At 3/24/12 03:04 PM, Davoo wrote:
Do loads of campaign dollars force people to vote for someone other than who they want to?
No, of course not. My phrasing wasn't made to assert that it is that simplistic. However, when you have the full forces of fortune 500 companies behind and election campaign they have the resources to make potential competition nearly inaudible by drowning them out with high volumes of campaign material. That's already the operating tactic as it is, but it would be amplified by several orders of magnitude if left unrestricted. They'd pretty much be ensuring that the only candidate you ever hear of, even if you consider your self up-to-date and well informed, is their own. Someone like Ron Paul has already been faced with a rather thorough media blackout and campaign smothering, and he would be virtually non-existent if it worked this way.
What part of the political process are they overriding?
Overriding was a poor choice of words, as I tried to explain a bit above. While you might not be able to straight up buy an election, per se, there's no arguing that money + proper connections in both media and commerce is the only way to gain any sort of leverage over opponents, and indeed to even be a candidate that is in the sphere of public knowledge to begin with. Herman Cain illustrated that point rather well, as the only reasons he garnered any sort of attention as a potential pick for the Republica Candidacy were all due to the connections he established as a speaker for the Americans For Prosperity who chose him because he made a nice talking head for them, being a moderately successful Chairman of a few companies. This is in comparison to his run for the Candidacy in the early 2000's which went virtually unnoticed because of a lack of any resources to plaster his face everywhere or hire a political coach to tell him "Hey, you should get in front of a mic and say some really outright ludicrous and batshit crazy things".
If a movie says "oil benefits society greatly", and then a politician says "I'm going to let people drill for oil", isn't that movie effectively, indirectly persuading people to vote for that guy?
I don't see the connection here, unless people choose to align themselves with the politician in direct response to the viewing of the pro fossil fuel film, and the politician relies on the film's popularity or outright plugs it as part of their platform .
I maintain that ideology is way more pervasive in the human mind than the names and identities of individual politicians they vote for.
Sure, I suppose I can agree to that, if I'm understanding you correctly. I mean, candidates have to conform to the values of the populace up to a point unless they wish to be deemed fringe. That doesn't mean they can't run manipulative campaigns designed to dupe a large mass of people into believing them to be conservative when they couldn't care less about economic conservatism, or that they're hardline enforcers of liberal social ideals when they immediately toss them to the side and say "I've got a lot on my plate I'll do it later" as soon as they are elected.
Here's the point: you want to determine if someone is racist. Well hey, here's something that person said that is most certainly racist. Quotes are a perfectly legitimate way with which to figure out someone's beliefs.
And so, our case for proving Newt Gingrich to be racist will be based on things he's said, like the 'language of the ghetto' comment.
I don't really care much for deciphering Gingrich's psyche and determining whether or not his thoughts and opinions are that of a racist. I think that's a whole different conversation (one which we certainly can have, but I feel isn't productive to the points either of us are attempting to make, because at the end of the day what he does is more important to us as citizens than what he's actually thinking) than confronting the things he has said on a public forum regarding racial dynamics and socioeconomic issues, which is what I wanted to do with my post. We can say "That is racially regressive and is counterproductive/I find this offensive" without bothering to say "Newt is a terrible monster who obviously hates black people". You don't have to pull a Kanye West to highlight the problems with the whole language of the ghetto comment.
But hold on, there's also things Newt Gingrich has said that are very not racist. This conflicts with the case we made. So therefore, we have to look a little deeper to prove Newt's racism one way or the other; we cannot do it simply by taking quotes at their face value.
Right, I wouldn't find it acceptable to flat out label him as a racist candidate with broken ideas in regards to racial politics based off a single comment. I didn't imply that, and I treat each comment and idea on their own case by case basis. Comments he has made after being called out on past, er...blunders, if you will, may indeed signify an attempt at a more constructive form of discourse from him, but that doesn't mean they are without their issues. And it's not as if things said by him that run contrary to the racist things he has said before (and I do feel it's important to point out that they were recurring instances over time, not him saying something stupid once or twice in the public eye) wash away his past comments and make people forget that this is a candidate who has expressed some considerably broken ideas.
I know, this is simple stuff. I just wanted to make sure you were aware what my point was.
You're free to elaborate all you wish.
He doesn't want:
Yes, and that's all well and fair. But phrasing is definitely important when you're discussing an issue like this. Considering things like "Why are there so many African-Americans on food stamps?", "What do the unemployment figures of people on food stamps look like?" etc. If you imply that the issue can resolved simply by said people working a bit harder and collecting more paychecks, that's going to convey to them that you have absolutely no idea what issues they are facing that are keeping them below the poverty line.
But the fact that the vast majority have both, means that there's a problem with Newt Gingrich's supposed desires. Do you support all people having food stamps and jobs?
No, obviously I want to see them above the poverty line as well, I'm just sensitive to the idea that there's more to their living conditions that are causing them to be in the economic state they are then lack of initiative to secure better jobs, as somebody who lives below it myself.
What are these circumstances?
Large differences in the quality of available education, unlevel playing fields for being hired in the job market, and difficult access to health care combined with high propensity for things like diabetes and sickle-cell anemia, as well as a large and growing HIV problem.
What have other people done to improve the living conditions of the impoverished? The Democrats specifically?
I'm not sure why you'd demand specifically democratic names from me, as I haven't espoused the idea that democrats are any better myself. Nor do I need to show that other people can do the job better in order to share the idea that Newt isn't really qualified for it.
I've reached the character limit, so I'm going to have to make this a double post.