by RaeLynn Ricarte
I could think of a few drinking games that would make this election more fun, or at least drive it out of your memory.
For instance, each time a “fact checker” renders another slanted opinion, you could knock back a shot.
Every time that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton fire off a shot at each other — you could down one to lower your stress level.
Of course, you would be rip-roaring drunk for almost four months and probably lose your job and family, based on the results of “fact checking” during and after last week’s Republican National Convention.
There is always the old fallback of unplugging the television, turning off the radio and putting your fingers in your ears and doing the “La-la-la-la” thing every time someone ventures a political opinion. It is truly tempting to become an “ostrich” and avoid the angry emotions that always surface during a presidential election year — especially with the growing polarity between conservatives and liberals.
However, we have a responsibility as citizens to stay engaged. The founders warned Americans to be knowledgeable about Constitutional limitations on government and select representatives that respected its boundaries.
The gigantic mess that we’re in now is a direct result of citizen apathy and ignorance — and this election is a turning point.
If Clinton wins, you can kiss the Constitution goodbye. If Trump wins, he brings the unknown into the nation’s top elected office and that carries risk.
Most media outlets lean left, and you will find the same bias in “fact-checking” outlets during this election cycle.
Even when they can’t totally disprove the claim of a Republican, they split hairs to raise doubt.
For example, last week GOP candidate Trump repeated his claim that Clinton wants to “abolish” the Second Amendment. PolitiFact suggested the claim was “false” because Clinton may have “misspoke” or “misunderstood” (where have you heard that before?) Australia’s total gun ban when she said it was “worth looking at” for U.S. policy.
Why would PolitiFact think it’s a stretch that Clinton meant what she said? She supports the United Nations gun control treaty and is a strong advocate for as much regulation of weapons in the U.S. that she feels citizens will tolerate.
Bottom line, we all need to be doing our homework before voting. You will find plenty of information online.
by Mark Gibson
When I was young a great many families banned religion and politics from the dinner table as being simply too divisive for effective digestion.
When the two were combined with the introduction of the “moral majority,” the innate divisiveness of both became effective political tools, and it appears to me elections – and politics in general – have become increasingly divisive ever since.
Having spent my adult political life choosing the “least bad” presidential candidate, I’m used to having tough choices to make every four years.
As the conventions of both parties wrap up, we have the clearest picture of each candidate – the general election veneer designed to appeal to the undecided voter is spin and politics, although one always hopes details will be offered to fill out the political slogans.
What do we know? We know that Trump has “big hands” and a pretty wife, and refuses to share his tax returns.
We know that Clinton is willing to stack the deck with “super delegates” and shift her support away from her “gold standard” trade policy if the wind blows in that direction.
And we know both have a mean streak a mile wide.
I’m not sure how I’ll vote, but the upcoming campaign rhetoric is unlikely to offer much: I fully expect to divide my time between burying my head in the sand, hoping for a little peace and quiet, and ranting about this or that candidate when I have to pay attention.
It boils down to trust, and I don’t trust either candidate.
So how do I plan to survive the political noise of the coming months?
Because I haven’t watched television for over two decades, that source of noise is already mute. Radio and print are harder to ignore, doubly so because I work for a newspaper. Print is nice ,because the latest attack or counter attack is presented in the first two or three paragraphs, and I can skip through to the quotes.
I listen to National Public Radio as I drive, but this has the drawback of audio quotes.
The last quote I heard from Hillary, she sounded snarky and mean, while Trump sounded like a pompous ass.
As the best leaders available from two major political parties, they are disappointing. Perhaps I’ll just stick with the “letters to the editor” submitted to the Chronicle: I have to read them anyway, and they will undoubtedly reflect the best, and worst, arguments available.
Commented