The current political arena is driving me nuts. There is no doubt that every one of the people running for office are intelligent in their own right, but for some reason, instead of focusing on real actual issues with the domestic economy or international relations or crime, they seem to constantly spout rhetoric about how their opponents don't know what they're talking about and can't or won't get the job done. Even worse, they focus more on smear campaigns to trash their opponents based upon whatever they can find in their opponents' past personal lives or long ago voting records, than on the aforementioned real issues. There is no one who can honestly say that every opinion / stand / decision that they personally had or made 10 / 15 / 20 years earlier in their lives is the exact same as they would do in the here and now ... which makes the smear campaigns make zero sense. It's like watching a bunch of high school girls use gossip and subterfuge to try and oust each other to win the homecoming crown.
Doesn't the constitution state that the government is supposed to be "by the people, for the people"? Last I checked there was no amendment to the constitution that changed it to "by the people, for whatever the views and whims of the elected ones are". Inciting a riot by twisting words or telling quarter truths doesn't effectively represent the needs of the population anywhere. Politicians seem to be guilty of this whether running for office or in office. Sue me for being simplistic, but candidates simply talking about Their Own views, Their Own Values, Their Own Plans for public policy & economic reform & crime & international relations would be much more useful information for voters than pointing fingers at others. Ultimately, when elected, they're supposed to be representing the views of the population that voted for them to be there, so understanding where they themselves are coming from is rather crucial.
Additionally, this country's constitution specifically mentions "freedom of worship" for a reason. Our forefathers wanted all citizens to be free to choose their own religion and follow it without fear of persecution. As far as I can tell, that would mean that even though one may not understand or agree with someone else's religious choice, it should be respected and not condemned or bashed. Not in the political arena especially. If that's a deal-breaker point for a voter, then they'll pay attention to the candidate that most closely aligns with their own beliefs. Trying to make someone look bad because their religion is different than your own or is something that you don't understand ..... well, that just seems a bit far reaching & completely opposite of what "freedom of worship" is supposed to mean.
The past life of any person, place or event obviously cannot be changed, and speaking constantly of someone else's parts in those past things or someone else's past itself, only makes one's own appear as if there's something to hide. Focusing on the future, however, current issues, short term and long term plans, goals, the wins in your own past .... well, that would be a much better use of everyone's time & listening skills. If the candidates focus on that, we might actually be able to elect a government that can truly work together to deliver answers. The sophmoric tactics and high school popularity political standards need to be taken out of it.
~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress
Doesn't the constitution state that the government is supposed to be "by the people, for the people"? Last I checked there was no amendment to the constitution that changed it to "by the people, for whatever the views and whims of the elected ones are". Inciting a riot by twisting words or telling quarter truths doesn't effectively represent the needs of the population anywhere. Politicians seem to be guilty of this whether running for office or in office. Sue me for being simplistic, but candidates simply talking about Their Own views, Their Own Values, Their Own Plans for public policy & economic reform & crime & international relations would be much more useful information for voters than pointing fingers at others. Ultimately, when elected, they're supposed to be representing the views of the population that voted for them to be there, so understanding where they themselves are coming from is rather crucial.
Additionally, this country's constitution specifically mentions "freedom of worship" for a reason. Our forefathers wanted all citizens to be free to choose their own religion and follow it without fear of persecution. As far as I can tell, that would mean that even though one may not understand or agree with someone else's religious choice, it should be respected and not condemned or bashed. Not in the political arena especially. If that's a deal-breaker point for a voter, then they'll pay attention to the candidate that most closely aligns with their own beliefs. Trying to make someone look bad because their religion is different than your own or is something that you don't understand ..... well, that just seems a bit far reaching & completely opposite of what "freedom of worship" is supposed to mean.
The past life of any person, place or event obviously cannot be changed, and speaking constantly of someone else's parts in those past things or someone else's past itself, only makes one's own appear as if there's something to hide. Focusing on the future, however, current issues, short term and long term plans, goals, the wins in your own past .... well, that would be a much better use of everyone's time & listening skills. If the candidates focus on that, we might actually be able to elect a government that can truly work together to deliver answers. The sophmoric tactics and high school popularity political standards need to be taken out of it.
~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress
