I have to agree – there’s nothing wrong with an official POTUS Twitter feed. But in Trump’s case, it’s the message, not the medium.
I agree that we have a major problem with the electorate (and the elected) not caring about following the rules, but since a lot of these rules are “unofficial” or not very well defined, I think making them a lot more specific with actual consequences would be very helpful.
Take the issue of emoluments. There seems to be enough wiggle room in what qualifies that Trump has been able to ignore the usual practice of putting his business and assets into a blind trust, and is rather obviously using his public office to enrich his personal fortune. If we don’t want to encourage grifting and corruption, then we could simply write a law saying that the president is required to divest himself of any business holdings, or place them into a blind trust (an actual blind trust that is also off limits to his family). Failure to do so would incur an automatic penalty, either the loss of those holdings, or some independent committee is given authority over them for the term of the presidency.
Make all the other traditional “norms” explicit laws as well, with automatic penalties for each individual transgression. Then add in a three-strikes provision. If a president violates any three of these requirements for holding the office, he or she is automatically impeached.
It’s funny how the Left thinks they are so tolerant and morally superior.
It’s funny how the right consistently pushes to limit LGBT rights, and how the current republican administration is separating asylum-seeking families at the border.
Wait, no, that’s not funny. That’s not even a little bit funny.
But the Left believe they are so tolerant and accepting, and that they are above holding bigoted views. Yet anyone who disagrees with them is instantly labeled.
Wow, your language is fucking loaded.
Let’s unpack this, shall we?
“But (some people on) the left believe they are tolerant and accepting, and (some people who may or may not be the same people) think they can’t hold bigoted views. Yet anyone who disagrees with them (disagreement here is unspecified; it could mean anything from “voted for Trump” to “supported restricting gay rights” to “shouted transphobic slurs” to basically whatever the fuck else you’re talking about) is instantly labeled (by some vocal group of people which may or may not be the same as either of the previous two groups of people)”
So basically, it’s so impossibly broad and vague that it’s impossible to tell what you’re actually talking about, yet the way it is phrased, it is trivially wrong; if you disagree with me on whether vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream I guarantee I will accept your opinion without problems. It’s just when we get to things like “are transwomen actually women” - y’know, shit that’s actually bigoted drivel - that the labels start coming out.
Don’t feed the troll, who’s just parroting the RW/Fox talking point. Any time a liberal points out bigotry and hate speech, out comes the “wow, the left is all about tolerance and free speech, except for conservatives.”
This is a warning for accusing another poster of being a troll. This is not permitted in this forum. If you wish, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
My apologies – I forgot where I was.
Some form of proportional representation seems like a good idea to me, although the devil is in the details. First past the post in a system with effectively only two parties is a bad idea even when the parrisanship isn’t so extreme that one side is routinely calling the other “evil”, “deplorable” and suchlike.
I think a hung parliament is generally the best approach. I don’t want any political party to command a majority. I want them to have to debate and compromise and find common ground. Maybe to the extent of not having any official political parties at all, with everyone running as an independent.
The problem is, even a true blind trust wouldn’t be able to stop Trump from grifting, because his connection to his companies is too well known. If I wanted to bribe Obama by “investing” in a company he owns, I’m out of luck, because I have no idea what those companies are. But everyone knows that Trump is the owner of just about everything with the Trump name on it. Just open a Trump hotel in your town, and you know that the profits are going to Trump, even if indirectly, and he knows it too.
The only thing that could prevent that is a complete divestiture of his holdings, and all the holdings of his family. You just might be able to justify a law that makes the President sell off his personal holdings, but would the courts accept that everyone else in the family must do the same, just because their father/brother/uncle/son decided to run for office?