The United States experiment was never designed to handle a person like Trump

[Wanderlust988]

Our country relied on presidents that respected tradition and values. We've never had such a blatant law breaker as Trump. The problem is that in our 2 party system, the same party holds both houses of Congress and will not do anything. So he's allowed to break the law unbothered. Impeachment is an utter joke. 67 senators are never going to vote the same way on anything.

What can be done to fix this in the future? Most changes would require Constitutional changes. I think one thing that can be done legislatively is that the DOJ should be placed under the Supreme Court. The president should be removed from this agency. Even if the Chief Justice appointed the Atty General, he would not likely be a MAGA loyalist. We've had Republican atty generals before that still did their jobs. Otherwise, we are now in a vicious cycle and this is not sustainable.

A Dem president in 2028 would probably not go for it as they'd lose power. But I'm thinking more for the future decades to prevent future Trumps, like DeSantis and others, who are smart enough to do even more damage. What do you all think?

[Ocelot II]

1. The founders anticipated the possibility of bad actors in government,

which is why they set up a system of checks and balances in which at least one branch would be run by people acting in good faith with enough power to control the miscreants. What they didn't anticipate was the possibility that all three branches would be controlled by bad actors - a completely corrupt president aided by a compliant Supreme Court and a supine Congress whose slim majority consists of the president's fearful cult.

[Raven123]

3. I think they also didn't anticipate Congress abdicating its power

[Ocelot II]

11. Likely not, nor the reason they abdicated - which is that they're so afraid

of the president's cult causing them to lose their jobs. Being a member of Congress has become such a cushy gig that a lot of members would sell their souls to keep it. The founders did not intend congress to be a permanent, full-time job - they envisioned citizen legislators who would spend a few years in their positions and then return to their previous work. Unfortunately that idea didn't stick, and being in congress became so desirable (and ultimately profitable; if they ever left they could get lucrative jobs as lobbyists, and if they didn't leave they could just do insider trading and take kickbacks that aren't technically bribes). You almost have to be rich even to run for federal office any more. Since they aren't "citizen legislators" but permanent full-time office-holders who want to keep their jobs at any cost, they dare not upset the MAGA cult and face a primary.

[Raven123]

24. Agreed athough I think the abdication started before Trump

It’s been a whittling away over time.

[leftstreet]

5. All 3 branches have favored the wealthy elites

...throughout America's brief history

The OP's question is interesting though, because as a general rule they've policed their own privilege and kept the extremist weirdos out.

But this notion of "using" Trump to their own ends seems to have gotten out of control.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. It beggars the question.

If the Founders set up this exquisite system to prevent the republic from being captured by a tyrant how did we end up with Trump? You answered it. Still sad.

[Turbineguy]

2. The Fore Fathers never conceived that there could be this many idiots that would vote for him.

[leftstreet]

6. In their time only white male landowners could vote

They probably figured they were all kinda in the same club

[unblock]

10. Yet it's disproportionately white men who support this tyrant.

[leftstreet]

18. That makes sense

They see themselves in the same "club"

[unblock]

12. Oh they certainly knew.

It's why they set up checks and balances.

The system worked with Nixon. Congress -- including republicans -- eventually told Nixon he had to go. He did, only because he knew he couldn't win. If he thought he could double-down like Donnie does, he would have. Back then, republicans had principles other than blindly misplaced loyalty. Today, they don't.

[BlueTsunami2018]

21. Yeah they did.

That’s why they didn’t want direct democracy for the masses, didn’t want anyone except white, male, landowners voting and that’s also why they installed the electoral college. That was supposed to be the last bastion against a demagogue being allowed to take office.

That didn’t work out.

[Prairie Gates]

4. Then it was dumb from go: Trump is a run-of-the-mill demagogue aligned with predictable oligarchs

The form has been well-known since at least 5th century BCE Athens.

[dutch777]

7. True, but we did have a preview and held the WH, H and Senate and did nothing.

Trump 1.0 was a clear harbinger and little was done or even attempted to fix obvious loopholes in law and House and Senate procedures. We relied on the hope that Trump 2.0 was not electorally possible and we would hold the Senate. Clearly just aspirationa thinking is not a winning strategy. Constitutional changes will be very hard and take a decade or more, if not impossible, given the Red states not likely to sign off even if things get thru a Dem Congress. But the numerous laws and Congressional rules of operation that have no teeth nor quick enforceability can be fixed so that things like ignoring a Congressional subpoena means you go to jail quickly until you choose to comply and similar would go a long way to make the future more MAGA proof. I do hope someone at the DNC and elsewhere is taking notes. It can be the start of our Project 2027.

