Not good for Romney

brianlux

"lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and [Romeny] indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. "

Lump me into that definition and I'll laugh my ass off. Really, Mitt? This is just pathetic. And stupid. And fucked up. Jerk.

peacefrompaul

Mittens, my boy, what have you done now?

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

"lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and [Romeny] indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. "

Lump me into that definition and I'll laugh my ass off. Really, Mitt? This is just pathetic. And stupid. And fucked up. Jerk.

HUGE generalizations there, for sure, on Mitt's part, Brian. I can see how one would be offended.

dignin

Cliffy6745 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1347973727-mNNicmzUVKF4joqSXqvlig

Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.

I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.

Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.

cincybearcat

This has me wondering about all campaigns. It would be interesting to hear what is said behind closed doors.

Do you think the Obama campaign has openly talked about the % of people they believe won't vote for Obama due to race and to write them off? I bet so.

Really, while I honestly don't see the big deal, it certainly won't help his campaign since the majority love soundbites and vote based off of them alone. His campaign is a disaster, just as McCain's was. The repub. really have to gain back their political savvy if they want to win any big elections in the future.

Although I will say, it would be pretty sweet of we got rid of all political savvy and instead of spin running elections we actually focused on the issues and what people really mean to say rather than what a soundbite makes them sound like they are saying.

Mitt was done before this though, so I don't think it really matters.

cincybearcat

dignin wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1347973727-mNNicmzUVKF4joqSXqvlig

Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.

I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.

Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.

It won't be a tight election night.

hedonist

PJ_Soul wrote:

If that is really his attitude towards half the population, he is a very dangerous man to have as President.... it makes him look kind of evil and sick too, which doesn't help. :?

Still got a shitload left to read here, but...evil and sick? I appreciated his honesty, and his standing by his comments.

(and you, my dear, are typically more level-headed than that!)

Anyway, I recall Obama (on more than one occasion) writing off half the population as well - as in, those who disagree with him.

I don't want divisiveness on either side. It's not needed. It does no good.

Tell me what YOU are going to do. If you've got a solid plan, there's no need to bash someone else in the process.

(I am SO looking forward to the time between now and early November!)

dignin

cincybearcat wrote:

dignin wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1347973727-mNNicmzUVKF4joqSXqvlig

Thanks for this, I don't think very many on here have read this. They should.

I also think some here fail to recognize how much this might hurt Romney.....I doubt its going to change very many voters minds, but it might just energize some of the Dems to get out and vote that were going to stay home, and cause some Repubs to stay home. In an election this tight, that might be enough.

Right or not that was poor wording by a politician.

It won't be a tight election night.

Maybe, but the American electorate has surprised me more than once. Nothing is certain.

Cliffy6745

Another good take from another TRUE conservative

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rticles%29

polaris_x

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Another good take from another TRUE conservative

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rticles%29

hey ... this guy must be obtuse and stupid ... i mean it's pretty clear mitt's words were taken out of context!

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

I guess that leaves 53% who aren't on government aid, being overly taxed to
pay for others, with a 16 trillion dollar deficit to show. :wtf:

I can't believe we have become a country of handouts. This is what failure looks like.

53% - 47% ... hmmm ...
will it even make a difference?

Err... this is just not correct, please don't believe it.

josevolution

I agree with what he said about the people who have allready made up their minds me being one of the one's that was not ever gonna vote for him , but just the desdain he holds for people who are not like him is pathetic hi's true colors did come out ....What a fool he doesn't know how to run a campaign at all ....

PJ_Soul

hedonist wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

If that is really his attitude towards half the population, he is a very dangerous man to have as President.... it makes him look kind of evil and sick too, which doesn't help. :?

Still got a shitload left to read here, but...evil and sick? I appreciated his honesty, and his standing by his comments.

(and you, my dear, are typically more level-headed than that!)

Anyway, I recall Obama (on more than one occasion) writing off half the population as well - as in, those who disagree with him.

I don't want divisiveness on either side. It's not needed. It does no good.

Tell me what YOU are going to do. If you've got a solid plan, there's no need to bash someone else in the process.
(I am SO looking forward to the time between now and early November!)

I'm feeling pretty level headed, but yeah, honestly, I really do find Romney's statements very, very disturbing, and the more I think about it, the more I suspect that he's actually a pretty rotten human being. It's not just about how he thinks of these things in the context of his campaign. It's how he clearly personally feels about the less fortunate and those who are struggling. The disdain he feels, and how dismissive he is as someone who is running for the POTUS, I think his comments said a LOT more about what kind of human being he is than what kind of politician he is.

pandora

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... true_.html
means tested... I see

Mitt Romney told a group of campaign contributors in May that 47 percent of Americans pay no income taxes and “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it” from the government. Romney is basically correct on the tax claim. But what about his government-assistance estimate: Do 47 percent of Americans really receive direct government aid?
Sort of, but they’re probably not the people he had in mind. About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Washington University, based on data from 2010. Not all of those people, however, are dependent on those benefits, as Romney implied. A significant proportion of government assistance comes in the form of Social Security and Medicare, for which eligibility is based on age rather than need. Considering only “means-tested” programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance, around 35 percent of Americans live in households that benefit from government assistance.
Romney complained about health care, food aid, and housing assistance, in that order—and that’s precisely how the programs line up in terms of total beneficiaries. If you receive only one form of means-tested government assistance, it’s probably Medicaid. In 2010, 26 percent of Americans lived in households that received heath care benefits through the program. The 2010 Affordable Care Act sought to increase that number significantly, planning to add 16 million people to the Medicaid rolls by 2019. The new law would have pushed the percentage of U.S. households receiving means-tested government assistance toward 40 percent. The Supreme Court, however, struck down that portion of the law, making it voluntary, and states are now deciding whether to participate.


