| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
anon-s6p5
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Nov 3 2017, 7:24 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
 |
|
He lives on Main St. why would he drive through the cemetery.
In terms of chickens for decades we had chickens roaming around as homes and stores like Hutchinsons free ranged chickens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anon-q2r7
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 6:07 am EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-s6p5 wrote: | He lives on Main St. why would he drive through the cemetery.
In terms of chickens for decades we had chickens roaming around as homes and stores like Hutchinsons free ranged chickens. |
ok so your wrong and wrong. We never had "free range chickens" roaming other people's property. People were more responsible back then. As far as cutting through the cemetery, go look for yourself before posting a comment! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-s6p5
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 10:07 am EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-q2r7 wrote: | | anon-s6p5 wrote: | He lives on Main St. why would he drive through the cemetery.
In terms of chickens for decades we had chickens roaming around as homes and stores like Hutchinsons free ranged chickens. |
ok so your wrong and wrong. We never had "free range chickens" roaming other people's property. People were more responsible back then. As far as cutting through the cemetery, go look for yourself before posting a comment! |
First, I did not say he did not drive through the cemetery. I said why would he?
Second, yes we most certainly did have free range chickens. I used to have them come into our back yard growing up from a neighbor. the Perrine chickens would come across as well even the rooster did. Thankfully the alligators never did. We had homes where there were chickens and even the Benedicts had a horse on Main st.
So not sure how long you've lived here, but we always enjoyed seeing the chickens come into the yard and they were free range. The Hutchinson store on S Main had chickens that would free range on the neighbor's yards with no issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-08r7
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 11:49 am EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-s6p5 wrote: | | anon-4961 wrote: | | anon-0q4q wrote: | | It's not a troll to disagree. But it is a troll to state comments that are clearly not factual such as matt scott wanting to raise Cranbury's min wage to 15.00 which cannot be done or stating he wants Cranbury to be a sanctuary city when he has openly stated he does not. Those comments are not open discussion, but trolling. |
I looked through this tread about the candidates for Cranbury Township. Boy – it’s a nasty diatribe full of misrepresentation and distortions and not at all helpful for a voter to make an informed decision. There is one thing that is clear -- most of these comments are from supporters of Nancy Witt. A candidate’s character is often reflected by the company she keeps - her friends and supporters. So I won’t be voting for her.
The two things I take away from all of these postings is that (1) most of Nancy Witt’s supporters don’t want us town folks reading a lot of books and becoming educated with facts and (2) they believe that a candidate’s business experience is more important than anything else. Many Americans bought that line of thinking in our recent elections and belatedly found out that honesty, character, judgment and morality are often lost with that simple-minded and guileful way of thinking |
Ignore the trolls. But, there are a number of points raised about Matt's position that are valid.
In terms of your post.
1) where do you get that Nancy's supporters are against books. Maybe they are against the need to build a new library, but that does not mean they are against the library. Being against a new building does not make one opposed to a library. But as stated earlier if you feel that the town should spend more to build a library than Matt is your candidate. There are people on both sides of this issues who fully support the library.
2) You are voting for someone to manage your finances and take a view of long term sustainability. You are not voting on social change at this level nor are you voting on progressive issues. One would be hard pressed to see our current TC as party individuals. Mr. taylor for example is a Dem and been one of the most ardent anti-spending people. Mr. Johnson is the Dem party chair and has been active in opening up the allowable business uses in town.
So yes, at this level business experience and fiancial background is key. And Phil Murphy is the ultimate business man yet likely to be the next governor and to implement a lot of social change. So one cannot equate business experience to being anti-moral.
Matt has not stated one time unfortunately how he'll manage a budget or reduce costs. He has stated how he will spend money though. This is dangerous because 1) he is only one vote and the other TC members are unlikely to go along so his voters will be disappointed. 2) We have experienced TC's where the budget was focused on wants and the budget and tax rate rose accordingly.
We also have 2% tax cap on the budget.
