LOL ... so, someone from the Times must've had Monty Python on their mind - Terry Gillum (Terry Gilliam).
3
Why is it legal to run a political ad with outright lies and falsehoods?
15
@Ira Shorr
Because of Ronald Reagan, whose administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine, which had been policy since 1949, sought “to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views” in public broadcasting (ie. radio and television transmissions).
15
@Ira Shorr
The NYT does it ever day. So it must be legal.
These ugly tactics and falsehoods may have been with us all the time. And voters and non-voters alike may believe or excuse them by saying it is just politics. Government and politics used to be separate. Government was for the greater good. It was for us all. But these days, there seems to be no distinction between government and politics. And politics is dirty.
2
"The video was so demonizing of Latino migrants and so defamatory of Democrats."
Let's just be grateful that is was placed by an American. Had it been broadcast by, say, a Russian, it would have been election interference. Not so for exactly the same ad placed by an American (most likely a Republican).
The distinction matters. After all, had it been a Muslim person who killed members of the congregations in Pittsburgh and Charleston, the murders would have been deemed acts of terrorism. A white US male is exempt such a stigma.
6
@Mike Edwards
"A white US male is exempt [from] such a stigma."
Ask Timothy McVeigh if that's true. (Actually you can't because he got the death penalty).
But I can't blame you for making such an ignorant statement. If you went to an American college or are a regular NYT reader you have been told about the mystical force-field of "white privilege" so many times that you can't help but believe that it's real.
1
I find the ad that Tom MacArthur is running against candidate Kim to be particularly annoying. I know MacArthur from his days in Randolph, NJ where he served on the town council. I thought he was a weasel then. He still is. He was, I believe, the author of the legislation trying to overturn the ACA. I hope he loses.
7
dems don't produce negative ads?
I do not have a T.V. so have seen none of these ads.
I have seen ads in the past and remember there were many that I thought were unethical .
Some Republican and some Democrat.
You say the Republicans are being racist because they are against the caravan.
I agree with them and I know I am not a racist
The facts are that most of the illegal immigrants are Hispanic.
Should I not be against illegal immigration because someone can say I am anti Hispanic.
I am not against that caravan because most of them are Hispanic.
If I believed they would not try to enter the country illegally I would not oppose them and if they were all White I would still oppose them.
This is not about race and the Times to insist it is is unethical.
They are trying to convince the Hispanics who are here legally and vote that the Republicans hate them and they should vote for a Democrat.
To me the Times and those who agree by making their argument are the true racist.
I find it very telling that the Times only picks the ads for Trump to show how the political ads are unethical.
I can't say for certain because but I do know that the Democrats have had them in the past so assume there are some now.
If you believe the Republicans ads are racist because you claim most of the people in those caravans are running away from certain death you will not see why I think the Democrats are racist when I believe they are mostly illegal aliens who are coming here to make money.
Shame? Shame went out the window a long time ago in Washington politics. If it ever even existed.
But it's not just Washington. I've lived long enough to watch shame leave most of the social interactions necessary to make a functioning country. It used to be most people could be shamed into not doing things. Most Americans could not be bought, or they had a very high standard, a high price, before they would do something that would bring them shame.
The 1980's changed all of that. "Greed is good" made us into a country of citizens, most of whom now have a price. They will do the most shameful things now, for the right price, and that price is usually very low indeed.
It's Reaganism filtered down to its very essence - do what is good for yourself and only yourself and everything will work out. Don't hold back, just do it. No matter how shameful doing it might be, don't worry about shame, it's all about you. Here, take the money, sell out, who is concerned about the shame attached to what it is we are paying you to do? It's money! Take it!
Our so-called President is the logical, ugly, detestable ultimate example of shamelessness. And what decade did Trump emerge from? The 1980's, the era of Reaganism.
14
"...negative political ads...increasing by 61 percent since the last midterm season..."
