White Guy Pretends To Be Black Guy And Wins Election In Predominantly Black District

ThePawnsTheory
It's not funny. It's awful. Deception is the problem in the first place when it comes to politics. Not to mention the racism involved in this. Disgusting tactic.

No.. It just goes to show who the real racists are. They voted for this guy because they thought he was black, not because of his policies.
Firepiston

reply to post by elouina


It's not like he painted himself up with insulting black-face routine make-up or anything. He campaigned to the demographic he was aiming for. Brilliant.

Now, for the voters. I don't think it's fair to assume he got in because they thought he was black. For all you know, many voters knew he was white but voted for him because of his actual positions. Look at Herman Cain. He used white people in his ads and was endorsed by white people... did that mean he was pretending to be white?

reply to post by elouina


Oh the irony of the whole situation. I love it.

So, with the face of the candidate being black, but with a conservative message, he wins.

theantediluvian
reply to post by elouina

 

I'm not surprised, Republicans have been lying to black people for years.

You should be even more surprised that there was no lying involved! But make sure to keep playing that race card, I don't think it's quite over used yet! lol

Every politician lies to everyone! It's not race based. Get a tiny clue.

Pinke
Yet another reason to join Russell Brand in not voting again ever.

Russel Brand did not invent that idea, I have never voted and I don't need a celeb to lead me either.

FirePiston

ThePawnsTheory
It's not funny. It's awful. Deception is the problem in the first place when it comes to politics. Not to mention the racism involved in this. Disgusting tactic.

No.. It just goes to show who the real racists are. They voted for this guy because they thought he was black, not because of his policies.
Firepiston

AGAIN. THE GUY HE WAS RUNNING AGAINST WAS BLACK.

I don't see how that proves that they were racist? Assuming that they even formed the notion that this guy was black--received the flyers, read the flyers, didn't just throw them away with the other junk mail, remembered the content when they voted--then the most you can say is that they thought they were voting for one black guy over another black guy.

FlyersFan

Kali74
somehow proves that black people are racist?

Those that voted based on it are racist ... stupid .... uninformed .... take your pick.
It is what it is.

AlienScience
It's funny how they think they are being sly when their racism is so blatantly clear.

It's funny how you ignore the real racism going on ... the voters racist voting practices ...
but instead say the real racists are those who point out the racism of the voters.
Spin spin spin.

edit on 11/10/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

The incumbent, the person Dave Wilson was running against, was a black man. You're also assuming that anyone actually knew who either of the people in the race were, let alone was cognizant of their races. It was a spot on the community college board of trustees, I'd be willing to be most of them had no idea who either of them were or what they're race was. What sort of mental contortions are necessary to arrive at the conclusion that this is evidence of "racist voting practices?"

but instead say the real racists are those who point out the racism of the voters.
Spin spin spin.

How about the people who spin a story like this without giving it any thought solely because they think it points to racism in minority voters when in fact it clearly doesn't? Are they racists too? Or maybe is it that they have been conditioned to feel that they are under attack because of their ethnicity (or faith as is often also the case).

reply to post by theantediluvian


They ain't going to listen to you.

Did the guy that lose, or anyone else, make complaints about the ads during the campaign? I mean, Wilson's opponent had to have been aware of the ads before the election, right? If not, I have a hard time seeing why this is an issue now.

Anyone that didn't notice the "fine print" on the ad should probably go and get glasses.

reply to post by theantediluvian


I think that the only way this could be considered racist is if this man had run before with the same campaign and lost.

It is funny that he hates homosexuals though and says "their way" will lead us to extinction, when only straight couples can reproduce and make homosexuals.

reply to post by elouina


I think this man's actions are a comment on the emotional appeal of the voting process (we all fall victims to it sometimes.) I view this as a sociologist conducting an experiment and the final conclusion is something that doesn't point at racial issues but suggests the point I made before of emotional appeals.

voudon

Pinke
Yet another reason to join Russell Brand in not voting again ever.

Russel Brand did not invent that idea, I have never voted and I don't need a celeb to lead me either.

I'm in the same boat, I wasn't voting before Russell Brand's existence.

Still, it's good to see someone pull a George Carlin and actually get support.

Not sure if this got posted already, but whats the eddie murphy movies where he runs with a deAd white guys name and wins, reminded of a good comedy

Hey all, let's not forget that Austin, the incumbent, tried to answer the mailer with his own fliers showing Wilson’s face, calling him a “right-wing hate monger” and saying he “advocated bringing back chain gangs to clean highways.”

Another way to view Wilson's tactics is that he was targeting the voter base. Isn't that what politicians are supposed to do?

However, the alleged deception on display are having people crying foul, but that brings us back to the age old question of personal responsibility and accountability. If you can’t be bothered to research the candidates you vote for then didn’t you get the winner you deserve?

hounddoghowlie
point is just because you have a high intellect, doesn't make you necessarily more capable to make the right decision, than those with a average intellect.

You are correct. Just look at Clinton. He has an IQ of 175 if memory serves me, and he still got caught getting a BJ in the white house. The point is, the higher the IQ, the more likely you are to weigh all the options and make the most intelligent choice. It doesn't mean you are going to, it just means, at the very least, you are capable.

All you have to do is exaggerate it, and you'll see the point more clearly. Take a guy with an IQ of 50 and a guy with an IQ of 250. Which one do you think is more likely to make the most informed choice?

Rather than looking at the situation as people voting by color, what we really need to discuss is the voting by their stomach, or their wallet, and other equally unimportant factors.

What does it say about you when you make a political decision based on something as trivial to the nation as a whole like gay marriage, abortion, free food/housing/utilities? Rather, your choice originally was intended to determine who exuded the best qualities to lead the nation, not who wold push through unpopular and unnecessary legislation to pander to minority (used in the context of small populations, not color).

Nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights is the right to free eats outlined, nor marriage and abortion.

Both sides have voted in individuals that are more than willing to strip the states of their rights, bequeathing them to the federal government. Liberals are just more vocal about their desire to have a centralized government.

Detroit a predomaintly black city elected a white man for mayor this past tuesday

theantediluvian

Already infamous for mailing homphobic fliers to voters in Houston as part of a campaign against its mayor Annise Parker (who's a lesbian), Wilson—a white Republican in a district filled with mostly black Democrats—was elected to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees by conning voters into believing he's black.

source

Let me get this straight.

You're all applauding this guy without knowing anything about him at all because you read a single article that he was able to get elected in a predominately black district by generating fake campaign literature depicting him as a black person? REALLY? How are you any better than the people you're mocking for voting for him? You don't think the exact same tactic could work in reverse? Because none of you have any bias. That couldn't be why many of you are so jittery with excitement at this perceived confirmation of the asinine notion that white people are somehow people persecuted.

Here's something else interesting:

Another flier read "Endorsed by Ron Wilson," who voters probably assumed was the former state representative, who happens to be African-American. Wilson was referr
ing to his cousin who lives in Iowa, and the fine print—which he basically dared people to read—even says so. Downright evil.

So it wasn't even just a matter of swapping out his picture after all?

First off,how many people that voted know who Ron Wilson is? And you say it is wrong to make people think he was black.
So you must be saying that they wouldnt have voted for him if they knew he was white...so who would be the racist in that situation?

People say I have a sick sense of humor, so take this how you will.

That's the funniest thing in political history, since the dog won mayor in some California district!...

It may not be illegal
in law but it does
violate ethics.

Those who ran the campaign
had intent to deceive.
Putting a disclaimer in the tv ads
was a way for them to adhere
to advertising codes. Making it small
and brief discourages reading it
(speaking it quickly doesn't help matters
either).