RomneyRyan 2012!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I'd say so, considering you're under the impression that this topic has been Loki vs everyone else rather than (in the last 24 hours) Loki, Veldan, Dread and myself against you and Minx with an interjection or two by OG and Rand. It takes some real distortion to change 4:2 or 5:3 to 1:everyone.

---

Or maybe I didn't want to tar others who are taking their own approaches to the discussion with the tactics Loki was using and didn't feel writing out the names of everyone who had posted on the Obama side of the issue and, perhaps naively, assumed I was conversing with intelligent people who would realize that and focus on what I was trying to say rather than the frigging names I put in for the people in the script thingy?

Quote:

---

Incidentally, since when has the number of people on each side determined the accuracy of an argument?

---

Since you brought it up, I guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I do believe there is a sizable group of folks who don't take personal responsibility and expect the government to take care of them. They believe they are victims and actually prefer to be considered victims as opposed to failures.

---

Beliefs are not facts, and your ignorance should not be considered equal to another's knowledge.

I don't think there's any doubt that there are some people who fit Lewkowski's description, though nobody has any way of knowing how sizable they are as a group.

I find it bizarre when people claim they 'know' that such and such a proportion of people below the poverty line are there because it's their fault or are there because it's not their fault. To my knowledge, no empirical data has ever been collected on that and I don't know how you'd even start.

I don't even think the two are mutually exclusive. Like, yes, you were born to a dysfunctional family in a crappy neighbourhood with a poisonous anti-success culture and sent to a dysfunctional school, and the area you lived in was an economic wasteland. If you'd been born somewhere better, you'd probably be doing ok about now. But equally, there were ways you could have improved your situation. You would have to worker harder than the average person to get where they are, but you could have done it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I don't think there's any doubt that there are some people who fit Lewkowski's description, though nobody has any way of knowing how sizable they are as a group.

---

I agree, as I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that there are people all over the spectum who are milking the system, but this is lewk. The same lewk who considered 16 million US citizens as "almost no one"; there is no telling what the hell "a sizable group" means to someone who has such a hard time quantifying these things.

Where was the outrage of labeling rural America (the parts that dared not to vote for Obama anyway) racist, extremist, bitter, Christian fundamentalists? Oh right, you agree with that view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Are there differences? Of course, there are differences. There are always differences. The question is does it matter? Are the differences important and should we care about them? My answer to both of those is "no," and I think that the comparison of the two pieces and a person's reaction to them is actually a good exercise for displaying a person's prejudices/partisan glasses.

---

Their strategical differences matter for what they represent. Obama was talking to supporters who were going out there to get votes, even in areas 'traditionally' seen as (R) strongholds, or single-issue voters (Guns, Religion). Romney told his supporters he'd basically written off almost half the population (as non-tax-payers), and didn't care about their vote anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

They are similar and have obvious surface parallels. Neither is really all that important. Anyone wasting the time to try and pick them apart, compare them at a deeper level and declare that one is more or less wrong than the other is grinding an axe. What I'm hearing is a lot of rationalizing and cognitive dissonance. Accept that your mind is playing a trick on you and let it go.

---

But some of us like following politics, campaign strategies, stump speeches, what candidates and surrogates say, and how the press and social media take it all in and churn it out, the spin and propaganda....plus individual interpretations. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Let's break this down here.
Four years apart, Obama and Romney were secretly recorded at fundraisers making remarks that disparaged people who aren't likely to vote for them.
I can fully admit a certain sympathy for Romney's view. But I'm completely able to step back and acknowledge that Romney's statement remains little more than a stupid and dismissive take on people who don't support him. Much as I can point out that Obama's statement was also dismissive and highly divisive.

---

Obama's strategy was assuring guns/god voters he wasn't going to take away their guns, or turn the US into an atheist (or Muslim) nation: inclusion.
Romney's strategy was appealing to high-income voters with tax cuts, disparaging part of that 47% that would/might vote for him (seniors, military): exclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Goes back to my previous point about most of the Republican-supporters here supporting the GOP because it's the lesser of two evils, while most of the Democrat-supporters believe the DNC is the paragon of virtue, led by the holy prophet Obama. I might be more sympathetic with the latter if they were legitimate left-wingers who happened to believe that the Democrats are more likely to implement their agenda; in reality, they consistently repeat the talking points of the DNC, even when they bear no relation to economic ideology.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Is it even possible to have a rational conservation about politics with you guys?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Your rosy-eyed shtick is to assume that people you disagree with are some combination of racist, stupid, uneducated, extremist, and psychopaths?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Again, the claim Obama was making was that the reason those people "needed to be persuaded" (i.e. why they weren't already supporting him) was because they were racist, extremist, religious fundamentalists. He might have gone on to claim that it's not entirely their fault that they're racist, extremist, fundamentalists, but Romney makes the same claim about the people not paying taxes. And I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to be called lazy than to be called racist, extremist, and fundamentalist.

