3 things:
1) The fact that Trump won at all, when the Electoral College + Early Voting + GOTV = Huge Democrat advantage at voting. (Also notice that sanctuary cities are in Blue states, or in swing states, to help flip them)
2) Millions of Illegal Votes were cast. Over 400 Precincts in MI had more votes than ballots. Our county had 76% Turnout, and our voter rolls are probably about 15% inflated, which implies a 90% voter turnout. Which is total BS. The national average was 58% (Chicago and Detroit also had more votes cast than eligible voters). And 6,000 same day votes in NH, where Hillary won by 2,700 ish votes. (Showing a huge majority never went on to register a car, etc)
3) We have since learned that the 2 party system is CORRUPT and CORRUPTING. Making it impossible for a Third Party person to win. They simply wont get the air time. YET the 2 people who had the largest rallies were Trump and Sanders. Sanders was SCREWED, admittedly, and he did not want to win. He profited enough from the run. Chillary wanted the power.

We learn the UTTER DEPTH of DESPAIR that our nation is really in, EVERY day. #ThankYouTrump
Watching Congress block the building of the wall... Watching Congress act like laws don't matter. Watching Lawless Judges block the Presidents agenda. It makes me want to go to the GULCH, and and watch it all burn! Sometimes you have to let the kid touch the stove to figure out what all the warnings were about!

Okay, so Congress Delegated the law writing to the EPA and other groups. They change the rules, and breaking NEW RULES that were NEVER Directly declared as law, can put you in jail, and strip you of property.
Hmmm. POTUS comes in and starts unwinding this.

If congress had to review and pass all of those "RULES" they would have even LESS time to screw up our country! I think that was our forefathers goals.

I think our fore fathers would impeach a few judges, and probably recommend our Congress for Treason charges as they operate now!

They simply never imagined the shear $$$ influence and power of a central government over this much time.

That is a key point, I guess I knew, but never expressed it this way. Very good. Thank you!

This is very good news. It is hard to support Trumps as he behaves like a 11 yr old, tweeting and taking offense at trivial slights. However, his actions are better than most previous administrations.

Too bad the RINOs in Congress are inhibiting all the potential progress.

I thought I was the only one to praise Trump's tactics of having the mindless media chase the smell of red herrings while he quietly goes about doing what he was elected to do. Good job, Mr. President. Certainly I disagree with numerous goals of the president, such as import taxes and trade restrictions, but over all he is doing an excellent job AND, to all the complainers, think what would be happening if Hillary had stolen the election as planned.

That is why a long time ago, in a Galaxy far away, the Constitution included the Tenth Amendment, to prevent issues like these. Unfortunately, the Constitution had a Black Hole, as it did not specify a punishment for those that ignored the Constitution. When this Black Hole was eventually discovered, the Governing Class made a light-speed jump into it and when it re-emerged, neither the Constitution nor the Galaxy were ever the same again.

Does Trump have to be a jerk on Twitter to govern? Absolutely not. I find his behavior boorish and brutish. But I also find it to be something I can overlook because he isn't trying to bypass the Constitution every other day like his predecessor.

You don't think the swamp is real? Me? I see miles and miles of putrid, fetid swamp - with alligators. And not all of the swamp has a (D) next to the name. Off the top of my head I can name six Republican Senators I'd love to see gone. (Of course, I'd love to see every single one of the Democrats gone and replaced by at least a Reagan Democrat.)

Many people rail on and on about the popular vote when it comes to Presidential elections, but the fact of the matter is that they don't matter and never have. The popular vote just tells me how many socialist/communist morons exist in the public - and that that number continues to grow. We will eventually vote for our own downfall, I'm afraid.

"My whole prediction here is people will go running back to business-as-usual."

I sure hope not, but I will admit that I wouldn't bet against you. And I don't know if you've noticed, but politicians have been running on the notion of change in government for centuries. The real question isn't a matter of whether or not people want change in leadership. The real question is what principles they want to gravitate toward in that change.

I work in technology, and one of the things that just makes me sick is the constant hue and cry to update/change everything. I've been in IT long enough to remember when every update of Internet Explorer (4,5,5.5) fundamentally broke Windows to the point only a format/restore could recover. To me, the constant stream of updates is just an excuse for untested code and loose release practices. It's definitely "change" all right, but does the change actually hold real value? That is the question.

Regarding the Democrats, I'll suggest a third reason they stayed home - and it's one backed by survey: even the Democrats couldn't stomach Hillary Clinton. There were also several polls that revealed that many Bernie supporters were still angry enough at the DNC for the superdelegate votes that made Hillary the nominee that they refused to vote afterward. I'm sure that each individual Democrat who stayed home had their own reasons for doing so, but the fact is that it happened just like Republicans stayed home instead of voting for John McCain.

I don't want to see reforms for the sake of change. I want to see the general trend of government in the United States turn towards limited Federal Government, reduction in rules and bureaucracy, responsible spending, and local decision-making wherever possible. That is the type of reform I vote for.

