I agree there has been a F load of change in personnel. The real question is does this turnover occur in in business life?

If so then one could consider Trump as some kind of dickhead to work for .

If not then what is the reason for the difference?


I think there is much more going on behind the scenes. Why would one have a military General as your chief of staff?

With Obama's top level FBI as example --
Comey -- fired
McCabe- Fired
James Baker, general counsel -- Fired
James Rybicki Chief of staff -- Fired
Perter Strozk -- Fired
Lisa Page -- ???

If Hillary was elected not of their wrong doings would have come to light. All gunning to get Trump. Still that is just the FBI.


No wonder Trump is cleaning house so much. Some bad guys found? Some paranoia?
There isn't a day goes by without something big occurring.

There is still 3 big reports to come out.
Mullers findings.
The 2nd OIG report and Huber's findings

AG Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber will be the ‘top federal prosecutor’ who will be investigating FISA abuses . Huber's staff is over 400.


Also Guantanamo Bay, Cuba-- Expanding like mad...

$14 million to expand the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is a "strategically critical time-sensitive expansion project". DOD justification states the "current trial support facilities are incapable of handling the large number of personnel .
https://insidedefense.com/insider/pentagon-expand-gitmo-after-trump-orders-it-remain-open

The place can hold some 2300 prisoners, currently Gitmo is currently holding 41 prisoners.. Also the 137th, 428th, and 514th was deployed this month to Gitmo for a year . Rotating people out - possible, but some 500 troops for 41 prisoners?

What is so time sensitive for to handle trial support facilities are incapable of handling the large number of personnel .-- Where are these people coming from? What is coming down the pike?

Like I said above:
I think there is much more going on behind the scenes. Why would one have a military General as your chief of staff?

You are mistaken.

I voted for Trump not Hillary.

@Ickster
"That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is."

This is the fundamental point. I DON'T equate the two at all.

But as soon as we open this door, we have to deal with the permutations of it.

Let's say that for the sake of argument, gender identity and sexual orientation are now protected classes (legally, they're not, but let's assume they are).

Ok, you can't discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ. Great, that is obviously correct.

But we're making the argument here that you CAN discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation. Would you be ok with someone refusing service to Obama? Hillary? Bernie? What about an employer in a Republican town who finds out their employee is a prominent local democrat?

I get the argument and honestly, I agree with most of what you've said. If any of Trump's cronies had shown up in my (completely imaginary) restaurant, I'd probably have turfed them out with a lot less civility than SHS was shown.

But I'm just not sure that the world following my example is a good idea....

What part is confusing? Nothing.
Everyone hated Hillary and know she would be shit for POTUS

Did they meet and get any information? If so still not collusion Still no crime Still ZERO ZIP NADA.

I might be drinking Koolaid but your and you kind are drinking fake news piss water.

Is that cat called Hillary?

He's a mixed bag to be sure, but I still think he's less likely to start a war than Hillary.

Hillary's three word response on twitter:
"But my emails."
( https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336 )

I'm not a fan or supporter of hers, but that right there is a grade A quality burn, like when Obama called Dick Cheney the "worst president in his lifetime". Props where props are due!

Sorry your upset that someone is trying to make a deal. Maybe if he was democrat you would be happier. Do you think Hillary could / would pull this off?

You fail to give this a chance. It might fail like before but some good might come about.

Haters hate, this sounds like you.

All I can hear is the sound of straws being grasped at trying to find a way that this doesn't look good for Trump. I'm hearing the same thing everywhere, what is wrong with people?

Look I'm no Trump fan (I despise Hillary but then people who start wars generally piss me off), but can't we all just admit he did a good thing? I for one hope he does more of it.

Hillary is a hawk, and a spineless one at that. I don't believe for a second that Hillary would have defied the military industrial complex like Trump did to go and make peace with NK. As I said in my original post she wouldn't have the balls.

Hillary was the one cheerleading for both Libya and Syria... that went well.

It's because Trump knows the republicans are a bunch of spineless sycophants who will let him get away with anything. If Hillary did this you can bet that the republicans would have a total meltdown about how Hillary was selling out America.

Yeah that's complete bullshit. Hillary was no more aggressive than any past presidents on NK and advocated for sanctions. Trump was the one actively taunting Kim and comparing missile sizes.

Fair play to Trump, there is no way Hillary would have had the balls to do this.

Well, first, I’m not really a big Hillary fan. Politically, I’m far closer to Bernie (and I live in a country where he’s not considered a total radical).

But it wasn’t just the loss, it was the reaction to the loss. First of all, losing presidential candidates almost always disappear (at least for a while). Second, everyone (and not without reason, TBF) immediately decided that SHE was the reason Trump won, not the people who didn’t vote. It’s one thing to lose, it’s another to have your base turn on you.

Look at Romney, McCain or even Kerry. They never faced the kind of backlash Hillary did.