I think I see your point, but he eases up on the “senior citizens in general” vote (not to mention the “women in general” vote), he’s an idiot.
1 Like
Holy crap, is the source of this such that we can repost this elsewhere?
4 Likes
I’m thinking you wouldn’t have to pay an intern at all, and most likely they’d already know how to do it.
1 Like
Jensen’s Law: Win or lose, you lose.
Remove the NWA logo and you have exactly the image that Hillary should be running in her Trump attack ads. No music, no words. Just this picture of the two of them smiling and chummy.
1 Like
Or Trump in his Mrs Clinton attack ads.
You probably right. Maybe I was hoping that Secretary Clinton would adopt some of Senator Sanders positions merely out of self interest to attract that part of the Democratic base and the young people that are excited about him. I would accept better policy for bad reasons.
Totally agree on the war thing. One thing I hate is that the only time the two parties agree is on war and interventionist policies, not necessarily in the same places or the same reasons, although that seems to be converging as of late as well. Those groups agreeing should be the warning sign right there.
War is bad, besides the killing people and making enemies for generations, it costs lots of money, both to prosecute and to take care of veterans, also for a generation. We do it poorly (not the first part of killing, but the second part of stopping the killing.). We choose our causes and allies poorly, and we don’t learn from our mistakes. We don’t even get the results we are looking for. Why do we continue to want to do more of it?
5 Likes
Not this video, but better videos that keep repeating Trumps craziness might cause Democrats to come out in November just to stop the craziness. Or they may think that it is a done deal. I don’t think the video is about swaying votes but about getting the ones who will vote to get out and vote.
I agree with most of your comment, but I wonder who the “we” is in the last paragraph.
These days (and on many past days) an elite class of wealthy war profiteers seeking even more wealth go to war. But I suppose since I live in the U.S. and they’re using my tax dollars while going to war in my country’s name, the “we” does include me after all.
We choose our causes and allies poorly, and we don’t learn from our mistakes. We don’t even get the results we are looking for.
I think the members of that elite class are getting exactly what they’re looking for. Their actions are often blatantly criminal, but they escape prosecution, and look at all the money they’ve been making, just for starters, on resource-extraction, “rebuilding” contracts, and weapons sales. I have no doubt that the Clintons will continue to find ways to profit personally from war.
3 Likes
Did I see a different advert? Clips of people saying what they said previously (and some, still) on the national stage (whether speech, TV interview, etc), doesn’t strike me as low. There’s no misreporting, no slander, if anything it’s a sad rehash of political history. Why do you consider that ad (or both) “low”?
3 Likes
Let’s remember context. When Trump and the Clintons were all smiley with each other, it was 2005 and the Clintons were at his wedding. He had zero political aspirations (publicly), his political opinions were a lot more Democratic than you might expect (even quite liberal), and he was a major donor to the Clintons. Trump’s changed quite a bit since then.
1 Like
Or, better, both.
4 Likes
I’m with you on that. I wasn’t intending anything profound with the “we” but you are right that “we” is us. Even though we might vote against the people who vote for it, or not have a choice at all, or vote for them not realizing the choices that will be made. And our taxes pay for it. I don’t know how to fix this, I’m going to keep trying. You do too if you can. Thanks.
(edit: Spelling!)
4 Likes
I’ve come to feel that way generally about a politician’s ads that attack the opposition, instead of stating what they themselves believe and will fight for. The silly-ass music in this ad also smacks of lowest-common-denominator pandering, and maybe a weak attempt to appeal to the young ones as well.
And in this particular context, Trump got where he is partly by bluntly, personally attacking his Republican opponents (“Yeah, yeah, little Marco”), and he’s already gone on to do that to Clinton (“The only thing she’s got is the woman’s card,” etc.). It’s true that this ad doesn’t go after his short fingers or his weird hair and makeup or whatever, but nonetheless, it’s not at the higher, better level of say, Bernie Sanders’ ads. (That said, I don’t watch much TV, so if he too has attack ads out that bluntly seek to kneecap Clinton, I guess I’d stand at least partially corrected.)
2 Likes
And by cozying up to yet another billionaire back then, I see that Mrs. Clinton hasn’t changed much at all.
4 Likes
6 Likes
I’m with you on the attack ads, although politicians can’t even fucken make a “These successful policies are why I’m so great and you should like me” without a mid-point apocalyptic graphic and the voiceover, “…but this is what my opponent’s policies do–their policy suggestions will bring about the dog/cat rain AND reign and fire will boil the oceans…” My main issue is the political rhetoric–calling one another liars and cheats and constantly disparaging policies with end-of-times nonsense, ala Lyin’ Ted (I still hate you, Mr. Trump, but I’ll use that phrase for free and give it away in China and Cuba). To my ears, the right’s rhetoric is much more overheated than the left, and 2016 has been a banner election year for blowing everything out of proportion.
I’m dreaming of a return to frank and cordial political discussions that lead to positive change, but I’ll be damned if I know how to get there…maybe America needs a little fascism to see how bad it really is nope nope nope
1 Like
