Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
squishyx

Romney on the 47%

128 posts in this topic

If this is what Romney believes, he needs to say it in public and not just in front of a group of millionaire donors who (like the ones Romney paints as not being for him) who'd never vote for Obama. and not just a segmented few.

You probably wouldn't vote for anyone who really say what they believe to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably wouldn't vote for anyone who really say what they believe to the general public.

It comes down to what politics have become over the past 30 years: The lesser of two evils. It's a sad state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to what politics have become over the past 30 years: The lesser of two evils. It's a sad state.

It's always been that way. It's not really a knock on the people running, just that there are 300 million people with just as many interests. Despite what they say, everyone wants to be pandered to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans should take a cue from Obama because despite the rhetoric he has been a pretty center-left president.

You are kidding, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are kidding, right?

No, he's not. My link He's absolutely right, and this article

"....We are not going to make any progress on our biggest problems without a compromise between the center-right and center-left. But, for that, we need the center-right conservatives, not the radicals, to be running the G.O.P., as well as the center-left in the Democratic Party. Over the course of his presidency, Obama has proposed center-left solutions to all four of these challenges. I wish he had pushed some in a bigger, consistent, more daring and more forceful manner — and made them the centerpiece of his campaign. Nevertheless, if the G.O.P. were in a different place, either a second-term Obama or a first-term Romney would have a real chance at making progress on all four. As things stand now, though, there is little hope this campaign will give the winner any basis for governing. Too bad — a presidential campaign is a terrible thing to waste."

Why do you think so many far left liberals are disillusioned with Obama?

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do yourselves a favor and check out 2016: Obama's America.

The stuff on there is what the media SHOULD be showing, just like Romney's religion is shoved down our throats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do yourselves a favor and check out 2016: Obama's America.

The stuff on there is what the media SHOULD be showing, just like Romney's religion is shoved down our throats.

You mean the hatchet job by Dinesh D'Souza, and admitted right wing ideologue who has spoken to Obama exactly 0 times in his life? Its the right wing's version of Michael Moore. Why should anyone take that seriously and not Fahrenheit 9/11 or any of the drivel Moore has put out?

D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:

_ D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.

_ D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.

_D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.

_D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.

_ D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.

No.

No.

No.

Next?

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are kidding, right?

Umm Obama has been very center-left. Of course the smart thing for Conservatives to say is that he's the most socialist left wing nut of all time, but this isn't the case if you look at what he's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do yourselves a favor and check out 2016: Obama's America.

The stuff on there is what the media SHOULD be showing, just like Romney's religion is shoved down our throats.

Romney's religion is being shoved down your throat? What do you mean?

30% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is delusional and quite frankly sad.

Who cares if Romney is Mormon. They seem to be moral people with good families for the most part. I mean when you look at the specifics of Mormonism it's insane (although all religions are kind of crazy when you look at the details and actually read the books).

I don't believe that in Romney's heart he thinks that he'll rule a planet with his family after he dies. I don't think he believes that god lives in our galaxy on the planet Kolob. Maybeeeeee he believes the Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel and the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

Edited by oofrostonoo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the complete video being out.....that is only partially correct. There is a gap in the video so we aren't seeing the whole thing. Link. So before you declare this as a stake in the heart, consider the integrity of the video.

As for the speaking points about Romney being a corporate raider and off shorer. LOLOLOLOL. Please gain some perspective. Off-shoring happens in lots of industries owned by PE or not. A board of directors is responsible to the corporation NOT the employees (wiki & wiki2). So to criticize Romney is to also criticize thousands of other Boards throughout the US and the world, many of whom are economic advisors to BO. I think even Factcheck debunked this whole line of argument, ghdi, so I'd look to other areas to hit romney on (there are plenty). Instead of propogating untruths understand that the US government sends billions to foreign corporations (not unique to Obama) so please try to understand its a global world and apply independent thought and criticism to party "lines".

In the end, the economy has gotten better in some areas (stock market) but worse or the same in others (employment, housing values, debt). Our standing in the world has NOT gotten better despite all the campaign promises and a wishful nobel prize with recent events just highlighting that fact (Trending negative with Russia, China and Israel, no improvement with the Arab world).

So Obama has been less than effective. Will Romney be better? I have many doubts about him as well. Both, frankly, suck. Both are mired in extreme language, half or full untruths, cave in to religion and i think lack ideas as to how to improve this country beyond an election cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the complete video being out.....that is only partially correct. There is a gap in the video so we aren't seeing the whole thing. Link. So before you declare this as a stake in the heart, consider the integrity of the video.

Do I think it's game over? No, I think it's been game over and people will look back on this moment and try to claim this was what did him in. Certainly I think everyone would agree it's going to hurt him in the final results.