So we do need someone who understands and can look at a budget and avoid the temptation to spend. That may well be Matt as well, but to date he has not shown or highlighted this and that is the concern. I will defend Matt to the hilt on issues people try to associate to him, but these are serious questions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-p0o2
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 2:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-08r7 wrote: | | anon-s6p5 wrote: | | anon-4961 wrote: | | anon-0q4q wrote: | | It's not a troll to disagree. But it is a troll to state comments that are clearly not factual such as matt scott wanting to raise Cranbury's min wage to 15.00 which cannot be done or stating he wants Cranbury to be a sanctuary city when he has openly stated he does not. Those comments are not open discussion, but trolling. |
I looked through this tread about the candidates for Cranbury Township. Boy – it’s a nasty diatribe full of misrepresentation and distortions and not at all helpful for a voter to make an informed decision. There is one thing that is clear -- most of these comments are from supporters of Nancy Witt. A candidate’s character is often reflected by the company she keeps - her friends and supporters. So I won’t be voting for her.
The two things I take away from all of these postings is that (1) most of Nancy Witt’s supporters don’t want us town folks reading a lot of books and becoming educated with facts and (2) they believe that a candidate’s business experience is more important than anything else. Many Americans bought that line of thinking in our recent elections and belatedly found out that honesty, character, judgment and morality are often lost with that simple-minded and guileful way of thinking |
Ignore the trolls. But, there are a number of points raised about Matt's position that are valid.
In terms of your post.
1) where do you get that Nancy's supporters are against books. Maybe they are against the need to build a new library, but that does not mean they are against the library. Being against a new building does not make one opposed to a library. But as stated earlier if you feel that the town should spend more to build a library than Matt is your candidate. There are people on both sides of this issues who fully support the library.
2) You are voting for someone to manage your finances and take a view of long term sustainability. You are not voting on social change at this level nor are you voting on progressive issues. One would be hard pressed to see our current TC as party individuals. Mr. taylor for example is a Dem and been one of the most ardent anti-spending people. Mr. Johnson is the Dem party chair and has been active in opening up the allowable business uses in town.
So yes, at this level business experience and fiancial background is key. And Phil Murphy is the ultimate business man yet likely to be the next governor and to implement a lot of social change. So one cannot equate business experience to being anti-moral.
Matt has not stated one time unfortunately how he'll manage a budget or reduce costs. He has stated how he will spend money though. This is dangerous because 1) he is only one vote and the other TC members are unlikely to go along so his voters will be disappointed. 2) We have experienced TC's where the budget was focused on wants and the budget and tax rate rose accordingly.
We also have 2% tax cap on the budget.
So we do need someone who understands and can look at a budget and avoid the temptation to spend. That may well be Matt as well, but to date he has not shown or highlighted this and that is the concern. I will defend Matt to the hilt on issues people try to associate to him, but these are serious questions. |
|
I agree with the original poster who thinks that most of the trolls who are posting "misrepresentations and distortions"about the candidates are Witt supporters and that does not reflect well on her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-6n7s
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 2:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| An awfully broad generalization. And not accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-6n7s
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 2:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| Hit send too quickly. To finish the thought, I planned to support Matt but was disappointed by the answer he gave about being a part of the indivisible group. I disagree with the group but don't begrudge anyone being part of it, at all. If one believes in it, than why deny being part of it? Integrity and honesty matter more to me than having a different set of political views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-nrq6
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 3:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-6n7s wrote: | | An awfully broad generalization. And not accurate. |
Obviously you didn’t read all of these posts about the candidates. Even if you get past the habitual “library” troll or the “indivisible” troll, other posts are just distortion or outright lies – not one negative about Ms. Witt. It’s been a treat to watch Ms. Witt’s well-oiled operation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-s6p5
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 4:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
I posted why I was no longer going to vote for Matt.
