not vote for her. Wrong is wrong is wrong. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many.

I made NO statement on this administration. I do not believe I have even ever spoke on what you are going on about. If an employee refuses to carry out a lawful program they can be dealt with. If it's not lawful they should push back and we should support them. Period.

Fine, then what "unlawful" orders did these alleged "whistle blowers" refuse to do that was unlawful?

 

[mudwhistle]

All the leaks about what the President is doing with regards to the various agencies, resisting implementing the policies of the President.

State Department bureaucrat caught plotting ‘deep state’ resistance: Project Veritas

A single bureaucrat no one ever heard of? To be honest, Trump should thank some of his underlings for not doing what he demands. It's kept him in office and out of scandal since he's been known to order them to do things that aren't particularly legal. Just think if they went through with Trump's demand to fire Mueller.

So unelected bureaucrats should have the ability to override the elected person placed in the office by the people?

Fuck no.

If what they are being told to do is unconstitutional, then yes.

If they think they are being asked to do unconstitutional things they need to resign and report.

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

If this administration was crapping on the constitution there would be immediate action.

However.... Obama crapped on it constantly....and his ready-made excuse was always "another president did it, why can't I" ?

 

[CowboyTed]

i don't expect it to happen today, but he has made it clear he admires the behavior of murdering third world dictators.

Lol, that you expect it at all and continue to go with the whole "Trump likes dictators" based on him dealing with them via normal run of the mill diplomacy just shows you have gone off the deep end.

Change your name to Chihuahua, because that's more like your personality, a shaking little dog that pees when confronted.

Well tell us how you are going to identify the 'disloyal'?

The ones who don't do their job get canned. Its very simple.

Civil servants are supposed to be cogs in the machine, not policy deciders.

But they have not said that... That would be a job performance review, that is OK...

They have specifically said 'disloyal'...

I will point out and nobody disputes this the President asked a foreign leader for a favour of of announcing an investigation into a political rival while withholding Congressional Aid which he was breaking the law by not giving. Vindman saw the law being broken (aid was not been given) and came forward to testify.
That is the law and it is Vindman's duty to report the law been broken.

Are you saying this new loyalty is to ignore the law been broken?

Or he negotiated with a foreign leader over aid regarding a potential criminal investigation of a US citizen, a high profile one. It's all in the language soi boi.

It is clear by a number of testimonies that Trump Admin and Trump himself were asking for an announcement of investigation into Biden. There was no evidence to back an investigation, the Trump administration was asked for evidence and they have shown none.
What you are saying a President can pick any rival he likes and ask a foreign country to investigate them. That for many reasons is against the law.

 

[pknopp]

Which is what I said the employees should do. They should say NO and push back not simply quit.

Then they should be fired when found to be nothing more than playing politics.

Cogs, that's all they are supposed to be.

Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.

No president was as hard on whistleblowers than the Obamapuppet. The whistleblowers were not passing on gossip nor did they have an agenda. Benghazi whistleblowers were demoted and had to sign NDAs. John Haney "See Something Say Nothing" author was demoted, lost his security clearance when he brought attention to the fact that information on muslim migrants with ties to extremist groups was scrubbed thus denying other 3 letter agencies the intel. All former Barrypuppet and Clinton loyalists should have been kicked to the curb. Their marxist ideals have no place in this admin. Why would they even want to stay unless it was to undermine their boss?

That is true about Obama and I did not support or vote for him. That Hillary was the same is why I did not vote for her. Wrong is wrong is wrong. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many.

I made NO statement on this administration. I do not believe I have even ever spoke on what you are going on about. If an employee refuses to carry out a lawful program they can be dealt with. If it's not lawful they should push back and we should support them. Period.

Fine, then what "unlawful" orders did these alleged "whistle blowers" refuse to do that was unlawful?

I have no idea who "these" people are. I made a general statement that employee's should do as they are instructed as long as those instructions are not unconstitutional. I was told the solution to unconstitutional actions is to quit. I rejected that.

 

[pknopp]

A single bureaucrat no one ever heard of? To be honest, Trump should thank some of his underlings for not doing what he demands. It's kept him in office and out of scandal since he's been known to order them to do things that aren't particularly legal. Just think if they went through with Trump's demand to fire Mueller.

