Politics! Politics! Politics!
I hate election years. WAY too much mudslinging, Mounds of filth, hypocritical standards, and a backlash of lies. its sad when you know more about how one candidate views the opponent then you know about the candidate him/her self.
In a class that focused on civic service, I was once asked to rate a list of 15 items rating them from most important, to least important duties of civic service. I rated voting as last. Nevermind that voting is NOT a civic duty, it is NOT a responcability, it is not even a right! It is a privilege. More to the point, and I quote this directly from a professor of politics I had as a teacher several years ago " A person is just aslikely to vote for someone because of a dress their wife woreas they are to vote based on the canidates issues" then there are also the people that want to vote based off the issues, well that doesn't always work. its hard to know who really supports what you want.
I'll give an easy example: "Canidate John Doe Says he supports "X" cause, but when faced with the supporting bill "ACD-WYZ" he refused to vote on it. Aren't you tired of the rhetoric with no action? Vote on someone you can count on to make a change!"
There are two parts the this short message, the objective part: "Canidate John Doe Says he supports "X" cause, but when faced with the supporting bill "ACD-WYZ" he refused to vote on it."
...and the subjective part: "Aren't you tired of the retoric with no action? Vote on someone you can count on to make a change!"
Since voting should be an objective, and educated process, lets forget about the subjective part, for now atleast. Fictional canidate John Doe still didn't vote for the bill that supported his supposed cause. This, in its context is true, if it were not then it would be slander. But that doesn't mean that that he does not really support the cause. There is too much information missing. WHY didn't Doe vote on that bill? Polititions have a habit of killing bills by tacking too many little extras onto it. maybe he liked the bill, but didn't like what was added to the bill. perhaps what was added was worse then the bill not passing. then if they pass the bill despite what was added, then a canidate can come by later and say that Doe voted in favor of a bill that had "this or that" negitive clauses on it.
But then again, maybe he IS simply twofaced (not a batman referance, this is a traditional architype) and really doesn't support where he claims to.
In a class that focused on civic service, I was once asked to rate a list of 15 items rating them from most important, to least important duties of civic service. I rated voting as last. Nevermind that voting is NOT a civic duty, it is NOT a responcability, it is not even a right! It is a privilege. More to the point, and I quote this directly from a professor of politics I had as a teacher several years ago " A person is just aslikely to vote for someone because of a dress their wife woreas they are to vote based on the canidates issues" then there are also the people that want to vote based off the issues, well that doesn't always work. its hard to know who really supports what you want.
I'll give an easy example: "Canidate John Doe Says he supports "X" cause, but when faced with the supporting bill "ACD-WYZ" he refused to vote on it. Aren't you tired of the rhetoric with no action? Vote on someone you can count on to make a change!"
There are two parts the this short message, the objective part: "Canidate John Doe Says he supports "X" cause, but when faced with the supporting bill "ACD-WYZ" he refused to vote on it."
...and the subjective part: "Aren't you tired of the retoric with no action? Vote on someone you can count on to make a change!"
Since voting should be an objective, and educated process, lets forget about the subjective part, for now atleast. Fictional canidate John Doe still didn't vote for the bill that supported his supposed cause. This, in its context is true, if it were not then it would be slander. But that doesn't mean that that he does not really support the cause. There is too much information missing. WHY didn't Doe vote on that bill? Polititions have a habit of killing bills by tacking too many little extras onto it. maybe he liked the bill, but didn't like what was added to the bill. perhaps what was added was worse then the bill not passing. then if they pass the bill despite what was added, then a canidate can come by later and say that Doe voted in favor of a bill that had "this or that" negitive clauses on it.
But then again, maybe he IS simply twofaced (not a batman referance, this is a traditional architype) and really doesn't support where he claims to.