Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

As opposed to conventianl war which DOESN'T kill innocent people?

What does a conventional war have to do with the drone attacks? I don't believe anyone is calling for an invasion of Pakistan.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

What does a conventional war have to do with the drone attacks? I don't believe anyone is calling for an invasion of Pakistan.

You stated that you were against drone attacks because they kill innocent people and I countered with a statement that any style of warfare innocent people are killed. Not too complicated a point to grasp there Point. So I guess you don't care about putting our soldiers lives in danger rather then simply use drones. Both cases innocents are going to be killed. However in your world of discrediting EVERYTHING about Obama I can see how you made the point. He should be lauded for using drone attacks as it saves American lives which you seem to have no interest in doing since you are against drone attacks. Why would you take this position just to discredit Obama?

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

You stated that you were against drone attacks because they kill innocent people and I countered with a statement that any style of warfare innocent people are killed. Not too complicated a point to grasp there Point. So I guess you don't care about putting our soldiers lives in danger rather then simply use drones. Both cases innocents are going to be killed. However in your world of discrediting EVERYTHING about Obama I can see how you made the point. He should be lauded for using drone attacks as it saves American lives which you seem to have no interest in doing since you are against drone attacks. Why would you take this position just to discredit Obama?

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

"Conservatives who hate Obama constantly threaten to leave the country if Obama is re-elected. Unfortunately, they cannot find another rich first-world country that doesn't have both a higher income tax rate and mandatory government-sponsored health care for everyone"

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

By the way you never stated where the base would have for your special elite unit going into a country that was the strictest theocracy in the world.

Little hint for you, other people should declare a winner in a debate, you crowning yourself just shows you ran out of intelligent things to say.

[Thepaindispenser]

Gallup has them tied at 47% (very appropriate number), so it obvious that the video has had zero effect on the election.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Gallup has them tied at 47% (very appropriate number), so it obvious that the video has had zero effect on the election.

From Gallup Polls today:

Voters' Reaction to Romney's "47%" Comments Tilts Negative Independent voters, by 29% to 15%, also more negative than positive
September 19, 2012

ELECTION 2012 TRACKING
Sep 16-22, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama 48% +1
Romney 46% -1

Polls change, of course: next big "event" will be first debate

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

WTF asinine question...

[hi_im_god]

i stole the title from a new yorker story but it was too good to pass up.

it turns out that mitt didn't misspeak when he talked about the 47%. he really does believe it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1719033.story

and from the new yorker article in response:

Conservatives have constructed a myth that says certain groups—blacks, Hispanics, women, young people—vote Democratic because they’re stupid, because they’re lazy, and because they can be purchased with trinkets and baubles. It’d be one thing if they kept that myth a secret, but instead they shout it from the rooftops. Then, when it’s over, they wonder why those people voted Democratic again.

Romney was never the worst offender on this score; he never delighted in it, as people like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh do. But he certainly participated. Indeed, part of his problem throughout this campaign, and the one before it, is that he’s never been good at disguising his lack of respect for the American electorate. His changing positions, his evasions about them, his misrepresentations—they all, ultimately, came off as a challenge: I think you’re too stupid not to fall for this. And there are very few people who appreciate being told they’re dumb, or the person who said it.

There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/romney-blames-obama-gifts-for-loss.html#ixzz2CJyqeRmE

[bigrun]

But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

much like when romney failed to pay attention to what the polls were all saying:

Analysts who have studied the vote, for example, have given credit to Obama's massive get-out-the-vote effort, which dwarfed its Republican counterpart.

Polls and interviews also suggested that, in part, those voters were driven to Obama by the Republican's conservative positions on issues like immigration, abortion and the role of government.

that's from the la times article...i just don't get why romney can't actually take a good, hard, long look at the facts. why does he have to find excuses and play games about gifts, and why people didn't vote for him? i know why i didn't vote for him, and it had nothing to do with freebies.


edit-just finished the new yorker article, like the end:


There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz2CKwqAXnM

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by bigrun

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

These stats are incorrect- or at the least, misleading. The percentages above are for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which was a specific program. It mostly aided single women with kids. Total welfare programs by race is about 61 percent white and 33 percent black.

And if you're talking Social Security, it's 88 percent white and just under 10 percent black.

In the interest of full disclosure, it's worth noting that the stats are from 1990, which is the most recent year available, and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program doesn't actually exist anymore, having been replaced in 1996 with TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i stole the title from a new yorker story but it was too good to pass up.

it turns out that mitt didn't misspeak when he talked about the 47%. he really does believe it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1719033.story

and from the new yorker article in response:

Conservatives have constructed a myth that says certain groups—blacks, Hispanics, women, young people—vote Democratic because they’re stupid, because they’re lazy, and because they can be purchased with trinkets and baubles. It’d be one thing if they kept that myth a secret, but instead they shout it from the rooftops. Then, when it’s over, they wonder why those people voted Democratic again.

Romney was never the worst offender on this score; he never delighted in it, as people like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh do. But he certainly participated. Indeed, part of his problem throughout this campaign, and the one before it, is that he’s never been good at disguising his lack of respect for the American electorate. His changing positions, his evasions about them, his misrepresentations—they all, ultimately, came off as a challenge: I think you’re too stupid not to fall for this. And there are very few people who appreciate being told they’re dumb, or the person who said it.

There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/romney-blames-obama-gifts-for-loss.html#ixzz2CJyqeRmE

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

rupert-

i don't doubt that people will often (not always) vote their pocketbook. however, the example of 8 of the 10 wealthies counties in the nation voting for a candidate that made increasing their taxes a part of his platform would be a counter example to your point.

i think anyone that focuses on a single issue (whether it's republicans on "free stuff" or democrats on "racism") as the motivating factor for their opponents voters has just used the filter of their own pre-existing beliefs to color reality. and they aren't going to learn anything from the loss.

the difference is i don't see any serious discussions in democratic circles about how romney was only close because of all the racist white votes he got. while the equally ridiculous "we only lost because the nation is now all freeloaders" proposition is getting serious traction.

i'm perfectly okay if republican's want to believe that is what just happened. the same way i'm happy to let a poker opponent think he's just unlucky when he keeps losing money missing draws to an inside straight. it's their money. it's your electorate.

democrats ran candidates that were out of touch with the electorate and appealed primarily to their leftist base and lost 5 of 6 presidential elections from 1968-1988. they kept telling themselves that they were smarter than the voters who voted against them and so kept running the same campaigns. the voters would figure it out.

bill clinton changed the dynamics by running and governing as a moderate. it's now the republicans that have lost 5 of 6 popular votes (including bush's 2000 electoral college victory) while appealing to their most right wing base.

if republican's want to continue this as a serious discussion, i guess i won't complain. but if they actually want to win the presidency again they better figure out how they're going to get their message out in a way that doesn't write off the fastest growing part of the electorate as too stupid to vote for them.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

i am so glad it came out in public, which isn't what he intended.

as for how people vote, i look at the whole picture, or try to. of course that's not how everyone does it. but to assert that romney lost because of 'freebies' is both ignoring romney's stance on issues, and is an over-simplification. when you look at the demographics of the vote, you'll see that obama got support from pretty much every category of voter. romney did not.