Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:03 PM Nov 2015

Smear 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.

There was a 'confession' supposedly by one of those who get paid to spread around talking points.

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!





137 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Smear Campaigns, Talking Points, Negative Ads all Funded by Money Made Possble By Citizens United! (Original Post) sabrina 1 Nov 2015 OP
David Brock, founder of MM, arch-enemy of Fox, is not a right winger. He supports Clinton! Fred Sanders Nov 2015 #1
He's a Right Wing/Left Wing opportunist with zero morals, never had any, and if the Right sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #3
Warren was once a Republican and Wall Street lawyer.....some people change, believe it or not! Fred Sanders Nov 2015 #6
To even put Warren's name in the same sentence as Brock's is truly an insult. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #23
"Fox is at least honest about what it does" is your argument? It is not a good one. Fred Sanders Nov 2015 #29
Yes, they don't pretend to be anything other than the propaganda machine they are. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #40
Yet sheshe2 Nov 2015 #96
Then talk to Hillary. She is coordinating her campaign with Brock's Super Pac. Is Warren involved sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #99
Link???? sheshe2 Nov 2015 #100
Sigh! Okay, since you insist: sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #101
Well................. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #108
Post #96 sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #111
You must have known who he was. bobbobbins01 Nov 2015 #135
That's a bit embarrassing to watch Fairgo Nov 2015 #137
Uh.. kenfrequed Nov 2015 #81
What has he EVER done other than run smear campaigns? So he wants to make up for hurting sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #83
Well... kenfrequed Nov 2015 #84
Every wrong doer has a reason for what they do. He is just fine, he has made millions sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #87
Oh my, who would want David Brock to be on their side??? He's poison. reformist2 Nov 2015 #24
You do not like Media Matters? Roger Ailes detests it! Fred Sanders Nov 2015 #30
I checked it out years ago, found it boring, it has no impact on anything. And I learned it was sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #127
All I can say after we have both gone over this point many times is.....let it go. Fred Sanders Nov 2015 #128
Maybe you should tell Brock to 'let it go'?? I'm merely responding to his despicable use of sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #129
I know, I thought that was pretty well known. I was shocked to see that the Clintons had befriended sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #49
Isn't Bernie still winning all 50 states? cosmicone Nov 2015 #2
So, is your state a closed or open primary state? sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #4
I answered this yesterday. cosmicone Nov 2015 #9
That wasn't the question. Is your state a closed or open primary state? sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #12
What difference does it make? cosmicone Nov 2015 #21
Why is that such a difficult question to answer? Mine is a closed primary state. Is there some sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #25
Dude, don't worry about it. They're morons. Stop playing into their game Ned_Devine Nov 2015 #107
I'm not worried and they are playing MY game! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #125
You did not just say those five words, lol. reformist2 Nov 2015 #39
Sanders, maybe not. NuclearDem Nov 2015 #5
Who of Bernie supporters, are using Corporate money to fund sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #7
You got me. Sanders supporters here have never used RW sources for their attacks on Clinton. NuclearDem Nov 2015 #8
I know of no Bernie supporter who is accepting Corporate money faclitated by Citizens United sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #14
Corporate money is illegal in candidates' campaigns n/t cosmicone Nov 2015 #10
You don't know about Citizens United it appears. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #16
Superpacs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidate cosmicone Nov 2015 #19
how many superpac's does HRC have that back her?? juxtaposed Nov 2015 #32
Link? sheshe2 Nov 2015 #52
Check this: BeanMusical Nov 2015 #63
Your link took me here.... sheshe2 Nov 2015 #66
Post removed Post removed Nov 2015 #11
Big Talking Point was the 'Bernie's Supporters are horrible'. That was SO obviously sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #17
I noticed that at DU, independent of any corporate funded press release nt Sheepshank Nov 2015 #28
Link? sheshe2 Nov 2015 #54
Lol, you can't think of one HRC supporter who switched because Bernistas are mean? riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #58
Well sheshe2 Nov 2015 #104
Are you really saying I'm the banned troll Better Believe It?! riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #116
I have no idea who Better Believe It, was... sheshe2 Nov 2015 #131
Are you using any of the money for the talking point tracking system? Renew Deal Nov 2015 #13
I wouldn't take such dirty money. We don't need it, obviously Hillary's campaign needs it. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #18
No legally earned money is "dirty" cosmicone Nov 2015 #20
Corporations are people UglyGreed Nov 2015 #22
Money from big donors who expect big favors after the election is dirty money Art_from_Ark Nov 2015 #26
So you are a supporter of Citizens United then? sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #42
I didn't say that did I? cosmicone Nov 2015 #65
You claimed that pouring money into Political Campaigns was illegal. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #80
Corporations CANNOT donate to candidates PERIOD cosmicone Nov 2015 #82
Hllary's campaign is 'coordinating' with Brock's Super Pac, got it? Bernie will have nothng to do sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #85
Link???? :) sheshe2 Nov 2015 #109
Speaking of right wing talking points Lordquinton Nov 2015 #59
