• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Anyone but one. ;)
There are plenty of Democrats who think Trump was illegitimately elected in 2016 and/or 2024. Hillary Clinton is, by her own words, one.

The theory that Trump and his supporters are some kind of unique election-deniers doesn't stand up to scrutiny, unfortunately.
 
There are plenty of Democrats who think Trump was illegitimately elected in 2016 and/or 2024. Hillary Clinton is, by her own words, one.

The theory that Trump and his supporters are some kind of unique election-deniers doesn't stand up to scrutiny, unfortunately.

Polarization requires polar opposite to work. This road is 50/50, I agree.
 
A pillar of the American system is that government is instituted to protect the rights of people to conduct their lives as they see fit. Not everyone is going to see fit to be an exemplar of beneficial human endeavour.

The USA is almost absurdly democratic. Elected executive and vice; elected bicameral legislature. Same model in almost every state, where most (all?) also have elected AGs. Some with elected judges. Elections for county officers. Elections for mayors and councils and municipal officers. All free; compulsion is approximately non-existent. All essentially fair as far as anyone can tell, although some jurisdictions seem determined to have few safeguards. In Canada, I cast one vote in a federal election and one vote in a provincial election and a handful of votes in a municipal election, only for mayor and council members. Which is more democratic? If the US isn't democratic, what is Canada?
I'm rather fond of a non-political (as much as it can be) police and judiciary.
 
I'm rather fond of a non-political (as much as it can be) police and judiciary.
Appointments and hiring committees certainly don't take the politics out. Rather, they risk concentrating partisan influence. All that you need to control is the committee. Nor is it the case that a committee of professionals should be assumed objective - certainly not if they came up through educational institutions with strongly dominant social and political leanings. I'm not convinced that throwing the question out to the people who are to be policed (or judged) is a bad thing.

"What kind of police force do you want, and how do you want to be policed?"

"What kind of ideological priors do you want your judges to emphasize?"

Not long ago the UK government (under Starmer) moved to exclude some trials from jury trial. A jury basically is putting a question to the people, albeit with a lot more supervision than a vote. Is that a bad thing?
 
Polarization requires polar opposite to work. This road is 50/50, I agree.

But no one in the US has taken it to the extreme of Trump and his ilk, refusing to accept it even after losing all (not just some) the judicial recourse, and being found to be wrong in every single forum where they have tried to employ. No Democrat or non-MAGA Republican has refused to accept the voter's verdict after court review proved them wrong.
 
Back
Top