[chrisrhoden]

> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there.

Guessing it is actually a combination of very low approval ratings across the board and the fact that the guy who was elected is encouraging distrust in the system.

So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.

[pabloski]

"So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.", are you talking about Obama/Clinton?

The ones who have destroyed the Middle East, armed the syrian terrorists, buried Osama Bin Laden without showing its corpse ( but they showed Gaddafi's one, and he was muslim too, really strange ).

And the same who are spouting nonsense on the "russian hacking" without showing proof.

Seriously, if the american people distrust the government, it is because of the globalist oligarchs puppets actions.

[chrisrhoden]

What you're describing is the first half of what I said. And you're right, there has consistently been a sizable percentage of the electorate who doesn't trust the government.

What's relatively new is that now, the President is asking people who are on his side to distrust the rest of the government.

[shuntress]

This is the scariest part.

I have a hard time seeing how his team's assertion of "alternative facts" (seemingly designed/delivered to undermine trust in every system we have built for the last 200 years) can lead to anything other than descent into fascism.

[akjainaj]

> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there.

As perceived by the media... the same media who wanted the other candidate to be elected.

[ajmurmann]

Well functioning media are also an important factor for a democracy. Apparently many people doubt the US has that. No matter how you look at it something important is broken. The difference in perception is what's the broken part.

[chrisrhoden]

I'll assume you downvoted me because you think that the article is wrong and not because you think I am wrong in my assessment of what the article is saying.

I don't disagree that the media at large would have preferred the other candidate. That would be true if the media was a perfect statistical representation of the country, and the media is not, it's largely focused in population centers, where the preference was overwhelming.

[akjainaj]

I can't even downvote.