Is Lies And 2016 Primary Election

In 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology, Stephanie Ericsson’s essay “The Ways We Lie” focuses on the many ways society lies today. “We exaggerate, we minimize, we avoid confrontation, we spare people’s feelings, we conveniently forget, we keep secrets, we justify lying to the big-guy institutions” (159). It is common for many people to think of lying exactly how it is on the surface, not telling the truth. Ericsson’s essay forces you to second guess this stereotype and begin to realize that lying is even more prevalent in today’s society than most people might imagine. Looking around today with this mindset would help us make more informed political decisions, better decisions on friends, and better “next-step” positions. Our lives are not horrible places, but better steps for these areas of our lives could improve our lives dramatically.

In the article “It’s the truth: Americans Conflicted About Lying” the author believes that lying is only justified if it doesn’t hurt anyone. The author supports his claim by stating “Apparently white lies are acceptable, even necessary, part of many lives-even though we dislike the idea of lying.” This supports his claim by saying that lying is sometimes necessary. Also, the article states that 65 percent of Americans voted that it was ok to lie sometimes. This also helps his claim by stating that people will lie to protect each other or to not cause harm. The author also supports his claim by stating “Not only is lying justified, It is sometimes a moral duty.” (Randy Cohen) This also supports the claim by saying sometimes you have to lie

The election of a nation’s governing official is an event of great import. The power granted to such an individual is great indeed, and so much so that the position is considered its own branch of the government in and of itself. The trial that is the election is a competition unlike any other, with several professional liars competing for the favor of countless souls. During the election of 2000 this came to a head with several questionable occurrences taking place and lending obvious benefit to the Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan.The events of this election were less than savory, with some believing several facets of it were simply wrong from either a legal or moral standpoint. Late in the election it was discovered that several votes

The media runs rampant, promoting both true and fraudulent information. Many Americans do not trust political advertising because it lies about personal backgrounds, exaggerates, and take things out of context to manipulate voters’ sentiments. (Gerdes, Louise) Each year, it seems like the candidates find new and clever ways to cast their opponents in negative lights. A more recent example of this was the 2014 North Carolina Senatorial race between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. An abundance of bruising commercials aired on the radio and television all around the state, bashing each candidate’s views, from taxation to abortions to women and gay rights. However, despite all this negative campaigning, the American public has learned to decipher between true and false. Mudslinging is not a new occurrence. With a long history dating back to the near founding of the country, negative campaigning had plagued nearly every political candidate in America. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams criticized each other mercilessly during the 1800 election, from foreign and domestic policies to their own person behavior (Gerdes, Louise). Alexander Hamilton, under his pseudonym “Phocion,” accused Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with on of his slaves (Editorial Accuses Jefferson). Jefferson was also accused of being an atheist, causing many older women to bury Bibles in their backyards in case he got elected. During the 1828 campaign, Andrew Jackson himself was accused of murdering Indians. His wife was charged with adultery (Kennedy, David M.). After many decades, Americans have learned to decrypt the negative campaign advertising and find the facts. The people are neither obligated to believe everything they listen to, nor are they required to gather their information from just one source. Newspapers, Internet articles, political speeches, and radio and televised news broadcasts, such as 60 Minutes and Face the

After research-filled, highly targeted, and negative campaigns, the results of the 2016 Presidential Election stunned the world. But were these results really all that surprising? America was prepared for a change in policy and election projections were incorrect due to the fact that there existed many “under cover Trumpers”, whom voted their conscience but were not willing to openly admit their political beliefs for fear of condemnation. The 2016 Presidential Election results open many areas for research into the legitimacy of the Electoral College, civic engagement, and campaign strategies as well as raises concerns over the fear American people possessed in defending their political values.

As a barely twenty-year-old junior at a sheltered private college, I have to confess that it’s been very hard to conceptualize and realize the severity of the 2016 election. What started off as a race of what seemed like a million different candidates, the polls quickly zoned in on two candidates we could’ve never predicted to be the voting citizens’ final choice. It’s both overwhelming, and simple, deceitful, and truthful – this election seems to be full of contradictions and half truths, and the opaque nature of a once seemingly transparent media complicates matters further in an election that seems convoluted even on paper. Along with the legislative branch, the media itself has turned into a monster we never thought we’d have to wrangle. We are surrounded by propaganda, caricatures, and cartoons everywhere we turn, especially in print media like

No campaign in the history of presidential runnings has ever been the same. Yes, past campaigns and presidential candidates have shown their similarities between each other, but none has had the same events occur. The major variable is time. Society has shown a history of changing ideals and appeals. Each year, slowly but surely, society’s view is shaping and shifting. The presidential candidates know this factor and have to change with society to gain their social appeal. Within this time shift, we can analyze past polls and outcomes of primaries that have shown to be somewhat misleading.

