Or just honest politicians?? I don't agree with the constant demonization of politicians, its not an easy job and you do require a certain skill-set and understanding of the system to get things done. Quite a few single issue candidates have tried to enter politics with the best of intentions and fallen flat on their faces because they underestimated how tough it would be.

Billionaires represent roughly 0.00015% of the US. Therefore a representative government should have no more than one of them. There's 3.

The very definition of the word "antonym".

Trump attended the college football national championship game on Monday in Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta.

A year ago he described the city as "in horrible shape," "falling apart" and "crime infested" which might be one reason for his disgraceful welcome.
Source

Edit;- Alabama running back Bo Scarbrough yelled the same expletive as the as he took the field at the College Football Playoff national championship on Monday

It is referred to as a "swamp" because of its intransigence, and there are lots of hidden creatures around.

The concept of governance in the US is the assignment of rights to government from the people. The flow of rights go from the people to the State. The State does not assign people rights the way it does in other systems. Switzerland is similar to this.

The problem with US politicians and government is that they begin to believe that they assign people their rights. As if the values we keep are those which we produce, which they have gracefully decide not to tax away from us. It doesn't work that way. We are not subjects of our government.

Trump does personify this, and people do understand that. Trump is not of the Government, and it is a huge reason why got elected President.

We need more people in government who understand and respect this principle.

Did you watch the footage of Trump "singing" the national anthem at the game? He appeared not to know, or to have forgotten, 90% of the words.

See from 1:45 here:

Your principle sounds lovely (and very socialist), but that's not how it works, or has ever worked, in practice. Who wrote and administers the Constitution -- and the Bill of Rights, which confers rights on the people, not the other way around?

This is exactly why Trump has passed less legislation during this first year than the last ten Presidents.
He does not understand the system and so cannot work it to his benefit.

With a razor thin Senate majority and the possibility of a strong Democrat showing in the November elections so Trump's chances of passing significant legislation in his first term are fading rapidly.

Not at all, this is key to understanding the US. Without a litany of points listed in various declarations, this is probably encapsulated in the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights. More so, it is the guiding principle by which you might gain some understanding of the internal politics of the US.

Glad to acknowledge this concept is new or foreign to you.

This is an oversimplification and ignores the Separation of Powers described in the US Constitution.
It is incorrect to say US politicians and government begin to believe that they assign people their rights. They are well aware of the limits imposed on them by the Constitution and that the courts rule on this.

In fact Trump is the exception who keeps trying to introduce changes which conflict with the US Constitution and get slapped down!

I believe that is a twisting of facts Marton. We have had a judicial system that has been politicized and used for activism instead of upholding the rule of law and the constitution. Trump has been appointing Constitutionalist judges.

In the case of the slap downs, perhaps you are referring to the travel bans? The Supreme Court has ruled that is the President's constitutional remit to execute and not the courts.

Not really seeing Trump infringe on the constitution. That is counter to what conservatives and republicans stand for. If and when it happens, you would see him lose his base.

But surely this is one of the issues with Trump, he keeps trying to chip away at the States powers; examples are marijuana, handling of arrested illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities.

I understand his confusion, he was no doubt expecting the Russian one.

Constitutionalist judge nominations like KKK supporter Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer who called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan (both of whom fortunately both got forced out)? Nominations like Charles Goodwin and Holly Teeter who the American Bar Associaton have described as "not qualified"? Nominations supporting attempts to deny African Americans of the vote? Nominations supporting unconstitutional restrictions on abortion? Nominations supporting "Conversion Therapy"? The list goes on and on.

The role of the President of the US is the enforcement and execution of Federal laws. That is not political ideology.

Now, you have to be careful with these to stay honest. Trump has not done anything on marjuana. Jeff Sessions has in his office according to his stated convictions, which is decades old. In regards to illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities, those are in fact in relation to the enforcement of federal laws.


They do go through congressional confirmation hearings for vetting.

Good you accept my separation of powers point.

Travel bans are a good example, we are now on the third version as Trump struggles to comply with the Constitution.
Maybe if he had taken the advice of the US Attorney General who told him the first version was unconstitutional we would only have seen two versions. Instead he fired her, demonstrating contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has yet to make their final determination.

"Not really seeing Trump infringe on the constitution." Then why is he on the third version of the travel bans

It was appealed in circuit courts, and halted by partisan judges. Trump's constitutional argument was that issues of visas and entry are in the remit of his executive branch, the President. It legally is in the President's job description to administer the flow of incoming people. Trump is not modifying the structure of government here, he is merely attempting to execute the limit of its mandate according to his discretion. The Supreme Court agrees with this, The appeals are to determine whether it is in breach of other people's personal rights.

Note here the importance of Personal rights even over the President's rights in the US. We have a case of an allege conflict here which the courts will rule on. But this again speaks of the flow of rights from individual up to the State

The US isn't really structured for Authoritarianism. The very essence of its founding and constitution is a rebellion against Authoritarianism. I don't believe it can be contorted to support Authoritarianism without negating its own identity and principles.

So there is at least one thing he has in common with Corbyn

Remember what you wrote a few posts ago?
Those I mentioned should never have got anywhere near nomination. Anyway 99% of the time congress votes on party lines.

I don't know anything about them. But by your logic, Bill and Hillary Clinton should also have not gotten anywhere near nomination either, as they both supported prominent KKK members. It was part of life in the South during their time.

I'm not sure what the litmus test is for court appointees. I assume the President gets a list from the Heritage foundation or Federalist Society, then they go through confirmation hearings for vetting. That is how the process works.

As for statements here and there, I don't really care. I think you can catch anyone and everyone with something said some time. At the end of the day, we may only find ourselves with only priests in office, and that would be very suspicious.