Perhaps not, but then, he wasn't elected in spite of everybody in the media saying he was stupid and would never win.

So now you keep saying he's stupid, and doesn't know what he's doing. I'll just keep reminding myself that he managed to get himself elected.

We don't live in medieval times. Trump is not a good human being, I don't like him one bit, but he's sane (I would go as far as to call him cunning) and democratically elected.

Comparing him to insane kings from the 18th century just gets people to chuckle and move on, sweeping deeper critical thought under the rug.

To call him stupid or mad ends any line of further inquiry into why he does the things he does, and that to my mind is very, very dangerous.

I don't think that sane, cunning, or democratically elected are the same as intelligent.

You're splitting hairs and I'm not sure what your point is.

He's sane/rational. He has motives for most of his actions from what I've observerd. I'm asking what the motive is behind his initiation and escalation of the trade war with China.

I'm not arguing that it's an intelligent thing to do, or that Trump is intelligent. I'm asking what his motive is. If he was irrational I would concede that perhaps there is no motive because he's disconnected from reality.

I think it is a power play. He likes to feel powerful, and he thinks of it as a negotiating tactic. He is a bully and likes to try and push people around. I honestly don't think he much considers the ramifications going forward on a global scale. It is more of a personal slight: "The Chinese are really screwing us over, I'll show them!"

> democratically elected.

If this were true, he wouldn't be POTUS.

At best, you could say he was "elected according to the rules, procedures and processes of our democratic republic form of government, as defined by our Constitution".

That would be a fairly true statement.

It would also probably be a true statement to say that our Electoral College failed us in their primary purpose, which should be to assure that the POTUS which is elected nominally will serve the interest of all constituents, and not just some of them.

POTUS #43 could be said to have served all the citizens of the USA, even if they didn't agree with his policies; the same certainly cannot be said of this POTUS, not IMHO.

> At best, you could say he was "elected according to the rules, procedures and processes of our democratic republic form of government, as defined by our Constitution".

What, exactly, should "democratically elected" mean if not that exact sentence?

The issue with the majority