3 ms·
I'm afraid you're mistaking our lunatic leader with "us". Understandable, but this step will be wholly unnecessary as soon as December when his power will be c
by method_capital 15d ago
I'm afraid you're mistaking our lunatic leader with "us". Understandable, but this step will be wholly unnecessary as soon as December when his power will be checked (largely). I lean right, more libertarian small government type, so you're not hearing this from a blowhard on the American left. His foreign policy, the way he's treated friends has been wanton and immensely damaging, and a whole lot of us want this corrected.
- mitxela 15d agoThe majority of US voters like the guy. He represents the country, like it or not. Most of his voters still agree with all the stuff he's doing, and the opposition seems intent on sabotaging themselves as much as possible so he will likely win again this year.
- strictnein 15d agoThe majority of US voters do not like the guy. 58.1% disapproval, 38.6% approval.
- mitxela 15d agoThe votes consistently tell a different story.
- Wowfunhappy 15d agoTrump won the popular vote once, not consistently, against an understudy candidate who was pushed on stage at the last minute. Also, opinions have shifted since that time as people have noticed how unhinged Trump is.
- deleted 15d ago[deleted]
- strictnein 15d agoVoting for someone and liking someone aren't synonyms. You claimed one thing, now you're saying something else. In 2024, if the Dems just had a normal primary they would have won. But they consistently lied to people about what they were seeing with their own eyes (Biden's obvious lack of mental acuity), which people find really insulting, and then forced in a weak candidate. To clarify, since this is the Internet and people make lots of assumptions: I voted against Trump three times, plus I voted against him in my state's open GOP primary, which he lost.
- mitxela 15d agoThat's all copium. Harris was a perfectly average Democratic candidate and an improvement over Biden. Yes, if they'd run Bernie they probably would've won, but there was zero chance the Democrat party would ever run a far-left presidential candidate - it goes against all their interests. It's like saying the Republicans should've run Chuck Schumer.
- method_capital 15d agoClearly not an American. Bernie has literally zero chance in a nationwide election. Read it again: ZERO.
- mitxela 15d agoHe was literally winning until the DNC de-primaried him partway through the election.
- mitxela 15d agode-nominated him partway through the primary, I meant
- strictnein 14d agoWinning what? I mean, you said he was "literally winning". What was he winning? Some polls about the DNC primary?
- DaSHacka 15d ago> so he will likely win again this year. What do you mean by this?
- mitxela 15d agoI mean the Trump party will win in a landslide. Same reasons as last time. The opposition hasn't done anything to inspire more votes.
- jmye 15d ago[dead]
- DaSHacka 15d agoBut Trump has been doing even worse. The left things he's literally Orange Hitler, and the right is fractured between "hasn't done enough, mostly performative cruelty"/"MIGA"/"woah he's going to far, I just didn't want 'commiela'" types. The one thing nearly everyone agrees on, however, is he is a disappointment. This much is evident from his absolutely underwater support in the polls, and how multiple states are likely to swing blue in the midterms.
- mitxela 15d ago!RemindMe December
- neom 15d agoYou're right, I am confused. It was clear what was going on under his first term... You guys voted him back in!!
- enoint 15d agoThe system elected him without a majority.
- bryanlarsen 15d agoIt was 49.9% vs 48.3%. The 1.8% of people voting for a 3rd party candidate and those who didn't vote were implicitly endorsing Trump.
- enoint 15d agoThat’s a weird way to say 50.1% of votes were against Trump.
- bryanlarsen 15d agoAgreed, it is a weird way of saying that. But it is basically what I'm saying. I used the word "endorsed", not "voted". The distinction does matter. Only about 25% of the voting age public voted for Trump. Almost 25% of the voting age public weren't registered to vote, perhaps some of them wanted to vote but couldn't, so let's use the registered voters as the denominator. 75.8% of them voted; roughly one third for Trump, one third for Harris and one third didn't vote. Choosing not to vote against a likely outcome is an endorsement of that outcome in my opinion.
- enoint 15d agoWe usually rely on polling for those answers. When you encounter a randomly-selected American on the street, do you find it 50/50? I’m in Wyoming, perhaps the reddest state, and it’s close to 50/50.
- rsynnott 15d agoAs another of your, ah, problematic presidents once said: > "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Like, if the US had just elected ol' minihands once, that would be one thing. But it did it _twice_. Ultimately, even if he's comprehensively put back in his box, there is an issue of long-term trust. At this point, Pandora's Box has been opened; it has been established that the US president can just act like a crazy dictator and... none of the mechanisms which are supposed to prevent that actually really function. Even if the US elects the most normal, sensible, rule-of-law-focused president imaginable in 2028, Canada will still have to look to 2032. I'm not sure that anything short of constitutional change would really restore trust, and the US is set up such that changing the constitution is virtually impossible.
- method_capital 15d agoThe calculus for the US is different than that for Canada. Most Canadiens have a very inflated view of themselves and their nation, but any honest view into this relationship shows clearly: Canada has a lot to lose; the US does not.