I'm blaqueKatt and I approve this post

[BlaqueKatt]

Ok I finally heard a political ad that angered me enough to post-it wasn't the content of the ad it was the fact that the ad was presented outright falsely, and approved by the opposing candidate. Which means the opposing candidate is supporting a total falsehood, and assuming the voting public is stupid enough to believe it. In an effort to be as vague as possible I will be using candidates X and Q, and the issue will be frog.

"As a professional (blank) I thought you should know, candidate x wants to take away your frog rights. listen to this(undated*) sound byte of candidate x on a news program that has been on for over 30 years* and candidate x has been on over 30 times*(sound byte could be from a year ago or 20 years ago-who knows?). {sound byte} host of news program- so you would support a constitutional amendment banning frog? candidate x-"yes"

"Candidate X will take away your frog rights-I am candidate Q and I approved this message"

Um the president does not have the power to amend the constitution, and cannot introduce bills to congress, Candidate x does not have the power to take away anything as president. Yet candidate Q wants voters to believe he does.

To me that is the lowest form of desperation and worse than mudslinging-it's outright lying to the voting public-says more to me about candidate Q than it does about candidate x.

*as there is no date on the sound byte-there is no way to verify when it was said, if it was said, or if it was edited or taken out of context-for all we know the full answer might have been "yes, but only under x,y,and z circumstances." or Yes, in a perfect world, that would be ideal, however our world isn't perfect.

*deliberately vague so the program/candidate/issue remains hidden as I see no reason to debate that-I'm just debating the way the ad was done.--if anyone knows the ad I'm talking about please do not reveal it. As I do not want the content of the ad derailing the thread.-if you really must know PM me

[Sylvia727]

Is it outright lying, though? Are you just assuming that the comment is being taken severely out of context, or do you know it for a fact? The ad tells the listeners the name of the talk show, so they can go look up if they really care that much.

It sounds to me, from the little info I've heard, like this ad is just simplified to fit in a shorter time slot. No, I don't like candidates who rely on "he's worse than me," but it doesn't sound like Mr. Q did anything morally or ethically questionable.

[BlaqueKatt]

Is it outright lying, though?

claiming the president has the power to change the constitution-that is lying-and very bold outright lying-and if Mr x is elected he most definitely will-glad to know Mr Q has a crystal ball to see the future and know exactly what will happen(even though it i an impossibility)

The ad tells the listeners the name of the talk show, so they can go look up if they really care that much.

yeah the name of a show that mr x has been on over 30 times-does your average voter really have time to read through over 30 transcripts? online the transcripts only go back about 3 months-if the interview was before that you have to pay for a printed version-and most of Mr. X's appearances are prior to that 3 month window so $3 per written transcript x 30 that's $90-even if it was important I don't see voters rushing to pay $90 to find out exactly what was said(you'd have to order all of them as they didn't give a date-most liely to discourage people from "fact-finding/checking") Plus I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find a sound byte of our current president saying he's like to see alcohol banned-has he done it? No because it's not within his scope of power.

it doesn't sound like Mr. Q did anything morally or ethically questionable.

So if someone running for office said they didn't like cars or the first amendment, or dogs as pets it wouldn't be morally or ethicly questionable to say if you elect them they'll ban cars,revoke freedom of religion/press/speech, ban having dogs as pets?

This is exactly what Mr Q did, Mr. x said he didn't agree with something, and would support the removal of it-however it is not within the scope of presidential powers for him to do so. The end of the ad had Mr Q saying if you elect Mr X he Will ban cars/revoke the first amendment, take away your family dog.

I used extreme examples there because maybe that will show how ludicrous and disingenuous the ad is. How can Mr. Q Possibly know what Mr. X plans to do during his presidency? Especially when what Mr. Q is claiming he will do IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE.

It would be like me saying "you know what I don't like people that wear chartreuse sweaters, I'll make their heads explode with telekinesis." I don't have the power of telekinesis, so no one wearing chartreuse sweaters has to worry about me making their heads explode now do they?

[AFPheonix]

Political ads in general piss me off. They're part of the reason I tend to not listen to or watch commercial radio or tv.

[Sylvia727]

BlaqueKatt, you make an excellent point. I missed the significance of the line "Candidate X will take away your frog rights". Mr. Q could have made the same point in a much more truthful way. I changed my mind. The ad is deceitful, and not the behavior wanted from a potential president.

[CancelMyService]

Also, the whole arguement of the President not having the power to take away your "frog rights" (I think we all know what this is supposed to be a stand in for, but I'll play along) is kind of misleading.

While the President can't make or change laws directly, the winner of this current election will most likely have the ability to name several appointees to the Supreme Court. If those appointees are in the same conservative mold as the ones Bush appointed, it's safe to assume the anti "frog-rights" groups would immediately attempt to petition the court to get a favorable ruling. It's an immensely important part of this election that I barely see mentioned anywhere.

[Boozy]

I hate campaign ads, and we're starting to see more of them now in Canada as our own election approaches. They're all misleading and sensational in some way. And if people actually use these campaign ads to make a decision as to who to vote for, then I suppose we deserve the kind of leadership we get.

[Dreamstalker]

I would tend to agree. Most politicians don't want people to actually think about the issues themselves, it's all about money and who runs the better smear campaign. Sad, it is.

[Saydrah]

Nooooo anything but that, don't take my frog rights, I'll never find a prince!

My hometown newspaper has a feature where they dissect a political ad every week and say what is true, false, and what's true but misleading.