It might allow people to know if money/ads are coming from outside sources or from the candidates themselves. That recently posted ad from blacks supporting the GOP is a good example. Knowing that it came from some small weird group makes me dismiss it, but if it had come from an actual GOP candidate, I would have seriously considered working to support that person's opponent.

But more to the point, why should you NOT be transparent? It seems like it's something that should never hurt the situation and there are some definite situations where it's helpful. Why not just be transparent?

Disclosing that the Congressional Leadership Fund or the House Majority PAC or whatever is paying for the ad is saying that the money and ad is coming from outside sources and not from the candidate themselves. If it's from the candidate, the candidate's disclaimer in the ad (you live in China, you may have missed this development that occurred like 15 years ago).

jerseyhoya wrote:Disclosing that the Congressional Leadership Fund or the House Majority PAC or whatever is paying for the ad is saying that the money and ad is coming from outside sources and not from the candidate themselves. If it's from the candidate, the candidate's disclaimer in the ad (you live in China, you may have missed this development that occurred like 15 years ago).

so give me a reason why it shouldn't be transparent in the way others are talking about. You're saying it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then why not be transparent? Why err on the side of NOT being transparent?

Your sarcasm aside, I have lived abroad for 8 years and before that I very rarely watched tv. I can't tell you the last time I saw a political ad on tv. And if I did see one or two a decade or more ago, I didn't see enough to notice a pattern and I didn't follow political ad rules close enough to realize there was a new rule. Not everyone lives and breathes this stuff like you do.

I asked what sort of transparency beyond what is currently available people wanted and didn't get an answer. What do you think is necessary?

and I asked why you wouldn't want to be as transparent as possible and didn't get an answer.

Life is tough, man.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go outside and breathe in some of the smog made possible by the Clean Air Act.

Kelly Johnston, the Vice President of Government Affairs for Campbell Soup Co has been tweeting about the conspiracy theories that George Soros' Open Society Foundation planned and is executing the migrant caravan. Johnston was previously Secretary of the US Senate under Bob Dole.

Sadly Pat Roberts missed that part of the Bible that dealt with compassion when he states "The person who apparently has been financing this thing is George Soros," on The 700 Club. After hurling that Molotov Cocktail he uttered, "Now we don't have hard evidence on that, but that's the suspicion", but by them the damage is done. I've sadly seen how these TV folks pull the string with a certain set of the US population, and elderly.

Crazy times.

jerseyhoya wrote:Disclosing that the Congressional Leadership Fund or the House Majority PAC or whatever is paying for the ad is saying that the money and ad is coming from outside sources and not from the candidate themselves. If it's from the candidate, the candidate's disclaimer in the ad (you live in China, you may have missed this development that occurred like 15 years ago).

lol get bent

Monkeyboy wrote:It might allow people to know if money/ads are coming from outside sources or from the candidates themselves.

"My name is Monkeyboy, and I approve this message."

That is how you know it's from the candidate.

NYT spending back to back front pages on the caravan that is extremely far away is this years but her emails.

thephan wrote:Kelly Johnston, the Vice President of Government Affairs for Campbell Soup Co has been tweeting about the conspiracy theories that George Soros' Open Society Foundation planned and is executing the migrant caravan. Johnston was previously Secretary of the US Senate under Bob Dole.

Sadly Pat Roberts missed that part of the Bible that dealt with compassion when he states "The person who apparently has been financing this thing is George Soros," on The 700 Club. After hurling that Molotov cocktail he uttered, "Now we don't have hard evidence on that, but that's the suspicion", but by them the damage is done. I've sadly seen how these TV folks pull the string with a certain set of the US population, and elderly.

Crazy times.

Yeah, here's the Tweet:



This guy also chairs the SJ Chamber's Congressional Action Committee (of which I am a member). Maybe I'll email them to see what their thoughts are on having a right-wing conspiracy nut on their staff.

slugsrbad wrote:NYT spending back to back front pages on the caravan that is extremely far away is this years but her emails.

Finally get to the Daily podcast of course it’s on this. The tag line is “why the Republicans won’t stop talking about and why the Democrats are trying not to.”

Really need to rile up the racsists.

But Laura Ingraham said that the caravan is coming to take the jobs that should be filled by veterans who are homeless.

There is a lot to unpack there. Part of it is that we need to actually stop talking about taking care of veterans, and actually act. Aside from the historically low unemployment and job openings demanding to be filled, this points to some other problem that is keeping these adults out of the workforce, and more disturbingly on the streets. There is hardly a promise being kept to them (don't tell Ms. Ingraham because this is about migrants). I think it is easy to agree that we want to place veterans, and we want them to have proper housing. We are avoiding the why this situation exists which could have to do with disabilities and mental health that needs action and investment.

Of course there is always the problem of businesses wanting the cheapest labor possible for the greatest tax advantage, but that is not a topic for FNC either.

So Ms. Ingraham, "But the caravan!" has much more to do with chicken little then the reality of the situation.

Now a suspicious package found outside the Clinton home in New York:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/nyre ... e=Homepage

CFP wrote:Now a suspicious package found outside the Clinton home in New York:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/nyre ... e=Homepage

And by suspicious package I meant bomb. It's a bomb.

Similar to the Soros one. Thankfully the person behind this is bad at it.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:It might allow people to know if money/ads are coming from outside sources or from the candidates themselves.

"My name is Monkeyboy, and I approve this message."

That is how you know it's from the candidate.

Yes, I know that, but I wasn't aware it was a law to include that, or that someone wouldn't be able to not include that and call themselves by another name, such as "americans for leadership" or whatever. Knowing that ads often have an approval thing at the end is not the same thing as knowing that every ad from that candidate will have the approval message.

And again, why not be as transparent as possible? The GOP are pretty great at marketing, which is how they have their average supporters believing the GOP is actually on their side. Great marketing. I find the word games annoying.

traderdave wrote:[

This guy also chairs the SJ Chamber's Congressional Action Committee (of which I am a member). Maybe I'll email them to see what their thoughts are on having a right-wing conspiracy nut on their staff.

You should. Give the guy a consequence for being a lying and/or moronic asshole. Push back, everywhere and all the time, that's how we win this thing. Even if it's something you don't think matters much, push back. We have to be relentless.

Sure, mail bombs are bad, but some lefties confronted Mitch McConnell in a restaurant, so both sides do it.

Secret Service intercepted a suspicious package mailed to Obama as well.

TenuredVulture wrote:Sure, mail bombs are bad, but some lefties confronted Mitch McConnell in a restaurant, so both sides do it.

Shut up, Chuck!