Well to start with, Russian and U.S. forms of government are very similar. After all we've copied yours in 90's. I guess the main difference between our POVs is that you see your government from the outside, and I see our government from the inside.
Quote
Jib
He's doing fine, by many accounts
As much as I like Trump, he's not
doing fine. He's on fucking fire and has got half of the country on his tail. We're yet to see how he's doing and what his results will be.
There are and have been many successful congressmen/women with no prior political experience.
Define "successful". Popular? May be. But no inexperienced congressman will ever be able to push a bill. Never ever. That's just not possible.
Quote
In fact, it might sound a little crazy, but I'm almost convinced that you could throw out 90% of the current politicians in office in the U.S., and replace them with other smart, qualified, willing Americans out of the business sector, law, etc, and we'd be in no worse, and probably better a condition.
That's a great way to put a country into chaos. See Russia 1917 or Ukraine 2014. Feel free to start that in U.S. though, I don't mind. I also smile each time I hear "smart, qualified, willing". Usually people saying that mean themselves :)
Quote
The U.S. is not supposed to be central planning, and social service utopia, it's supposed to be a reatively small elected government that allows the private sector to prosper without getting in its way too much. And to provide national security. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned. The government isn't intended to be the engine of all progress.
That's an illusion. Major industrial and financial groups run the country, in fact they are the state, regardless their official positions, U.S. was created as such by the founding fathers. Common people are left "to themselves" because "the state" is not to be bothered with their problems. You guys call this "freedom", we call this "irresponsibility", but the effect is the same.
Quote
limiting them in terms would be good because it prevents politicians from working to keep their seats, and instead they can focus on getting stuff done for the people they represent. Many of the more tenured politicians are the ones creating poor policy for stupid reasons nobody wants.
I'm not sure but I guess like the only seat that is limited by terms in U.S. is the President's. Which only happened after Roosevelt. No other important seat is limited. So your argument goes nowhere, really.