2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNot every image containing the Clinton Logo is legitimate.
Just because some image includes that logo, there's no reason to attribute it to the Clinton campaign. Just because someone posted an image on Twitter does not mean that the Clinton campaign is using that image in its advertising.
In fact, if you can only find an image at some twitter hashtag and nowhere else that doesn't link back to that hashtag, it's almost certain that the image was created by some individual and posted for the LULZ or as a way of attacking Clinton. That's particularly true if the image is so lame that nobody over the age of 14 would ever use it.
I'd encourage anyone considering posting such an image that cannot be linked to the Clinton campaign to simply not engage in that form of not-so-subtle attack on the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. If it looks like something you might find on 4chan, well, it's almost certainly bogus.
That's my suggestion, my opinion, and my belief.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)what constitutes a legitimate source. On the internet many people don't even stop to consider where something came from before they pass it along.
Many things people see on Facebook or Twitter are the modern-day equivalent of a crazy person yelling random conspiracy theories on a downtown street corner.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Anyone with a graphics editor can make any image they want. It's a mistake to attribute such images to anyone but the originator of it, and has the potential to do harm or be embarrassing. Perhaps after the primaries, such things will stop with regard to the presidential election. I certainly hope so.
vintx
(1,748 posts)Did you whine this much when Hillary fans were making hay about a 'bern the witch' thing some Bernie fan made?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)would have objected. As for your comment about me crying, you're wrong. I'm not crying; I'm pissed off.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)It's rather difficult to label yourself as "blue" or "left" when your logo is a giant RED arrow pointing to the RIGHT.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,205 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)And it is the official logo of the campaign. This thread has nothing to do with whether or not that logo is appropriate or not. It is the logo of the Clinton campaign.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Because its effect is quite costly to her.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Not exactly rocket science here.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Don't get me wrong; I think the logo is about the only honest part of her campaign. I'm just startled she was so up-front about it.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)But no, it doesn't mean right-wing; as I said, just progress. Towards the future and not the past, and all that.
PufPuf23
(8,785 posts)I like good parody even about candidates I favor.
What I dislike is graphics that are unclear as to agenda and probably from a source with a tactic to confuse and disrupt.
One DUer to miss is SwampRat.
I really liked his original Bush art .
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)or are parodies about the election. My objection is falsely attributing such things to the campaign. Anyone can create an image and post it on Twitter. Claiming that it is somehow part of a candidate's campaign, however, is bogus and rude.
PufPuf23
(8,785 posts)"What I dislike is graphics that are unclear as to agenda and probably from a source with a tactic to confuse and disrupt"
equals
"objection is falsely attributing such things to the campaign. Anyone can create an image and post it on Twitter. Claiming that it is somehow part of a candidate's campaign, however, is bogus and rude."
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)But, it was you who spread that bogus image here, you see.