This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Patty
I wish we could have had Newt or Santorum. Either someone who is bold in cutting spending, or a social conservative. Instead we get Liberal Obama or Liberal-lite Romney. I won't be voting, as I'm sure many conservatives will not be. Same thing happened with Liberal-lite McCain.
Santorum's a racist, why would you want him as President?
Post by
MyTie
Santorum's a racist, why would you want him as President?
Anything to substantiate your assertion that Santorum is racist?
Post by
gamerunknown
Presumably his comments about Obama being an anti-war government ***-uh or being opposed to
welfare for blah people
.
Post by
Patty
Presumably his comments about Obama being an anti-war government ***-uh or being opposed to
welfare for blah people
.
^
Post by
MyTie
Presumably his comments about Obama being an anti-war government ***-uh or being opposed to
welfare for blah people
.
He didn't say the first.
This one he actually didn't say. It's a blank spot that gets filled in.
He didn't say the second.
Rather, it was a NPR transcript mistake.
I can't even see Rick Santorum calling President Obama a ^&*!@#. This is just another example of "HE'S RACIST!" being used without any basis. Besides, Santorum hasn't expressed any campaign platform that is racist. People are putting these "gaffes" in the middle of speeches about government war intervention, and social programs. It doesn't even fit in the sentences he is saying.
This is like that time that Obama said*:
I would like to put all white people in prison.
*Obama never actually said this.
How could you vote for Obama?
How could you?
Post by
Patty
I can't even see Rick Santorum calling President Obama a ^&*!@#. This is just another example of "HE'S RACIST!" being used without any basis. Besides, Santorum hasn't expressed any campaign platform that is racist. People are putting these "gaffes" in the middle of speeches about government war intervention, and social programs. It doesn't even fit in the sentences he is saying.
It's pretty clear
that he started to say "%^&*!@", and then stopped himself halfway through the word (nigg-). If he was going to say something else that wasn't bigoted, why the @#$% would he try to cut himself off? And regarding the second, he later didn't outright deny it, as the video states.
Post by
MyTie
I'm a public speaker. I deliver approximately 3-4 hours of monologue every month, broken into 30 minute segments. I record it and listen to myself. Some words are broken and sentences cut short. No one is eloquent enough to have every word flow like silver. Placing words into these broken points in sentences seems a little bit of a reach. If Santorum is racist, it's a reach and a half to say that he is stupid enough to say so, and dumb enough to use the N word. Not saying he is racist or is not racist. Just saying that I highly doubt he was going to say the N word, and that he actually didn't say it, even if he was going to. Reach, reach, and more reach. Still not there.
As for the "black families" thing. I agree completely, if he actually said that, which is in doubt. Black families shouldn't be given welfare. They should be given the opportunity to become self sufficient. Same goes for white families. Racist? Yep. Wrong? Nope. I believe that comment was in the context of abortion as well, which disproportionately affects black people. This is something that every president contender should be aware of and not afraid to talk about.
I really see this as shock junk. I agree with Santorum's platform. The fact that this race card is being played so poorly, with such a reach, tells me that people are having to
look hard
to find anything wrong with him. I count that as a mark in his favor.
Post by
gamerunknown
So his policies would disproportionately hamper black people, he specifically singles them out and remarks that he was watching a documentary on black people when asked about the comment and that's a good version of a social conservative?
As for whether he would
intentionally
use
such terms
...
Post by
MyTie
So his policies would disproportionately hamper black people, he specifically singles them out and remarks that he was watching a documentary on black people when asked about the comment and that's a good version of a social conservative?
As for whether he would
intentionally
use
such terms
...
I don't think his policies would hamper anyone. I think his policies would help people.
So, is that it? Code words? What code words was he using? What do you have besides two things that you think he might have been saying but not sure?
Sigh.
This is so dumb. This kind of crap is why good people don't get elected. People get distracted with made up garbage. This passes for political discourse.
Post by
gamerunknown
I think his policies would help people.
Shall we look at Santorum's
policies
then?
He supports cutting welfare and "promoting jobs": in other words, cutting taxes, so that shareholders can invest in financial instruments and overseas jobs. Black people are disproportionately on welfare and have disproportionately higher levels of unemployment. There has been either zero or negative correlation between tax cuts and lowering unemployment over the years they've been practiced. Populations without welfare infrastructure tend to have lower lifespans.
He also claims that getting a job will reduce the chances one is in poverty and that not having children before marriage will reduce the chances one is in poverty. The former is almost a tautology. What he doesn't address is that pregnancy rates are highest among the black and Hispanic populations, abstinence education is utterly useless and that affluent nations have fewer children. The mechanism for such is probably that in countries where children are more attractive to employers than adults, a family will increase its wealth and chances for survival by having greater numbers of children, whom are then capable of raising the parent in old age. In countries where adults are favourably employed due to collective bargaining power, no such necessity is in place and having an unsustainable retired population is something that can be considered when discussing whether to have children.
