"This is in fact true... if said corporations and business's are in fact managed."

I think we're not on the same page as to who is doing the managing.

My point is that the MBA's who are the CEOs of these businesses all have a profit objective. It's simple, its straightforward, and it makes their business decisions very predictable.

Now, what is a government regulation? A regulation is a business decision that the government has dictated that the business must make, profit be damned.

Yes, the conservatives will always be trying to remove regulations which they believe unduly impact the profit margins. You use the phrase "dismantling all of the"..... well, I think you know that's hyperbole. There are many regulations which nobody on the conservative side would dream of getting rid of, MANY of them on the workforce safety and environmental side. Nobody wants people getting injured on the jobsite, nobody wants children back in workforce, and nobody wants another Love Canal.

So, although its true that *some* parts of the regulatory code are specific to industry, the regulatory code creates a level playing field that all must observe. If the government voids a few regs....the playing field is still level. Therefore, the actions of the CEO's will will be predictable.

And why I still trust the system. Conservative presidents remove regs and fail to enforce others, Dem presidents add regs and return to enforcement. The system stays in balance, over the long term.

"Indeed, when one of your major concerns is installing a head of the DOJ whose primary goal isn't "justice" but shielding the president from any and all of the ramifications of his actions, both past and present..."

This is an opinion I do not share. Barr seems motivated by what he sees as an excess of resistance. The media played the Russia card long after it was proven that the effect Russia had on the election was nominal, and long after everyone who claimed that Russia must have "something" on Trump ended up with egg on their face.

Look, Trump's a jerk, and he's in way over his head. Barr, I'm sure, would agree. But that does not excuse the media from beating the Russia drum over and over and over again, and as even some liberal writers have pointed out, it actually does Russia's bidding, because their goal is not to bolster Trump, but to create chaos and separation between factions in the USA.

So, yea, I'll agree with you to an extent. There is a risk to the system, but it's not coming from Trump; he'll be forgotten 10 minutes after he's out of office, like all presidents are.

The risk to the system comes from a media which is entirely biased to one side of the political equation, because the other side, starved for information, becomes progressively (pun intended) more and more volatile and less respectful of institutions and government authority.

This is a scenario which plays out all over the world, where the media parrots only a single platform, although it is more commonly found under authoritarian regimes with a closed media. In those countries, because there is a lack of trust in the media, conspiracy theories run amok, and we are seeing that start to happen here as well.