[lalldonn]

Ok, fair enough, I was basing it on the order he stated thing. Weird since I suspect a higher percentage of "them" will vote for Romney than Obama. Isn't it known that red states generally take in more in federal government assistance than they pay out, relative to blue states?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-September-18, 15:21, said:

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean

The statement is provably false

If you break down the 47% who don't pay income taxes, roughly a quarter of the individuals are elderly social security recipients who are part of Romney's base.

The remaining 75% have a very high turnover year over year. The individuals who aren't paying income taxes this year (generally) aren't the same individuals who didn't pay income tax the year before. Given that partisan voting patterns are fairly well locked in, year to year...

[kenberg]

Imo, trying to make any sense out of Romney's statements in that video is pointless. He was addressing a group whose proclivities were known to him, he said what he thought would sound good to them. It's a mistake to regard what he says as somehow connected to what he thinks. I am sure he knows that people are perfectly capable of taking massive government assistance while railing against the evils of big government. Hell, corporation bigwigs do it all the time.

[dwar0123]

kenberg, on 2012-September-18, 16:50, said:

It's a mistake to regard what he says as somehow connected to what he thinks.

The truth of this is pretty damning in its own right. With such an outlook, what value can we place on anything he says, ever.

If the man hasn't the balls to speak his truth to his own people and glibly descends into the most horrid clichés that matches the puerile views of his audience, what ever audience that may be. Then how can he be President, how can he be anything other then a mockery of a man.

I know I am coming off harsh, but this is a question of integrity, the lack of which you are using as a defense? The absurdity of the situation is just too much.

[hrothgar]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-18, 16:57, said:

The truth of this is pretty damning in its own right. With such an outlook, what value can we place on anything he says, ever.

If the man hasn't the balls to speak his truth to his own people and glibly descends into the most horrid clichés that matches the puerile views of his audience, what ever audience that may be. Then how can he be President, how can he be anything other then a mockery of a man.

The man has executive quality hair...

[PassedOut]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-18, 16:57, said:

If the man hasn't the balls to speak his truth to his own people and glibly descends into the most horrid clichés that matches the puerile views of his audience, what ever audience that may be. Then how can he be President, how can he be anything other then a mockery of a man.

I know I am coming off harsh, but this is a question of integrity, the lack of which you are using as a defense? The absurdity of the situation is just too much.

I don't take Ken's observation to be a defense, just a statement of reality. The knock on Romney -- particularly from the republicans who opposed him in the primaries -- has been that he takes whatever positions that he deems advantageous at the time. These recordings play into that by reminding folks of those proclivities.

This is quite different from Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and (even) Michele Bachmann, all of whom have the courage of their convictions -- no matter how nutty those convictions might be.

BTW, here is the complete video: Mitt Romney wanted the full tape. Here it is.

[Winstonm]

I hate to bring in religion to this discussion, but really, how can anyone want to elect as president and put in charge of the largest and best equipped army in the world and the world's greatest array of nuclear arms a man who is stupid enough to buy into the Joseph Smith/angel Moroni/golden tablet/ancient-Jews-in-North-America story?
Someone like that might just believe all Muslims are bent on world domination.

Of course, I guess the justification for that vote is: at least he isn't Bachmann...

[jdeegan]

The latest Intrade is 68% for Obama, up sharply in recent days due to post-convention bounce and the recent Romney leaked video tape. Obama is also ahead in the crucial state polls. It is very clear that Romney cannot win just by showing up. His 1/3 chance depends on the first debate and the appeal of his upcoming five point economic plan.

[dwar0123]

Winstonm, on 2012-September-18, 18:49, said:

I hate to bring in religion to this discussion, but really, how can anyone want to elect as president and put in charge of the largest and best equipped army in the world and the world's greatest array of nuclear arms a man who is stupid enough to buy into the Joseph Smith/angel Moroni/golden tablet/ancient-Jews-in-North-America story?
Someone like that might just believe all Muslims are bent on world domination.

Of course, I guess the justification for that vote is: at least he isn't Bachmann...

As opposed to the virgin birth, ressurection, trinity, water into wine, walking on water and that isn't even touching on the massive number and scale of what we would now call crimes against humanity, proudly described in the old testiment.

Even more contemporary history, mormans have a lot less blood on their hands than any other christian group, of course that is mostly because they are so new, perhaps it is their turn to dirty their hands.

