Tom, what you think is ridiculous is of little import.
And I'm not spinning this in any way shape or form.
Simply telling you that the art of persuasion in 30 second commercials is about results.
The democrats making these ads have done their research. They've discovered that there are levers uopon which they can depend to persuade some percentage of voters ..
One, is apparently, that Trump is so disgusting to some voters that anyone demonstrating an affiliation with Trump is tainted.
Now, this does not mean its the only reason they think their candidate deserves support. Nor is it likely the only reason they feel the opposing candidate is undeserving.
But its the one reason that, in their research, produced the greatest results.
Advertising is both a science and an art form. Political advertising is no different.
It may disturb some that their affiliations to Trump have negative consequences, but the voting public will make their mind up in a lot of different ways that you may not cotton to. So what.
Is the message honest? Did / does the republican support Trump?
In my mind, support for the Donald would be disqualifying as it suggests that the affiliated candidate is incapable of discerning a fraud, a liar and an incompetent. Or worse, can, but was willing to climb on board and throw his support behind Trump despite knowing what what Trump was and is...
An awful lot of republicans are being forced to own Donald now. They should. He is their product.

Not gonna sell me on that. It's fair to mention this as ONE of your reasons, but the entire ad nothing more than this one issue is insane. Zero other reasons to vote for this woman, nothing more than "this guy supports Trump so vote for me" nope, that horrendous "reasoning" I have never seen such ads and hope to never see such again. Heck, Obama is pretty well hated up here, should Assini run an ad saying vote for me because my opponent has supported Obama (and no other reason) good lord I hope he doesn't go there. Again, bringing this up as one (negative) reason is fair game but not the entire ad.

I have no problem (getting past the whole negativity aspect) with an ad saying Assini supports Trump, he voted for this, he said that, he did this, summing up how he has poor decision making. But not our only reason to vote for her.

Ricky posted as I was. So (using his own logic) it was fair game for Republicans to say Obama was born in Kenya, it was fair to claim he was Muslim as well. But wait, you had problems with that in the past so what is it? When it's a Democrat, then it's researched persuasion, when it's a Republican it's wrong? C'mon stop being so very blindly partisan!

and Republicans now must accept Trump? First off, we are free to vote any way we feel and are not bound to any one candidate or party (unlike you). Secondly, your blind partisanship comes shining through yet again. A whole slew of Democrats can't stand Hillary either. I guess they must accept her as their product?

maybe a fair assessment of Assinii's position should be made?
He is hardly in lock step with Trump (as the ads would have you believe so it is false advertising and not honest as you want us to think)

"I have not revoked my support at this point, I am struggling with some of the comments Donald Trump has made, and I found them to be unacceptable and disrespectful to women," he said.

Assini says while he's completely disgusted by Trump's remarks, the two presidential candidates are going in opposite directions in regard to policy.

He says he cannot support Hillary Clinton's free trade and open border policies, because they would destroy our economy and cause problems for national security.

...seems like very reasoned thought to me!

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:Running a campaign on "vote for me because he supports Trump" is ridiculous,

I disagree. I think the decision a politician needs to make regarding their support of Trump says a lot about what's important to a person.

I disagree. Many Republicans are supporting Trump because of their low regard for Clinton. That doesn't mean they endorse Trump's behavior; it means they find Clinton's criminal behavior more egregious than what Trump said (NB: at least some of Trump's accusers have little/no credibility; also, the press has been virtually silent on the actions Hillary (allegedly) took against Bill's accusers. Either sexual assault and retaliation against accusers is always believable, or it's believable only when the accusers are credible, but that takes examination of the facts--something the press has been unwilling to do).

In any case, supporting Trump can be as much about opposing Clinton as anything.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:Running a campaign on "vote for me because he supports Trump" is ridiculous,

I disagree. I think the decision a politician needs to make regarding their support of Trump says a lot about what's important to a person.

