The filters are off. The brain is mush. If only there were some mechanism in our Constitution to remove a president who is incompetent or unable to perform his duties…
@jaykuo
Well, there are mechanisms but it's up to Congress to implement them. Clearly Congress is derelict in its duty, too.
Bingo, but we need to emphasize one step back: we elect these congresspeople, and we reelect them, and we should probably stop doing that.
Congress is derelict in its duty? Well, their duty is to represent voters, and apparently the voters like it this way.
@volkris @jaykuo
Heh--don't get me started on the problems of the Duopoly failing its constituents consistently. The people who keep re-electing the current Congress critters are the people who turn out to vote, so it's time to mention the low-turnout states.
Anytime somebody points out that they're elected by the people, I hasten to add the question, "WHICH people?"
Sadly, in my experience it all comes down to information.
People would vote differently if they knew what they were voting for, but as a society we just don't have institutions in place to inform the population.
The duopoly doesn't fail its constituents. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, giving them the outcomes they're voting for. But it's the garbage in, garbage out principle: When people vote for bad outcomes, and get bad outcomes, that's a success of democracy. Yay.
There's a constant drumbeat of folks excitedly, actively supporting candidates after being misinformed about what those candidates have done.
Until we as a society get serious about informing the public the system will continue dutifully giving them the crap government that they're asking for.
@volkris @jaykuo
Ah, well, that's where you & me differ, volkris. I maintain that the duopoly DOES fail its constituents, BY DESIGN. Of course I agree with you that it does exactly what it's supposed to do, but serving big money special interests instead of its constituents, thus failing its constituents, is exactly what it was designed to do.
@ClaraListensprechen4
But follow up back one step: if I vote for the representative to acts based on what big money wants him to do, then I'm saying I want a representative who does that.
Apparently I want it that way.
An awful lot of people actually DO want government that's like a WWE match, full of drama and sensationalism. They explicitly say so. Well, you and I might say they're voting for bad governance, but those constituents are getting the BS that they're asking for. They're being served what they want.
For others, they are ignorant as to the details but still get what they ask for. It's like they ordered a meal without knowing it's unhealthy. They still got the meal they wanted, they were still served.
In the end the system isn't failing its constituents. It is putting into office the people they vote for, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.
It's serving the constituents TOO well, if responsible governance was the goal. But it's not. The constituents don't want that.
@jaykuo