2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSmear Campaigns, Talking Points, Negative Ads all Funded by Money Made Possble By Citizens United!
The Money pouring into our electoral system is destroying the rights of voters to make informed decisions about the candidates asking them for their votes.
DC is so full of operatives, from Think Tanks, Lobbyists, people like Karl Rove and all the current Rove wanna-bes trying to get theri hands on some of that cash floating around ready to BUY the services of any sleazy smear monger in order to get THEIR choice of candidate into power.
Many good Democrats over the decades, have had their reputations destroyed by these dirty, filthy tactics.
We did not need any 'dissenter' from the army of hired provocateurs to tell US what the talking points are.
Because times have changed we KNOW what to look for, we RECOGNIZE the tactics and as soon as we see them, we expose them now.
I don't know or care whether it was legitimate or not.
WE DIDN'T NEED IT.
We had already identified the paid-for Talking Points and Smears from the Think Tanks and Super Pacs who get paid millions to come up with the lies and deceptions.
So here's part of the list WE recognized as Corporate Paid-for Talking Points:
1) 'He's a Commie/Socialist/Marxist who no one will vote for etc etc etc.
We know it was a talking point because talking points, no matter how often they are debunked, don't die!
You pay that much money to buy them, you're going to keep on trying to use them.
Unfortunately THAT ONE was thoroughly destroyed when Right Winger David 'Blinded by the Money' Brock was caught Red handed trying to plant his anti-Bernie Smear in the media, ANONYMOUSLY!
But he was outed instead, as they all should be, and Bernie made over $3 Million in donations as a result!
If Brock had NOT been caught like that, they would be telling us we are CONSPIRACY THEORISTS!! Lol!
That's another trick they play btw, see Cass Sunstein's diatribe on how to shut down people who THINK and SEE for themselves.
Since ALL Smearmongers view Karl Rove as the Master of the Dark Art of smear campaigns, you probably have noticed a very Rovian TAINT to the Talking Points aimed a Bernie!
So, since Bernie Sanders has the BEST CIVIL RIGHTS RECORD of anyone running in this election and actually one of the BEST of the current members of the Senate or Congress, naturally, following Rove's advice, they tried to attack that, his STRENGTH right away.
2) So, enter the RACISM Talking Point! intended to preempt Bernie becoming known to AAs and other minorities.
Definitely a paid-for TALKING POINT.
Still being PEDDLED though with less and less interest by a majority of people.
They couldn't keep people from checking Bernie's record for themselves.
Bernie's record on Women's and Gay Rights is practically unmatched in this race, wrt to his VOTES and his longtime activism on these issues.
3)So, enter the SEXISM Talking Point! That one was done in a hurry, jumping off of a Hillary comment, two weeks later emerging as a TACTIC.
You know them when you see them.
There are more, add your own in the thread.
But I wanted to point out that the Money in Politics is the REASON for these sleazy, deceptive, slimy, false smears against good people and one of the main reasons WHY we must make the Money in Politics a #1 Issue in this campaign.
So since we are better at recognizing, catching them, see Brock again, what is the best strategy to render them USELESS?
First EXPOSE them, when you see them, just slap the label 'Talking Point' on them.
It is no use. as I'm sure you've found out, arguing against a Paid For Talking Point.
Discussion isn't the Goal. Just keeping it GOING is the goal, true or not.
Don't feed the Talking Points. That is the number one best strategy to neutralize them.
Ignore them then go do some research to find out if they are being spread around.
Then use Social Media, all your accounts, to demolish them.
It is shameful that these people are allowed to interfere with our election process.
However, once their funding is cut off, the sleazy characters willing to do this dirty work for money, will also be cut off and maybe we will have clean elections, free of the dirty tricks and smear campaigns allowing the people access to FACTS about candidates enabling them to make informed decisions.
Just remember these names:
LEE ATWATER
KARL ROVE
And don't fall for the tactics. The more you engage them, the better they like it.
Bernie will survive the attacks, in fact USE Those attacks to show people how far they are willing to go to try to stop him. People don't like these dirty tricks.
Bernie Sanders, a Candidate who doesn't NEED or WANT Super Pacs funded by Corporate Cash to use smears and deceptions against his opponents.
