Pretends to be black, wins election

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Master of the Skies:

Tanis:
I L-O-V-E this.

It's a GREAT example of voter ignorance, and how racism isn't 'just a white thing'.

ANYONE who votes for someone because they share they same skin color or genitals is a bigot far as I can tell.

So... his being dishonest doesn't matter at all?

It's funny how many people ignore the fact he was dishonest just for their moment to go "Hah!". Because quite simply it's wrong that he even tried to deceive voters, but you guys are totally willing to ignore that he was dishonest, whether it should have been an important matter or not, and also put that misleading endorsement in.

Most people expect politicians these days to be liars, that is why people have to do their research before making their decisions. I have only known of a few politicians that were actually honest, however, I guess we should also expect that people have no idea what they are voting for, and expect to be served packaged and advertised candidates. This isn't about "hah" this is the very sad state that politics is in. Fitting this should be an education election, it is educational on the state of politics and shows what happens when people just buy the advertising rather than take a better look at the product they are endorsing.

Diablo1099:

While I get what you are saying, at the end of the day, the main issue here is just cheer voter ignorance.
Granted, that's a cop out for most cases of fraud ("You were the one dumb enough to fall for it!"), the fact that no one in the voting base seemed to bat an eyelid under after the election does speak volumes.

Seriously, one search on Wikia followed by someone pointing it out and this would be a non-issue.
Hell, why the hell didn't the opposition not point this out, they would have won by default then!

We don't know how widespread voter ignorance was (although cynically, I'm inclined to think not inconsiderable). Some of these things may not be that influential at all - but sometimes even just a percent or two of the electorate can be enough to make the difference.

Election pamphlets are a medium by which the voters get information - much like advertising is a medium by which you get information on goods and services. People are partially ignorant because they are fed empty or misleading election media, and a reasonable solution is cleaning up election media. However...

Not G. Ivingname:

Sounds like a good idea, but is going to be a nightmare to introduce. All election campaigns stretch the truth, use tactics that prey on predictable human behavior. It would take a lot of voter support to make any politician do something that will effect their reelection prospects.

This accurately points out that installing even low standards of information quality in election media may be tricky. As you say, getting standards raised is a headache. The biggest problem might be "truth stretching" - finding a way to assess how misleading something needs to be before it is actionable.

Master of the Skies:

Tanis:
I L-O-V-E this.

It's a GREAT example of voter ignorance, and how racism isn't 'just a white thing'.

ANYONE who votes for someone because they share they same skin color or genitals is a bigot far as I can tell.

So... his being dishonest doesn't matter at all?

It's funny how many people ignore the fact he was dishonest just for their moment to go "Hah!". Because quite simply it's wrong that he even tried to deceive voters, but you guys are totally willing to ignore that he was dishonest, whether it should have been an important matter or not, and also put that misleading endorsement in.

in politics? no, or rather it matters exactly the same as it does for all of the other politicians. Deceiving voters is the norm. Politicians make campaign promises all the time, but rarely do they ever deliver or even try to deliver. All this man did was to take it to a new level. Its immoral, yes, only a little bit more so than usual.

Politicians do whatever they can to get votes (so long as its not against the law, and even there they probably stretch the rules). Ideology and morals rarely enter the equation.

@Master of the Skies:
It does matter, but nearly as much as it matters that this guy punk'd a group of people because they were ignorant and voted based on color instead of skill sets.

Tanis:
@Master of the Skies:
It does matter, but nearly as much as it matters that this guy punk'd a group of people because they were ignorant and voted based on color instead of skill sets.

Ah yes, because they all said "I wouldn't have voted for him if he was white."

Maybe that should be the thing that matters when that's the thing that was said.

Why should it matter what colour skin the people he depicts on his pamphlet have?
According to the video, he lives in a predominantly African American area, so when he's trying to represent the voters on his pamphlets it only makes sense that most or all of them are black. Or does he have to use white people on his pamphlets in order to inform people that he's white? Because, you know, people of a certain skin colour may only seek the votes of other people with that skin colour.

