goddamn...
- Thread starter Ravenpoe
- Start date
- Status
Dave
Staff member
Truth? What does truth have to do with anything? And the Dems are not above doing terrible shit, too. Like the race where the guy brought in the other guy's college days and questioned his religion.
Actually I'd rather a candidate could say they aren't Christian and still be able to be elected.
Actually I'd rather a candidate could say they aren't Christian and still be able to be elected.
I'm not sure what this is in reply to. I never mentioned truth, or singled out only republicans. It's just that the republicans have an annoyingly common theme of being lazy and saying "They're elitist liberal obama lovers"*
*as opposed to the same thing dems said two years ago, only with Bush.
I'm not sure what this is in reply to. I never mentioned truth, or singled out only republicans. It's just that the republicans have an annoyingly common theme of being lazy and saying "They're elitist liberal obama lovers"*
*as opposed to the same thing dems said two years ago, only with Bush.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he's agreeing with you.
It really is terrible. What sickens and saddens me is how many people will just accept all this crap as true and then parrot it themselves. Looking at Politifact, there is a significant deficiency in any of the campaigns.
Almost on topic- The Votor Guide: Seven key distortions of the campaigns
Definitely both sides of the aisle omitting a crap ton to make the other guy look even worse.
Almost on topic- The Votor Guide: Seven key distortions of the campaigns
Definitely both sides of the aisle omitting a crap ton to make the other guy look even worse.
I'm not sure what this is in reply to. I never mentioned truth, or singled out only republicans. It's just that the republicans have an annoyingly common theme of being lazy and saying "They're elitist liberal obama lovers"*
*as opposed to the same thing dems said two years ago, only with Bush.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he's agreeing with you.[/QUOTE]
This is politics. The only agreeing is to agree to disa-fuck you.
In the election of 1828 supporters of John Quincy Adams accused Andrew Jackson of murdering six men. They then called his wife a harlot and claimed that the two met while having an adulterous affair. Jackson's camp responded by accusing Adams of kidnapping a girl and forcing her to become a sex slave to win over the czar during negotiations with Russia. Adams was also accused of embezzling taxpayer funds to pay for various over-the-top luxuries in the White House, including an orgy.
Sadly, this is nothing new.
Sadly, this is nothing new.
Necronic
Staff member
I think the difference is that it is theoretically easy to prove or disprove the claims made now. Say with something like....politifact. Yet, even with the resources to easily identify blatant lies, political groups still throw them out there like so much buckshot. You can clean them up now and again, but for the most part the damage has been done.
The one thing that could turn this around is if slander/libel suits start getting brought against the firms producing some of the adds that contain blatant lies. That would be interesting, because the companies sponsoring them could also be liable, and its pretty likely that there are some cavernous pockets involved.
For example, take this one:
!
See, now I am a supporter of Bill White, but this attack add is patently false. The HPV mandate explicity requires parental consent (and, by the way, is a really good idea). This misinformation is damaging to the reputation of Rick Perry, and is clearly false. I don't see how this can't be brought up in a civil suit.
My guess is that either there is some legal reason why a slander/libel suit wouldn't work, or that no one wants to throw the first shot on this as it would damage the potential for attack ads everywhere.
The one thing that could turn this around is if slander/libel suits start getting brought against the firms producing some of the adds that contain blatant lies. That would be interesting, because the companies sponsoring them could also be liable, and its pretty likely that there are some cavernous pockets involved.
For example, take this one:
!
See, now I am a supporter of Bill White, but this attack add is patently false. The HPV mandate explicity requires parental consent (and, by the way, is a really good idea). This misinformation is damaging to the reputation of Rick Perry, and is clearly false. I don't see how this can't be brought up in a civil suit.
My guess is that either there is some legal reason why a slander/libel suit wouldn't work, or that no one wants to throw the first shot on this as it would damage the potential for attack ads everywhere.
Either that, or they just don't care if they get sued, because the courts won't work fast enough to shut the ads down before elections anyway. If an (independently funded) ad gets called out as libel/slander, someone will probably have to pay a fine, but by then presumably their chosen candidate will be in office and it will be too late.
--Patrick
--Patrick
Hell, go back to ancient Rome and you had slogans such as "Clodius [Roman consul] fucked his sister." Some of those insults still survive as ancient graffiti.
Here in SE Texas the candidates lose a lot of points if they agree with Obama on even the color of an orange. It's times like these when I miss Hawaii.
Here in SE Texas the candidates lose a lot of points if they agree with Obama on even the color of an orange. It's times like these when I miss Hawaii.
Although to be fair, there's a pretty good change Clodius fucked his sister. That chick was like the village chariot, if you know what I mean.
Necronic
Staff member
That's what I read in a bunch of articles about this, but I also read that when specific damages are impossible to prove due to their subjective nature, then special damages are awarded. I wonder what kind of damages you could get your hands on for someone costing you a senate seat.
Dave
Staff member
The difference is not necessarily in the rhetoric itself, Gas, but in the frequency, tone and pervasiveness throughout our culture. The times of which you are speaking had rancor, but it wasn't as widespread due to the lack of 24/7 news, mass media and corporate/union stooges throwing money around like water to buy the elections. Yes, they said terrible things, but unless you were really into politics or were literate you weren't likely to be assaulted by it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Rassafrackin supreme court. Ban all political advertising, I say. If you wanna get elected, start knockin' on doors. And I know that's not very libertarian of me, but I'm human. Sue me.
Though, I would find it very entertaining to watch one candidate call another a "horrible hermaphrodite," and I've often lamented that no candidate was running on the "children writhing on pikes" platform.
Dave
Staff member
I say give each campaign a certain amount of money to spend. Each candidate gets the same amount (based on the type of race). Amount of money would be
Dog Catcher < Councilman < Mayor < Governor < Representative < Senator < President.
Hell, the states could set their own limit as $1 million in California wouldn't go as far as it would in Nebraska. This would be regardless of political affiliation or party. Take away all other type of campaigning including PACs and other special interest groups. Do not allow any campaign to mention the other candidate(s) or any other people. Make them state their positions or go all soft & feely - that wouldn't matter. But I couldn't get on a commercial and say, "GasBandit did this in his term! We can't afford more GasBandit!" I could only say, "This is my position and this is how I feel!" or (if I want to softball like a lot of them do) "I have [state name here] values!"
Campaign reform is something I think we really, really need. And so of course the Supreme Court goes in exactly the opposite way. Do NOT agree with that.
Dog Catcher < Councilman < Mayor < Governor < Representative < Senator < President.
Hell, the states could set their own limit as $1 million in California wouldn't go as far as it would in Nebraska. This would be regardless of political affiliation or party. Take away all other type of campaigning including PACs and other special interest groups. Do not allow any campaign to mention the other candidate(s) or any other people. Make them state their positions or go all soft & feely - that wouldn't matter. But I couldn't get on a commercial and say, "GasBandit did this in his term! We can't afford more GasBandit!" I could only say, "This is my position and this is how I feel!" or (if I want to softball like a lot of them do) "I have [state name here] values!"
Campaign reform is something I think we really, really need. And so of course the Supreme Court goes in exactly the opposite way. Do NOT agree with that.
How about they're all just forced to put their money for campaigning together and all pamphlets etc. have to include stuff from everyone... that way even the poorest guy would have the same exposure as the richest, and the more money you put into a campaign the more money your rivals have too.
- Status