Term limits are the idea of those who think politicians get too fat in office. I happen to think that they defeat the benefits of having experienced politicians who know how the government works stay in office and train others as they arrive. The Tea Party made such a dent in the Congress and Senate when Bush was in office that they didn't really know what they were doing, they just tried to push through what they wanted. A third to a half of them have already left office, now that they have an idea of what is involved. The most satisfactory way to get rid of politicians is to unelect them, but you need to convince those who vote for that party that change is needed. It does eventually happen.

Gerrymandering and the Electoral College need to be removed, today we need one person one vote, and every vote needs to count. The GOP has managed to lock down so many congressional seats because of their artful dilution of Democratic voters in "safe" districts that one day that may be a case before the Supreme Court - if someone can figure out how to bring it forward.

Trump doesn't understand all of that, and the GOP is reaping the rewards of an undisciplined administration that frankly doesn't seem to care if they look presidential or even legal. This conversation is about how Trump fooled enough people into voting for him, voters who hope that some crumbs will fall their way during this administration so that they personally will benefit, to hell with everyone else who has to live with the low pay or pollution or deportations or financial chicanery, they are conservative voters who don't want consumer protections in place.

That other essay linked to above looks at various French philosophers:

(Foucault was the tough one, Derrida was the dreamy one, Lacan was the mysterious one — I like to imagine them sometimes as a black-turtlenecked, clove-smoking boy band called Hors de Texte, with the hit album "Discipline 'n' Punish.") Instead of constructing multivolume monuments of systematic thought, Barthes wrote short books built out of fragments. He was less interested in traditional coherence than in what he called jouissance: joy, surprise, adventure, pleasure — tantric orgasms of critical insight rolling from fragment to fragment. He proclaimed the death of the author and advocated a style of reading he referred to as "writerly," in which readers work as active creators of a text.

I have read these authors, and I also like Lyotard, who has written about archetypes and narrators. I detested Ronald Reagan as a president, but recognized his actor's ability to tell a story. Bill Clinton could mesmerize listeners as he described clearly how things work. Obama was an excellent speaker, tying all of the threads of a story together in what we recognize as presidential speech.

Trump just can't do it. He doesn't understand how to focus on others, he can't tell a good story, he can't stay on script because his thoughts always come racing back to himself. He's still trying to re-write the result of election night, galled by the idea that he didn't win the popular vote and therefore must erase Hillary and her supporters by suggesting millions of illegal voters cast those three million votes that put her ahead.

Trump is an archetype, and I'd like to see this conversation identify what that archetype is. A petty apologist from Scotland would like to shut down discussion that accomplishes this: I would ask that people simply ignore his uninformed remarks, and proceed with the conversation as if he isn't in the room. In other words, don't feed the troll.