532
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
532 points (96.3% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2384 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wholeheartedly agree with money equating to speech being disastrous as to the healthy function of a democracy, but the complaint here doesn't strike me as that. While we all know the game is skewed toward money, we should also know the better choice between these candidate couldn't be more obvious.
That's not what you asked. Restricting the pool of candidates to elites (money or connections) absolutely has an effect too. If it seems like our politicians are out of touch, that's why.
Ok. If you're going to play that game, then the obvious answer to what I asked:
... Is No, nobody stopped them from running. Money may help, but is not prerequisite to running. People also get money if they garner support. Hence the success of grassroot organization.
Bullshit. If you stick with word of mouth as a middle class person you might get enough name recognition by the time you're 80.
It's probably a good thing that the vast majority of candidates have to get word of mouth recognition by rising through the ranks of government starting small at the local level and going from there. But you're right: that's part of the reason why most candidates end up being on the older side.
Yes, name recognition matters in a democracy, no surprise there. But the personal wealth of the majority of presidential candidates is a paltry sum to the total funds needed to be raised simply by running on a platform and getting support from within and outside the party. When we talk about "money in politics," it's usually not the candidate themselves but the outsider influence who prop that candidate up.
Still you try to corner me by taking what I said verbatim and so I respond in the same literal way: Nobody stopped them from running. Nobody is stopping them from not voting or writing-in someone else. Sure circumstance can improve one person's chances over another, but we have more choice than most countries of the world, and again the better choice between these two candidates couldn't be more obvious.
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
An effective ban is still a ban. If you're not in the club you will not win.
Obama was not rich before he ran for public office. Doesn't seem like a ban to me.
That's why it's called a club and not a socioeconomic demographic. He was networked, blessed by the wealthy.
He was also blessed by one of the largest grassroots mobilizations in recent history, let's not discount that as well.
The point being: someone who came from nothing can rise to something. Obviously a whole range of factors influence odds, from intelligence to external beauty, to charisma, to networks and wealth... Nobody said Democracy is perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that we have more choice than most.
From nothing? The man went to Columbia and Harvard. His mother was an Anthropologist and Bank Consultant. His father was in the US with financial backing from wealthy celebrities, and went back to a leadership role in Kenya afterwards. His step father was literally an oil executive.
He was absolutely born connected and with plenty of money.
Many poor people go to Columbia and Harvard. His parents weren't just gifted, they went to school and rose in money themselves. What exactly is wrong with that? This isn't the Rockefellers, my friend.And you're referring to the father who left him when he was -- checks notes -- 2-years-old...?
Per Michelle:
CBS Fact check:
Put another way, how the hell do you advocate to prevent this from occurring? I can see campaign finance/election reform ensuring publicly-funded elections, sure, but now you're saying because someone's parents went from rags to strong middle-class (they weren't basking in millions as far as I can tell), then that's diminishing choice to such an extent that we no longer have a democracy or... What?
The man she married 3 years later, Obama's stepfather, was an oil company executive. They were never in danger of anything even close to "rags."
And the problem here is not that we let a very smart man be president. The problem is he only got there because of the connections his parents had and the connections he made among the elite at those schools. There's a lot of very smart, well educated, people who will never be president simply because they don't know anyone who can write checks to cover the time off work and advertising necessary.
The system is setup to give the wealthy a natural veto on who can run for office at the federal level.
I sympathize with this, but how do we genuinely address it? Since the dawn of civilization, it always has been about who you know and the steps your ancestors took to improve your position.
If a black man raised by his middle-class mother and grandparents can run on a scholarship and succeed in school, then work his way up through higher and higher public offices.. I think that's a testament to choice in America. I won't sit here and say it's perfect, but I take issue with the user claiming, "I don't really have a choice" and "doesn't sound like much of a democracy," — I mean shit, you know how many people of other countries would kill to have what we have? He takes it for granted.
Because you're still leaving out the part where he leans on his connections. And still painting his background as middle class.
As to what do we do? Jungle primaries, and ban private money in elections. You get X number of signatures and you get the same campaign funding as the next guy. With jungle primaries the parties aren't in control. Then you uncap the house. It was always supposed to be a ratio that allowed people to actually know their representative. With the massive reduction in district size that means someone can actually get elected by walking the district again.
For reference the original ratio was 1:30,000. And while that's a hilarious 11,000 Representatives today; even 1,000 representatives would see the current ratio drop from 700,000 to 300,000. That would put us near the 280,000 people per Representative we had in 1929 when we capped the number of Representatives.
Then with a thousand federal legislators there's actually a chance of new parties forming among the caucuses in the House of Representatives too.
You paint his stepfather as some wealthy oil magnate when he was a.... Geologist who worked in Indonesia... Whose most notable description of their wealth I can find is, "replacing their motorcycle with a car" as they rented a home in Indonesia. Clearly basking in wealth, am I right...? By age 10, Barack was being raised solely by his grandparents, (whose grandfather operated a furniture store) while his stepfather in Indonesia and his mother going to school and then returning to Indonesia without Barack. Obama's stepfather divorced his mother when Barack was 19. His background was middle-class. Otherwise please, show tax returns of his parents, or him living in a lavish mansion, or any indication whatsoever that he was well above middle-class.
