Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by zuben el genub, Nov 19, 2012.
Not in France - Sarkozy was the incumbent and he's on the positive side.
Perhaps, but that's not how this last election went down:
Honestly, the negativity doesn't bother me all that much, all campaigns are negative to various degrees. The blatant dishonesty and lack of any core values was what scared me about Romney.
I used to have respect for McCain before the dirty campaign he ran and the idiotic choice of Palin. Damn him for forcing her into the public consciousness.
Right. Like Obama was honest and upstanding. Come on now.
I can't really judge - Colorado was a swing state, and the conservative PACS were the worst. I didn't see much of Ron Paul or some of the others. Except for sports and news, I usually avoid commercial TV. We support PBS, and saw some of the ads under reporting about a candidate. PBS would show the ad in question if the ad stirred up any controversy.
This could have also been the choice of the local stations to run more negative conservative ads.
They'd give equal time to the other side, but I have a feeling it was pick and choose as to which PACS they ran.
Well, the conservative PACS spent more money so that doesn't surprise me that they'd have more ads. The truth was butchered by both sides though.
First of all, there weren't 2 polar-opposite sides as in a boxing ring. The political leanings of the two major parties...well at least one of the two parties is a lot more variegated than that. Plus there were also a lot of third party players running ads who we'll never truly know where they stood. Plenty of Super-PAC ads looked like they did more damage to the candidate(s) that they seemed to support than help. How do we know that some or all weren't false flag operations?
But there's no doubt whatsoever that at the final turn, Romney in particular and the GOP in general started telling whoppers, and didn't stop lying until...well they still haven't stopped. (Boehner and that turtle-bird man picked up where Romney left off.) At least we don't have to hear the BS on TV commercials on every channel for a while.
It was polarized in swing states. In this town, it got really bad with the local TV stations picking up the worst of the conservative PAC ads. Even folks with conservative leanings and good manners got disgusted. We seem to have a bunch of very nasty Tea Party followers here.
I also got very disgusted with those disguised political survey calls. Since we are cell only and don't give out our number - we didn't get regular calls.
I have a specific ringtone for unknowns. If I hear that, I look. Got calls from these survey idiots from 7 different states - none of them where I live. I just didn't answer and one or two let the phone ring on. I had TMO block voice mail, so the phone would just ring. After about 10 rings (or a chorus of Cocaine), they'd give up.
I cant agree with this comment 100%. It seem to imply that Obama lies or have lied on a magnitude of the same scale of Romneys bold outright arrogant vicious lies.
If Obama lied in such a way, the "DUM TRUMP FUNDED MALARKIES" would have had the President impeached WAY back in his first term and surely would have changed the outcome of winning a SECOND term.
And according to the Republican Spokesperson Dum Trump, that birth certificate was the only thing his funded millions could come up with that was impeachable.
I agree with Speed Daemon & GMash's last post before this one. Most of the negative ads are not "endorsed" by the candidates so all sorts of "grossly bent truths" are pushed on the air for that influential vote.
I am glad it worked with opposite results this time.
Yes "BONER" is a Romney Proxy-Monkey. I once respect him. But you can see and hear the arrogance and anger in his face and voice. The republicans are back to square one and their top priority: No real cokstruftive working strategy, just disagree with the President and "get him out the whitehouse no matter what".
I think trying to quantify which side lied more is a dubious exercise at best. Nonetheless the Washington Post's Fact Checker took a stab at it:
So you're going to hold candidates responsible for statements made by PACs they have no control over?
I can't agree with any of that statement. The President is a very public figure, and the election season produced thousands of hours of video, audio and written transcripts documenting precisely what the President said. If the President did something less than "honest and upstanding" there must be ample evidence of it. Bearing this in mind, innuendo just plain doesn't cut it, especially so long afterwards.
I must point out that that quote is patently misleading. It attributes "Pinocchios" to the President and former Governor Romney personally, yet the entirety of the "proof" that Mr. Kessler offers to support that allegation is labeled either "Democratic version" or "Republican version", and contains nothing that implicates either candidate personally.
The worst part is that this quote is that it's from a blog, which is not the same as real news. It's just some guy's opinion. I have a blog of my own. That doesn't make me a respected journalist, and it certainly doesn't make everything that I put on the blog magically true.
Context matters. In this case the context makes the contents of Mr. Kessler's blog his own opinion and not journalism from the paper itself. And the content that wasn't quoted belies the claims made in the part that was quoted. Sorry cjr72, no offense intended. But Mr. Kessler's summary fails to speak the truth.
No, not at all. To me , ads like these turn me off and makes me think otherwise of the ad's motive. But you would think both parties would denounce unendorsed ads, but, its obvious both parties campaign managers no doubt, are "piggybacking" in such.
But it is obvious Romney supports Trump's rants. I am not sorry to say ROMNEY is N O T to be trusted. If the republicans wants to change their reputation, they need to do better than Romney.
Which facts and statements were documented that should have costed the President his first term and kept his re-election to be a failure? If "documented lies" didnt scar the President's reputation and 2nd term, it seems that such newshound agencies do what they do best; try to influence public views on a
I know everybody's imperfect and things may be said or promised things they didnt deliver. But still, his character and leadership outshine Romney's any day.
IMHO a lot of the blame lies on the five Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Citizens United and in related cases that the Supreme Court ruled on. The assertion by the majority that "money equals free speech" was IMO worthy of investigation for sedition. That concept is totally alien to the Constitution and the American Way.
I'm not aware of any such acts. Furthermore I believe that innuendo was used precisely because there is nothing worse to say against the President.
Is it though? Is it really?
I mean it is wrong. But contrary to those two things? I'm not so sure.
