They sold the democratic rights of their interests to those of the oligarchs, that now own them. Presumably that means they will carry on destroying their own ecosystems until everyone dies from their biosphere collapsing.

MAGA faithful who vote for him share his profound character pathology and revel in the drama of it all. Their behavior is self destructive and they are clueless in this regard.

I am confident that America's checks and balances will prevail; and the military will reject all of his illegal and immoral demands.

I served in the military and continue to abide my my solemn oath to protect the Constitution and Rule of Law from all foreign and domestic enemies. Donald is a domestic enemy!

Rich

Richard,

Trump gave an important post to an extreme right wing general. So don't be too positive.

Paul Healey

Trump seems to have copied the Russian system, with oligarchs and crooks running the country.

No

No

There seems to be some confusion regarding the writer's question or concern. Donald Trump has not yet taken office; his term would begin in January 2025. During this period, referred to as the "transition phase", incoming presidents focus on selecting their cabinet members and being briefed on critical presidential matters. As such, no significant policy changes or executive orders have been enacted by Trump at this time.

Regarding the claim that important government positions are being assigned to inexperienced individuals with concerning political views, it would be helpful to provide specific examples to evaluate this assertion. Transition appointments can often spark debate, but a detailed analysis is necessary to determine their implications.

As for the question about America's greatness, this is a deeply subjective issue tied to differing perspectives on leadership, policy direction, and national values. While it's too early to assess any potential impact from this administration, these discussions highlight the importance of informed, evidence-based dialogue about the country's future.

Jairo,

What about those already selected for positions?

While the appointment of the candidate to this position may be considered unconventional, it is essential to evaluate their performance based on their actual work. At this stage, forming an opinion may be premature, as they have yet to demonstrate their capabilities.

It is possible that thinking outside the box is the right approach, especially if candidates traditionally viewed as "experienced" may lack the necessary qualities to achieve meaningful results.

Trump's association with the individuals seems based on their views being like his, not on their capabilities. A poor executive decision surely?

It could be argued that he has learned from his previous presidency. By selecting individuals who are loyal to him, he may aim to ensure greater alignment within the executive branch, making it easier to execute his objectives and achieve his goals. This approach addresses challenges faced during his prior administration, which was often criticized for internal conflicts and competing agendas.

While these individuals may not have traditional experience in their respective roles, they have demonstrated success in their own fields, along with a strong work ethic and an innovative mindset to deliver results.

Additionally, Trump appears to be positioning the future of the Republican Party in capable hands. By appointing former Senators and House representatives, he is providing these individuals with valuable exposure and experience in the executive branch, equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary for broader leadership roles within the party.

Jairo Diaz,

Director of National Intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard

Former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been tapped by Trump to be director of national intelligence, another example of Trump prizing loyalty over experience.

Gabbard, 43, was a Democratic House member who unsuccessfully sought the party’s 2020 presidential nomination before leaving the party in 2022. She endorsed Trump in August and campaigned often with him this fall, and she’s been accused of echoing Russian propaganda.

Defense Secretary: Pete Hegseth

Hegseth, 44, was a co-host of Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends Weekend” and has been a contributor with the network since 2014. He developed a friendship with Trump, who made regular appearances on the show.

These are important positions for these two alone who have demonstrated no fitness for such responsibility. By putting loyalty above capability are they not dangerous choices? Isn't Trump doing a Putin, putting loyalty first, as well as establishing what in some measure is rule by oligarchy?

Your contention that there is nothing wrong with preferencing loyalty is fine if his intention, often expressed, is to become dictator.

While political opinions are often subjective, I challenge the assumption that loyalty and competence are mutually exclusive. History shows us that many successful leaders have valued loyalty as a critical trait because it ensures alignment with their vision and policy objectives. This, in turn, helps them implement their agenda effectively.

John F. Kennedy’s Leadership: Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General. While critics questioned this choice as nepotism, Robert became instrumental in advancing civil rights and navigating complex national challenges.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration: During his unprecedented 12-year presidency, FDR leaned heavily on trusted allies like Harry Hopkins. Hopkins, though not always holding formal titles, was key in shaping New Deal policies and supporting World War II efforts.

