• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White candidate pretends to be black to win election

DVSentinel said:
What do you mean by "not in the direction some would expect"? I find the whole thing hilarious, and he didn't even lie to do it.

It should always be expected that blacks will vote for blacks regardless of party when running against another race. It has been so historically for a longtime now.
Click to expand...
97% voted for a guy that presided over the worst set of economic indicators directly impacting the black community and one that had absolutely no plan or promise of 'hope' or 'change'. So...there MIGHT just be some validity to your statement.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It said that they were cousins right below where it said that Ron Wilson endorses him, though.

The whole thing is ridiculous. The whole thing implies that they wouldn't have voted for him if they knew he was white.
Click to expand...

Which is likely the truth. Its not as if Obama policy is helping black folks which got him 98% of the black vote. ;)
 
rocket88 said:
So no Repub has ever been re-elected after being caught with hookers? David Vitter ring a bell?

We'd never hear the end of it from the right, demanding an explanation for ALL Dems if he was one. I can think of a few posters here who would love it.
Click to expand...
Having an affair is rather different than smoking crack or accepting bribes from the FBI. Notice I didnt mention Clintons 'affair' with Lewinsky (though his rape of Juanita Broderick and his groping of Kathleen Wiley just after her husband had committed suicide certainly qualifies).
 
HonestJoe said:
He can - that's exactly what election flyers are designed to do (very carefully designed, even at this level).
Click to expand...

And yet, in the end the person dong the assuming is the one responsible for garnering the correct information. If people are too lazy or stupid or won't educate themselves on who they are voting for that is their fault. What is actually on the fliers is irrelevent.

HonestJoe said:
Publishing a stock photo with a statement suggesting the people in it support the candidate is questionable, though sadly not uncommon in general. Stating that "Ron Wilson" supports the candidate without making clear that's some random family member rather than a comparatively well known political figure with the same name is grossly dishonest at best and probably only skirting the edge of electoral law with small-print and luck.
Click to expand...

The key word there being "suggesting". He very well could have just been "suggesting" that he considers everyone in the area as "friends and family". You "assume" that he meant it as meaning that those people support him.

Also it was made clear that the "Ron Wilson" that was being talked about was a cousin. It might be in smaller print than the statement and name of the but that was still there. (and looking at the video showing the pamphlets those particular words were not THAT small.

HonestJoe said:
He may not have done anything criminal and it may well significantly factor in the ignorance of the electorate but winning an election on the basis of dishonest information is, morally at least, fraudulent. Just because they all do it to some extend doesn't make this any less so.
Click to expand...

Except that there was no dishonest information in that pamphlet.
 
shrubnose said:
It looks like some people didn't get what they thought that they would be getting but they did get who they voted for.
Click to expand...
It's almost as funny as when Alvin Greene won the Democratic primary for Senate.
 
rocket88 said:
Bob Evans endorsed me. Well, okay, he goes by Rob and he's not actually famous for anything...

All I need now is someone named Jimmy Dean, and someones got to have an Aunt Jemimah....I'll corner the breakfast vote.
Click to expand...

I have the evangelical vote all sewed up, myself. With parents named Joseph and Mary, I'm in like Flynn.


........unless somebody points out my immaculate deception, anyway.
 
Gardener said:
I have the evangelical vote all sewed up, myself. With parents named Joseph and Mary, I'm in like Flynn.


........unless somebody points out my immaculate deception, anyway.
Click to expand...

Where's God Shammgod when you need him for an endorsement?
 
VanceMack said:
No...if he was a dem we'd never HEAR of it. It wouldnt be worthy of news and dems and libs would be tripping over themselves to excuse and justify his position. Hell...dems can be reelected after being caught with hookers and crack. They can be reelected with 100k of bribe money stashed in their freezer. Theres always a reason. Theres always an excuse.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be a partisan comment on the poor quality, or lack of quality of the opposition candidates.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet, in the end the person dong the assuming is the one responsible for garnering the correct information. If people are too lazy or stupid or won't educate themselves on who they are voting for that is their fault. What is actually on the fliers is irrelevent.
Click to expand...
Of course it's relevant. It isn't a binary thing - voters are responsible for knowing about the candidates but candidates are also responsible for presenting honest and accurate information. By saying the content of flyers is irrelevant your basically promoting outright lies in elections (which we pretty much have already).

Kal'Stang said:
The key word there being "suggesting". He very well could have just been "suggesting" that he considers everyone in the area as "friends and family". You "assume" that he meant it as meaning that those people support him.
Click to expand...
No, I'm outright stating that is what he was intentionally suggesting. It's the kind of thing most politicians do in their flyers because they're mostly dishonest scum.

