Isn't This The Most Ridiculous Thing In History?

To clarify, when I think of war, the word stupid comes to mind rather than ridiculous. When I think of Trump being elected I think ridiculous first and stupid second. I mean it's like the plot to a bad TV miniseries, but it's really happening!

 

Not sure if you are aware that, that is the whole reason he got elected.
People that voted for him don't care about reputation to other countries. They only care that they have to work 2 part time jobs because of things the government did up until now.

 

Id be less impressed if you voted in the same old goofs

as an outsider id say the reputation has improved...

 

I have a whole theory about that Spiff but now isn't the place for it.

I would say some things done with the Indians are more ridiculous to answer the OP.

 

people get all upset with these executive orders

they seem to forget about the most famous one ,the emancipation proclamation

why in the world did it take a presidential order for that?...why did congress not do it themselves

now that is ridiculous

 

my only guess is he wasnt chancing that it get voted down.

 

Similar to the Brexit vote here.

Trump though is something that couldn't happen here because of differences in the system.

 

The Populists

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-populists

 

Who was the biggest nut job prime minister you had there?

 

Ridiculous and destructive.

 

A Therapist Attempts to Explain Donald Trump’s Rocky First Few Days in Office

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/a-therapist-attempts-to-explain-trumps-behavior-so-far.html

 

is this person supposed to have any special credibility? does going to school for a few years mean i should listen to this person in particular?

 

If by "this person" you mean Wendy Behary, LCSW, she's a clinical social worker with over twenty years of clinical practice who specializes in narcissism in her practice and wrote the book.Disarming The Narcissist...Surviving and Thriving with the Self-Absorbed.

 

not who i was talking about, never mind

 

Really a hard question - Probably one from way back. In recent times they've all been relatively sane, even if I personally don't care much for any of them since Clement Atley. Thatcher for instance was someone for whom I had absolutely no time, but she wasn't crazy - just mean.

The thing is to get to be PM you have to be a long standing member of a political party, and work up through the ranks as an ordinary MP It wouldn't be open to an outsider with lots of cash to buy their way in. And British PMs don't have anything resembling the kind of executive powers of a president of the US. The Queen is our head of state, but it's a purely titular role. She has no power. She signs what parliament agrees on into law. If she refused to sign, we'd have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

 

I don't know that you've had any real sickos or scoundrels of the caliber of Trump, LBJ or Richard Nixon, but there have been some real disasters in the office. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind for his appeasement of Hitler, followed by Lord North for losing the American colonies, and the assassinated Spencer Percival for his harsh measures against the poor in the early 1800s..

 

Yes there have been some bad PMs. Pretty much all of them up to Disraeli were aristocrats, some better than others.Wellington, although a very successful general, proved to be a terrible PM. I'd add Asquith to the list for taking Britain into WWI, which I think was one of the worst mistakes in modern European history. Ramsay MacDonald made a total mess of it as 1st Labour PM back in the 30's. Anthony Eden had to back down over the Suez crisis that led to the final humiliation of the British Empire. But those were either mistakes in policy or simple weakness.
Mostly, their legacies have been mixed, especially in modern times. We've never had a total crook or nutjob.

Thing is, because of the cabinet system of government we have, it's hard for a PM to act without the support of their cabinet colleagues, and their wider party. Thatcher tried a more dictatorial style, sacking or driving to resignation anyone who resisted her.(so-called 'wets') Although many of the measures she took were somewhat extreme at the time, she had the wholehearted support of the Conservative party behind her. She was about as 'presidential' as any PM I can think of. Blair to some extent, but less so than Thatcher, but he did have a kind of charisma that made him outstanding. Shame about the war, which has now left him shafted in terms of public opinion.

But really a British PM has far less general clout than a president, and they can be got rid of by their party before their term is fully served, as happened to Thatcher in the 90's when the Tories decided they'd had enough and out came the long knives.
To me as an outsider looking at American history, it appears that Americans define themselves to some extent according to their president.Or look to the president to set the general tone. Maybe that's to misconstrue things, but it seems that way. Certainly I think Americans take the whole business a lot more seriously than the Brits, but we have the Queen, and she's generally ever-popular, so it isn't quite the same thing.

 

I have no problem calling Trump a ridiculous joke. I mean, just look at the guy. The problem with y'all is that you would have no problems with Hillary in office.

 

PR. Because then no change would be noticed.

People don't like change.

 

Trust me, I would have had problems with Hillary. But her in office would be hugely less ridiculous than Trump in office.