8 ms·

Unfortunately America has just shown us that it too can advance a wildly inappropriate and simply stupid individual to the highest levels of power.

queuebert 5y ago
We have a history of that, unfortunately.
zeven7 5y ago
But then he got replaced 4 years later. Unlike what happened in Russia.
- mcv 5y ago
  Definitely a strong case for term limits. If Putin had left after 8 years, he would now be considered a great president. He wasn't perfect, but he stabilised the Russian economy after the bankruptcy of the 1990s. He could have left a great legacy, but his addiction to power has become his ruin. And quite possibly that of Ukraine and Russia.
  - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
    Didn’t Putin get his term limits removed? He did stick to them initially when his PM Medvedev was President.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Yes, because Trump is no Putin when it comes to maintaining power, and the US is a much more stable democracy with strong checks and balances.
- ako 5y ago
  But there's a real treath that he can become president again. The real problem is that there's big gap in how the democrats see the world vs how republicans see the world. From the outside it's really mindblowing how differently they see and interpret the world. And the same is happening all over the world.
  - dereg 5y ago
    When it comes to defense, republicans and democrats see the world similarly. It's the one topic which you could say there's no gap in their desires. Republicans and democrats place utmost value in the American hegemony.
- runarberg 5y ago
  That didn’t happen with Bush, who conjured up a premise with multiple lies in order to justify going to war. And then 3 years later, he got re-elected.
  - mcv 5y ago
    That was by far the most disappointing US election. Electing a bad president is clearly a risk of democracy, but re-electing a bad president, that's incomprehensible. And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes.
    - adventured 5y ago
      > And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes. That election was 2004 of course. Reagan got 58.8% in 1984, so two decades prior (decades as you noted). Obama got 52.9% in 2008. And prior to that for a Democrat? More than two decades prior, wherein Jimmy Carter barely scratched out a majority popular vote at 50.08% in 1976. Lyndon Johnson of course got 61% in 1964. The monster that put us deep into Vietnam and wrecked the country got the highest popular vote percentage for the Democrats in the past century. The two highest in modern US history, Lyndon Johnson and Nixon. What does it say about the people of the 1960s and 1970s? It says a lot of terrible things about their ability to judge character and make rational decisions.
      - runarberg 5y ago
        I think parent actually meant plurality, at least that’s how I read it. However these numbers are quite interesting. Some people attribute Nixon’s second election to his promise of withdrawing from Vietnam and one can easily blame the war for the problematic 1968 election for the democrats. LBJ was probably even gonna be the first sitting president to loose in a primary before he announced his non-bid. I’m guessing the 1964 for election he was pretty much just riding the popularity of the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy. (Plus the war hadn’t escalated at this point).
  - 5y ago
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  i wonder how putin got there.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Yeah, the capitol coup guys weren't well trained and failed, fortunately. Everybody has a lot of luck ...this time.

queuebert 5y ago

We have a history of that, unfortunately.

zeven7 5y ago

But then he got replaced 4 years later. Unlike what happened in Russia.

mcv 5y ago
Definitely a strong case for term limits. If Putin had left after 8 years, he would now be considered a great president. He wasn't perfect, but he stabilised the Russian economy after the bankruptcy of the 1990s. He could have left a great legacy, but his addiction to power has become his ruin. And quite possibly that of Ukraine and Russia.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  Didn’t Putin get his term limits removed? He did stick to them initially when his PM Medvedev was President.
goatlover 5y ago
Yes, because Trump is no Putin when it comes to maintaining power, and the US is a much more stable democracy with strong checks and balances.
ako 5y ago
But there's a real treath that he can become president again. The real problem is that there's big gap in how the democrats see the world vs how republicans see the world. From the outside it's really mindblowing how differently they see and interpret the world. And the same is happening all over the world.
- dereg 5y ago
  When it comes to defense, republicans and democrats see the world similarly. It's the one topic which you could say there's no gap in their desires. Republicans and democrats place utmost value in the American hegemony.
runarberg 5y ago
That didn’t happen with Bush, who conjured up a premise with multiple lies in order to justify going to war. And then 3 years later, he got re-elected.
- mcv 5y ago
  That was by far the most disappointing US election. Electing a bad president is clearly a risk of democracy, but re-electing a bad president, that's incomprehensible. And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes. That election was 2004 of course. Reagan got 58.8% in 1984, so two decades prior (decades as you noted). Obama got 52.9% in 2008. And prior to that for a Democrat? More than two decades prior, wherein Jimmy Carter barely scratched out a majority popular vote at 50.08% in 1976. Lyndon Johnson of course got 61% in 1964. The monster that put us deep into Vietnam and wrecked the country got the highest popular vote percentage for the Democrats in the past century. The two highest in modern US history, Lyndon Johnson and Nixon. What does it say about the people of the 1960s and 1970s? It says a lot of terrible things about their ability to judge character and make rational decisions.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      I think parent actually meant plurality, at least that’s how I read it. However these numbers are quite interesting. Some people attribute Nixon’s second election to his promise of withdrawing from Vietnam and one can easily blame the war for the problematic 1968 election for the democrats. LBJ was probably even gonna be the first sitting president to loose in a primary before he announced his non-bid. I’m guessing the 1964 for election he was pretty much just riding the popularity of the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy. (Plus the war hadn’t escalated at this point).
- 5y ago
pasquinelli 5y ago
i wonder how putin got there.
pvaldes 5y ago
Yeah, the capitol coup guys weren't well trained and failed, fortunately. Everybody has a lot of luck ...this time.