Presidents don’t generally take a demotion. Why isn’t Obama in Congress?
Especially in Trump’s case, he’s still very much involved in politics, trying to run for another term in 2024. That’s the most impactful move he can make now, and any other long-term commitments would interfere with his campaigning (and all the legal battles he’s part of).
Imagine conservatives don’t have to get pissy about stuff they made up themselves. After decades of imaginary things, fabricated in their own minds, it’s easy to not take a single thing serious that comes out of their mouths.
One day it will be something real, something serious and dangerous for us all. And nobody will listen to them.
Yeah there is a lot that is going wrong there! especially there used to be at least in the USA the mantra of “I didn’t vote for the guy but he is our president and as such I stand behind him in support” that is completely gone it seems. I know republicans in the past who said things like that to me.
The ideal president in American culture does what George Washington did, serve two terms then retire. Being a one term president is seen as a failure and a rejection of their policies, so relection is unlikely
He doesn’t want that. He wants to be the guy who was “wronged” in the last election.
I mean, he’s making bank off of donations just from beating that dead horse. Why work when you can just scream and cry and have people throw money at you?
Also, considering the size of his ego, he probably doesn’t want anything less than being the top guy. That’s all that matters to him.
Another poster said something about a “gentlemen’s agreement”, which isn’t wrong. The US has (generally) tried to maintain the peaceful transfer of power. They didn’t plan on a scumbag throwing a bitch fit to keep that from happening.
You can’t say “no politics intended” and then directly discuss politics. The answer will invariably include politics.
Trump didn’t want to be a politician. He wanted to be president. Being a senator or congressman is a job, but being president is a mark of prestige. If he can become president again, he will, because it makes him look good. There’s no point for him in taking a lower position with less power.
Are you looking at this picture, reading this post and then attempting to seriously debate the author on the merits of their argument of no-politics "inteded"?
You are right, but what I meant was, that I didn’t ask from a political point of view, just wanted to understand from a technical point of view. Like I understand that once you have been president you retire. But trump didnt retire. So since he is continuing on, why in the meantime isn’t he in congress or senate?
I thought obama, bush, clinton are just not in senate or congress because they were president, following the unwritten rule.
So since trump didnt retire why isnt he in congress or the senate. I think he would have gotten a vote in florida or other such states.
yeah but what you say makes sense, so it is just to do with trumps personality profile…
When people say “no pun intended,” it is always right after they’ve made a completely intentional pun.
When a person says “no offense [intended], but,” it is always right before they say something intentionally offensive.
What I’m saying is that maybe this grammar “no X intended” doesn’t actually mean that literally they don’t intend X, but instead that they want to lessen their culpability for exactly intending X.
Unfortunately political systems are often held together with “tradition” and “gentleman’s agreements”, where conventions dictate how people should behave. Politicians typically followed them because it is seen as the honourable and right thing to do.
However, it seems to be a recent trend among the hard right that politicians just ignore those conventions because:
a) those conventions are inconvenient b) honour means nothing to them, and c) nothing actually enforces those unwritten rules - so there are no consequences for ignoring them
Similar things have happened here in the UK as well. I guess our political systems both assume some degree of good will & trust in its representatives, and it generally turns out that trust is misplaced.
Yes I can. One of the prime ministers we had was convicted but abolished by the president. He was in a left oriented party, the president was in the same one. He didn’t retire from politics, he went on to become our prime minister.
One of the prime ministers we had was convicted but abolished by the president. He was in a left oriented party, the president was in the same one. He didn’t retire from politics, he went on to become our prime minister.
Só consigo pensar num país que se enquadra nessa descrição, sem realmente tentar procurá-lo. Se eu estiver correto, você tem razão, e estou retirando todos os meus votos negativos, lol
Unfortunately, that is so stripped down that it’s impossible to analyse it in any reasonable way. It sounds like more run-of-the-mill corruption rather than bucking tradition though. Corruption is a problem of humanity, rather than just one side. Though even that seems a lot more prevalent and egregious in the right, right now.
If you want the full story or details, PM me, I’ll disclose the names of the people and thus, the country I live in (which is what I’m trying to hide in this case).
I think it says a lot that your only example is either from a country so small that it would help dox you, or with other issues that would overshadow it.
I could, fairly trivially, locate multiple examples of right wing politicians abusing the traditions that support the country’s government. While my own has its issues, I’m not limited to it.
Considering the original post was focused on the US and their current problems, your original comment implied that it applied there. The fact you haven’t offered a single US based example is extremely telling.
The example was of the sort of corruption that affects politics everywhere, from a small country, not known for a lack of corruption. The example was also quite old. Predating trumps run at president.
No-one ever said that left wing politicians are perfect. They are far from it.
The issue is 2-fold. You’ve not shown an example of what was originally discussed (blatant breaking of tradition , with no justification other than “because we can”). It is more normal corruption that creeps into all political systems.
The second is the scale. It’s akin to comparing a school shooting, with dozens of fatalities, to a playground fistfight. Both are bad, but the scale is vastly different. Saying they should both be punished equally would be blatantly absurd.
The issue is 2-fold. You’ve not shown an example of what was originally discussed (blatant breaking of tradition , with no justification other than “because we can”). It is more normal corruption that creeps into all political systems.
That’s exactly what I’ve shown. He went on to be a prime minister after being convicted and then abolished by the president, because… well, he can.
Regarding the last paragraph, there are other examples regarding the same polititian (cover ups of a few unexplained murders while he was in office) which is the smoking gun you’re looking for. In the left’s defence, the right did things like this as well.
My standpoint is both sides are, excuse my French, dogshit. Everyone is looking in their best selfinterest, nothing more.
I didn’t really expect them to answer. 90% of the time you just get to watch them scuttle off to hide, like cockroaches from the light. 9% of the time you get soundbite diarrhea, which is easy to debunk.
The last 1% can be interesting however. A well thought out counter argument to something I believe. It is a good check, to make sure I’m not the one in the bubble. It also lets me understand those on the other side of a debate. It’s reached the point where 1% is being generous, however.
You make a great case for getting rid of implicit rules and making them explicit at least within the current political environment (I mean the resurgence of fascism and other inhuman currents)
Add comment