Negative ads - your stance?

[BluesLegend]

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

I see the sentence you wrote to be a perfect example of going negative and serving no useful purpose to an impartial voter. It contains assumptions that are as plain as the nose on one's face, can't you see them?

Now if my mind is already made up, well then I can find negative ads downright entertaining.

^^^

 

[g5000]

This whining about negative ads started this week because Hillary has begun showing ads with Trump being Trump. No accusations.

Apparently, playing clips of Trump speaking is "going negative." BWA-HA-HA-HA!

"That's playing dirty!"

 

[BluesLegend]

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

I see the sentence you wrote to be a perfect example of going negative and serving no useful purpose to an impartial voter. It contains an assumption that's as plain as the nose on one's face, can't you see it?

If the ad contains a reference to an ACTUAL lie, corrupt act or failure, what then?

The accusations that Hillary lies, is corrupt and has had failures in government jobs are ones I do accept. If I had doubts they can be easily checked out. Why I see the sentence as negative is because it stops right there. It doesn't offer me any help in deciding who to vote for because I have not assumed that Trump has better character and haven't assumed he wouldn't have botched things even worse.

I'm not saying don't say anything bad about an opponent. But to do so without offering a positive comparison to oneself just isn't convincing to me.

Good grief choice A a candidate with a 30 year history of failure in government jobs, lying to cover those failures, and corruption. Why the fuck would you expect that candidate to behave any different if elected POTUS??????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This whining about negative ads started this week because Hillary has begun showing ads with Trump being Trump. No accusations.

Apparently, playing clips of Trump speaking is "going negative." BWA-HA-HA-HA!

"That's playing dirty!"

Where have you been? The "whining" of negative ads goes on every election because every election is loaded with negative ads.

 

[B. Kidd]

This whining about negative ads started this week because Hillary has begun showing ads with Trump being Trump. No accusations.

Apparently, playing clips of Trump speaking is "going negative." BWA-HA-HA-HA!

"That's playing dirty!"

Especially when the ads are funded by a bona-fide liar ............I can see why G50cent hasn't realized why neg ads have a much less significant impact this election.

 

[my2¢]

This whining about negative ads started this week because Hillary has begun showing ads with Trump being Trump. No accusations.

Apparently, playing clips of Trump speaking is "going negative." BWA-HA-HA-HA!

"That's playing dirty!"

Well as I wrote earlier, the ads I saw having Trump being Trump were interspersed with children between the clips, shown in hours just after kids get home from school and implied these things should not be said in front of kids. It takes a village idiot to come up with that ad campaign.

 

[Correll]

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

I see the sentence you wrote to be a perfect example of going negative and serving no useful purpose to an impartial voter. It contains an assumption that's as plain as the nose on one's face, can't you see it?

If the ad contains a reference to an ACTUAL lie, corrupt act or failure, what then?

The accusations that Hillary lies, is corrupt and has had failures in government jobs are ones I do accept. If I had doubts they can be easily checked out. Why I see the sentence as negative is because it stops right there. It doesn't offer me any help in deciding who to vote for because I have not assumed that Trump has better character and haven't assumed he wouldn't have botched things even worse.

I'm not saying don't say anything bad about an opponent. But to do so without offering a positive comparison to oneself just isn't convincing to me.

The vast majority of people are NOT going to check out anything. Negative ads likely contain information that they would not be exposed to without it.

Let's consider an historical example, The Willie Horton ad that pointed out that Dukakis was responsible for a convicted murderer being given a vacation from Prison and the resulting assault and rape of an innocent couple.

That was a powerful piece of information showing that Dukakis was soft on crime and lacked judgement.

The fact that his opponents would NOT have released murderers from prison could be assumed by the presentation of the information in a negative light (for your comparison purpose).

 

[my2¢]

The wife was watching the local evening news (live at 5:00) while I played Euchre. Twice during the broadcast I overheard that same Hillary ad I complained about here last week. It's now the straw that broke the camel's back moment in this campaign for me. While I wasn't pleased with Trump's shenanigans at the Flint church, this evening Hillary's ad got to me and has to be the topper. As far as I'm concerned the best days Hillary has had since the convention were those where she called in sick.