I’ll add here that it took me about six seconds to find Bruce Austin’s site. We’ll see how long it takes Dorjän to back up his contention that lots of candidates resort to fake endorsements and deceptive photos and ads.
I’d say it’s pretty unusual to have campaign literature with lots of pictures of people on it, and not a single picture of the candidate.
I would also say that it’s pretty unusual to tout the endorsement of a relative who is completely uninvolved in local politics, lives 1,000 miles away from the town, and just coincidentally has the same name as a prominent local figure.
One could theoretically excuse the picture thing, the endorsement is completely fraudulent bullshit. It’s the sort of dishonesty that gets peoples thumbs broken when they pull it on the wrong mark.
Dave Wilson’s endorsement wasn’t fake. Just because people didn’t read the fine print and assumed he was referring to someone else, does not make it fake.
There’s plenty of example of candidates not including their photos on campaign literature. A quick GIS will bear that out. Politicians have even been known to change the way they present their names to suggest an association with a well-liked figure or another candidate altogether. I’ve seen it more than once in my local elections. There was even a high-profile election where a candidate was called out for doing it:
My point remains, there are a lot of slick and shady, let perfectly legal tactics when it comes to getting people to vote a certain way in elections. It is the voter’s job to make sure they know who they are voting for.
The problem with this nonsense is that Ron Wilson admits he wanted voters to draw the wrong conclusions about who he was and who was endorsing him. So if you say this kind of thing you can’t expect any response other than laughter. In essence this thread is about the difference between jumping to a conclusion and misleading people. Wilson happily acknowledges he misled people; the defense of Wilson involves pretending voters jumped to a conclusion without his help.
Find some websites where the candidate isn’t pictured and where the candidate cuts out the resume he’d used in the previous campaign.
Examples, please?
I’m not quite sure what’s supposed to have happened here. Would you please explain?
I think only one poster suggested this was actually illegal, and I doubt it’s illegal. However it’s some slimy bullshit and it may be unprecedented. The defenses of Wilson are laughable. Perhaps in 2016 Republicans can achieve their new dream of actually running Generic Republican- a candidate with no image, biography, or statements that can be used against him.
It is quite obvious the candidate didn’t want his picture on the web site - he didn’t want the voters to know he was white, since he apparently decided that being white was a negative to the voters. You don’t emphasize your negatives in the campaign.
As for the resume - it is hard to give you examples, since it would require knowledge of previous political experience of every random candidate found on the web. I am pretty sure, though, that quite a few candidates don’t mention their previous unsuccessful campaigns on their new campaign web sites.
I’m glad everyone can agree we should basically just assume anything said by republicans is a lie, and you are at fault if you believe they would be honest for just a moment.
Not helpful at all. This is a dishonest debate tactic, it’s unpersuasive, and it’s obnoxious.
My point is to attempt to point out the sheer ridiculousness of claiming people are at fault for believing somebody on your side is truthful. The guy purposefully mislead people into thinking that another politician endorsed him - and the fine print didn’t even clear it up like people are claiming, he was then claiming that the other politician was related. You should at the very least be able to trust something like “X says I’m a cool guy” - if you’re saying even that is likely to be lied about by people on your side, what’s that saying about your side as a whole?
The skin color thing is just a distraction that people are trying to flare up with false cries of racism to take away from the real dishonesty.
(note that ‘you/your’ not meant to indicate any one individual person, but rather any general person)
Can you point out where he claimed that it was the politician that endorsed him? Or that it was the politician that was related?
But X did say he was a cool guy. That wasn’t a lie.
The person that “flared up” the skin color thing was the opponent that lost.
Typically a candidate’s negatives don’t include “letting the voters know who you are.” Too bad Mitt Romney didn’t think of this.
That’s a creative reinterpretation of my post. I said he made no reference to his political advocacy. Like his anti-gay work (that should answer the question upthread), challenges to various politicians, and his lawsuit against the community college were all touted on his mayoral campaign website. None of it is mentioned in his campaign for the community college board. If he believes he saved the college from paying too much for land, you would think that would be something he’d want to mention in his campaign for the community college board. He didn’t, of course, because then people might’ve realized who he was.
I think we’ve now officially fallen through the credibility wormhole.
In this case the negative was “letting the voters know I am white”.
Again, no politician ever emphasizes anything from his past history that he thinks would be negative for his campaign. I don’t know why you would require it of this particular politician.
It was letting the voters know who he is at all.
That’s your interpretation. The opponent’s complaint was that the guy didn’t let the voters know he was white. Should I quote it again?
I continue to not care. It’s also kind of a semantic distinction: if voters had seen his picture they wouldn’t have just known he was a white guy, they would have known he was a conservative white guy they had not voted for in the past.
It was a deliberate misinterpretation, using a name associated with a famous person for the given race and instead the name belonged to somebody nobody was likely to have heard of in the given race. It was 100% deliberate falsehood - why include the fact otherwise?
If you’re going to argue that it wasn’t REALLY a lie, it was just being completely dishonest, go right ahead. But that just shows what’s important to you, and it’s not good.
Of course you don’t. It also helps if you cover your ears, close your eyes and hum loudly.
Stating a true fact is a “100% deliberate falsehood” in your world?
On the other hand I can at least post facts and cites instead of disingenuous excuses. For example:
“Every time a politician talks, he’s out there deceiving voters.”
-Dave Wilson, admitting he deceived voters.
I agree with him. Every time a politician talks, he is deceiving voters. He admits it. Most other politicians don’t. That makes him more honest (which is faint praise) than most other politicians.
I guess that’s the end of the thread then.