Replace the word "dictator" with "leader" in your statement, and your sophistry becomes obvious. You are just describing common traits of executive leadership, conflating them with a shallow and dumbed down version of "dictator" to try to make it fit.
>that does not directly contribute towards said leader's goals and the goals of his electorate
Well yeah, in most of these cases you are talking about unelected bureaucrats caught trying to undermine and subvert the elected President's agenda and constitutional authority.
Are you trying to say a President should not have people helping him, and that he should permit employees who have been secretly and actively working against his agenda and undermining his authority? Seriously?
>repeatedly fire
How do you "repeatedly fire" someone?
>That anyone was fired from this duty without a clear explanation and justification is cause for alarm
Good thing nothing like that has happened, no matter what the fired individuals or their "resistance supporters" might like everybody to think. Falling for this line depends purely on ignorance and buying into the opposition's propaganda without question.
What part of Commander and Chief of the United States do you not understand? Was Obama a "dictator" when he blanket fired all of Bush's political appointees without explanation? Or was it, rather, the routine action of an incoming President attempting to set up his incoming agenda for success?
>until he sees a loyal drone in the slot
As opposed to a disloyal drone? Come on... This is just sad at this point.
>The procession of a dictator is more nuanced and complex than people realize.
Not really, though it really is fun to see Progressives leak their inner motivations through projection.