These are the two come to mind. Both demonstrate that loyalty, when combined with capability, can be a cornerstone of effective leadership.

Now lets examine your concern on Tulsi Gabbard, and Pete Hegseth.

Tulsi Gabbard:

Military Service: Gabbard served in the Hawaii Army National Guard and was deployed twice to the Middle East. Her firsthand experience on the ground provides critical insights into national security challenges.

Legislative Experience: As a four-term congresswoman, she served on the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, directly engaging in defense and international policy matters.

2020 Presidential Candidate: Her campaign spotlighted foreign policy, showcasing her deep focus on global security and diplomacy.

Pete Hegseth:

Military Background: Hegseth is a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, earning honors like the Bronze Star. His military background equips him with firsthand knowledge of service members' needs.

Veterans’ Advocacy: As executive director of veterans' organizations, he demonstrated leadership and a commitment to supporting military personnel.

Media Role: While his work at Fox News is criticized by some, it provided a platform to advocate for veterans' issues and national defense priorities.

Historical Precedents: Success Without Traditional Experience

Alexander Hamilton: As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton had no formal background in economics but laid the foundation for the U.S. financial system.

Alberto Gonzales: Though his nomination as Attorney General under George W. Bush drew scrutiny.

Donald Rumsfeld: Initially a corporate executive, Rumsfeld became one of the most notable and impactful Secretaries of Defense. Now lets address the Addressing Concerns About "Oligarchy" or "Dictatorship"

Your fears about oligarchy or dictatorship seem rooted in misunderstanding how the U.S. system works. Let’s clarify:

Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution ensures that no single branch or individual wields unchecked power. Appointees must pass Senate confirmation, as seen in recent news cases like Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz, who withdrew to not deal with the Senate scrutiny.

Presidential Authority: The president, elected by the people, has the right to appoint individuals to execute their policies. This has been a standard practice for every president, regardless of party affiliation.

Contrast with Dictatorships: In authoritarian regimes, leaders consolidate power unilaterally, ignoring institutional checks. In the U.S., every appointment is subject to legal and institutional review, ensuring transparency and accountability.

I hope this provides clarity and addresses your concerns. While it’s natural to question leadership decisions, it’s essential to ground those concerns in facts and an understanding of our constitutional framework. President Trump, like any elected leader, is operating within the bounds of the law, and his appointees deserve the opportunity to prove themselves in their roles. Let’s reserve judgment until we see the results of their work.

Jairo,

Your belief in the subjectivity of political opinions is interesting although I suspect you mean tribal or even caste based, in the widest sense, rejecting thereby education, knowledge accumulation and morality as well as part of political judgement. You omit anything as distasteful as the development of political judgement within democratic societies.

Your overall believe in the worthiness of friends, or perhaps even the barber who cuts Trump's hair, as suitable for high office as long as they hold the same views as the leader suggests despotism. Holding the views of the leader does not imply competence just cowardice (perhaps).

Robert Kennedy had a long background in law and working in government departments and he may have been chosen for his efforts in those quarters and his capacity to take on Hoover. Which, of course, he did. But such actions always come under scrutiny, and justifiably. What if Jack thought his brother shared his democratic values, not necessarily shared by Nixon. The UK did not engage in such clear favouritism as all cabinets sang from the same song sheet anyway, certainly in Conservative Governments.

Nevertheless, I suggest you are simply arguing a case. Putin's choices, barring his economic chief, have been disastrous as like parts of Trump's government they have something of a mercantile background and seem intent on effecting a single view. Putin's choices share the personality addiction to greed, and each is now exceptionally wealthy with disastrous effects on the Russian economy. Will something similar now occur (subjectively of course) in the USA?

Of course, Trump like Putin has a criminal background, although Trumps is connected to ego Putin's to greed. All those around Hitler, with maybe one exception, were lacking in talent but loyal to Hitler because like him, without subjective (sic) morality, sharing a similar economic background. Their similar love of murder did for them and many others.