All he needs are the FACTS!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)would pay him more, he would return to his old hunting grounds.
Can't believe ANY DEMOCRAT could be fooled by that sleaze.
It says a lot about Hillary that she would even associate with that operative.
He was rewarded for his 'defection'', which came way too late to stop the disastrous Impeachment debacle, which he more or less STARTED and which will be part of Clinton's legacy.
How quickly some people forget.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Some folks can divorce their past beliefs as well as their spouses. It is called "growing up", and I, for one, like that in folks!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Do you even KNOW anything about this individual?
Did Warren EVER work to overthrow a Democratic Presidency?
I am lost for words.
I will simply say, Warren always had principles and still has.
Brock is one of those slimy characters who hang around the fringes of DC selling his 'skills' to the highest bidder.
Fox is at least honest about what and who they are. This guy just got caught trying to hide his ID while planting LIES in the media to bring down a Democratic Candidate.
Watching him squirm, again, trying to explain his 'morals' was simply stomach turning.
He was rewarded with a lame website that no one goes to for 'coming clean' regarding his role in the disastrous, for Democrats, Paula Jones, Impeachment horror. Without him, it might never have happened.
That the Hillary campaign would have anything to do with him, would trust him at all, even for this sleazy job, shows very poor judgement on their part.
He will sell them out too, if he gets a better offer.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Brock however is worse, he has fooled you eg. Fox didn't, so you know how to deal with them.
Brock, once a smear monger always a smear monger, just depends on where the money is.
Or did you miss him getting caught doing what he is best at?
Btw, did Media Matters ever 'correcttherecord' on the lies Brock was caught trying to plant in the media?
Your words...
"To even put Warren's name in the same sentence as Brock's is truly an insult."
You have no problem putting Hillary's there. I find that an insult.
FYI Warren is my senator. I voted and campaigned for her. Lol~ met her had my pic taken with her. I am proud of her. I am so sad she is used on DU. Me, I don't care that she was once a Republican, she evolved.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with Brock? I doubt she would ever be involved with such a person. I am not responsible for choices Hillary makes. She doesn't seem to mind having her name associated with his.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Obviously you have nothing, you have not provided one link. I asked you repeatedly and you refused. Telling.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Btw, I do agree with you that it would be an insult to have your name associated with Brock.
David Brock, Key Hillary Clinton Ally, to Work More Closely With Her Campaign
David Brock at the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Ark., last year.Credit Stephen B. Thornton for The New York Times
Mr. Brock created the opposition research-focused super PAC American Bridge, the liberal watchdog group Media Matters, and the pro-Clinton group Correct the Record, which is now coordinating with Mrs. Clintons presidential campaign. He is also on the board of Priorities USA, the super PAC that hopes to raise large sums of money in support of Mrs. Clinton.
The question of how Mr. Brock would carry out roles with groups that have different legal definitions has come into clearer focus this week, as he is moving to the so-called coordinated side, working with Correct the Record alongside Mrs. Clintons campaign.
Mr. Brock confirmed the move, saying that the legal restrictions on his activities if he had remained on the so-called independent expenditure side of the groups were impractical. Such groups are forbidden from coordinating their work with the campaign.
It's kind of iffy imo, whether or not this is all legal, however apparently there is a loophole that allows it.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Quote...this is a quote quote quote from sabrina!~
"Btw, I do agree with you that it would be an insult to have your name associated with Brock."
Where did I say this? I never mentioned Brock. I don't even know who the fuck he is.
Why do you just make up shit and say something I never said? Why can't you just make a truthful reply?
Your response is a fib. Actually you lied, I never mentioned Brock. I asked for links links links.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)96. Yet
Your words...
"To even put Warren's name in the same sentence as Brock's is truly an insult."
You have no problem putting Hillary's there. I find that an insult.
FYI Warren is my senator. I voted and campaigned for her. Lol~ met her had my pic taken with her. I am proud of her. I am so sad she is used on DU. Me, I don't care that she was once a Republican, she evolved.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Why else would you have been insulted? But go ahead and keep calling other people liars...
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Seems the argument just sort of fell apart.
Well I think he is sort of sad.