So look how far the bar has dropped from your initial claim of wealth and privilege. The best you've got is a "connection" to a nice grade school that he earned a scholarship for...? If you're referring to connections down the road, after he studied in school and became a professor, and then after that becoming a community organizer, then a state senator, then a US senator... Well, that's generally how you make connections and rise through the ranks. The point being: a person from at-best middle-class origins managed to do that, as a black person in an otherwise racist America.
Resolving the influence of money from others in elections is pretty straight-forward, but what I'm asking is how you resolve "networking & connections" as you vaguely allude to what Obama had?
I stand by my claim they were at best middle-class.
Then I contest they may not be as smart as you think, or they just lack any political ambition whatsoever and would rather throw peanuts from the peanut gallery without actually doing the ground-work of grassroots organization or running for office as Obama did loooooooooooooong before he had to get checks written. Besides, unfortunately in order to change the game you tend to have to first play by the existing rules of the game first.
Go scroll up the chain. Connections were always a part of it. And I'd say the same to you. Now he's being raised by a business owner.
None of these people are working class. You're trying to fit at least higher middle class to a rags to riches narrative.
And yes it's that people are lazy. Congratulations. You've found the propaganda line from wealthy people everywhere. Everyone else is just lazy.
I scrolled up. The conversation went about as follows:
ME: "Did anyone stop you or anyone else from running for President?"
YOU: "Yeah actually... [the current setup] bars 99.9% of people from ever running for President."
From there I:
Proved Obama's upbringing was fragmented and middle-class at best, wich contradicts your claim they had "plenty of money" and he was not remotely "born connected."
Showed that Obama, a middle-class African American of middle-class parents of middle-class grandparents was not "in the club".
I provided direct quotes from fact-checkers and Michelle Obama herself, noting as much.
Next:
You repeatedly used this unfounded claim that his stepfather — who was largely out of his life by 10 —was an "oil executive" when he was a geologist and consultant at best — Untrue. I cannot find a modicum of evidence on this except a literal uncited reference in some editorialized article.
Now you're moving the goalpost from "middle class" to "working class" by some arbitrary definition no less... ? Come on, I call bullshit.
The main thing I see eye-to-eye on is that:
You need to be "networked" in order to be popular, which is kind of a given. There are many means by which to be networked, of course. In any realistic system you conceive of creating, that will always be inevitable.
Money influencing politics is probably the most important issue to address in order to save our Democracy.
Finally, please don't straw-man my points. Nowhere did I claim they're lazy. That is your filling in the blanks to make your response easier. I think I'm FAR more closer to reality in writing, "99.9% of people just don't want to become President because they have other interests and ambitions and life circumstances" than your claim that "99.9% CAN'T become President" (in your words, "banned").
Unanswered questions by you:
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
The better CHOICE between Biden and Trump is an obvious one, yes?
Relative to the user whom I originally responded, America has more choice than most nations of the world, yes?
Dude.
And you can't just declare you proved something. Especially something as hilarious as, "he wasn't connected, he just got the money to run a community organization and campaign by magic!" Hell a quick look at his campaign filings puts that shit to rest.
And then you completely ignore the substantive take on how to deal with the problem to instead defend Obama from being called "connected" and "well off". Even going so far a to use the refutation of your rags to riches narrative as an allegation that I'm moving the goal posts.
I'm sorry, do upper middle class/low wealthy dress in rags where you come from?
Don't answer that. It's obvious you never meant to engage in good faith. You've been derailing the main point the entire time by getting way too into the details on one guy. And even then you can't admit when your wrong. No instead we have to accept literal PR as evidence instead of publicly available information.
Let me make my position very, very clear: Saying someone lacks political ambition does not mean they're lazy. I have no idea how you misconstrued that, but I hope I made myself clear. If I wanted to call someone lazy, I would just do it. But are you denying it's easier for people to be critics than actually do better than that which they criticize?
Well when there is no substantive or sourced rebuttal and I sort of, well, did... Then yes, I am going to say that.
Reuters:
I don't know. Anyone whose parents depended on food-stamps may not fit your literal definition of "rags," but I think I made my case. But it's awfully convenient that you can continue to lie about his stepfather's fortunes and giving Obama a cushy life while -- let me check -- giving absolutely zero sources thus far while obviously distorting the "oIl eXeCuTiVe" caricature for which you've clearly deflected because you know you're full of shit on this front. Then finally just denouncing any biographical or autobiographical account of their status as being PR (without any actual evidence).
Then let's turn a different way: We've proved you can go from middle-class to President, but that's not enough for you and means 99.9% can't be president ("banned", as you explicitly wrote)? Finally: I thought I made myself clear in solving issues related to outside money influencing elections and largely agreeing with you in this respect.
Meanwhile you still dodged the questions, and now I'll add to that list:
Unanswered questions by you:
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
The better CHOICE between Biden and Trump is an obvious one, yes?
Relative to the user whom I originally responded, America has more choice than most nations of the world, yes?
Who is closer to reality: "99.9% of people just don't want to become President because they have other interests and ambitions and life circumstances" or your claim, "99.9% CAN'T become President" because they are, in your words, "banned"?
Anyways, this has been an interesting conversation and appears to have been exhausted, I'll leave it there and oblige you with the final response.