I'm sure they will gain more overall customers because they are owned by Proctor & Gamble. As I mentioned originally, there will be plenty of women and white knights who jump at the chance to support a company who decided to tag along onto the #metoo movement.

To me, that is part of the reason why I dislike this commercial so much. Not just because of it's huge and sweeping generalizations (practically every scene has one), but because their ad department had to know that an edgy commercial would do the same thing for them as it did for Nike. Does anyone think that the majority of actual corporate level people at Gillette/P&G give two fucks about #metoo? I know I don't.

It's just an ad targeted at a huge group of people that are easy to take potshots at currently. I find it little different than attack ads run by fucktards that want to condemn all Muslims for the act of terrorists or fundamentalist jihadists. The most screwed up thing about that analogy is that, realistically, there are largish groups of Islamic people that actually will cheer and throw celebrations when there is a terrorist attack. Yet you would be hard put to find large swaths of men out in the streets cheering on the effects of so called Toxic Masculinity.

Yes, we as men need to speak out. We need to support the evolution of mankind away from barbarism. But we don't need to succumb to propaganda that tries to purport that a man seeing a pretty lady walk past shouldn't attempt to say hi or introduce himself to her because that is bad. This ad, with one of the sweeping generalizations I mentioned earlier, would have you think that it is HORRIBLE for a man to do that and that a 'responsible' man would body check that guy. Because men should never try to meet women, only remain passive and allow the woman to come to them. I say fuck that, it is wrong to catcall women, but there is nothing wrong with going up and saying hi. This ad (and some other internet videos) would have you think it's the equivalent of throwing the lady down in the middle of a crowded walkway and having your way with her.

The ad could have been better, there were moments like the Terry Crews scene that I agree with, but they took the easy way out and just slammed men in general.

There's two big differences between them as far as voters see them. Both are disliked very much.

However, there's a large portion of the people who hate Hillary Clinton do it for completely fabricated reasons. This isn't to say that there aren't some reasons to hate her. But when Trump and the GOP are going around saying stuff like "Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment", which absolutely isn't true in the slightest, gosh, I wonder if there's a portion of the electorate who will hate her for a complete falsehood. Who could it be? Hmmmm....

Again, don't get me wrong, there's plenty to not like about her. I've said numerous things about the whole email thing, which I still can't believe she ended up doing something that stupid.

Trump? Well, I'm sorry, but he's said so many things at this point to piss so many groups off, they hate him for things that actually are true. He did target Muslims for discriminatory policies. He has said disparaging remarks about women, implying a news anchor who disagreed with him must be on her period, and women who get sexually harassed should find another job, not the people who were doing the sexual harassment. He's said most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug runners. And Hillary Clinton is mostly hitting on stuff like that, you know, stuff he's ACTUALLY said. In fact, one of her attack ads is just a barrage of clips of Trump saying Trumpy stuff with kids watching it. There's not a shred of evidence Hillary Clinton has ever come out in favor of completely abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

So, you can say half the country hates her, but come election day, when she wins by what appears at this point to be a margin larger than Obama thumped Romney, CLEARLY Americans like Clinton a heck of a lot more than Trump overall.

Yeah, 'cuz it worked so well when the other Republican candidates did it (attacking him)...

Trump doesn't follow the rules. Attack ads and criticism (however legitimate it may be) don't work. In fact, they have the opposite effect. He's got a cult of personality; anything you say about him only adds to it.

The only curveball she can throw at Trump is to completely ignore him. His rabid supporters aren't going to drop him, no matter how stupid you make him look or how well you can show the logical flaws in his ideas. But ignoring him would rile him up even more -- Trump's ego *demands* to be the center of attention. Ignore him, and he *will* say crazy stuff to try to draw you out. Crazy enough stuff to turn away the sane independents, moderates, and plenty of more level-headed Republicans.

But the last thing you want to do is get into a shit-slinging match with Trump. Sun Tzu: He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.

Paid for by Citizens Super PAC, which is funded by Republicans / Conservatives. Not saying Trump doesn't suck, but damn this attack ad is dirty. This is going to look really bad for them when Trump wins the nomination.

Oh, I am blunt, alright. A lot of people dont like that, because actually they feel attacked since they see those people I criticize in themselves or how they support them with their passiveness. Plus I am very good at figuring out people, analyzing them. Thats what I dont keep silent about either.
It was not an ad hominem attack, because I offered facts (which got ignored with an excuse of ad hominem), and I actually tried to explain why they react how they react.
I havent seen anyone deny anything I said about them. And thats the point. I dont care if hes pissed off now. If hes open and objective he will think about what I said, even check those facts for himself and maybe one day will think that I was right all along. Or not, and hes a lost case, and in that case me being friendly towards his ignorance wouldnt have changed anything. I learned that friendliness (PC) only plays into the hands of these people. I know these people because I was like them once and had friends like them, was part of their "society". It buys them time, it makes them look less despicable than they actually are, it makes people ignore whats really going on. I am sick of sugar coating, newspeak. This has brought us to where we are. Its nothing more than lies. Read 1984 for some insight on how horrible this PC and newspeak already is. Smart people predicted all this. But nobody ever listened to them.

