Yeah, well… It’d be child’s play to write a list like that about Trump. Using a foundation’s money to buy a second-rate portrait of himself comes to mind, and that was found illegal in an actual court. Or, if you are speculating about respective finances of the candidates, that HC’s tax returns for the last 20 years were public, while your squeaky-clean candidate is litigating to this day to keep them secret.
But the article isn’t about re-litigation of that election, or the next one. It starts from the premise that the result of the election was unprecedented, and that someone like Trump would not have had a chance in earlier times.
In a way, the article indeed doesn’t so much speak to you, but about you, wondering what cultural factors are needed to support the sort of emotional state that would lead people to glorify a half-bit wannabe gangster.
> But the article isn’t about re-litigation of that election, or the next one. It starts from the premise that the result of the election was unprecedented, and that someone like Trump would not have had a chance in earlier times.
I'm supposed to blindly believe everything I read in highly pollical magazine like that one?
Millions of people loved Trump because of the way he spoke so directly to them, and not like a typical politician. There is nothing at all "unprecedented" in that election...inferior candidates have been losing elections since the beginning of the US.
That article was so full of FUD and wrong-headed nonsense I had to refute its assertions.
But the article isn’t about re-litigation of that election, or the next one. It starts from the premise that the result of the election was unprecedented, and that someone like Trump would not have had a chance in earlier times.
In a way, the article indeed doesn’t so much speak to you, but about you, wondering what cultural factors are needed to support the sort of emotional state that would lead people to glorify a half-bit wannabe gangster.