The way I see it, you skin colour is a non-essential detail, and as such it's about as important that you tell your voters as it is that you tell them about that third nipple you have.

If the people voted him in based on his policies, then it shouldn't matter that he turned out to be white.
If they voted him in based on their assumption that he was black, they're assholes and deserve what they got.

I do find it strange that apparently none of the people who voted for him had ever seen a picture of him. Seems like they were very invested in this election.
And saying you're endorsed by someone who shares their name with a very popular senator is a very ugly trick. This is the only part about his campaign I find morally questionable. Sadly, he used fine print to get out of any legal liability.

This is terrible. Cant believe he gets away with it.

American voters are largely uninformed. Other breaking news: Grass green, water wet, insta-lock Teemo feeds.

That being said, do we actually know why people were voting for him? Was there an exit poll (Thats what those are right) done where they ask who and why someone was voted for? That would be interesting. Is it party lines? Is it the black thing? Is it the quote? Is it because people actually liked his policies? Were brownies offered if he was voted for?

He didn't actually do anything wrong. His mailshots and campaign materials were undoubtedly misleading, but at no point did he claim to be black or even suggest his race at all. It was inferred by his materials but any mistake was made by his voters who implied that he was black.

He wasn't dishonest, didn't lie, didn't cheat. Voters implied he was black. In a way, I think he had the right of being misleading. The fact is people would likely not have voted for him based solely on the basis that he was white which is discrimination in its purest form. He was voted in because his policies were better than those of the competition and removed race as an issue from the table.

I applaud the gutsy and clever marketing.

I can understand what he did. Getting elected is about convincing the people you're the right guy for the job. If the people you are trying to convince are ignorant, race-mongering, and biased then that's the crowd you pay to.

Hilarious. But this was a very small election. If it were a larger, more important election, this tactic would never work at all. It's true that people didn't pay attention to the candidates - but let's be honest here, who pays attention to the candidates of the smaller elections? I live in a big city in Australia (Brisbane), and while I did take the time and effort to research the candidates for Lord Mayor, the candidates for Premier and our federal candidates, I don't really do much research on individual, low-level council-person positions or board members because there are just too many and it's not easy to do research on these low-level people since they have a relatively small public profile.

If he never claimed that he was black, this guy didn't really break any laws. It's not a crime to imply that you are something - politicians imply a lot of things - they imply that they are honest, for one, and we all know that's a lie. So this guy didn't do anything illegal.

It is extremely dishonest what he did, but at the same time... he covered himself legally and it's not like the deception was that hard to see through if you were at all interested to check up on it.

What I'm curious about is why the incumbent didn't spread the news that this guy was running a misleading campaign. He should've used that to his advantage, plaster his actual face all over the place and point out how he was trying to trick people, not just on his race and who endorsed him or not but on policy and other things that actually matter.

I'm sure that would've garnered the incumbent some votes.

You gotta give it to the guy, he pulled some major master plan there didn't he.

Bentusi16:
That being said, do we actually know why people were voting for him? Was there an exit poll (Thats what those are right) done where they ask who and why someone was voted for? That would be interesting. Is it party lines? Is it the black thing? Is it the quote? Is it because people actually liked his policies? Were brownies offered if he was voted for?

Fair questions. Perhaps equally concerning as the consideration that people voted with their skin color and without real substance is the likely conclusion that people voted without so much as seeing a picture of the candidate.

This is why I've stopped blaming the US Congress for the useless circus it is; after enough election cycles the blame is really on the voters.

AgedGrunt:
This is why I've stopped blaming the US Congress for the useless circus it is; after enough election cycles the blame is really on the voters.

This is the best their society can make. A bunch of greedy actors willing to sell out thousands of people at a time for a bit of cash. Rarely people stand up against it, when they do its over some corruption which results in 1-2 scapegoats getting prison time. The roots have dug too deep I think. Have to wait for the inevitable collapse. Even then it's likely an even more corrupt power takes over.