More broadly, it's pretty obvious that both candidates were playing up to their base by exaggerating the negative attributes of their opponents. Both probably believe what they said to some extent, but I doubt they believe the entirety of their statements. Both played up the stereotypes of their opponents to get more money from their supporters. The fact that you're refusing to see this and make one failed attempt after another to justify Obama's statement is telling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Where was the outrage of labeling rural America (the parts that dared not to vote for Obama anyway) racist, extremist, bitter, Christian fundamentalists? Oh right, you agree with that view.

---

We need a nasty hissing emoticon, just for you. :donkey:

I don't see anything in Romney's faux-pas that I've not been saying for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't see anything in Romney's faux-pas that I've not been saying for years.

---

depressing, but not surprising considering its you; we have after all had several threads distracted by your lack of care or understanding for your fellow man. Thankfully you're not the one running for POTUS, not that I want to suggest your views would get that far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

depressing, but not surprising considering its you; we have after all had several threads distracted by your lack of care or understanding for your fellow man. Thankfully you're not the one running for POTUS, not that I want to suggest your views would get that far.

---

I do have compassion, just a different version of compassion to you. I don't think trapping people in poverty by making work not pay and making welfare all half the population can aspire to and be stuck on is compassionate.

It can hardly be surprising that you support one Presidential candidate and I another then, we're not the same. Having your opponents candidate mirror my views more than yours doesn't mean he's an idiot or any other insult.

Shame on you, Rand. Everyone knows that the only reason to oppose Obama is because you hate blacks, immigrants, women, or gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't think trapping people in poverty by making work not pay and making welfare all half the population can aspire to and be stuck on is compassionate.

---

:bulb: Even Romney wasn't ignorant enough to make a claim anywhere near resembling this.

Romney's not economically right wing enough but the lesser evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Romney's not economically right wing enough

---

:cyduck:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Beliefs are not facts, and your ignorance should not be considered equal to another's knowledge.

---

So how many of the permanent poor do you think could have been middle class if they had made better choices? Just give me your gut random percentage. I'm not going to compare it to facts or stats, I'm just curious as to what is shaping your world view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/us...tic-skill.html

Interesting piece on Obama's diplomatic skills (or lack thereof).

So, are you a racist, extremist, or religious nut?

Do we only have to pick one? :(

In America, I'd be all three, and I'm not a Romney supporter :cyduck:

In America, Romney supports YOU!

God I love this thread. I want to marry it and have it's babies.

So, anyway, now that we're all agreed that Mitt Romney is the biggest moocher of his generation and that what he said was definitely much worse than that thing Obama said, how do we think that his recent remarks will affect the election on a tactical level?

In the two national polls conducted since the remark, Romney is down 1 and 3 percent, respectively. The last time each of those polls were conducted (about 2 weeks ago), he was down 5 and 7 percent. The latter was at least partially a function of the bounce from the Democratic convention. On balance, it didn't seem to do very much.

For those who think it's a close race, the national numbers don't tell the whole picture. Most of the swing states (of which Romney has to win nearly all) tilt toward the DNC. For Romney to win those states, he has to be polling at least 2% over Obama nationally.

Debates and the media circus surrounding the debates will be the next waypoint.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...3-06-17-11.gif
6.9% of working age Americans pay no federal taxes whatsoever.

we now have Romney's official flipflop on how he views the 47%

"People at the top are doing fine. They'll probably do fine whether Barack Obama were reelected or not. It's the people in the middle and at the bottom that are struggling in the Obama economy. That's why I'm running, is to help them,"

Auditioning for the Obama campaign?

Not sure how that is a flip flop.

He wants to help them, but knows he may not get their vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Not sure how that is a flip flop.

He wants to help them, but knows he may not get their vote?

---

But it would be a flip-flop according to Steely's interpretation/narrative of Romney's initial comment in which it is far more hostile than in yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...3-06-17-11.gif
6.9% of working age Americans pay no federal taxes whatsoever.

---

Payroll tax != Federal Income Tax. All of those dollars go to specific programs. Furthermore SS benefits depend on SS contributions making it more like a forced insurance or retirement program.

For everything beyond SS and Medicare/Medicaid those who pay no federal income tax really don't care if the government cuts taxes. Why should they? They don't pay them! (Well there are a lot of reasons they should care but on short term pocket book issues cutting taxes doesn't impact them and more government spending is more likely to help them then people who actually pay income taxes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

In the two national polls conducted since the remark, Romney is down 1 and 3 percent, respectively. The last time each of those polls were conducted (about 2 weeks ago), he was down 5 and 7 percent. The latter was at least partially a function of the bounce from the Democratic convention. On balance, it didn't seem to do very much.

For those who think it's a close race, the national numbers don't tell the whole picture. Most of the swing states (of which Romney has to win nearly all) tilt toward the DNC. For Romney to win those states, he has to be polling at least 2% over Obama nationally.

---

Well on the right wing side folks are saying polls are skewed because they are using 2008 as a model for the expected turnout. I don't know if its true and I don't really care either way - the only poll that counts is the one on election day.