When you've got nothing worthwhile, done nothing beneficial and shown nothing constructive all that's left is finger-pointing and bad-mouthing, and hopping nobody notices it's lies...
9
If you "...approve this message" even though it's something blatantly false and damaging about a political opponent, maybe you deserve to be sued for libel by that opponent. A few high-value, high visibility law suits might get otherwise unscrupulous candidates to think twice before mud slinging.
7
@TMBM
Trump wanted to make the media liable for defamation against public figures. But the NYT said this was "fascist" and undermined our democracy.
First, I notice all of these ads were from Republicans and against Democrats, so I think the word "Candidates" should be replaced with "Republicans." Locally, the misleading ads I have seen have also come from the Republicans, Jeff Denham is desperate in his attempt to mislead voters about his opponent Democrat, Josh Harder. If there is an equivalent misleading ad from a Democrat the NYT needs to mention it.
I expect advertisements to be biased, but when candidates make up facts or play to race scares, I object. The migrating asylum seekers are over a month away from the border, and the number of people involved is smaller than what goes through one San Diego crossing point in an hour.
How do we stop these ads, we don't elect those who use them. It shows a lack of values, and a desire to mislead voters; this is not what we want in an elected official.
6
Unfortunatly Negative ads seem to Work. Negative is one thing, Lies and dirty tricks are wrong. Yet these people want to write the Laws. Sorry to say, but both parties engage in this. Voters need to fact check, don't go by some 30 second Ad played over and over. Today it's easier than ever a simple google gets you much information.
1
You will notice that the most ethics challenged politicians air the most odious ads.Trump leads the pack with his shameless ads making people afraid of immigrants.Chris Collins who faces charges on insider trading has decided that he can obfuscate by changing the subject and Duncan Hunter is a perennial prevaricator.It is as if they demonstrate the bad behavior of someone else, people will forget that they have done and said very bad things.They are people who do not believe in law and order- they believe in enriching themselves and their families.I hope no one is fooled.
7
We have laws that require advertisers of commercial good to be truthful, and we fine them for lying. Why aren't politicians held to the same standards as, say, promoters of herbal supplements, toilet paper and cars?
8
What the crafters of this legislation could not envision is the dumbing down of morality. Even in 2002 the internet was an embryo of an anamorphic entity. What it would look like in fifteen years would be impossible to know and access. It's toxic bile, only a minor unpleasant odor, barely noticeable in the post 9/11 world. So they couldn't possibly have guessed what people would approve of today.
2
Baseless, inflammatory rhetoric by Republicans is the least of it!
What about Republicans creating procedural blockades meant to prevent or at least discourage minority voters from voting?
Just look at what's going on in Georgia and has gone on in many states mainly in the South. It's downright shameful and legal action needs to be taken to prevent it from going any further.
9
That is the baby boomer base of the Trump presidency, hopefully this nightmare begins to end tomorrow.
7
I am so glad I no longer own a television! I am old enough to remember when political ads were full of candidate promises with no mention of the other candidate. In the 1980s it switched drastically, where a candidate's ad was only about how bad his opponent was.
6
@Autumn Flower
Well said, AF, well said.
I’m old enough that I can clearly remember watching John Kennedy deliver his inaugural address on the screen of a b&w television in 1961. Political campaigns, as you wrote in your comment, were once about party platforms, policies, plans, promises and the interests of the American people. There was mud-slinging occasionally, but I remember nothing resembling the negativity of what voters are subjected to today.
I am a retired high school math teacher. When I’m uncertain as to whether my perceptions are fair and objective, I grab a clipboard and begin counting things. In an informal manner, I gather data in an effort to keep myself honest.
I’m sorry to point this out. Because I wish it weren’t true. But when I track the use of fear mongering, character assassination, misleading claims and outright lies — the candidates of one party, the Republicans, are inclined to resort to these tactics earlier in the campaign AND far more frequently than do the Democratic candidates. At least, that’s my take on the televised campaign ads here in northwestern PA. That’s what my clipboard count indicates.
