https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
"Incoming senior Trump administration officials have begun questioning career civil servants who work on the White House National Security Council about who they voted for in the 2024 election, their political contributions and whether they have made social media posts that could be considered incriminating by President-elect Donald Trump's team, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter."
That those charged with national security are culled for lack of loyalty should be very concerning - even to those who voted for this person.
"[...] according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter."
And there you have it - zero capability to prove or verify what is actually happening.
But let's allow it.
So Trump is demanding loyalty from the members of the National Security Council. Not the FTC. Not the DOE. The NSC.
A council created by a president (not congress) depending directly on the White House to advise the president on matters that the president has exclusive constitutional prerogative and serving at his pleasure.
Trump has full discretion over these people because these people are very powerful and are crucial to the successful implementation of the policy that Trump was elected for.
Nor are these civil servants being fired, they are being returned to the agency whence they came from.
Their commute has changed. That's all.
This story is about the FTC, a congressionally created agency.
Do I think Trump will be good for the issues pertaining to the FTC?
No, he'll be terrible. So let's stick to that.
Pretends to be a pacifist while buying time to strengthen the national economy to fight a big war everyone knows is inevitable because everyone wants it.
FDR is also a great model for Trump to understand the political levers to crush both an unelected and disloyal deep state and legitimate opposition.
However, may I also recommend you read a history book that doesn't bracket the world wars?
No. He's demanding loyalty from everyone.
A cagey narcissist.
But there was a very specific allegation that Trump is asking "civil servants" who they voted for. A claim that is, not only, unsubstantiated, but that deals with a very specific council that, above all others, serves at the president's behest.
May I add that the NSC has been a nest of murderous assholes who draft the infamous kill-list that included a US citizen that Obama bragged of killing (and his underage son)?
These people belong in a crime tribunal, not next door to the Oval Office.
He's an asshole, I get it. But half of what is said about him is false (pee pee tapes?) that Americans don't give a darn about what is true.
The reasonable reaction to a dubious unsupported claim is immediate out-of-hand dismissal. In asking for a citation, they are giving you the benefit of the doubt; i.e. doing you a favor.
He's one of the most public figures in the world right now, with hours of video "evidence" widely and easily available. Asking someone to prove he did an obvious thing in public is demanding unpaid labor.
This is not the same as expecting someone to back up a claim of a homeopathic treatment for brain cancer.
Then you should easily be able to link to one. Hand-wavy accusations are irrefutable, and it is therefore irresponsible to make them. Once a specific case can be examined, it can be properly debunked and/or debated. But a vague accusation with the source of “everybody knows it” is worthless. Or in other words: Links or it didn’t happen.
And not Rachel Maddow ranting about anonymous sources. Something that can be falsified.