The next largest means-tested government aid program is food stamps. Fifteen percent of the U.S. population, or more than 46 million, receive help through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Around half that number participate in the Women, Infants, and Children program, which also provides food aid. (Some households receive assistance from both programs.)
Compared with Medicaid and food stamps, housing assistance is pretty rare. As of 2010, just 4 percent of Americans received rental assistance or lived in government-subsidized housing.
Health care assistance is far more common than food or housing aid because Medicaid isn’t really a poverty-relief program. A child in New York state, for example, may be eligible for government-funded health care if his family’s household income is less than four times the federal poverty level, or $92,200 for a family of four. Many other states offer Medicaid to adults and children at double or triple the poverty level. In North Dakota, the most restrictive Medicaid state, the income limit for child health insurance is 1.6 times the federal poverty level. By contrast, you can’t receive food stamps if your net income exceeds the federal poverty level. As for housing, New York, one of the more generous states, limits its Section 8 housing aid to families of four earning less than $38,400, less than half the maximum income for the state’s children’s health insurance.



interesting

Johnny Abruzzo

Wow, this really blew up.

Few things:

-This Republican idea of "47%" is very insulting to those who worked their whole lives paying into SS & Medicare and are now receiving the benefits they paid for.

-I agree there are way too many "moochers," although it is nowhere near 47%.

-Many of these moochers are going to vote for Romney and vote for Republicans in every election, just so those dang Democrats don't take away their guns and ban churches.

-I am not a moocher. I'm part of the "53%" and I am voting for Obama.

-Or am I being obtuse?

mikepegg44

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., explained last night how unemployment could actually encourage people to vote for President Obama in order to secure welfare benefits such as food stamps.

"Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they're not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits -- cut access to food stamps, cut job training," Fattah, Senior Member of the House Appropriations Committee, told MSNBC's Al Sharpton last night.



I don't think anyone here would accuse me of being a Romney defender, I think he is a dipshit. However it is
interesting how 'who' says it in what way makes a big difference.

Isn't this essentially the same claim. that people who are on entitlements will vote for Obama? now he didn't make a silly claim of percentages, but 47% or not...isn't this the same?

I don't know. Romney looks and behaves like a man who doesn't want to win

Godfather.

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Wow, this really blew up.

Few things:

-This Republican idea of "47%" is very insulting to those who worked their whole lives paying into SS & Medicare and are now receiving the benefits they paid for.

-I agree there are way too many "moochers," although it is nowhere near 47%.

-Many of these moochers are going to vote for Romney and vote for Republicans in every election, just so those dang Democrats don't take away their guns and ban churches.

-I am not a moocher. I'm part of the "53%" and I am voting for Obama.

-Or am I being obtuse?

where I work and other unions I have been in always vote D for everything no matter what the deal is and I guess there are R's that do the same thing, I have never voted for a party (unless it was a kegger and a live band) I always voted for whom I thought do the best job and who I felt comfortable voting for and never matered if it was an independent- republican- democrat- female or a womanizing sax player,the way I see it if you vote to support a party your not seeing the big picture..unless that party has a live band and a kegrer

Godfather.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., explained last night how unemployment could actually encourage people to vote for President Obama in order to secure welfare benefits such as food stamps.

"Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they're not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits -- cut access to food stamps, cut job training," Fattah, Senior Member of the House Appropriations Committee, told MSNBC's Al Sharpton last night.



I don't think anyone here would accuse me of being a Romney defender, I think he is a dipshit. However it is
interesting how 'who' says it in what way makes a big difference.

Isn't this essentially the same claim. that people who are on entitlements will vote for Obama? now he didn't make a silly claim of percentages, but 47% or not...isn't this the same?

I don't know. Romney looks and behaves like a man who doesn't want to win

no ... it's not the same ...

having to be on unemployment or requiring assistance is not the same as being victims or feeling entitled or being dependent on gov't ...

having said that - saying stupid things is not something romney has a monopoly on ... i am pretty sure that obama and other democrats will stick their foot in their mouths ...

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

having said that - saying stupid things is not something romney has a monopoly on ... i am pretty sure that obama and other democrats will stick their foot in their mouths ...

Biden said something like "no comment - I'll let his words speak for themselves." Just keep it that way Joe.

polaris_x

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Biden said something like "no comment - I'll let his words speak for themselves." Just keep it that way Joe.

ya ... stay on script joe ...