You know, I wasnt much different than these guys here once. I didnt want to believe all this stuff, or only partly. I tried to put it out of my mind with excuses like "stupid conspiracy theorists" or "these are just rare exceptions" or "nobody could have ever predicted it" and used mainstream media sources to make myself feel better if someone told me the harsh reality which I didnt want to accept, and yet knew deep in me that he was right.
I learned from those discussions. They werent pretty, but in the end those guys were absolutely 100% right, even though back then I hated them with a passion for telling me that straight to my face with no friendliness at all, because they saw that I supported this shit.
I didnt lose that passion, but I learned a lot from that.
I am disgusted by my former self when I now think back, how I supported this absolute human scum, how I let them use me as a tool, with their PC ways, lies, corruption and shiny things that are just gold coated turds.

I dont owe anyone an apology, who talks absolute bullshit, lies.
I owed those people an apology for what I said when I was like him. When I spewed out massive ignorance towards them, only to protect myself. And I actually apologized to them later, in the cases where I could still find them.

But yeah, its a waste of time. I said what I wanted to say. Trying to discredit everything or parts of what I said just because I wasnt politically correct, making myself a target for these irrelevant rhetorics (actually excuses) is the problem we have. "OMG he called me a bad thing! He must be a bad person! Nothing he says can be true! OMG! YAY! I CAN JUSTIFY IGNORING HIM NOW!" Do you even see the hypocrisy in that, calling my "attacks" ad hominem? Its funny, the term Whataboutism follows pretty much the same logic "OMG, he exposed my hypocrisy, so what do I do now! Oh right I am sure there is some rhetorical crap I can throw at him to discredit him! No... damn... Well then I simply invent it and call it... Whataboutism!! Yeah!" Thats how it was born. Not even I was that way back then. I thought about what those people said, even if they got really mad at me and called me MUCH worse things than I called people here. I never cared about how they said it. I cared about what they said, even though I didnt realize it back then.
So yeah. Accept it or dont. If facts cant penetrate ignorance, nothing can. Sugar coating it wont change a thing. Ignorant people are ignorant. And now I sounded like MJ in South Park. "Thats ignorant".

This needs to be on national TV instead of those silly attack ads.

Thanks!!!


In reply to this comment by Krupo:
Oh *quality all right. Go *election shenanigans

I appreciate that it's a positive campaign ad rather than an attack ad, for that I give big upvote.

That sounds too much like, yeah it's an attack ad but I don't like the guy and think his character should be attacked...

The entirety of the evidence in this clip is a single persons word that Mitt was very rude and disrespectful to them. Case closed I guess. Unless it was Obama, and suddenly the sift would mobilize against the idiocy.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

yes, it's an "attack" ad in the sense that it doesn't cover anything except the character of the targeted candidate. however, i think the message is relevant. the candidates have differences in platform but over the last decade or so, i find i value their character more than their positions. we have a hard time getting business done in washington because we have too many people of poor character who would rather play political games than pass serious legislation.
i don't want a president or congressman who is completely disinterested in the views of others, who is hostile to discussion, or who absolutely refuses to revise his own opinions. in fact, i want to vote these assholes out regardless of their positions on issues. i want people who are willing to compromise, who understand that not everyone agrees and who will seek common ground, who are more interested in progress than preening. an ad like this tells me something about the targeted candidate, and i can appreciate that it is not just the standard vitriolic screed or godwin invocation.
of course, it didn't tell me anything i didn't already know. i would not work for mittens if he owned a business, and i would not even want to put him in charge of a bingo game.

yes, it's an "attack" ad in the sense that it doesn't cover anything except the character of the targeted candidate. however, i think the message is relevant. the candidates have differences in platform but over the last decade or so, i find i value their character more than their positions. we have a hard time getting business done in washington because we have too many people of poor character who would rather play political games than pass serious legislation.

i don't want a president or congressman who is completely disinterested in the views of others, who is hostile to discussion, or who absolutely refuses to revise his own opinions. in fact, i want to vote these assholes out regardless of their positions on issues. i want people who are willing to compromise, who understand that not everyone agrees and who will seek common ground, who are more interested in progress than preening. an ad like this tells me something about the targeted candidate, and i can appreciate that it is not just the standard vitriolic screed or godwin invocation.

of course, it didn't tell me anything i didn't already know. i would not work for mittens if he owned a business, and i would not even want to put him in charge of a bingo game.

Meh- as much as I think Romney is a disconnected douche. This is clearly an attack ad and should be taken and discussed as such

Another character attack ad...ooooohkay.

Also about Sinclair's 1934 campaign for Governor of California.
http://videosift.com/video/The-First-Attack-Ads-On-the-Screen

Only to the extent he is socially conservative do I worry. But W was, too. Most Reps play to that base.

My brother is a Mormon. The thing we really have to worry about is the rate at which they procreate. The only people having lots of children are conservative religious types -- Roman Catholic, Mormons and Muslims.




>> ^A10anis:

Off topic, but I', more worried about the possibility of having a mormon at the helm. And before people say; "his religion has nothing to do with his politics." That is being scarily naive.