• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Karl Rove lies about Elizabeth Warren in attack ads

C

Craig234

Lifer
First, Rove - whose organization is one of the few biggest in steering corporation donations to Republican campaign advertising - put out an attack ad on Warren (a year before the election) attacking her as a 'radical' anti-bank socialist. That hit its mark in the idiot demographic and her negative rating tripled from 9% to 27%.

Not good enough, he just released a second ad. This one paints her as the tool of Wall Street, a crony of big banks who was involved in the TARP bank bailouts.

One thing is clear in this campaign - Wall Street's #1 guy in Congress is Scott Brown, and Elizabeth Warren is probably their biggest enemy.

To call her a 'tool of Wall Street', supporting the actual tool, Scott Brown, is just absurd.

It's hard to believe anyone could fall for these lies, but sadly, polls suggest that we do have that ignorant of voters (especially many 'centrists'.)
 
That's what Turd Blossom does best lie...going to be sweet watching him cry after wasting all that crossroads GPS cash on this election.
 
Dems are just sore that Brown got the seat instead of their favorite. That screwed up their control of the Senate.

So they want it back - why should they deserve it more than the Republicans?
 
EagleKeeper said:
Dems are just sore that Brown got the seat instead of their favorite. That screwed up their control of the Senate.

So they want it back - why should they deserve it more than the Republicans?
Click to expand...

Did this gibberish make any sense even to the poster?

What does either party's alleged right to a Senate seat have to do with fraudulent advertising? Are you claiming fraud is permissible if it is in support of the GOP, or that fraud in all political advertising should be accepted by the general population and not called out for the lies it is? I'm honestly confused by your thought process.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Dems are just sore that Brown got the seat instead of their favorite. That screwed up their control of the Senate.

So they want it back - why should they deserve it more than the Republicans?
Click to expand...

You should check the latest polls not looking rosey for Mr Wall Street.
 
Did he lie? or is it just that you support her point of view and would rather have it be concealed from the voters? Is it a matter of definitions? Maybe your definition of what a "radical" is (kind of obvious in this forum) and what a "crony of big banks" is not what the average, reasonable voters definition is.
 
Rove is just spelling out the reality so the voters are aware. I don't know if it will be enough considering it's the idiots in MA doing the voting, but hey, every little bit helps.
 
Craig234 said:
First, Rove - whose organization is one of the few biggest in steering corporation donations to Republican campaign advertising - put out an attack ad on Warren (a year before the election) attacking her as a 'radical' anti-bank socialist. That hit its mark in the idiot demographic and her negative rating tripled from 9% to 27%.

Not good enough, he just released a second ad. This one paints her as the tool of Wall Street, a crony of big banks who was involved in the TARP bank bailouts.

One thing is clear in this campaign - Wall Street's #1 guy in Congress is Scott Brown, and Elizabeth Warren is probably their biggest enemy.

To call her a 'tool of Wall Street', supporting the actual tool, Scott Brown, is just absurd.

It's hard to believe anyone could fall for these lies, but sadly, polls suggest that we do have that ignorant of voters (especially many 'centrists'.)
Click to expand...

And you just woke up today and thought to yourself AT P&N *must* read my opinion on this? Really? Do you find comfort here? I'm almost genuinely intrigued at the actions of people here. Seriously.
 
Thump553 said:
Did this gibberish make any sense even to the poster?

What does either party's alleged right to a Senate seat have to do with fraudulent advertising? Are you claiming fraud is permissible if it is in support of the GOP, or that fraud in all political advertising should be accepted by the general population and not called out for the lies it is? I'm honestly confused by your thought process.
Click to expand...

Who is determining what is lies.
There are lies, opinions and facts.
Opinions can be used to twist facts and lies around.

From the Dems POV anything that comes from a Republican mouth is a lie.

Propagators of this attitude has come from the first two posters more than any others here.

There was not one link in the OP on this; just a rehash of what is spoon fed to them
 
cubby1223 said:
Not sure why what happens in Massachusetts is so deftly important to someone in Wisconsin?

It is interesting, isn't it.
Click to expand...
Affects the Senate control so his beloved Democrats can push through their private agenda overriding an concerns of the people.
 
cubby1223 said:
Not sure why what happens in Massachusetts is so deftly important to someone in Wisconsin?

It is interesting, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you should really give a shit because I obviously don't give a fuck what think. 😉

Have a nice day.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Someone please tell me exactly what are these lies Karl Rove made?
Click to expand...

Well, Craig didn't supply a link so I can't verify that his claims are true (he's very partisan but rarely outright lies in his posts). But either she's a radical anti-bank socialist or she's a tool of Wallstreet (in truth I'm betting she's more moderate than either claim). But those are pretty opposite claims. So he either lied one time, the other, or both. There's no "he was honest the whole time" option, it's simply not possible.

Rove doesn't exactly have a record of being mister honest and neutral. He's one of the biggest douchebags out there I'd say.
 
thraashman said:
Well, Craig didn't supply a link so I can't verify that his claims are true (he's very partisan but rarely outright lies in his posts). But either she's a radical anti-bank socialist or she's a tool of Wallstreet (in truth I'm betting she's more moderate than either claim). But those are pretty opposite claims. So he either lied one time, the other, or both. There's no "he was honest the whole time" option, it's simply not possible.

Rove doesn't exactly have a record of being mister honest and neutral. He's one of the biggest douchebags out there I'd say.
Click to expand...

I will grant that he does not try to lie. He may accuse others of it when eh does not like their viewpoints.

However, he also gets some of his talking points from nebulous liberal sided blogs and takes them as gospel. I would like to see linkages as to where these "lies" are coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top