• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama doesn't think elections should be bankrolled by powerful interest groups

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dank69 said:
Obama didn't 'profess to be principled.'
Click to expand...
Reread the quote in the OP.

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections... Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
Click to expand...

I gather now we're going to descend into arguing over what "principled" means.
 
karmypolitics said:
By the same token, Mitt Romney personally did nothing wrong in attaining a 15% tax rate.

The problem is with the tax code that allows a 15% tax rate on investment income. There is a difference between policy and personal behavior within policy. Frankly, no one would care that Obama was taking the "noble" path by refusing to use Super-PACs. People only notice the commercials and issues. THey don't pay much attention to process.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of anyone who is claiming that Mitt Romney is doing something wrong about paying his low tax rates? (I'm sure somewhere, someone made such a stupid statement but it's hardly mainstream criticism) People are simply saying we should change the laws so that he pays higher taxes.

Similarly, Obama has been saying we should change the laws to prohibit this sort of spending. I am unaware of him criticizing any candidate for operating within the rules as they currently exist.
 
Atreus21 said:
Reread the quote in the OP.



I gather now we're going to descend into arguing over what "principled" means.
Click to expand...

Your quote supports our position. Obama was saying such things shouldn't happen and so he wanted to change the law. He never said people shouldn't follow the law as it exists now.
 
dank69 said:
It makes a difference because you are claiming he did something that he did not do. Otherwise known as lying.
Click to expand...

He said he didn't want outside money involved in politics. He then takes outside money to devote to his campaign. That is hypocrisy.
 
eskimospy said:
I'm not aware of anyone who is claiming that Mitt Romney is doing something wrong about paying his low tax rates? (I'm sure somewhere, someone made such a stupid statement but it's hardly mainstream criticism) People are simply saying we should change the laws so that he pays higher taxes.

Similarly, Obama has been saying we should change the laws to prohibit this sort of spending. I am unaware of him criticizing any candidate for operating within the rules as they currently exist.
Click to expand...
you don't think that embracing this kind of campaign spending is antithetical to getting legislation passed to limit it?
 
eskimospy said:
Your quote supports our position. Obama was saying such things shouldn't happen and so he wanted to change the law. He never said people shouldn't follow the law as it exists now.
Click to expand...

He said Congress should right this wrong. He said the current system is wrong. Apparently it's not sufficiently wrong to keep him from taking advantage of it.
 
loki8481 said:
you don't think that embracing this kind of campaign spending is antithetical to getting legislation passed to limit it?
Click to expand...
Read post 34 to understand why thinking 'that embracing this kind of campaign spending is antithetical to getting legislation passed to limit it' is stupid.
 
loki8481 said:
you don't think that embracing this kind of campaign spending is antithetical to getting legislation passed to limit it?
Click to expand...

No. As wolfe mentioned, it's probably the only way to get legislation passed to limit it.

If any candidate who believes in this issue must voluntarily choose to run his campaign at an enormous disadvantage, just how many candidates who want to limit this money will get elected?
 
Atreus21 said:
He said Congress should to right this wrong. He said the current system is wrong. Apparently it's not sufficiently wrong to keep him from taking advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Right. He thinks the current system is wrong. Since it is the current system however, he operates within it. What is the confusion?

Obama currently thinks that taxes on people at his income level are too low. Despite this, he currently pays taxes at this level. This is also in no way hypocrisy.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Hypocrisy is doing something that you decry others doing. When precisely did Obama criticize other candidates for taking money?
Click to expand...

When did the preacher name names when preaching against adultery? Being a hypocrite does not require a second party. Saying "I believe this is wrong" then doing that very thing is all that is required. "Do as I say and not as I do" can't be hypocrisy as you have defined it, yet it has been taken as such since anyone can remember. The shoe fits.
 
Atreus21 said:
He said he didn't want outside money involved in politics. He then takes outside money to devote to his campaign. That is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't criticize any politician, anywhere, for taking money. He is not doing anything he criticized others for doing. He criticized the system. You're just flat wrong. We're spinning our wheels here, going round and round, debunking the same point repeatedly, and the person who's been debunked refuses to acknowledge it. I know that you're bright enough to understand this distinction. You just don't want to admit it.

- wolf
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
When did the preacher name names when preaching against adultery? Being a hypocrite does not require a second party. Saying "I believe this is wrong" then doing that very thing is all that is required. "Do as I say and not as I do" can't be hypocrisy as you have defined it, yet it has been taken as such since anyone can remember. The shoe fits.
Click to expand...
He didn't say 'I believe this is wrong.' he said 'I believe this law is wrong.'
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
When did the preacher name names when preaching against adultery? Being a hypocrite does not require a second party. Saying "I believe this is wrong" then doing that very thing is all that is required. "Do as I say and not as I do" can't be hypocrisy as you have defined it, yet it has been taken as such since anyone can remember. The shoe fits.
Click to expand...

Can you point to a statement by Obama where he said it was wrong for candidates to accept this money? I know he has stated that he believes the system to be wrong, but that is a very different thing.
 
Look at campaign donations and you can see who's owned by special interest groups.

Obama, owned.
Romney, owned by the same people.

They're really making it clear... not sure why more people don't see the obvious. Lots of obama haters think romney will be different... he won't be. He'll do the same stuff and maybe do some things worse.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
When did the preacher name names when preaching against adultery? Being a hypocrite does not require a second party. Saying "I believe this is wrong" then doing that very thing is all that is required. "Do as I say and not as I do" can't be hypocrisy as you have defined it, yet it has been taken as such since anyone can remember. The shoe fits.
Click to expand...

In the expression "this is wrong," I think we can agree it matters greatly what "this" is. Criticizing a system is not the same as criticizing participants in that system.

And again to the my original point in response to you: would you have every pol who criticizes this system face the Hobson's choice of either being unelectable or face the charge of hypocrisy? Money in politics is already institutionalized because it is a conflict of interest for pols to get rid of it. You just want to cement that problem even further by adding a stiff penalty for any pol who wants to reform it.
 
While it seems hypocritical i think at least his heart/morals are in the right place. He would like to see money removed from political influence but in the mean time he has to play the game the way it is currently being played.

Im all for it.
 
eskimospy said:
Right. He thinks the current system is wrong. Since it is the current system however, he operates within it. What is the confusion?
Click to expand...

I guess I get confused when people claim that compromising on a principle doesn't mean that principle is compromised.
 
eskimospy said:
Can you point to a statement by Obama where he said it was wrong for candidates to accept this money? I know he has stated that he believes the system to be wrong, but that is a very different thing.
Click to expand...

You are requiring that another party be involved for hypocrisy to be invoked. I do not. If I say that robbing is wrong then go out and rob I am a hypocrite, legal aspects notwithstanding. The basis for hypocrisy is that one states a thing is wrong then goes out and does it. If that isn't a correct definition, then what does one call what I just said. Perhaps I just hold to a higher standard than some others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top