How is the ballot box supposed to solve anything when its results are not used?
There’s a vast difference between saying a political system isn’t democratic because the candidate I personally voting for didn’t win and saying a political system isn’t democratic because the candidate the majority of people voted for didn’t win.
Saying the Electoral College is very slightly undemocratic is a huge understatement. The reality is that the President of the United States is chosen by a system that’s only slightly more democratic than the one used to choose the Pope.
I would not want to have any laws that screen candidates for lying or other moral failings. I fully agree that the people should be allowed to judge a candidate’s character and decide what is or is not acceptable. But this is not the issue I was addressing.
Who considers the lying ok? The White House staff and the GOP keeps contorting themselves into pretzels explaining which lie was a joke, which was hyperbole, which is actually true if you would stop thinking or listening to people who think.
Who says quid pro quo is not ok? The GOP are in the process of switching from “There was no quid pro quo” to “quid pro quo is actually the normal way to do foreign policy”.
Lindsay “A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached.” Graham is on record saying he’d be horrified if evidence of “quid pro quo” was revealed, but has of course changed his mind by now.
Or to put it another way, what are you looking for here? Is what the President is doing ok? A lot of people would say “no”, even a lot of his supporters (“that’s bad, but he’s sticking it to the libs, so I’ll vote for him again”).
Is it illegal? Very little is for the president.
Is it impeachable conduct? That depends on whether the GOP want to continue riding the tiger or attempt a disorderly dismount.
I may have lost the thread here. What exactly do you think we should do about the problem posed by the OP?
I think the Electoral College is mostly a red herring here. Like, there’s no particular reason that a politician couldn’t lie themselves into a majority of votes. What then?
The “Electoral College” (which doesn’t exist; those disagreeing should please point to it - it’s more accurately the US presidential electoral system) is an artifact of the slave era. Kill it. A candidate with a wee minority of popular votes can take the White House. Kill that. Gerrymanders and this electoral system install losers. That must stop else disaster.
Back to lying. Laws ain’t gonna stop pols from bullshitting. US commercial media make a shitload of money airing lying pols. US media made Tramp and he enriches them. Who thinks that quid-pro-quo will stop anytime soon?
Could you please quote the text at your link that supports your assertion that the names of the electors are printed on one’s ballot? I couldn’t find it.
Yes, “it’s the term we use” but it’s not legally defined. It’s a “group” that never meets, never confers, is not itself elected, whose members aren’t named on my California ballot. That’s even worse than Tramp University. At least electors aren’t paid, right?
Most of the US media lambastes Trump daily, as well they should. So I disagree with a caricaturing of the media being responsible.
Yes the media reporting on his appalling statements kept him on the front page, but how it’s supposed to work is: trump kills someone on 5th avenue, the media reports it and the public is outraged.
As for whether QPQ will stop, again it depends what kind of QPQ we’re talking about.
If it’s in the US national interests then no, it’s vital such deals continue to happen. If it’s for the president’s personal interests then there is no evidence it happened prior to trump and the next time it happens then that president should be impeached.
Perhaps President Donald Trump, and the rank and file of the Republican party believed each and every one of those things. Boldly stated truths in the face of liberal conspiracies and coverups. Perhaps they still believe each and every one of them. The liberal press might have covered up the true events, and created those “lies” to discredit the bold leadership of the exemplar of their chosen leader.
Why is outright lying by the President, in public, over and over, ok
Because the world runs on bullshit. We live in a society that is saturated with façade, spin and outright deception. We love it - from the tooth fairy and Santa Clause to Elvis and Bigfoot. Advertisers and bloviators like Limbaugh and Jones dish it out all day long. When we don’t get enough we seek it out on our own at Disney World or some guys garage door where Jesus shows up every time a car goes by.
Why not the quid quo pro?
Because some things are so blatantly corrupt that even we - the great unwashed American public - can understand them.
The people and press basically held Reagan to a lower standard since he was a charming and charismatic president who told entertaining anecdotes.
Since then, various degrees of lying seem to have become more acceptable. Of course, all presidents are going to omit some dodgy details or use language to misdirect and minimize.
I would say most Presidents have some degree of charm (to attract supporters) and narcissism (to run, deal with a million inconveniences, to think you are the best option). Trump may have greater pathology in this regard. I don’t think most people or the press like it. But a comedian joked about how hard it is to call Trump to account because as soon as he does something shocking, he soon does something worse.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the phrase “sucking oxygen from the room.” US commercial media gave Tramp extensive free coverage even before he started campaigning because he grabbed eyeballs they could sell to advertisers; and once a candidate, his every statement drew attention from whatever else was done or said. That’s O2-depletion. Now his attacks on media that mostly no longer kiss his butt drives those outlets’ profits up nicely. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
The question then: How much lower can and will he go?
Yes I know the media gave him extensive free coverage; as much or more than all other candidates put together.
The point is, covering his most outrageous statements should have been politically fatal. Consider in the UK, where Andrea Leadsom made one dumb comment implying that not having children meant that Theresa May was not invested in the country’s future, it got reported on extensively, she had to drop out.
Things have softened a little now, and Boris gets away with a lot, but he’s also much reviled. Reporting on his dumb statements does not do him any favors.
You cannot blame the media for 35-40% of the US public, including supposed Evangelists, beating their chests and saying That’s my bigot / adulterer / grifter / ignoramus.