In the words of (Stooge) Moe Howard, “What a revoltin’ development.”
Hopefully, tomorrow’s midterm election will push the political process in a more positive, civil direction.
8
@Tom W:
Your quote is from William Bendix, in "The Life of Riley". Great line, and appropriate for our time.
1
Negative ads pollute. A local race where I live, which few know details of, features a candidate's glossy mailers accusing her rival of dangerous, criminal, nefarious acts. The sort that might matter around here - corporate corruption, insider profiteering, deceit - in bold face. Political parties aren't mentioned.
A little thought shows this breathtaking level of immorality isn't possible for the 35-year old individual being attacked. But usually no thought is put into reviewing these messages. I get dozens, and try to sort and dispose as fast as possible. At the end, only vague notions remain, a shadow.
Filling my ballot, the names involved appear, and something triggers animosity towards one. What is it? Something I heard? Read? Well, it's not important. I know there's something wrong with her, so I'll vote for the other person.
This is thumb-on-the-scale stuff, which distorts elections. A healthy democracy needs to flush out these ads, prevent them. I know, negative ads have been around since 19th century. But they weren't ubiquitous in the 20th. We're turning the clock back.
9
All ads,regardless of where they are showing, should have to have their providers names and addresses.
11
I don't think campaign ads do anything but cement those who already support that candidate or proposition. But the rel problem is not the ads, but how much money is poured in by dark sources. The only real solution is to go to publicly financed campaigns, with no private money allowed. But to do that will require the politicians who feat on the dark money to turn away from it, and that would be like expecting a lion to walk away from a carcass. Also, it would mean having to get the farcical SCOTUS decisions about money = "free" speech, and Citizens United rolled back - no chance of that with the conservative-controlled make up of the bench we have now.
I think the system is broken beyond repair, and it will require an upheaval to change it.
18
The saddest part of this whole story is that these ads are believable to many. What does that say about our U.S. as a society?
32
Too many pundits speak in terms of Trump's "effectiveness" in motivating his base. Conservative or liberal, this is simply NOT the issue. It's like the nihilistic conversation our country sometimes has about torture.
There are a great many unconscionable things one can do to achieve a goal. I have not heard many politicians willing to deny that the ad was patent fear-mongering and race-baiting, nor that Trump routinely spreads outrageous lies about the caravan. "But regardless of how he's doing it, Trump is riling up his base," is the common refrain.
I have to say that while cold analysis has it's place, when I discuss this election cycle, my usual comment is "but NOTHING!" This is a sitting president we're discussing and he has responsibilities beyond riling up his base by literally any means necessary. This is not spin we're talking about, but purposeful and targeted lies from the president to his own people about deadly serious matters. He's even got people on a hair trigger by saying that a thrown rock is justification for opening fire with rifles. He says this knowing that even if trained soldiers restrain themselves, there are armed and misguided vigilantes out there "supplementing" border patrol who sincerely believe what their president has said.
So never mind gauging "effectiveness." It is a patently illegitimate and D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-B-L-Y dangerous use of the presidential platform. End of analysis! Is conservatism so weak that it cannot say so?
46
"I'm Jane Lastname and I approve this message" is the DRM of campaign advertising: made with the blessing and budget of bad fat cats to inconvenience honest candidates, while doing exactly nothing to stop the real problems or ostensible targets.
That's why McCain backed it in the first place. Back then, the GOP was more subtle about their evil.
7
Makes us wonder about civility in this age of disinformation. Do we know the difference between assertive civility and aggressiveness?
Are our young people educated enough to see through the ruses with which they are bombarded? Are our seniors savvy enough to see the changes in tactic that have become too extreme to be credible? Do all our citizens have the courage to reject hyperbole and seek only the truth?