I only read Ms. Witt's brochure. However, to me it seemed less about promises and spending which is why she is getting my vote. I am not bashing Matt and think he might do well on the TC. The issue I have is he simply is running on wants and spending. Which is fine, but we have a 2% cap on taxes increased debt from affordable housing, and need to run a right budget. I don't see how Matt can do it.
I also do not believe the town should fund the library and Matt does. That is a philosophical differnece. It is not a negative of Matt and plenty of people and friends share his view.
Now if Matt were to explain his financial views And how he could make a budget work then I could very well be pusuaded to vote for Matt.
Look at the home on Main St with both signs. It seems there is a very clear lack of a qualified candidate this year. So people can only vote based on candidate statements.
The reason I have not stated much about Ms. Witt is that she's been fairly center and not mentioned spending programs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-4os8
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 4:12 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-6n7s wrote: | | Hit send too quickly. To finish the thought, I planned to support Matt but was disappointed by the answer he gave about being a part of the indivisible group. I disagree with the group but don't begrudge anyone being part of it, at all. If one believes in it, than why deny being part of it? Integrity and honesty matter more to me than having a different set of political views. |
It's unclear from this post what your disappointment with Mr. Scott is then since he said he was a member of the group, so there was no question of integrity or honesty in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-4os8
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 4:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-s6p5 wrote: | I posted why I was no longer going to vote for Matt.
I only read Ms. Witt's brochure. However, to me it seemed less about promises and spending which is why she is getting my vote. I am not bashing Matt and think he might do well on the TC. The issue I have is he simply is running on wants and spending. Which is fine, but we have a 2% cap on taxes increased debt from affordable housing, and need to run a right budget. I don't see how Matt can do it.
I also do not believe the town should fund the library and Matt does. That is a philosophical differnece. It is not a negative of Matt and plenty of people and friends share his view.
Now if Matt were to explain his financial views And how he could make a budget work then I could very well be pusuaded to vote for Matt.
Look at the home on Main St with both signs. It seems there is a very clear lack of a qualified candidate this year. So people can only vote based on candidate statements.
The reason I have not stated much about Ms. Witt is that she's been fairly center and not mentioned spending programs. |
Both candidates supported all the same spending initiatives when questioned in the Town Hall, including the library. So why would those concerns tilt you to one candidate over the other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-1910
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 4:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-nrq6 wrote: | | anon-6n7s wrote: | | An awfully broad generalization. And not accurate. |
Obviously you didn’t read all of these posts about the candidates. Even if you get past the habitual “library” troll or the “indivisible” troll, other posts are just distortion or outright lies – not one negative about Ms. Witt. It’s been a treat to watch Ms. Witt’s well-oiled operation. |
I personally think the best is the recently created “chicken” troll. Very funny and creative!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-q2r7
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 4:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-s6p5 wrote: | | anon-q2r7 wrote: | | anon-s6p5 wrote: | He lives on Main St. why would he drive through the cemetery.
In terms of chickens for decades we had chickens roaming around as homes and stores like Hutchinsons free ranged chickens. |
ok so your wrong and wrong. We never had "free range chickens" roaming other people's property. People were more responsible back then. As far as cutting through the cemetery, go look for yourself before posting a comment! |
First, I did not say he did not drive through the cemetery. I said why would he?
Second, yes we most certainly did have free range chickens. I used to have them come into our back yard growing up from a neighbor. the Perrine chickens would come across as well even the rooster did. Thankfully the alligators never did. We had homes where there were chickens and even the Benedicts had a horse on Main st.
