2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs this an attack ad?
Please feel free to add commentary on why you think the ad is either an attack ad or not.
Thanks.
54 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
1 (2%) |
|
No | |
53 (98%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
stone space
(6,498 posts)...I teach math at a public university.
Perhaps if I ran a big bank, I'd feel differently.
I can certainly see how different folks might perceive it differently.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)is probably spending a lot of time here on DU alerting on innocuous posts.
That doesn't remotely reach the level of "attack" for an ad.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Bluzmann57
(12,336 posts)I ask because it most certainly isn't an attack. Senator Sanders just pointed out facts. If Mrs. Clinton (or anyone else) can point out Sander's misdeeds, and it's true, then how can it be an attack ad? In my opinion, an attack ad is when one candidate says half truths or outright lies about another. But truth is truth. And sometimes it hurts.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts).
senz
(11,945 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Somehow said with a straight face.
Dretownblues
(253 posts)But it sure as hell is an awesome ad, one of bernies better ones.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Will they begin to play by the rules of our president? you better believe it!
We don't have presidential laws. We have the rule of law which is framed by our Constitution and other framing documents.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)to imply that he is saying he would have some special power beyond the law is disingenuous
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)This is a fact. And what you are suggesting is what got Nixon and Bush in trouble.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)i said the president can have the attorney general prosecute law breakers.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)go after their enemies. The President can frame his priorities but he cannot get personally involved in prosecuting them.
And no you didn't say it Bernie did.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)
I.e. Follow the law
You are trying to make that into something it's not and you know it
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)I already tweeted this link out to my tweeple w/ my observation
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)The AG went after Eliot Spitzer, and nobody seemed to blink an eye!
Eliot was going to go after the banksters on Wall St, and they didn't like it, so the exec ordered the AG to find something out on him. Go check Greg Palast's site if you question this.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)of arrogance as the people he was targeting
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)you never checked out the Greg Palast site, did you?
You do know that IOKIYAR though, as in the case of David Vitter, do you?
They live by double standards.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)It appears to be something you find helpful and that's good. Yes I know about the Republican and Democrat peen scandals. We let them live by a double standard.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)the executive branch enforces the law
btw it is ok to go after enemies if they are murders,and thieves
wish the current potus would in flint
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)Here is a description of an Executive Order issued by President Obama:
a. Presidents Actions: President Obama has directed Attorney General Holder to
ensure that every appropriate resource is being used to prevent and prosecute gun crime. To
that end, the Attorney General will reach out to U.S. attorneys to determine if supplemental
efforts will be appropriate in prosecution failed background checks. Failed background checks
are notoriously hard to prosecute and the low number of filed cases has been a point of
contention in the gun violence debate.
b. Objectives: To ensure that existing laws are being enforced and prosecuted to the
fullest extent possible.
c. Affected: This executive order affects the Department of Justice and all its regional
offices.
https://law.depaul.edu/about/centers-and-institutes/international-weapons-control-center/Documents/obama_executive_action.pdf
Also, one of the duties of the President under the Constitution is to enforce the laws.
The general statements by Bernie fit well within the duties and authorities of the President.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)and thank you for your comment
eomer
(3,845 posts)You think he meant that he's going to somehow make rules other than through the well-established authorities of the Presidency? If so then keep an eye out and let us know when it happens. I'll worry about the massive violations by the elite that are intentionally let slide by his predecessors, so you won't have to.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)that would have presented another problem for him. It would have been an admission he is unlikely to get his policy through Congress; the body that makes and fund laws.
here's the definition of Executive orders
United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1] Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging 72-hour length strikes on enemies, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
BTW it is not an attack ad to me. It is a dishonest ad.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)the too big to fail banks are not following the rules. The current president is not making them follow the rules. There are no rules. i will make them follow the rules.
that's dishonest
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)time. I've worked for one of the largest banks on the planet, and I've worked at a small (20-branch) regional bank.
And I can tell you, the BIG banks are corrupt--so are many of the small ones, but that's for another thread. Thousands of pages could and have been written about this. I see that your favorite rejoinder is "thank you for the post", so I'm not going to spend any further time with you on this, but large banks are most freaking certainly corrupt. Look into it.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)as you posted
Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)it doesn't make sense if he said "of our president"
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Thank you President Obama
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)They are called regulations. Congress has delegated the details of law to the Executive by passing laws that contain the framework but not the detail. That is how the FAA, for instance, can regulate Drones with the force of law behind the regulations the FAA makes.
Every department in the Executive branch operates this way. So yeah, he's not wrong nor mistaken. Quite the contrary he understands how it actually works.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)so your argument is moot.
He actually said "Will they begin to play by the rules if I'm president?
Big difference.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)so that when they get their smear machine in full gear they can try to claim "he started it"
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If this IS a negative attack, I'd like to know how a candidate could possibly draw a distinction between themselves and another candidate without being "negative". It's a little ludicrous to call this an attack ad.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Is not an attack but the truth. That was literally Clinton's argument in the debate.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I mean, it's clear he was referring to Clinton, but there does need to be some way to distinguish yourself from the other candidate, and that inevitably means drawing comparisons. I think this ad was one of the more tame ways he could have pointed out those differences.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)And now they are backing away from it.
They need to just embrace it and reframe and not with the dumb 9/11 argument. Call up Obama, ask how he got those donations without being called on it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Clinton falterers.
Kenjie
(122 posts)This ad simply uses what both candidates have said openly on the debate stage to point out the differences between the two.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Top Contributors
Senator Hillary Clinton
?1
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)may be attacking someone, these days you never know.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)When talking about the issues as he is here and the different ways to solve the problems presented it is NOT an attack ad
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)brooklynite
(94,520 posts)Sanders said he never ran "negative" ads. A negative ad criticizes an opponent rather than focusing on the candidates positions. This is arguably "negative".
paleotn
(17,912 posts)....no one was named and the bulk of the ad focused on Bernie's ideas and message. It's a compare and contrast ad, with no candidates, Democratic or Republican specifically called out.
But then again, if the shoe fits, Cinderella, where the damn thing.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)be taking millions from Wall Street and big banks.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Laughable. The Clinton campaign has gone off the rails.
Mike Nelson
(9,953 posts)...comparison ad rather than attack ad. Hillary has done the same (in speeches, often, recently). They compare their idea with the opponent's idea, putting it in an unfavorable light. They all do this... but, it's a good ad and would have been one without the comparison. Also, Bernie's is very mild - he doesn't even mention her name!
jalan48
(13,863 posts)This is the best political ad I've seen in decades.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)without naming a candidate whom you are supposedly attacking....
Anyway, it's comparative, not "negative".
Negative ads more generally just attack someone's votes or positions,
they don't necessarily offer any better course that should be followed,
except maybe "vote for this candidate, not that one".