Donald Trump was elected president last November by winning 306 electoral votes. He pledged to "drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C., to overturn the system of politics that had left the nation's capital and major financial and tech centers flourishing but large swaths of the country mired in stagnation and decay. "What truly matters," he said in his Inaugural Address, "is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."
Is it? By any historical and constitutional standard, "the people" elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform. Yet over the last few weeks America has been in the throes of an unprecedented revolt. Not of the people against the government—that happened last year—but of the government against the people. What this says about the state of American democracy, and what it portends for the future, is incredibly disturbing.
There is, of course, the case of Michael Flynn. He made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career, suffice it to say. And when he exposed himself as vulnerable those enemies pounced. But consider the means: anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations. Yes, the conversation in question was with a foreign national. And no one doubts we spy on ambassadors. But we aren't supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause. And we most certainly are not supposed to disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the Washington Post because it suits a partisan or personal agenda.
Here was a case of current and former national security officials using their position, their sources, and their methods to crush a political enemy. And no one but supporters of the president seems to be disturbed. Why? Because we are meant to believe that the mysterious, elusive, nefarious, and to date unproven connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin is more important than the norms of intelligence and the decisions of the voters..
More here
5 comments:
Here's some fake news -- from this post:
"By any historical and constitutional standard, "the people" elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform."
If the vote of "the people" determined the outcome, Hillary Clinton, not Trump, would be president. To say that the majority has endorsed anything espoused by Trump is simply incorrect.
FYI -- "the people" elected Clinton, who got more votes than Trump. He was elected by the Electoral College, which does not reflect the actual vote at the polls.
I believe that it was only 304, not 306 electoral college votes.
If you remove the votes of the non citizens that voted Trump did win the popular vote and the electorial college did it's job and the majority of the country not just a couple of highly populated areas elected Trump as our president and not a career criminal political Clinton
What is wrong with you, 12:39? You need to learn how our country operates.
Post a Comment