Thanks for the link, Es99.

This will need a little while taking in.

First of all, politics could be bad at times, regardless of who happens to be doing such a thing.

Is it next supposed to be a circus, only because the United States happens to be a democracy?

In my country there is supposed to be Parliamentarism and in fact this needs a lookup in order to understand what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

In my opinion, even though there is a difference between such Parliamentarism and possible Constitution, one given rule is that a country should not be allowed to slide into possible tyrranny.

Such a thing usually happens because of poor leadership and not necessarily because of its people.

Take an example only and this may not really be true.

If one of the Presidential candidates happened to be a dictator or authoritarian, regardless of who or whom, meaning the hawk, the other would be the dove.

Only about individuals here and not given persons.

Are anarchies supposed to be having leaders or possible leadership?

Is being a President the same as being a possible dictator in what is supposed to be a Democracy?

Not my first day here, one thing is possibly pointing a finger at someone, but next there should be allowed a debate.

I could be wrong, or maybe you could be so.

When being a presidential candidate, he or she could be selling a possible idea, or vision about current things, as well as those of the future.

Because of that, he or she should next be representing the party he belongs to.

Are the Democrats supposed to be having any such ideas or visions about the future which supposedly are any much different?

Are the Democrats possibly more autocratic than the Republicans, only because one thing could be read from the personality or behavior of a given candidate?

Next perhaps substitute the Democrats with the Republicans in a similar way and next ask the same question.

It should perhaps be told that both the candidates could be suffering from a similar problem, as well as a couple of others, but such a thing most likely should go with most of us in any way.

Another is that of perhaps being believed when it comes to a given thing.

You definitely could be having an agenda, but are people next supposed to believe in you when having such a thing?

Leadership counts and such a thing should be reflected in your personality.

Also that of perhaps listen to other people when it comes to a couple of things.

Certain values could perhaps be reflected by society itself and not necessarily only the politicians.

A given law should be able to tell how to behave, but not necessarily about the Bill or Law being adopted.

Even a democracy is often a choice between different options at times and when not being given such an option, we probably should know what could be happening next.

Edit: In which way could Donald Trump possibly receive an impeachment in the same way as Hillary Clinton possibly could do?

Is this still about politics, or is it rather about personalities?

Needs a separate response here.

Thank you for reminding me about the fact that politics could also be about economics and possible welfare, but when I happen to be looking at the current debate, this is probably not what this is all about.

Rather something else.