Quote:
Originally Posted by Groot
Just because it's not technically inaccurate, it's extremely slanted and tries to take a multifaceted discussion and dumb it down to a question that is presented in such a simple manner as to elicit one response, anger.
The question basically says, do you support taking tax payer money and giving all.proceeds to billionaires. No logical person says yes to that. But that is such an insultingly dumb attempt to break down the arena discussion it should be derided as such, especially as the question serves no purpose than to rile up potential voters.
Stop the divisive nature of politics. Don't spend time bemoaning a deal that is already done as a means to garner support. Try spending time discussing what you will do in the future to better the City. Simple.
|
I’ll give you a different read on it. Tell me I’m totally out to lunch here:
The statement isn’t just technically accurate, it’s objectively and fully accurate. And the perception of its intent to anger is primarily felt by people who are angered by it, albeit for the opposite reason it’s supposed to make them angry.
It isn’t meant to be divisive, it’s just informing the campaign strategy. And yes, while that campaign will likely be future focused, you can’t “better” anything if you don’t acknowledge what needs to be bettered. If the responses show a lack of support for the deal, that’s an opportunity to frame what “better” looks like (and to use it against two other mayoral candidates in Gondek and Sharpe). If responses are more supportive, the campaign likely focuses a lot less on it.
In either case, I think the likelihood of him running on negotiating or cancelling the deal are virtually zero. Of course he could, but it’s political suicide, and if he’s learned anything he won’t. But it makes sense to take the temperature.
I think the deal was and remains terrible and don’t support it, but the question or statement didn’t anger me at all. Aren’t I the type of audience it’s supposed to rile up, if that’s the intent?