Personally, I don't think overt "racism" should really factor on why one would want to vote for him or not, I just think there is a strong case that his policies are implicitly racist and that one shouldn't take his disavowals seriously. I also find the concept of voting for someone due to their social conservatism absurd. Any attempts to mandate social conservatism on the rest of the population would either be wasted as head of state or incredibly authoritatian. He certainly hasn't demonstrated the possibility to offer logical arguments for his positions.
In other news
...
Sadly about half of the comments on facebook were either blaming the victim or calling for Islamic law.
Post by
Adamsm
In other news
...
Sadly about half of the comments on facebook were either blaming the victim or calling for Islamic law.
Ugly as hell...and sadly world wide; there are still police officers in the Western world who believe that way, but luckily most of those are now dying off.
Post by
MyTie
He also claims that getting a job will reduce the chances one is in poverty and that not having children before marriage will reduce the chances one is in poverty.I agree with this. This statement strikes me as very true, in the factual sense.
Personally, I don't think overt "racism" should really factor on why one would want to vote for him or not, I just think there is a strong case that his policies are implicitly racist and that one shouldn't take his disavowals seriously.When you put it like this, anyone who is against welfare, or abortion, is a racist. The transitive property doesn't work like that. It draws contempt from people who fundamentally disagree with the welfare state or with abortion when you call them racist for doing so.I also find the concept of voting for someone due to their social conservatism absurd. Any attempts to mandate social conservatism on the rest of the population would either be wasted as head of state or incredibly authoritatian.Why would it be authoritarian? The wording here could be easily switched to make anything sound bad. Interchange any placement of the word "conservative" with "liberal". The reality is, the social viewpoints of the president have a very big impact on the way the president presides. For instance, a social conservative wouldn't support the health care mandate. I suppose that would be racist too?
Pretty much what you are telling me is that Rick Santorum hasn't said anything racist, but that there is hidden racism under the surface just hidden from view, and that you think social conservatism is authoritarian. Well, gamer, I have to say a few things to you. The first is, stop making stuff up. The second is, social conservatism is much less authoritarian than social liberalism. Expansion of government power, oversight, and regulation simply doesn't end in social freedoms, like, for instance, the ability to choose to buy insurance. See how that works?
Post by
gamerunknown
When you put it like this, anyone who is against welfare, or abortion, is a racist.
No, but when they say things that send murmurs through StormFront in their condemnation of welfare, one ought to become suspicious. Santorum is being obtuse at best in claiming that marriage is a good way to stay out of poverty. He was born into relative wealth from what I can tell and was able to go to college for ten years. That's not likely to be feasible for the average black individual and attempts to promote that lifestyle choice have been disastrous.
the ability to choose to buy insurance
Choice intact in other social democratic industrial countries. Unfortunately, we're very hampered in our ability to choose between paying for rent or paying for our next healthcare bill.
Post by
MyTie
When you put it like this, anyone who is against welfare, or abortion, is a racist.
No, but when they say things that send murmurs through StormFront in their condemnation of welfare, one ought to become suspicious. Santorum is being obtuse at best in claiming that marriage is a good way to stay out of poverty. He was born into relative wealth from what I can tell and was able to go to college for ten years. That's not likely to be feasible for the average black individual and attempts to promote that lifestyle choice have been disastrous. Then you disagree with his platform. That's to be expected. You aren't a conservative. But to infer racism? I don't even really want to continue this conversation. It seems as fruitful as trying to talk to a conspiracy theorist.
the ability to choose to buy insurance
Choice intact in other social democratic industrial countries. Unfortunately, we're very hampered in our ability to choose between paying for rent or paying for our next healthcare bill.So, you may disagree with what choice should be made, but you can't say that it is authoritarian to give that choice to the people.
I'm really arguing against two things here, and I feel I'm doing a very effective job at it, because your arguments keep shifting rapidly. The first is that Santorum is racist. The second is that social conservatism (the fight for less government) is authoritarian (more government). Come on gamer. I know you can make it harder for me than this.
Post by
gamerunknown
But to infer racism? I don't even really want to continue this conversation
It's the only time Santorum has, to my knowledge, discussed the black community at all. Just to say they need to have less welfare. When asked about it, he talked about a documentary he'd seen. Then he later denied it. His strategy seems to be implausible deniability.
The second is that social conservatism (the fight for less government) is authoritarian (more government).
I didn't even want to argue this because it seemed absurd on its face. Liberalism is the belief in individual freedom. Social conservatism is the belief that individuals should adhere to a specific morality. It is defined by
wikipedia
as a form of authoritarianism. The belief in limiting government is not a form of Conservatism, it is a form of free market libertarianism and the two overlap in some form in paleolibertarian rhetoric.
