> I didn't even make a judgement.

I beg to differ. First, you made a very clear judgement in your wording;

> revisions that looked convenient for the last administration > Trump did (baselessly?)

Yes, trumps stated reason is as you summarize. But you made no separation between trumps words and yours. A judgement-less phrasing would look something like;

"Well, it's not quite true. Trump did fire the because of revisions to the data that looked favorable for the previous administration."

> Then you went off the rails like left wingers tend to do when

I would also like to stop you here. This sentence is more dangerous to me than the current administration. You assumed my political stance because i criticize a political leader. You use a political leaning as an insult. The US political landscape is segregated between two opposite extremes that drift further rand further into insanity. I could have seen a equally destructive administration show up on from the democrats. I believe trump is the inevitable consequence of a broken and segregated political system that is no longer able to work together. Useful political discourse stopped being viable decades ago, and the system breaking as quickly as it is (sidestepping congress and balance of power) just means it broke long so.

I'm not american, and my idea of democracy looks fundamentally different to yours. To me, the currently sitting administration is the default punching bag regardless of party affiliation, because a good administration will only ever do at most 58% good.

You assuming i am "leftist" because i criticize a political figure, shows how truly segregated the system has become (and how deeply rooted you are in it).

And for the record; if everything trump said he wanted to do this period was actually what he was doing effectively (home-shore manufacturing, boost the power grid, become more independent from china) i would be stoked right now. But half of his politics are currently speed-running the opposite.