Yeah, this one's on me for leaving it so vague. But hey, I like a challenge.
Personally, I pin these down to him being a giant baby (unprofessional and ridiculous for a person of such power to be).
Granted there are valid discussions to be had around how vulnerable their electoral system is (
specific states that don't require proof of identifications for example).
But yes, very Undemocratic rhetoric. If you believe that 'talk' holds weight, fair play. I won't get into constituency discussions; both sides have absolute mongs who like to riot at any given chance.
This has long been a problem of US politics on both sides of the spectrum. Hell, the term 'gerrymandering' got it's namesake from a democrat.
This practice is undemocratic, however it's more common than people would like to admit over there. Hard to condemn one side, when the other side does it too. I mean, at that point does it just become a part of the US?
Again, hard for me to associate this as specifically 'Trump' being undemocratic when everyone's on the same playing field. I also can't disagree with you, as:
1. Technically it is undemocratic.
2. He/The Republicans are doing it.
This one's an interesting one to me. The whole point of a supreme court is that they are to react to the cases in front of them in a non-partisan way. However, the inherent nature of human bias, combined with the tendency for older people to become more conservatives, with age, would make it easier to fill those roles with conservative leaning people.
Got a link for the open attacks?
Again, many presidents talk a lot of aggressive shit. You'll have to be a bit more specific.
I would argue that this is more indicative of legacy media dying, rather than Trump being the reason for it's downfall. I'd posit that he's 'feeding off the carcass' rather than solely killing the legacy media industry.
Sadly, social media is the place to get your information these days.
He had the majority vote, majority seats in the senate and the republican party go along with whatever he does. It's basically second nature for all senators to amass silly amounts of wealth too (look at
Ilhan Omar).
This is an over exaggeration. Their methods are brutal and to be condemned, but their purpose exists in 'upholding' domestic law, not foreign invasion.
The TLDR of what I said is that I believe that his offensive caricature amplifies the problematic state of politics in the US. Basically, there's a crap ton of corruption that happens over there and he is just such an easy character to hate as he just says stuff to annoy people. Does he reject democratic principles? by our definition I'd assume so. But by American standards? I think he's right on the money for the crap that they normally serve up, just with a little cherry on top.
Thanks for posting these. It forced me to use my brain and taught me a lesson in being more specific with my wording.