Government regulation isn't about liberalism, it is about imposing restrictions on individuals. Taxation is not about liberalism, it is done without the explicit consent of the taxed individual. Where regulation is good, it prevents less harm than would have been caused if one individual were free (for instance, the FDA limiting the right of someone that wanted to deceive). Where taxation is good, the majority assent to a social contract in their own interests. Just because regulation (including imprisonment) and taxation can serve arguably good purposes, doesn't mean they are liberal stances. The political compass comes in handy here again.
Post by
MyTie
It's the only time Santorum has, to my knowledge, discussed the black community at all. Just to say they need to have less welfare. When asked about it, he talked about a documentary he'd seen. Then he later denied it. His strategy seems to be implausible deniability. There is nothing here to deny. It doesn't matter if he said it or not. Ask Santorum if he denies that he stated that Canada has a lot of trees. He'd have to say that he doesn't remember ever saying that. It doesn't matter if he did or not, though, because it is a truth. Blacks need to have less welfare. Ding ding ding. True.The second is that social conservatism (the fight for less government) is authoritarian (more government).
I didn't even want to argue this because it seemed absurd on its face. Liberalism is the belief in individual freedom. Social conservatism is the belief that individuals should adhere to a specific morality. It is defined by
wikipedia
as a form of authoritarianism. The belief in limiting government is not a form of Conservatism, it is a form of free market libertarianism and the two overlap in some form in paleolibertarian rhetoric.
Government regulation isn't about liberalism, it is about imposing restrictions on individuals. Taxation is not about liberalism, it is done without the explicit consent of the taxed individual. Where regulation is good, it prevents less harm than would have been caused if one individual were free (for instance, the FDA limiting the right of someone that wanted to deceive). Where taxation is good, the majority assent to a social contract in their own interests. Just because regulation (including imprisonment) and taxation can serve arguably good purposes, doesn't mean they are liberal stances. The political compass comes in handy here again.
Lol. You schooled me. Allow me to correct my statement to something we might see eye to eye on:
I am not a social conservative, but rather am inclined to uphold small-government conservatism in the end goal that social values will end more conservatively, which I believe to be morally and economonically superior to socialist ideals often associated with left leaning viewpoints.
Did I really need to be that specific?
Post by
gamerunknown
True
Yes, but the fact that he even later denied referring to black people is suspicious, especially in context. He later said he worked with historically black universities and I found
this
too (out of wedlock birth rates), so it's not been his only comment on black communities.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying your stance. Matters of definition can be important, even if it seems pedantic.
Post by
MyTie
but the fact that he even later denied referring to black people is suspicious
Suspicious of what? We both agree with the statement that he is supposedly saying he didn't even say. So, if you are suspicious that he DID say it, then it shouldn't matter either way, because if he didn't say it he didn't do anything wrong, and if he did say it he didn't do anything wrong.
How does this all equal racism? How does PERHAPS commenting on black communities make a presidential candidate racist? Isn't he going to preside over black communities? Shouldn't he be aware of the problems that those cultures face?
Post by
gamerunknown
So, if you are suspicious that he DID say it, then it shouldn't matter either way, because if he didn't say it he didn't do anything wrong, and if he did say it he didn't do anything wrong.
I don't think racism needs to be assumed to disagree with his policies. If I wanted to convince someone that Santorum was a less than ideal candidate and that there were socially conservative alternatives that I'd prefer to vote for, his perceived racism is not where I'd start. However, I don't think such a charge is unfair considering the following factors.
The first is the explicit embrace by the Republican party of linguistic framing espoused
here
and
here
.
The second is adopting divisive policies that do more to damage minorities than majorities in order to attract voters to vote for politicians that oppose policies that'd increase said voters lifespan (gay marriage, immigration, welfare reform, "death panels").
The third is that some individuals are willing to dismiss what individuals actually say in order to scrutinise their policy. That was my initial reaction to hearing "anti-war government ***" at first two, as I was unaware of the phrase "government &*!@#$". Once that framework was provided, it became the most plausible explanation.
The fact that he did not strongly denounce such an interpretation immediately leads me to believe he's playing a dog whistle jig, content to incense people that would have no intention for voting for him.They will in turn alienate conservative undecideds. In that respect I think his intention is more dissension than dog whistle.
Post by
MyTie
perceived racism
I know we disagree on the other stuff, and we could hack away at that till the cows come home. What I'm interested in is this "perceived racism". Perceived, why? To me, this came from no where, but it is here. I don't like it. I don't like the race card. I don't like the way it is played. I think it is dirty and ugly. When actual racism presents itself, call it what it is. But, why the need to "find" racism where there isn't any, and when it cannot be found, why the insistence that it is there, but "hidden"?
When I first said in this thread that I would support Santorum, it was immediately pointed out that he is a racist so I shouldn't. When we started to dive into THAT topic, I have yet to see substantiation for that claim. If the first claim is that I shouldn't support Santorum because you don't agree with his policies, then I would have agreed on the difference in our views. But, that wasn't what was said. What I'm looking for is either substance backing up racism, or a complete withdrawal of the original comment, not a different reason why I shouldn't support Santorum.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.