Are you tired of dirty politics?

[Mom70x7]

Tired of dirty politics on all levels? Want to get rid of the name-calling, the smear campaigns?

Then don't repeat the nastiness - at all!

I was taught if you don't have anything good to say about someone, then don't say anything.

Possibly, then, issues could be debated, the positive attributes of your candidate(s) could be presented.

[Patriot]

Tired of dirty politics on all levels? Want to get rid of the name-calling, the smear campaigns?
Then don't repeat the nastiness - at all!
I was taught if you don't have anything good to say about someone, then don't say anything.
Possibly, then, issues could be debated, the positive attributes of your candidate(s) could be presented.

While I agree that the politics of personal destruction avoids reasoned debates of the issues, I'm also mindful that simetomes fools need to be excoriated publicly for their folly, especially when it's the leaders and the powerful who deceive and take advantage of those they claim to lead....

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.  (Matthew 23:23, KJV)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27, KJV)

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:27, KJV)

Sometimes the truth is gonna hurt & needs to be widely heard.  Perhaps presenting the negatives about an opponent AFTER fact checking & without the intent to deceive.

[Mom70x7]

While I agree that the politics of personal destruction avoids reasoned debates of the issues, I'm also mindful that sometimes fools need to be excoriated publicly for their folly, especially when it's the leaders and the powerful who deceive and take advantage of those they claim to lead....

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.  (Matthew 23:23, KJV)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27, KJV)

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:27, KJV)

Sometimes the truth is gonna hurt & needs to be widely heard.  Perhaps presenting the negatives about an opponent AFTER fact checking & without the intent to deceive.

I always saw it as a 3-step process: (1) privately; (2) within a small group; then (3) to the larger group.

Earlier in Matthew 18:15-17 ESV, it says:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

I think sometimes steps 1 and 2 are omitted; that people enjoy step 3.

And, again , still in Matthew 7:1-29 ESV:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. ...

And, possibly instead of just presenting the negatives about an opponent, share the positives in the same area about your candidate.

[Patriot]

I always saw it as a 3-step process: (1) privately; (2) within a small group; then (3) to the larger group.

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Among believers in the church, I think you are quite right.. confront sin 1) directly; 2) among witnesses; 3)  to the congregation.  Note that the instruction is directed at those who are brothers.   But the corporate church has little authority, in the natural, over the unbeliever.  That is one who is not a brother (or sister).  I think the brotherhood reference speaks to those who are joint heirs, does it not?

And, again , still in Matthew 7:1-29 ESV:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. ...

Again, instruction for relationships among the brotherhood... Careful self examination prior to engaging in the 3 step process you cited before.  Also, please remember, the believer is oft admonished to avoid taking counsel among the wicked.

And, possibly instead of just presenting the negatives about an opponent, share the positives in the same area about your candidate.

I think we can agree clearly on this, with the caveat that provable wrongdoing (on either side) needs to be exposed for what it is and the value of policy positions/objectives should be openly debated... all to the benefit of the broader constituency one would hope.

[Wilma]

Even to the untruths that are being spread and that you are helping to spread?

[Patriot]

Even to the untruths that are being spread and that you are helping to spread?

Wilma,

If you can show where I have 'spread', or supported the 'spread' any untruth, I will gladly recant.  Please be prepared to refute what I've said or spread with verifiable evidence as opposed to opinion or personal preference.