Your wafer thin presentation of politics leaves out central preoccupations with the desire for power accompanying assumption of political positions and is what connected Hitler to his governing group and Lenin, mainly, to his as well of course as sharing the same ill considered ideology of governance.

Subjectivity without moral dimensions according to you suggests perhaps your own view on governance, one shared by Putin of course and Trump. God forbid that observers might object to chicanery and corruption, certainly an accepted part of American politics.

Subjective, of course, is your take on history, which you intended to be realist, a good try under the wrong leadership.

While I do not subscribe to making a hasty generalization, however, from the look of things, the majority of American people voted on sheer sentiments meaning: they could vote the White supremacists irrespective of their background or orientation rather than vote for people of colour despite their intellectual pedigree, and soundness. It could also mean that they might have been tired with/of democracy and it's tenets, otherwise, how could they chose an erratic and spur of the moment personality? On the flip side, I think the US system has strong institutions that could check Trump's excesses.

Stanley,

Your response raises several points, but it’s essential to clarify and refocus on the objective foundations of this discussion.

Below, I will address your points systematically and offer an analysis based on constitutional principles, historical precedent, and logical reasoning.

Favoritism and Loyalty in Leadership

Appointments

The President of the United States is granted the constitutional authority to appoint individuals to executive positions. This is not merely a personal privilege but a power entrusted to the President by the people through the Constitution. These appointments often reflect the President's strategic priorities, political affiliations, and need for loyalty within the administration. This practice is neither new nor indicative of despotism but rather a practical reality of governance.

Historically, Presidents have relied on loyalists or individuals sharing their vision to carry out policies effectively. This reliance does not preclude competence, as loyalty and capability are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the confirmation process by the Senate serves as a critical check to ensure appointees meet broader qualifications.

Despotism Allegations

The suggestion that appointing loyal individuals to key positions equates to despotism is an oversimplification. The U.S. Constitution established a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. Appointments are subject to scrutiny, oversight, and accountability mechanisms inherent in the democratic system.

The fact that these powers are derived from the Constitution underscores their legitimacy. If there are concerns about these powers being misused, the issue lies not with individual Presidents but with the broader framework of the law, which can be amended if deemed insufficient.

Historical Comparisons

Comparing the U.S. government to regimes like Putin's Russia is fundamentally flawed and reductive. The U.S. operates within a robust constitutional framework with democratic principles, accountability, and transparency that distinguish it from autocratic systems.

While loyalty may play a role in appointments across governments, the underlying systems are fundamentally different. Equating them without considering context, structure, and oversight mechanisms diminishes the complexity of governance and undermines the integrity of the argument.

Economic Harm

Claims of economic harm attributed to appointments require substantiation through data, case studies, and economic analysis. Governance and economic outcomes are influenced by myriad factors, including global markets, domestic policies, and external events. Simplistic attributions fail to account for these complexities. Without empirical evidence or detailed reasoning, such claims remain speculative and unconvincing.

Morality and Governance

The U.S. government operates within a system of checks and balances designed to ensure ethical and legal compliance. Morality, while significant, is subjective and often shaped by political perspectives. The Senate confirmation process and judicial oversight provide safeguards to maintain integrity within the system.

Your assertions about ethical concerns lack substantiated examples or clear evidence tied to specific actions. It is premature to draw sweeping conclusions about a new administration without observing its actions or policies in office.

Comparisons to Hitler and Corrupt

Leadership

Historically, the only U.S. President who might draw comparisons to Hitler in terms of power consolidation was Franklin D. Roosevelt, given his unprecedented four terms and significant expansion of federal authority during wartime. However, even this comparison is tenuous due to the democratic structures that remained intact during his presidency.

Allegations of corruption must be substantiated with evidence and evaluated against the legal framework. If a President operates within the scope of the law, concerns should shift toward questioning whether the law itself is flawed rather than making personal accusations. Addressing systemic issues objectively strengthens the argument.

Objectivity and Bias

Your arguments are emotionally driven or biased warrants attention. My approach is grounded in constitutional principles and historical analysis, not personal sentiment. However, your use of emotionally charged language and unsubstantiated comparisons detracts from an intellectual and objective discussion.

