Monica Wallace and Assembly Bill 1748

[mark blazejewski]

=Lee Chowaniec;1790350]Mark, the new normal in politics to defeat one’s opponent is by using any means to destroy his or her character, their integrity, and even their spirit - most of the time through slander, unsubstantiated claims, mean-spirited personal attacks...

I guess I am suspicious of any candidate, in the non-reciprocal world, who either directly, or indirectly allows and accepts, such tactics to be applied against the opposition. If the candidate turns a blind eye to the unprovoked employment of sleazy personal attacks out of campaign expediency, it suggests to me a predisposition to carry the same value(s) into office.

Because the Lancaster Democratic Party used those tactics so well in the last few elections does not mean it should be fair game for the Republican and other parties to use like practices.- especially when a a candidate gets elected into office.

I see your observation and concern as something akin to a punitive sanction against the aggressor.

If you saw Bruso sitting and talking with someone you considered despicable (for whatever reason) would that influence your opinion of the man’s ability to govern? Would you hold him guilty of something just because he communicated with someone you held a bad opinion of?

Lacking any specific information regarding the discussion, of course not.

Bruso has yet to prove himself.

Agreed, but with caveat that high scrutiny to given to his political behavior and functional competence. After all, he did seem to run on a platform of high moral and ethical standards, as well as competence.

He needs to substantially deliver.

[mark blazejewski]

=Lee Chowaniec;1790350

Because the Lancaster Democratic Party used those tactics so well in the last few elections

Gorja: I beg to differ, Lee. In the most recent election, it was the Republicans who used unsubstantiated claims by posting the wrong budget numbers for 2008-2012 to give the impression of a 99.72% tax levy increase in 10 years.

Lee and Gorja,

I understand and respect both of your positions. Each of you know that.

But, to even suggest equating the Republican mailer of 2017 to the Democrat tactics of 2015, is to suggest equating a scenario of convincing someone to give you something, with a scenario of you outright stealing it.

To be brutally frank, I believe the events of Election Day, 2015, from the Democrat side, to have been, in general concept, a pre-planned dirty-trick operation, focusing on the creation of perceptions of urgency and shock. It seemingly was predestined for mass media manipulation and dissemination, and apparently aimed at denying the public a tranquil environment in which to objectively consider it electoral choices.

IMHO, it was a brilliant, but disgusting success, which echoed with dark suggestions of a Facist -state voice.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey Mark:

From previous posts (over time) I have to believe you, Gorga and me vote for candidates based on qualifications and their messages – regardless of what political party we may be registered in – and that often translates to taking **** from both sides.

Politics in general is indeed a dirty game. All parties will use whatever means to undermine the credibility of its opponents. In Lancaster some parties play dirty than others and use misinformation and personal salacious / disparaging means to that end.

It should be the voters’ responsibility to become informed, weigh through the BS and fake news and be politically unencumbered to vote for the best qualified candidate who has a positive message and is committed in acting for the best interest of the whole community. Unfortunately, too many party diehards, straight line voters on both sides, will not bother becoming informed on the other guy and are only too pleased with themselves to repeat the party line BS – regardless of content or honesty.

Once the war is over, the winning candidate (regardless of Party) should be given time to govern and his or her actions challenged or questioned on that basis – not anything prior and/or by ‘guilt by association’.

Then again, there are no guarantees on anything. On the Lancaster Town Board sits a Republican, a Conservative and a ‘blank’ and the remaining council member espousing fiscal responsibility is the Democratic. Go figure!

[mark blazejewski]

=Lee Chowaniec;1790555]Hey Mark:

From previous posts (over time) I have to believe you, Gorga and me vote for candidates based on qualifications and their messages – regardless of what political party we may be registered in – and that often translates to taking **** from both sides.

Absolutely, and regarding the principle of supporting the best candidate based on message and qualifications, the three of us appear to be on the same page.

I became "a blank" for these reasons:

(1) The Republicans appear to suck by omission in regards to supporting their own candidates, and what I perceive to be over-the-top "deal-making," and overall ineptness.

(2) The Democrats seemingly suck because of their rather obvious shameful identity politics, the application of the politics of personal destruction, and dirty-trick commission.

(3) I am disappointed in the Conservatives, because they appear, at times, to be entirely helpless and perhaps clueless.

To right Lancaster's political wrongs, may I suggest that all parties just "Follow The Yellow Brick Road:"

The Republicans, like the "Cowardly Lion" need courage in the form of new, strong , and effective leadership that can present issues thoughtfully, articulately, clearly, and can respond to attacks with prompt effectiveness.

The Democrats, like the "Tin Man," need a heart impacted by a conscience and a soul.

The Conservatives, like the "Scarecrow," need a brain to out-wit primary challenges, and other sinister forces lurking within their ranks.

Perhaps then, Lancaster's political landscape will become a "Land Of Oz-" like level playing field, where issues can be truthfully and forthrightly debated and assessed in the best interests of the voters and the community.

Just my opinions.

[mark blazejewski]

=Lee Chowaniec;1790555]

Once the war is over, the winning candidate (regardless of Party) should be given time to govern and his or her actions challenged or questioned on that basis – not anything prior and/or by ‘guilt by association’.

I agree in large measure, but I do take contemporaneous note of inconsistencies visa v campaign pledges, issue-based values and principles, boldly stated, or strongly implied, during the campaign, and ethical conduct.

[gorja]

Lee and Gorja,

I understand and respect both of your positions. Each of you know that.

But, to even suggest equating the Republican mailer of 2017 to the Democrat tactics of 2015, is to suggest equating a scenario of convincing someone to give you something, with a scenario of you outright stealing it.