The Devil walks among us.....he is present in political ad producers, as well as in the candidates distorting the truth. Beware of falsehoods.....always suspect slander, and discount the hype as indicative of a nefarious plot to discredit the best candidate.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.....the best candidates don't need to bloviate and denigrate others........
9
I am going to need a lot of support & encouragement if Democrats fail to win a majority in at least the House. You know good and well that even if Democrats lose by one single gerrymandered vote, the GOP will become even more brazen & merciless. They already behave as if 60% of Americans are invisible & meaningless. Trump’s base of support remains a minority of the population & its size is stagnant yet if the GOP keeps its stranglehold on all 3 branches of government, this minority will continue to trample over everyone and everything, including democracy itself.
87
Amen, amen, amen to this!! This is what scares me so much with this election. If the GOP somehow manages to retain control of both houses of Congress, no matter by how thin of a margin, they are going to act as if voters gave then carte blanche and they will forge ahead with policies that the true majority does not support. Our biggest threat lies in that.
14
Donald is airing ads with his absurd racist tinge that all the migrants -- many of whom are fleeing conditions our CIA and dollars have perpetuated -- are all cop-killer lepers and human traffickers.
I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message.
He wasn't kidding. He really is on the ballot.
So show him.
51
I was born in an age when dog whistles attracted wagging tails, not hatred. I remember sitting at the breakfast table after my father finished his coffee and reached for his first cigarette. He showed me the bottom of his Lucky Strike pack and pointed to the L-S-M-F-T. "Do you know what this means?" he asked.
“Yes, sir,” I said with pride. I had seen the commercials on our tiny black-and-white TV. “Lucky Strikes Mean Fine Tobacco!”
“No, Temple,” he said. “It means: ‘Lord Save Me From Truman’.” He laughed.
Later I asked my Mom if she hated Truman. I had heard her say this at a cocktail party at our house. The smell of frogs and turtles had been scrubbed off of me, and I was paraded in front of her guests, squeaky clean.
“No,” she said. “I just don’t like Truman.”
It was not a simpler age. You cannot dismiss it as that. We had the Korean War. We hid under our school desks as practice for a nuclear attack. People built bomb shelters.
There was hatred in America. The KKK lynched people of color for talking to a white woman. Terrible things happened.
So, it was not a simpler age, but it was different.
For the most part, when I was a kid we hated the real enemies of America, not the press. We did not hate people who joined a different party or who opposed our political choices. We were not always civil, but we did not want to murder innocent people who cherished different beliefs.
I miss that America, that beacon of hope, when the Statue of Liberty meant something.
55
Turn the TV off and you won’t have to worry about watching ads.
15
To treat this as a problem of personal distaste that can be solved by individuals turning off their televisions is simplistic & misses the point. Sure, I can turn off my TV, but the hate & the people who spread it will still be there, as will those who are more than willing to listen - and believe.
42
@Tony C Great advice. I have not seen any ads except those mailed to me by the candidates.......
My information comes from the Public Affairs Research Council
4
It is so weird that trump claims George Soros is financing the caravan. Lest people forget, and it’s easily confirmable by googling it, trump himself borrowed $160,000,000 from Soros for a real estate project, and Steven Mnuchin, his chosen Secretary of the Treasury, used to work for George Soros.
31
@Allen Polk
I stopped answering the phone after I got a robocall from singer "Pat Boone" telling me who to vote for in CA election.
Just way too bizarre.
6
@Allen Polk
Trump claimed Hillary "started the birfer movement."\
The man is a sociopathic, compulsive liar.
12
I'm not sure he's wrong about that.
At least with the "I approved this message" ads, the viewer knows who is responsible for the ad.... No other political ads should really be permitted...because viewers have no idea who or whose money is behind them.
15
Lets identify the real problem here. It is NOT the existing rules for social media or about approving a given ad.
The problem here is that Republican politicians are willing to lie with no restraint, shame, or remorse, and most Republican voters will believe the lies they are told, no matter how ridiculous (or discredited) they are.
