Negative ads - your stance?

[BluesLegend]

Its not a negative ad to point out Hillary's lies, corruption, and failures in government jobs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah. You'd never do something like that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I saw a Hillary Clinton television ad last night. I didn't care for it and thought if she had anything good to say about her own stance on the issues she wouldn't be going negative on Trump.

The way I see it is the negatives for each of these candidates have pretty much reached rock bottom and the winner will be determined by which can get their "brand" to be viewed more favorably. I'd give Trump a big edge in this regard. I think most of us know Trump's campaign slogan of Make America Great Again. I wonder how many are with me in having no clue of Hillary's? (My choice would be, "Obama with balls" but please take that as a joke.)

Trump needs to convince me making America great again is more than nostalgic wishing for the good old days. Likewise Hillary needs to provide me some reason for optimism about her being elected. Going negative isn't going to cut it for either and I see it as a major turn off.

p.s. I also view negative campaigns as a way to make people sick-and-tired of the election and thus a means to suppress voting. I'd think that's a pretty dumb strategy for Hillary.

If negative ads didn't work, they wouldn't use them. Unfortunately however, people do respond to them.

For us political junkies, nothing is going to change our minds as to who we are going to vote for. But we have the most undecideds in this race than ever before for this time of year, and that's who those ads are geared to.

Hil-Liar has more baggage than an airport. It would be foolish of Trump not to use the extensive laundry list of Hillary Clinton.

Why would you think that there are more undecideds now than in previous cycles? I'd argue that the high name recognition of the two major party candidates....coupled with the polarized nature of the electorate...results in fewer undecideds.

Trump being behind by even a few points in most swing states is very bad news for him. He doesn't have much upside.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah.....well.....when a candidate tells people what they will do for the country, it's an open invitation for the opponent to rip them to shreds on it.

How many times have they pounced on Trump on every plan he's offered? It doesn't matter the subject: the economy, jobs, military, war, ISIS, national debt, race relations.......

 

[LoneLaugher]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah.....well.....when a candidate tells people what they will do for the country, it's an open invitation for the opponent to rip them to shreds on it.

How many times have they pounced on Trump on every plan he's offered? It doesn't matter the subject: the economy, jobs, military, war, ISIS, national debt, race relations.......

His "plans" are whack. He's not a serious candidate with serious policy positions. He's a demagogue. You are supporting a demagogue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would you think that there are more undecideds now than in previous cycles? I'd argue that the high name recognition of the two major party candidates....coupled with the polarized nature of the electorate...results in fewer undecideds.

Trump being behind by even a few points in most swing states is very bad news for him. He doesn't have much upside.

I've heard we have the most undecideds reported several times. They are mostly focused on the Independents right now.

Both candidates have some very strong negatives about them. Trump is a person with no political experience and Hillary is as crooked as they come. It doesn't surprise me that people don't know which way to go.

We follow politics year round, but there are many who are just starting to pay attention now. They don't know about many of the events of the past several months. Negative ads will work on those people because they are just getting caught up. They don't have time (nor care to) do the research.

 

[easyt65]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah. You'd never do something like that.

I am intelligent enough to know and research all there is to know about candidates without having to be bombarded with 'smear-mongering'. Many Americans, though aren't.

 

[easyt65]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah.....well.....when a candidate tells people what they will do for the country, it's an open invitation for the opponent to rip them to shreds on it.

How many times have they pounced on Trump on every plan he's offered? It doesn't matter the subject: the economy, jobs, military, war, ISIS, national debt, race relations.......

Again, if you have to 'rip your opponent to shreds' to make yourself sound good you have little to offer...just my opinion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

His "plans" are whack. He's not a serious candidate with serious policy positions. He's a demagogue. You are supporting a demagogue.

What I am is a voter who is doing his best to keep the worst out.

I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against DumBama.
I didn't vote for McCain, I voted against DumBama.
I'm not voting for Trump...................

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would you think that there are more undecideds now than in previous cycles? I'd argue that the high name recognition of the two major party candidates....coupled with the polarized nature of the electorate...results in fewer undecideds.

Trump being behind by even a few points in most swing states is very bad news for him. He doesn't have much upside.

I've heard we have the most undecideds reported several times. They are mostly focused on the Independents right now.

Both candidates have some very strong negatives about them. Trump is a person with no political experience and Hillary is as crooked as they come. It doesn't surprise me that people don't know which way to go.

We follow politics year round, but there are many who are just starting to pay attention now. They don't know about many of the events of the past several months. Negative ads will work on those people because they are just getting caught up. They don't have time (nor care to) do the research.

Heard it where? I'm willing to learn something. Can you provide the link?

Look what you just did. You just tried to claim that Trumps negatives are related to his inexperience as a politician while Clinton's are related to her being "crooked". As if people are turned off by Trump because he's not a career politician. Funny.

Also...you habitually call one candidate by last name and the other by first name. Why do you do that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

His "plans" are whack. He's not a serious candidate with serious policy positions. He's a demagogue. You are supporting a demagogue.

What I am is a voter who is doing his best to keep the worst out.

I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against DumBama.
I didn't vote for McCain, I voted against DumBama.
I'm not voting for Trump...................

That's awesome. You don't like Trumps "plans" either.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary could run on her accomplishments:

• Turning SecState into a way to get onto Forbes 400
• Turning whole Middle East Countries over to Islamist
• Setting the Gold Standard for answering FBI subpoenas and requests for information

 

[easyt65]

Why would you think that there are more undecideds now than in previous cycles? I'd argue that the high name recognition of the two major party candidates....coupled with the polarized nature of the electorate...results in fewer undecideds.

