Welcome to another US Presidential election.
<ugh>
What is it about these contests that we're always dragging everyone down into the mud?
I understand that a person's character matters. For example:
Trump: Considered a mysoginist who assaults women sexually.
Clinton: Considered an enabler for covering up for her husband's infidelities and threatening his victims to keep quiet, even the ones who claimed rape.
Trump: Has law suits against him for various business deals.
Clinton: The Director of the FBI admitted she had lied to them about the emails, a federal offense.
Trump: The Trump Foundation
Clinton: The Clinton Foundation
Trump: Won't release tax returns (although not legally required to).
Clinton: Gets millions of dollars for speeches she kept secret, and apparently admitted to a politician's need for a "public" stance on an issue versus a "private" stance (trust issue? hello?).
As the King of Siam (Yul Brynner) once said; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
My biggest complaint?
It's not with the candidates themselves so much, or even their campaigns.
It's with the mainstream press.
Why is the press focusing on this crap to the exclusion of the real issues facing the nation? How about ISIS? Illegal aliens? Open versus closed borders? National security? (oops - Hillary won't like that one) Temperament and the nuclear button? (oops - Donald doesn't want to go there)
Now I'm not saying that the press shouldn't report these things. Of course they should (although I don't believe they do that evenly between liberals and conservatives).
No, I'm saying that not only should this be done evenly (as in, time spent on a particular topic), but should be side notes, not the main story. We need to vote for someone whose plans for the country line up with our own beliefs. A candidate may be considered immoral, but we can't legislate morality. Nor should we try to.
Unfortunately, I feel like the candidates' real plans to handle the big issues are getting buried in the sensationalism of sexual misconduct, threats of lawsuits, and tweets.
I'm old enough to remember the days of Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in the country at the time he was a news anchor on television. No commentary, just the news as it happened.
I know there was a time when a politician's private life was kept private (John Kennedy, anyone? And yes, I think he was one of our best presidents).
Now it all depends on which newspapers you can pay off to cover you in a positive light and smear your opponent in a negative light. It's really sad that our politicians can't even run honestly, much less govern honestly.
Although, in the end, we may have no one to blame but ourselves. The press knows that we won't pay attention to the less than sensational news when there is so much dirty laundry to decry.
Maybe we need to demand better from our news agencies, and not just our politicians.
Here endeth the rant.
<ugh>
What is it about these contests that we're always dragging everyone down into the mud?
I understand that a person's character matters. For example:
Trump: Considered a mysoginist who assaults women sexually.
Clinton: Considered an enabler for covering up for her husband's infidelities and threatening his victims to keep quiet, even the ones who claimed rape.
Trump: Has law suits against him for various business deals.
Clinton: The Director of the FBI admitted she had lied to them about the emails, a federal offense.
Trump: The Trump Foundation
Clinton: The Clinton Foundation
Trump: Won't release tax returns (although not legally required to).
Clinton: Gets millions of dollars for speeches she kept secret, and apparently admitted to a politician's need for a "public" stance on an issue versus a "private" stance (trust issue? hello?).
As the King of Siam (Yul Brynner) once said; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
My biggest complaint?
It's not with the candidates themselves so much, or even their campaigns.
It's with the mainstream press.
Why is the press focusing on this crap to the exclusion of the real issues facing the nation? How about ISIS? Illegal aliens? Open versus closed borders? National security? (oops - Hillary won't like that one) Temperament and the nuclear button? (oops - Donald doesn't want to go there)
Now I'm not saying that the press shouldn't report these things. Of course they should (although I don't believe they do that evenly between liberals and conservatives).
No, I'm saying that not only should this be done evenly (as in, time spent on a particular topic), but should be side notes, not the main story. We need to vote for someone whose plans for the country line up with our own beliefs. A candidate may be considered immoral, but we can't legislate morality. Nor should we try to.
Unfortunately, I feel like the candidates' real plans to handle the big issues are getting buried in the sensationalism of sexual misconduct, threats of lawsuits, and tweets.
I'm old enough to remember the days of Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in the country at the time he was a news anchor on television. No commentary, just the news as it happened.
I know there was a time when a politician's private life was kept private (John Kennedy, anyone? And yes, I think he was one of our best presidents).
Now it all depends on which newspapers you can pay off to cover you in a positive light and smear your opponent in a negative light. It's really sad that our politicians can't even run honestly, much less govern honestly.
Although, in the end, we may have no one to blame but ourselves. The press knows that we won't pay attention to the less than sensational news when there is so much dirty laundry to decry.
Maybe we need to demand better from our news agencies, and not just our politicians.
Here endeth the rant.