74
Paid political advertising on TV, radio print and the internet needs to end. The question is will the media companies want to give up the massive amount of revenue that is generated from political advertising. Short answer, no.
While negative advertising may be impactful in the short term, the long term overall effect it is that further degrades people’s faith in our Republic.
First item would be overturning and abolishing Citizens United as this was never intended to benefit the people. Secondly, we must move away from the short form political advertising of :30/:60 spots, often backed by dark money, and move towards a twice monthly 3 hour debate format carried by all networks in prime time for free during the election cycle.
I’d also return control of the Presidential debates to the League of Women Voters and remove it from the DNC/RNC.
27
Citizens United was a Supreme Court miscarriage of reason and justice. It will be remembered as such in history hereafter.
Money never was nor ever will be considered speech by reasonable people. Vote Democrat and save our nation from this demagoguery.
18
I think it is time for candidates who are being slimed, to start suing for libel and defamation of character. The proof for libel is the truth and if an advertisement is not true, there is a good case for libel. I am not sure how else this could be stopped, given that fear and hate have always worked well in political campaigns and that is why it is used.
There are laws that say one cannot lie when selling a product. You cannot say a drug cures cancer when it doesn't. Unfortunately, a number of candidates are nothing more than products anyway. So, I am not certain why this legality does not apply in political ads, but it doesn't seem to do so.
There are limits to freedom of speech just as I said in the prior paragraph. So, I don't believe the first amendment applies here.
In Britain, if you lie about your opponent you are put out of the race. I think that is a fine idea. But, of course, we would have to elect politicians who would be willing to pass such a law and that is not going to happen. I am not certain there are enough politicians who would be willing to do this. So, suing for libel, slander and defamation gets my vote with plenty of advertising to publish the fact that suing is being done and why. I would welcome the effort. Since money is free speech, let's up the ante.
13
The death penalty is used for the wrong crimes. It doesn't have any deterrent effect on murder, but, judiciously applied, I think we would see a dramatic decrease in this sort of activity.
5
@Glen Penalties should fit the crime. Making them excessively harsh just to act as detterents is unfair to whmever commited them.
1
@Joe
Ok, Joe, I'll dial it back a notch.
Since the president is firmly in favor of torture as a means to stop someone from lying and to wring the truth out of them, waterboarding, electrical shocks to the genitalia, and long, leisurely soaks in an ice-filled jacuzzi should accomplish the desired result.
Is that better?
7
All that language did was require the candidates to self-regulate. Self-regulation never works. Just look at the environment as a failed example. It simply gives the bullies carte blanche to do as they wish.
13
Jimmy Carter said it best a few years ago: negative attack ads aren't going away for one simple reason: they work. And the reason they work is staring at us in the mirror.
After the upset of 2016, politicians all over the nation are doing their best to out-trump Trump. If they are successful, of course it will only get worse in the next election.
The only way to stop it is to stop voting for the bullies.
41
With the utterly disgraced Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins joining Donald Trump for a skinny dip in his electoral cesspool, our country truly puts the worst of its political worst in the driver's seat of execrable campaigning. We shall find out on Wednesday how well this works.
20
The Republicans are the worst with their woman abusers ,bullies and wealth let them get away with the mean spirited attack ads. When they cut social security medicare and the post office on Thursday if they get in it will be poetic justice against their supporters. Then that will show they are mean spirited.
4
Mute the stupid ads or go into another room. Both sides air them. If you get your information from them at this point, if you are still undecided then it appears you are not doing anything at all to make you an informed voter. Stay home tomorrow, watch reruns of Gillighan's Island or just vote straight down a party line.
1
I'm hoping other advertisers on the stations that air the foulest ads notice a negative impact because we're turning it all off.
3
Vote against insanity by voting for Democrats right down the line.
15
Avoid turning on the "idiot box" in the first place. Anyone?