Kal'Stang said:
Also it was made clear that the "Ron Wilson" that was being talked about was a cousin. It might be in smaller print than the statement and name of the but that was still there. (and looking at the video showing the pamphlets those particular words were not THAT small.
Click to expand...
Oh come on! There was no legitimate reason to advertise the fact his cousin supported him. It is clear he intended to mislead voters and put in the small print because that's the only thing keeping it technically legal.

Kal'Stang said:
Except that there was no dishonest information in that pamphlet.
Click to expand...
If you really believe that, you're as corrupt and dishonest as the political scum themselves.
 
So far three conservative members of this community have made reference to low information voters.

I guess that means that the voters in this district were uninformed about who (what race) the winning candidate actually was, and made assumptions based on potentially misleading campaign propaganda.

Typically calling someone a "low information voter" is a bit of an insult, to the extent that these voters or too dumb, indifferent, or gullible to actually go out and seek truly relevant information when making a decision about who to vote for.

What I found funny though was that this article makes no actual reference to any voters complaining that they were duped.

A losing candidate makes that accusation, sure, but there's no corroboration from the actual voters.

So for all we know it's entirely possible that many, most, even potentially all voters knew exactly who they were voting for and voted for reasons entirely unrelated to race.

So in a paradoxical way the conservative members of this community who are leveling the charge of "low information voter" are actually, themselves, "low information posters", basing their positions on a sheep-like belief that they charges the losing candidate is making are actually accurate.

That just sort of tickled my funny bone.
 
DaveFagan said:
Wouldn't that be a partisan comment on the poor quality, or lack of quality of the opposition candidates.
Click to expand...
No...actually..I think that would be far more a direct commentary on the individuals that pull the lever more so than ANYTHING said about either candidate.
 
soot said:
So far three conservative members of this community have made reference to low information voters.

I guess that means that the voters in this district were uninformed about who (what race) the winning candidate actually was, and made assumptions based on potentially misleading campaign propaganda.

Typically calling someone a "low information voter" is a bit of an insult, to the extent that these voters or too dumb, indifferent, or gullible to actually go out and seek truly relevant information when making a decision about who to vote for.

What I found funny though was that this article makes no actual reference to any voters complaining that they were duped.

A losing candidate makes that accusation, sure, but there's no corroboration from the actual voters.

So for all we know it's entirely possible that many, most, even potentially all voters knew exactly who they were voting for and voted for reasons entirely unrelated to race.

So in a paradoxical way the conservative members of this community who are leveling the charge of "low information voter" are actually, themselves, "low information posters", basing their positions on a sheep-like belief that they charges the losing candidate is making are actually accurate.

That just sort of tickled my funny bone.
Click to expand...
See post 4...
 
HonestJoe said:
Of course it's relevant. It isn't a binary thing - voters are responsible for knowing about the candidates but candidates are also responsible for presenting honest and accurate information. By saying the content of flyers is irrelevant your basically promoting outright lies in elections (which we pretty much have already).
Click to expand...

Context is everything. And admittedly so is presenting a full presentation and I may have failed in that. ;) My "irrelevent" comment was meant to be taken in the context that voters are responsible for checking out the person they are voting for fully. We know politicians lie so relying solely on what a politician puts out without checking that information is rather stupid.

HonestJoe said:
No, I'm outright stating that is what he was intentionally suggesting. It's the kind of thing most politicians do in their flyers because they're mostly dishonest scum.
Click to expand...

I can't, and won't, argue that it is the kind of things that politicians do. But whether he is intentionally suggesting or not is entirely dependent on a certain point of view.

HonestJoe said:
Oh come on! There was no legitimate reason to advertise the fact his cousin supported him. It is clear he intended to mislead voters and put in the small print because that's the only thing keeping it technically legal.
Click to expand...

Why not advertise that someone (anyone) supports you? I'm not saying you are wrong mind you. All that I am doing is giving another point of view.

HonestJoe said:
If you really believe that, you're as corrupt and dishonest as the political scum themselves.
Click to expand...

But there isn't any dishonest information in that flyer. Everything in it is factual and can be proven with facts and logic. From a certain point of view there might be parts of it that might be morally dishonest. But it 100% is not factually dishonest.
 
soot said:
So far three conservative members of this community have made reference to low information voters.

I guess that means that the voters in this district were uninformed about who (what race) the winning candidate actually was, and made assumptions based on potentially misleading campaign propaganda.

