What they failed to realize was how popular he was with the lower and middle classes. His reign had drastically improved their quality of life. His murder led to a string of civil wars and instability.
Think hard before disbanding populist figures.
[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
There needs to be a multifaceted implementation of new policy.
Term limits in a vacuum are useless, but if we didn't have a government that was pretty much a proxy for large corporations we could do neat things that would make anyone engaging in that type of arrangement's life a lot harder.
I would also go so far as to say that members of congress should not be allowed to be active in the markets for some years (8?) after they leave office and their should also be limits on jobs they are allowed to take for some time after they leave office as well. I.e. they can't go sit on a board and get paid 7-figures right after giving up their seat.
I agree with that. I just don’t think term limits will make a difference in this effort.
And maybe it's time people stop treating the president as some kind of hero to get excited about and more someone with a job to do. This isn't partisan, either: Mitt Romney would be doing a far better job with COVID-19 than our current leadership.
[0]https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1NuzpAcH8C&pg=PA235#v=on...
It is still enough people that I wouldn’t want to see the corresponding headline.
I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think most Americans are sick of Trump. Some are, for sure, but the data you posted isn't showing anything significant happened.
He will likely win again from what I'm seeing.
Color me skeptical.
Any examples of this in practice?
>What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around.
...
>Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
It's not only him, look at the entire GOP, and what forces are at play to keep these people in place.
The people currently in charge are there to protect historic interests/positions and they know they will lose them forever in a fair election. Because most of the country has moved on culturally.
The only thing that's changed is that people are pretending that it's new and unprecedented, as a way to garner more outrage.
Separately, opinion polls show that plenty of people support the current US president, so, regardless if their lives have been "improved" (whatever that means), those people will be upset if the president leaves.
And more from Oct 2019: https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/midd...
Many of you live in San Francisco. Your House rep, Nancy Pelosi, with whom I am sure you are familiar, has a serious challenger in Shahid Buttar. He is pushing to debate her, which should be the bare minimum for electoral rivals, yet AFAIK no date has been set. No one in the media or in the political establishment is holding her feet to the fire.
We could start there.
I personally know friends who claim that they'd stop working if they keep receiving handouts. And I live in Canada, where handouts are MUCH easier to come by.
You claim 'broad public support'. Any source to back that up?
No, referring to coronavirus aid bills as "blue-state bailouts" and running the Senate as a party-state are unacceptable.
But that's just your opinion.
Frankly, they're both "lost causes" from the majority of possible vectors. I would wager equally so, forgetting ideology and just going off the momentum of incumbency. Unfortunately, the situation is so dire that any victory that's even remotely possible is crucial. Don't throw anything out, because we might need everything. We'll just have to throw our weight behind whatever we can until all our options are exhausted.
What is "appropriate" for "traitors"? Execution? Prison? Being stripped of their rights, including the right to participate in the democratic process?
You see, the irony is that alleging vague subversive activity from your political enemies and then dealing with the "traitors" like this subverts the republic, turning it into a new oligarchy. It's a very banana-republic suggestion.
It's almost like our Constitution spells out how "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
It's almost like James Madison knew from experience there'd be someone who would float this type of proposal, and so codified a rebuke into the supreme law of the land, some 200 years in advance.
(Postscript. The obvious next step is for you to change your mind and stop saying these random members are committing oligarchycrimes and say instead that Trump himself is giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies in Russia. I'm sure there's some lovely jurisprudence to be had getting that laughed out of the courts and wish you the best of luck.)
However, it does seem likely to me that random citizens would be less capable of governing effectively in areas where actual knowledge of law, politics or some degree of domain knowledge is required.
I'm not suggesting violence, but that our forces responsible from protecting us against domestic threats do their job here, I think the idea that the optics of arresting a sitting president and members of congress is less worse than restoring a functioning legislative and executive branches.