This platform thrives on education and intellectual discourse, which requires evidence-based reasoning, respect for differing perspectives, and a commitment to factual accuracy. If a point is to be made, it should be supported by credible sources, historical precedents, and logical arguments. Personal bias or emotionally charged rhetoric has no place in such discussions.

Conclusion

In summary, the powers granted to the President are constitutional and not indicative of despotism. Governance should be evaluated through objective analysis, supported by evidence, and contextualized within the democratic system. Assertions about economic harm, morality, or corruption require substantiation to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. This exchange should remain grounded in intellectual rigor and respect for diverse perspectives, fostering constructive dialogue rather than undermining it.

@ Okorafor Johnson Ndubuisi

Your observation about voting patterns driven by sentiment rather than objective evaluation of qualifications is an important one. However, it is essential to contextualize this within the broader framework of American history and its cycles of populism. The election of leaders like Andrew Jackson in the 19th century serves as a reminder that populism is not new to the United States. Jackson's appeal to the "common man" was rooted in sentiments that prioritized relatability over conventional qualifications, much like the dynamics seen in recent elections.

The idea that voters might favor candidates based on identity or emotional resonance rather than intellectual pedigree reflects deeper societal and cultural divides. These divides often influence perceptions of leadership, competency, and values. It is worth considering whether these patterns indicate dissatisfaction with the current democratic system or a broader cultural shift in the priorities of the electorate.

As for the rise of figures like Trump, one could reasonably ask whether the harm attributed to his presidency stems solely from his actions or if it reflects pre-existing institutional weaknesses or societal rifts that he was able to exploit. Trump’s success in galvanizing support highlights vulnerabilities within the democratic framework, such as the polarizing effect of partisan media, the erosion of civic education, and growing mistrust in traditional institutions.

On the other hand, the resilience of the U.S. system lies in its strong institutions, which are designed to balance executive power and ensure accountability. While these institutions have faced significant stress tests during recent administrations, they have largely demonstrated their ability to act as guardrails, checking potential excesses and preserving democratic norms.

This discussion underscores the importance of addressing systemic issues rather than focusing solely on individual leaders. By strengthening institutions, fostering civic education, and bridging societal divides, the U.S. can better safeguard its democratic principles against the challenges of populism and polarization.

Really, really.

Your claim to representing intellectual rigour touches on absurdity given the present or rather soon to be occupants of the White House. Your position, whether you understand it or not, is similar to asserting that Putin follows simply a process of dictatorship no different to those that went before. I suggest you read the comments of the gentleman whose position precedes yours, Mr Okorator, whose rendition provides an intelligent viewpoint you appear unable to manage.

The concept of yourself as intellectually superior to others based on a complete inability to approach or express the issues is profound in its redundancy. Mr Okorator is sublimely correct while your efforts say nothing pertinent to the issues, while refusing to listen to or understand others.

America’s Dangerous Internal Geopolitics

The country's elections turning into a corrosive battle over territory, rather than ideas...

"Tit-for-tat gerrymandering in US states points to a future in which government is chosen not by the people, but by whoever was in power when the electoral maps were drawn. America’s gravest threat is not an external rival but collapse from within: an internal geopolitical implosion.

The fiercest struggle in American politics today is not between two presidential contenders. It is happening between states, which control the electoral maps that determine who sits in Congress. Though Republicans and Democrats are relying on redistricting campaigns instead of armies, their conflict is best understood through the lens of geopolitics. After all, they are not fighting over ideas or specific policies, but over territory..."

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-internal-geopolitics-gerrymandering-creates-war-over-territory-by-carla-norrlof-2025-08

Judge rules Trump can't act as national police chief

The president broke the law when he deployed troops to Los Angeles, Judge Charles Breyer ruled...

A federal judge has declared President Donald Trump’s use of military troops in Los Angeles illegal, barring the Pentagon from using National Guard members and Marines from performing police functions, like arrests and crowd control.

In a 52-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer warned that Trump appears intent on “creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”...

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/02/trump-los-angeles-national-guard-ruling-00539393