[majormajor]

Trump specifically ran saying he didn't agree with many of these plans.

His actions are consistent with cheaper federal government but not smaller federal government. Just a centralized executive government that does what he says.

The method is simple: say what you need to to get approval, do what you always wanted to do after you get it.

See also Kennedy walking back his anti-vaccine positions to get crucial votes out of Republican senators in committee and then promptly revealing he is still anti-vax.

So when he makes comments about at third term and claiming even more power... how consistent do you think that is with smaller federal government or continuing democracy?

[bruce511]

Trump ran on saying whatever to whomever. his intentions though were obvious. He ran on cutting spending by 2 trillion. Where did people think this was going to come from? He ran on ending red tape. He ran on reducing regulation.

These days folk getting approved by the senate just have to show up. No one believes RFK when he says he's changed his mind on vax. I mean, these guys are lackeys, not stupid.

Democracy is about letting people who have no understanding, who pay minimal attention, who are easily led by media and populism, choose who should be in charge.

It is working as designed.

Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse.

If the population votes him a 3rd term, If they vote for congress who supports that- that is democracy. The people will get what they vote for.

We are literally seeing what "govt by the people" looks like. This is not democracy dying. It's democracy showing its flaws.

[xnx]

I'm not happy with the situation, but I agree with almost all of what you've said.

> Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse

I think there's a lot of room for improvement here. Eliminate the senate. Dramatically expand the house. Eliminate the electoral college. Sane district boundaries. Etc.

[transcriptase]

Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate for once instead of anointing it. Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment, and then they lied about Biden until he was forced aside for Kamala at the behest of insiders.

[Braxton1980]

>Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment

Then why did she win at least 85% of nationwide polls in 2016 and 2015

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_f...

> Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate

Maybe Biden didn't want to go and it took time and pressure. They couldn't put together a primary by the time he did.

Did they lie? Probably. If Biden didn't want to go saying "the president is senile" would have helped Trump win.

Either way it doesn't matter. Trump was the candidate who lied (and still is lying) about widespread election fraud, not to mention tons of other lies that have become so numerous I'm numb to them.

Voters had a choice, Trump or Harris. Which is better (or which is the least worst option)