So not sure how long you've lived here, but we always enjoyed seeing the chickens come into the yard and they were free range. The Hutchinson store on S Main had chickens that would free range on the neighbor's yards with no issue. |
First I don't know why he would, but I have family buried in the cemetery and find it disrespectful. Second just because where you lived in town with chickens roaming around doesn't make it ok, we had them many years ago and they would roam our yard around the house, but not others property, which we considered disrespectful, so you are wrong and wrong. Third they weren't the only ones who had horses years ago. Many people had hobby horses back then, but they didn't by any means roam the town. Fourth I also remember the kids with the horses getting in trouble for riding on school property, forcing the school to erect signs prohibiting horses on playing fields. Finally, over seventy years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-6n7s
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 5:24 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-4os8 wrote: | | anon-6n7s wrote: | | Hit send too quickly. To finish the thought, I planned to support Matt but was disappointed by the answer he gave about being a part of the indivisible group. I disagree with the group but don't begrudge anyone being part of it, at all. If one believes in it, than why deny being part of it? Integrity and honesty matter more to me than having a different set of political views. |
It's unclear from this post what your disappointment with Mr. Scott is then since he said he was a member of the group, so there was no question of integrity or honesty in this case. |
He said clearly that he was not a member, and reiterated that when pressed. The group website says otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-s6p5
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 5:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-q2r7 wrote: | | anon-s6p5 wrote: | | anon-q2r7 wrote: | | anon-s6p5 wrote: | He lives on Main St. why would he drive through the cemetery.
In terms of chickens for decades we had chickens roaming around as homes and stores like Hutchinsons free ranged chickens. |
ok so your wrong and wrong. We never had "free range chickens" roaming other people's property. People were more responsible back then. As far as cutting through the cemetery, go look for yourself before posting a comment! |
First, I did not say he did not drive through the cemetery. I said why would he?
Second, yes we most certainly did have free range chickens. I used to have them come into our back yard growing up from a neighbor. the Perrine chickens would come across as well even the rooster did. Thankfully the alligators never did. We had homes where there were chickens and even the Benedicts had a horse on Main st.
So not sure how long you've lived here, but we always enjoyed seeing the chickens come into the yard and they were free range. The Hutchinson store on S Main had chickens that would free range on the neighbor's yards with no issue. |
First I don't know why he would, but I have family buried in the cemetery and find it disrespectful. Second just because where you lived in town with chickens roaming around doesn't make it ok, we had them many years ago and they would roam our yard around the house, but not others property, which we considered disrespectful, so you are wrong and wrong. Third they weren't the only ones who had horses years ago. Many people had hobby horses back then, but they didn't by any means roam the town. Fourth I also remember the kids with the horses getting in trouble for riding on school property, forcing the school to erect signs prohibiting horses on playing fields. Finally, over seventy years. |
I can't be wrong if the chickens were roaming into our own backyard. Yours may not have, but many others did so it is not wrong to say that chickens did. Mr. Sanders and I would have conversations about chickens which is probably why we never had them in our home as my parents thought they were dirty. But they didn't care if they came into the yard and kept the kids entertained.
I've been here nearly the same length, parents and grandparents longer so. I am sorry, but trying to play the old timer card with me is not going to work. Especially if you want to apply only your view and experience. I even recall sitting at Babs Thomson house watching chickens come over following a rooster a few times. Babs remarked to me that it happens all the time and she enjoyed it as well. In fact I believe it is even in her oral history if I am correct.
I agree if he is driving through the cemetery it is disrespectful. But, we have a different take on chickens. My family enjoyed seeing the chickens come into the yard and my parents not having to own chickens. I don't see how you can free range chickens and keep them in one property if you don't live on a farm. But hey, to each their own view.
I never said horses roamed the town. Only trying to say we were more agricultural even on Main Street long ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-1910
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Nov 4 2017, 5:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Candidates |
|
|
| anon-1910 wrote: | | anon-nrq6 wrote: | | anon-6n7s wrote: | | An awfully broad generalization. And not accurate. |
Obviously you didn’t read all of these posts about the candidates. Even if you get past the habitual “library” troll or the “indivisible” troll, other posts are just distortion or outright lies – not one negative about Ms. Witt. It’s been a treat to watch Ms. Witt’s well-oiled operation. |
I personally think the best is the recently created “chicken” troll. Very funny and creative!!!!! |
My husband told me about the “chicken troll “on this site. Ms. Witt has outdone herself. I thought it was the ONION at first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
