And this lost trust will not suddenly reappear when he leaves office. He has damaged our reputation for a generation
All elected and supported, especially AFTER how he and his supports lead the so many extra deaths in covid. I know your media does not bring facts but truth is out there.
That much should be self-evident.
Did he say that he'd threaten to annex Canada and Greenland? Not that I recall.
Did he say that he'd start a war with Iran? No, I'm pretty sure he said "No new wars."
Look, he's a loose cannon. Everyone who voted for him should have known that. But no, he's not doing "exactly what he said he would do when he ran". Some of what he's doing is what he said, and some is completely contradictory to what he said.
(Credit where due: I stole the "kangaroo on speed" line from an unpublished short story. Don't remember the author, or I'd give them credit by name.)
Can you give an example of how, in practice, it would work to hold millions of voters accountable for what their elected representative does?
Worth picking not just Trump, but let's say a few other Presidents around the world, including someone you voted for.
In a situation like this, I like to do a thought experiment where I replace "Trump" with "Republican voter" in a headline or a story to see whether that idea holds up.
Voters are responsible for selecting representatives, but they are not responsible for running things and making the kinds of decisions that elected officials need to and do make.
In a democracy, it is the elected officials, who are meant to represent the voter, that are held accountable. Not the voter.
> Of course voting is significant and has consequences.
Tautology but also not relevant. How do you propose the voter be held accountable?
Alan Keyes apparently set the floor at 27%, which is not far below 30%
> Obama vs. Alan Keyes. ... Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement.
https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_elec...
And lizardman's Constant is 4% https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant
- running against a charismatic Obama
- being a last minute insert when Jack Ryan was caught in a sex scandal (who was already fighting an uphill battle with sharing a last name with the corrupt former governor)
- being a carpetbagger (he didn't live in Illinois at any point until running for senate)
- running as a hard-line social conservative in a state where the GOP is torn between appealing to suburban Chicago fiscal conservatives and downstate Illinois social conservatives
And the crazy.
That is true, I struggle to think of a single time he has taken responsibility for anything. But it works, his supporters actually believe that he is infallible and just can't get competent help. Or it's the deep state. Or something.
Really?
Because unless the alternative option was a diminutive Austrian with a dodgy 'tache, I find that rather hard to believe.
The reality is America voted for Trump (TWICE!) because they wanted him. The rest of the world knows this, and is now acting accordingly.
EDIT: Downvotes coming from the brainwashed MAGA crowd!
Pick any of the leader's third-rate third-tier henchmen or failsons for example of a worse option. Don't dismiss it out of hand.
People in the UK voted for Brexit because "well it can't be worse, can it?" They were suckers.
I don't disagree with the "The reality is" line.
I don't think that's true it all. They were promised that it would be better and sold pretty obvious lies. Same applies to Trump. Unfortunately the intelligence of the average voter is now at the bottom of the barrel and I wouldn't expect that to improve soon. Just look at the support people like Andrew Tate get among young people.
It's not true of them all, but it definitely is true of at least some of them.
I know this because I heard it said in those words in a vox pops interview shortly before the Brexit vote.
But none of them were on the presidential ballot in 2016, 2020, or 2024.*
*Under one of the two parties that has any chance of actually winning.
The rationalizing, the "corrupt DNC" arguments and everything else is a cop-out.
Should folks who disagree with you politically tolerate the Obama or Biden regimes then? Or are the only regimes that should be tolerated ones that agree with you politically?
Politics aside, following the law is a bare minimum. Obama, Biden, even Bush (mostly, other than Iraq) did that.
——
GP: “You’re lucky you’re dealing with an incompetent bully. Imagine a competent bully.”
Me: “You should not accept bullying at all.”
You: “what about…”
——
People like you are a huge part of the problem.
Elect competence.
If Trump was an isolated incident, sure, but he is not. In Europe the far-right and far-left parties are rising in many countries and the traditional parties are crumbling.
I think there is a serious lack of trust in the institutions and in the politicians that is spreading around the world at a quick pace and many people are just fed up with the status-quo that has been in place since the fall of the USSR.
People want change, not small marginal tinkering on the edges, they want to see that things move decisively in one way or the other and they are not afraid to flip the table and see what happens.
(Although US voter suppression weakens this argument)
If you live in a 'safe' state, tacitly agreeing with your state's electors doesn't mean tacitly agreeing with the electoral college result.
In fact, from a moral point of view voting for the lesser evil is highly objectionable because you are voting for someone who you do not even support just so that another person you support even less does not get elected.
Its perfectly fine to say, I don't agree with either and I am going to sit this one out otherwise you end up in weird political dynamics that you can see playing out in real time in France for example.
I disagree fundamentally.
Not voting is simply not making a choice. If the choices presented do not align with my preferences then I do not vote. Why would I vote for someone who I don't support? I don't pick the candidates that are offered. Want me to vote? Then get better candidates next time! Until then I will exercise my right to not vote.
Your status quo also assume that either one or both candidates are presenting you with potential change to what has happened in the past whereas most of the time, the choices are simply a continuation of what has been happening aka tinkering on the margins without pissing too many people off.
I'd love to see a ballot with ranked choice voting that includes a none of the above option.
My preferred voting system is the ranked choice one in Australia but Australia also has compulsory voting which I disagree with.
I think in a democracy, it is up to the voter to decide if and how much they want to get involved in the democratic process just like a person has the right to join or not a parti, listen or not to a political debate and so on and so forth.
I wish the blank vote was more represented in the democratic process somehow but I don't really have a solution for this problem.
Compulsory voting just means that there's no space where some of the population can hop on the high horse of saying the political troubles of the country have nothing to do with them as they didn't vote. I used to work around the loop holes and got out of voting until my early mid 20s when I just didn't give that much of a hoot either way for state or federal politics.
For the executive branch, the US president is not elected by direct vote, but instead by the electoral college, as enshrined in the US Constitution Article 2. The average voter has essentially zero voting influence to change the Constitution, and the plurality voting created by the electoral college intrinsically promotes a two party political system, and further political polarization. There is also a chance in some cases of “faithless electors”.
For judicial seats, while some states hold elections for state/county seats, all federal judges are appointed by the executive branch, which is therefore (IMO) essentially held hostage by the pluralist electoral college.
And for the legislative branch, candidate selection is heavily influenced by the primary elections of the two dominant political parties, before even reaching national elections. It’s also heavily influenced by campaign funds and lobbyist interests. While states have the authority to adopt alternative systems, the vast majority still use plurality voting, and the currently entrenched two-party system is incentivized to keep it that way.
So I can understand why some voters see not participating as a valid protest against the status quo, even if I don’t agree with that action.
It's not even the trolley problem since the same person is tied across both tracks.
He opened the door, and I find it very, very unlikely that either side will close it after this. Dems and Reps will both use this to take control in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to Trump's first election. The only way to restore any measure of that trust would be to pass laws that prevent this kind of abuse, and there's no way that politicians will give up power they've gained.
On the other hand, a right-wing Supreme Court may try to block any reforms that check the Executive. The Legislature's ultimate oversight power of the Exec is impeachment, and they have decided that no amount of corruption or crime or destruction should be checked as long as it "feels right".
Impeachment could be a check on his power, but impeachment is a kangaroo court with a political jury, so he would need to piss off a lot more Republican senators than he has.
A few presidental impeachments over unlawful acts ending in conviction would change future behavior. But it seems unlikely that we'll get there.