[BLKNSLVR]

I mostly agree. Trump is behaving in a way that's consistent with his prior rhetoric.

Where I disagree is that there may have been an expectation that the systems outside of "The President" would have stood up for themselves more, offered more resistance and slowed him down more. The slow-moving of government is (was though to be) it's own protection to some extent.

[bruce511]

I'm not sure what evidence suggests that Republicans in congress would grow a spine to resist this. Conversely the evidence since 2016 suggests they actively applaud it.

The voters have voted out any congress people who resisted, sending a clear message that they want this path.

This may not be the pretty side of democracy, but it is democracy.

My point above (which I see is being downvoted) is not thst I see this as "good" , but rather that I see it as democratic. Everything going on is literally because the people voted for it. The stacking of the Supreme Court, the obstructionist behavior in congress, the tolerance for (Trump) crimes- this has all been rewarded, not penalized by voters.

If democracy is the will of the people , then what you see seeing is the power of that will.

[malcolmgreaves]

Except it’s not really democracy. You have gerrymandered districts. You elect a leader not by who gets the most votes, but who wins a system that was designed for the benefit of white slave owners.

And of course, who really believes the election results when you have Trump saying that Musk rigged some voting machines in his favor.

Face it, the US no longer creates its government from the collective will of its citizens. They’ve replaced politicians with corporate backers for the actual corporations themselves.

[bruce511]

I buy the gerrymandering concept at the congressional level.

But Trump won the popular vote. He increased his numbers in 90% of counties. He grew across all demographics.

This was not a structural failure. It was very clearly a country-wide mandate.

[toast0]

He clearly won, but a narrow victory is not a mandate.

1984 Reagan's victory was a mandate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_president...

[watwut]

Small victory is not country wife mandate. And also, frankly, I can't imagine you are conservatives saying the same if Hareis was in power.

[kelnos]

Ugh, please stop calling this a "mandate". You don't have a mandate when you weren't even able to secure 50% of the total votes, and your main opponent only trailed you by a percentage point and a half.

I think if Biden had decided up-front that he wouldn't seek re-election, and the Democrats had been able to field a real primary, Trump may not have won. Instead we had an old man making blunder after blunder during his campaign, followed by a not-all-that-popular replacement that no one selected through the primary process, who only had a few short months to put a campaign together. Frankly I think it's impressive Harris did as well as she did.

"Mandate"... oh, please.