He made his original career poisoning politics with the Arkansas project and trying to play uber conservative to appease his father as a way of connecting with him and dealing with his sexuality. It must have all been really painful for him and I sort of can't help but feel sympathy for him.
Now though I fear he is trying to make up for some of his sins against the Clintons and is overcompensating by going full on for them and seems willing to even through flack at their opposition. Again, to me it seems kind of sad.
I don't think he totally lacks morals, I just think he is still struggling with the pain he caused others.
I think he would be better off just sticking around and correcting the media and reporting on lies and distortion.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)(which failed btw, they remained extremely powerful) one politician by hurting another.
We all have our issues, most of us don't engage in poisoning our political system to work them out.
The man is a smear monger. That's what he has chosen as his profession.
Trust me, he isn't trying to make up for anything re the Clintons. He is doing for the millions he is earning.
They are using him and he is using them. And it is reprehensible.
If he wants to make up for hurting the Clintons, the country actually, what a great way to do. Hurt someone else.
He was caught trying to plant lies about Sanders in the media. Same old David 'blinded by the money' Brock.
I guess in a few years IF Sanders wins the Presidency he'll be trying to make up for hurting HIM by hurting someone else?
I know this, Bernie would have nothing to do with him.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I agree that he did a lot to poison our political system during the 90's and I don't think there is much that he can do to come back from that. I think what he has tried to do to Bernie was wrong and stupid just like his past mistakes.
I just think that he comes at it from a lost and hurt place and from a deep sense of guilt.
I agree that he was wrong.
I just think that he could do good if he stuck to trying to police the media of the very kinds of damage that he helped inflict on it and the system. I think he should stay out of the process of nominating or choosing candidates.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from his profession of hurting people. My sympathies go to the poor who refuse to engage in activities that hurt others in order to enrich themselves.
I'm sure Karl Rove has a story too. People like that generally are the products of environments that are not conducive to producing happy individuals.
And yet, MOST people, regardless of their difficult lives do NOT engage in behavior that hurts other people.
Something more than their bad childhoods is going on with people like Brock.
I know many people whose lives were a lot worse than his, who would rather starve than engage in the damaging behavior he is STILL engagiing in.
He is doing it for money, period.
No ethics, that is now completely clear if anyone had any doubts.
Does he not feel any guilt about hurting a decent man like Sanders who has a family, children, grandchildren and millions of Americans who have a right to the TRUTH?
Let him work out his issues without causing any more harm to this country.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)operated by Brock. As for Ailes, he and Brock, just playing out their personal issues, nothing more.
Has MM corrected the record on the smear Brock himself was caught trying to plant in the media? I don't go there, so maybe they have.
Ironic, isn't it, they SAY the Media Matters, then USE it to try to anonymously plant smears and lies about a Democratic Party candidate IN the media.
Just like I thought way back when the Dem party chose to 'trust' a master spinmeister. Leopards don't change their spots.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)corporate funding to lie about a Democratic Candidate for the WH. Why would you ask ME to 'let it go'? I'm not in the busness of being paid to try to destroy good candidates.
However, I will never ignore the lies, Bernie doesn't have their money and machinery to do that. So it's up to us not allow lies such as Brock tried to plant in the media, to spread and destroy yet another candidate.
Tell Brock to stop and then our responses won't be necessary. I despise smearmongers btw, left, right, they all have the same goal, first MONEY, and then the denial of our right to hear the facts about political candidates.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)him. Reminds me of their association with Dick Morris.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)It means Citizens United was useless!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)My state will not be important for the primary. Hillary will be a winner months before my state votes.
Pumpitampum pum pum pum
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)reason why you refuse to answer a pretty common question during primary season? I'm in NY, closed primaries. Why would anyone not want to answer that question?
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)His supporters, on the other hand, have no problem using RW hacks to smear Clinton.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'hacks',, you know like Brock eg, to smear Hillary?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to smear Hillary with.
I know of no Super Pac working for Bernie, he doesn't want them, doing what Brock tried to do, plant lies anonymously in the media about Hillary.
So what relevance does your comment have to this issue? None!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Corporate money is pouring into Hillary's Super Pacs because of CU. Not only did the SC make it legal. It's worse, we are not allowed to know HOW MUCH those Super Pacs are getting, nor are we allowed to know WHO those donors are.
