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

[Atreus21]

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

Frankly, I was about to level the exact same accusation at you. I don't see how you can miss the forest for the trees like this.

Who he was criticizing doesn't make a difference. He made a point about something that he thought was wrong, and then had no problem engaging in that activity. I don't see how people can defend that as anything but hypocrisy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, there is something wrong with it being legal. The law should be changed to correct it.

So he says something is wrong and it needs to be fixed, then goes out and does what he says is wrong. Ok I get it.

 

[nageov3t]

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.

by what measure are super PAC's required for getting elected, though?

Obama has been projecting to raise a billion dollars before endorsing super PAC's, and that's on top of all the advantages an incumbent president with an economy on the turn-around already enjoys.

are we really saying that's not enough to get elected? wouldn't getting elected without embracing Citizens United do more to demonstrate how it's unneeded and show other politicians that they can still get elected without going to their billionaire friends, hat in hand, begging for checks?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I'm not requiring that in any way. Can you point to a statement where Obama claimed that anyone (himself included) would be wrong for accepting this money?

 

[Patranus]

He's following the new law....like it or not.

What does doing something that is legally allowed have to do with being a hypocrite?

 

[Atreus21]

I'm not requiring that in any way. Can you point to a statement where Obama claimed that anyone (himself included) would be wrong for accepting this money?

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.

He doesn't think American elections should be bankrolled. He thinks it's wrong. Are we going to claim that since he didn't explicitly mention "accepting money" that this cannot be reasonably assumed to be implicit?

 

[Atreus21]

So he says something is wrong and it needs to be fixed, then goes out and does what he says is wrong. Ok I get it.

You DO?

 

[monovillage]

No surprise, we all know from his past actions that President Obama is a political whore who would blow anyone for political money and political advantage. He proved it back in his first campaign by turning down the public funding and he's reinforced it with his political actions since then. No surprise.

 

[fskimospy]

He doesn't think American elections should be bankrolled. He thinks it's wrong. Are we going to claim that since he didn't explicitly mention "accepting money" that this cannot be reasonably assumed to be implicit?

Right, and that is in reference to the electoral system, not the actions of people within that system. I think your confusion lies at the distinction between criticizing a system and criticizing those who must work in it.

I'm sorry, but wolfe is right.

 

[dank69]

Frankly, I was about to level the exact same accusation at you. I don't see how you can miss the forest for the trees like this.

Who he was criticizing doesn't make a difference. He made a point about something that he thought was wrong, and then had no problem engaging in that activity. I don't see how people can defend that as anything but hypocrisy.

So he says something is wrong and it needs to be fixed, then goes out and does what he says is wrong. Ok I get it.

No you don't get it. Neither of you do. as was pointed out in post 71, you have to define what 'something' is. You both keep ignoring what that 'something' is in order to support your arguments.

 

[Atreus21]

Right, and that is in reference to the electoral system, not the actions of people within that system. I think your confusion lies at the distinction between criticizing a system and criticizing those who must work in it.

I'm sorry, but wolfe is right.

To claim that Obama villified the system, and necessarily excluded those who operate in it, requires more benefit of the doubt than I think can reasonably be assigned to his statement.

Eskimo, you know how I rail against abortion, right? Are you telling me that I wouldn't be a hypocrite if I had my wife get an abortion on the grounds that it's just the system we live in?

Disclaimer: I won't debate abortion in this thread. I swear I won't.

I still don't see how it makes any difference whether or not he criticized the system, and not the operants.

 

[Patranus]

Eskimo, you know how I rail against abortion, right? Are you telling me that I wouldn't be a hypocrite if I had my wife get an abortion on the grounds that it's just the system we live in?

Disclaimer: I won't debate abortion in this thread. I swear I won't.

Exactly.

Its like M.Obama railing against people eating bad food and then going out and stuffing her face. Or B.Obama railing against smoking and then going out back and smoking a cig.

 

[actuarial]

To claim that Obama villified the system, and necessarily excluded those who operate in it, requires more benefit of the doubt than I think can reasonably be assigned to his statement.

Eskimo, you know how I rail against abortion, right? Are you telling me that I wouldn't be a hypocrite if I had my wife get an abortion on the grounds that it's just the system we live in?

Disclaimer: I won't debate abortion in this thread. I swear I won't.

I still don't see how it makes any difference whether or not he criticized the system, and not the operants.

It makes a huge difference.

Do you think anyone who believes that capital gains should be taxed as regular income should cut a cheque to the government for what the taxes would be if their change was made, else be a hypocrite?

Your example is of an instance where you think the act is wrong. In Obama's case he believes the system is wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Your point hinges on something I don't accept.