"Possibilities:"
1. Again, every candidate for centuries has advocated for change. This to me is a non sequitur. The bigger question is the principles they want to move toward.
2. You may be right. We'll see.

Jimmy Carter got elected, then lost to Reagan because he was so bad on so many levels. Jeb Bush couldn't even win his own State so I think we've (fortunately) seen the last of him. Who do I want to run? Of all the candidates in the past 12 years or so, my favorite was Ted Cruz. I liked Ron Paul, but his protectionism and foreign policy ideas were too extreme for my tastes. I liked Mitt Romney and thought he was by far the most "Presidential" candidate the GOP has run since Reagan, but I just couldn't understand how after destroying Obama in the first debate he totally wilted in the next two - despite being 100% correct about Russia. I just couldn't bring myself to pull the lever for Gary Johnson in 2016 because of the conflicting ads and problems he had getting his message out.

3. I think there is one portion of the populace who is frustrated: conservatives. Republicans used to be conservative. Not any more. Progressives just want to push our nation into full blown socialism and replace the Constitution with a "rights-are-granted-by-government" model where they are free to run amok - at least until the economy collapses and we all descend into a literal version of Atlas Shrugged.

I do think you are 100% correct in that today's voters are more interested in flash than substance in politics. It's all about headlines and who can make their opponent look more evil than they are. Very few actually understand the issues or even care enough to understand what the issues are. Trump's election was a great example of that: it was a popularity contest between two people who everyone already knew.

"But I also think that is why he got elected: people were tired of what they were used to"
I think you're saying they're sort-of tied together: the unusual antics and reform. I can see the idea that they're both departures from the old norm, but I don't think they have to be tied together. I can very easily imagine one without the other.

"swamp and the elitists "
I don't think these are real things. They're kind of like what I was saying about "assault" rifles.

"I also think [Trump's unorthodox method of doing things] is why he got elected"
He lost the popular vote to an unpopular candidate by 3 million votes. I'm not saying that to disparage him but rather that it was more of a fluke. I definitely see people wanting something unorthodox and different. Obama ran on "change". I think for most people Trump's antics worked against him. If Trump had run against Clinton as an outsider business person and without the antics, I think he would have won the popular vote.

My whole prediction here is people will go running back to business-as-usual. If you're right, though, maybe Obama running on "change" and Trump running on vague ideas like the "swamp", "elites", or "the establishment." are part of a trend. In your scenario, we don't know who will run for office next, but they'll likely be calling for reforms and/or have unorthodox behavior.

"Remember, many Democrats simply stayed home on election day"
I can interpret this in two ways. 1) They wanted an reform-minded Democrat but weren't willing to vote for a Republican. 2) They aren't really after reform / anti-orthodoxy because they could have gone and voted for Trump.

I really hope you're right that there is going to be a trend of wanting reforms. I see the exact opposite. I see a real unorthodox candidate winning on a fluke while losing by 3M votes. Despite the unorthodox methods, his budget has gov't growing at the same rate as under previous presidents. His rhetoric is authoritarian, not about making gov't obey the law. So I see the pendulum swinging back to "normal" / orthodox politicians, with this chance to elect a real reformer lost.

Possibilities:
1. My understanding of your prediction- Trump (and maybe Obama) are the beginning of a trend of people electing change/reform candidates.
2. My prediction - Trump is a fluke and will sour people's taste for unorthodox candidates. We'll get a figure like Jeb Bush or Jimmy Carter next.
3. People are frustrated with gov't and/or changes in society and the economy. The Internet has cut out gatekeepers allowing more clickbait style people to get attention. Voters are going to keep voting for the craziest son-of-a-gun running. So next time they'll vote for an entertainer selling socialism, some extreme religious figure, or maybe a libertarian.

I want your prediction (#1) to be true.

"My prediction is the backlash against the clownish antics..."

I agree that Trump's method of doing things is a substantial departure from what we are used to in our Presidents. But I also think that is why he got elected: people were tired of what they were used to. They were sick of the leftist love-fest toward Democratic candidates in the mainstream media. They were sick of a candidate who was the embodiment of the swamp and the elitists in Hillary Clinton. (Remember, many Democrats simply stayed home on election day - voter turnout was down for Democrats.) They were sick of the Republican establishment as well (notably the final candidates - Trump and Cruz - were very much the outliers).

"It feels like we're almost ignoring the Constitution."

We've been ignoring the Constitution since FDR packed the courts in the 1930's. And it has gotten worse since the 1960's. To get back to the Constitution, we'd have to get rid of any and all judges who refuse to acknowledge the Constitution as the source of ALL US law. That's a tall order given how many judges there are who instead conform to an ideology that the Constitution is a "living" document.