Bernie has refused to use Super Pacs for that very reason. Because it is so corrupt now, that no decent person should be taking advantage of it.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)It might be useful for you to read up on campaign finance law. (Someone else suggested a statistics course as well)
Anyone can have a superpac -- even Bernie has them and they raise money independently and spend independently. You cannot blame a candidate for what the superpac does.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)sheshe2
(83,785 posts)L0oniX (31,493 posts)
11. WTF
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Post removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a talking point that it was exposed right from the beginning. They are still trying to use it though. But once these talking points are identified and exposed, they tend to have little impact other than to use them AGAINST the smearmongers, FOR Bernie, see Brock where Bernie received over $3 Million in small donations after Brock was exposed.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)sheshe2
(83,785 posts)I know many that are disgusted with the bashing here. I know a few AA members and supporters that have been stalked trashed and been silenced due to alerts. AA is maliciously stalked here.
Have some changed their minds? You better believe it. Lol! Keep it up! Bernie is burning out, you turn people off.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)After typing a screed about bashing?
And I'm not a Bernie Sanders supporter. Please find any post where I've said I've decided.
I'll wait.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)I did google them however and see that they were banned 7 months before I joined DU.
Renew Deal
(81,860 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Everyone has a right to get the candidate they want as long as they abide by the laws of this country.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)toooo!!!!!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)regardless of whether or not it is "legal".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I said, at the moment, it is the law.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I'm confused, are you now saying it IS 'the law'?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Learn campaign finance law before making uninformed posts
Corporations can start a PAC and donate money to it which the PAC can use for any political purpose but the candidates have no control over that money or how it is spent.
Got it?
So you can't attack Hillary or Obama because there are PACs to elect them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with Super Pacs because he OPPOSES Citizens United. Why hasn't Hillary done what Bernie has done? She SAYS she opposes CU yet she is taking advantage of it.
Surely you know more about this than what you just stated? I didn't think it was necessary to explain this rotten, rigged system.
Looks like we'll have to do that. You seem to know nothing about what is now one of the NUMBER ONE issues for Americans in this election.
THEY understand it.
This issue alone may win the election for Bernie!
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That's a firm libertarian position you've got there.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"Dirty"
So money made from slave wages, child labor, offshore accounts, exemptions from rules others must follow, and stuff like fracking and mountain top removal is "clean".... because it's legal.
Alrighty then!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)that comes from pickpockets, small-time tax cheats, ticket scalpers, drug dealers and sex-workers? That goes into campaigns directly -- what about that?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)These things are legal?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)from one of those sources?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Money from the Koch brothers is dirty. Money from Wallstreet is dirty. Money from Tobacco and big oil is dirty as hell. Just because it was made "legal" doesn't mean it isn't filthy, corrupting, bullshit.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Guess it makes sense, I know the GOP does not want her as the nominee.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)They have been at each other's throat for many years. They have every reason to make sure she doesn't become POTUS. She has every reason to do just as she suggests and nominate judges who affirmatively claim they will put in a vote to overturn CU. Hillary has no love for CU and they are crapping their collective pants.
I don't think Hillary would care that she loses any particular campaign funding, if that meant that every candidate is put under the same restrictions....leveling out the playing field is fine. Besides the Republicans benefit disproportionately when it comes to corporate funding.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Citizens United. Have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't relate to this topic.
Btw, do you support the CU ruling?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sanders is true then a claim of funds by CU is funding the smears on Clinton. Since Clinton is a big threat to Republicans winning in the GE.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and seeing them repeated all over the partisan blogs are paid for talking points.
It is an organized effort, just like the Swift Boat Vererans smear.
People might express an opinion about a candidate, that if their right even if it is wrong. But it won't get the traction Talking Points get or last, especially when it is a LIE for months, with the same people pushing it every day.
Brock was caught. I have a feeling before this campaign is over,, there will be more exposures.
This kind of thing is destroying our system.
