You can't exculpate the man by engaging in understatement. He shows a complete disregard for political norms and even laws. This has the potential to denigrate the institutions and workings of the federal government, and undermine the credibility of our government with foreign powers. My read on you understated characterization is that you are trying to portray people who care about this sort of thing as a bunch of pearl clutchers, but the norms, procedures, and laws that Trump disregards are there to prevent abuses of power, and keep the government functioning. Our government was already creaking and throwing sparks before this shitshow - adding an insult like Trump doesn't do anything to help, and exacerbates the problems that were already there.Brive1987 wrote: ↑No one ever imagined giving Trump a civics medal. Yes, on the one hand he doesn’t follow the norms, conventions and niceties of Party Politics. He is the manipulative, bombastic rule breaker we saw on the Apprentice.
(A minority of the electorate, and literally millions fewer people than voted for Hillary Clinton)
Which makes them stupid and unqualified to be voting. You are the one who usually rails against modern representative government, so it is ironic that the shoe is on the other foot for this one. I don't see the consideration of bad faith opinions, or the opinions of the mentally incompetent as a positive aspect of representative government. Honestly this should be easy for you to understand, because it isn't so different from your contention that hordes of unassimilated immigrants with retrograde views are going to take your country in a bad direction. In my case the Islamic danger is negligible, but the country does have lots of intellectually shallow boors who don't care about the rule of law because "hur hur triggered libtards" or smack addicted manchildren from West Virginia, who think DT cares about them because he told them their problems were the Mexicans' fault. These people are imbecilic vandals, and the government needs to be protected from their involvement.
See the paradox of tolerance that Steersman is always on about.
Unfortunately, team degenerate has the electoral college system working for them, which is how they managed to elect a president that most of the country voted against and has consistently disapproved of. We need to re-balance electoral politics so that 1 person = 1 vote, and the GOP can't draw congressional district lines that give them firewalls against popular disapproval.
Most likely this won't happen, they'll continue fucking everything up by voting for cons like DT, and they'll succeed in dragging the entire country down with them on their inevitable slide toward oblivion.
I agree that Trump is willing to focus on issues that no one else would have, but Trump is an incompetent, and he won't actually accomplish anything wrt these problems either. The best he can do is make a mess for the next president to clean up. This is what happens when you elect someone who insists that his advisors put together picture books for his briefings. Just because you can't find someone willing to clean your house doesn't mean you will make progress by hiring a chimp to do it.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ On the other hand he has set out to change things that people did cared about.
+ Unbalanced trade agreements.
+ Inequitable political partnerships.
+ Social justice aligned pandering to minorities.
+ The military ‘bull in a china shop’ approach to realpolitik
+ Reaffirmation of border security and national,self determination
Because let’s face it. For all his hamburgers, affairs and omg 😮 New York developer dodginess, its not like anybody else was going to engage with these issues. The voters largely got (subject to pragmatic limits) what they wanted.
Also, half of the things you listed are boogiemen that aren't actually problems. I don't even know what you mean by "Inequitable political partnerships". It sounds like something Jonathan MacIntosh would be on about. The concerns about trade agreements and foreign interventions are part of a nonsensical world view that thinks tarrifs will protect the USA from the broader global economy, and that the USA won't be blamed for the things it doesn't do, in addition to the things it does. I remember meeting people (progressive people/SJWs) in college who were incensed by the Iraq war, and were also furious that Bush wasn't committing troops to stop the atrocities in Darfur. US foreign policy is always a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", and we need leaders who understand that, and don't pander to extremists on that point. Some amount of interventionism is in the national interest, and the calculus is always going to be fraught, and more complicated than bumper sticker slogans.
Finally, Trump's classlessness is a distinct issue from his probable frauds and campaign finance felonies. No one honestly gives a fuck about Trump's love of McDonalds. See the point about how understatement and dismissive language are unconvincing rhetoric.