To me, this is the advantage of a Republic (which is what the US federal gov't really is). It can have some of the same issues of the tyranny of the majority, but ultimately you have a human being in charge who needs to listen to what others say. If we simply voted on every issue at hand it would quickly devolve into emotional appeals for everything, rather than letting a representative listen to expert opinion on the consequences of a decision.
If you can run a Republic with little hatred and division, a nifty opportunity opens up if the nomination process proposes wise and respectable candidates. For example I dislike Obamas ideas but I can respect the guy as someone who's not a crook and has a solid brain on his head and a bit of wisdom. So if the guy who agrees with me wins, I'm chill because we have a comfy echo chamber. If the other guy wins I'm a little bummed but I'm still chill because the have a who's wrong about some things, but wise enough to keep us out of complete disaster.
That's the tragedy of not running Bernie. He's respectable and wise and no crook. I voted for Trump and I'm glad he won, but if Bernie won, I'd be chill enough till next time.
Sort of like mate selection, where kids childishly try to find an appropriate gender photocopy of themselves, whereas once you're over a certain age, its more important to find a mate who's wise. Its OK if my wife likes my hobbies when we were young, but now that we're old its OK if she doesn't, because we respect each other and think each other are wise enough that it'll be OK.
This time around I don't think the right could trust Hillary so it was win at all costs. Meanwhile we "have to" social signal the opposite, but the left pretty much trusts Trump because lets face it, if you think he's an idiot or lunatic, make sure you mention your billion dollar self made net worth first to even qualify... lets face it, a guy who's worked successfully side by side with corporations and banks and unions and politicians for decades resulting in a billion bucks can certainly navigate a giant complex country pretty darn well; he's proven over a couple decades that he's wise enough that its gonna be OK, even if you disagree with everything he believes in and everything he's ever said. So I simply don't think the left wanted it as bad as the right.
It fundamentally comes down to you've got one candidate that wants to do to the entire USA what they did to New York, which is pretty darn cool, and another that wants to do to the entire USA what they did to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Benghazi, ... so obviously one side is a little more motivated than the other.
This comment started off well and went off the rails pretty quickly. My main point is that whoever wins regardless of your party affiliation, there's a real person in charge and we aren't subject to the will of the majority.
It fundamentally comes down to you've got one candidate that wants to do to the entire USA what they did to New York, which is pretty darn cool, and another that wants to do to the entire USA what they did to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Benghazi, ...
You are grossly misrepresenting the facts and policies of both candidates. It's hard to take any of the rest of your post seriously when it closes with that paragraph.
First of all, how do you know his net worth? Are you taking his word for it? He said that his net worth fluctuates “with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings” [1]. Any accountant will tell you that a person's net worth does not fluctuate with the feelings of that person.
Unfortunately, we will probably never know, because he hasn't released his tax returns (which would at least have given us a partial picture).
The Economist tried to compare his financial performance with the S&P 500 [2] and is not impressed: on the longest timeframe (since 1986) he grossly underperforms the S&P 500.
Then there is the question of how he got his money. He seems to have left a long string of investors, banks, suppliers and partners that he essentially conned [3]. In the latter part of his carreer no American bank wanted to do business with him anymore (one of the reasons he switched to licensing his name instead of developing projects himself).
Charlie Munger, Warren Buffet's partner at Berkshire Hathaway, a staunch republican and a man of brilliant insights who knows a thing or two about business (he made his fortune by evaluating companies and their management) says this about Trump [4]: "Do I consider Donald Trump an ideal decision maker or manager of anything? And the answer is no. The last person almost I'd want as the president of the US".
If you voted for this man because of his business acumen, I'm afraid you are the latest in a long line of people he successfully conned.
