• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This Ad Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

Is this add accurate, dishonest, or does it cross the line?


  • Total voters
    42
i'm pretty sure these types of ads were in abundance even before the CU decision.... hell, they've been in abundance since our inception.

True, but with the decision, it will probably get worse and blame will not be able to be placed on candidates.
 
The numbers voting in this poll certainly indicate that Mitt has folks participating here. The glaring disparity should be obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the actual number of voters.
 
The numbers voting in this poll certainly indicate that Mitt has folks participating here. The glaring disparity should be obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the actual number of voters.

Yes, this poll should have been put in the 2012 Presidential Election forum so it could not be spammed. The dishonesty of the right reeks.
 
The numbers voting in this poll certainly indicate that Mitt has folks participating here. The glaring disparity should be obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the actual number of voters.

yes, i'm sure Romney is employing people to run around the internet to pad the numbers of obscure political debate site polls

it's too early for me to get all conspiratorial...
 
Yes, this poll should have been put in the 2012 Presidential Election forum so it could not be spammed. The dishonesty of the right reeks.

how does the dishonesty of the left smell?.. like roses and cinnamon, i'm guessing:lol:
 
yes, i'm sure Romney is employing people to run around the internet to pad the numbers of obscure political debate site polls

it's too early for me to get all conspiratorial...

So how would you interpret the glaring disparity in these numbers when you click on who voted for which alternative?
 
yes, i'm sure Romney is employing people to run around the internet to pad the numbers of obscure political debate site polls

it's too early for me to get all conspiratorial...
He is speaking about the folks here at DP.
 
it will get worse than what?....

Negative campaigning because before a candidate could only go so negative without it hurting his campaign. Now that anyone can launch ads it can go much more negative negative because the ads may not hurt the candidates.
 
So how would you interpret the glaring disparity in these numbers when you click on who voted for which alternative?

I don't interpret the "glaring disparity"... it's an obscure debate site poll.. it's not worth putting any thought into it.

the issue itself is of more importance that the votes in the poll.
 
I don't interpret the "glaring disparity"... it's an obscure debate site poll.. it's not worth putting any thought into it.

the issue itself is of more importance that the votes in the poll.

Really!?!?!?!

I click on the number of votes - 27 that the ad is legit - and I see the names of two people who are members.
I click on the number of votes for the other two alternatives critical of the ad and I see all 21 names who voted for these.

That in and of itself is noteworthy.

I suspect this will happen again and again and again in the coming year. How would you explain this?
 
Negative campaigning because before a candidate could only go so negative without it hurting his campaign. Now that anyone can launch ads it can go much more negative negative because the ads may not hurt the candidates.

need I remind you of Swiftboaters?... they existed before the CU decision.... so did Micheal Moore... and and whole sh*tton of private group launching negative campaign ads....

all CU did was remove unconstitutional limits, from McCain-Fiengold, on free speech... the government can't tell you , pertaining to political speech, what you can say, when you can say it, or how much you can spend on getting your message out there.

I guess in terms of "better or worse", it would be "best" if the government strictly controlled all political speech from every citizen or organization.. it would be "best" if they told you what to say, when you can say it, and how much you are allowed to spend saying it... but we kind run onto problem with that, as we generally prize being free in our speech... especially political speech
 
Really!?!?!?!

I click on the number of votes - 27 that the ad is legit - and I see the names of two people who are members.
I click on the number of votes for the other two alternatives critical of the ad and I see all 21 names who voted for these.

That in and of itself is noteworthy.

I suspect this will happen again and again and again in the coming year. How would you explain this?

I don't explain it.. as I see these polls as completely and utterly unimportant..... I won't spend time worry about any conspiracies that may or may not exist behind debate site polls.

let's say your theory is correct, and Romney has people working to skew the numbers of this poll.... ok, so what?... did you magically change your mind that the ad is dishonest now that the numbers don't match your belief?... do you assume others will change their mind?
 
Apparently Romney took a quote out of context and edited from a Obama speech where Obama did mostly the same thing, implying that the quote was McCain's position. I would like to see honesty in politics, but that is not going to happen, and I think both speeches are wrong.

The bottom line is that it is up to the voter to sort out the data provided and arrive at the best answer for themselves. IMO that is just what participation in forums and the internet does. I do not agree with many on here or other forums, but my information base is expanded.
 
Last edited:
yes, i'm sure Romney is employing people to run around the internet to pad the numbers of obscure political debate site polls

it's too early for me to get all conspiratorial...

You talk as if technology doesn't make it easy to monitor sites like this for discussion of various topics where persuasion is being used.

Their are "pros" on the internet. Paid to support/defend various positions. How many? Nobody knows. But one person could EASILY monitor/participate on MANY boards like this on a single issue. Nothing but protection and furtherance of "messaging" investment.

If YOU were a political candidate, would YOU allow people to talk smack about you and deconstruct you messaging unopposed?

Or would your campaign pay people to carry your cause forward in the ONLY place the left and right actually ENGAGE anymore?
 
need I remind you of Swiftboaters?... they existed before the CU decision.... so did Micheal Moore... and and whole sh*tton of private group launching negative campaign ads....

