Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
By clearly trying to hide his wife's income, this suggests there's something he's trying to hide. That's where my concern comes from. Why would he lie if there was nothing to hide?
|
First, I am not making excuses for Thomas, but I am looking at the issue from a broader perspective.
In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income. To me the thought that one spouse has to be responsible for the other in this regard is presumptuous and clearly does not take into consideration other types of relationships that are comparable to marriage.
Thomas may be guilty of not properly answering the question, it is possible that he lied (versus making an error, guessing, etc.), but does the question serve a valid purpose? If so, why not be consistent?
Quote:
|
If who Clarence Thomas is is someone who is happy to be very politically active using his title as Supreme Court Justice to influence politics, that's not someone who belongs on the bench, period. And clearly he IS trying to hide it. It took some investigative journalism to find out he and Scalia were speaking at this political events. How many others have yet to be discovered?
|
Again, how far are you willing to take your position? You say Thomas is using his title to influence politics, does that mean that a Supreme court Justice no longer has a right to free speech? Even passively a Supreme Court Justice may influence politics, for example if a justice is observed driving a hybrid car, that would have influence politically. do you expect Judges to live in a vacuum? What is your standard?
Also, one doesn't have to give much thought to some inconsistencies, for example did you study the forms of other Justices for errors or inaccuracies? What is your view on the Treasury Secretary and his tax issues?
---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
The point for me is not how money effects outcome of elections, though I'm sure others can show it does and how it does. Its how the money spent equals votes for those lobbyists interests instead of the popular voice of the constituency, even if they happen to agree.
|
This is where most people here get upset with me because I try to look at theory and see how the theory works on an individual level. My thinking is that in general the collection of individual behaviors needs to be consistent with the broad theory on behavior being argued.
So in this case the broad theory is that money buys political influence. So I immediately want to start testing that on an individual basis. I always start with me, what would I do, how would I behave? Then I start looking at, observing, and questioning others Here is my answer.
If I am indifferent on an issue - others can influence me.
The degree that they influence me is based on my primary motivators at the time. If I am in need of money, money could influence me. But I could just as easily be influenced by a young person displaying courage and conviction and my desire to champion the cause of an under-dog.
But regardless, if I have strong views on an issue - money, emotion, nothing will move me. I have never sold-out on my strongly held convictions, have you? I think there are more people like me than there are the opposite. So I question the broad theory that money buys political influence.
---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Politicians don't campaign for those who are already going to vote for them.
|
Wow! Where to go with the above? I am curious. If you are married, do you ever buy your wife flowers?
My wife is my biggest supporter, and I treat her like gold and would never take her for granted. I believe the best politicians are the same way and spend a lot of effort with those that give them votes and support.
P.S. - If you answered the question no, try it.
And report back to us what happened. Even the best of us are somewhat voyeuristic.