Skip to content


    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place:

    Election Trash Talk
    Olivia_WebMD_Staff posted:
    As the election gets down to the wire it seems the trash-talking and mudslinging is getting heavier.

    What do you think about use of those tactics in political campaigns? Do they influence your decisions? How?
    Jeune1 responded:
    Trash talk during U.S.politics is as old as U.S. politics. (But at least opponents don't beat each other senseless any more.) In fact, folks have toned it down a bit :

    "Consider George Washington, the object of bitter political attacks. Anti-Federalist newspapers called him a horse beater, a gambler, a tyrannical monster, a most horrid swearer and blasphemer."

    And that's kind of mild. Search Political Mudslinging History for much, much, more.

    What HAS changed is the frequency with which we hear about it. 200 years ago, if a senator in Ohio called his opponent a rabid dog with the morals of a drunken adulterer, you probably wouldn't know about it. Now even the pettiest squabbles will come at you from your paper, your TV, your computer, your smartphone...
    longduckdong46 replied to 1nt3rnalc0mbu5t1on's response:
    Social security and medicare are programs YOU pay in to, and furthermore look at SSDI SSI, all lumped in with Retirees social security ( workers who earned it ). Those that are enrolled in those programs have worked little if at all. It's not uncommon for someone to have a drug addiction, and they claim to be incapable of working. Well guess what ? You and I end up paying for their lifestyle choices.
    Indeed very sad, that citizens can no longer take responsibility for the poor decisions that they make and we taxpayers have to bail them out.
    Obama's agenda : Make people dependant on government and take away their freedoms. Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.
    I like the idea of a hand up not a handout.
    1nt3rnalc0mbu5t1on replied to longduckdong46's response:
    I know that we pay into Social Security and I am well aware that when I retire that their wont be anything left. But the reason it wont be there doesnt really have anything to do with the moochers. The goverment has been using SSI as their own bank account. Please understand that I do not agree with how the welfare system in this country is set up. Like all good things, someone will find a way to work the system. But the current administration has done nothing to fundamentally change what determines if someone should receive welfare. That structure has been in place for years. Taking away freedoms? Again something that has been going on for a long time, ever heard of the Patriot Act? wire taps, eavesdropping? sounds pretty free to me. They use the vail of protecting the country as a reason for passing these laws. Perhaps if our leaders actually paid attention the briefings they receive and take a potential threat seriously we could be ready for a potential attack.

    And lets be honest, was Mitt really the best guy for the job? His own party slammed him for flip flopping and being a vulture capitalist. They didnt trust him, hell he could be just as responsible for this high unemployment rate, he closed factories and sold them for profits and shipped the job overseas. He also wanted to cut civil service jobs; police, firefighters and even teachers. But like anything else im sure he backed off of that and took a more moderate stance, even though his party, wanted him to be more conservative.

    You could say that Mitt was the lesser of two evils, but at the end of the day your still voting for evil.

    As i said before and ill say it again, the media is dividing this country in 2 and until people start to do their own research and stop listening to fox/msnbc/cnn etc. to get their opinions made for them. our situation wont improve.
    jis4judy responded:
    Ok I cannot find a way to make a discussion so I am asking the question here
    do you think mandatory background checks are needed from coast to coast for buying guns of any kind.

    I will say we already have this in my state but I think it is being
    abused because other states not having the same rules make it hard to control even in states that have this rule
    I am for tougher gun rules
    rohvannyn replied to jis4judy's response:
    I can understand why people instinctively want tougher gun laws, but law abiding people who pass background checks aren't the problem. For example, background checks wouldn't have stopped the Newtown massacre, the killer got the guns from his mom. They wouldn't have stopped the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, the killer didn't have a criminal record. Guns can be stolen or imported or built. Tougher gun laws always hit law abiding people first, the cirminals find ways around them. I can name many, many cases however where a law abiding gun owner has stopped or prevented a crime.
    jis4judy replied to rohvannyn's response:
    Oh Roh I am not saying that there should be no guns at all
    it is just that maybe a few of the gun killings not all will be more difficult for the perps to do .
    and the majority of gun Violence is in states with zero gun laws
    and it is so easy to drive to another state so the efforts we put into gun laws in the States that have them is rather wasted
    Hugs Judy:)

    WebMD Talk Show

    Feel like a friendly debate? Take the gloves off and defend your viewpoint.

    Learn More

    Expert Blog

    Diagnosis: Reality Check

    Putting perspective on health news and names in the spotlight.Read More