IT IS POLITICIAN VS. POLITICIAN in America and although I live in only one state, the negative ads are getting to me.
Worse, I KNOW that in many – most? – cases the ads are, at best, only half (if that much) truths.
I’M CONSIDERING voting for “the other guy” in November.
Rather than hearing that one candidate offered (out-of-state) organizations tax breaks to move to my state, the opponent should tell me what he will do to bring in more tax-paying businesses …. and how he can do that without a tax break inducement.
Rather than telling me that the opponent is somehow connected to a criminal investigation, tell me how you intend to reduce crime.
One commercial slams the opponent for “voting with his party” 89% of the time. Since the man has been re-elected repeatedly, the state’s voters apparently approve of this votes. I think ignoring the party line 11% of the time is commendable. Shows independent thinking, and ANY thinking is to be commended. I would RATHER have the challenger tell me what legislation he will support. (And by the way, the challenger has gone against HIS party’s leader on more than one occasion.)
- I could, with clear conscience, vote for either candidate.
Then there is the STATE candidate who promises to “protect Social Security.” The candidate is not running for a D.C. job where he might have some say on Social Security. He promises to increase Medicaid by thousands of people, yet he is silent on how the state will fund this additional burden.
I suppose I should welcome the fact that the candidate is telling us what he will do if elected. (Florida will become “California East” if this gentleman wins.)
Several candidates tell us they will cause trouble for President Trump; never mind that they cannot anticipate Trump’s actions; just that they are “agin’em, no matter what.” ‘Course they blame everything on the president, even “red tide.”
One gentleman contends that his opponent allowed the state to fall to Number 40 on someone’s school quality list. Question; On what is the ranking based? Money per pupil? The state COULD spend more. (The candidate is promising $10,000 – or more – raises to ALL the state’s teachers; how that will be funded is left “to be determined.”) Is the ranking based on college acceptances? High school graduates? The state ranks pretty good in these areas. We’ve even got some better-than-many universities. So, “Who says” the state ranks in the lower half of the rankings?
I will be delighted when the last ballot has been counted and voted tallied. I may not LIKE the outcome, but at least the lies and half-truth advertising will cease.
Hopefully, the candidates in my state will be more gracious than a losing presidential candidate who, although conceding, encouraged her followers to continue the fight, even taking to the streets burning and looting other’s property.
PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.
BCPLANNER: Comments on Lies and Half Truths
No comments:
Post a Comment