I do not follow Team Chavis drama anymore than I watch pigs wallow in mud--for the same reason, no less--but both sides of the current bruhaha are cluttering my time line, so the door has been opened. The screen cap below is a attack not on the issue at hand, but a typo/spelling error in the post in question. But wait..what is this I see? The word "serious" is modifying the verb "taken." But "serious" is a adjective. Adjectives modify nouns, not verbs. She needs to use the word "seriously" in order for her argument to be--wait for it--taken seriously.
The above was posted on my Facebook time line. I had no desire to delve into the political controversy in question there for friends, politically inclined or not, to see. But such a discussion is appropriate for the blog.
The matter in question is a photo posted by the wife of the sheriff defeated for reelection back in June by Team Chavis. The photo was taken at a polling place in Hartsville. It shows a sitting city councilwoman filling out a ballot for a gentleman. The gentleman in question is said to be illiterate. The city councilwoman is helping him as a good Samaritan.
However, her good deed is improper. Elected officials should not assist voters in casting their ballots. Even if the elected official is not on the ballot, she may be aligned with a certain political party as someone who is on the ballot or supported or even campaigned for a candidate on the ballot. There are impartial poll managers at every polling place who are there to assist anyone who needs filling out their ballot to avoid even the appearance of vote influencing.
It is perfectly reasonable to question the propriety of whether the city councilwoman is influencing the gentleman's vote or even casting it for him. She knows it is the poll manager's job to assist, no hers, so she is deliberately creating the ethically questionable situation.
It certainly is not hateful to question the ethics o the situation, and the use of such a strong word is eyebrow raising. It is also curious Team Chavis does not present a case as to why questioning the ethics of the situation is hateful, but rather attacks a single typo or spelling error. The use of exaggerated language and criticism of spelling and grammar rather than utilizing a reasoned, factual argument usually indicates there is no reasoned, factual argument to be made. There is no substance to be found, so why attack in the first place?