You must log in or register to comment.

RotateTombUnduly t1_irtk07b wrote

"Million Voices is a movement that gives voters and potential voters the foundation they need to act from a biblical worldview with confidence" their emphasis on the website


whitemage82 t1_iru0fe0 wrote

That right there tells you all you need to know. They’re being disingenuous, trying to trick those that aren’t politically knowledgeable into swaying them to vote right wing.

Because Republicans learned long ago lying doesn’t come with consequences.


Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_irv5fha wrote

How is it disingenuous? The comment above makes it seem like they are pretty open about their views.

If someone isn’t put of by the biblical point of view thing, they’re prob gonna be in the right place


IamSauerKraut t1_irtspns wrote

It is a christo-fascist sharia law group. They will disagree but their ads speak louder than their denials.


Er3bus13 t1_irvtah0 wrote

How presumptuous that they have to do God's work. Thought he could do it on his own.


akennelley t1_irvsfbh wrote

But...but....why didn't they mention that in the SMS!?


No-Razzmatazz- t1_irt4wxn wrote

Non-partisan just means they don't take money from either of the parties. It doesn't mean they have to hold a centrist position on whatever the issues are. You can be right wing or left wing and still be non-partisan.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irt5q58 wrote

I agree but that's not what's happening here, the partisan spin is that the democratic policy points are being twisted into clear partisan tactics. "

For example, Democrats aren't focused on the border issue beyond providing a better and humanitarian response (though failing horribly) and this fact is being spun as democrats inviting crime and drugs to take over the country.

A non-partisan way of saying this should be, Republicans are in favor of tight border security and restrictions on chain migration, Democrats are in favor of a better response to immigrants through more relaxed laws.

The statements don't claim a guaranteed end result and that's what makes it non-partisan.


princeoinkins t1_irthlai wrote

Did….did you just read what he said? Non partisan just means they don’t take money from either side. Doesn’t mean they aren’t skewed (even heavily) one way


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irthts5 wrote

Non-partisan also includes political bias. Anti-abortion is a right wing talking point exclusively. Claiming immigrants are all criminals is not a left wing talking point or policy that voters support.


Great-Molasses-Flood t1_irtl657 wrote

They may be banking on most people not knowing the technical definition of “non-partisan,” especially since “partisan” is often a synonym of “bias.” Using language like that is an effective way to manipulate and confuse people, which seems to be their goal.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irtlmp8 wrote

That brings up my concern with Spotlight PA branding themselves as non-partisan. So far their coverage does seem to be balanced (in the sense that no side deserves protection from coverage of corruption).


IamSauerKraut t1_irts49a wrote

Spotlight is non-partisan. They cover issues without the obvious tilt.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irtsj4s wrote

Definitely but I question their mode of stories they chase. Still a journalistic standard even early in it's existence.


IamSauerKraut t1_irtszwt wrote

Why do you get to decide what Spotlight PA covers? Are you confusing them with PA Spotlight? I get confused, too, but PA Spotlight makes no secret of their disdain for corrupt politicians.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irttqvk wrote

Their reporting is invaluable, it wasn't a reflection who decides just a curiosity of how they decide.


theviolinist7 t1_irwx1i3 wrote

Former political campaign staffer here. Non-partisan does not mean non-biased. It just means not officially part of a party legally. They legally have to say it because they're not the Republican Party. If they said they're a Republican organization, they'd be breaking numerous election laws and would be fined into oblivion.


cmtonkinson t1_irtqhq6 wrote

Who, exactly, has to be TOLD to “watch out” for unsolicited political communication of any kind (mail, email, phone, text, …) during the heat of an election cycle? Or ever, for that matter?


w0rstn4m33v3r t1_irttar9 wrote

seriously, block and move on with life. I'm still registered as independent and get blasted with this shit by both sides.

Side note: thanks for reminding me to update my do not call list. Doesn't do anything for the robocalls, but the political stuff works or they get fined. Apparently not anymore.


StarWars_and_SNL t1_irt8fq3 wrote

Million Voices / Million Mom types all have shrines to Newt Gingrich in their homes, I’m sure of it.


tubesweaterguru t1_irt6paz wrote

I mean this respectfully, but who is really actually gonna click on that?


IntoTheMirror t1_irtj38q wrote

Old people and naive people (I work for a cellphone carrier and holy shit there are a lot of people out there who will click fuckin anything)


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irt6yls wrote

You'd be surprised, especially for centrists curious about each side and have peer pressure from their right wing friends. Does make me wonder how many centrists lie to their friends about the politicians they vote for.


tubesweaterguru t1_irt7ub4 wrote

FYI - left wing people peer pressure and act like jerks just as much.

Asshole tendencies transcend political parties.


Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_irv5oyi wrote

I honestly see it from the left way more, but that’s probdlvky just because most people I habg out with are from the left and feel more secure doing so.


princeoinkins t1_irthyyo wrote

  1. don’t fucking tell your friends who you voted for, it shouldn’t matter
  2. any “centrist” I’ve met is somewhat intelligent, I doubt they’d fall for a clearly spam/mass campaign text….

IamSauerKraut t1_irtscek wrote

Plenty of dumb people who call themselves "centrist" or "independent." In addition, a clear majority of those types are anything but centrist or independent.


princeoinkins t1_iru77hx wrote

TIL “dumb” is a synonym for “has views I disagree with”


IamSauerKraut t1_irul0m9 wrote

No, dumb is dumb. Has views I disagree with is has views with which I disagree.


kiddestructo t1_irttlrb wrote

I’m more concerned that a person can consider themselves “Centrist” at this point, than I am with the mud slinging.


Pink_Slyvie t1_iru7e45 wrote

I mean, Dems are all right, or center at best


BluCurry8 t1_irw0j9a wrote

Unsolicited texts are obnoxious and unwelcome.


ISwearImKarl t1_irvx1x6 wrote

You can be anti-abortion and non partisan, lol. That's like saying it's non-partisan if they are pro-choice. Same argument would apply.

Non-partisan means they're not siding with democrats or republicans specifically. Essentially they're independant and have their own values.


Shift-Subject t1_irumazt wrote

Can't risk someone seeing a different opinion aye? Dems need all the votes they can get. Got anymore people to pardon before the midterms? It's not desperate at all 🙈


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irt46gv wrote

Anyone have any ideas how to report this? This is clearly deceiving voters because the guide they receive is NOT an accurate portrayal of policies every candidate is for. In the video the link points you to, they talk about trans rights as boys taking over girls sports as a "leftist" policy.


No-Razzmatazz- t1_irt4kec wrote

Report it to who? When has there ever been a requirement that political ads be honest?


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irt5a0d wrote

When it's purposely deceitful in a way to trick people into reasonable credibility. Politics (certain forms) and news coverage is already known to be classified as entertainment but this falls under a source claiming to be credible and a fair representation of each side which is purposely looking to deceive and confuse voters ahead of an election. Not everyone is as able and willing to find credible information on their candidate like internet veterans.


princeoinkins t1_irthr41 wrote

Bro…that’s LITERALLY been politics in the US the past, idk like 100 years…..


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irti631 wrote

Then why be so complacent? I want things to be better so I voice my opinions. Should I just shut up because you're cool with status quo?


princeoinkins t1_iru7va3 wrote

You have the freedom to do that, and that’s good

These shills also have the freedom to spread propaganda as well ( and possibly be slightly misleading, even if they aren’t lying to you, as they ARE bipartisan)

While, in theory, it might seem like it would be good to suppress people like this, the problem is that is an EXTREMELY fine line

Everyone is fine with suppressing thoughts/ speech when it’s stuff they disagree with, but the moment your own beliefs get suppressed, it’s suddenly tyranny


IamSauerKraut t1_irtsgxf wrote

It is called free speech. Yes, annoying as hell but the courts have ruled that such ads fall under the 1st Amendment.


dclxvi616 t1_iruiqub wrote

> news coverage is already known to be classified as entertainment

I feel like your understanding of how things work in this country is sourced from memes like FOX News changing their accreditation to Entertainment so they are not legally obligated to provide truthful information.

In reality, there's no regulatory body that 'classifies' or 'accredits' anything of the sort in any capacity. I'd recommend reading the link provided above for more information.

We counter deceitful speech in this country with counter-speech of our own, as you appear to be attempting to do. You could try to report it to journalists or news organizations to cover the deception. There is no authority to "report" this to. The government isn't going to be able to censor them or restrict their free speech. At best, if anyone is being defamed then the defamed party could seek civil action if they like (which will be a tough bar to clear, as they're not only public figures, but political public figures).


No-Razzmatazz- t1_irxwowo wrote

> news coverage is already known to be classified as entertainment

Classified by who? That is not how things work.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irylfw3 wrote

By the courts, Fox news (and by extension from almost everyone's view CNN I think) wasn't liable for any negative response because "no reasonable person would think it's anything more than entertainment"


Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_irv5tfq wrote

> In the video the link points you to, they talk about trans rights as boys taking over girls sports as a "leftist" policy.

It might not be everyone on the left, but it’s definitely some.

