Ahyoka
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,373
I don't understand how people can be angry at candidates for trying to be as persuasive as possible. If candidates promoted their campaign by only saying what is actually possible and didn't "taint" the image of it's opponents it would be boring and most of the people would find the candidates incompetent. Some countries have civil wars when there's a shift in power. I think "mudslinging" is a cheap price to pay for such light political battles.
I see what your saying, and some of it makes sense. But I just can't agree with it because that logic just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught and how I was raised.
It may just be my stubborn, old fashioned country upbringing talking but I do get angry, I was taught that a man is always taken at his word and not to promise something he can't deliver. That I need to be careful to never betray the trust a person puts in what I say, that if I say I'm going to do something I'm going to do it...I still hold people to that standard. That trust should be valued more than money and is alot like a reputation, it's something you earn..not something that you demanded, expect or buy but is earned and not to be treated lightly. That you simply don't "promise" a person something you can't deliver to get what you want because it's deceptive. If I couldn't get their vote as an honest man then how could I want it or live with it if I got it as a dishonest man?
That's why I can't STAND when candidates promise things they can't do, I mean some things I know they can't solve. If McCain or Obama promised me to magically heal the economy or solve world hunger in their term I would call BS because there is a limit to what one person can do. But some things they promise to "change" or "reform" when they are elected but never will is what bothers me. It's one thing to talk of the things you will TRY and change, but it just disturbs me when they promise things they will never be able to do or maybe don't even want to fix.
And while your right about a little mudslinging being a small price to pay for not having a civil war it just bothers me to think that candidates would sell their souls to get elected, or how candidates think that using mudslinging is the only way to get elected. Obviously it's important to point out things about the other candidate and hole people to a standard but to me only things that can very easily be backed up and proved. To me if something is taken out of context accidentally then that's one thing, but to create or so exaggerate facts to prove a point? I think that is horrible and I wonder how a person can even sleep doing that. I'm just of the opinion if a candidate can't get elected by their own merits then maybe they just aren't right for the country.
It may just be me but I would personally prefer two "boring", honest candidates who will only promise me what they can deliver, no more, no less. Candidates who truly love their country more than themselves and can put aside partisan, regional or personal politics and believe that whether we are Northerners or Southerners, Democrat, Republican or Independent that we all bleed the same, that at the end of the day all that matters is we're still Americans. I want candidates who can believe in their opponents, not preach hate speech of if their opponent is elected, I want someone who in defeat can rise above petty jealousy and know that even though they lost, they can respect their opponent enough to know that he will do everything in his (or her) power to leave America better then when they found it.
May just be me, but I would much prefer that kind of race over the media whoring contest I see on TV now.