To be brutally frank, I believe the events of Election Day, 2015, from the Democrat side, to have been, in general concept, a pre-planned dirty-trick operation, focusing on the creation of perceptions of urgency and shock. It seemingly was predestined for mass media manipulation and dissemination, and apparently aimed at denying the public a tranquil environment in which to objectively consider it electoral choices.

IMHO, it was a brilliant, but disgusting success, which echoed with dark suggestions of a Facist -state voice.

I was not equating the 2017 mailer to Fudoli's folly.
You had stated this -

the Democrats chronically have played that game, especially in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

I would say the republicans were the game players last election, imo


You and I have a different opinion on the 2015 election day episode. I also believe if it would have happened a few days prior to election day, it may have affected the election results . With it happening on election day, I don't see that it would affect election results

[mark blazejewski]

gorja;1790613]I was not equating the 2017 mailer to Fudoli's folly.
You had stated this -

Gorja, the point that I am making is that the Democrats are usually way over the edge in their cunning and tactics and by comparison, Republican tactics are akin to puckish pranks. Having said that, if I mis-communicated your position, my apologies.

To be sure, the Republicans may have exclusively used numbers that supported their position that taxes are already too high, and that in the case of Dickman, that message seemed to resonate with voters. IMHO, if that general perception was not already in the voters' mind, I feel that the mailer would have been insignificant.

To the extent that the Republicans, in 2017, may have provided information that supported their position to the exclusion of information exculpatory to the Democrats, as I did previously state, you may be right. As one who is generally skeptical of numbers, as well as shaded sentences, I am open to accepting your position. But, after all, the game is politics, and I don't expect the Rs and Ds during a campaign to be objective in presentation.

But on the other hand, I don't think that the Town Council Democrats provided a complete picture of their thinking regarding the ZBA throughout 2017. In fact, from the initial representation of urgency to fill the position, to the final flip-flop, that whole issue stunk of unprincipled behavior. To my disgust, a qualified, decent candidate was hurt in that process. Regrettable, but after all, Lancaster Democrat politics is Lancaster Democrat politics.

To that extent, both sides played, and will probably always play, games.

You and I have a different opinion on the 2015 election day episode. I also believe if it would have happened a few days prior to election day, it may have affected the election results . With it happening on election day, I don't see that it would affect election results

The Republican vote fell far below expectations, as I understand it Ms. Gorja.

[gorja]

[QUOTE=mark blazejewski;1790622]

as I did previously state, you may be right. [/COLOR]As one who is generally skeptical of numbers, as well as shaded sentences, I am open to accepting your position. But, after all, the game is politics, and I don't expect the Rs and Ds during a campaign to be objective in presentation.

But on the other hand, I don't think that the Town Council Democrats provided a complete picture of their thinking regarding the ZBA throughout 2017. In fact, from the initial representation of urgency to fill the position, to the final flip-flop, that whole issue stunk of unprincipled behavior. To my disgust, a qualified, decent candidate was hurt in that process. Regrettable, but after all, Lancaster Democrat politics is Lancaster Democrat politics.

To that extent, both sides played, and will probably always play, games.



The Republican vote fell far below expectations, as I understand it Ms. Gorja.

I understand, respect and appreciate you voicing your opinion Mark. I just stated mine. Have a GREAT day

[mark blazejewski]

[QUOTE=gorja;1790629]

I understand, respect and appreciate you voicing your opinion Mark. I just stated mine. Have a GREAT day

As always, your opinions and insights are welcomed, respected and valued Ms. Gorja.

[Frank Broughton]

Lots of smoke in this here room.... somethings burning..... na na na na

[mark blazejewski]

Lots of smoke in this here room.... somethings burning..... na na na na

I don't think anything is burning. Maybe you're smoking something?

[shortstuff]

All,

You are trying to bring common sense to the equation. Stop doing that. Frank is right. Here is the pragmatic approach, Democrats promote big government, Republicans promote fiscal conservatism & small government. Democrats promote social programs and pull the money out of other people's a**es, Republicans promote fiscal responsibility-work hard and reap the rewards. Democrats promote hypocrisy-lip service, Republicans promote transparency. Democrats promote socialism, Republicans promote Capitalism.

Both parties when engaged in a campaign process, will exaggerate to further their agenda or political platform.

[Lee Chowaniec]

All,

You are trying to bring common sense to the equation. Stop doing that. Frank is right. Here is the pragmatic approach, Democrats promote big government, Republicans promote fiscal conservatism & small government. Democrats promote social programs and pull the money out of other people's a**es, Republicans promote fiscal responsibility-work hard and reap the rewards. Democrats promote hypocrisy-lip service, Republicans promote transparency. Democrats promote socialism, Republicans promote Capitalism.

Both parties when engaged in a campaign process, will exaggerate to further their agenda or political platform.

You have a Republican, a Conservative and a 'blank' sitting on the Lancaster Town Board. I hear none of them questioning any of the spending taking place in the Town.

Elections have consequences. The Republican voter sat home in the 2015 election and the Party ran a feckless campaign in 2017.

[shortstuff]

You have a Republican, a Conservative and a 'blank' sitting on the Lancaster Town Board. I hear none of them questioning any of the spending taking place in the Town.

Elections have consequences. The Republican voter sat home in the 2015 election and the Party ran a feckless campaign in 2017.

Ah Lee, you and I both know that those two council seats are political puppets. They have no commitment to their political origin, because they know if they sniff the Dems they will have a shot (resources) regaining their seats in the next election cycle.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Ah Lee, you and I both know that those two council seats are political puppets. They have no commitment to their political origin, because they know if they sniff the Dems they will have a shot (resources) regaining their seats in the next election cycle.

Indeed!

And with the new Democratic leadership in place they can sniff all they want. I highly doubt they will find a home in this Democratic Party - especially when the one went hat-in-hand to the Republican Party first looking for they're endorsement in 2015.