I tend not to look at the personalities myself, a respectful image is just that, an image. We had a P.M. down here, Howard, everyone loved him because when all the politicians were fighting like cats in the broadcast videos of the House he was acting like a Statesman. Never raised his voice, never engaged in petty slandering. He won by a landslide and then used that 'mandate' to enact a GST tax of 10% across the board, then oversaw strict gun control measures after the Port Arthur massacre, did nothing to rein in the banks that created a massive housing bubble that distorted the nation.
When I look back now I see he actually had nothing to do with any of those disastrous policies, he was just following orders from a superordinate body whose origins I can only guess at but the evidence was that the same policies basically were simultaneously enacted across many OECD nations at the same time. VAT tax in the UK etc, Housing bubbles across the entire western block, stricter gun control measures in the same affiliated nations and privatization (the sell off) of government assets. He survived a few terms but in the end was tossed out and even lost his seat, one he had held for eternity. He was roundly hated.
The choice you now have, if you choose the engage in it, is of course laughable, on that we definitely agree Red. I really makes me wonder what's going on behind the scenes? I mean those two political parties are not run by idiots, and they could have elevated anyone to the position of prospective President if they has wanted. I know Trump is an outlier and he almost proves the idea that "Anyone" can become president, but this late in the game it all seems to pat for me. Like when a corporation hires a new CEO and that guy proceeds to run the company into the ground, only to retire and be appointed as CEO of another important Corp. He was a wrecking ball and that was what he was employed as. Mission accomplished, here's your reward.
Why would anyone want to wreck a corp? I can think of lots of reasons, perhaps it's going down anyway due to new competition or innovations in the market and the major stake holders want to short it and have it collapse fast so they can get out with a profit? Short-selling stock should be outlawed, but it isn't. Similarly there might be a massive market and debt collapse on the near horizon and the old established political families don't want to take the blame? Sort of like when Hoover was elevated and elected as president. He oversaw the collapse of 1929 and was blamed for all the problems of the depression but he was a no-body, a civil servant chosen as the party favorite. After the collapse the established political families, think Clintons, Bushes etc can step in and take control. It sounds far fetched I know, it sounds conspiratorial, but politics isn't exactly an honest game is it.