Home & Garden1 min ago
The State Of American Politics
52 Answers
What a farce this Trump presidency is becoming. The American public must be so disheartened.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I fear for what comes next.
Trump promised a lot of things that are undeliverable, and a lot of people who voted for him will feel badly let down when he breaks those promises.
Trumps problem is that he is an amateur politician. He has never held any elected post before. He has run his own companies in an autocratic fashion, and does not seem to realise that politics is about consensus and getting people on board.
The result is plain for all to see. A disfunctional President going from one self inflicted calamity to the next.
Trump promised a lot of things that are undeliverable, and a lot of people who voted for him will feel badly let down when he breaks those promises.
Trumps problem is that he is an amateur politician. He has never held any elected post before. He has run his own companies in an autocratic fashion, and does not seem to realise that politics is about consensus and getting people on board.
The result is plain for all to see. A disfunctional President going from one self inflicted calamity to the next.
erm his approval ratings are sky high amongst the people who elected him and it looks as thought they would do it again
viz the screaming when he said - "I gartta tell you ! I am gonna build that warl - and the Mexicans are gonna pay for it arl ! thad amigo - the presidentay mehicano - he's a bad dude ! - they tell me he ropes young girls and I never done that I can tell you ! " - deafening screams and roars
women crying and ripping their brass off
Apparently he is considering pardoning himself
( sort of - sorry sortta - if the barber in a village shaves everyone who does not shave himself - who shaves the barber ?)
I am sure the jurists are preparing arguments that he cant do that....
viz the screaming when he said - "I gartta tell you ! I am gonna build that warl - and the Mexicans are gonna pay for it arl ! thad amigo - the presidentay mehicano - he's a bad dude ! - they tell me he ropes young girls and I never done that I can tell you ! " - deafening screams and roars
women crying and ripping their brass off
Apparently he is considering pardoning himself
( sort of - sorry sortta - if the barber in a village shaves everyone who does not shave himself - who shaves the barber ?)
I am sure the jurists are preparing arguments that he cant do that....
I think your chicken and egg analogy is a good one Jim, however, US politics wouldn't be in quite such a parlous state if Trump,wasn't at the helm, appointing people for their bluster rather than their political prowess and saying ridiculous things like leaking news stories which put him in a bad light are illegal.
When you have a leader like May, Cameron, Obama etc. supporters will readily acknowledge when they say something which they think is wrong, or worse when they think it is stupid. However, when you have someone who draws fanatical support like Trump, his supporters will try and defend him even when they know he is being stupid. That is when politics gets scary.
Not all that strange, Mikey, it happens here too. Just less often; but that's by accident rather than design.
It *does* matter that Trump lost the popular vote. Not because it undermines his legitimacy -- he won by the rules, and the rules are wrong, but he won all the same -- but because it profoundly affects the narrative. He won not because he was Trump, not because he was popular for what he stood for, but because he was Republican, and Republican voters had to swallow everything he stood for in order to get a Republican president.
Some people liked him too, no doubt, and his core supporters will have seen nothing yet that doesn't fit into that bizarre "witch hunt" narrative. (It's getting more and more tenuous by the day, by the way, in particular as it seems Trump's investigated the possibility of Presidential Pardons, including his power to pardon himself.) But to say that so many people voted "for" him is to miss that (a) many more voted against him, and (b) even among those who voted "for" him many will have felt they had no choice to avoid Clinton and the Democrats.
It *does* matter that Trump lost the popular vote. Not because it undermines his legitimacy -- he won by the rules, and the rules are wrong, but he won all the same -- but because it profoundly affects the narrative. He won not because he was Trump, not because he was popular for what he stood for, but because he was Republican, and Republican voters had to swallow everything he stood for in order to get a Republican president.
Some people liked him too, no doubt, and his core supporters will have seen nothing yet that doesn't fit into that bizarre "witch hunt" narrative. (It's getting more and more tenuous by the day, by the way, in particular as it seems Trump's investigated the possibility of Presidential Pardons, including his power to pardon himself.) But to say that so many people voted "for" him is to miss that (a) many more voted against him, and (b) even among those who voted "for" him many will have felt they had no choice to avoid Clinton and the Democrats.
"...they voted him in they got the president they wanted."
Well, less got the one they wanted than got the one they did not.
That's now the fourth (or fifth) time in US history that's happened. At what point does it start exposing that maybe the rules are undemocratic, if the minority in a (effectively perfect) two-party system is the winner?
The only reason people like you aren't complaining this time is that *you* got the result you wanted; but also, the result is close enough that you can be conned into thinking that it doesn't matter. But it can be far less tight than that and the "loser" can still win. I believe the absolute minimum number of votes required to still win the presidency (assuming a two-party result only, bear in mind!) is about 24%. If three-quarters of people can back one candidate, and the other guy still wins, then you have a broken system.
Well, less got the one they wanted than got the one they did not.
That's now the fourth (or fifth) time in US history that's happened. At what point does it start exposing that maybe the rules are undemocratic, if the minority in a (effectively perfect) two-party system is the winner?
The only reason people like you aren't complaining this time is that *you* got the result you wanted; but also, the result is close enough that you can be conned into thinking that it doesn't matter. But it can be far less tight than that and the "loser" can still win. I believe the absolute minimum number of votes required to still win the presidency (assuming a two-party result only, bear in mind!) is about 24%. If three-quarters of people can back one candidate, and the other guy still wins, then you have a broken system.
