| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:26 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
I'll try to find the full thing -- if available -- but in the meantime, here's the story of it on ABC
Do we have any committed Mitt voters on the GL? It'd be interesting to hear their take on it.
Thoughts:
-It will be interesting to hear the bootstraps aspect of Romney's campaign (to the 47%) come into play if it manifests itself before the general election.
-Some political frankness about the chances of the Republican party lassoing more voters, may be misconstrued in a negative tone. Which doesn't seem fair.
-It is hilarious how he points to his lack of a Latino background as a reason for why he is not getting Latino support. I think it can be very easily taken as a racist comment. (Not sure if that was his intention)
Romney was also confronted about the tape in a recent press conference where he reportedly flat out ignored the reporter. I'll see if I can get this here as well.
_________________
Potato. Belgium. Eight. Random Lynch # Mafia awaits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:26 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
| The Great Crep'er wrote: |
| Do we have any committed Mitt voters on the GL? |
There are committed Mitt voters?
(I believe in the existence of committed not-Obama voters and committed Republican presidential candidate voters, but those are different things.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:33 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
Who I vote for is my private business, but I will say this.
I'm not impressed with either candidate. Obama doesn't seem to have his priorities straight, and Romney has flip-flopped for the sake of votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:20 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
| raekuul wrote: |
Who I vote for is my private business, but I will say this.
I'm not impressed with either candidate. Obama doesn't seem to have his priorities straight, and Romney has flip-flopped for the sake of votes. |
So you're holding your nose and voting for Romney. Good to know.
(I don't actually know who you are voting for, but if you really want your vote to be private, it may not be the best idea to reveal other information that suggests what your vote will be.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:43 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
Ron Paul 2012
Real Change is here
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| raekuul wrote: |
I'm not impressed with either candidate. Obama doesn't seem to have his priorities straight, and Romney has flip-flopped for the sake of votes. |
I don't think either candidate has their priorities straight. As far as flip-flopping for the sake of votes, what about Obama's election year strategy of coming out in favor of gay marriage and letting children of illegal aliens have special privileges? It might not be flip-flopping, but it certainly is pandering to gays and latinos.
As for the tape of Romney's off the cuff remarks, I've not heard anyone disagree with what he said. They've just said it could hurt him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
| what about Obama's election year strategy of coming out in favor of gay marriage and letting children of illegal aliens have special privileges? It might not be flip-flopping, but it certainly is pandering to gays and latinos. |
Or just doing what is right, because it is.
In any case, it certainly isn't flip-flopping. He has supported the gay agenda since before the first election, including while he was a senator. The gay issue last election was repealing "Don't ask, don't tell" and insisting that being openly gay was not a ban for being in the military. He delivered on that promise.
If you want to talk pandering, talk about tax cuts for the rich. Nobody with a brain in their head really thinks that will boost the economy, they just think it's a way to get lots of cash with which to get elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:18 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
| As for the tape of Romney's off the cuff remarks, I've not heard anyone disagree with what he said. They've just said it could hurt him. |
That could be because people are learning that spending your time "rebutting" a comment is a complete waste of it because those who believe it will continue to believe it, and those who don't will continue not to. Context is everything - comments made at a fundraiser to people who already subscribe to your views can't really be taken as anything other than partisan opinions designed to elicit mass hysterical responses (the recent Party Convention season ought to have illustrated that pretty well...)
I would guess that at least one half of the statistic behind what he says (that ~45% will vote for the President) is probably true, because as far as I can see, the US has been split 45/45 for at least a generation if not more. The only people who matter any more are the <10% in the middle who are the ones who flip-flop far more than the politicians do! And the broken US electoral system (it's perhaps more broken than ours in the UK but not by much) exaggerates this problem to a massive degree.
The other half of that statistic - the alleged 45% who exist on government handouts or pay no income tax - may also be true but I'm not sure it's very helpful without knowing an awful lot more about where the number came from, and that doesn't appear to be in the speech.
I am pretty sure that there is little or no correlation between the two numbers however; it's just one of those statistical coincidences that turn up when you look at lots of overgeneralised numbers and need something to keep the short attention span of your audience focussed for long enough to give you money.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:32 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Quailman wrote: |
| what about Obama's election year strategy of coming out in favor of gay marriage and letting children of illegal aliens have special privileges? It might not be flip-flopping, but it certainly is pandering to gays and latinos. |
Or just doing what is right, because it is. |
I think Quail was insinuating that Obama is doing it now because of election year when he probably could have done it all along. I'm just interpreting. These are not my own opinions on the matter.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Quailman wrote: |
| As for the tape of Romney's off the cuff remarks, I've not heard anyone disagree with what he said. They've just said it could hurt him. |
That could be because people are learning that spending your time "rebutting" a comment is a complete waste of it because those who believe it will continue to believe it, and those who don't will continue not to. |
So then we shouldn't hear anyone disagreeing with anything either candidate says. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:08 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| So then we shouldn't hear anyone disagreeing with anything either candidate says. |
In our dreams. 
I take your point. But as I said, I'm not sure that there is any real reason to spend time dissecting the niceties of this specific comment simply because it doesn't mean anything other than what has already been identified as the political misstep, that of expressing apparent disdain for people you need to persuade if you are going to be their President. And it was perfectly understandable for someone to express those views when addressing a crowd he probably considered shared them. The mistake - and it was a doozy - was to forget that no meetings (at least not on that scale) are "private" any more. It's hardly a unique mistake: I would be surprised if there has been a single serious politician or candidate in the last ten years who hasn't made it, bur it reflects badly on Romney.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| I would guess that at least one half of the statistic behind what he says (that ~45% will vote for the President) is probably true, because as far as I can see, the US has been split 45/45 for at least a generation if not more. |
The 45% don't pay taxes is true, but in a useless way. People tend to live to 80, and only work for half that time (from 25-65). (This isn't quite true, but there are other segments of the population who don't work as well: most women take some time off from work when they give birth, for example.)
People who don't work typically don't pay taxes. The young ones tend to vote Democrat, but that's because they are young, not because of tax issues. The current batch of older Americans tend to vote for Reagan's legacy on average. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:21 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| Not sure if I'm saying in different words what others have said, but I think the mistake comes down to this. A candidate might say that 47% of the people are wrong in some way for not supporting him ... wrong as in mistaken about what's best for the country, wrong from being misled by the opponent, etc. But Romney has basically said the problem with that entire 47% is that they're deadbeat freeloaders, which goes quite a bit deeper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lepton*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
| The 47% is dominated by the red states, oddly enough. If people actually treated this election as an economic referendum, Obama would win convincingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
Are you kidding? Since Obama took office, America has lost five hundred billion jobs*, and the debt has climbed by twelve gazilliondy dollars*!
*rough estimation.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