Or is your issue with the fact that they call people who have transitioned “boys”?


tylersoh t1_irt4ar6 wrote

Can’t we just spam the number back? 😂😂😂


downsly46 t1_irtmfuj wrote

Wow I literally just got this text. We must be on the same bullshit list 😂


fryerandice t1_irw75gu wrote

I try to watch out for this stuff but Google struck a deal to keep me from blocking all political bullshit emails and texts as spam from my phone, I don't want this shit beaming into my pocket from any party. I can't wait for election season to be over. And the phone calls too, I am trying to find a new job and it's a 75% chance when I pick up from an unknown it's political spam.

Can't you just leave me alone while my country circles the toilet ffs.


Im_a_wet_towel t1_is2by4c wrote

Political texts of any kind drive me fucking crazy. I wish these fucks would stop.


IntoTheMirror t1_irtio9t wrote

Text them back and ask if Candace works there.


goplantagarden t1_iru2zyy wrote

LOL- got mine today and assumed it was a big fat lie. Thanks for confirming.


Ghstfce t1_iruui2g wrote

I feel like this is a text that my phone would mark as spam immediately so I wouldn't even see it.


theviolinist7 t1_irwwg96 wrote

Ok so I used to work for a non-partisan but progreasive-leaning political org in Florida before leaving and coming here. All non-partisan means is that they're not officially a member of a party. It's a legal thing to say that, in this case, they're not officially part of the Republican Party, but rather a separate org, most likely either a PAC, superPAC, 501c4, or 527. They can't say they're Republican because they're technically not. It does not mean politically neutral or politically balanced. But because most people think that it does mean politically neutral, it can be misleading. I hate the term because it's so misleading.


CaliforniaSpeedKing t1_irxi8j2 wrote

That could explain why I had 2 attempted junk calls earlier today.


kwell42 t1_irt4j6q wrote

You could be non partisan and against abortion... Just unlikely.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irt4r13 wrote

The website goes on to say that immigrants are bringing drugs, sex, and lawlessness to the country through open borders.

The owner had an interview with Newsmax praising him, that doesn't sound non-partisan.


survyguy79 t1_irts9rv wrote

Non-partisan just means they aren't affiliated or funded by a political party or candidate, not that they are centrist or unbiased.


Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_irv5xee wrote

What exactly is the problem? Do you think people who were gonna vote dem are gonna read this and all the sudden decide to be an ultra conservative?


pittbiomed t1_irty3d5 wrote

Well, with as many people coming over our borders , the chance that those things are happening may be pretty good, along with sex trafficking and all other sorts of illegalities


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irtye2z wrote

I'll leave this here, it's just not true.

Edit: also, were the country supplying the drug gangs across the border, who else will give them an endless stream of guns, it's incredibly irresponsible to just say it's consequences of having guns as a right, I believe it's a much bigger issue than gun owners are willing to admit.


pittbiomed t1_irxihkv wrote

Oh I never said every human is bad coming across the border in any way . Just because of the #s the odds are some are bad people .


No-Razzmatazz- t1_irxwv5v wrote

Adding more people who are less likely to commit crimes doesn't mean the total number of crimes will go down. It's still going to result in an increase in crime.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_iryl3os wrote

Percentage wise immigrants are less likely, Americans cause more crime by percent and by the total volume. Hell, Americans being born adds to future criminals so why make such a speculation?


billfriedman9987 t1_irurve3 wrote

Just don’t do it if the baby could be born


cashonlyplz t1_irwh6gi wrote

I'm sure rapists love your argument


billfriedman9987 t1_irwj5ki wrote

Obvious exception.


cashonlyplz t1_irwn1mu wrote

Not according to candidate Doug Mastriano.


carrigan_quinn t1_irwobfg wrote

He doesn't "give way for exceptions" on this topic, as he has stated.

Also, like... Who are you to tell me not to do it? Fuck that fetus, it prolly sucks anyway.


MulberryDue1179 t1_irt79g6 wrote

Kinda like the tv adds saying republicans will force everyone into pro life in pa if they win. A republican state already won and by law the people have to vote for abortion or pro life and that state voted for abortion


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irthzee wrote

Republican politicians are very different from republican voters, same for democratic voters and politicians.


Icy-Paper-6841 t1_irupdnk wrote

I hate abortion because it is a sin and blatant murder. That’s why I want OZ and Mastriano for PA !!!!


thesonofdarwin t1_irv1wq9 wrote

Forcing other people to follow your beliefs is a sin. You should read the text of your religion.

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

And whoever will not receive you or listen to your words, as you leave that house or that town, shake the dust off your feet.


Avaisraging439 OP t1_irviswz wrote

Hold yourself to the fire of your own beliefs, not subject everyone else if we do not all agree. There is no social contract that we should all have the same views on abortion.


cashonlyplz t1_irwhcpj wrote

Rrrnnnnmng [loud fart noise ending in a wet plop within one's underwear]