So unelected bureaucrats should have the ability to override the elected person placed in the office by the people?

Fuck no.

If what they are being told to do is unconstitutional, then yes.

If they think they are being asked to do unconstitutional things they need to resign and report.

That's just plain stupid. No they should not have to resign because an administration craps on the Constitution.

If this administration was capping on the constitution there would be immediate action.

Obama crapped on it constantly....and his ready-made excuse was always "another president did it, why can't I" ?

I made NO statement on any administration until I provided an example and I used Obama as an example.

 

[Crepitus]

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Yesterday’s Campaign Update focused on the efforts by Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Ric Grenell to identify and get rid of the bad actors remaining embeded within the Intelligence Community (IC), and the panic that is creating in the Deep State and its corrupt media hacks at the New York Times.

Today, Jonathan Swan – who is actually a pretty solid working journalist – at Axios has a report that will drive the Brennans, Comeys and Clappers of the world even crazier: It turns out that President Trump has assigned people within his body of trusted advisors to spend the last year-and-a-half compiling lists of disloyal government officials, along with names of Trump supporters who are qualified and willing to replace them.

As reported by Swan:

The Trump White House and its allies, over the past 18 months, assembled detailed lists of disloyal government officials to oust — and trusted pro-Trump people to replace them — according to more than a dozen sources familiar with the effort who spoke to Axios.

Driving the news: By the time President Trump instructed his 29-year-old former body man and new head of presidential personnel to rid his government of anti-Trump officials, he’d gathered reams of material to support his suspicions.

While Trump’s distrust has only intensified since his impeachment and acquittal, he has long been on the hunt for “bad people” inside the White House and U.S. government, and fresh “pro-Trump” options. Outside advisers have been happy to oblige. Oh, man, heads must be exploding at the Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC over this one. And can you imagine the nervous breakdowns taking place all over the offices of the CIA, FBI, DOJ and State Department?

Perhaps the best part of Swan’s piece is his concluding paragraph:

The bottom line: As the New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote on Saturday, “in some of the most critical corners of the Trump administration, officials show up for work now never entirely sure who will be there by the end of the evening — themselves included.”

Good. Great. Fantastic. This is three years overdue, a house-cleaning the President has been counseled to forego due to political factors and the interminable coup d’etat effort against him led by Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

Now that the idiotic impeachment scam has run its course, President Trump – according to Swan – feels liberated, free to finally rid his administration of seditious Obama/Bush/Clinton holdovers and put his own people into key positions. In every previous presidential administration in our history, this kind of house-cleaning was considered to be standard operating procedure. But due to the efforts of the Deep State and its corrupt media toadies, it has taken three long years enduring constant leaks, subversions and betrayals for this President to feel free to finally do what he was elected to do.

Man, this is going to be some fun.

------------

I realize he had to get many judges in who would actually support the law of the land instead of protect their cronies.

But it has been frustrating to watch and wait, although, watching the dems implode has been entertaining.....and it will go ballistic when he wins a second term!....

A good old Soviet style purge.

How very Putin of him.

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but I'm betting it's full of tRumplings saying things like "shoulda done it three years ago" and "about time".

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.

 

[anynameyouwish]

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Yesterday’s Campaign Update focused on the efforts by Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Ric Grenell to identify and get rid of the bad actors remaining embeded within the Intelligence Community (IC), and the panic that is creating in the Deep State and its corrupt media hacks at the New York Times.

Today, Jonathan Swan – who is actually a pretty solid working journalist – at Axios has a report that will drive the Brennans, Comeys and Clappers of the world even crazier: It turns out that President Trump has assigned people within his body of trusted advisors to spend the last year-and-a-half compiling lists of disloyal government officials, along with names of Trump supporters who are qualified and willing to replace them.

As reported by Swan:

The Trump White House and its allies, over the past 18 months, assembled detailed lists of disloyal government officials to oust — and trusted pro-Trump people to replace them — according to more than a dozen sources familiar with the effort who spoke to Axios.

