There is a more than 0% chance we will re-elect a man that has shown that he does not mind partaking in incredibly corrupt business practices out in the open. We don't even know if they would pardon themselves for crimes and has argued that they should have full immunity to do anything, including harming his adversaries. This person would not need an excuse to do anything.
How so? It seems your choice was a potentially corrupt (FBI email investigation announcement weeks before election) status-quo candidate or a populist outsider.
You should feel more proud than embarrassed that this is happening. Occasionally, an unqualified candidate will be elected. The ability to remove that person from power is much more important than the difficult problem of making sure the person is never elected in the first place. On the other hand, I do feel empathy for your feeling of embarrassment, as I am an American (yes I'm referring to the Trump election).
It's cute that this surprises anyone. Someone who's not an egomaniac psychopath has about has much chances to win a presidential election as an average person has to win a gold medal in the olympics.
It's cute that this surprises anyone. Someone who's not an egomaniac psychopath has about has much chances to win a presidential election as an average person has to win a gold medal in the olympics.
The thing about electing a reality TV personality with no impulse control or knowledge of law or government is that assuming he'll take only legal actions is dangerously, irresponsibly naive.
It seems that the Republican party decided that it has no hope of contesting the gubernatorial seat, which was reflected in their primaries - a race among a lineup of absolute clowns, among whom Culp placed first.
For folks who don't live in Washington - his official blurb is that he has no platform, and his qualifications consist of owning a construction company and being married for 43 years. No elected experience, no other professional experience, no education, no background in community service. [1]
This state of affairs is, of course, bad for democracy for two reasons. For one, the opposition candidate is completely unqualified (And heaven forbid if he actually wins.)
For another, when the opposition is so incapable, the bar of competence for the incumbent can't be lower.
[1] I wish I was kidding, but that is what I see in my voter guide. The folks who are running unopposed for their seats have more to say about themselves than he does.
The high school degree is necessary to ensure the person can understand the choices presented to them. Otherwise they will just be snowed by experts who claim one thing or the other.
The lack of a criminal record is necessary won’t just commit fraud or accept bribes from day one.
And also overall, people have to accept who is randomly chosen to be the president. Having a criminal with a elementary school education chosen would just lead to riots. It’s one thing if they were elected, but if it’s a choice made by a “random” system then that’s not acceptable.
If I've learned anything atop my 33 wise years old, is that any political candidate that looks like a clean break from the old guard, is exactly the same if not worse than its predecessors.
And this is just my cynicism: the corollary is that any candidate, new or old, is a bad choice, except extremely rare exceptions.
Seems odd to knowingly choose a candidate that will work to make the lives of Americans worse solely to keep seniority. In fact, doing so seems like you would be empowering a terrible person beyond a normal terrible person, thus ensuring the lives of Americans are that much worse.
That’s what you get when you elect a tabloid celebrity billionaire to the most important office in the world. I’ve been mostly disappointed with our selection of candidates for a long time, but I never thought I’d see that. It’s as if nobody outstanding even wants the job. Literally Idiocracy.
Better Trump than Clinton. Donald may not be eminently qualified, but his counterpart is a crook, a liar, and is planning to continue the failed policies of the sitting president.
America needs a non-establishment man in office who is not beholden to anyone but the people. Not K street, not Planned Murder, not the homosexuals. Donald is refreshing precisely because he's a loose cannon. He reminds me of a somewhat slightly more crass President Roosevelt based on my historical knowledge of the man.
Like I told someone this very morning, I'd vote for Josef Stalin before Clinton.
reply