Fire every federal bureaucrat/employee caught undermining the administration.

[martybegan]

We're reporting what Trump said he would do.
Not what he was competent to actually do.

Did Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall?
Did Trump repeal Obamacare?
Did Trump deport the 12 million illegals?

You're trying to argue we shouldn't take what Trump says seriously.

Figures you won't directly answer the question, you poor tired old hack.

Nope. But he tried
Nope, and congress didn't want to go along, and that was that.
Did he say he was going to deport them all in 2016? That's the current promise, and I'll take 4-5 million as a start.

How many campaign promises on average does a President keep vs how many they didn't?

As usual you try to hold Trump to a standard you don't hold any other President to.

 

[Marener]

That's all speculation.

Yeah, but you don’t really care anyway.

 

[Marener]

Show me a Trump politicized DOJ prosecution.

The Biden ones include the over-prosecution of J6, as well as the over-prosecution of those pro-life protesters.

I never said there was a Trump politicized prosecution (although maybe you could make the case that Danchenko and Sussmann were close enough).

The reason Trump couldn’t successfully politicize the DoJ is that they refused to allow him to do so, which makes you very angry.

Now, how did Garland and Biden politicize the DoJ?

 

[Foxfyre]

I took time to write a thoughtful response, which you seemingly didn’t absorb or consider at all in this response.

If you want to engage in a dialogue, let me know.

I asked a specific question which you have not answered and I won't accept your diversionary tactics here or dishonest intent to accuse me. I have specifically addressed situations in which people are asked to do something illegal.

But when it isn't illegal, I specifically asked you if federal employees who use their jobs to undermine or damage the President and/or his policies and agenda should be fired.

Will you answer that question?

Your answer in your previous post I quoted suggests you think federal employees should be able to undermine the President and his policies/agenda. I asked you if you meant that and gave you opportunity to clarify.

If that isn't responding to your 'thoughtful' response, I don't know how to do it any better.

 

[Marener]

I don't know how to do it any better.

I’m well aware of that.

 

[martybegan]

I never said there was a Trump politicized prosecution (although maybe you could make the case that Danchenko and Sussmann were close enough).

The reason Trump couldn’t successfully politicize the DoJ is that they refused to allow him to do so, which makes you very angry.

Now, how did Garland and Biden politicize the DoJ?

And the Dems in the DOJ allowed Garland to proceed.

I told you examples, you just won't agree with them.

 

[postman]

Show me a Trump politicized DOJ prosecution.

The Biden ones include the over-prosecution of J6, as well as the over-prosecution of those pro-life protesters.

Actually that goes to Trumps competence.

He wanted to do a lot of political prosecutions, but he didn't know how to actually accomplish it.

It's like when it took his three shots to get his "muslim" ban to pass constitutional muster.

 

[Marener]

And the Dems in the DOJ allowed Garland to proceed.

I told you examples, you just won't agree with them.

Garland appointed a special prosecutor who filed the charges against Trump.

Appointing a special prosecutor is pretty much exactly what you’d expect Garland to do in the circumstance.

What as political about it?

 

[postman]

How many campaign promises on average does a President keep vs how many they didn't?

From Trumps major promises, like his Muslim ban, repeal Obamacare, deport all the illegals, build his wall and make Mexico pay for it.

I'd say less than a third.

 

[Marener]

Actually that goes to Trumps competence.

He wanted to do a lot of political prosecutions, but he didn't know how to actually accomplish it.

It's like when it took his three shots to get his "muslim" ban to pass constitutional muster.

Don’t forget how he wanted the FBI to drop the investigation into Flynn. We crossed the rubicon there.

 

[postman]

And the Dems in the DOJ allowed Garland to proceed.

I told you examples, you just won't agree with them.

You think we shouldn't have opposed the British in the war on 1812.

They're the only one's to breech the Capitol before January 6th.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that goes to Trumps competence.

He wanted to do a lot of political prosecutions, but he didn't know how to actually accomplish it.

It's like when it took his three shots to get his "muslim" ban to pass constitutional muster.

More assumption and conjecture.

Again, not a Muslim ban.

 

[martybegan]

Garland appointed a special prosecutor who filed the charges against Trump.

Appointing a special prosecutor is pretty much exactly what you’d expect Garland to do in the circumstance.

What as political about it?

Who was just as much of a hack as Garland.

 

[martybegan]

From Trumps major promises, like his Muslim ban, repeal Obamacare, deport all the illegals, build his wall and make Mexico pay for it.

I'd say less than a third.

He never promised a Muslim ban.

Stop lying.

 

[Marener]

Who was just as much of a hack as Garland.

Is this all just ad hominems or do you have an actual argument to be made?

Explain how you concluded that the DoJ prosecution of Trump was political motivated.

 

[martybegan]

Is this all just ad hominems or do you have an actual argument to be made?

Explain how you concluded that the DoJ prosecution of Trump was political motivated.

If the shoe fits.

Because the basis of it was complete and utter bullshit? Just like the two sham impeachments?

 

[Contumacious]

Garland appointed a special prosecutor who filed the charges against Trump.

Appointing a special prosecutor is pretty much exactly what you’d expect Garland to do in the circumstance.

What as political about it?

That the motivation for the charges was to use Lawfare - a fake indictment - - as a subterfuge for election interference.

 

[postman]

Don’t forget how he wanted the FBI to drop the investigation into Flynn. We crossed the rubicon there.

Flynn was particularly embarrassing because he should have known the Russian ambassadors phone was tapped.

We even found out we had the German Chancellors phone tapped. And they're an ally.

 

[Marener]

Because the basis of it was complete and utter bullshit? Just like the two sham impeachments?

I don’t know man. Seems like illegally retaining classified documents, obstructing justice, tampering with witnesses and attempting to destroy evidence is not really bullshit.

The election interference case is more difficult to discuss because it’s totally unprecedented, but it’s pretty clear that the classified documents case is obviously in need of prosecution.

 

[Foxfyre]

I’m well aware of that.

So you are the one refusing to engage in dialogue, refusing to answer a direct question related to the OP. Not me.

Noted. Mariner will not say that federal employees should be required to work for the President the people elect or be prohibited from using their jobs to undermine his legitimate authority, policies, agenda.

I am also again offering him/her the opportunity to do so.