"Not really sure where you are going with this one. Where do you think the pendulum is and where should it be?"
I mean President Trump is a) anti-establishment and b) an embarrassing clown. My prediction is the backlash against the clownish antics will lead to people looking for someone who acts normal and respectable, and reform won't be a priority. I hope I'm wrong.

"it's a fine line between what the Constitution permits and what abuse comes as a result."
As a non-expert, I don't get how it came this far. It feels like we're almost ignoring the Constitution. It feels, to my non-expert judgment, like we have crossed the line.

For sure, the president's agenda should be enforcing, not enacting.

"I think the author of the CEI article is trying to make "how many new significant rules?" "how many regulations undone?" the questions. If those became questions we commonly ask candidates, that would be a big improvement. Otherwise we go back to the trend of increasing executive power."

Agreed. But you'll never see that question come up in debates moderated by the mainstream media.

"Regardless of whether President Trump's stupid antics are part of a plan or just his natural way of getting attention, I think they'll cause the pendulum to swing back to normalcy."

Not really sure where you are going with this one. Where do you think the pendulum is and where should it be?

"Regarding the next president expanding presidential power, that's been a long-term trend and isn't Trump's fault."

No. That goes back to Woodrow Wilson ~1910 while he was in academics. Progressives/Democrats immediately glommed onto his ideas and have pushed them ever since. Even Republicans have in more recent years (Bush) used the power of the Executive to do things which IMO fall properly under the role of the Legislature. But then with so many bureaucracies being created by the Legislature and so much power being arbitrarily given to them, it's a fine line between what the Constitution permits and what abuse comes as a result.

"the next President can just come along and re-enact them all."
I think the author of the CEI article is trying to make "how many new significant rules?" "how many regulations undone?" the questions. If those became questions we commonly ask candidates, that would be a big improvement. Otherwise we go back to the trend of increasing executive power.

I unfortunately think the pendulum will swing away from reform (e.g. less Executive Branch power) and toward anything that looks normal, respectable, and business-as-usual. Regardless of whether President Trump's stupid antics are part of a plan or just his natural way of getting attention, I think they'll cause the pendulum to swing back to normalcy. Hopefully I'm wrong. My prediction track record isn't that good.

I agree with you President Trump has to avoid even the appearance of imperialism. Regarding the next president expanding presidential power, that's been a long-term trend and isn't Trump's fault.

President Trump's actions to cut red tape are anti-Imperial, I agree, but see freedomforall's comment below: the next President can just come along and re-enact them all. That's the concern I have about the process: it should be up to the Legislature to write the rules which are effectively laws - not the Executive either in the form of the President or a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats should have zero power to write laws, rules, etc. Their only job should be to carry out the laws as passed by Congress and approved by the President.

"I am concerned about the principle he is using: that of an imperial President."
I am very unclear on the mechanics of this, but my reading of the CEI article (which may be biased) is President Trump is cutting rules created by the Executive Branch that should be the purview of the Legislative Branch. It hard to fault the president for that. That's being anti-imperial.

The CEI article it links to is very encouraging.
https://cei.org/blog/red-tape-rollbac...
I wish it had all years at the bottom and notes about if anything happened that year to explain the ups and downs. For example there were more than twice the number significant rules in 2008 compared to 2001.

Probably hard to analyze is how many of the rules fall into the groups of purposes: a) reducing litigation, b) addressing some problem like safety or pollution, and c) anti-competitive / rent-seeking. That's hard to do because I'm sure no rules are advertised as anti-competitive or rent-seeking.

What's nice about putting them in numerical format is has the potential to change the question to how many rules? The question is more important than the answer. If that's the question, the next president will have to answer how many regulations she/he will eliminate. President Trump's opponents can go through the list and say he eliminated the "good" rules and kept the "bad" rules. Their next statement has to be they're going to get rid of the bad ones.

Yep.

I fully support actions to slash the red tape. I don't think the President can go far enough in doing so, but I am concerned about the principle he is using: that of an imperial President. I think we need to get back to how things were originally designed: Legislation by the Legislative Branch - not the Executive or the Judicial.

You hit the nail on the head. The problem is the creation of the bureaucracies in the first place. Congress is taking pretty much a "fire and forget" attitude and it violates the spirit of the Constitution, which intends that Congress create the laws, the Executive enforces the laws as written and the Judicial adjudicates the laws according to the Constitution.

What we have now is basically a Congress that can make laws but doesn't for fear of getting grilled by the leftist Press, an Imperial Executive (thanks to Woodrow Wilson) who is more emperor than Commander-in-Chief, and a judiciary at least half full of Constitution-haters.

There is one possible outcome that may be of use: Congress did pass a (rather cumbersome) law saying that they could veto decisions made by bureaucracies which resulted in a certain monetary burden being imposed. It's better than nothing, but the real law should be that ALL rules promulgated by bureaucracies must pass through Congress just like any other legislation.

Good, but won't the next Dem president use their unconstitutional authority to just reimpose them as originally written?