[Zelandakh]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-18, 16:57, said:

what value can we place on anything heany politician says, ever.

FYP.

dwar0123, on 2012-September-19, 00:21, said:

Even more contemporary history, mormans have a lot less blood on their hands than any other christian group

Less than the Amish?

There are a number of problems with this tape for Romney and I am surprised he has not at least backed away from some of it. He say 47% do not pay income tax and "his job is not to care about those people." First of all, if you are a Democratic voter who does not pay income tax and here this, are you more of less likely to vote? This in a group that is statistically quite likely to be wishy-washy about voting. Worse, if you are a Republican voter in the group, and despite what he said there are plenty, how does it make you feel that he is not going to care about you at all? And the Republican voters in this 47% are primarily the elderly and veterans - two of the groups most likely to vote!

Worst of all, even if you do pay income tax there is a high chance that you know someone that does not. Those friends and/or relatives are likely to be in a more precarious position than you are. How can you feel good about voting for someone who essentially says he is going to make their life worse? It is just stupidity for him to defend this position. The point is that it is nebulous what he means by 47% - first he says 47% will vote Obama no matter what, then 47% believe they are victims, then 47% pay no income tax. These are all different 47%s, even if believe the premise of the 47% number for each! So the simple defence for him is to simply state that he meant he did not need to worry about the 47% who would vote for Obama no matter what during the election but that of course his policies would benefit them should he win. Moreover that he got a little carried away with the other numbers and only meant that a sizeable portion of that 47% who would vote for Obama feel like victims and pay no income tax. Then go on to point out (again) that even those who pay no tax will benefit from his policies because of the extra jobs and increased prosperity. Naturally finishing with a soundbite, say: "I want to give opportunity back to those who have fallen through the cracks, nay chasms, that Obama has created in our great country. I will give them opportunity through jobs and education - help people to help thelselves, not comdemn them to living off the State in poverty."

OK, I am no speech-writer but surely this kind of damage limitation is Politics 101 - converting your own gaff into a chance to attack the competition.

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-12, 07:39, said:

(1) This is a quote for guy's and dolls character Sky Masterton, in case anyone missed it.

I didn't miss it, but I think that quotes without attribution are wrong and possibly liable to prosecution.

[billw55]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-12, 15:49, said:

Forecasts about the political landscape in two months, are about as reliable as weather forecasts. Lets be honest, the single biggest factor in this election will be the economy, if it continues to improve (albeit slowly) then it robs the republicans of ammuntion. If it should tank in the next few months, then obama will lose a huge number of votes.

The fate of the economy rests entirely with the FOMC, which, sadly, appears to consist almost entirely of lunatics. More than half of whom were appointed by Obama. If they vote against further QE this week, it will almost certainly kill off the US recovery, and possibly the global recovery aswell. I would not fancy Obama's chances then.

I think being more than 60% sure of the election, when I cannot be more than 60% sure of where the economy will be in November, is surely fairly irrational. I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.

Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story.

Serious candidates don't show for "mid term" elections. We will see them next election, after Obama's second term is up. The only serious candidate against an incumbent president that I can think of was Bob Dole in 1996. Although as pigeons go, Romney isn't terrible.

The best republican candidate I know of would be Mitch Daniels, but I don't think he will run next time. I wonder who it will be. Whoever it is will likely be elected, just by alternation.

[Bbradley62]

billw55, on 2012-September-19, 09:26, said:

Serious candidates don't show for "mid term" elections. We will see them next election, after Obama's second term is up. The only serious candidate against an incumbent president that I can think of was Bob Dole in 1996.

In 1976, Bob Dole was a serious candidate for VP; 20 years later he was a 73-year-old retiree-in-waiting who was simply holding his party's space on the ballot. Ronald Reagan (1980) and Bill Clinton (1992) were serious enough candidates to defeat incumbent presidents.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-September-19, 09:49

[jdeegan]

Oooops. Has a Romney been brainwashed? Again. Doubling down on his 47% gaffe was, imo, not smart. It sounds like he doesn't understand that the FICA payroll tax is also an income tax that is paid by almost all workers. Indeed, it is usually twice what most people see on their pay stub.
If he really doesn't understand the simplest thing about the federal tax system, how is he supposed to design and implement an economic plan to help the economy get out of the current slump? He can still get out of the pickle, but it will take some doing. Right now Nate Silver's 80% for Obama is looking good.