Master of the Skies:

Tanis:
I L-O-V-E this.

It's a GREAT example of voter ignorance, and how racism isn't 'just a white thing'.

ANYONE who votes for someone because they share they same skin color or genitals is a bigot far as I can tell.

So... his being dishonest doesn't matter at all?

It's funny how many people ignore the fact he was dishonest just for their moment to go "Hah!". Because quite simply it's wrong that he even tried to deceive voters, but you guys are totally willing to ignore that he was dishonest, whether it should have been an important matter or not, and also put that misleading endorsement in.

Because he's the first politician to to be misleading?

No new taxes.
Keep your doctor.
etc
etc
etc

Flutterguy:

AgedGrunt:
This is why I've stopped blaming the US Congress for the useless circus it is; after enough election cycles the blame is really on the voters.

This is the best their society can make. A bunch of greedy actors willing to sell out thousands of people at a time for a bit of cash. Rarely people stand up against it, when they do its over some corruption which results in 1-2 scapegoats getting prison time. The roots have dug too deep I think. Have to wait for the inevitable collapse. Even then it's likely an even more corrupt power takes over.

Ironically, most professional observers in DC say the opposite. True zealotry is not the hallmark of con men and actors, nor does gridlock serve the interests of corruption (generally). Efforts to reduce corruption, ironically, have resulted more ideological and less pragmatic lawmakers, who view their struggle not as interests to be served but sectarian battles to be fought. Those actors that remain have learned that moneyed interests no longer can save them from a primary challenge from those voters looking for martyrs rather than legislators, so they follow the script of the zealot to save their own skin. Kowtowing to rational business interest has been replaced with kowtowing to irrational ideology.

I've said this before and I will say it again: the conman is always preferable to the zealot because you can reason with the conman.

Tanis:

Master of the Skies:

Tanis:
I L-O-V-E this.

It's a GREAT example of voter ignorance, and how racism isn't 'just a white thing'.

ANYONE who votes for someone because they share they same skin color or genitals is a bigot far as I can tell.

So... his being dishonest doesn't matter at all?

It's funny how many people ignore the fact he was dishonest just for their moment to go "Hah!". Because quite simply it's wrong that he even tried to deceive voters, but you guys are totally willing to ignore that he was dishonest, whether it should have been an important matter or not, and also put that misleading endorsement in.

Because he's the first politician to to be misleading?

No new taxes.
Keep your doctor.
etc
etc
etc

Right, because we're gonna ignore how pleased you were by his dishonesty =D

@Master of the Skies:
I'm not 'pleased' he was dishonest, I'm 'pleased' that she showed how racist and bias non-whites can be.

Whenever I've had to sit though one of those 'tolerance' videos, it's always the white guy being the bigot.

As if other ethnic/skin color groups can't be bigoted.

Tanis:
@Master of the Skies:
I'm not 'pleased' he was dishonest, I'm 'pleased' that she showed how racist and bias non-whites can be.

Whenever I've had to sit though one of those 'tolerance' videos, it's always the white guy being the bigot.

As if other ethnic/skin color groups can't be bigoted.

Because the only reason to be upset was clearly because they were racist. Yeah of course, I didn't mention another reason they could be upset. Because if I did then your congratulatory pats for the dishonest asshole would be revealed for what they are.

You go! Defend those poor oppressed whites by congratulating dishonest white politicians!

Master of the Skies:

Tanis:
@Master of the Skies:
I'm not 'pleased' he was dishonest, I'm 'pleased' that she showed how racist and bias non-whites can be.

Whenever I've had to sit though one of those 'tolerance' videos, it's always the white guy being the bigot.

As if other ethnic/skin color groups can't be bigoted.

Because the only reason to be upset was clearly because they were racist. Yeah of course, I didn't mention another reason they could be upset. Because if I did then your congratulatory pats for the dishonest asshole would be revealed for what they are.

You go! Defend those poor oppressed whites by congratulating dishonest white politicians!

