3 ms·
Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent is bad. /s Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions ar
by dylan604 1y ago
Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent is bad. /s
Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions are, and not be able to say anything about their opponent. If you can't tell me what your plans are and all you can do is say why the other position is wrong, then you're not showing me you'd be an effective person to hold office.
However, that's what your website is for. Stop interrupting my whatever I was doing.
- immibis 1y agoAlso that they have to actually be your positions and you can't just promise one thing and do a completely different thing.
- dylan604 1y agoThen they'd all say the same thing with "my positions will be those of whoever writes the largest check"
- immibis 1y agoThat would be allowed. If that's what voters want, they can vote for that. Voting to dissolve a democracy is allowed.
- patrickmay 1y agoHolding politicians legally accountable for their campaign promises will never happen, but I love the idea.
- dylan604 1y agoMy favorite reform idea is to make politicians wear NASCAR style suits with all of their sponsor's logos attached
- lern_too_spel 1y agoThey think their opponent is bad because their opponent is not themself. That's not what the ads typically say though. Instead, they try to mislead uninformed voters into thinking the opponent is bad in the quickest way possible instead of explaining why the opponent is actually bad, which doesn't fit in a banner.