2
The phrase is meaningless boilerplate, frequently stated at lightning speed before the actual ad so it doesn't even have any context.
Not surprising that every example of lying, smearing ads were done by Republicans attacking Democrats.
13
I recall that after the election in 2016, some voters criticized Hillary for talking only about how awful a president Trump would be while saying little about her plans for the country and proposed solutions for problems. In contrast, they saw Trump focusing on how he was going to change things---at least he wants to do something, they said. This time it's reversed, with the GOP focusing on how awful things will be if the Dems win, while the Dems talk about issues of great concern for people's lives. I hope the results will be reversed this time as well!
19
Aside from this really stupid regulation that requires the ridiculous "I approve this message", the ads are not just dominated by attacks. They are all too often half truths, or they conveniently omit facts creating the sort of lie by omission. Just more disgraceful discourse our elected representatives want us to believe they abhor. Both parties equally guilty.
8
@Charlie: Both sides equally guilty? Not by a long shot! That's just what the GOP says, and it's one more lie. Try to point to a few.
42
@Thomas - Try the Menendez ads in NJ. Guilty of ethical breaches but because he wasn't criminally convicted they talk about the latter and not the former. There are many but partisans only see what they want to see.
Surely both are guilty. One for initiating such attacks, the other for responding in kind. It doesn't take a professional political analyst to know which is which.
1
What's sad is that the Republicans actually do stand by their ads. They are not bothered by pesky facts. They are happy to L I E to our faces and claim that they're going to protect folks with pre-existing conditions after they spent 8 years saying that they would repeal it.
Look at Kemp in GA, making up scurrilous lies (without evidence) about the DNC supposedly hacking voting there, while it is indeed Kemp and the GOP that are hacking the election with gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The Republicans, like Trump, are shameless liars. All they care about is 'winning' at any cost - democracy be damned.
109
Does anyone with a brain seriously take these add at face value? If you’re persuaded by 30 second sound bites, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Moreover, the fact that these ridiculous sound bites still exist is testimony to the fact that the average voter is not up in the issues and vote by party line.
37
@Bill Woodson The majority of voters are more interested in football or soap operas than politics. Even if the ads were quiet, reasonable and honest they would not listen. If we can learn that our vote means something and that we are complicit in the actions of those we elect, we might get something better than the mess we have now.
2
Not only have ads turned nasty, but, so have voters. My wife and I are canvassing in our local community---and what we notice, particularly with Republicans, is just how nasty---actually vulgar---these mild-mannered suburbanites have become. I know some pundits have indicated that the Democrats must toughen up---"go low,"---but, selling your civility soul for man who has no soul, is too high a price for me.
155
@ACJ
"My wife and I are canvassing in our local community."
Thanks to you both.
21
@ACJ
Republican ads have been nasty - and racist - for a long time. The Willie Horton ad was fine with the “principled” Poppy Bush. From Politico:
“......how could George H.W. Bush, a Yankee Brahmin, a patrician known for his courtly manners and good nature, be persuaded to go along with such an attack?
Atwater held a series of focus groups in an office in a shopping mall in Paramus, New Jersey, and then went to the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, with the results: Tell Dukakis voters about Willie Horton and they stopped being Dukakis voters.
Atwater told Bush: “We’re 17 points back and they’ll pick up 10 more points at their convention and we won’t win. Even with a good campaign, we won’t win. You can get so far behind that even a good campaign won’t win it for you.”
And Bush’s response?
“After that,” Atwater said, “it was an easy sell.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-willie-horton-118061
The media likes to pretend that old school Republicans like Bush would never stoop so low and yet Bush choose Lee Atwater and the odious Roger Ailes to run his campaign and yet the media let him get away with pretending he had nothing to do with the poison coming from his campaign. Instead they decided to blame Dukakis for not responding “appropriately. When he fought back they trashed him for looking defensive, i.e., weak. This pattern has been repeated again and again. Just ask John Kerry,Hillary or Gore.
