Posts: 50
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2010
It has been a bit disheartening to read so many negative posts where posters feel compelled to sling mud at a candidate for office. A couple of days ago I read a post by someone that I had previously admired, but no longer feel that way after reading their mud slinging ramblings.
There is an old adage: What Peter said about Paul, said a lot more about Peter, than it did about Paul.
If everyone kept this in mind while posting, and reading these posts, maybe we can elevate the discussions out of the mud.
I'd also like to ask anyone, who still wishes to talk negatively about a candidate, would you please include the name of the person you are backing in that particular race. I'd like to know the candidate that you do not have enough good points to talk about
Clayton
Clayton
Posts: 357
Threads: 17
Joined: Feb 2014
American politicians have a long history off mud slinging,and worse. So might not be so surprised that the voters follow suit.IMO. It would be refreshing to hear a politician say why it's so right to vote for them rather than why its so wrong to vote for the other.
Posts: 32
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2013
i think that "negative posts" are often by people who have had "negative" experiences with a candidate.... an attempt to relate character issues with the participants here. Since most of the candidates have no documented experience in office, what else do we have to consider, besides good and bad experiences? Sure, basically they are all good individuals, but like us all, they have faults. We are hiring them for a (locally) well paying job, at our expense. Let's deconstruct them.
Agree, pohaku_uli.
I object to the term slinging mud when it is used improperly. Slinging mud is digging up dirty laundry. It's an indiscriminate feces flinging just hoping something will stick, and it is often something that has little do with making a good representative. Yes, there has been a little of that, but not that much.
Reflecting on whether a candidate has the character, fortitude, skills, maturity, dedication, perseverance, insight, balance, pragmatism, vision, and so on to make a good representative is not mud slinging, if it is done thoughtfully. It's called analysis of the candidate, and no one should need to apologize for doing it.
If I were voting in a Puna district, I'd most likely be on the fence as to who is best, but I would be clear on a few choices that are not good ones. Don't expect people to have an answer on who they support when it is this far before the primary.
Further, it is not cool to demand of people that they talk about their vote. We have a secret ballot system. People can talk about their choice for a vote if they want to. If they don't, it's not your place to hassle them about it.
It's not posters/citizens who have the job of finding something positive to say about candidates or not to say anything. I don't know where this idea comes from. It is the candidates who have the job of coming up with positive campaign messages instead of doing nothing but attacking their opponents. That is where negative campaigning is rightfully critiques, because we want something to vote for.
However, just because something is offered as a positive doesn't mean voters have to agree it matters or it is a good thing. For some it will resonate, and others won't think much of it, or won't believe it's a sincere platform.
Political races are not Oprah. It's a tough process that forces people to really get it together and show they can take the heat and deliver the goods.
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
The term mud-slinging usually means candidate versus candidate. This is just peoples' opinions. The candidates are on here only because they register for an account. This site isn't a political website so it doesn't have any political affiliation. It is just an Interwebz forum.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
Quote by Clayton:
"It has been a bit disheartening to read so many negative posts where posters feel compelled to sling mud at a candidate for office."
In my world it is called giving feedback and describing an experience that I have had with a candidate and how it affected me. This is what I see the punaweb forum being for. It is suppose to make you think. I have no need to hide behind a user name comfortably sniping at folks who dare to share.
I am not mad about what some of the people say about me. That is their observation. I spend NO time dwelling on it.
Posts: 50
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2010
Interesting responses, thank you. I'd like the prior posters two questions.
What is more important to you when you consider which candidate you will vote for, issues or character?
What do you think about the old adage about what Peter said about Paul, slightly paraphrased: When you talk stink about someone else, it tells us a lot more about you than the person you are talking about?
Thank you in advance for your responses.
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Posts: 199
Threads: 19
Joined: Feb 2010
I would like to add my 2 cents worth with respect to the importance of issues vs: character. A candidate can take positions on issues by just stating what people want to hear and then when the time comes, change their position. But character is what really counts in that you can't change your character that easy. A candidates character is the indicator of what kind of job they will do as a Council person. A candidate of good character will do a good job no matter what the agenda is. While a candidate's position statements means nothing when it comes time to perform. They can easily change their position.
Posts: 50
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2010
Kjlpahoa, you have a very good point. However I have found from the past 50 decades of political involvement (I was raised in home with coffee hours for candidates) and have found that you can get a petty good idea of who a candidate is by the way they discuss the issues.
After looking at your post I realized I asked the wrong question. It should have been, What is important to you when choosing a candidate, their stand on issues or their personality?
When looking back at most of the negative post they have been about personality conflicts.
Thanks for your input Kjlpahoa, good point.
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton quote:
"However I have found from the past 50 decades of political involvement"
Clayton, I know you meant 5 decades but I did get a good laugh reading that.
Clayton quote:
"What do you think about the old adage about what Peter said about Paul"
Clayton, I want to remind you that Peter betrayed Christ and Paul never saw him in the flesh. I find that old adage of no value when it comes to politics.
