[Travelassie]

Originally Posted by HarryWho?

But you stated Democratic candidates and their supporters. "Political" candidates and their supporters would imply your supposed meaning. As is, it's a partisan rant.

The article was about Rick Scott, and my reference was to the article, as compared to the TV ads accusing Rick Scott of "defrauding Medicare and pleading the 5th numerous times- misleading at best. Might I give you two guesses as to who sponsored/paid for those ads?

Hint, it wasn't the GOP.

I was responding to the information provided by the OP, and the comparison of the misleading information in the Democrat's attack ad against Rick Scott with that provided in the article, it just makes the Democrats' and supporters tactics meant to discredit their political opponent more obvious.

And for those folks who make the choice to limit what they know about candidates to what their own political party puts out there in attack ads, and who spread these attacks even though they have no clue if there's any truth in what they say, or not, instead of doing their own independent research on the candidates, well, yes, that's mindless.

That's reality, and if you choose to dismiss criticism of such political mindgames as "partisan", then you just don't get it.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by HarryWho?

Please, you're smarter than this. I'll give you the fact that the bit is flawed, as are all the attack ads from both sides, but to think for one moment that somehow the REP is any better than the DEM is purely a matter of interpretation, IE partisanship...

I understand your point but, in this case, one of the two will win and I'd rather have the guy who has the better record on achieving things in his life and in the office, and that makes him the better candidate, in my view. The DEMs are pushing negative ads that are clearly misleading. The REPS are pushing negative ads that are accurate. I don't see how you can say that is a matter of interpretation guided by partisanship unless you are drinking the party Cool Aid. Scott just isn't the person DEMs have portrayed him to be and he didn't do what they claim he did. There's no question that the wool being pulled over voters eyes is colored blue. OTOH, Crist is exactly what the REPS have portrayed him to be, which is to say, a flip-flopping opportunist who wants to be a career politician who stands for nothing and no one but his own ambition. The ads use Charlie's own words to demonstrate his nature. There's no misrepresentation. That is his history. Oh, and on the whole Charlie wasn't responsible for the economic meltdown line of BS....yeah, not the point. The point is what did he do to mitigate the downfall and what did Scott do? Crist doesn't want to go there because he has nothing to say so he tries to deflect. The guy is pure weasel and I'd say that no matter which party he was aligned with.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by Travelassie

The article was about Rick Scott, and my reference was to the article, as compared to the TV ads accusing Rick Scott of "defrauding Medicare and pleading the 5th numerous times- misleading at best. Might I give you two guesses as to who sponsored/paid for those ads?

Hint, it wasn't the GOP.

I was responding to the information provided by the OP, and the comparison of the misleading information in the Democrat's attack ad against Rick Scott with that provided in the article, it just makes the Democrats' and supporters tactics meant to discredit their political opponent more obvious.

And for those folks who make the choice to limit what they know about candidates to what their own political party puts out there in attack ads, and who spread these attacks even though they have no clue if there's any truth in what they say, or not, instead of doing their own independent research on the candidates, well, yes, that's mindless.

That's reality, and if you choose to dismiss criticism of such political mindgames as "partisan", then you just don't get it.

I don't get it? You seem to think the game is one-sided and I don't get it?

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I understand your point but, in this case, one of the two will win and I'd rather have the guy who has the better record on achieving things in his life and in the office, and that makes him the better candidate, in my view. The DEMs are pushing negative ads that are clearly misleading. The REPS are pushing negative ads that are accurate. I don't see how you can say that is a matter of interpretation guided by partisanship unless you are drinking the party Cool Aid. Scott just isn't the person DEMs have portrayed him to be and he didn't do what they claim he did. There's no question that the wool being pulled over voters eyes is colored blue. OTOH, Crist is exactly what the REPS have portrayed him to be, which is to say, a flip-flopping opportunist who wants to be a career politician who stands for nothing and no one but his own ambition. The ads use Charlie's own words to demonstrate his nature. There's no misrepresentation. That is his history. Oh, and on the whole Charlie wasn't responsible for the economic meltdown line of BS....yeah, not the point. The point is what did he do to mitigate the downfall and what did Scott do? Crist doesn't want to go there because he has nothing to say so he tries to deflect. The guy is pure weasel and I'd say that no matter which party he was aligned with.

As I said before, you're smarter than that...

[bbronston]

Whatever. At least the commercials will stop after tomorrow no matter who wins and that is a good thing.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Whatever. At least the commercials will stop after tomorrow no matter who wins and that is a good thing.

On that we can agree!

[miamifloridafan]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I understand your point but, in this case, one of the two will win and I'd rather have the guy who has the better record on achieving things in his life and in the office, and that makes him the better candidate, in my view. The DEMs are pushing negative ads that are clearly misleading. The REPS are pushing negative ads that are accurate. I don't see how you can say that is a matter of interpretation guided by partisanship unless you are drinking the party Cool Aid. Scott just isn't the person DEMs have portrayed him to be and he didn't do what they claim he did. There's no question that the wool being pulled over voters eyes is colored blue. OTOH, Crist is exactly what the REPS have portrayed him to be, which is to say, a flip-flopping opportunist who wants to be a career politician who stands for nothing and no one but his own ambition. The ads use Charlie's own words to demonstrate his nature. There's no misrepresentation. That is his history. Oh, and on the whole Charlie wasn't responsible for the economic meltdown line of BS....yeah, not the point. The point is what did he do to mitigate the downfall and what did Scott do? Crist doesn't want to go there because he has nothing to say so he tries to deflect. The guy is pure weasel and I'd say that no matter which party he was aligned with.

Crist like scott will do anything to get what he wanted.

[Jo48]

I am a "flip flopper" myself. Independent for 30 years and now a Democrat. I see nothing wrong with changing your party affiliation when you don't agree with anything that party stands for. End the charade and join the party whose views you agree with most.

[bbronston]

Please...there's nothing wrong with changing a position based on new information. That is not what Crist has done. Anyone who thinks that Crist has somehow seen "the light" on any issue is, IMHO, a total fool, incapable of discerning fact from fiction, truth from lies, and weasels from white knights. I get not liking Scott because of one or more political positions but I don't get liking Crist because he has somehow come over to your way of thinking. He has demonstrated clearly that he aspires to professional political power and will do or say anything it takes to get there and move up.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by Jo48

I am a "flip flopper" myself. Independent for 30 years and now a Democrat. I see nothing wrong with changing your party affiliation when you don't agree with anything that party stands for. End the charade and join the party whose views you agree with most.

Crist has changed his fundamental views on a number of social and fiscal issues in the last few years. Complete b.s.at this stage in his life