Jump to content

The US Presidential Election is one month today.


Lisa O`Brien

Recommended Posts

That's just the problem.  I have every respect for the office of President of the United States - as opposed to some of those who have actually held it in the past - and seeing the whole thing denigrated and turned into a sideshow is appalling.  Our world is in a dreadful state, and there are important subjects to be discussed and the candidates' views on them and what steps they intend to take in relation to them should be known, yet everything important is being buried in a mass of cheap insults and other trivialities.  What does this say about our society?  We/they surely haven't entirely lost the ability to care about anything of deeper significance yet, have we/they?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That's just the problem.  I have every respect for the office of President of the United States - as opposed to some of those who have actually held it in the past - and seeing the whole thing denigrated and turned into a sideshow is appalling.  Our world is in a dreadful state, and there are important subjects to be discussed and the candidates' views on them and what steps they intend to take in relation to them should be known, yet everything important is being buried in a mass of cheap insults and other trivialities.  What does this say about our society?  We/they surely haven't entirely lost the ability to care about anything of deeper significance yet, have we/they?

People haven't lost the ability to care, but unfortunately we've got to the point where entertainment is more important than information and the news services have more or less turned into entertainment venues. This has been a topic of much discussion over here among people who care about getting informed. There was a time when TV news was walled off from the profit-making entertainment part of the media companies but that isn't the case any more. News is supposed to pay its way just like everything else, so of course it's getting trivialised just like everything else. And then you have the problems of the high-profile media stars (the news anchors and political correspondents and talking heads) being prepared to sell their souls for access to the politicians, so there's very little hard-hitting investigative reporting going on among the mainstream media, most of it is easily digestible, entertaining, softball pap. And don't get me started on false equivalence (particularly with regard to global warming), which can really take the heart out of a topic. Then you also have news channels with right-wing or left-wing slants, such that people who want to hear only what they already agree with can very easily do that. Same goes for the internet of course.

 

This is what's actually fairly important about some of the late-night talk show hosts. A lot of what they do is much more hard-hitting, and factually based, than what's going on in the actual news, largely because they really are outsiders in the political game and don't need favours from the people they're reporting on. Which is a very sad indictment of the mainstream media but true nonetheless. John Oliver just won an Emmy for his programme because it's doing in-depth investigative reporting of serious social issues - of the sort you very rarely see on the mainstream news channels any more - but presenting it in an entertaining way, although not trivializing the seriousness of some of the issues. During previous election cycles, a lot of people said they got their news from The Daily Show (Jon Stewart's old show, where the current talk show hosts John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, and others got their start) rather than from CBS or CNN or other actual news programmes.

 

This is John Oliver's reaction to the Trump tapes, and you won't hear anything like it on CNN because it doesn't let politicians frame the argument, it cuts through all the comfortable excuses and holds their feet firmly to the flames. Please note there are a lot of four-letter words so be careful about where you open it (NSFW!).

 

Edited by Melody
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The result is due in around 4 AM GMT. In two minds whether to set my alarm and get up around half three and watch it. The last two elections I stayed up all night and watched. Not that keen this time, mainly because of the, ahem, calibre of both candidates. In a country of over 200 million people I find it quite astonishing these two individuals [i know there are other candidates too] are the best America can come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard on the radio that Canada's immigration website has crashed under the weight of Americans wanting to flee Trump.  New Zealand is reporting an unprecedented number of queries too.

 

Anyone up for offering a spare room to a US refugee?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurred to me to wonder a few times over the last few weeks: does the US Constitution contain any provision for taking action if a President turns out to be incompetent, or something?  (Short of a vote of no confidence, I'm not sure whether the UK does).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the Brexit vote all over again, and for many of the same reasons.

 

This is going to be interesting.

 

Alison, there's a line of succession to the presidency if a president is declared incapable of serving - the Vice President would take over, and if the President and the VP were both unable to serve the Speaker of the House is next in line. Not sure what would be involved in declaring a president incapable, but it'd have to be a genuinely incapacitating medical condition. Being a person who, in the words of the First Lady, has a thin skin and a tendency to lash out wouldn't come close to being grounds for removal.

Edited by Melody
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's my impression as an expat Brit; I think the Brexit vote and the US presidential election are symptoms of the same problem (along with the rise of far-right politicians throughout western Europe). Reposting a comment I made on another site earlier:

 

This is scarily like the 1930s and for many of the same reasons. First you get a financial bubble in the USA because bankers are playing high-stakes games with a deregulated financial system, then you get a crash whose effects are felt around the world. Then you get governments protecting themselves and their friends in finance and industry at the expense of ordinary people, who end up in a hopeless position and are blamed for it by the very people who put them there, with precious little attempt to help them out of the depression economy. Then you get right-wing demagogues coming to power everywhere, pretending to be the champions of the little guys while actually perpetuating the system but fanning the flames of everyone's discontent and blaming immigrants and brown people. Let's hope we don't go one step further and end up with a world war. Although when you throw the effects of climate change, and the resulting inevitable resource wars, into the mix, things really aren't looking good.

 

Apologies if this is getting too political but I was trying to explain my previous post and keep things historical.

Edited by Melody
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurred to me to wonder a few times over the last few weeks: does the US Constitution contain any provision for taking action if a President turns out to be incompetent, or something?  (Short of a vote of no confidence, I'm not sure whether the UK does).

 

Assuming you mean the layman's definition of "incompetent" rather than the legal meaning (i.e. unable to carry out the duties of the office by virtue of illness), then no.  And in the case of legal incompetence, the VP and half the cabinet need to certify that the POTUS is unable to carry out his duties.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for the Obama's.  They have worked so hard for eight years and they must be wondering why they bothered at this point!

 

 

Don't understand this two terms business, they should stay in place until voted out, same as here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are saying Michelle Obama should run against Trump in four years time. Anytime i've heard her give a speech she has been quite formidable. But she has hated living in the White House as it was built by slaves.

Edited by Lisa O`Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for Obama, he had both Houses of Congress impeding his every move. Trump has the luxury of being able to achieve anything with Republican majorities in both Houses and the opportunity to appoint judges on top of that. I want to say, "Perish the thought" but sometimes the office maketh the man/woman and we have to hope that it does in this case.

Edited by capybara
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...