mr1precision wrote: stockingfull wrote:
I was giving the Otten post credit for at least being graphically
Which made the question, "Is a GOP 'O' somehow less graphically insidious than a Dem 'O'?"
No, I think the reaction was, yikes he's trying to be one of them.
I agree with Erik: Wouldn't it be rather politically dumb not to?
To the extent that the original suggestion in the vid that the "iconography" has dangerous potential, or already has become dangerous, is valid, isn't it our job to be aware of it and act accordingly? I mean, rather than the politicians' jobs not to do it?
That's like saying, "the Republicans routinely do last-minute negative advertising in the forms of robo-calls and slanderous BS against their opponents (which they in fact do in my area). So nobody should do that." But, excuse me, they've been winning doing that.
So why should Democrats bring boxing gloves to a knife fight?
So, back to Mr. Otten, why shouldn't he adapt a successful logo for his campaign? Especially when he's an "O" candidate himself? In a society with freedom of speech, the alternatives are the kinds of things Republicans go to the Supreme Court to oppose.