President Trump

"Generation Snowflake". That's some right wing meme you've tried to link to before and had that deleted. I don't think it has much traction over here in Yurp.



Indeed the danger is that a lot of people like the cacophony of the clown car approaching the Whitehouse.

I'll win more money on Betfair than Hillary is paying (Probably)

Mod hat on.
This is a general comment to all who participate here. Please remember to be polite and constructive or we will close this thread down. There are many places on the Internet where you can be rude about each other's views, just not here thank you.

A few ramblings.

When Adlai E. Stevenson II said “In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.” could he possibly have ever envisaged a level of disillusion with all things and people political that's allowed Trump to rise to the top of the political cauldron.*

If the former UN ambassador had any conception for how US politics would evolve he would surely have added the rider "if they have almost unlimited wealth". With sufficient financial backing, and an expensively shrewd marketing strategy, it's not unknown for poorer quality products to achieve more widespread popularity than their superior competitors. ** And thus the pool of potential candidates is reduced to perhaps a few dozen, and US voters are too often unable to make (and this assumes, of course, that they want to) a selection based on the intellect, vision or even ability of the candidates.

Simplistic? Of course, I'm not a political animal, so it will probably come as no surprise that, much as an amateur art critic will 'know that they like', I know who I dislike and will attempt to switch off sound and/or vision when certain politicians appear. Additionally, Trump requires a 'sign of the cross' to be made (as does Nicola Sturgeon), lest his (her) electronic presence imparts a lasting negativity on both my mood and the fabric of my surroundings.

Fortunately, British politicians, unlike our colonial cousins, have fewer minority interests to cater for, so being 'all things to all men' only requires simultaneous maintenance of two or three faces.
 
P.S. How did The Founding Fathers allow "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to find itself landed with a politicised judiciary anyway?

* Always bear in mind that it's not just cream that can rise to the surface!
** A colleague once asked me if I had "ever tasted a McDonalds burger without the usual extras?". Before I could reply, he added "Of course you haven't, it has none!"

I seem to recall he's stated that he's leaving all that sort of day-to-day trivia to the Veep. "Most powerful VP in history" was the line back in the summer.

The Donald just wants The Glory and The Job Title. Which, frankly, would be a good thing - if it wasn't for the person he's got lined up. "Conservative" is an understatement.

It depends, the Senate will be Republican anyway, the Congress could go either way.  If Trump gets in he may have some power if Clinton gets in she will have little.  The lack of Democracy will continue either way.

But, it is a big but, with Clinton I expect to be alive in the next 4 years, with Trump I'm not so sure.

While there is an element of that, I think it's scarier than that.

Of nine seats in the Supreme Court, two judges are in their 80s. Another is only a little off. One seat is currently vacant.

Then there's Trump's alleged connections to Putin. Have a read of this... It's a bit techie, but it does a good job of explaining it.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
(and, linked to from that article, this one - www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html )