To say "If I lift this ax and kill a man it is wrong" and then doing it isn't hypocritical, but if the person said. "Charlie X killed a man with an ax and he was wrong" then murdered someone by that means it would be?

That's putting too fine a point on it. I don't let my children get away with that because if they knew that doing a thing was wrong and they did it that is enough. I don't need to bring in other families or individuals.

Now one might say that it was necessary to remain in the race and that would be a point which could be debated on merit, however the fact remains that Obama believes the means by which money is gotten is wrong, says so, then uses the means which he says is wrong to get cash. The cause and effect aren't so easily divorced for me. It's a useful compartmentalizing of morality as far as I'm concerned where cause and effect play no part.

Now in the real world I realize that people do this all the time. I concede that Obama believes that political expediency requires this act. Is that a problem? Not in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a hypocritical act. As I see it one can accept it or not. That's on them.

 

[actuarial]

Exactly.

Its like M.Obama railing against people eating bad food and then going out and stuffing her face. Or B.Obama railing against smoking and then going out back and smoking a cig.

Those are both actual cases of hypocrisy, since they are specifically doing the action they are railing against.

But if M. Obama said we should be offering healthy food to kids in school, and then stuffed her face, it would NOT be hypocrisy. It would be though if she specifically fought to keep healthy food out of the schools her kids went to.

 

[dank69]

Your point hinges on something I don't accept.

To say "If I lift this ax and kill a man it is wrong" and then doing it isn't hypocritical, but if the person said. "Charlie X killed a man with an ax and he was wrong" then murdered someone by that means it would be?

That's putting too fine a point on it. I don't let my children get away with that because if they knew that doing a thing was wrong and they did it that is enough. I don't need to bring in other families or individuals.

Now one might say that it was necessary to remain in the race and that would be a point which could be debated on merit, however the fact remains that Obama believes the means by which money is gotten is wrong, says so, then uses the means which he says is wrong to get cash. The cause and effect aren't so easily divorced for me. It's a useful compartmentalizing of morality as far as I'm concerned where cause and effect play no part.

Now in the real world I realize that people do this all the time. I concede that Obama believes that political expediency requires this act. Is that a problem? Not in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a hypocritical act. As I see it one can accept it or not. That's on them.

You keep using analogies that criticize people. Obama did not criticize people. Use analogies where someone criticizes a system instead.

 

[Blackjack200]

According to this logic, every politician better avoid criticizing the excessive influence of money in politics or else in order to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, that candidate better put him or herself in a position of having virtually no chance to win an election in this system. That's a great formula for ensuring that no politician ever wants to mount such criticism again and that only politicians who take no position against money in politics will ever get elected.

I suggest we focus on changing the system and supporting those who want to do so, then we won't even have to have these "hypocrisy" debates again.

- wolf

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.

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?

This point has not been addressed and I don't imagine it will be.

 

[fskimospy]

To claim that Obama villified the system, and necessarily excluded those who operate in it, requires more benefit of the doubt than I think can reasonably be assigned to his statement.

Eskimo, you know how I rail against abortion, right? Are you telling me that I wouldn't be a hypocrite if I had my wife get an abortion on the grounds that it's just the system we live in?

Disclaimer: I won't debate abortion in this thread. I swear I won't.

I still don't see how it makes any difference whether or not he criticized the system, and not the operants.

No, you would be, but he isn't.

In your case, you decry abortion as a bad act for someone to undertake. You then additionally say that due to this fact, the system should be changed to disallow it.

Obama has never said that a politician accepting donations of this sort is a bad act, therefore your position on abortion is not analogous to his on campaign finance.

 

[gingermeggs]

To anal'o'gize-
Well, it's a like most fair skinned woman with the darker man's cock -
They like the size of it,
But they don't like to be called bitch!
In front of other people at lest....lol


No racism please.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[fskimospy]

Those are both actual cases of hypocrisy, since they are specifically doing the action they are railing against.

But if M. Obama said we should be offering healthy food to kids in school, and then stuffed her face, it would NOT be hypocrisy. It would be though if she specifically fought to keep healthy food out of the schools her kids went to.

Just an FYI, Michelle Obama never said we should never eat unhealthy food, just that we should do so in moderation. I will never understand the right wing rage against such a plainly sensible thing to say.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You keep using analogies that criticize people. Obama did not criticize people. Use analogies where someone criticizes a system instead.

I believe Obama did criticize a system, said it was wrong, and used it anyway. Is that incorrect?