I disagree. Many Republicans are supporting Trump because of their low regard for Clinton. That doesn't mean they endorse Trump's behavior; it means they find Clinton's criminal behavior more egregious than what Trump said (NB: at least some of Trump's accusers have little/no credibility; also, the press has been virtually silent on the actions Hillary (allegedly) took against Bill's accusers. Either sexual assault and retaliation against accusers is always believable, or it's believable only when the accusers are credible, but that takes examination of the facts--something the press has been unwilling to do).

In any case, supporting Trump can be as much about opposing Clinton as anything.

For what it's worth, although the vast majority of people who I know are Clinton supporters, I know several people who are Trump supporters, and not one of them is deplorable, in fact it is very much the opposite.. A few are religious and the legal status of Roe v. Wade is of greater significance than anything else in the election. Several can't stand Hillary and her corruption, including one strong Sanders supporter. Another focuses on the international scene and detests Obama's weak foreign policy and its global ramifications. (I'm not convinced that Trump would be any better.) These Trump supporters are a smart moral group. They are church goers, PHDs, authors, charitably minded, and good upstanding citizens.

Personally, I couldn't abide by Trump.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:Running a campaign on "vote for me because he supports Trump" is ridiculous,

I disagree. I think the decision a politician needs to make regarding their support of Trump says a lot about what's important to a person.

I disagree. . . .
In any case, supporting Trump can be as much about opposing Clinton as anything.

I hear that. But I still think how you make that choice to oppose Clinton is relevant to a discussion of a politician's stance on issues. Some people may be much more likely to support a Republican who disavows Trump than one who doesn't, even if their opinion of Clinton is equally bad.

One may be standing for important principles, while the other may be for political expediency as a means to principles. There is a difference that matters.

geojanes wrote:I hear that. But I still think how you make that choice to oppose Clinton is relevant to a discussion of a politician's stance on issues. Some people may be much more likely to support a Republican who disavows Trump than one who doesn't, even if their opinion of Clinton is equally bad.

One may be standing for important principles, while the other may be for political expediency as a means to principles. There is a difference that matters.

I think this is the worst pair of major party candidates in history. Every down-ballot candidate for either party takes a risk in endorsing their party's nominee. I often hear Democratic candidates vocalize their support for Clinton in terms of "stopping Trump."

I think it cuts both ways.

Our country loses no matter who wins this election, unless it goes to the House. If we somehow get that, well, maybe we'll avoid a complete disaster.

That is all I can hope for at this point.
Clinton 267
Trump 267
McMullin 6

It goes to the House, and they elect McMullin. Pence or Kaine for VP. Such fun!

bbauska wrote:That is all I can hope for at this point.
Clinton 267
Trump 267
McMullin 6

It goes to the House, and they elect McMullin. Pence or Kaine for VP. Such fun!

That would be so good, except it could be Clinton 269. It doesn't matter as long as no one gets 270 and McMullin gets some.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:That is all I can hope for at this point.
Clinton 267
Trump 267
McMullin 6

It goes to the House, and they elect McMullin. Pence or Kaine for VP. Such fun!

That would be so good, except it could be Clinton 269. It doesn't matter as long as no one gets 270 and McMullin gets some.

Point made and accepted.

On December 9, 2015 I predicted that Trump the Chump would win both the primary and the presidency. At this point, I believe I will be correct on my second prophecy as well.

Call it the "Comey Effect" or whatever you like, but when the New York Times lists an article on its front page that the criminal's lead is "slim" (and by the way they changed their phrasing from earlier this morning when they used the term "narrow"), you know the criminal's camp is concerned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/po ... v=top-news

Add to this the announcement today that health insurance premiums are going up again after January 2017 and the fencers will tip the scale to see to it that he wins.

Dags, you keep calling Hillary the criminal. I am wondering if you could list the crimes that Hillary has done that you could prove in a court of law. Thanks.

freeman3 wrote:Dags, you keep calling Hillary the criminal. I am wondering if you could list the crimes that Hillary has done that you could prove in a court of law. Thanks.

Give me all the evidence she's destroyed and I'll put her in jail.

No evidence Freeman, just a hunch. Nothing about her or her husband adds up. The hunch comes from what I perceive as one of her ongoing political survival skills that she sees nothing wrong with, namely, lying.