As for authenticity, I've listened to the both parts, unless during that 1-2 minute interlude Romney said "Just kiidding! I don't mean anything I said for the previous 30 min and nothing I'm about to say for the next 10" there's nothing that would have mitigated what he said. He wasn't taken out of context, and it's not twisted to show one thing when he was trying to say another. The source is fine, all though I understand why conservatives are desperate to change to conversation to anything else (invalid source, Obama said this, Obama said that).

I'm willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt that when he said it wasn't his job to care about the 47%, that he was referring to their votes not their lives; but his accusations that the 47% are just looking for handouts stands.

More food for thought on the irony:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/09/nonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney's religion is being shoved down your throat? What do you mean?

30% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is delusional and quite frankly sad.

I agree with the first point. I have not seen at all where Romney being a Mormon is being used against him while there was a notion Obama was a practicing Muslim. He is not a church going Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor do I believe that 30% of Republicans now believe he is a practicing Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. That is delusional and quite frankly sad.

Not to belabor the point, but I know quite a few people who voted for Obama who felt the same thing. You could make the argument that it's technically true since his father was a Muslim, and, evidently, Muslim doctrine says that if you have a parent that's a Muslim, then you're one too. (People make a similar argument that Elvis was Jewish since his grandmother on his mother's side was and the religion is supposed to follow the mother). And frankly, I would rather Obama be a Muslim and not apologize to fanatics who get all worked up about a movie than him being an agnostic, like I am.

The idea of pointing to the whacky beliefs of certain voting blocs is really a distraction.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the first point. I have not seen at all where Romney being a Mormon is being used against him while there was a notion Obama was a practicing Muslim. He is not a church going Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor do I believe that 30% of Republicans now believe he is a practicing Muslim.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/2012-romney-mormonism-obamas-religion.aspx

30% of "Republicans"

34% of "Conservative Republicans"

edit: Not specifically "practicing"

Edited by oofrostonoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont give a crap about any of their religions. I certainly don't care if Obama practices or not. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon, as its been pointed out many Mormons are good people and the ones that I know personally fit that bill. Heck, one of my lifelong best friends is a Mormon who has always been a great friend who I'd go to battle for without question.

What I don't want is policy and religion intermingling. I don't even think religion should be a question of the candidates. IMO its a private matter, just as sexual orientation is.

You could make the argument that it's technically true since his father was a Muslim, and, evidently, Muslim doctrine says that if you have a parent that's a Muslim, then you're one too.

Oh c'mon. That's a flimsy argument at best. He's never practiced the religion. He attended a school in Indonesia as a young child (6-8) that was ran by Muslims and then attended Catholic school in the same country. I attended Catholic school and was baptised Catholic as a child, but I certainly dont practice it (I'm an athiest). The argument that the right try to make is that he's a practicing Muslim to this day and seem to believe that all Muslims are radical jihadists. "You could" make that argument, but it is extremely disingenuous.

I would rather Obama be a Muslim and not apologize to fanatics who get all worked up about a movie than him being an agnostic, like I am.

When did he apologize to any of them? What I saw in the aftermath of the Libya/Cairo protests/attacks was the embassy who live and work in those countries try to quell the wackjobs, which IMO makes perfect sense since they're surrounded by these people daily. The embassy statement was not from the White House and was an immediate kneejerk response which was not well thought out or it was another intelligence failure. I don't think it makes much sense to bluster when we're being attacked/protested in a foreign country, so the embassy statement did not bother me as the people that work in that embassy are "the frontline" of that mess. Meanwhile at home, Obama and Hillary both used very strong language towards the idiots who are protesting/Libya gov't/Egypt and the ones who took advantage of a situation and attacked the Benghazi consulate. They did not apologize except to condemn the video and tell people that we do not support said video.

I personally think people like Ron Paul are exactly right in this situation. If they don't want us there, get us the F out. When we were attacked in Beirut in the 80s and we lost all those marines, Reagan got us out of Lebanon. Let those people burn their fvcking countries down over stupid crap and lets stop giving aid.

043.jpeg

What I find as troubling as all of this BS in the Middle East right now (and its barely being paid attention to) are the anti-Japanese protests going on in China. War rhetoric is ramping up because of the South China Sea. If China decides to show some might, we're in serious trouble in that region. We will be drawn into the conflict espc if the Phillipines get involved since we have a defense treaty with them, not to mention how key the trading lanes in that body of water are to this country. IMO that's going to be the flashpoint to a world wide conflict, and less so the Middle East/Syria/Iran. The Iranians will not be the first to launch as they know they will get their asses kicked, but they will take the opportunity to damage Israel and create a widespread regional conflict. If it kicks up in the Middle East, it will be us and Israel that start it, or Turkey will because of the border issues they have with Syria. In the Pacific, it will be China.