No legally earned money is "dirty" AlbertCat Nov 2015 #61
What about small money cosmicone Nov 2015 #67
pickpockets, small-time tax cheats, ticket scalpers, drug dealers and sex-workers? AlbertCat Nov 2015 #122
Well, can you say NONE of Bernie Sanders' money comes cosmicone Nov 2015 #130
The hell it isn't! kenfrequed Nov 2015 #86
K&R Fumesucker Nov 2015 #15
Interesting, did not know the smear post against Clinton was paid by Citizens United. Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #27
CU and Hillary are currently locked in a law suit Sheepshank Nov 2015 #33
We're talking about Democrats using Super Pacs funded by Corporate money made possible by sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #43
There are smears daily here on Clinton. If your claim is true funds from CU is funding smears on Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #47
Posting someone's record is not a smear. Making stuff up, such as Bernie is a (fill in the blank) sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #126
Bernie is the future, Hillary is the past. The choice is clear. jalan48 Nov 2015 #31
Campaign slogan fail. Nt Sheepshank Nov 2015 #34
The young folks get it-they know doing the same things is not going to fix our problems. jalan48 Nov 2015 #35
You added absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand by throwing out random slogans Sheepshank Nov 2015 #36
Sorry you are having a bad day. jalan48 Nov 2015 #41
Sheepshank isn't having a bad day, sheshe2 Nov 2015 #68
Bernie's very upbeat. His views are forward looking, optimistic. Bernie's the future, not the past. jalan48 Nov 2015 #69
Cool! sheshe2 Nov 2015 #70
That works for me sheshe jalan48 Nov 2015 #72
:-) sheshe2 Nov 2015 #74
Have a great evening. jalan48 Nov 2015 #76
Yes, they do. They are the ones who are inheriting the awful policies of the past several decades. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #44
Yep-they know corporate Democrats are not a good future jalan48 Nov 2015 #45
Yes, the old ways failed the people and Hillary is part of that. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #37
It's really true. jalan48 Nov 2015 #38
That's true. Most of the Hillary supporters I know in RL are good people. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #46
They really are-and they mean well. They are just stuck in the past. jalan48 Nov 2015 #48
Do you have even one link or are you just stating opinion? Sheepshank Nov 2015 #50
The OP told me it is obvious. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #90
6-1 to Leave... I guess the alerter was hoping for more jurors like #7 cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #51
Rove Ratfuckers jalan48 Nov 2015 #53
Yeah that's a classic. nt cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #55
Kinda sad really jalan48 Nov 2015 #57
Yes, as if the idea of negative campaigning was something we should not discuss. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #77
Oh the irony! "attempts to shut down discourse" while trying to shut the OP down! Catherina Nov 2015 #71
It's what they do... how they operate. nt cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #75
Irony is defintely not dead. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #78
Links!!!!!!!!??????!!!!1 sheshe2 Nov 2015 #56
Here: BeanMusical Nov 2015 #62
K? sheshe2 Nov 2015 #64
I didn't think they were necessary. But google David Brock and his Hillary Super Pac. You know, the sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #79
You just posted another huge response. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #88
And you ignored it. I hope this one is short enough for you! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #91
Post a link. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #92
Feel free to post your own rebuttal. Are you actually claiming that Brock was not caught red handed sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #94
No. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #97
Are you saying voters are too stupid skepticscott Nov 2015 #60
Actually I'm saying the exact opposite! We are NOT stupid. They THINK we don't recognize them sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #89
So how exactly skepticscott Nov 2015 #112
I didn't think it would be necessary to remind anyone of just how this abhorrent practice has sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #124
Your outrage is duly noted, as is your failure to answer my question skepticscott Nov 2015 #133
And you think that putting the Republicans in control was a good decision? Okay then! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #134
Did I say that? No. skepticscott Nov 2015 #136
Thank you. Excellent Op. Catherina Nov 2015 #73
Just so long as they know we are on to them. It makes it harder for them. People don't automatically sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #93
At this point I think we all know what they're up to. pa28 Nov 2015 #95
Good post, thank you. And your adorable kitty looks like one we just rescued! We called him Muffin. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #98
+1 love ur kitty 840high Nov 2015 #103
K & R! PatrickforO Nov 2015 #102
Only if people bother to click the links. Out in the real world, things are a whole lot different. I sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #105
Maybe just always go back to the issues instead. PatrickforO Nov 2015 #106
" Only if people bother to click the links. " sheshe2 Nov 2015 #110
K&R As Joe Friday would say "Just the facts, ma'am.". nt raouldukelives Nov 2015 #113
You are a fighter, and a champion, Sabrina! polly7 Nov 2015 #114
Love you, Polly! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #123
SO YOU were able to figure this out, but the average voter is too stupid? brooklynite Nov 2015 #115
That's what you got from this? polly7 Nov 2015 #117
Your quote: brooklynite Nov 2015 #118
Ummmm ......... that wasn't 'my' quote, but it's a great one. polly7 Nov 2015 #120
Thase were my words. And your premise assumes that all Americans are as interested in digging sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #132
I am with you on this Polly. The money is corrupting voters and not just politics, and yes, a ton Fred Sanders Nov 2015 #119
Well said, Fred. polly7 Nov 2015 #121