Which is why I said it could get worse.

all CU did was remove unconstitutional limits, from McCain-Fiengold, on free speech... the government can't tell you , pertaining to political speech, what you can say, when you can say it, or how much you can spend on getting your message out there.

No, let's be honest what that ruling did. It gave corporations the right to do it. You and I always had the right to say whatever we wanted. McCain-Fiengold was a bad idea, but the ruling is worse.

I guess in terms of "better or worse", it would be "best" if the government strictly controlled all political speech from every citizen or organization.. it would be "best" if they told you what to say, when you can say it, and how much you are allowed to spend saying it... but we kind run onto problem with that, as we generally prize being free in our speech... especially political speech

And this is where I know you are just reading far too much into my comments. I never once said/implied that speech should be controled. All I said was that negative campaign has the potential to get worse because of the overturn of McCain-Fiengold.
 
The ad is obviously dishonest. Anybody who seriously insists it's honest strictly because the words honestly came out of Obama's mouth will be subject to having their posts cut-and-spliced in a similar fashion in the future.

That said, it is not over the line -- sadly. Politics in America have become painfully hysterical, consisting primarily of inflammatory sound bites, artless hyperbole, jingoism and the mass-market peddling of fear. Both major parties participate liberally (hur hur) in all of these practice, aided by their friends and henchmen in the media. It is not in the best interests of most of the politicians or candidates in the field for Americans to discuss matters of national or even local interest rationally, and so all the major players do everything in their power to incite and divide us along imaginary lines.

These practices are indefensible, of course, and so the water-boys and -girls settle for viciously decrying it when the other team does it, and braying "YOUR GUY DID IT BEFORE" when their team does it. In short, they defend it by refusing to compel their team to change tactics.

We come to Debate Politics ostensibly to actually debate (or at least have a rational discussion), and in so many cases all we (as a group, in general) end up doing is acting as echo chambers for our news outlet, blog, pundit or politician of choice. Our interactions are so fundamentally shaped by the tripe and diatribes manufactured by the people who are paid to keep us scattered and confused that it's always meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I wish I could say this ad is over the line. I'd feel better about America if it was.

On a related tangent, if I was a Republican my enthusiasm for Romney would be diminished -- he obviously forgot that his opponent isn't Obama at this stage.
 
Apparently Romney took a quote out of context and edited from a Obama speech where Obama did mostly the same thing, implying that the quote was McCain's position. I would like to see honesty in politics, but that is not going to happen, and I think both speeches are wrong.

The bottom line is that it is up to the voter to sort out the data provided and arrive at the best answer for themselves. IMO that is just what participation in forums and the internet does. I do not agree with many on here or other forums, but my information base is expanded.

Baloney. Obama did NOT do the same thing. Please show me where Obama quoted somebody who was quoting somebody and they damn well knew it.
 
A political Ad being dishonest!? We must call Superman! Isn’t dishonestly in the definition of a political Ad? :mrgreen:
 
Which is why I said it could get worse.
i don't share your fears...



No, let's be honest what that ruling did. It gave corporations the right to do it. You and I always had the right to say whatever we wanted. McCain-Fiengold was a bad idea, but the ruling is worse.
... not really... corporations an unions were never banned from independent expenditures on all electioneering communications... they were free to spend as much as they wanted on newpapers ads and published media... they were only banned from doing so pertaining to TV and radio, and similar media... which, to me, created a rather arbitrary limit on an existing right.
they had ot do it that way, or else newpapers and print media couldn't be in the business of electioneering ( as they have been since our inception)

you had the odd environment of allowing certain corporations full speech rights ( media), while barring certain ,arbitrary, aspects of other corporations and unions speech rights... it was quite simply, bad, unconstitutional, law... and it never worked as advertised... as evident by the ever increasing amount of electioneering communications and independent expenditures.

And this is where I know you are just reading far too much into my comments. I never once said/implied that speech should be controled. All I said was that negative campaign has the potential to get worse because of the overturn of McCain-Fiengold.
it had the potential to be worse before 2002... why wasn't it worse then?
had it been "better" between the years of 2002 and 2010, i could almost understand why folks have the fears they do... but it wasn't better... negative ads/electioneering expenditures were more prevalent under McCain Fiengold than they were before it...

in any event, i'm ok with negative ads... i have no problem with them overall.
if there are lies and untruths, then we can address them , but there is nothing wrong with negative campaign ads as an institution.
 
Baloney. Obama did NOT do the same thing. Please show me where Obama quoted somebody who was quoting somebody and they damn well knew it.

he quoted someone who was not part of the McCain campaign, and attributed the quote to the McCain campaign...which is a bit dishonest

now Romney is attributing the quote to Obama.. which is also dishonest.
 
I don't explain it.. as I see these polls as completely and utterly unimportant..... I won't spend time worry about any conspiracies that may or may not exist behind debate site polls.

let's say your theory is correct, and Romney has people working to skew the numbers of this poll.... ok, so what?... did you magically change your mind that the ad is dishonest now that the numbers don't match your belief?... do you assume others will change their mind?
The fact is that DP members with the proper knowledge can vote more than once in polls in this sub forum. That in a nutshell is the dishonesty. Had Redress put this poll in the 2012 US Presidential Election sub forum this could not have happened.
 
Back
Top Bottom