You sound like you have more to say. Remember, objective.
I can say it at the poles by voting my conscience. If my goal was to influence others into thinking as I do I would run for office myself or become an activist/lobbyist. All I can say to other Americans is that they need to read. Know your history and the history of the other western democracies and republics that have come before. Its good to think for yourself once you are informed by more than rhetoric. I value my right to my own opinions, but I also respect other people's political opinions (or even their feeling of apathy) and freely admit that I may be wrong. We all have a right to be wrong though. I am disinterested in engaging in a debate that I am likely to win, not on the merits of my position, but through forensic dexterity.... if it doesn't dissolve into bickering first.
The American system is set up so that when the populace as a whole is wrong things can't get too far out of hand. Republics are slow to change by design leaving ample time to make corrections. In some situations this can be an inherent weakness of mixed government (please research the Gracchi, Marius and Sulla as well as Machiavelli's thoughts on Roman agrarian reform even though they run counter to my own).
I will say that a lot of the reaction to Obama by voters in the middle of America's ever-widening political divide is a sense that we made an 'over correction', if you will.... additionally many people on the left feel betrayed by Obama's willingness to compromise in order to get ANYTHING done at all in the face of entrenched opposition. Personally I respect his refusal to resort to extreme political innovation in the style of Gaius Marius or Abraham Lincoln. Pushing forward a much-needed program of reform with strong arm tactics can have unintended consequences down the road. As well-framed as our constitution is compared with the Roman mos maiorum, the way that the supreme court interprets it is heavily influenced by precedent in the Roman legal tradition. A bad innovation in the name of a good cause may later be employed to push an agenda that is not in the interests of the people. Consider the precedent of unlimited dictatorship established by Sulla (who laid down his powers after completing a program of reform, the merits of which are still being debated today) but later used by Caesar and more overtly by Octavian, Antony and Lepidus to establish permanent autocratic rule on a scale unimaginable in our modern world... or just look at Vietnam in which a precedent of presidential authority to engage in small scale military actions was enough to commence a war in all but name without a declaration from congress. One heartening aspect of Bush Jr's presidency was that he did seek a congressional mandate to invade Iraq, though the means he used to obtain it were pretty nefarious.
Anyway, one man's statesmanship is another man's weakness and only posterity can make a final judgement. Until then we must all nourish our (hopefully well-informed) opinions and express them in November. As far as our British friends and their desire to block Donald's entrance to their country? Ask your Queen how she feels, aren't you all answerable to her in theory? Oh wait, you guys don't do that anymore. Well, you're a sovereign antion and you can think for yourselves. Just remember that it was only a century ago that your country was still the world's right-wing, reactionary, imperialist bully. Have some sympathy for the devil when you express your opinions about America. Shit's complicated everywhere my Limey friends.
In the words of the Fat Controller in the Tomica Thomas and Friends fan videos.... "I HAVE SPOKEN!"
