|
I completely agree with you there. It's always the ones who don't participate who are the first to complain. |
|
0
|
Posted by REBBIE  - 11/3/2012 5:53:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hypothetical of course. Corruption would not show up here. By the way, please remember I'm not griping so much at the candidates -- anyone has the right to apply to be elected to these jobs. I'm griping at what I attribute to voter apathy that so few residents show up at public forums, which are essentially group job interviews, and then later harp at the City Council for what it does. Our individual efforts to evaluate and elect competent, responsive representatives in the first place is one way to help them all be effective. Just my opinion. |
|
0
|
Posted by Morgan Greenwood - 11/3/2012 3:12:39 PM
|
|
|
It was a hypothetical statement, Morgan. |
|
0
|
Posted by REBBIE - 11/3/2012 11:32:10 AM
|
|
|
I don't expect every candidate to be a great public speaker. I do expect them to be able to express and explain their ideas, and also to have some logical ideas in the first place. As for a long-experienced person to have inside knowledge of corruption, they can also just as easily be participants in corruption. And, if anyone did have such knowledge, should we not expect them to expose it? |
|
0
|
Posted by Morgan Greenwood - 11/2/2012 10:24:25 PM
|
|
|
I do think that the public forum makes for a nervous atmosphere. They shouldn't be judged because they don't present well, or aren't coached for a public debate. What I do know is that experience is a key factor for my vote. If someone has been in the trenches with the troops for a long time, then those people make for the best leaders. They know what troubles the foundation and can pinpoint exactly what needs to be done, etc. They may even know specific corruptions that are occurring that we have no clue about. Experience over public speaking? You bet!
|
|
0
|
Posted by REBBIE - 11/2/2012 8:10:47 PM
|
|
|
dan mcguire--please call it a day---32 years--thanks for your service , but...... |
|
0
|
Posted by rattlesnake - 11/2/2012 1:41:06 PM
|
|
|
Josh, not "everyone" IS qualified to run for City Council, any more than "everyone" is qualified for any other job. I do not have the set of skills necessary to be effective in such a position, so I would not run. However, I do try to support and encourage competent people to run, and I try to encourage people to be active and informed voters. |
|
0
|
Posted by Morgan Greenwood - 11/1/2012 1:24:23 AM
|
|
|
Mr. Greenwood thank you for taking interest in city politics by attending the debates. I am not a public speaker, it takes guts to get up there and express your views. I encourage all people to get involved and run for office, I think you should have run, since to are so feel some are not qualified. |
|
0
|
Posted by joshuawelden - 10/31/2012 9:32:13 AM
|
|
|
Thanks for the perspective. A recap of the forum is now posted. |
|
0
|
Posted by George Lauby - 10/30/2012 9:01:09 PM
|
|
|
If it's any help, the video of the candidates' forum before last May's PRIMARY election is on youtube. You might get an idea from that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVry69X7Qpc
|
|
0
|
Posted by Morgan Greenwood - 10/30/2012 8:31:19 PM
|
|
|
(Oops, I hit "submit" too soon...) On the brighter side, some of the other candidates DID show they had studied issues, knew what TIF funding means, had specific issues they would like to see addressed in their ward, and even had made an effort since the prior forum to examine how they could express their ideas better. The difference between candidates shows when some can give specific examples and explain why they think as they do, and others try to bluff. Give your constituents some credit, most of us can all spot the blah-blah filler sentences, the vague answers and predictable campaign phrases. In opening and closing statements, some just gave their personal history for the 3rd or 4th time, but others explained what they hope to accomplish and why they think they deserve our vote. Also, in both forums, the candidates display very different levels of enthusiasm for the job. A couple of them seemed either bored, or they didn't think they should have to make any effort to get our votes. I don't think anyone is entitled to be elected because they have been on the council a long time, or before, or worked for the city a long time, or are a nice person. But enough -- my point is, clear differences between all the pairs of candidates have emerged, but sadly, people will not know if they don't show up to see for themselves. |
|
0
|
Posted by Morgan Greenwood - 10/30/2012 8:25:07 PM
|
|
|
I can hardly wait for people to start whining about who got elected to the City Council and Mayors office next week! Last night's pathetic voter turnout was about the same as the PREVIOUS forum 3 weeks ago: I counted around 30 people, INCLUDING the media, family members, and some Chamber of Commerce members (because they sponsored it.) Sadly, some people decide their vote by counting yard signs, or if the candidate has expressed agreement with their social or political views. But that doesn't make someone competent to hold public office. If more people showed up to see how the candidates actually respond (or don't) to questions they should be prepared to speak intelligently about, we would have more informed voters.
In my opinion, three of the people on that panel had no business being there. They gave no reason to think they had studied issues, knew terminology, bothered to prepare for the forum, talked to potential constituents, or even cared that much in the first place. Inane short answers like "yeah, I think TIF is a good thing," or "I just lost my train of thought so, ha ha, I'll pass..." or "yeah, I'm in favor of improving downtown," or "I really haven't thought much about that" just don't cut it for me when someone wants my vote. In the previous forum, one candidate even expressed the opinion that Planned Parenthood and the Womens' Resource Center do the same kind of work, so they should work together, help each other out, share funding, etc.
|
|
0
|
Posted by Morgan Greenwood - 10/30/2012 8:23:19 PM
|
|
|
Ditto |
|
0
|
Posted by Friendly One - 10/30/2012 4:58:09 PM
|
|
|
Why do they always seem to plan these forums for after early voting has started? We have already filed our votes so why go? These things, in my opinion, should be held early in the season so voters have time to mull over their choices. |
|
0
|
Posted by alwayshere - 10/30/2012 1:49:02 PM
|
|
Quick Links
= No current warnings. Any past warnings have expired.
= Minor offense. Post was edited where neccessary. Yellow flags fly for 7 days.
= A more serious offense. This user can't post to Talk Back for 7 days. The offending post has been permanently blacked out. Red flags fly for 7 days.
= The most serious offense. This flag is reserved for those with multiple or particularly agregious offenses. Last step before permanent banishment. Black flags fly for 30 days.
= Banned.