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
3. He's a Right Wing/Left Wing opportunist with zero morals, never had any, and if the Right
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:36 PM
Nov 2015

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)
6. Warren was once a Republican and Wall Street lawyer.....some people change, believe it or not!
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:40 PM
Nov 2015

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)
23. To even put Warren's name in the same sentence as Brock's is truly an insult.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:53 PM
Nov 2015

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
40. Yes, they don't pretend to be anything other than the propaganda machine they are.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:28 PM
Nov 2015

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?


sheshe2

(83,785 posts)
96. Yet
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:11 AM
Nov 2015

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)
99. Then talk to Hillary. She is coordinating her campaign with Brock's Super Pac. Is Warren involved
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:19 AM
Nov 2015

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)
100. Link????
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:23 AM
Nov 2015

Obviously you have nothing, you have not provided one link. I asked you repeatedly and you refused. Telling.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
101. Sigh! Okay, since you insist:
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:30 AM
Nov 2015

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

In the world of outside supporters to Hillary Rodham Clinton, no one has a more visible, and singular, role than David Brock, her former critic-turned-guardian.

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. Clinton’s 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. Clinton’s 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)
108. Well.................
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 02:37 AM
Nov 2015

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)
111. Post #96
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 04:37 AM
Nov 2015
Star Member sheshe2 (27,515 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)
135. You must have known who he was.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:19 PM
Nov 2015

Why else would you have been insulted? But go ahead and keep calling other people liars...

