That action would take care if a number of problems.

I have too much time for these videos haha

Oh geez. That was funnier than expected! I think it's because that among the caricatures that we have of our politicians in our imagination, watching them fight as they do in this scene seems believable. We equate the stereotypical small-time reasons why such a fight might occur in B-movies with the way in which our politicians fight (e.g., mischaracterizing a position on an issue in a way to dehumanize their opponents or flat out lying). As a nation, we finally see the political fight for what it is - a garbage way to resolve differences. Either the guy gets beat up in the movie or he beats up the mob. Someone has to lose.

As we watch these characters fight, we find ourselves quickly choosing sides and rooting for and against characters depending on the policy platforms they represent in our minds. I sure did. I first was drawn to "Trump" as the underdog surrounded by so much hatred. I saw him bravely fighting different foes and my support for him went up and down responsive to the foe. My split-secondly decided image of the "Trump" character was that he probably did something to piss these other characters off so part of it is simply justifiable payback. I didn't cast him as hero but someone with serious flaws among some considered opinions. Perhaps he's a character early in his arch of redemption story in the film. So yeah, if he was the one to lose, I'd be ok with the plot-line but hope some positive justice would happen to balance the tide change. But what dawned on me was that in a movie, this is nice entertainment - a fun way to connect emotionally with a little bit of virtual danger. But alas, this is real life. Our real cast of politicians are showing us their worse sides. They dehumanize each other and are teaching us to dehumanize our fellow citizens. If we were humanists, we'd simply wish for them to work things out. To accept sincere apologies of previous injustices (e.g., skirmishes), make reasonable atonements that considered their direct involvement in the injustice, and to move forward together.

On a different perspective, the Trump character in the clip could be a metaphor for the straight-white-men in the "West" (Can/US/UK/NZ/Aus aka "CUUNAs" countries) while the other characters are the other "identities" represented by the policy avocation (special fighting skills and techniques) that each of them bring to the fight. They are simply fighting for dominance or, at least, to scare off the other side.

I'm sure that we all envisioned this fight aligned to the specific positions and politicians we root for. It's a natural thing. But what I realize now is that it's very personal. We equate the position that each "fighter" brings with something that we have become more our self identity.

I'm an IDW. I am someone who has evolvable views on issues. I am swayed by facts that are demonstrative in the light of open and civil discussion, and chosen with the best interest to the society as a whole. We need to discuss what are the policy decisions that would have the best chance for happiness with the least suffering of humans and the ecosystem for now and for future generations. To do this effectively, we have to disassociate our political affiliation from the decision process.

You can try to watch the scene again but try to remove your political identities (e.g., Left, Liberal, Centrist, Right, Alt) while continue to evaluate the fight with the goal of having the best possible outcome for all involved. Instead of fighting, you'd prefer to see them as wanting to work things out or at least explain their positions clearly and with humanization. That's what we want here at IDW.community. Let's encourage people on all political sides to come here so long as they abide with the ethos of the IDW - to work towards workable solutions to strive towards together.

This community is the first step. We will succeed!

So that's who trained Steven Seagal..lol...kick ass!!

LMAO - the expression were hilarious!