Typically calling someone a "low information voter" is a bit of an insult, to the extent that these voters or too dumb, indifferent, or gullible to actually go out and seek truly relevant information when making a decision about who to vote for.

What I found funny though was that this article makes no actual reference to any voters complaining that they were duped.

A losing candidate makes that accusation, sure, but there's no corroboration from the actual voters.

So for all we know it's entirely possible that many, most, even potentially all voters knew exactly who they were voting for and voted for reasons entirely unrelated to race.

So in a paradoxical way the conservative members of this community who are leveling the charge of "low information voter" are actually, themselves, "low information posters", basing their positions on a sheep-like belief that they charges the losing candidate is making are actually accurate.

That just sort of tickled my funny bone.
Click to expand...

1: Its not only conservatives that are doing this. Liberals are doing it to by implication that the voters only went by the things released by Mr. Wilson.

2: To be honest most voters ARE low information voters. And that is true no matter their party affiliation. You can't honestly deny that there are a crap ton of people that vote only along party lines due to preconcieved notions of how the other side is "eeeeviiiil". And before responding to this part of my post please note that I did say "MOST"...not ALL. There are indeed people on both sides that actually do the homework and vote accordingly or still along party lines depending on just how partisan they are.
 
Well, here's a case where about 100% thought they were voting for a black guy....
 
VanceMack said:
97% voted for a guy that presided over the worst set of economic indicators directly impacting the black community and one that had absolutely no plan or promise of 'hope' or 'change'. So...there MIGHT just be some validity to your statement.
Click to expand...
Nahh, there's no validity.
 
Kal'Stang said:
We know politicians lie so relying solely on what a politician puts out without checking that information is rather stupid.
Click to expand...
True, but that still makes defending their lies, even indirectly, disgusting.

Kal'Stang said:
But there isn't any dishonest information in that flyer. Everything in it is factual and can be proven with facts and logic. From a certain point of view there might be parts of it that might be morally dishonest. But it 100% is not factually dishonest.
Click to expand...
That's like the "there's rape and rape rape" argument. He was dishonest, full stop. The only difference between him and countless politicians before him is that he was called out on it (albeit, by another dishonest politician). You can either condemn his dishonesty or support it. So far, you have failed to do the former.
 
HonestJoe said:
True, but that still makes defending their lies, even indirectly, disgusting.

That's like the "there's rape and rape rape" argument. He was dishonest, full stop. The only difference between him and countless politicians before him is that he was called out on it (albeit, by another dishonest politician). You can either condemn his dishonesty or support it. So far, you have failed to do the former.
Click to expand...

I have also failed to do the latter. All I am doing is offering up another point of view. I have neither supported nor condemned what the guy did.
 
Kal'Stang said:
To be honest most voters ARE low information voters. And that is true no matter their party affiliation. You can't honestly deny that there are a crap ton of people that vote only along party lines due to preconcieved notions of how the other side is "eeeeviiiil". And before responding to this part of my post please note that I did say "MOST"...not ALL. There are indeed people on both sides that actually do the homework and vote accordingly or still along party lines depending on just how partisan they are.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

Heck, when you get right down to it I'm frequently a "low information voter". Not always, and not when I think it counts, but I do it. I frequently vote against incumbents on the simple basis that things currently suck and we need to throw ALL the bums out. I may be voting for the next Hitler for all I know, but at the time the fact that he's not the incumbent is sufficient for my purposes.
 
Since only white people are racists, it is amazing that he won despite people thinking he's African-American. That had to cost him a lot of votes, but he won anyway.
 
This is absolutely hilarious. There's really nothing else to say about it. What would really be awesome is if the guy actually did a great job and won reelection.
 
reinoe said:
Good for him. It's important to be an informed voter, but if I were him I would never have revealed my face. Who knows how long he could have had such a cushy job.
Click to expand...

Why? Must he resign or something?
 
LOL, this story is hilarious. Its just like Distinguished Gentlemen. Clearly, we're in the apathetic stage of our democracy.
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: Its not only conservatives that are doing this. Liberals are doing it to by implication that the voters only went by the things released by Mr. Wilson.

2: To be honest most voters ARE low information voters. And that is true no matter their party affiliation. You can't honestly deny that there are a crap ton of people that vote only along party lines due to preconcieved notions of how the other side is "eeeeviiiil". And before responding to this part of my post please note that I did say "MOST"...not ALL. There are indeed people on both sides that actually do the homework and vote accordingly or still along party lines depending on just how partisan they are.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure partisan politics even comes into play that much for a freaking community college board position. I would have looked at that ballot and thought "I don't even know what this position is, much less have a clue who these people are."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom