Missouri attack ads suggest that Senator Claire McCaskill supports lynching - Polidicks

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article220307160.html Washington A new radio ad seeks to frighten black voters away from Sen. Claire McCaskill’s campaign by suggesting the Democrat supports lynchings. Another ad tells black voters to ask McCaskill “why she doesn’t want our children?” A North Carolina-based political action committee has spent nearly $30,000 on the ads, and is facing widespread backlash for similar spots running in other states. The lynching-themed Missouri ad features two African-American women discussing the treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings and contends that African-American men will be presumed guilty if accused of rape. “Black folk will be catching hell again,” one of the women says in the ad, which is referred to as the “Emmett Till” ad in an audio file that was shared with McClatchy. Till was an African-American teen lynched in Mississippi in 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman. Another of the group’s Missouri ads accuses McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent who supports abortion rights, of not caring “that black babies that are aborted three times more likely than white babies,” said Vernon Robinson, the treasurer of Black Americans for the President’s Agenda, which has paid for ads in St. Louis and Kansas City. In the ad, two African Americans discuss photos of their grandchildren. The conversation then pivots to abortion. “Josh Hawley and the Republicans know that black babies matter… And it looks like to me the only black lives that matter to Claire McCaskill are the ones that have a pulse and can make it to the polls to vote for her,” the one woman says in the ad. The other woman responds that she plans to vote for Hawley, saying, “The next time Claire McCaskill asks for our vote, ask her why she doesn’t want our children.” Robinson explained the motivation behind both ads, saying “Without 90 percent of the black vote, Claire McCaskill will not be re-elected.”He noted that the race in Missouri between McCaskill and Hawley is one of the closest in the nation and could decide control of the Senate when asked why the political action committee decided to air the ads. The lynching ad is nearly identical to an ad being aired in a U.S. House race in Arkansas, which has been condemned by Rep. French Hill, R-Arkansas, the candidate it seeks to boost. The wording differs slightly between the two ads. The Missouri ad omits the explicit use of the word “lynching,” which is used in the Arkansas ad. “I’m voting for Josh Hawley for Senate because we have to protect our men and boys. We can’t afford to let Claire McCaskill take us back to the bad old days of race verdicts, life sentences or worse when someone screams rape,” one of the women states in the Missouri version of the ad. Robinson, who worked on Ben Carson’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, rejected the notion that the ads are racist.

I don't understand why attack ads are acceptable at all. Having an us vs. them mentality in a democracy doesn't seem right to me.

the FEC is totally toothless and anything restricting absolute free political speech is unconstitutional apparently.

Some of the blame for this has to be on the networks for airing attack ads. They can choose who they allowe to advertise and yet they don't. It's disgusting this ad was ever made in the first place but they don't automatically have to air it.

It's almost funny how desperate these attacks are becoming. They're devolving into nonsense, basing absurd conclusions off of incredibly loose connections. It'd be funnier if there weren't actually people who bought into it.

Robinson said the ads are airing on urban contemporary stations, including KMJK in Kansas City. This was just to depress black turnout but I have no idea how they expected it to work

If I see an attack ad my likelihood of voting for the person making the attack ad actually drops instead of increases. Fucking hate it. Should be out-and-out banned.

I know, but in the article black Missouri politicians are either pissed or just dumbfounded at this. I don't expect any black Missourians to actually believe this bullshit except the one black Republican that worked for the PAC making the ads.

"What will happen to our husbands, our fathers, our sons, when a white girl lies on them? ... I always told my son, "Don't you be messing around with that! If you're caught, she will cry rape!" The ad is also against interracial relationships, too, I guess. Also all of the attack ads against McCaskill that I hear are usually as general and vague as possible, as if she's just some force of evil that should be voted against for no reason. The folks fabricating these ads really can't gather enough coherent thoughts to make a point, can they?

I understand what you mean, but Alex Jones is almost certainly going to have to file for bankruptcy before 2020. No way those Sandy Hook parents lose that lawsuit. I'm expecting Hulk Hogan vs Gawker levels of payout - likely more, considering its a whole bunch of fucking parents instead of just one celebrity.

In Britain, it's illegal to just air lies. It's one of the reasons that the freedom of speech issue is so complex. I feel that we should be able to say whatever we like but that ads should be looked at by third parties too.

I get attack ads that are highlighting career choices that would make their opponent unfit for office, citing events that most definitely transpired. Fear-mongering claims of violence and other such baseless claims should be illegal. I hope that those slandered by these ads take this corrupt PAC to court for all they have. Also the radio ad has some of the most stereotypical black voices that alone feels offensive.

Attack ads are some of the weirdest things to come out of the US. I don't understand why anyone finds it acceptable. A ban might be necessary.

It's just so fucking racist lol

Free speech isn't endless, so called "fighting words" are not protected, and there's a good argument that attack ads this severe could be considered fighting words.

If I were a politician, I wouldn't fight attack ads against me. I'd just run a set of parody attack ads besides my real ads, saying "Candidate Last wants to eat your babies, then build a rocket out of all of your guns and launch gun rights into space. And they want to raise taxes to 1 bajillion percent."

you'd think but with anything Trump saying being protected 'political speech' as of a recent court case, its not hard to imagine any challenge facing an unfriendly scotus that will affirm the notion that anything a politician or political group says is protected.

They hate women and black people, it's not really a surprise that thry have no idea how to target agitprop at black people.