Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

It seems like they don't want it either tbh

Why would they? They take over government after Republicans and improve the situation, but then Republicans get voted back in. This time its a total disaster, one which far too many people are still supporting. When Trump has completely trashed the economy, if history repeats itself, the Dems get in, the Rep. machine blames them for the mess they find, the great uneducated believes it, and another (shallow, anti-intellectual, populist) Trump-type is elected to trash it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party

This is a Wikipedia article, but quotes government statistics and indepth research. I don't claim to be an economist and cannot argue in any more depth than these figures show, but they do seem to clearly state that Dems are better at economy than Republicans.

Even Trump said it:

During a March 2004 interview, Trump stated: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."

Of course that was during his brief stint as a Democrat, for some reason (mostly his lack of intelligence and character) he didn't believe himself and moved back to Republicanism.

Edit:

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/presidents-as-economic-managers

This is an interesting article, though 'methinks (the author) doth protest too much'.

'Its founding editor, Yuval Levin, and authors are typically considered to be conservative and right-wing' (Wikipedia)

In the UK, Cabinet Ministers are not confirmed at all. The PM nominates them, the King appoints them, that's it. They enter into office immediately and start carrying out their functions.

At any point Parliament can vote no confidence in them, in which event they have to resign (or Parliament is dissolved and an election is called). But it's the reverse of the US position - they're in office unless and until Parliament throws them out. In the US, they don't enter into office until the Senate confirms their nominations.

Interesting. I knew the PM was powerful but in some ways, this is worse than in the US. In the US, they can occasionally impeach cabinet secretaries or at least bring enough pressure on the POTUS to get rid of them e.g GWB's AG Alberto Gonzales.

Likewise, Donald Rumsfeld resigned after GWB's 2 Presidency's midterms when the GQP lost both houses, he was the scapegoat though everything came apart for the economy in 2008 and that kicked the GQP to the curb for a couple of years.

And they can be impeached, the GQP impeached Mayorkas for reasons that were never clear, other than rattle-the-sheep about immigration. There was another impeachment in the 19th century, too. But it's rare. Neither were convicted.

That's true too. I was thinking more in terms of their appointment to the role being pretty much just decided on by the PM and their advisors with no oversight, where someone who is a landlord and is someone would do something like evicting tenants and jacking up rents would be appointed as Minister for Homelessness. But of course, you don't know in advance they would do such a thing even if they were a landlord (as a hell of a lot of politicians are), and it is easier to get rid of them if they do.

I just found it really funny that of all ministers, when the UK is suffering as much of a housing crisis as a lot of other countries (our own included), the Minister who was caught doing this, was the Minister for Homelessness.

This is how 10 years from now, randomly capitalised insane Trump tweets becomes the only acceptable, standard form of political discourse in the USA

(just like in England, you have to constantly whitter on about 'right honourable' honourable gentlemen and 'most honourable', and how the PMQs always start with the Prime Minister saying this banal sentence "

“This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today."