Driving the news: By the time President Trump instructed his 29-year-old former body man and new head of presidential personnel to rid his government of anti-Trump officials, he’d gathered reams of material to support his suspicions.

While Trump’s distrust has only intensified since his impeachment and acquittal, he has long been on the hunt for “bad people” inside the White House and U.S. government, and fresh “pro-Trump” options. Outside advisers have been happy to oblige. Oh, man, heads must be exploding at the Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC over this one. And can you imagine the nervous breakdowns taking place all over the offices of the CIA, FBI, DOJ and State Department?

Perhaps the best part of Swan’s piece is his concluding paragraph:

The bottom line: As the New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote on Saturday, “in some of the most critical corners of the Trump administration, officials show up for work now never entirely sure who will be there by the end of the evening — themselves included.”

Good. Great. Fantastic. This is three years overdue, a house-cleaning the President has been counseled to forego due to political factors and the interminable coup d’etat effort against him led by Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

Now that the idiotic impeachment scam has run its course, President Trump – according to Swan – feels liberated, free to finally rid his administration of seditious Obama/Bush/Clinton holdovers and put his own people into key positions. In every previous presidential administration in our history, this kind of house-cleaning was considered to be standard operating procedure. But due to the efforts of the Deep State and its corrupt media toadies, it has taken three long years enduring constant leaks, subversions and betrayals for this President to feel free to finally do what he was elected to do.

Man, this is going to be some fun.

------------

I realize he had to get many judges in who would actually support the law of the land instead of protect their cronies.

But it has been frustrating to watch and wait, although, watching the dems implode has been entertaining.....and it will go ballistic when he wins a second term!....

you seem to think that if you WIN then I lose!

I certainly won't be happy that deranged hate filled fascists have elected a dangerous moron as their emperor for life but, this being the USA, and since we all have the same constitution, I'll continue to have all the same rights and freedoms that you have.

So you might have the worst American as your president but I'll still have ethics, morals, integrity, the moral high ground, and all the same rights and freedoms as you

 

[Crepitus]

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Yesterday’s Campaign Update focused on the efforts by Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Ric Grenell to identify and get rid of the bad actors remaining embeded within the Intelligence Community (IC), and the panic that is creating in the Deep State and its corrupt media hacks at the New York Times.

Today, Jonathan Swan – who is actually a pretty solid working journalist – at Axios has a report that will drive the Brennans, Comeys and Clappers of the world even crazier: It turns out that President Trump has assigned people within his body of trusted advisors to spend the last year-and-a-half compiling lists of disloyal government officials, along with names of Trump supporters who are qualified and willing to replace them.

As reported by Swan:

The Trump White House and its allies, over the past 18 months, assembled detailed lists of disloyal government officials to oust — and trusted pro-Trump people to replace them — according to more than a dozen sources familiar with the effort who spoke to Axios.

Driving the news: By the time President Trump instructed his 29-year-old former body man and new head of presidential personnel to rid his government of anti-Trump officials, he’d gathered reams of material to support his suspicions.

While Trump’s distrust has only intensified since his impeachment and acquittal, he has long been on the hunt for “bad people” inside the White House and U.S. government, and fresh “pro-Trump” options. Outside advisers have been happy to oblige. Oh, man, heads must be exploding at the Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC over this one. And can you imagine the nervous breakdowns taking place all over the offices of the CIA, FBI, DOJ and State Department?

Perhaps the best part of Swan’s piece is his concluding paragraph:

The bottom line: As the New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote on Saturday, “in some of the most critical corners of the Trump administration, officials show up for work now never entirely sure who will be there by the end of the evening — themselves included.”

Good. Great. Fantastic. This is three years overdue, a house-cleaning the President has been counseled to forego due to political factors and the interminable coup d’etat effort against him led by Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

Now that the idiotic impeachment scam has run its course, President Trump – according to Swan – feels liberated, free to finally rid his administration of seditious Obama/Bush/Clinton holdovers and put his own people into key positions. In every previous presidential administration in our history, this kind of house-cleaning was considered to be standard operating procedure. But due to the efforts of the Deep State and its corrupt media toadies, it has taken three long years enduring constant leaks, subversions and betrayals for this President to feel free to finally do what he was elected to do.