22
@ACJ I always thought that conservatives had more moral fiber and were the ones who would be shocked at vulgar discourse in politics—the people who would be offended if a politician acted in a way that was inconsistent with their religious values. It seems they are proving me exactly wrong lately.
4
This columnist's comments about Horton don't conform with the truth. First the Democrats not the Republicans made Horton an issue. The Massachusetts furlough problem had been in the news when Dukakis & Al Gore sparred over it in a primary debate in 1988. Gore didn’t mention Horton by name, but he didn't need to. The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune had been running what would eventually amount to almost 200 stories over the next year, criticizing the Department of Corrections, Governor Dukakis,& the furlough program. The paper would go on to win a Pulitzer Prize for reporting. After the Horton story broke, Dukakis stood by the furloughs-for-lifers policy. He faced overwhelming opposition from the state legislature, a citizen petition drive & a blizzard of news stories. Only after the governor had been "persuaded,'' that the policy was`at odds with state's longstanding effort to ensure tough sentencing practices did he quietly sign a bill that abolished furloughs for murderers. It was fair to ask why Dukakis let a first-degree murderer out of prison on a 48-hour pass...one who had drug & discipline problems in prison. Horton, sentenced to life without parole for a brutal 1974 killing, took off from an unsupervised furlough - his 10th - in 1986. The following year he was recaptured after holding a Maryland couple hostage, during which time he raped the woman & stabbed the man. The Bush ad wasn't a despicable stunt, it was fair game given the facts.
7
These ads are broadcast by media companies that do not show the price per second paid by the candidate or committee.
The media, NYT included, has no interest in reducing these ads.
5
@Nycoolbreez
Nobody in a position to do anything about this has any incentive to do so, but rather to keep it all going at a fever pitch. More money, more ads, more phony controversy to yell about 24/7, etc.
7
Yesterday the NY Times delivered large amounts of evidence that Trump uses talking points, conspiracy theories, and memes developed and made popular by white supremacists, which makes them feel he is one of them.
Another article yesterday described how the Republican Party attacked any investigation into white supremacist TERRORIST groups (yes they actually attack and kill people) as political overreach.
The combination of a political party plus their propaganda arm, FOX news, protecting terrorists from investigation, plus actively taking up their propaganda and repeatj it is killing real people in this country.
For example, the idea that there are Democratic "mobs," was made up by white supremacists and spread with the meme jobsnotmobs, which Trump repeated and made a campaign theme.
Meanwhile, Trump supporters with MAGA Hats shot up a black church and sent pipe bombs to Democrats, and another far right terrorist shot up 11 Jewish worshippers, while a handful of left activists yelling at Ted Cruz in a restaurant are chastised by Democrats and the media.
The right supports domestic terrorists.
Far-Right Internet Groups Listen for Trump’s Approval, and Often Hear It
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/far-right-internet-trump.amp.html
U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html
70
@McGloin
"U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism."
Must we never equate willful blindness with complicity?
"Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It."
It's not about incompetence.
It's about Desire.
4
The republicans poisoned the water years ago they have ever since campaigned on lies , fear and hate. They gerrymander and attempt voter suppression whenever possible. They lie cheat and steal and it is now party before country. I am ashamed of the Republican Party and what it has morphed into. Even Richard Nixon has a soul but not so much these new republicans.
72
"Mr. Wrenn, who has since repudiated the ad, said that while hyperpartisans “eat up all that stuff,” the most incendiary ads don’t “have any credibility with most voters, and especially with swing voters.”"
"Hyperpartisans"? You mean right-wing extremists, you don't see this from the left.
18
It's ads like these that inflame people to do stupid things.
If people are buying into ads of this nature then they are showing that all they care about is themselves and not making the USA a better country.
Come on people America is better then that.
11
@BTO Any behavior that gets consistently rewarded is guaranteed to be repeated. It's true for life and politics. Until those candidates who run these kinds of ads start losing elections expect to see more of them.