[ggwhiz]

This whole business of what you say is not necessarily what you think and Romney basically admitting that probably means this election is over.

He has a shifty look to him (to me) as in a poker player with a "tell" when they are bluffing. Even if it's not accurate that's what I see and I strongly suspect that the one on one debates will bury this guy.

[jonottawa]

I feel kinda sorry for Mitt. His constituency is crazy; he isn't. Unfortunately, the lesson the Repugs will draw from this won't be 'Our party's ideas are morally and intellectually indefensible.' It will be 'Mitt blew it.'

All he can do is keep lying to/misleading the American people (and being as non-specific as possible about his policy proposals) because if he started telling the truth now his party would crucify him.

As an aside, I wish the press would stop describing members of the modern Republican party as 'conservative'. They're not. I'm a conservative and these people are batshit crazy.

I believe in equality of opportunity. They believe in 'you're on your own'.

I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. They believe in religious zealotry and intolerance.

I believe that the military industrial complex has way too much power (I like Ike!) and that there is exponentially more waste and fraud in the defense budget than in any other area of government spending. They believe in writing a blank check to defense contractors.

I believe that the pernicious influence of the prison-industrial complex and the 'war on drugs' on our society is an outrage. They believe that for-profit prisons are just dandy.

I believe that in a world of crony capitalism, massive amounts (say >$10M) of untaxed inherited wealth are incompatible with a just society. They believe that what your great great grandfather did during Prohibition (bootlegging) or during WWII (war profiteering) or more recently (government bailouts/corporate welfare) should set you up for life.

I believe that polluters should pay for the damage they do to our air, our water and our environment. Hence I favor a significant energy tax (which would obviously allow the government to lower taxes on other things.) They believe that inserting the word 'clean' before 'coal' somehow makes it so.

I believe that health care professionals are some of the smartest people in the country and that it is their moral responsibility to craft (or to have the AMA craft) a far more efficient and fair health care delivery system than what we have now. If they don't accept that responsibility, then they shouldn't grumble when government imposes (an imperfect) one on them. They believe in blocking any attempts at serious reform ('death panels' 'rationing') and allowing health care costs to continue to skyrocket while drug companies, insurance companies and doctors make out like bandits and the taxpayer ends up with the bill.

I believe that meaningful campaign finance reform needs to be enacted so that billionaires and corporations are unable to exert so much influence on the political process. They believe that the 1% should run things, by whatever means necessary.

I'm a middle of the road conservative. And the Republican party doesn't represent me.

[dwar0123]

jonottawa, on 2012-September-19, 11:46, said:

I believe that in a world of crony capitalism, massive amounts (say >$10M) of untaxed inherited wealth are incompatible with a just society. They believe that what your great great grandfather did during Prohibition (bootlegging) or during WWII (war profiteering) or more recently (government bailouts/corporate welfare) should set you up for life.

I agree with everything you say, I even agree with this specific quoted sentiment. It is just a pet peeve of mine, but I get bothered when someone tries to make a point by creating an artificially biased relationship by using only negative examples.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2012-September-19, 09:47, said:

In 1976, Bob Dole was a serious candidate for VP; 20 years later he was a 73-year-old retiree-in-waiting who was simply holding his party's space on the ballot. Ronald Reagan (1980) and Bill Clinton (1992) were serious enough candidates to defeat incumbent presidents.

I guess these fell in a blind spot for me as far as what I was thinking of as an incumbent. Carter did such a poor job that I hardly thought of him as an incumbent, having no chance to get reelected against any opponent. And I usually think of HW as an extension of the Reagan presidency.

But really? Clinton?

[billw55]

jdeegan, on 2012-September-19, 09:56, said:

Doubling down on his 47% gaffe was, imo, not smart. It sounds like he doesn't understand that the FICA payroll tax is also an income tax that is paid by almost all workers. Indeed, it is usually twice what most people see on their pay stub.

Agree, and the only reason I didn't post it myself is that I am just tired of debunking this particular bit of right wing baloney. Everyone who works at all pays social security and medicare taxes.

[PassedOut]

jonottawa, on 2012-September-19, 11:46, said:

I'm a middle of the road conservative. And the Republican party doesn't represent me.

Same here. And you gave a good list of the reasons why.