Gingrich wants to fire federal employees who voted for Clinton

Posted by | January 20, 2017 10:19 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics

What a way to bring America together!

Offering perhaps the most nakedly political argument for firing federal employees, Gingrich said, “all those bureaucrats overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. There won’t be any real cooperation until we change federal law so we can fire them.”

African-Americans account for nearly 20 percent of the overall federal workforce — a proportion larger than their population size of 13 percent. Gingrich’s cynical political play is likely very cognizant of this fact. After all, only two (and a half, when counting the Maine split) states out of the 20 most dependent on federal funding did not vote for Trump.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

34 responses to Gingrich wants to fire federal employees who voted for Clinton

  1. mea_mark January 20th, 2017 at 10:27

    This is what tyrannical dictators do. Eliminate all opposition, ignore the people and do what they want.

  2. fahvel January 20th, 2017 at 10:43

    baling wire secured around the testicles and then a classic texas pickup joy ride would do a thing like this some good.

    • mea_mark January 20th, 2017 at 11:02

      Why use bailing wire when there is so much old barb wire available?

  3. anothertoothpick January 20th, 2017 at 10:44

    Guess which party will move us closer to facism?


    In North Dakota, for instance, Republicans introduced a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally. In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Republicans last week seeks to dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek a full year of jail time for protesters blocking a highway. Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.” Republicans in Michigan introduced and then last month shelved an anti-picketing law that would increase penalties against protestors and would make it easier for businesses to sue individual protestors for their actions. And in Iowa a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to crack down on highway protests.

    • Larry Schmitt January 20th, 2017 at 11:03

      Who determines whether it was “accidental?”

      • Suzanne McFly January 20th, 2017 at 11:10

        Pretty sure the one run over won’t have much of a voice to provide their side of the situation. So it is safe to say the one who does the running over is the one who will determine if it was accidental or not.

      • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2017 at 11:10

        Kinda like that “stand your ground” law?

  4. Mike January 20th, 2017 at 10:53

    And it’s not even his first day ….
    We’re totally fked

  5. Larry Schmitt January 20th, 2017 at 11:02

    The things this ignoramus says continue to astound me. I wonder if he actually listened to himself.

    • Suzanne McFly January 20th, 2017 at 11:07

      Well he probably listens to rush and beck, they are all in a race to out-stupid one another.

      • Larry Schmitt January 20th, 2017 at 11:11

        A triple dead heat.

        • Suzanne McFly January 20th, 2017 at 11:21

          One of the worst.

    • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2017 at 11:15

      And this clown was a history professor.

      You would think he would know better than to make these statements.

      • Larry Schmitt January 20th, 2017 at 12:06

        None of them knows “better”, they only know worse.

        • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2017 at 13:58


          Sounds like you’ve been around Larry.

  6. nola878 January 20th, 2017 at 11:25

    They really want a Banana Republic, don’t they?

  7. William January 20th, 2017 at 11:36

    The guy who was forced to resign because he was boffing his assistant, while his wife was in a cancer ward AND impeaching a president for having consensual sex should really just STFU.

  8. Buford2k11 January 20th, 2017 at 12:16

    Just ignore him….I know he won’t go away, but don’t waste any grey matter on this clown…

    • orsay January 21st, 2017 at 13:15

      So true! Will do say ANYTHING to get a camera/microphone in front of his face!

  9. Bunya January 20th, 2017 at 13:27

    Newtered has lost all credibility. Whenever he talks, it’s best to just pat him on the head, say “good boy, now run out and play”. Nobody pays any attention to what he says anyway.

    • Roctuna January 20th, 2017 at 17:53

      He should go back to planning his Moon colony.

      • nastythinkingwomanmillstone January 21st, 2017 at 11:34

        His mind is already absent…likely circling the moon.

  10. amersham1046 January 20th, 2017 at 16:59

    Just another washed up GOPer that should be sent to the GOP care home in Bullwinkle Oklahoma

  11. whatthe46 January 20th, 2017 at 17:47

    so tRumps plan for creating jobs is to fire anyone in the federal gov that likely had not voted for him and this is someone who says he’s for the people eh?

    • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2017 at 18:47

      whatthe where in the heck have you been?

      I have been getting my ass kicked all over the place up in here.

      • whatthe46 January 20th, 2017 at 19:54

        sorry sweetie. i’m gonna come in more often. i got side tracked.

    • cattnipp January 21st, 2017 at 13:55

      that and with the help of congress lower the pay of anyone who does not scream “YES” loud enough when he spews nonsense……. to $1 ….. yep congress made a law that they can cut the pay of ‘any individual that has any portion of their pay come from federal funds’ to $1, at will……. so next time your congressperson says F….U…. they may just cut your pay if you do not oblige their demand……….

      • whatthe46 January 22nd, 2017 at 01:39

        and his supporters that are now having buyers remorse expects sympathy. when i find them crying, i have not nice rants to bless them with.

  12. robert January 20th, 2017 at 20:01

    From the apprentice to the appalling

  13. Nancy Lee January 20th, 2017 at 21:06

    Is it not the case that a person’s vote is confidential in the US? How is it going to be determined which way an individual voted?

    • Kevin January 20th, 2017 at 23:55

      It’s a simple case of deductive logic, if your smart enough to work for the Federal Government, your smart enough not to have voted for Trump.

  14. Beau Phillips January 21st, 2017 at 10:02

    Apparently Newt does not like it when you disagree with America by Trump®. I thought he was the king of doublethink…

  15. misterme January 23rd, 2017 at 11:28

    So much for the secret ballot.

Leave a Reply