Really hard.
It's probably a tough decision. Emotions, wounded self-esteem, the desire for justice according to one's own script, and the level of trust in one's own friends and the hired experts that one or the other surrounds oneself with play a big role. These are the cases when, in the course of a long-prepared campaign for a very crucial election, which can and should affect the personal life of the candidate and the prestige of the group for which he or she is running, direct attacks and targeted attacks are made, whether valid or unfair. One of the options that comes to mind is the one that appears to be passive, namely not to react. However, this is not the one that most of those concerned will ultimately choose. The choice to confront is certainly a courageous one and carries a number of risks. Particularly when the addressee is argumentatively weak or when he or she is clearly of a non-aggressive and combative nature. The published reactions then often sound hurtful, tearful, topiary and do not bring the desired plus points. On the contrary, they act as a generator of further reactions from subjects who, in the case of a communication lull, would not be interested in joining the discussion. It is essential at these moments or stages to pay attention to the authenticity of one's own speech and not to betray the personal profile that has often been built up over many years. The use of practices that do not reflect one's own image can lead to the erosion of a previously solid structure of systemic self-presentation. When action is really needed because the atmosphere is heated and not responding would sound weak and have the hallmarks of admitting an inability to bear the burden of argument, it is preferable to find a partner or supporter to do the dirty work on one's behalf. It's not easy, but it's the only thing that can work with a fairly decent guarantee. In the EU election campaigns that have just taken place, we have witnessed a number of missed opportunities that have mostly benefited the more brash and brazen. In order to win over enough voters, it seems easier and safer to work for the time being not to look for solutions to existing problems, but just to point them out and make a vague promise that will then be easy to renege on. It is a tried and tested system that the citizens repeatedly fall for, allowing subjects and persons to stand out from time to time from whom they cannot objectively expect anything constructive, because nothing of the sort has ever been on offer. It's a really tough decision.
"