That’s not a good paraphrase at all. See @Dioptase1’s post; it may rephrase in a way that you can understand.
Wu: “Lynch voted to authorize the Iraq war.”
You guys: “I’m gonna need more context to decide if that was a bad choice or not, and I’m very disappointed Wu isn’t providing it.”
9 Likes
Caveat emptor: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/4844/stephen-lynch
ETA: https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_Lynch
and https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/stephen-f-lynch/
and https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/stephen_lynch/400249
2 Likes
But that’s the point: he didn’t even say that. He said “he voted for the war” (emphasis mine).
“Authorize” is much more specific than “for.” “For” could mean “voted for providing funding to troupes in the field.”
Perfect example! Just a few days ago he voted against the house 20 week abortion bill, yet he’s characterized as “voting against choice.”
Politics as usual.
The devil really is in the details. I’m sure he voted on something that someone could construe as anti-choice. It would be kind of important for his challengers to say what it was.
If you look at the Ratings tab, you can see his gradual approval rating from NRTL decline, and NARAL rise over the years. Currently, he has a 100% rating from NARAL and 0% from NRTL.
2 Likes
So it’s a dirty political campaign tactic for Wu to say “Lynch voted for the war” instead of “Lynch voted to authorize the war?”
Exactly what important context is missing from Wu’s statement that makes Lynch’s record look worse than it really is?
6 Likes
Well, @aethercowboy’s post above yours is a good example: he has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice.
Leads one to think that “voted against choice” is misleading, even if there was a vote that could be construed that way. Don’t you think?
That would be a counter-argument I’d expect to hear from a Lynch supporter, but not one I think Wu has any obligation to make on Lynch’s behalf.
I also wouldn’t expect the Lynch campaign to write up a bunch of nice things to say about Wu.
1 Like
You lost me there.
I think it’s vaguely sleazy politics as usual (ie. implying that someone who is supported by one of the largest pro-choice organization as “anti-choice”); you don’t.
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Maybe, maybe not. That’s not the point. The point is some of use would like to become informed voters without having to become researchers. Give us more than just bullet points. That’s a typical political tools meant to influence votes by hoping people will jump to certain conclusions (right or wrong).
If you believe contextless facts are ok, then you missed the 2016 election cycle. That’s how you end up with “alternative facts” being believed.
2 Likes
Wu did open that comment with “at various points in his career…” so a reasonable person could take that to mean “these are not necessarily his current positions.” Not an impartial statement about Lynch but not a totally unfair one either.
My view is that political campaigns should be civil and truthful. I don’t expect either side to be balanced, nor to provide enough information for voters to make a totally unbiased decision.
4 Likes
While I really like the idea of more “indie” candidates with various backgrounds stepping up to oppose the establishment, it seems that Brianna Wu’s campaign is more of a farce than a real challenge. Quirky attack ads and Twitter rants are one thing, but does she have any actual policy agenda that isn’t simply a reaction to daily headlines?
To Brianna Wu’s campaing I ask:
- Do you actually live in the district you intend to represent? I know that’s not a requirement, but if you don’t you still have to have an explanation for voters
- What are the top legislative issues your constituents (not you personally) want addressed?
- How are you engaging with people in your district?
- Your opponent has a deep history of actual community involvement, Union leadership and legislative accomplishments that seem to be addressing the needs of the district, other than rhetoric, what do you bring?
1 Like
Brianna Wu is not a serious politician. She spends most of her time tweeting about her issues with the latest videogames. I am glad she has the privilege to be able to play congresswoman dressup, but I think it’s pretty disrespectful for a news organization to treat her as a serious candidate.
I still like Wyatt Scott’s. Mind you, he didn’t win.
3 Likes
Um… have you seen the current president?
15 Likes
You could always google Stephen Lynch’s voting record…
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stephen+Lynch's+voting+record
So let me get this straight. Lynch, who’s voting record is readily available as the first result in a google search, is being unfairly attacked because his critics don’t do other people’s research for them, but it’s fair to call Wu trash without providing any reason to support it?
10 Likes
Funny that no one gives a shit about these questions when the candidate is “traditional.”
13 Likes
Lynch’s supporters won’t even need to mobilize - though if the double-standard in this thread is any indication, they already are - since thousands of man-child gamergate trollies are doubtless busily loading up their Pepe memes from last Fall.
12 Likes
Um, wait, isn’t that FRANK Wu battling Trump in the video???