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
81. Uh..
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:20 AM
Nov 2015

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)
83. What has he EVER done other than run smear campaigns? So he wants to make up for hurting
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:31 AM
Nov 2015

(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)
84. Well...
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:34 AM
Nov 2015

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)
87. Every wrong doer has a reason for what they do. He is just fine, he has made millions
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:46 AM
Nov 2015

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
127. I checked it out years ago, found it boring, it has no impact on anything. And I learned it was
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 04:44 PM
Nov 2015

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
129. Maybe you should tell Brock to 'let it go'?? I'm merely responding to his despicable use of
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 05:07 PM
Nov 2015

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)
49. I know, I thought that was pretty well known. I was shocked to see that the Clintons had befriended
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:39 PM
Nov 2015

him. Reminds me of their association with Dick Morris.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
9. I answered this yesterday.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:55 PM
Nov 2015

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)
25. Why is that such a difficult question to answer? Mine is a closed primary state. Is there some
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:55 PM
Nov 2015

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?

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
5. Sanders, maybe not.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:39 PM
Nov 2015

His supporters, on the other hand, have no problem using RW hacks to smear Clinton.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
7. Who of Bernie supporters, are using Corporate money to fund
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:42 PM
Nov 2015

'hacks',, you know like Brock eg, to smear Hillary?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
14. I know of no Bernie supporter who is accepting Corporate money faclitated by Citizens United
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:23 PM
Nov 2015

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!

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
16. You don't know about Citizens United it appears.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:26 PM
Nov 2015

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)
19. Superpacs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidate
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:45 PM
Nov 2015

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.

sheshe2

(83,785 posts)
66. Your link took me here....
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:05 PM
Nov 2015

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

11. WTF


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
17. Big Talking Point was the 'Bernie's Supporters are horrible'. That was SO obviously
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:29 PM
Nov 2015

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.

sheshe2

(83,785 posts)
104. Well
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:35 AM
Nov 2015

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)
116. Are you really saying I'm the banned troll Better Believe It?!
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:38 AM
Nov 2015


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)
131. I have no idea who Better Believe It, was...
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:19 PM
Nov 2015

I did google them however and see that they were banned 7 months before I joined DU.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
20. No legally earned money is "dirty"
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:46 PM
Nov 2015

Everyone has a right to get the candidate they want as long as they abide by the laws of this country.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
26. Money from big donors who expect big favors after the election is dirty money
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:55 PM
Nov 2015

regardless of whether or not it is "legal".

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
80. You claimed that pouring money into Political Campaigns was illegal.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:17 AM
Nov 2015

I'm confused, are you now saying it IS 'the law'?

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
82. Corporations CANNOT donate to candidates PERIOD
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:27 AM
Nov 2015

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)
85. Hllary's campaign is 'coordinating' with Brock's Super Pac, got it? Bernie will have nothng to do
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:35 AM
Nov 2015

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!

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
61. No legally earned money is "dirty"
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:26 PM
Nov 2015

"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)
67. What about small money
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:11 PM
Nov 2015

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)
122. pickpockets, small-time tax cheats, ticket scalpers, drug dealers and sex-workers?
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:45 PM
Nov 2015

These things are legal?