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Would it change your point of view at all if he said he was going to take away all the stuff you want, but then says he cares about them?

Frankly, I'll take that over Obama castigating those rubes who don't know what's best for themselves because they cling to their guns even with the obligatory "I care about their welfare nevertheless".

I don't agree with Reaganomics, but I think he was much closer to Obama in terms of saying I care about people with whom I neither identify nor agree. Reagan either believed or tried to sell (I'm inclined to say the former) that trickle down economics benefited everyone. Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you. I would probably vote against both Reagan and Romney, but I find it easier to support and respect Reagan, agree with him or not, than I do Romney.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Reaganomics, but I think he was much closer to Obama in terms of saying I care about people with whom I neither identify nor agree. Reagan either believed or tried to sell (I'm inclined to say the former) that trickle down economics benefited everyone. Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you. I would probably vote against both Reagan and Romney, but I find it easier to support and respect Reagan, agree with him or not, than I do Romney.

Come on. "Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you."???

You are falling for the party propaganda. I guess its working. The difference is how to deal with entitlements. Do you make some one have work requirements or not? Do you have government sponsor your loans to go to college even though that may not benefit you?

Both parties support welfare/medicaid/etc. Its eligibility and whether the recipient has to do anything to qualify after a period of time are some major differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Reaganomics, but I think he was much closer to Obama in terms of saying I care about people with whom I neither identify nor agree. Reagan either believed or tried to sell (I'm inclined to say the former) that trickle down economics benefited everyone. Romney comes pretty close to saying if you're poor, fvck you. I would probably vote against both Reagan and Romney, but I find it easier to support and respect Reagan, agree with him or not, than I do Romney.

If that's your point of view, then it seems to me a lot of it comes down to whether someone seems like a nice guy. I mean what Romney is proposing is a lot less dramatic of a change from the status quo in favor of the "rich" than what Reagan ultimately accomplished. There are a lot of examples, but an easy one is to compare Reagan cuttting the top marginal tax rate from about 70 percent to around 30 percent if I recall correctly. The difference between what Romney and Obama are proposing differs maybe by 10 percent at most. And even for that you would have to assume that Obama really wants to stick his neck out on repealing the Bush tax cuts.

It appears that you're pretty liberal. Yet you prefer the more economically conservative guy (Reagan) over the more liberal guy (Romney) because the former appeared to "care" more about the little guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that you're pretty liberal. Yet you prefer the more economically conservative guy (Reagan) over the more liberal guy (Romney) because the former appeared to "care" more about the little guy.

Not speaking for Mouse, but I think this is a thing that happens for both parties whenever a President retains popularity over time. Both parties talk about how Reagan couldn't be a Republican now and Kennedy couldn't be a Democrat now, etc...both parties try to co-opt the other parties heroes as their own and use them to denigrate the current party members. In some cases they're probably correct in their criticisms and in some it's probably pure political BSing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont give a crap about any of their religions. I certainly don't care if Obama practices or not. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon, as its been pointed out many Mormons are good people and the ones that I know personally fit that bill. Heck, one of my lifelong best friends is a Mormon who has always been a great friend who I'd go to battle for without question.

What I don't want is policy and religion intermingling. I don't even think religion should be a question of the candidates. IMO its a private matter, just as sexual orientation is.

Oh c'mon. That's a flimsy argument at best. He's never practiced the religion. He attended a school in Indonesia as a young child (6-8) that was ran by Muslims and then attended Catholic school in the same country. I attended Catholic school and was baptised Catholic as a child, but I certainly dont practice it (I'm an athiest). The argument that the right try to make is that he's a practicing Muslim to this day and seem to believe that all Muslims are radical jihadists. "You could" make that argument, but it is extremely disingenuous.

When did he apologize to any of them? What I saw in the aftermath of the Libya/Cairo protests/attacks was the embassy who live and work in those countries try to quell the wackjobs, which IMO makes perfect sense since they're surrounded by these people daily. The embassy statement was not from the White House and was an immediate kneejerk response which was not well thought out or it was another intelligence failure. I don't think it makes much sense to bluster when we're being attacked/protested in a foreign country, so the embassy statement did not bother me as the people that work in that embassy are "the frontline" of that mess. Meanwhile at home, Obama and Hillary both used very strong language towards the idiots who are protesting/Libya gov't/Egypt and the ones who took advantage of a situation and attacked the Benghazi consulate. They did not apologize except to condemn the video and tell people that we do not support said video.

