It was okay when the media was trying to destroy Obama and Clinton...but not Trump? The reality to me is the news media does not want a winner...only losers. They get more attention that way!
The media was struggling to keep audiences and subscribers. Along came Trump and the circus during the debates, which suddenly brought back audiences and subscribers returned. The more Trump, the bigger the audience and subscribers kept rolling in. Ad money started rolling in. Negative press has always done better than positive press. Trump is the answer to all the networks marketing teams wish lists. They hope he gets impeached for ratings and for that same reason they don't won't him removed from office. Frankly speaking... the democrats are in the same boat, at least until after the mid-terms.
I was just reading that Mark Zuckerberg is considering running for President in 2020, and would be sort of a Bernie Sanders on steroids. I can see where a lot of the younger class liberals who loved Sanders would be all over supporting Zuckerberg. One of the things that he is already advocating is a federal income for everyone, which is a step closer to communism than Sanders was offering if he won. Bernie Sanders had a large following, and if things had been fair, he would have probably been the Democratic candidate for this last election. I think that if that had happened, more of the younger people would have actually gone out and voted, and Sanders might have won the election. Based on this, I can totally see us having Mark Zuckerberg as our next president. Each year, more of the people from our generation are dying, so the voter base will have even more of the Millenials in the next election. Should Zuckerberg decide to run, this will be another eventful election, and something that will continue to keep the press busy and making money. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...americans-should-get-a-universal-basic-income
The government would love to be the person writing the pay checks so they can punish anyone they want to if you don't agree
Setting aside the "communist" aspect and the "administration of the program"... unintended consequences become a factor. One example: We are not a one size fits all economy. Cost of living varies significantly from one area to the next. An example of this would be the one size fits all approach the government uses to determine poverty levels. 48 states and Alaska/Hawaii. The Census Bureau publishes data on this and it is widely used and accepted as fact. However, the Census Bureau also publishes data adjusting for cost of living across every state. Under the widely accepted data, D.C. comes in 5th (19.6%) and California comes in 18th (15%) on level of poverty. Yet the cost of living adjusted data has D.C. at the top spot (22.2%) and California coming in 2nd (20.6%). The unintended consequence: the inflationary aspects of a universal wage on purchasing power of individuals reliant on a variety of programs, from welfare to S.S. Not saying yea or nay, but the entire matter must be properly planned or deep divisions will become deeper, imo. The latest report: The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015 (Requires opening a PDF file)
The GOP relentlessly went after Trump. Republicans got sick of it and voted Trump. If the DNC doesn't give it a rest, the same thing could happen with them losing many of their voters. People get sick of all the made up drama.