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
86. The hell it isn't!
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:37 AM
Nov 2015

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.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
27. Interesting, did not know the smear post against Clinton was paid by Citizens United.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:03 PM
Nov 2015

Guess it makes sense, I know the GOP does not want her as the nominee.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
33. CU and Hillary are currently locked in a law suit
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:16 PM
Nov 2015

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)
43. We're talking about Democrats using Super Pacs funded by Corporate money made possible by
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:32 PM
Nov 2015

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)
47. There are smears daily here on Clinton. If your claim is true funds from CU is funding smears on
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:38 PM
Nov 2015

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)
126. Posting someone's record is not a smear. Making stuff up, such as Bernie is a (fill in the blank)
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 02:26 PM
Nov 2015

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.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
36. You added absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand by throwing out random slogans
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:23 PM
Nov 2015

That is what I meant by the fail. But now that you mention it, your actual sentiment fails too.

jalan48

(13,869 posts)
69. Bernie's very upbeat. His views are forward looking, optimistic. Bernie's the future, not the past.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:19 PM
Nov 2015

sheshe2

(83,785 posts)
70. Cool!
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:32 PM
Nov 2015

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)
38. It's really true.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:25 PM
Nov 2015

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.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
51. 6-1 to Leave... I guess the alerter was hoping for more jurors like #7
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:52 PM
Nov 2015

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.

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
71. Oh the irony! "attempts to shut down discourse" while trying to shut the OP down!
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:33 PM
Nov 2015

And Rove ratfuckers? What someone that twisted is even doing at DU is a total mystery.

sheshe2

(83,785 posts)
64. K?
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:02 PM
Nov 2015

You just linked to my original post asking for links???????????

K!? That answered my question.......not.

Lol~

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
79. I didn't think they were necessary. But google David Brock and his Hillary Super Pac. You know, the
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:14 AM
Nov 2015

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
94. Feel free to post your own rebuttal. Are you actually claiming that Brock was not caught red handed
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:03 AM
Nov 2015

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.

sheshe2

(83,785 posts)
97. No.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:15 AM
Nov 2015

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)
60. Are you saying voters are too stupid
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:23 PM
Nov 2015

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)
89. Actually I'm saying the exact opposite! We are NOT stupid. They THINK we don't recognize them
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:57 AM
Nov 2015

but this is not the 'nineties or 'eighties when they had control of the 'message'.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
112. So how exactly
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:09 AM
Nov 2015

is our "right to make informed decisions" being "destroyed"?

Or was that just meaningless hyperbole on your part?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
124. I didn't think it would be necessary to remind anyone of just how this abhorrent practice has
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 02:05 PM
Nov 2015

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)
133. Your outrage is duly noted, as is your failure to answer my question
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:10 PM
Nov 2015

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)
134. And you think that putting the Republicans in control was a good decision? Okay then!
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:16 PM
Nov 2015

I rest MY case. I'm not sure what yours was.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
136. Did I say that? No.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:44 PM
Nov 2015

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)
73. Thank you. Excellent Op.
Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:37 PM
Nov 2015

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)
93. Just so long as they know we are on to them. It makes it harder for them. People don't automatically
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:01 AM
Nov 2015

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)
95. At this point I think we all know what they're up to.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:06 AM
Nov 2015

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)
98. Good post, thank you. And your adorable kitty looks like one we just rescued! We called him Muffin.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:16 AM
Nov 2015

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'.

PatrickforO

(14,576 posts)
102. K & R!
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:32 AM
Nov 2015

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)
105. Only if people bother to click the links. Out in the real world, things are a whole lot different. I
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:37 AM
Nov 2015

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)
106. Maybe just always go back to the issues instead.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:41 AM
Nov 2015

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)
110. " Only if people bother to click the links. "
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 02:55 AM
Nov 2015

"Out in the real world, things are a whole lot different."

What links???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

polly7

(20,582 posts)
117. That's what you got from this?
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:51 AM
Nov 2015

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)
118. Your quote:
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 10:26 AM
Nov 2015
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.


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)
120. Ummmm ......... that wasn't 'my' quote, but it's a great one.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 11:09 AM
Nov 2015

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)
132. Thase were my words. And your premise assumes that all Americans are as interested in digging
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:04 PM
Nov 2015

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)
119. I am with you on this Polly. The money is corrupting voters and not just politics, and yes, a ton
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 10:59 AM
Nov 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Smear Campaigns, Talking ...