That's reasonable enough, but you have to consider it in the context that we don't vote for president, we vote for state electors to vote for president.

If you live in a 'safe' state, tacitly agreeing with your state's electors doesn't mean tacitly agreeing with the electoral college result.

Here's a real controversial opinion: If Clinton had won, the eventual backlash would be much greater and have elected a far more odious figure than Trump. America is lucky that Trump is kind of a bumbling oaf that channeled populist rage.

That explains how he got the votes on election night in 2016. A vote for Grump in 2016 was completely understandable. But he should have plainly been a one term president, after his abjectly terrible handling of Covid (for starters, we needed leadership rather than dividership). But unfortunately in our upside-down world, Covid actually handed Grump a big excuse for why his first term was such an exercise in failure. And if there is one thing Grump is good at, it's weaseling responsibility onto others - a quality that his followers greatly admire as it soothes their own consciences as well.

It is almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor. This is for both parties, and all sorts of terrible behavior.

I disagree not because "brainwashed MAGA crowd" but because people saying "it can't be worse" are almost always wrong. Unless you're starving in the ruins of your house in one of the world's war zones, in which case you're likely focussed on survival, not saying that.

Pick any of the leader's third-rate third-tier henchmen or failsons for example of a worse option. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

People in the UK voted for Brexit because "well it can't be worse, can it?" They were suckers.

I don't disagree with the "The reality is" line.

Technically, he campaigned on not starting new wars... so he's doing the worst combination of what he said he would do, AND what he said he wouldn't do. Amazing!

> People who voted for him can very much be held accountable.

Can you give an example of how, in practice, it would work to hold millions of voters accountable for what their elected representative does?

Worth picking not just Trump, but let's say a few other Presidents around the world, including someone you voted for.

When he ran, did he say that he'd make tariff rates bounce around like a kangaroo on speed? No, I don't think he did.

Did he say that he'd threaten to annex Canada and Greenland? Not that I recall.

Did he say that he'd start a war with Iran? No, I'm pretty sure he said "No new wars."

Look, he's a loose cannon. Everyone who voted for him should have known that. But no, he's not doing "exactly what he said he would do when he ran". Some of what he's doing is what he said, and some is completely contradictory to what he said.

(Credit where due: I stole the "kangaroo on speed" line from an unpublished short story. Don't remember the author, or I'd give them credit by name.)

> That’s the definition of democracy.

In a democracy, it is the elected officials, who are meant to represent the voter, that are held accountable. Not the voter.

> Of course voting is significant and has consequences.

Tautology but also not relevant. How do you propose the voter be held accountable?

> Anyone can be held accountable for things they are responsible for, the question is how they'll react to being held thusly.

Voters are responsible for selecting representatives, but they are not responsible for running things and making the kinds of decisions that elected officials need to and do make.

> If they could have known or suspected those things, then yes, they bear the responsibility.

In a situation like this, I like to do a thought experiment where I replace "Trump" with "Republican voter" in a headline or a story to see whether that idea holds up.