Is it illegal? Nope. Have you noticed how he is distancing himself from it? He knows just what he did whether he feels it was justified or not. In the article I cited there are supporters who aren't happy with this either. This is a compromise of principle and they know it as well. Hey, the Republicans do it too. That's how parties and politicians advance through our system and I accept it. I don't however pretend it doesn't exist or make excuses trying to deny it for any given individual. Frankly, I think that the sooner people get over the "moral superiority" aspect of their candidate (and this isn't applicable to Obama alone) the better off we'll be. We should be painfully aware of the realities and make assessments based on them rather than denying the nature of things. This isn't a fatal flaw of Obama but it may be for some of his supporters.

 

[woolfe9999]

Frankly, I was about to level the exact same accusation at you. I don't see how you can miss the forest for the trees like this.

Who he was criticizing doesn't make a difference. He made a point about something that he thought was wrong, and then had no problem engaging in that activity. I don't see how people can defend that as anything but hypocrisy.

He didn't criticize the "activity" of taking money. I don't see why this distinction is all that challenging actually. It comes up in many different contexts, where someone criticizes the way something works without criticizing those who participate in the system. You have to get elected in this system in order to change it, right? Well if by virtue of the fact that you've criticized the system, you have to place yourself at a serious disadvantage in getting elected, then only those who support the current system will have a chance of getting elected. The argument you're making is more or less a guarantor of the status quo.

 

[dank69]

I believe Obama did criticize a system, said it was wrong, and used it anyway. Is that incorrect?

Is it illegal? Nope. Have you noticed how he is distancing himself from it? He knows just what he did whether he feels it was justified or not. In the article I cited there are supporters who aren't happy with this either. This is a compromise of principle and they know it as well. Hey, the Republicans do it too. That's how parties and politicians advance through our system and I accept it. I don't however pretend it doesn't exist or make excuses trying to deny it for any given individual. Frankly, I think that the sooner people get over the "moral superiority" aspect of their candidate (and this isn't applicable to Obama alone) the better off we'll be. We should be painfully aware of the realities and make assessments based on them rather than denying the nature of things. This isn't a fatal flaw of Obama but it may be for some of his supporters.

Incorrect. He didn't 'use the system.' He operated within the system.
The supporters may not be happy, but if they claim he is a hypocrite, they are stupid.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your point hinges on something I don't accept.

To say "If I lift this ax and kill a man it is wrong" and then doing it isn't hypocritical, but if the person said. "Charlie X killed a man with an ax and he was wrong" then murdered someone by that means it would be?

That's putting too fine a point on it. I don't let my children get away with that because if they knew that doing a thing was wrong and they did it that is enough. I don't need to bring in other families or individuals.

Now one might say that it was necessary to remain in the race and that would be a point which could be debated on merit, however the fact remains that Obama believes the means by which money is gotten is wrong, says so, then uses the means which he says is wrong to get cash. The cause and effect aren't so easily divorced for me. It's a useful compartmentalizing of morality as far as I'm concerned where cause and effect play no part.

Now in the real world I realize that people do this all the time. I concede that Obama believes that political expediency requires this act. Is that a problem? Not in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a hypocritical act. As I see it one can accept it or not. That's on them.

Yeah even with your partial concessions, I still sharply disagree. There is a world of difference between criticizing a system and criticizing those who participate in it, particularly when there is no way to reform said system without participating in it to begin with. For those who want to reform the system, participating in it is more than just expedient. It is 100% necessary. Short of armed revolution, there is simply no other choice. The better criticism of Obama would be getting elected then not doing anything to reform it after being elected. Doing what he must within the bounds of the law to get elected is not a very good basis for criticism here.

I have no problem with Obama saying that money is too influential in politics then taking money to be elected. I will, however, criticize him for the way he uses said money, if appropriate. Deceptive and dishonest adverts are a major problem in our system and IMO he does have a choice to not engage in that sort of thing. He doesn't have a choice to not take money, however. He WILL lose if he doesn't. It's the great conundrum of our system that the charge of hypocrisy does nothing to solve. It only worsens it.

- wolf

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah even with your partial concessions, I still sharply disagree. There is a world of difference between criticizing a system and criticizing those who participate in it, particularly when there is no way to reform said system without participating in it to begin with. For those who want to reform the system, participating in it is more than just expedient. It is 100% necessary. Short of armed revolution, there is simply no other choice. The better criticism of Obama would be getting elected then not doing anything to reform it after being elected. Doing what he must within the bounds of the law to get elected is not a very good basis for criticism here.

Yes, it would be a more legitimate criticism, but at this point we have a SCOTUS ruling and need a Constitutional Amendment to make the necessary changes.

If he's elected, I'd like to see Obama point out how much the Super PACs spent on both sides, and put some real pressure on Congress to work toward an amendment. There's not else he can do at this point.