3 ms·
Election related TV ads have stringent requirements about disclosing financiers, relative to other kinds of ads. Is this more insidious than running a blatant
by RickS 9y ago
Election related TV ads have stringent requirements about disclosing financiers, relative to other kinds of ads.
Is this more insidious than running a blatant attack ad with a donor list? I'd say that it definitely is.
The more pressing question IMO is on what grounds we get upset that a foreign nation did this to us, when we do the same and worse to weaker nations across the globe?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> The more pressing question IMO is on what grounds we get upset that a foreign nation did this to us, when we do the same and worse to weaker nations across the globe? No, more the reverse, even leaving aside the accuracy of the fact claim underlying your claim of significance; it's fairly normal, if not abstractly desirable, for people to recognize something is wrong when it is done to them, and then only after that examine and correct their own behavior. So, it's more natural (again, granting, arguendo, the premise of your question) to ask: given that we see this as wrong when it is done to us, how should we correct our behavior toward others?
- RickS 9y agoI may have worded my original comment poorly. I meant "why do we not find this hypocritical?", not "how do we manufacture a difference between our actions and theirs" I agree that such behavior by America is unacceptable most if not all of the time, even when there's a plausible moral imperative (eg replacing a violent dictator with a nonviolent one)