I gave excellent advice in post 27. Be an avid consumer of information. That is foremost. Do not set up up info filters. Do not tell young voters what NOT to read. Read all kinds of stuff ... right, middle, left ... New York Times, Huff Post, Newsmax, and the golden nuggets from the Pachyderm Club on BGP.

 

Then God will come to you in a dream on Nov. 1 and tell you how to vote.

Oh, you're screwed then.

I agree! Read everything in the beginning, then go to some fact check sites. If you can, meet the candidates! Now with my line of work I have taken some psychology, and I can look at a person as they speak and tell of they are honest or of they are lying or hiding something, but you don't need that, you will be able to tell for the most part. But meet them and ask questions, and listen to the questions from others and the candidates responses.

If you can listen to them I'm an unscripted interview, do that. Listen to how many times they ignore question and go off on their own diatribe. Too many times politicians are afraid to be honest...that makes me sick, especially when you know they are being purposely evasive.

Oh, you're screwed then.

The default position if the almighty doesn't respond in time is to look for the Democratic rooster on the ballot, then fill in the straight-ticket bubble at the top with a black pen.

 

Surely there's a Proverb that covers this.

I gave excellent advice in post 27. Be an avid consumer of information. That is foremost. Do not set up up info filters. Do not tell young voters what NOT to read. Read all kinds of stuff ... right, middle, left ... New York Times, Huff Post, Newsmax, and the golden nuggets from the Pachyderm Club on BGP.

 

Then God will come to you in a dream on Nov. 1 and tell you how to vote.

 

So, because we seldom agree with you on posts we are right-wing republicans? It doesn't surprise me that you would think that, but I am very sure many of us are far more placed firmly in the middle than you would think including party affiliation. You are grasping for stereotypes to help you explain why/who would disagree with you, and they aren't there. Logic and factual decision-making about issues important to each of us drive the individual's thinking here. I have posted with and against most of the poster here to know: 1) there are a lot of smart, interested people who post here; 2) they are interested enough to dig deeper and 3) decisions of the rational are open not pre-determined.

 

I have usually welcomed and respected the opinions of yours and others who I would consider left of me on SOME issues here, and while I may sometimes THINK some opinions are stupid....I try to avoid blatantly saying so.

 

And FYI, I have been a subscriber to the Lex. Hearald Leader for 17 years since I moved to Kentucky apparently from another place that can breed equally stupid people. And...the LHL is a liberal rag. They have, without exception that I can recall, endorsed a liberal democrat at every opportunity. IMO, the media, including a newspaper, should not be endorsing anyone...they should be reporting the facts as best as they can.

Don't most newspapers - even small locals - endorse candidates every election cycle? Seems that way to me, anyway.

Don't most newspapers - even small locals - endorse candidates every election cycle? Seems that way to me, anyway.

 

I couldn't answer that with any confidence, but the practice is illogical to me if one keeps in mind Journalism 101: objectivity and facts. When a newspaper, periodical, journalist for that matter endorses any candidate, as far as I am concerned, their objectivity is compromised. Although I guess one could say that they are at least being honest. We accept this as the norm nowadays.

I couldn't answer that with any confidence, but the practice is illogical to me if one keeps in mind Journalism 101: objectivity and facts. When a newspaper, periodical, journalist for that matter endorses any candidate, as far as I am concerned, their objectivity is compromised. Although I guess one could say that they are at least being honest. We accept this as the norm nowadays.

Just because a newspaper endorses candidate A or B on its editorial page doesn't mean that it can't report objectively on candidate A or B on its front page.

 

By the way, newspaper endorsements today carry far less weight than, say, in the '50s and '60s. Many more ways to "get news" nowadays.

I couldn't answer that with any confidence, but the practice is illogical to me if one keeps in mind Journalism 101: objectivity and facts. When a newspaper, periodical, journalist for that matter endorses any candidate, as far as I am concerned, their objectivity is compromised. Although I guess one could say that they are at least being honest. We accept this as the norm nowadays.

 

So, what is the purpose of the op-ed page?

The default position if the almighty doesn't respond in time is to look for the Democratic rooster on the ballot, then fill in the straight-ticket bubble at the top with a black pen.

 

Surely there's a Proverb that covers this.

I picked one out just for you:

 

Proverbs 18:6New International Version (NIV) ⁶ The lips of fools bring them strife,

and their mouths invite a beating.

I'm scared to like any posts in here now.

I'm scared to like any posts in here now.

 

:banana:

I picked one out just for you:

 

Proverbs 18:6New International Version (NIV) ⁶ The lips of fools bring them strife,

and their mouths invite a beating.

Funny that you chose Proverbs chapter 18, because the verse I selected (and forgot about) is from the same book and chapter:

 

“The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” --Proverbs 18:17

Funny that you chose Proverbs chapter 18, because the verse I selected (and forgot about) is from the same book and chapter:

 

“The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” --Proverbs 18:17

Pretty sound theory from the guy who was gonna split the baby.

Just because a newspaper endorses candidate A or B on its editorial page doesn't mean that it can't report objectively on candidate A or B on its front page.

 

By the way, newspaper endorsements today carry far less weight than, say, in the '50s and '60s. Many more ways to "get news" nowadays.

 

I would agree with you on both statements. However, it is clear on page one, consistently, who the Lex. Herald Leader endorses which draws my ire. But those are just my feelings about it.