> We need better candidates who generate real support and appeal other than just not being their opponent. Not sure how to get there.
Stop giving a single person that much power. The US is huge, it made sense back when news took a month to make it across the country, but now it doesn't.
Many of the best-run democracies in the world have a history of unappealing presidents, prime ministers, and so on. You don't need better candidates, you need the President to matter less. You want the seats in the houses to dominate the media, not the figurehead.
(free bonus: it'll also help you get rid of that ridiculous two-party system)
We're supposed to have checks and balances. It seems a few key individuals were terrified of DJT and wouldn't stand up to him. Someday maybe we'll know why.
It's not just about Trump, though. The U.S. Congress has been consistently ceding power to the executive for decades. It would be nice to see a shift in the other direction, but I'm not optimistic.
I really want to know the truth. There were some really vocal never-Trumpers like Graham who flipped to become extremely loyal supporters. Why? What makes someone become that fiercely loyal to a man they absolutely know will not show any loyalty to them? It has to be power, he knows something, I guess. In the case of Graham, it can't be proof that he's gay, that wouldn't surprise anybody, even his own constituents. So it's got to be something far more devastating.
I'm with you. It's almost like a plan is coming together before our eyes. Put people in "power" that can be controlled.
I had no idea that there were rumors about Graham being gay. That may very well upset his constituents. They may be fine as long as they can pretend it's not real, but with overwhelming proof or even a confession that could spell disaster.
I'd say judges. Now they have them, and with the exception of some die hard Trump converts and supporters I would be surprised if the Republican establishment abandons Trump rather quickly.
As much as I wish that were true, the 70+ million votes mean he’s still powerful within the GOP, reflected by the fact that most Republicans are still being fairly quiet about the need to accept defeat and move on.
Yeah, I might very well be wrong. I did put some thought into it, and came to the conclusion that Trumpism is no ideaology or even a movement. Especially when compared to historical political movements like the national socialists in Germany, fascists in Italy or Russian communism. It looks more like a combination of white supremacists, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, religious hardliners and macho culture. All held together by Trump's reality TV style bling and the GOP establishment.
Trump never was the leader of the GOP, was he? He turned people like Cruz and Graham into devote followers. Mostly, I think, out of fear of Trumps base. People like McConnell were never swayed, these people pushed their policies through. Yes, Trump has his stable 40%. But with him gone, that number will decrease. The GOP will make sure of that, because continuously embrassing Trump after he lost will only hurt them.
Maybe that's wishful thinking, but for now I, as a European, am grateful that the US internal problems are again internal ones and don't affect every country on Earth anymore. I am also glad that the incoming admin already now seems a lot better prepared and organized to fight COVID-19 and its effects. Because that alone will safe lives. And maybe a couple of years of America's absence from Western leadership was a necessary wake up call for the world in general.
Personally, so I hope Biden finds a way to sort stuff like healthcare, police violence, voter suppression, gerrymandering out. Because that can only be good.
Ah, and before I forget, I hope Harris as VP is a sign that they intend to legally clean up Trump's legacy. Letting him get away scott free because he was president once would do as much harm to Democracy than 4 more years of Trump.
The Presidency in the US is a weak position compared to the Prime Minister in the UK. Outside of fighting wars, the President has to convince Congress to give them the authority and money to do anything. Even their Ambassadors have to approved by the Senate.
The US president has far more power than the UK Prime Minister, who only leads their party and requires MPs to vote for anything they want to do, as Boris Johnson discovered last year when he failed to get his plans through parliament multiple times.
Far less. Yes, the PM can fail to get a bill passed by his own majority and can even lose a confidence vote. But the President can’t even submit a bill to Congress, and then either or both houses of that Congress can be of the opposite party. Even the Senate can kill legislation or appoints by failing to reach a supermajority over a filibuster.
Perhaps less (or similar) lawmaking power, but the President of the US leads an entire branch of government which comes with a significant amount of power in its own right.
The President leads the Executive Office of the President. The Federal agencies (the Treasury Department, Department of Defense, ...) are themselves led by Cabinet Secretaries nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Prime Minister appoints Ministers not subject to confirmation by anyone else.
You are about to see how important this confirmation veto is.
> Neither is the President who is actually elected by the Electoral College and not by a popular majority.
In this context, the electoral college is an implementation detail. American voters put a checkmark next to their personal preference for president, UK voters do no such thing.
> Regardless, does this even matter in terms of how politically powerful that single person is?
Yes, it makes a huge difference! The PM of the UK stays prime minister as long as they have the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons. The president of the US can only be prematurely removed if they are convicted of serious crime.
Voting is by name and election is by the Electoral College. The indirection remains.
No, House impeachment and Senate trial do not require a serious or indeed any crime. Impeachment is entirely a political matter akin to losing a confidence vote. It carries no penalty besides removal from office. Serious crimes and misdemeanors is not specified and drunkenness has been used (although it was around 1800 or so).
I’d go further and say we need the federal government to matter less. I think everyone would be happier if we gave more power to local governments. Power should flow up from the people to the federal government but today it flows downwards. This is why both sides think the other is intolerable.
Because the federal government collects so much of the tax revenue they have so much of the power. Politics is mainly deciding who gets the money. I’d prefer if my state and my town had more to do with it than pols from places I have nothing in common with.
No, it's the other way around. The president has to matter less means that the politicians in the houses should have more power and the president less.
The media will report on who has the power, simple as that.
> The media will report on who has the power, simple as that.
Sounds like they are the problem then to me. They could just be giving airtime to local representatives instead. Even your local mayor. Fortunately local news isn’t god awful about this, but the media decides what it wants to report on. If they want to report every Tweet that comes out of Trump’s account that is a decision they are making. They could just as easily report on numerous other topics.
Stop giving a single person that much power. The US is huge, it made sense back when news took a month to make it across the country, but now it doesn't.
Many of the best-run democracies in the world have a history of unappealing presidents, prime ministers, and so on. You don't need better candidates, you need the President to matter less. You want the seats in the houses to dominate the media, not the figurehead.
(free bonus: it'll also help you get rid of that ridiculous two-party system)