The controversy over the topic of whether lying is sometimes, always, or never justified is complete nonsense. To say it is always or never acceptable would mean you’re not thinking about the situations in which we lie thoroughly. Simply put, lying can be sometimes acceptable when it brings good intentions.

It is important to critically analyze claims for potential deception and misleading statements because of many reasons. First, rhetoric can either inspire a nation, or it can destroy a nation. If rhetoric is manipulative and deceptive, citizens can fall into the trap, and begin to believe hateful and untrue things that affect people’s views. It is important that citizens can recognize when leaders are deceiving us, so they can call it out and try to not let others fall into as well. If one does not check for deception when looking at a piece of rhetoric, they could vote for things that clearly are not within their self-interest. A rhetor can strategically relay the

On September 10th, Katie Sanders from PunditFact and former writer from Politifact Florida gave a speech at the Bob Graham Center titled Pants on Fire: Misinformation in American Politics. The talk and subsequent Q&A centered on the perpetuation of misinformation that is experienced in contemporary American politics as well as what journalists and common people alike can do to combat it. Though these were the focal points, three related tangents were my main takeaway from the experience.

If voters were to review past presidential candidates’ advertisements, they would be guaranteed to come across instances where someone’s words were twisted and turned against them by their opposing party. This is a classic use of manipulation to make oneself appear to be the “good-guy.” Hence, it is not surprising that this has not changed in the 2016 election. However, what has changed is that there is a woman running for president—she’s cunning, but her arguments are distorted. With clips of girls evaluating their figures while playing interviews with harsh words, Clinton asks, “Is this the president we want for our daughters?” In one of her new ads, “Mirrors,” Hillary Clinton follows suit and manipulates potential voters into a prejudiced opinion of Donald Trump by taking his words out of context to exploit him.

During the election, media has grabbed at any information regarding the candidates imaginable. The avalanche of media coverage takes away from essential facts that an informed citizen requires to make a responsible decision when

You have seen them on TV around election time political ads, one after another, bombarding you with the accomplishments of one candidate and the dirt on another. Knowing what to believe and what to dismiss as mere drivel can be difficult. It is easy to believe thing that are stated as fact. For example, in a recent television political ads, supporters of Superintendent Thornton Campbell suggested that he should be elected superintendent of Lowrence County. The political ad offered support by reviewing campbell’s past record as superintendent of neighboring Downs county. Apparently, test scores in this county went up by 43%. The ad suggest, then that if Campbell were elected superintendent of Lowrence county, their test score would improves as well. Although the ad state a positive statistic, it does not provide enough information

Donald Trump’s only political background consist only of controversy and endorsement. Trump himself has never held any form of political status. Throughout decades of slander and outspoken statements Trump has remained a man of virtually limitless authority. In February of 2015 Trump was awarded The Liberty Award at the Algemeiner Jewish 100 Gala. That is only one of Trump’s many awards and recognitions he’s earned through his career. In the 2011 Trump who is a true Republican slurred Democratic

In the current elections, many candidates made “magical” promises that are completely unrealistic and practically impossible to fulfill at the present situations. In example, Bernie Sanders’ health plan. It’s very appealing, as long as people don’t ask “How are we going to achieve that?” or “How will we get to that point?” It sounds like a great plan until there’s a 600 billion dollar cut a year in health care costs. Additionally, the same goes for Sanders’ plan to make tuition free for all at public colleges. Where will the money for that come from, again? His opponent, Hillary Clinton proposes the same thing as well. However, she also doesn’t provide enough information about where the money will be coming from to aid in the tuitions. Both Blanche and the presidential candidates lied in order to protect their image but only one of them could be excused because they cannot handle it. Blanches’ situation is different than Bernie’s and Clinton’s because she is mentally, it is very hard to live life normally after watching your husband/wife kill themselves because of you. That’s why Blanche should be defended and not prosecuted and hated for her