Well, speaking as an American who was raised in the US and studied the US Constitution in school from grade school through college and beyond, as someone who was brought up to believe in the American Way, yes it really is.
"We are different because our government and our way of life are not based on the divine right of kings, the hereditary privileges of elites, or the enforcement of deference to dictators" sums it up nicely. Super-PACs are the playthings of people like Donald Trump and the Koch brothers, who inherited their wealth, privilege and power. Our Constitution, and our nation's reason for rejecting the British monarchy and class system was based on the concept of "one person, one vote" not "one dollar, one vote".
Never before in US history have we had a Supreme Court justice (never mind five at once) who openly flouted the rule of the Constitution, and actively participated in partisan politics (with clear conflicts of interest) while on the bench. Such actions were so unthinkable that our Constitution has no provisions for how to handle this level of corruption. It is a truly perilous situation.
I don't think too many of them "lie" - but all have bad memories and many misstatements of prior history.
All ads seemed to concentrate on the here and now - regardless of who caused the fiscal mess, it only happened yesterday and it's the current incumbent's fault.
The fiscal mess was both parties' fault - The right wanted deregulation and the left wanted all to have a shot at owning a home.
Our Demographic Decline - The Daily Beast
One paragraph says we are a debt culture, and we need debt to be successful.
I say - give decent bonuses, not a couple of million, and plow that money into making better products at decent prices. Partner robotics to assist humans, not do the whole job.
Here's the thing though and here's where the hypocrisy comes in. There were Democratic Super-PACs doing the exact same thing and the Democrats didn't say squat about them. They were quick to denounce the Republican Super-PACs and how horrible they were, but said nothing about their own Super PACs. The fact is the Republicans simply played the Super PAC game better than the Dems this year. I expect that to change in four years. If the tables were reversed and the Dems were the ones winning the Super PAC game they wouldn't say a single word and it'd be the Republicans crying foul. Neither side cares about what is right or what is constitutional. Both are out for power, nothing more and nothing less.
I didn't see too many Democratic PAC ads this year. Equal time consisted of Obama approved ads, and scads of Republican PACS. Stations would run the approved ad for equal time and follow up with the most scurrilous PAC ads.
I live in a town who worshipped Tim Tebow's butt and most had signs about "no new taxes"
I also don't watch much commercial TV. PBS doesn't run these ads. We do watch commercial OTA for news and sports. I think the Vulcan had it with the word BS - applied liberally to ANY political ad.
Oh, I think Romney plainly crossed the line into "without a doubt a lie" territory in October.
Yes, they attack President Obama for "his out of control spending" and neglect to mention that "his" spending is 99% paying the vig on all the loans taken out to pay for GOP initiatives like the wars and massive tax give-aways to the wealthy and hugely profitable corporations.
A little problem with that. I wouldn't call Dubya a liberal. And the construction boom in the '80s that trashed the S&Ls was Reagan's big dream.
It's not like I'm on a vendetta against Republicans. I just follow the facts, and the facts keep on taking me back to Republicans when it comes to the major, budget-busting stuff. Sorry, but saying it's all one political party's fault is a lot closer to the truth than saying "every party is equally to blame." MOF the people promoting the "everybody does it" talking point are GOP operatives.
I will agree that non-Republicans have been magnanimous to a fault.
From the page that I did link to there is a link that lets you drill down into the numbers from the quote...
I understand the convenience of that argument but in my opinion blog vs "real news" is a distinction without a difference in this case. The Washington Post itself refers to "The Fact Checker" as a column that it sees fit to publish under its name. Call me naive but I think that rises above the level of some random guy blogging from a basement.
I have a little test: take two minutes and try to find as many Republican PACs Super PACs that you can. Use Google, whatever you want. Now do the exact same thing in the exact same time for Democratic PACs and Super PACs. Notice anything?
Next, take those PAC names, and try to find credible evidence that each and every one of those PACs participated in the 2012 Presidential elections. If your results are anything like mine, you'll know a lot about the GOP PACs, right down to the name of the GOP operative who runs it and probably a few ads they ran. But on the Democratic side the numbers are way different. Same thing with the names. Just try to name a single Democratic PAC leader on the same level of Karl Rove. Nobody, right? The closest I got was Rahm Emanuel, who isn't running a PAC, but canceled all of his fund raising activities because he was too busy running Chicago.
Here's where the hypocrisy comes in. The Republican narrative has been droning on about how the Democrats are doing the exact same things that the Republicans, and at the same levels. The thing is that the numbers simply don't support the GOP narrative. There weren't dozens of Democratic Super PACs oozing 9-figure donations. There weren't Democratic media blitzes anywhere near the scale of the Republicans'. There weren't dozens of Democratic PACs injecting tens of millions of last-minute dollars to bolster losing Democratic local campaigns.
Why? Because the people who supported the non-Republican campaigns didn't send money to PACs and Super PACs; they donated to their candidate(s) campaigns for the most part. That's what I did. That's what my friends and neighbors did. (Yes, everyone I know either works for a living or would kill to get a job, including me.)
I have family members. I love them dearly, but have seen them lose scary amounts of money to Amway-style get rich quick pyramid schemes, faith healers and "concerned citizens" who lecture about black helicopters, the Illuminati, the World Bank and the Antichrist. The adults have FOX "News" going 24/7 and the kids have the FOX Electronic Babysitter / Indoctrinator Channel going 24/7 on the kid's TVs. (Scary but true.) I'll go out on a limb and guess that a tiny fraction of the income for the dozen or so PACs with "Prosperity" in their names came in the form of checks that are big money for these relatives of mine.
Remember that most of those ads had to target the Low Information Voter. They had to be as batpoop crazy as their audience. They didn't even remotely resemble any of the President's speeches, did they? Of course not!