Trump being behind by even a few points in most swing states is very bad news for him. He doesn't have much upside.

I've heard we have the most undecideds reported several times. They are mostly focused on the Independents right now.

Both candidates have some very strong negatives about them. Trump is a person with no political experience and Hillary is as crooked as they come. It doesn't surprise me that people don't know which way to go.

We follow politics year round, but there are many who are just starting to pay attention now. They don't know about many of the events of the past several months. Negative ads will work on those people because they are just getting caught up. They don't have time (nor care to) do the research.

Heard it where? I'm willing to learn something. Can you provide the link?

Look what you just did. You just tried to claim that Trumps negatives are related to his inexperience as a politician while Clinton's are related to her being "crooked". As if people are turned off by Trump because he's not a career politician. Funny.

Also...you habitually call one candidate by last name and the other by first name. Why do you do that?

There are 2 political Clintons, that's why.

 

[LoneLaugher]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah. You'd never do something like that.

I am intelligent enough to know and research all there is to know about candidates without having to be bombarded with 'smear-mongering'. Many Americans, though aren't.

You are going to vote for Trump. You are not intelligent enough.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would you think that there are more undecideds now than in previous cycles? I'd argue that the high name recognition of the two major party candidates....coupled with the polarized nature of the electorate...results in fewer undecideds.

Trump being behind by even a few points in most swing states is very bad news for him. He doesn't have much upside.

I've heard we have the most undecideds reported several times. They are mostly focused on the Independents right now.

Both candidates have some very strong negatives about them. Trump is a person with no political experience and Hillary is as crooked as they come. It doesn't surprise me that people don't know which way to go.

We follow politics year round, but there are many who are just starting to pay attention now. They don't know about many of the events of the past several months. Negative ads will work on those people because they are just getting caught up. They don't have time (nor care to) do the research.

Heard it where? I'm willing to learn something. Can you provide the link?

Look what you just did. You just tried to claim that Trumps negatives are related to his inexperience as a politician while Clinton's are related to her being "crooked". As if people are turned off by Trump because he's not a career politician. Funny.

Also...you habitually call one candidate by last name and the other by first name. Why do you do that?

There are 2 political Clintons, that's why.

That's bullshit. There are several Trumps. We know who we are referring to in discussions about this election. Please...do not lie with such fucking ease. It is sad.

 

[easyt65]

Why would you think that there are more undecideds now than in previous cycles? I'd argue that the high name recognition of the two major party candidates....coupled with the polarized nature of the electorate...results in fewer undecideds.

Trump being behind by even a few points in most swing states is very bad news for him. He doesn't have much upside.

I've heard we have the most undecideds reported several times. They are mostly focused on the Independents right now.

Both candidates have some very strong negatives about them. Trump is a person with no political experience and Hillary is as crooked as they come. It doesn't surprise me that people don't know which way to go.

We follow politics year round, but there are many who are just starting to pay attention now. They don't know about many of the events of the past several months. Negative ads will work on those people because they are just getting caught up. They don't have time (nor care to) do the research.

Heard it where? I'm willing to learn something. Can you provide the link?

Look what you just did. You just tried to claim that Trumps negatives are related to his inexperience as a politician while Clinton's are related to her being "crooked". As if people are turned off by Trump because he's not a career politician. Funny.

Also...you habitually call one candidate by last name and the other by first name. Why do you do that?

There are 2 political Clintons, that's why.

That's bullshit. There are several Trumps. We know who we are referring to in discussions about this election. Please...do not lie with such fucking ease. It is sad.

How many Trumps have been President or are running for President?

Bullshit? Think before you speak.

 

[easyt65]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah. You'd never do something like that.

I am intelligent enough to know and research all there is to know about candidates without having to be bombarded with 'smear-mongering'. Many Americans, though aren't.

You are going to vote for Trump. You are not intelligent enough.

Oh look, another lib trying to speak FOR others.

Stick to speaking for yourself because you suck at trying to do so for me!

 

[LoneLaugher]

As a candidate, tell me what YOU are going to do for me / the country. If you have to try to tear down the other person to try to make yourself look better then you don't have much to offer.

Yeah. You'd never do something like that.

I am intelligent enough to know and research all there is to know about candidates without having to be bombarded with 'smear-mongering'. Many Americans, though aren't.

You are going to vote for Trump. You are not intelligent enough.

Oh look, another lib trying to speak FOR others.

Stick to speaking for yourself because you suck at trying to do so for me!

Am I wrong? Are you not going to vote for Trump? If I am wrong, I will happily apologize.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's awesome. You don't like Trumps "plans" either.

I don't like either of them, but that's pretty much my position in every presidential election.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Heard it where? I'm willing to learn something. Can you provide the link?

Look what you just did. You just tried to claim that Trumps negatives are related to his inexperience as a politician while Clinton's are related to her being "crooked". As if people are turned off by Trump because he's not a career politician. Funny.

Also...you habitually call one candidate by last name and the other by first name. Why do you do that?

Because if you just say Clinton, you could be referring to Bill or Hil-Liar.

Yes, not having a political background does scare a lot of people. The standard is to have professional politicians in the White House. This is an entirely new thing that we've never experienced before in America. It even scares me.