I don't see what you are upset about. A bunch of idiots voted for this guy because he gave the illusion that he was black. Yet you aren't mad at the people who voted for him, you are mad at the guy for fooling people. I mean, to an extent it is his fault, but if anyone is willing to vote for someone without doing any research besides an ad that they saw they deserve what they get. I very highly doubt if it was a black guy fooling a bunch of KKK members you would be upset about this.

Chartic:

Master of the Skies:

Tanis:
@Master of the Skies:
I'm not 'pleased' he was dishonest, I'm 'pleased' that she showed how racist and bias non-whites can be.

Whenever I've had to sit though one of those 'tolerance' videos, it's always the white guy being the bigot.

As if other ethnic/skin color groups can't be bigoted.

Because the only reason to be upset was clearly because they were racist. Yeah of course, I didn't mention another reason they could be upset. Because if I did then your congratulatory pats for the dishonest asshole would be revealed for what they are.

You go! Defend those poor oppressed whites by congratulating dishonest white politicians!

I don't see what you are upset about. A bunch of idiots voted for this guy because he gave the illusion that he was black. Yet you aren't mad at the people who voted for him, you are mad at the guy for fooling people. I mean, to an extent it is his fault, but if anyone is willing to vote for someone without doing any research besides an ad that they saw they deserve what they get. I very highly doubt if it was a black guy fooling a bunch of KKK members you would be upset about this.

Would it really be so hard to see what I actually argued? Don't you think it's a bit rude to jump into a conversation without actually reading the full thing?

Master of the Skies:
[quote="Chartic" post="528.833676.20505300"][quote="Master of the Skies" post="528.833676.20495999"]
Would it really be so hard to see what I actually argued? Don't you think it's a bit rude to jump into a conversation without actually reading the full thing?

Oh I saw what you argued, I'm just saying that you are mad at him for tricking all these people. It doesn't change the fact that the fault lies almost entirely on the people, and I'm sure that you would not be complaining about this had the roles been reversed.

Chartic:

Master of the Skies:
[quote="Chartic" post="528.833676.20505300"][quote="Master of the Skies" post="528.833676.20495999"]
Would it really be so hard to see what I actually argued? Don't you think it's a bit rude to jump into a conversation without actually reading the full thing?

Oh I saw what you argued, I'm just saying that you are mad at him for tricking all these people. It doesn't change the fact that the fault lies almost entirely on the people, and I'm sure that you would not be complaining about this had the roles been reversed.

Please tell me what's so racist about thinking someone with a similar name to a relative of his was supporting him and voting for that reason. Or did you really not read what I wrote?

Master of the Skies:

Please tell me what's so racist about thinking someone with a similar name to a relative of his was supporting him and voting for that reason. Or did you really not read what I wrote?

Here is the argument I am making. You are angry about this and you shouldn't be mad at anyone except for the people stupid enough to vote for him, and you would not care if the positions had been reversed. You're angry because he was dishonest, and like I said I was aruing, you would not be angry if the roles were reversed..These people would not have voted for him if he hadn't made it appear that he was black. The endorsement was just one of the things going for him. His entire portrayal is what fooled people.

Chartic:

Master of the Skies:

Please tell me what's so racist about thinking someone with a similar name to a relative of his was supporting him and voting for that reason. Or did you really not read what I wrote?

Here is the argument I am making. You are angry about this and you shouldn't be mad at anyone except for the people stupid enough to vote for him, and you would not care if the positions had been reversed. You're angry because he was dishonest, and like I said I was aruing, you would not be angry if the roles were reversed..These people would not have voted for him if he hadn't made it appear that he was black. The endorsement was just one of the things going for him. His entire portrayal is what fooled people.

That is the lie you're telling? That I wouldn't care if a black man tried to mislead people into thinking someone supported him that did not?

Also, where's your proof that they only voted for him because they thought he was black?

Your argument is pretty poor, like all arguments where you need to make up a reaction for your opposition.

But nooooooooooo, you just love to cry racist don't you? Ignore all the other possible reasons.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked