[CydeWeys]

Yes, it is. Previous presidents have had no problem doing what was right over upholding campaign promises (many of which quickly became outdated). It also doesn't help that many of Trump's campaign promises, like bringing back coal jobs or dictating Mexico's national construction budget, were completely impossible to uphold anyway. So we knew going into this anyway that a lot of his campaign promises were just lies to get elected, so he's going to break many of them anyway; upholding the petty ones that hurt the country while breaking all the rest is not redeeming, it's just shit layered on top of other shit.

[rhizome]

What is an ethical framework that respects a candidate's motivation to promise impossible things in order to get elected? You can say, "duh, politicians lie," but this would seem to me to be well beyond that. Think of the implications, when the winner of an election can just say "lol jk."

[CydeWeys]

I don't know. I'll tell you my ethical framework as a voter though -- be pragmatic and vote for whichever one is best, or least worst. Clinton wasn't as willing to make baseless promises as Trump was, which I think may have cost her. The audience she appealed to was also less willing to accept baseless promises, however.

[rhizome]

> vote for whichever one is best, or least worst

What does "is" mean there, when what is apparent is based on lies? Frankly I'm disappointed that you identify a failure of Clinton as not having lied enough. That is not the foundation of a government I want to survive.

[CydeWeys]

Me neither. I'm not saying she should've lied more, I'm saying it's sad that that might have been to her advantage. The real problem is the media and the electorate just cannot handle a serial liar like Trump.