i'd say the same of ross perot from the previous generation

well, you might consider 'permanent' too strong, but it will most definitely damage the office way beyond trump's presidency. of course most international leaders are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish between different administrations and therefore will pick up good faith negotiations with a serious and reasonable president again. but while i agree that the next one will almost unavoidably be more classy, competent, and dignified, people around the world will not forget what america is capable of choosing as their representative.
and while the perception, the international embarrassment through childish, buffoonish, and outright petty behaviour might be one of the smaller issues, it's just one side of the coin: the other side, which is the unilateral withdrawing from painstakingly negotiated agreements (like the paris accord, the iran deal, nafta, or the international condemnation of israel's illegally occupied territories - just to name a few), will most definitely damage the trust in america's reliability for decades to come, concerning both her allies as well as her enemies. even though trump will not be there anymore, he certainly set dangerous precedent of america not honouring longstanding commitments through regime change.
and that's just the international angle, domestically i think it might impact the perception of the office of the president even longer and certainly increase the divide between both major parties considerably for many years to come.



i think that mainly depends on how long republicans will be able to rely on the systemic advantages they managed to sneak into the system (electoral college, gerrymandering, systematic voter disenfranchisement...). as soon as those, and their incredibly old but loyal voter base, won't be able to keep them competitive anymore, they will have to undergo a paradigm shift - dividing the country won't be to their advantage anymore (assuming the race / cultural war they are praying for doesn't happen) and they will have to start making policy for the people again, not just for their donors (while keeping the uninformed in their camp against their own interest by fearmongering against the 'others')...
so yes, in theory it can of course get worse - but someone would have to try hard to be even more classless than trump, so it's unlikely imo. that does, however, not mean it'd disqualify a candidate though, that myth has been debunked comprehensively. no, considering how tribal american politics are i don't think either side would ever make that the hill they chose to die on. remember, 'family values' christian conservatives, people who for the longest time pretended that appropriate, christian, and decent behaviour was a politically relevant point in the first place, are amongst trump's most loyal supporters, and if they don't care - who would?

If Obama was half the asshole Trump is Mitch McConnell would have set the White House on fire.

obama was a lot less rude, he didnt blatantly attack other politicians with crass insults in public. but he, too, was a condescending jerk on many occasions.

i would obviously still prefer a president with obama's optics over one with trump's, but still... let's not romanticize the obama presidency.





A Tulsi/Yang ticket would have my vote.

I think that Crenshaw types will be the future of the republican party after trump. the romneys and mcconnells and grahams will fall out of favour.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 24 2019 04:09am

oh yeah, one more thing:



"sneak into the system", are you serious?

the electoral college was adopted at a time when the republican party didnt even exist yet.
gerrymandering is used by both parties, and in quite some cases, it is actually the direct result of the voting rights act which mandates the creation of minority-majority districts. this voting rights act was, of course, passed by democrats.
similarly, it is the democratic party which first came up with and implemented all the tools and techniques of voter disenfranchisement, it is them who have systematically disenfranchised non-white voters until they found a way to curry their favor and get their votes. since the moment the Dems started benefitting from the votes of these demographics, they have miraculously turned into the champion of voting rights.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 24 2019 04:28am

all true and fender is right

really telling how many gullible fools fall for the idiotic 'they didn't invent it, so they can't possibly be responsible for the abuse of it today' excuse...



the widespread voter suppression that is a problem TODAY is perpetrated by republicans, as is the majority of gerrymandering - that's why they are fighting tooth and nail to uphold it (your little 'b-b-but both sides do it, so it's equal' narrative has been debunked countless times: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/ ).

and while the phrasing 'sneak into the system' does indeed not fit for the EC, you can't deny that in today's political landscape (which is obviously the time my argument concerns), it massively favours republicans - just like the other systemic flaws. that's a FACT all your best efforts to misdirect won't be able to refute - it's duly noted that you tried though...

This post was edited by fender on May 24 2019 06:36am

i made a 3 second joke meme about your clearly misworded post, that you admit, but i'm a gullible fool who thinks the gop can't possible be responsible for abuse? for making a meme because you said something with really silly phrasing?

nice deflection. u cant even take a joke when you also admit you said something dead wrong.

inb4 "i didn't quote you so my office secretary level passive aggressiveness doesn't apply to you"

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 24 2019 06:47am

republicans used a time machine and snuck the electoral college into the system. dont backpeddle and deny it now.

its a fact that both sides have used gerrymandering, even if Republican dominance in 2010 allowed them to redraw districts before a 2012 study.


Overall this is another deflection away from recognizing the fact that many people have legitimately held views that are opposed to those of the leftist factions you prefer.
its this sneaky electoral college and gerrymandering and VOTER SUPPRESSION!! instead of admitting the truth.

somehow its the people who correct your falsehoods that are the bad guys yet again, in your mind anyways.