comment: >
  
  The party of free speech
context: He thinks he can just fire anyone that doesn’t agree with him and his insane bullshit. He thinks he’s still on a TV show. >
  
  Trump's plan if he is re-elected in 2024 includes restructuring the Executive Branch so that the President can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Imagine post-2020-election President Trump with this power. He'd have been able to prevent the transfer of power by installing loyalists that declared him the winner. And if he still was going to be forced to leave? He could fire large chunks of the government workforce to leave Biden with a completely non-functional government and tons of fires to put out. (Of course, he'd then blame Biden for not fixing everything in 1 day.)
  Even if Trump doesn't get back into office, DeSantis or another Republican could copy this for their administration. >
  
  Trump tried to do this at the end with the Schedule F job classification. Biden repealed it right away, but Dems were not successful in getting legislation preventing a new Schedule F from being implemented in either the NDAA nor the omnibus, so we can anticipte the next Republican to come in and fire a whole bunch of long-term/career federal employees purely because they held a “policy” position during a Democratic administration. >
  
  Isn’t it fucking awesome that Republicans get to fuck around and act in bad faith, actively hurting people for $174,000 a year? Aren’t you glad you pay for half of our government to be dysfunctional bigoted shitbirds? >
  
  As much as it sucks to pay for something you don't want, this is the basis of democracy and taxation. If we gave everyone the option they would only support what they value financially and likely wouldn't contribute enough to make the system function as the group votes to. I'm not saying what a better form of governance looks like but I know I would personally like the option to opt out of paying for things I disagree with, especially since the church goes untaxed because their beleifs are considered more important than mine. >
  
  See but it’s not like I’m upset the government used taxes to build an unnecessary park or pave a street with no traffic. I’m pissed that half of our government thinks that basic human rights are debatable if you aren’t white or rich enough. >
  
  I am also pissed but also imagine those who vote for the representatives that you dislike may feel the same way about your preferred representation. I understand that both sides are not the same and the frustration of feeling like the republican leadership keeps trying to blow up the government, however, I imagine their voters may also dislike paying for the things you like. It’s a slippery slope and I think the majority problem lies in the governments inability to properly define and prosecute treason/corruption, to start. Again, I don’t know truly what a better system is but I would think that attempting to erode trust and function of our intelligence, healthcare, or education and defense systems while in a position of leadership over them should be punishable as it is a grave misuse of our taxes, actively weaponizing our funding against our shared interests. >
  
  I’ve said it before, I envy other countries that can operate as a functioning democracy. They can pass laws without having to worry about either bad faith members deliberately harming people, or the hypothetical opinions of slave-owners who never washed their asses.
  But we can’t have that here. We’ll just fight until there’s nothing left to fight over, and then we’ll fight about whose fault that is. >
  
  Wait till they release the draft where anyone who accepted the 2020 results ended up on internment barges or dead >
  
  "I'll send all these traitors to Guacamole Bay."  
  DT >
  
  Using his own personal gazpacho police to do it after declaring marshall law no less. >
  
  Pack em all into peach tree dishes! >
  
  
  New transcripts from the January 6 committee report reveals how some former Trump White House officials found out about the January 6 Capitol riot and that a press release was drafted calling for the firing of anyone who accepted the 2020 election results. CNN's Sara Murray reports.
  
  Sorry for the repost, I had mangled the title in trying to copy and paste.   The video explains that the White House had written a press release in December attempting to justify firing anyone who accepted the election results, shortly after Barr had gone public saying there was no widespread election fraud.  Barr resigned not long after that, so the press relief was never made public, but the implication is that Barr would have been fired if he hadn't resigned. >
  
  Probably would’ve been better for Dems if Barr was fired.  The closer Trump’s actions paralleled Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre the better. >
  
  When will the Republicans just admit that all their insanity was created when a black man became President of the United States? >
  
  They'll never do so. And democrats won't call them on it. It is a pretty straight line from birtherism to trump's presidency, but it seems like actually calling them on their racism negatively affects democrats political chances. Which indicates that racism is still a way more pervasive problem in this country than everyone realizes >
  
  It’s really disgusting and a shame.
  Obama carried the office with dignity and strength. >
  
  So much more than he gets credit for >
  
  Trump: I swear I’ll fire you!
  Democracy: We already fired you all.