Bigger villain this election?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Paul Ryan is the ultimate personification of Republicans who see Trump for what he is and are appalled, but are willing to support a psychologically unstable, crooked, bigoted sexual predator for President out of cowardace and raw ambition/hunger for power, so I'd say he's the ultimate villain (along with the "reluctant" Trump voters and rationalization-prone elected officials like him).  At least the rabid crazies actually believe this non-sense; Ryan folks like him know better and support Trump anyway.  

It calls to mind the biblical parable about the devil attempting to tempt Jesus by offering him the world in exchange for just one act of worship [by Christ toward the devil].  Paul Ryan - like George Wallace, Hugh Dorsey, Al Sharpton, David Miscavige, and many others before him - proved all too willing to perform the metaphorical act of worship.  If Hell exists, then surely there's a special place in it for folks like Ryan who support something they know to be truly evil due to greed, ambition, or thirst for power.  Whether condemning Trump would cost him the Speakership is irrelevant; this was one of those rare times where one candidate is unambiguously evil.  

The only relevant election for Republican elected officials is "where will you stand when the flood comes?"  And Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Rob Portman, and the rest of the revolting cowards in the "reluctant" Trump supporter/"I won't endorse or condemn" caucus have answered that question loud and clear.  "I never endorsed him" or "I only did it because of the Supreme Court vacancy, but the stuff he said about [insert group/person here] was awful" are almost as pathetic "excuses" as "I was just following orders."

TL;DR: Paul Ryan and the "reluctant Trump" voters/politicians are the ultimate villains of the cycle.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Obviously the FBI, the director of which deliberately grandstanded and showboated throughout the election to an extremely unprecedented degree—and to the detriment of a candidate who barely did anything wrong.

The kind of FBI investigation Hillary was under in though July is the sort of thing that, for our entire history, disqualified potential candidates.  Donors wouldn't touch them.  Party operatives would tell them the facts of electoral life.

What does it tell you that this didn't happen here?  The Democrats weren't shy of candidates; why did the party apparatus and the donors clear the way for Hillary Clinton?  Because she's a woman?  But if THAT was so critical, why not throw your money and influence toward other capable female candidates the Democratic Party could have put forth.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have been one of the picks.  She's the architect of the Democrats' losing their chance to recapture the Senate, and (possibly) the architect of the Democrats losing the White House.

You and much of your party are literally supporting a sexual predator for President.  Think about that the next time you wonder why no one takes your fake outrage about Hillary's e-mails seriously.