You might be surprised at how much gerrymandering is a factor, perhaps not so much nationally, but at the local vote and local issue level, it is a big deal.
The noise the world hears is our national news and presidential level vs media vs sore loosers, but the real action is a the local and state level. The position of President is important, but it is somewhat of a ham strung position due to the political battles.
No matter who was elected president, they would have faced exactly the same protesting, news media bs, calls for impeachment, etc. that is happening with Trump. It is a pretty thankless job and it isn't as if anyone who ran was all that well loved.
Trump had an interesting comment to potential voters, aimed particularly at black voters in MI - something like "You have had a black President for 8 years, how are you doing compared to before? If you vote for me, what have you got to loose?". I think you are right when you say that many of the people that voted for Trump didn't particularly like him, but felt like they had little to loose.
Probably similar to the Brexit vote.
I think that no matter who is the President, that they would be subject to a media intent on destroying them, for a combination of personal pleasure and professional gain.
You can look at the relationship of the white house and the media as far back as I can remember, certainly back to Johnson / Nixon / Carter ,,, up to Obama, and pretty much all of them were under constant media attack.
I really doubt that Hillary would be in any better position (turmoil wise) than Trump is right now, and perhaps she would have been in worse shape.
The same divisiveness that is now so built into our system during elections is the same divisiveness that is used to keep the President (no matter who it is or what party) from being effective. This is not just between the two main parties, but also within the same party. As an example, both Romney and Jeb Bush were hell bent that they deserved to be President and their "crown" was taken away by Trump. They were and remain firmly against anyone that blocks this, even someone with similar political opinions.
It doesn't actually matter if I agree with the US President or not, because my vote in CA is nearly irrelevant, no matter my political views.
What I do think is important is that we try to work within the system in a positive way and to make whoever is holding the Office of the President "comfortable", because when they aren't, the typical result has been that someone starts a war. Wars have a very powerful effect on pulling the country together behind a common cause, and I would like to see this avoided.
Just slightly more directly answering your question - Trump ran on a "I am going to make some serious changes" kind of agenda. If you have ever worked in a company with a new CEO with a similar agenda, life can be unsettling, to say the least.
Some of his positions, particularly on our trade deficit problem with China, I completely agree with. As a practical matter, I don't think he is being tough enough on them, and if he doesn't get tougher, he will be a one term president.
Pulling out of the pan pacific trade pact - I am very happy that this pact failed as it just gave away the store.
US tax laws on business are a complete mess, it is hard to really know if they will get better or worse. Certainly the current tax system on businesses is driving companies to leave, and is unfair to small and medium business owners who follow US tax laws vs very large companies that can do multi national tax haven games.
No matter who won the election, both Clinton and Trump have son-in-laws that are prominent business people with exceptional ties to Israel and very anti - Iran. I am not completely comfortable with this situation, but it would not have been different no matter who won. I am hoping that this is more of a staging for negotiations than a real problem.
NATO - Yes, I think it is obsolete and don't really understand why it still exists other than to annoy people and spend money. The EU is a large enough critical mass that they can and should pull their own defense together instead of just beating up indebted countries.
Russia - potential influence on elections. I don't doubt that they did have some influence, but so did a bunch of other countries including the UK, the bulk of the EU, most of the middle east, Japan, etc.
Can you imagine if someone actually started to investigate if the UK, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany and Canada had any influence on our elections? Not a single politician at any level would be spared.
As a practical matter, we are all better off figuring out how to work with Russia than constantly against it, because they are a substantial, international influence.
Certainly there are areas where I don't agree with the positions of Mr. Trump, but then again, my wife tells me that I don't usually agree with most anyone.
I am very much trying to be cooperative in getting our country working again, because the divisiveness we have is not helpful for anyone.
Stop right there. POTUS is not even remotely like a "CEO", and a nation cannot be run like a for-profit business. This fundamental misunderstanding is a major source of Trump's woes -- and by many accounts, he was a lousy businessman.
Print Versions in ten languages
You can register to vote and vote if you are:
Print Versions in ten languages
You can register to vote and vote if you are:
I will go back and look at this some more, because you point out some important distinctions.
Keep in mind that it isn't unusual for CA prisons to release prisoners early and put them on both parole and probation, so they still cannot vote.
If the terms of probation are not met (which can be very simple violations, like having a beer) then you are once again blocked.
Interestingly, voting is not a constitutional "right" AFAIK, but there are fundamental rights that are taken away permanently. Personally, I don't think that someone who has committed a felony should be blocked from receiving a scholarship to attend college for instance, nor have their "fundamental rights" taken away permanently.
But what purpose is served by taking away the right to vote? If a lot of people are doing something that is considered "criminal", then perhaps the laws need to be changed.
Drinking beer when you are 20 years old is a serious crime, but should it be? I once asked a friend in Italy what the drinking age was there, and after thinking about it, she didn't think there was one. She distinctly remembered going to the local grocery store as a small child and bringing home wine and bread - all by herself.
If a lot of people are turned into criminals by ridiculous laws, then they will not be able to vote in a way that changes these laws.
- Companies will not hire you because their business insurance bars them from hiring people with a criminal record.
- If you try to start your own business so that you can have a job, it is nearly impossible to get a contractor license and business licenses are harder to obtain.
- If you do manage to get a contractor license, it is hard to get the required insurance.
- No public funding to further your education
- Housing is much more difficult to obtain
- You are barred from ever owning a gun (I know you don't care, but that is an important right in the US)
- If you move into an area, people will look up your name on the internet, see that you have a criminal record, and won't let their children play with your children.
- It is just a hair trigger of a parole or probation violation to get put back in jail, so essentially you have no voting rights.
I know people who have gone through this and it is a big challenge.
IMHO, this is essentially being treated as a felon for life.