If you can point to similar organized LIES about Hillary I will be the first to condemn them.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)That is what I meant by the fail. But now that you mention it, your actual sentiment fails too.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Your candidate is.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)Hillary is upbeat as well. Her views are forward looking, and hell yes optimistic! Hillary is the future and not the past. She will rock ya~
jalan48
(13,869 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)I don't dislike the Hillary crowd-they just aren't there yet. Change is hard and can be very scary for many people. Slowly the lights will come on and they will come around.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)It seems sort of made up to me.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)They said I can look it up myself.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)On Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Smear Campaigns, Talking Points, Negative Ads all Funded by Money Made Possble By Citizens United!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251787087
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a incredibly divisive OP, making broad accusations against members of the DU community and attempts to shut down discourse.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:42 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is very factual and informative.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And a prize for Most Pointless Alert of the Month (hopefully) to whoever tried to get this hidden.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think this post is too long. Could have been said in one paragraph and made the point a lot better.
It is sort of divisive but we're in the primary season.
I don't think it rises to the level of being deleted, but there's too much of this sort of post on both sides. Course there always is during the primaries.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hardly. It's an opinion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Time to Hide the Rove Ratfuckers.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)Now there's a cheery soul
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)jalan48
(13,869 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)And Rove ratfuckers? What someone that twisted is even doing at DU is a total mystery.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sheshe2
(83,785 posts)You just linked to my original post asking for links???????????
K!? That answered my question.......not.
Lol~
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)guy who nearly brought down a Democratic Presidency. Now working for the Hillary campaign. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one.
And you should find plenty of links showing how his Corporate Funded Hillary Super Pac decided to PLANT LIES about Sanders in the media.
Problem was, he thought he could do it ANONYMOUSLY. But we still have a few journalists left in the country who refuse to help these smear mongers out.
So, his little scheme totally backfired. Bernie's campaign received over $3 million dollars in small donations to show how disgusted the people are with these Rovian tactics.
You'll even find a wonderful video where an infamous smear monger tries to 'explain' how what he does for a living is somehow 'justified'.
What you won't find, I looked so I know, is who his donors are. Because due to the CU ruling, they can enrich morons like Brock without anyone knowing WHO they are and how much they are pouring into this campaign.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)This is your OP. Please post the links
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Your OP post a link.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in an attempt to plant lies in the media about Bernie Sanders?
Maybe I'll do another OP then, in case anyone else missed an old smear monger getting caught in the act.
Your OP. Post a link.
in an attempt to plant lies in the media about Bernie Sanders?
Maybe I'll do another OP then, in case anyone else missed an old smear monger getting caught in the act.
Post a link.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to sort out truth from falsehood, deception from honesty? Are the only "informed" decisions those that you agree with?
None of the things you mentioned are remotely due to Citizens United. They have been a part of our political culture for literally centuries.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)but this is not the 'nineties or 'eighties when they had control of the 'message'.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is our "right to make informed decisions" being "destroyed"?
Or was that just meaningless hyperbole on your part?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)destroyed Democrats over the years.
Ever heard of the Swift Boat Veterans and/or John Kerry?
Just one of many examples
And NO Democrat should be willing to allow that to happen to any good candidate even if it is not the one they prefer.
That is WHAT MONEY IN POLITICS buys.
And how anyone can deny it after watching the exposure of David Brock, a career smear monger, using the Hillary Super Pac he runs, trying to do exactly what was done to Kerry, to Bernie, is beyond me.
It should be condemned and indeed make people all the more determined to get the money out of our political system
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)So I'll ask again: How exactly is our "right to make informed decisions" being "destroyed"?
Obviously people are still making decisions about who to vote for, just not always ones that YOU like or agree with. I hope you're not saying they don't have that right. And "informed"? You're hearing the same information that they are. Are you saying that they don't have the capacity to discern truth from falsehood, deception from honesty, that you do? Well, you just denied that, too. So again, how are people's right's being "destroyed"? Money in politics buys the opportunity to persuade people how to vote, not to compel them how to vote. And people have the right to make their voting decisions for reasons that you find foolish and wrongheaded, just as you do for reasons they might regard in the same way.
I call bullshit on your claim. Again.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I rest MY case. I'm not sure what yours was.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The fact that you're just making shit up now tells me all I need to.
