• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

New Sandy Hook Campaign Ad: Is Hillary disgusting or a hero?

 
 
 

How does the ad make you feel?

  • I get a good impression of Hillary

    Votes: 4 36.4%

  • I have mixed emotions from this ad

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • I feel like she is taking advantage

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Total voters
    11
Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
14,420
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
non-practicing agnostic
I live in Connecticut. We are going to have the Dem primary here very, very soon. The campaign ads targeting our votes have started.

Hillary's new campaign ad that we've seen here is specifically meant for us [and possibly it will be shown in other blue states]. I read it will be shown in Rhode Island. The ad significantly references the Sandy Hook shootings. The ad is all about how Hillary "is the only candidate who will fight the gun lobby." The main speaker in the ad is the daughter of the principal of the school.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/5Zx9-hj54fw[/YOUTUBE]
Here is a link in case the above youtube doesn't work:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5Zx9-hj54fw

It's emotional to hear the daughter compare Hillary to her mother as a fighter. The woman's mother died trying to save children there. I also personally know a parent of one of the teachers killed. [Sandy Hook is also only 20 minutes from my house].

The commercial left me with very mixed emotions. I felt like Hillary may be taking advantage of the kids who died there by making this ad. The comparison between Hillary and this woman's mother seemed over the top. At the same time, I felt like since she really does have a political stance that she believes would impact gun violence, shouldn't it be fair for her to bring up emotional scenarios of gun violence?

I'm wondering if other people here would get that same feeling of mixed emotions: should-I-trust-this-or-is-she-trying-to-use-me feeling. Or do people feel completely differently about the ad?
 
It is usually bad marketing associating you candidate with a tragedy. But it is powerful, "Hillary is the only candidate that will wipe these school shootings off the face of the planet" was the message I received emotionally.

Now back it up with a superPAC ad: "Bernie Sanders wants school shooters to have more powerful guns that don't need to be reloaded and shoot guided bullets targeting the innocent children who ain't done no wrong..."
 
She is a disgusting flip-flopper. In 2008 she was still "Annie Oakley" who criticized Obama on being too much against guns. In 2016 she cynically saw the opportunity to outflank Sanders on one issue he is pretty moderate on.
And what she demands is that people have the right to sue gun dealers for selling a legal product and gun manufacturers for making a legal product. It's an extreme anti-gun stance.
 
I generally don't like it when candidates use tragedies in their campaign ads. I barf every time anyone uses images from 9-11 (or 7-11, depending on the candidate).

At the same time, it appears the young woman is speaking by her own free will and from her heart. I think it would have been a grossly different ad if it had been Hillary talking about Sandy Hook, or using images of Sandy Hook while talking about gun control.
 
RavenSky said:
I generally don't like it when candidates use tragedies in their campaign ads. I barf every time anyone uses images from 9-11 (or 7-11, depending on the candidate).

At the same time, it appears the young woman is speaking by her own free will and from her heart. I think it would have been a grossly different ad if it had been Hillary talking about Sandy Hook, or using images of Sandy Hook while talking about gun control.
Click to expand...

You don't think Hillary "Annie Oakley" Clinton taking a radical anti-gun stance to outflank Sanders from the left is a highly cynical move that should be obvious to everyone?Before attacking Sanders on guns, Clinton was 'Annie Oakley'
 
I expected to be a little bit disgusted but after watching I am not disgusted, but at the same time I know that Hillary knows she would not be able to do much. Yes, she can try but that would be a waste of time and she knows it. American especially mentally ill ones like their gun rights
 
RavenSky said:
I generally don't like it when candidates use tragedies in their campaign ads. I barf every time anyone uses images from 9-11 (or 7-11, depending on the candidate).

At the same time, it appears the young woman is speaking by her own free will and from her heart. I think it would have been a grossly different ad if it had been Hillary talking about Sandy Hook, or using images of Sandy Hook while talking about gun control.
Click to expand...

Agree. The girl wanted the message spread and Hillary is more than willing to pick up her torch and run with it, so why not?
 
RavenSky said:
At the same time, it appears the young woman is speaking by her own free will and from her heart.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that she's sincere in her support of Hillary Clinton. This doesn't seem like a person who is being taken advantage of by a campaign, or being taken out of context by a political ad (as so often happens). This is an endorsement ad.


Now, do I believe that Clinton will really "take on the gun lobby?" Sadly, no. At this point I'm inclined to believe that Wayne LaPierre himself could walk into a daycare and shoot a bunch of children on live television and not a single piece of gun legislation would even get out of committee.
 
Clinton has consistently scored an F with the NRA. Theres no reason to believe that she wouldn't "take them on".
 
I don't think it much matters what a Presidential candidate says he or she is going to do about guns, because there is very little any President can actually do about it without Congress and the Courts on his or her side.
 
laughing dog said:
I don't think it much matters what a Presidential candidate says he or she is going to do about guns, because there is very little any President can actually do about it without Congress and the Courts on his or her side.
Click to expand...

And that's starting to feel like a lost cause.
 
US is a democracy, if majority of people wanted to do something about it they would have already.
 
Gun makers can be sued if their guns blow up in people's hands
, right?

Another issue could be if the guns were REdesigned to make easier to convert to automatic fire and it could be proven. That should be a point were a lawsuit was valid.

(Side note I could see preppers having automatic conversion kits hidden secretly apart from their legal guns for when the SHTF).

Probably anything else should not be allowed to sue for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom