Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter, but I think this question targets me as an ambivilent 'voter.'
My biggest complaint of the American political system is inertia. Every incumbent gets re-elected, every expenditure is protected, and every subsidy becomes a right.
The Founders feared this type of cancer; feared that monied interests could calcify their largesse, feared a substantial standing army would prove irresistible to a Commander-In-Chief, feared corporations would be considered before principle or law.
Between two families, the Executive branch of the US government has been dominated for three decades. I'm counting Obama as part of their reign because when Obama defeated Hillary in '08, he appointed her to his senior cabinet and brought the gaggle of Clinton staffers into his administration - these people aren't inherently bad - they were likely all excellent hires (individually) but the cumulative effect was governmental authority has been dominated by a handful of people for decades. Even JEB! this cycle had to hire 99% of his family's staff. Again, not evil, but pernicious.
There are accusations against the Clinton Foundation for being a influence-peddling scam. I don't want to comment on those accusatins beyond this: it's totally possible. They had the means and opportunity. That appearance of impropriety is sufficient to require turnover.
In the NHL, coaches and GMs don't turn stupid/evil/incompetent and then get fired - they get fired because organizations are well-served to have turn-over for numerous reasons, many of which also apply to POTUS; faĺling in love with a failed prospect (department), rivalry with another franchise (country), protecting their legacy (buyouts), and stubborn refusal to adapt to the evolutions of the game.
Trump is, symbolically, a rejection of the recalcitrant system - and is attractive (if only) as a rejection of this juggernaut.
|
I get the whole rejection of the status quo, it's one of the reasons I liked Nader back in the day, supported Harper after the Chretien/Martin run, and most recently Trudeau over Harper. But change for the sake of change isn't good when the alternative is much worse. If Trump was at least a decent human being then that would be a great protest vote. But to vote for someone so transparently self-serving, fascist and bigoted is needlessly self-destructive and a huge over-reaction to something that has pretty much existed with every administration since at least Kennedy. Picking this battle now is odd now that Trump in the alternative, but I guess some people just want to watch the world burn. I also suspect that a lot of closet racists and misogynists are using the protest angle to justify their support. The thought of a female president following a black president must be eating them up inside.