My point, yet again, was that your claim that people's right to make informed decisions was being destroyed by Citizens United, is utter bullshit. You've offered nothing at all to back up what you said.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)The fact that it resonated so strongly all over the net because people experienced and witnessed those tactics should give certain people pause, but it won't.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)accept the lies anymore. Especially Democrats because we have been railing about these Rovian tactics for decades.
There is a pattern to these Corp funded talking points. They are not hard to spot. We probably would have spotted Brock's even if he had not been caught in the act. Nice that he was though, it earned a huge amount of money for Bernie. I like that kind of result when people try to harm good politicians, to see it backfire so spectacularly.
pa28
(6,145 posts)I've noticed fewer and fewer Bernie supporters taking the bait. Cynical attempts at using race and sexism to distract from issues and Hillary's record go with fewer and fewer responses. Good news because it seems to me DU is one of the places they try to throw some sh*t on the wall to see what sticks for test marketing purposes.
For those of us (myself included) who have swallowed the bait previously just remember. Whenever you respond to a bogus attack containing big helpings of fallacy, race and sex the poster is not interested in sincere discussion and more importantly it makes this kitten very sad.
DON'T DO IT.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Yes, fewer people are taking the bait. Because voters are not stupid. We've had decades of smear campaigns, distracting talking points, lies, and good people being destroyed.
This is a different kind of campaign. People are much more savvy now than they were when Atwater and Rove were able to fool people with their nasty, twisted lies about good Democrats.
The Swift Boaters, Dean Scream taught us a valuable lesson. Expose them right away, don't take the bait, and whenever possible, USE their expensive smear campaigns to our advantage.
See Brock and Bernie's campaign donations amounting to over $3 million dollars to send a message 'lie about a good candidate like Sanders and we will use your lies to his advantage'.
840high
(17,196 posts)PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)That racism wedge is sure getting lots of traction on here. I think most people call bullshit on the sexism one.
Seriously, we can expect the racism wedge to get bigger and bigger and bigger because it is the only wedge that might work. So we've gotta figure a way to fight it. But how, when we have editorials like this http://www.movietrailerreviews.net/index.php/2015/11/04/editorial/8-things-bernie-sanders-supporters-need-to-stop-saying-to-black-people/?
Because this Kriss - he's a shill for sure. And I'm equally sure money changed hands somehow.
We've got the best candidate since FDR and look at the relentless, 24/7 attacks. They keep coming and we keep fighting.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)don't bother with talking points, I find it easy to pass over them. And as more and more people do so, they have less traction.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)Good strategy. I talk to people in the real world about Bernie on most days and I don't hear these wedges like I do on here.
You're probably right.
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)"Out in the real world, things are a whole lot different."
What links???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)brooklynite
(94,585 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Or just what you want others to see of it ........ I doubt many are that stupid to fall for what you want them to think.
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)Apparently YOU were able to make an "informed choice". If everyone was as smart as YOU then all the CU spending and biased reporting would be useless. But apparently other voters just aren't as clever as YOU are...
polly7
(20,582 posts)Perhaps you were reading the wrong reply.
It just seems like basic common sense - huge amounts of money - take the Koch influence, for example, should not be used in any way, shape or form to sway elections - for any candidate. The truth is the truth, whether it's the economy, environment, foreign policy, human rights - whatever. Using money to hide the records of candidates, or push forth lies on the state of what IS happening and what 'would' be done to fix things - is obscene, imo. And it has nothing to do with being 'smart'. It's being lied to and influenced because big money allows them to do it, and voting accordingly.
What's all this YOU shit anyway??? I don't even vote there, I was just agreeing with Sabrina - money should not influence what voters are exposed to - or are having hidden away from them. What's so controversial about that?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)through the garbage to find out what is true and what is not as people who are. While fewer people now depend on the Corp Media, many still have no other means of getting information.
So there was really no need for the snide remark. A discussion would be nice but not very prevalent on this site anymore.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)of voters are heavily influenced by ads, not because they are stupid but because advertising works.
Madison Avenue exists because advertising works.
The problem cannot be fixed right now -we tried- so the bell can not be unrung until after the next election cycle and all D candidates are clearly on the record to do that.
No one hates CU more than me, I am guessing.......as do all liberals and lovers of a fair democracy.
In the meantime I say you can not go to a gunfight with a knife. The WH is too important to risk that.