[Ferrets are Cool]

28. If we, (Democrats) ever hold power again, we had better grow some balls. (metaphorically).

The days where we can play nice are long gone.

[unblock]

8. The founders absolutely contemplated someone like Donnie and did a lot to counter tyranny

And it, more or less, worked for a quarter of a millennium (slavery, e.g., is certainly a form of tyranny, so maybe a quarter millennium is a bit of a stretch, but I'll leave that as a side note).

They also knew that even the well-thought out checks and balances would eventually be corrupted. If you asked any of the founders how long they thought the constitution would last, I seriously doubt any of them would have guessed over 200 years. I think Jefferson once said he thought a revolution might be necessary every 20 years or so.

In our case, a new power structure emerged in the form of billionaire funding, Republican Party corrupting, business kickbacks, and media ownership and consolidation while allowing propaganda to become dominant in our national discourse, with a blindly loyal rank and file eager to threaten or commit harassment and violence.

This power structure largely outside our system of government was able to corrupt government itself by infiltrating key positions. Now these players control the government trifecta and can largely manipulate government to do the will of this new power structure.

In short, the formal government has become a pawn to a stronger power.

Tough times ahead....

[Mysterian]

13. It was never designed to handle an entirely corrupt political party

and an electorate brainwashed by a mass media the founders could never imagine. But the founders still shoulder the blame for the electoral college and the undemocratic apportionment of senators, two fundamental flaws in our constitution that has put the republic on the brink of survival.

[ITAL]

23. Apportionment of Senators was necessary

Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2025, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The document never would have been ratified without it. The small states were scared witless of domination by the big ones.

The EC probably wasn't necessary for ratification, but it helped split the difference between those that wanted Congress to just appoint the president and those that wanted "the people" to vote on it. Many of the delegates at the convention thought that Congress would usually end up having to select the president anyway (hence why all of the rules about what to do should they have to) because political parties (or factions as they were usually called) weren't really contemplated.

[Mysterian]

25. I'm aware of the history

The apportionment of senators remains a fundamental flaw.

[ITAL]

26. Small state concerns had to be included

Or the country would never have really coalesced. We probably would have splintered and been gobbled up by a European nation (Britain or someone else) if not for it. Basically "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately" - and all that. I can't agree it's fundamentally flawed the same way something like the EC is.

[Mysterian]

29. Riiiiiight

We would have been gobbled right up!

Your quote is Franklin's from during the Revolutionary War, not during the drafting of the national constitution.

Two senators for 40 million people and two senators for 588,000 people is not fundamentally flawed? I agree to disagree.

[ITAL]

30. I know where Franklin's quote came from

And it still applies.

The country wasn't even really a country and if we splintered, we could easily have been gobbled back up. Hell, Mexico wasn't stable for decades after their Independence and were reconquered. They had to fight a second war of independence. We had to weigh everyone's concerns to hold together and if that meant every state has two senators, that's the way it is.

[genxlib]

14. I would phrase it a little differently

I think democracy was never designed to function in the days of the partisan news, internet and social media.

I am becoming increasingly discouraged that a true democracy can work in this environment without major reform.

Everyone is self selecting their sources of information so we are already working without any common agreement on what reality looks like. And then those sources of information are applying algorithms that drive the wedge even further.

So when the question is asked, "How can people support him after xyz", it assumes that people actually know about xyz and actually believe. And worse, justify it because the "democrats are 1000x worse". It is maddening but that is what's happening.

And it is only going to get worse with the evolution of AI and deep fakes. The very concept of verifiable truth is under siege and I am no longer certain that a democracy can survive it.

[leftstreet]

17. Good points

I don't know the answer, but interesting points

[usonian]

15. YES IT WAS! Mad King George III

Here



OOPS! Wrong one

[Silent Type]

16. True. Hope we figure how how to handle this for the next 3+ years, and whatever comes afterwards.

[Timewas]

19. The system

Has the checks and balances built in that would handles this easily, it just never anticipated the depth of corruption we are witnessing today...

[Sogo]

20. The founding fathers had no way of envisioning modern communication systems, including, but not limited to,

Fox News, hate ratio, and social media; some of the main reasons we have TSF.

And now comes AI.....

[Ping Tung]

22. "History has tried hard to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.

“History has tried hard to teach us that we can’t have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn’t be a wise philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where.” Mark Twain

[Ferrets are Cool]

27. All it took was one bad actor who disregarded ALL the rules. Hell , I'm not even positive that things would be any

different if we had Congress. As long as he has the MAGAT SC, he can do as he pleases. Even the 25th Amendent relies on RULES being followed.
The Democrats had better have a contigency plan for when he decides that he is actually KING and will NOT leave.