Negative political advertising is ruining our country. If you flip to any news station this presidential season, you will see a medley of campaign ads, many of which are growing increasingly negative. What was once an outlet for presidential candidates to inform people of their policies has now become an opportunity for public smear campaigns and trash talk, and I have had enough.

Historically, political campaigns were about meeting voters and local, town-hall based debates. There was no television screen to hide behind. The candidates were out and about, making a firsthand effort increase their voter base. Harry Truman even went so far as to travel to over 31,000 cities during his campaign, and historians believe he had shook upwards of half a million hands.

Because they were often traveling with their running mate, they had very little opportunity to turn voters against an opponent. Instead, candidates would try to sell voters on their policies as well as try to establish a connection with people on a simple level.

With the invention of television came the first televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, and not long after there were presidential ads for these two gentlemen popping up on most major channels.

With the comfort of hiding behind a screen, something people nowadays are all too familiar with, candidates were about to trash talk their candidates without actually having to face them. In fact, the first televised attack ad was so negative, it is famously known as one of America’s greatest pieces of propaganda since the World Wars.

It is called “The Daisy Girl,” and it consists of a young girl playing the “he loves me, he loves me not” game with a beautiful flower. As the last petal is picked, a voice begins counting down a nuclear explosion, with the tagline, “because the stakes are too high for you to stay at home.”

While you might be thinking to yourself that political advertisements aren’t like this anymore, and that times have changed, I would argue you’re wrong.

The most recent negative campaign ads coming from both political candidates this season have been full of unbacked allegations and serious juvenility.

Hillary Clinton has created her entire ad campaign on the basis of destroying Donald Trump’s image, and she’s done so by using actual footage of his speaking over many different occasions. The main issue with this campaign is that, much like many of the liberal media sources, they are taking his quotes out of context, and therefore potentially putting words in his mouth.

Trump’s campaign has taken a different approach and is certainly embracing a comical spin on these attack ads. In an ad first released on Aug. 6, 2016, Trump takes a jab at Clinton’s self-proclaimed “short circuiting” that occurred at a previous engagement, going so far as to say she is truly a robot. While this is supposed to be a metaphor for her acting as a dummy for the liberal agenda, the creators do not do a great job of explaining it, and thus many people took it as Trump calling Clinton a literal robot.

While negative campaigns can be entertaining for the viewers, it is ultimately not a healthy way to gain voters. This is because instead of showing how qualified they are as a candidate, it simply upsets and confuses voters who may have already been on the fence. Furthermore, one should be wooing voters with their ideas and beliefs, with plans of change and amazing speeches and debates.

Presidential campaigns should no longer be about who can make the other look worse, it should be about who would be best for our country. By just making each other look bad, they are perpetuating the idea of having to vote for the “lesser of the two evils” instead of a candidate you actually believe in.