You re not obligated to text back immediately > People have lives and you must acknowledge that Carlos Bilan Staff Writer Tene or instant messaging is an amazing form of communication, which is made possible thanks to technology. While it is nice—and technologically possible—to receive a text back immediately, there are times that this simply cannot happen. For instance, if a person is busy, then they should not feel obligated to respond immediately. The lack of response could leave one anxious and jumping to conclusions, thinking “Is this person ignoring me on purpose?” This could be the case depending on the context of the text, especially when it comes to risky texts. However, there is a higher probability that the person is most likely just busy or otherwise occupied with something that is preventing them from texting back immediately. When I instant message people, I sometimes have to stop replying in order to address an urgent errand. This errand can potentially last a long time. Sometimes I have the time to say “be right back” but sometimes I don’t. It should be expected that when a person stops replying in a middle of a conversation, that something popped up that is preventing them from replying. Don’t send a double text like “You there?” when it happens, because the person is most likely not there. If the matter you are texting about is really urgent or an emergency, then you should give the person a call. However, you must also realise that the person may literally not be available to take your call. In that case, leave them a voice mail or turn back to texting. If it’s on a topic that isn't time sensitive, don't be upset if the conversation stops in the middle, or the person stops replying for a while, and don't get stressed out if you are not able to respond immediately, either. If the person did not reply on purpose, then there must be a bigger reason behind it. Perhaps you two aren't close enough to be having such a conversation, or the person might have interpreted it as a text that did not really need a response. You must remember that people need their personal space, and that applies to instant messaging. Texting is amazing, but you have to consider the opposite party’s circumstance and how you both have lives outside of message bubbles. Editor in Chief News Editor Sports Editor Opinions Editor Staff Reporter Graphics Manager Production Assistant Photographer Ideology matters more than the leader and candidates > Policies are more important than the people enacting them Cazzy Lewchuk Opinions Editor e don’t vote for politicians, we vote for policies and ideas enacted and represented by specific individuals and parties. However, politics is all about personality. Perhaps the most important part of the business is commanding respect towards oneself. Politicians can be and frequently are brought down by scandals. In the 2016 Presidential election, both major candidates’ personalities played a larger role than anything else. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were both extremely popular and recognizable before they ran for president. Both were also well- known for being absolutely loathed by not only members of the opposing party, but by quite a few of their own. Both were considered hypocritical, untrustworthy, unstable, and corrupt. For many voters, the decision came down to which one they hated less. Clinton’s campaign, particularly in the later months, ran a progressive agenda. Among the biggest promises were making university free to most students and raising the minimum wage across the country to $15 an hour. Other policies included simply being less racist or prejudiced in general, and advancing human rights instead of repressing them. Of course, despite these factors, Clinton’s public image and scandals contributed to her not winning the presidency. Voters (particularly in swing states where the results mattered more) just couldn't handle the idea of Clinton in office. On the reverse side, Republicans united around a candidate they hated. Many of his voters couldn't stand Donald Trump, but they needed a leader who represented right-wing ideology, and he was the one they got. Conservatives united around a candidate they hated, Photo via macleans.ca Were Hiring! Interested in working for the Other Press? You're in luck! For the first time, we will be having an open application period. If you're interested in applying for any of the following positions, please email your résumé and cover letter to editor@theotherpress.ca. Applications are open until August 4th. Social Media Coordinator Distribution Manager sometimes liberals need to do the same. The 2017 UK general election featured a similar situation. Theresa May, a Conservative Prime Minister appointed—not elected—to the position, faced off against maverick Jeremy Corbyn. Leader of the Labour party, Corbyn’s lifelong leftism and activism came off as radical to many voters. Severely unpopular amongst Labour members, many believed he was killing their chances of victory. Labour and Corbyn instead pulled off a massive surprise, having their largest seat gain in years and leaving May barely clinging to power. UK voters learned the lesson the US didn’t: policy Assistant Editor Arts Editor Life & Style Editor Humour Editor Staff Writer Layout Manager Multimedia Editor Illustrator is what’s most important to a party. People weren't voting for Corbyn; they were voting for a Labour policy that included a future “for the many,” according to the campaign slogan. Our own home was not immune to these issues on both sides of the spectrum. Christy Clark may be the most detested BC Premier to date. Her voters supported the BC Liberal policies that had carried the province for the last 16 years. By contrast, John Horgan was seen as a new face and untested leader. Even Green Party Andrew Weaver, who now forms a coalition with Horgan, distrusted the candidate. During the campaign, when faced with a possible coalition, Weaver described Horgan as “temperamental” and expressed concerns he’d be difficult to work with. Despite the fact that the BC Green Party policies are much more similar to the BC NDP—particularly in environmental stances—Weaver’s concerns about the candidate leader were (at the time) enough to sway undecided voters. It doesn’t matter who’s in power. What matters is voting in candidates who represent ideals we want, even if they have a “temperament.” All politicians are human, and all will be subject to scandals and mistakes, but it’s what they will get done once in power that matters most.