> Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US?

Based on the amount of people who promised to move to Canada if Trump won, my guess is next to nothing.

And it's a bit odd. IIRC, when Bush won, it was the same. I mean, I had hoped he'd lose, but I wasn't about to run just cuz.

Beside, when was the last time a conservative said, dammit, Bill won, or Obama won, I'm off to [some country]. It's mostly Dems who almost never actually go through with it. Sure, you get a very small trickle but nothing like they promise.

The equivalent for conservatives is to consider secession. There were a good number of petitions for some states in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_seces...

I think "Calexit" (and WA and OR)[1] musings speaks to that not being a uniquely conservative phenomenon. But point taken they "talk" the talk.

[1]http://mynorthwest.com/470605/oregon-california-washington-s...?

> Beside, when was the last time a conservative said, dammit, Bill won, or Obama won, I'm off to [some country].

If you mean, follow the patterns of suggesting if so-and-so wins, I'm out, a number of Republicans did that with Obama (and maybe the Clinton reelect in 1996.)

Though in the wake of the 2008 Obama win, there was also a big upswing in conservatives not specifically saying it about themselves, but predicting the wealthy in general would economically rebel by withdrawing from the economy and “Go Galt”.

Maybe I don't listen to conservative radio or whatever, but while I believe you that there are people who said those things, it was never something you had front and center by celebrities, and other cultural personalities, etc.

What I do notice about conservatives is a rush to "buy guns" --that's their knee jerk moreso than, "screw it, I'm leaving."

> Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US?

Talk about a miserable situation.

But no, I would much more quickly join a third party initiative (I voted third party in this last election), because I do think the fundamental underpinnings of our government are hard to beat, even if that means dealing with cranks and morons being able to elect the same.

I do fear our democracy turning into a greater circus than it already is, but I also generally trust the wisdom of the crowd for the end result (though definitely do not trust the crowd for philosophical, moral or intellectual opinions).

I feel like the current status is more a bug that we might be able to cure, but I wouldn't want to abandon the entire system because of that bug.

  the racist Birther / “born in Kenya” meme

1) how is that concept racist given that he would have had the same ethnic makeup wherever he was born?

2) the whole "born in Kenya" media rant was meaningless given that he would be qualified to serve as President wherever he was born under US law at the time of his birth, given his mother's natural-born citizenship.

It felt racist to me and many others because Obama was consistently portrayed as 'the other', as non-American, as unpatriotic, as a muslim, as an African, as non-Christian, as not-us but something else, something foreign.

Now candidates have always criticised in various ways, harsh ways. But not to this extent. It's completely different from the way Ted Cruz's Canada born story was treated. Or McCain's (then US territory) Panama-born history.

Now why is there a discrepancy, why did opponents push blatant lies and why did the birther movement take hold on Obama and not others?

Precisely because they're grounded by racist notions. Calling Obama a muslim wouldn't be a negative thing, or an attack, in a world where there wasn't islamophobia, if people didn't equate muslim with terrorist. Calling him an African, stressing his non-Americanism, wouldn't be a successful attack on his character if racist old white people didn't equate themselves and themselves only with patriotic 'original' Americans.

None of this had to do with any interest in upholding constitutional law. Trump has shown very clearly that politics trump accountability to our legal system. This was an attack on Obama's character that only worked because it inspired racist notions. Have you not seen the rallies and protesters of the birther movement, are you really not seeing anything racist about that?

This isn't racist to you? https://www.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/foxnation-20...

or this? http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.115633.131395031...

It's an absolute joke of an argument, and was obviously racially inspired. (and please don't tell me not to use racism as the now commonly accepted umbrella term that includes ethnic discrimination too, e.g. islamophobia. we've long passed the point of arguing those semantics.)

2) agreed, see aforementioned Cruz for example. Which is precisely why it's racist. It wasn't about upholding constitutional law, it was about painting him as Kenyan. It didn't matter whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or a different solar system, it mattered that he was black and had parental roots in a country that could be painted as muslim despite 5 out of 6 Kenyans being Christian. That's what they got him on and got people bothered, precisely because of racism.

