Difference between Trump and Kennedy is that Trump won a landslide victory AFTER the media and the Democrat operatives in the DOJ/FBI had spent nine years throwing dirt at him and paying to their non-divine god that it would stick.
1.5% isn't a landslide. In fact, it's the smallest margin a president has ever been returned to office by. And this was running against an opponent who was essentially hobbled by being a last-minute replacement.
No one needs to throw dirt at Cheeto Hitler, he lives in it.
Kennedy barely squeaked by with an assist from the Chicago Outfit, who he and his brother proceded to betray. He encouraged Cuban expatriates to invade Cuba, with promised support then he betrayed them.
Wow, where the flying **** did you learn your history from?
First, even if Illinois had gone for Nixon, Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College. It would have changed from the 303 to 219 JFK won by to 276 to 246. (14 electors illegally supported Harry S. Bird, even though JFK won their states)
You believe our democracy is not functioning, because the party with the least support among voters is the minority party? You should be asking your party, '
a) How are you going to change so that the majority of the American voters do not hate you so much?
b) If you don't know the answer to a), are you bringing back ballot harvesters for 2028?
Get real. You guys didn't care about the majority in 2016 and 2000, when the MAJORITY voted for Hillary and Al Gore. You didn't care about the majority when Barack Obama won by huge margins. So you won the popular vote once for the first time in 20 years, and you guys are patting yourself on the back like you won the Special Olympics. Forgetting Trump is at 34% approval right now and Democrats are winning special elections all over the country.
By 2028, Trump will have made such a hash out of the economy, that Democrats will be able to nominate anyone and still beat the Couch-lover.
An emperor descending to the throne has nothing to do with democracy.
The idiots shooting at the president are not psychiatrists who diagnosed him as "mad." Nor are they policy wonks, who believe they are logically justified for the good of the nation.
They are pathetic, geeked up Frances types (as in 'lighten up, Frances'), who tell themselves "All I know is, I finally get to kill someone!"
Which makes them no different than John Hinckley, Squeaky Fromme, Charles Guiteau, etc. When it's easier for a crazy person to get a gun than medical help, we should kind of expect these things.
Now, what you guys don't get about the Roman system is that Rome still considered itself a "Republic" even under the Caesars. The official title of that office was not "Emperor" (Imperator) but "Princips Senatus" (First on the Roll of the Senate). In theory, the Senate still ruled Rome as a Republic. In fact, the Roman Senate continued to operate until the seventh century CE, long after the last Western Emperor was deposed.
The problem with the Roman system was that it had no way to remove crazy emperors - Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus - other than hoping someone would assassinate them.
We have ways to remove crazy presidents - Impeachment, invoking the 25th Amendment.