8
NBC takes the money and runs racist trump ad. CNN declined.
22
I have been disgusted by the scurrilous ads for some Republican candidates in PA and NJ. I am 76 and do not remember a time when it got so nasty.
What galls me is that these same candidates also run perfectly decent ads which makes me even angrier to hear them support the hateful ads.
Some candidates will do anything for PAC money.
23
It always comes back to "The end justifies the means" for the GOP.
57
So, is this trend evolution or devolution?
3
Let's not beat around the bush. These ads are aimed at White Americans. Their fear of losing wealth, power and majority status has brought us Donald Trump and it may well cement and legitimize his rule on Nov. 6, 2018.
94
@Dario Let's not pretend the concerns represented by the content of these ads are not real. We live in a time where we have law enforcement in "sanctuary" municipalities derelict in their duty to share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and in some cases actively interfering with them carrying out their duties. What do sanctuary cities have in common? Democrat leadership.
7
Catholic and Conservative is pretty much an oxymoron unless your "Catholic" is not based on Christian values and Jesus's love - which are about as liberal as they come.
Please show the story where Jesus trod on the poor and disadvantaged. Where Jesus shunned immigrant for the wealthy pharisees.
I believe there is not duty - law - requiring local police enforce federal immigration laws. That that is the sole jurisdiction of the feds - at least as it was found by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
45
@Dario
You are beating around the bush. I'm a white American. These ads ate not aimed at me. These ads are aimed at white supremacists who fully support violent political terror committed by the base of the Republican Party, right wing hate groups who have killed more Americans than international terrorists.
The real mobs are on the right. They own most of the 300 million guns and are itching to start a Civil War like their traitorous heroes that attacked our Republic and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans..
During the revolution, the right were the loyalists who supported the king's terror campaign in the colonies.
Slavery was a constant terror operation. Jim Crow was constant terrorism, including lynchings.
The Pary of Trump is made up of tax cheats, liars, thugs, and terrorists, and the billionaires that finance them to sow division and violence, so that workers cannot unite against them.
If this wasn't true, 90% of Republicans wouldn't support Trump.
We cannot compromise with lying, cheating, terrorists. The fake corporate "center" has collapsed. You must choose a side.
Hate, Greed. and Violence.
Or
Love, Sharing, and Peace.
35
Most of these ads meet the definition of hate speech. Why aren't their creators and purchasers being prosecuted?
79
@dave Maybe because your perspective on what is and is not "hate speech" is subjective but more probably because it is protected by the first amendment.
It gets a little old when Democrats insist on conflating genuine concerns about illegal immigration with racism. A little over 17 years ago those of us in the NYC metro area got a first hand view of what happens when the US fails to enforce its immigration and customs laws.
8
@Catholic and Conservative
I agree with you in principle .
Factually you are wrong.
All of the hijackers entered the country legally.
I am not against illegal immigration because I think these people are criminals.
Some are but so are some of the legal ones.
There has to be a limit on how many people come here.
How can you limit how many who come if you have to let everyone in.
3
@Catholic and Conservative
If you've been following the news, as reported in this paper, then you should know the the greatest terrorist threat is coming from those who were born in the United States.
I do live in the NYC metro area. The first hand view that those of us who live in area received is that of what happens when airlines don't require
the installation of steel doors that separate the cockpit from the passengers, as El Al always did,
and have lax security. There are armed security personnel on every El Al flight. Those hijackers would never have made it past them, to the cockpit while if they had, they would not have been able to get past the steel door to storm the cockpit.
Less than a year after 9/11, I had to fly. My brother told me that he would not be able to enter the pickup area to help me with my luggage, and instructed me to rent a luggage cart. Imagine my surprise to see my brother insdie the picup area, as I pushed my luggage on the rented card.
Apparently ,it had not occurred to anyone at the airport that terrorists could enter the airport through the departure area.
1