>It’s all for show.

Maybe this is the role of the president in the future? Just a buffoon celebrity who can say whatever they want and best represents the fickle fancy of the people?

Somebody else handles the actual governing.

> Somebody else handles the actual governing.

Somebody else chosen by whom? Following what agenda, according to which principles? Overseen by whom? Presumably, chosen by the buffoon President to act in his/her stay, following the agenda set forth in his/her election platform, and within the principles of the Constitution... but even merely one layer of remove makes it difficult for the other branches of government to exert their roles in providing checks and balances, and for citizens of the Republic it becomes even more difficult to figure out who is doing what and whether what is being done is grossly in their interest or not.

Also, it’s by no means clear anymore that voting the incumbent out of office and somebody new into his place creates that discontinuity necessary to avoid a dynasty arising. If much of the machinery of government disappears behind an opaque veil and elections are contested between idiots then we no longer have any clue what is going on behind the curtain, and behind that curtain there may be an éminence grise of such power even a new (notional) President fears to disrupt, or even if these unseen powers are not powerful enough to intimidate the newcomer, it might just be more convenient for the new guy (or gal) to “go with the flow” and and leave the hard business of real governing to a experienced set of hands.

It really ain't pretty.

I would consider anything outside the USA now, where I wasn't thinking about it prior to last year. I probably too much of a generalist now for anyone to go through the trouble of getting a work visa for me, though.

I'm pretty sure I'd find plenty of reason to dislike the leaders of state no matter where I live. Most of what is great about this country isn't done in Washington - we can survive bad leaders (hopefully).

True, and maybe it is just a case of the grass being greener.

The closest analogue to Trump/Oprah in modern western history is probably Silvio Berlusconi.

That fiasco wasn’t even a swift dramatic thing—just a grinding two decades and counting of stagnation, inept government, corruption and brain drain as your best youth go abroad.

I hope it doesn’t happen here and I want to do anything I can to help.

Past some hypothetical point, though, I think my wanderlust and sense of pride would take me elsewhere.

Innovation can happen anywhere, and fortune favors the bold.

I thought old Silvio was thinking of making a "comeback"[1]? I mean, who knows.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/europe/sicily-elect...

Yup! Having grow up outside the US you'd be kidding yourself to think it's any different elsewhere.

You seem to be mixing up Dr. Phil with Dr. Oz.

I have never upvoted on this site but for you, I will.

As far as I know from my studies, the Americans have given their President loads of power. It would be quite a challenge to rewrite and redistribute powers of President, should he become a mere Public Figure like the Queen of England. If Americans were to accept undergoing such a change, might as well have more than two main parties and take money out pf politics. I suspect us to be dead by then.

The President has much less power than the average person believes he does. The Supreme Court and Congress provide serious limitations on his power.

In addition, because there is no clear definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors", congress can pretty much remove The President whenever they want. The House only requires a simple majority to impeach and the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to convict.

Being command in chief of one of (if not the) most powerful military on the planet gives one a whole lot of power...

>(if not the)

It's definitely the most powerful. No one else is even close in raw military power.

Yes in world terms he's clearly very powerful. Compared to the rest of the world a single US aircraft carrier or ballistic missile submarine captain is more powerful than most world leaders.

But his power is very limited. Congress can remove him, they can even completely defund the military if they wanted to.

It's a completely different discussion topic as to if we have the most powerful military. We have a lot of resources sunk into using aircraft carriers to project force around the world, and the current generation of carriers have not faced the current generation of anti-ship missiles.

We have current generation anti-ship missiles as well. So let's say that in a full scale war all surface vessels are gone, and let's say there are no nuclear exchanges.

Our submarine fleet and long range bombing ability are still far superior. Russia and China have near zero force projection capability. Even with surface ships gone, we still have more.

Russia and China both accept that they can't match the US, and all of their strategies for war with us are defensive strategies designed to make it too expensive for us to bother.

No one seriously doubts American military dominance today--not even potential rivals.