Different AC here. Those are great stats to throw at people... but if you look at main street and not Wall Street, it is a completely different picture. Those companies making part of that 18.56T are paying little to no taxes. The average person is barely getting by, because the revenue that is generated by those companies flies overseas, tax free, never to be seen again.
"An enemy so weak..." You mean the one that has stopped the push into Mosul by coalition forces, and is holding strong in their region of Iraq?
As for the current President-elect, if one had any clue about US history, there is a reason for the Electoral College. Without it, California and New York would decide who would be President, with every other region of the US having zero voice in that election. In fact, in California proper, their bicameral state legislature is all based on popular vote. This means that coastal cities get 100% of the attention by politicians, while everyone east of that has no voice whatsoever. This is why California has fiascos like the Salton Sea going on.
So tell me something: Why, exactly, shouldn't California and New York dominate the decision to decide who is President? That happens to be where most of the people are. Generally speaking, in a democracy (yes, even a democratic republic such as the US), the choice of the majority of voters is kinda-sorta supposed to be who ends up winning. But ignore that for a moment. You say that California and New York should not dominate the Presidential election. In the system we now have, with the Electoral College, why then should Iowa, Wyoming, or Nebraska disproportionately determine who our President should be? You do realize that, under our current system, the votes of those states, as a proportion of the population, count for more than do the votes of California or New York, or North Carolina, or Florida. Rather a lot more.WaPo A better solution would be to introduce proportional representation, but we all know that's not going to happen.