Looks like the same bs both sides have been running. But you add look out third parties your adds may be taken down. First third party candidates don’t have money for adds, and the adds we run are about our parties beliefs.
Looks like the same bs both sides have been running. But you add look out third parties your adds may be taken down. First third party candidates don’t have money for adds, and the adds we run are about our parties beliefs.
"Third party ads" in this context means ads run by Super PACs, not the candidates themselves. Candidates of all parties are allowed to run political ads without fear of them being taken down.
This is the reason to push for campaign funding limits, shorter campaign seasons, ranked voting and other solutions. Many of these proposals have been put into legislation, but are shot down by the corporate and foreign entities with to much power.
Looks like the same bs both sides have been running. But you add look out third parties your adds may be taken down. First third party candidates don’t have money for adds, and the adds we run are about our parties beliefs.
"Third party ads" in this context means ads run by Super PACs, not the candidates themselves. Candidates of all parties are allowed to run political ads without fear of them being taken down.
As opposed to ads for third parties – such as Jill Stein’s Green Party. Ambiguous and confusing term, imho.
Got you, I wish all attack adds to be taken down.
No you don't! It's essential to truthfully attack candidates like Trump!
And Harris?
What are you calling for?
This is the reason to push for campaign funding limits, shorter campaign seasons, ranked voting and other solutions. Many of these proposals have been put into legislation, but are shot down by the corporate and foreign entities with to much power.