It takes a real scum bag to confuse mental illness with the voluntary decision not to vote during the entirety of your life.
In doing yet another in the series of hit pieces against Peter Van Nortwick, the Democratian again takes great pains to remind us with their usual despicable political bigotry, that Van Nortwick has battled his way through mental illness issues.
There’s the what’s-more-disconcerting angle: Seekins didn’t register to vote until April, so the first time she voted was the August primary.Rice and the Democratian stupidly equate that episode with a voluntary decision made by Seekins to blow off her civic duty for the entirety of her life as if they were the same thing... as if Van Nortwick voluntarily went through the struggle that lasted 6 years earlier this decade.If that’s her skeleton in the closet, Van Nortwick’s skeleton, as disclosed in court documents seven years ago, is that he couldn’t pay child support because he has a significant mental disability that makes it difficult for him to build relationships with people and find employment.
It isn't.
As I pointed out before, Seekins nor anyone else who had never voted in their life is unfit for any elective office. Period.
But Seekins is a democrat. And this despicable tampon of a newspaper has endorsed democrats and democrats only for any elective office save the institutional vote for the Sheriff at the county level... so Seekins gets a pass.... much like Golik gets a pass for his alleged misconduct.
The rag's decision to REPEATEDLY remind us that Van Nortwick had a difficult time for a few years over an entirely INvoluntary condition is a deliberate, bigoted act for which, if this nazi-like propaganda swindle sheet HAD any shame, they should put it on display now and apologize to the entire community generally and Peter Van Nortwick and his children specifically.
This is the kind of stigma that even Hollywood has united against... or hasn't Rice bothered to pay attention to any of the PSA's concerning mental illness?
Stephanie Rice is a bigoted moron. She should resign immediately. And she should never be allowed near a keyboard in a newspaper again... not should her editor... nor should Brancaccio for allowing this lynching.
Scum. The lot of them.
.
2 comments:
I have a very difficult time believing Seekins didn't have some notion that Franklin wasn't going to run and she had a chance to advance, when she decided to register to vote for the very first time in her life.
Her words she posted in facebook tells me she did know, "I never followed politics and neglected to register to vote. But this year, something different happened: I felt the need to step up and run for political office."
Of course, as a non-voter her chances at winning were even worse than they already are.
But, it is apparent to me that she only registered because she decided to run for the higher paying office.
My vote remains with Peter.
Of course she knew. But when faced with the fact that she had never voted getting out, she had to come up with SOME excuse.
The only thing this means to me is that she just didn't care enough. The rest of it is lies and smokescreens.
Petter is a good man. He's been forced to pay for a "crime" that he didn't commit, but which this politically bigoted newspaper CONSTANTLY harms him as if that situation was his fault.
There is no excuse for beating this man up. Yet, because he's with the wrong party and because Benton supports him, these scum want to destroy him politically and professionally.
Post a Comment