I personally think people like Ron Paul are exactly right in this situation. If they don't want us there, get us the F out. When we were attacked in Beirut in the 80s and we lost all those marines, Reagan got us out of Lebanon. Let those people burn their fvcking countries down over stupid crap and lets stop giving aid.

043.jpeg

What I find as troubling as all of this BS in the Middle East right now (and its barely being paid attention to) are the anti-Japanese protests going on in China. War rhetoric is ramping up because of the South China Sea. If China decides to show some might, we're in serious trouble in that region. We will be drawn into the conflict espc if the Phillipines get involved since we have a defense treaty with them, not to mention how key the trading lanes in that body of water are to this country. IMO that's going to be the flashpoint to a world wide conflict, and less so the Middle East/Syria/Iran. The Iranians will not be the first to launch as they know they will get their asses kicked, but they will take the opportunity to damage Israel and create a widespread regional conflict. If it kicks up in the Middle East, it will be us and Israel that start it, or Turkey will because of the border issues they have with Syria. In the Pacific, it will be China.

I guess you're missing the point. I didn't care to get into a debate about whether he's a Muslim or whether he's handled this or that crisis effectively. The whole point is that the whole line of argument that look at what the crazy people who don't like Obama believe is really a distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a conservative and I did not like Romney's 47% comments. He's such a mediocre politician. I don't care who the audience is, Romney should always be about persuading people to vote for him, or at least against the mainstream media's Chosen One. Writing off a huge chunk of the population as hopelessly devoted to Obama is a loser move.

It's not even a right argument. Among the 47% who pay no income taxes is a swath of Republican voters (such as retired people). Make the argument about how the explosive growth of the welfare state has weakened the U.S. morally and financially. Don't diss voters, win the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squishy, you are clearly forgetting the Fox News leads in CABLE news, their rating have yet to touch the "Big 3" who are clearly controlled by and advocate for the left, as they have done for decades.

LOL. The liberal media myth is starting to play like the boy who cried wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. The liberal media myth is starting to play like the boy who cried wolf.

The liberal maintstream press is virtually incontrovertable. Something like 80 percent of producers (the people that actually write network news) that work for the major networks regularly vote democrat. The figure for major newspapers, is even higher, the WSJ being one of the few exceptions. (Can anyone say with a straight face that the New York Times is not a left-wing publication?)

Jimmy's right, Fox News is tiny in comparison. That's why I find it humorous to watch a liberal's head explode when the very name is mentioned.

That said, this doesn't really bother me all the much. While I'd prefer television and print media be more open about their biases, it's not too difficult to snuff out. (No liberal believes Fox News is "fair and balanced" and no conservative believes the New York Times contains "all the news that's fit to print").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberal maintstream press is virtually incontrovertable. Something like 80 percent of producers (the people that actually write network news) that work for the major networks regularly vote democrat. The figure for major newspapers, is even higher, the WSJ being one of the few exceptions. (Can anyone say with a straight face that the New York Times is not a left-wing publication?)

Jimmy's right, Fox News is tiny in comparison. That's why I find it humorous to watch a liberal's head explode when the very name is mentioned.

That said, this doesn't really bother me all the much. While I'd prefer television and print media be more open about their biases, it's not too difficult to snuff out. (No liberal believes Fox News is "fair and balanced" and no conservative believes the New York Times contains "all the news that's fit to print").

Incontrovertable? It's a fallacy. There is no evidence that the media has a bias. This myth was invented back in the 80's when a republican congressmen witnessed how his son's coach played a ref at a high school basketball game. Complaining, and complaning until he started getting more favorable calls from the ref.

Now, it's used as a red herring, distraction and also a thought control device where you basically train people NOT too look for information. The New York Times as a left wing publication is a great example.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberal maintstream press is virtually incontrovertable. Something like 80 percent of producers (the people that actually write network news) that work for the major networks regularly vote democrat. The figure for major newspapers, is even higher, the WSJ being one of the few exceptions. (Can anyone say with a straight face that the New York Times is not a left-wing publication?)

Jimmy's right, Fox News is tiny in comparison. That's why I find it humorous to watch a liberal's head explode when the very name is mentioned.

That said, this doesn't really bother me all the much. While I'd prefer television and print media be more open about their biases, it's not too difficult to snuff out. (No liberal believes Fox News is "fair and balanced" and no conservative believes the New York Times contains "all the news that's fit to print").

I don't know why we are going down this road but food for though:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Also there exists no meaningful comparison between Cable and Network news in terms of viewership because Network news is on what, 2, 3 times a day at the most for an hour long? Cable News run 24/7 so their viewer share is diluted over the course of a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0