If we have nukes, why shouldn’t we use them?
No.
I stand corrected on the first part. I actually recite that number myself whenever people ask me if Americans have gone completely crazy (not mutually exclusive, but oh well). Various populist leaders here in Europe score roughly the same percentage.
As for the other part, lack of participation is not the (biggest) problem but let’s safe that discussion for another thread.
You’re being disingenuous there. Children cannot vote, for example, nor can non-citizen immigrants, nor can certain other people. In 2016 there were 250 million people of voting age. That makes Trump’s support over 25%. Now you also need to allow for non-citizens (who may be entitled to vote in local but not Presidential elections), felons, and so on which will increase that percentage further, but I don’t have those figures.
But you know what? It’s all irrelevant. The only percentage that counts is the percentage on the day. If you didn’t get off your arse and vote, shame on you.
As for the OP, only time will tell. Who knows, maybe America will elect even worse people?
As to your last point, that is bizarrely the opposite of reality. Trump absolutely is firing up a cult of personality.
As to his alleged lack of charisma… I mean, I dunno if you watch American TV, but the guy holds regular rallies where people just show up to worship him.
Norm Macdonald does a comedy routine where he comments that he couldn’t understand why people followed Hitler, and he was told Hitler was a charismatic public speaker. So he watched a tape of Hitler giving a speech and all he saw was a spittle-flying guy shrieking “Heikely schiekely heikely schiekely!” “Gosh,” he says, “that’s not my idea of a silver-tongued devil.” The funny part of course is that, well, yeah, an Austrian guy shrieking in German in 1938 is not really going to come across to a Canadian guy in 2018 who doesn’t speak German. Hitler doesn’t impress Norm Macdonald - but he DID impress Germans.
Donald Trump might not impress you, but he really impresses Trumpists. Trump is the most hated President of modern times, but he’s also one of the most beloved. Trumpists just adore him.
And even if we grant them that only 20% of the population actually supports him, that’s still a huge problem. Imagine what life would be like if 1 out of every 5 people you met in life was clinically insane. Society couldn’t function like that.
And that’s basically what we have here. 1 out of every 5 American voters are functionally insane and support this turd. They’ll do whatever it takes to derail the efforts of the other 80% to make the world a better place. That’s not sustainable.
Maybe if people stop underestimating him. The most powerful political dynasties in recent memory have been the Bushes and the Clinton’s, Trump beat them both.Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, two up and comers were eviscerated by the Donald.
Still somehow people act surprised when he keeps winning.
This has been paraphrased all over the place:
“Trump is a dumb man’s idea of a smart man, a poor man’s idea of a rich man, and a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”
I love this.
Now it has come out that he actively worked back channels to prolong the Viet Nam war so he could run against the Democrats as anti-war. Yeah, he was a crook from day one.
He does seem committed to tearing down institutions and building the power of the Presidency. Between his attacks on the media, the Justice Department, the FBI, as well as his appointing directors for agencies that are against that agency having power (e.g. Department of Education, EPA), as well as his non-staffing of government agencies like the State Department, he seems committed to tearing down the establishment except for his own power, which he is trying to increase.
I think he might get remembered for strengthening the power of the Presidency, if by virtue of Congress not acting to rein him in.
It’s interesting that you disapprove of him, as from a government power standpoint, he seems to have Libertarians pulling his strings.
I disagree. Even if he deosn’t get impeached, manages to avoid any serious international incidents, and had the remaining years of his agenda bottle up by the Democratic Congress, his presidency was anything but ordinary. McCarthy didn’t have any lasting effect on the US, but he is still remembered as an example of the branding of political enemies can get out of hand, something that should never be repeated. Such that anything that resembles it is associated wth McCarthyism.
I think there is a void in our lexicon to define sheer incompetence in office. there is no obvious historical figure to point to as someone who was supremely unfit for the office he holds. The best we can come up with is the fictional president Camacho.
I further predict that this view of Trump will be cemented by the numerous films that document his presidency. This is too ripe a plum for Hollywood not to exploit in multiple ways. Some dramatic, but many comedic. These films will do to Trump what “Little Bigman” did to Custer.
Of course only about 2/3rd of the population is eligible to vote. Somewhere between 50 to 60% actually do vote. However, I have no doubt that a small but significant % is blocked from voting due to Jim Crow laws.
Unless of course GOP Jim Crow voter suppression laws stop you, in which case shame on them.
Describing Trump as having defeated the Bush “Dynasty” because Jeb Bush lost in the primaries is, well, really stretching for a compliment. Bush wasn’t just losing to Bush; he was miles behind Cruz and Rubio.
Bush only contested three primaries. In Iowa he got 2.8% of the vote; that was “good” for fifth place. He actually finished behind Rand Paul, who I forgot had even run until I looked it up. In NH he guested up to 11%, but was still fourth. in South Carolina, a state the Bushes are very popular in, he got just 7.8%, a very distant fourth, and finally surrendered.
So, technically, Trump beat Bush, but then so did John Kasich and the Zodiac Killer. Trump also beat you and me in the primaries, I suppose, but that’s scarcely more impressive.
Probably not the best way to lead off on your very first post here. 
My guess is that Trump will not be able to rehabilitate his image. While Nixon was undoubtedly a crook, he was also a serious guy who thought hard about policy and had genuine personal achievements like the opening to China. Bush 2 also had some genuine bi-partisan achievements like the prescription drugs bill and his initiatives on AIDS in Africa. He also seems to be a personable fellow who gets along with people across the political spectrum.
Trump will not only lack accomplishments, he is personally despised across the spectrum including by several of his own aides. Once he is of no use to the Republicans, they will drop him like a stone and certainly the Democrats aren’t going to salvage his image.
The problem then will be who picks up his mantle. He may not be liked by his fellow players, but a large fraction of self-identified conservatives out in the hustings sure seem to like him. And they’re not going to be satisfied with less than someone like him. They want a bomb thrower who preaches simple, wrong-headed solutions to complicated problems. It’ll be interesting to see who tries to harness that energy after Trump is off-stage.
So well put.
I’m not sure.
Imagine that a lot of decisions authored by Gorsuch or Kavanaugh or Ginsburg’s replacement or Breyer’s replacement come out of the Supreme Court and delight Republicans in years to come: not just seven or eight cases, but whatever number would genuinely throw you for a loop.
I don’t know what that number is for you. Whatever it is, triple it.
Is there a point where Republicans would — as you put it — gladly “drop him like a stone” once he’s no longer of use; but where Democrats may well say, albeit in an accusatory fashion, that those decisions are Trump’s legacy, to which Republicans would surely be tempted to reply and a great legacy it is, huh?
I actually agree to an extent with what you have said. Keep mind I said “centuries from now”. While I will concede that in the first decades after Trump’s death Hollywood and others will continue to mock and despise him, I think the farther and farther one goes into the future it is increasingly likely he will end up mostly forgotten. Keep mind I am talking about 900, 1000, 2000 years in the future. Off the top of my head, the only thing from 1000 years in past I can remember is William the Conqueror and his involvement in the Battle of Hastings in 1066.