I’m normally artsy fartsy but this time I’m going simply fartsy. Or perhaps a term more respectable than that.
I agree that if I post or talk about politics it should focus mainly on what ideas, policies, candidates, etc., that I value most, and those that are likely to affect the most amount of people in positive ways, and further present why these ideas at this time are better than the others being advanced. To be straight forward, Sanders’ ideas and policies move us in a healthy direction and, even if you don’t like him, it’s funny how his proposed ideas are likely to help you anyways, if he were to win. Criminal justice reform. Health care. Debt relief. Federal legalization of cannabis. Homelessness. Education. Campaign finance reform. Climate change focus. Worker empowerment. You can look them up, engage inquisitively, ask questions, or however you want to go about understanding or debunking his policies. That’s what it’s about. I’ll do my best the same.
Who am I agreeing with? The same people that I’m about to counter. I feel obligated to call out this argument that’s making its rounds about how people who are choosing to point out the flaws in other candidates, even if they are valid, is somehow…wrong? Not tasteful? Or, we just shouldn’t do it, I guess? Either way, it’s a bad argument. As much as I feel people act like politics is some game (debatable that it is and isn’t at times for how we treat it), I disagree in approaching government policies like it’s a basketball game or any athletic game. If anything, if we were to test it, take the Olympics for example: Americans want the USA to win because we live here and we (ideally) support one another. You could probably contradict that, you brainies out there, but you get the point. Other than that, team sports mentality shouldn’t be the approach in politics because if the government has any function it should likely be to work for us all, otherwise, it turns against us. ‘It’ being those we’ve elected who are making the policies that form the government.
To the main point: We shouldn’t be pointing out the flaws in a candidate, or their ideas, or their history, it’s not the…time for that?
C’mon. C’mawn. Say your sister is considering dating someone that you know is abusive, controlling, has a history of seriously hurting women. How far would you let it go without telling her? Of course, we could promote Roy, this tall strapping drink of drank over here instead, but not telling her what you know would be sort of…sort of something. Not cool in the least. I mean you don’t have to tell her. Love ya, sis. Or, we could do both, promote Roy AND tell her.
It’s simply a bad argument, a bad argument pushed by people who are supporting candidates with tainted histories. Sure, in day-to-day life, people can be forgiven and so on and so forth with serious evaluation I suppose, yet in politics it’s a no big deal approach. History? It’s in the past!
I’ll go ahead and contradict myself in order to allude that I don’t much care about being right necessarily (lies), and I’ll use another sports analogy: Those who are arguing, “Ugh! No pointing out flaws!” have forgotten that they’ve showed up to a boxing match and are thinking, “Why are these guys hitting one another?” This is a primary, a battle of ideas; there are rules, or principles, no hitting below the belt, or so there SHOULD be, yet a guy buying his way into this election, literally* buying his way in, shouldn’t be talked about, right? A couple mistakes in the past is all. Nobody went to jail or died…
Democracy can wait another few years after a billionaire buys his way in—at least Trump won by the process, however screwed it might be (cough* Cambridge Analytica, billions of dollars of Facebook targeting). Someone buying their way in won’t trash ‘democracy’, right?
Suddenly it’s totally OK, anything to beat Trump. It’s not even fighting fire with fire, it’s more akin to fighting fire with a hydrogen bomb.
[Bad Arguer enters:]
“Just accept the oligarchy, c’mon, please?” (Bats eyes, rubs breasts together and flips heal up.) “I CAN’T STAND THESE BERNIE PEOPLE AND THEIR PRINCIPLES! Don’t they understand that if we don’t join the media and the millions of dollars they’re getting from the relentless Bloomberg ads, can’t they see that we can’t defeat a billionaire madman unless we join and jam another far more wealthy billionaire down their throats? If only we had…a massive movement…with millions of people…with an inspiring message…with a candidate leading in nearly every poll…beating not only Trump, but all the other candidates?? If only…” [Wind blows flowers and dust and a picture of a Jewish man.]
This turned into a Bernie supporter piece without that intention. Let’s be real, do polls always tell the entire truth? No. I do however have a little more trust in these polls since they say one thing and the media likes to tell you something else as often as they can. And, yes, we could talk about all the other candidates and their records too, it’s not simply Bloomberg, but that’s for another person to write about. The fact that no matter who the Democratic National Convention pushes, it’s always anyone except Bernie, so the frustration is real. It’s not hard to see that the passion behind Bernie supporters can be annoying to those of you who simply hate Trump and will vote for “a yard gnome,” or “Kermit the Frog,” or “Pete Buttigieg,” or seemingly anyone. The reasons are vast for disliking Trump and, like the universe, they’re expanding. But for those of you who voted for Trump once and are now on the fence, hey, there’s this guy, he’s charismatic, speaks in full sentences, combs his hair now and again, no bronzer, and has seriously been fighting for people his entire life. Look it up and prove me a fool. And at total risk of sounding corny as all out—