Man, this is going to be some fun.

------------

I realize he had to get many judges in who would actually support the law of the land instead of protect their cronies.

But it has been frustrating to watch and wait, although, watching the dems implode has been entertaining.....and it will go ballistic when he wins a second term!....

Should have happened three years ago.

ODD, I agree with you, but he couldn't do it. 1/2 of the GOP was against him, and all the Left. Where was he going to get people to take these positions?

By the time he had enough "political contacts" to do it, he had Mueller, then 1 to 2 days later, the phony whistleblower having him under impeachment.

The media would have called it an illegal PURGE!

Like I said before, and some disagree------------> because of what the DNC did to this President, we NEED to FEED them BERNARD as their standard bearer in retaliation! It is paramount for us to MAKE them remember that...……...when they told us we had no sway in ANYTHING as it was up to congress, they FORGOT their primaries! They tried to REVERSE our vote, and tied OUR President in knots!

Now, we can return the favor, and fu** them! They wanna play games; so can we!

He's not going to fill them .He's trying to run the whole thing by himself. A guy who's bankrupted how many companies trying to micromanage the whole country.

All I can do is shake my head.

 

[Dale Smith]

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Yesterday’s Campaign Update focused on the efforts by Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Ric Grenell to identify and get rid of the bad actors remaining embeded within the Intelligence Community (IC), and the panic that is creating in the Deep State and its corrupt media hacks at the New York Times.

Today, Jonathan Swan – who is actually a pretty solid working journalist – at Axios has a report that will drive the Brennans, Comeys and Clappers of the world even crazier: It turns out that President Trump has assigned people within his body of trusted advisors to spend the last year-and-a-half compiling lists of disloyal government officials, along with names of Trump supporters who are qualified and willing to replace them.

As reported by Swan:

The Trump White House and its allies, over the past 18 months, assembled detailed lists of disloyal government officials to oust — and trusted pro-Trump people to replace them — according to more than a dozen sources familiar with the effort who spoke to Axios.

Driving the news: By the time President Trump instructed his 29-year-old former body man and new head of presidential personnel to rid his government of anti-Trump officials, he’d gathered reams of material to support his suspicions.

While Trump’s distrust has only intensified since his impeachment and acquittal, he has long been on the hunt for “bad people” inside the White House and U.S. government, and fresh “pro-Trump” options. Outside advisers have been happy to oblige. Oh, man, heads must be exploding at the Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC over this one. And can you imagine the nervous breakdowns taking place all over the offices of the CIA, FBI, DOJ and State Department?

Perhaps the best part of Swan’s piece is his concluding paragraph:

The bottom line: As the New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote on Saturday, “in some of the most critical corners of the Trump administration, officials show up for work now never entirely sure who will be there by the end of the evening — themselves included.”

Good. Great. Fantastic. This is three years overdue, a house-cleaning the President has been counseled to forego due to political factors and the interminable coup d’etat effort against him led by Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

Now that the idiotic impeachment scam has run its course, President Trump – according to Swan – feels liberated, free to finally rid his administration of seditious Obama/Bush/Clinton holdovers and put his own people into key positions. In every previous presidential administration in our history, this kind of house-cleaning was considered to be standard operating procedure. But due to the efforts of the Deep State and its corrupt media toadies, it has taken three long years enduring constant leaks, subversions and betrayals for this President to feel free to finally do what he was elected to do.

Man, this is going to be some fun.

------------

I realize he had to get many judges in who would actually support the law of the land instead of protect their cronies.

But it has been frustrating to watch and wait, although, watching the dems implode has been entertaining.....and it will go ballistic when he wins a second term!....

you seem to think that if you WIN then I lose!

I certainly won't be happy that deranged hate filled fascists have elected a dangerous moron as their emperor for life but, this being the USA, and since we all have the same constitution, I'll continue to have all the same rights and freedoms that you have.

So you might have the worst American as your president but I'll still have ethics, morals, integrity, the moral high ground, and all the same rights and freedoms as you

Anyone that isn't on board with the commie agenda is a "hate-filled fascist" in the land of the leftard.