2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Ian]

In New Campaign Strategy, Romney to Have Mouth Wired Shut Until November
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... ember.html

[Kristie]

I used to be indifferent about Romney. I honestly didn't know what to think of him, because he wouldn't let himself be defined as anything in particular. But after picking Ryan for his VP, after last week's Libya flap and now after this stupidness (see video), I think I've come to genuinely hate this man. What a despicable piece of shit.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fundraiser

My thoughts exactly.

[Sean Hayden]

That's wild, I'll have read that again in the morning.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If we elect this asshat we are going to get what we deserve.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/re ... ocrat.html

[Coito ergo sum]

I used to be indifferent about Romney. I honestly didn't know what to think of him, because he wouldn't let himself be defined as anything in particular. But after picking Ryan for his VP, after last week's Libya flap and now after this stupidness (see video), I think I've come to genuinely hate this man. What a despicable piece of shit.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fundraiser

Some of the more cool-headed backlash against this bastard: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... e/?hpid=z2

Well, he's not wrong about the bit that there is a huge percentage of people who can't be moved from supporting Obama. It doesn't matter what he does or says, probably 46 or 47% will always support Obama.

I think his comment stupidly phrased, and comes across as very callous, but to some extent a good portion of Obama supporters do, in fact, think they are entitled to state sponsored food, clothing, shelter and health care. I've heard many Obama supporters come right out and say it, that it is the state's responsibility to provide those "basic needs." That's exactly what he said. Those people think they are entitled to those things. He'll never convince them to vote for him, because he doesn't stand for entitlements.

What he should do, instead of bashing the entitlement mentality crowd is to bolster, support and champion the majority of Americans who aren't of that mindset. He should say that he wants to empower individuals to care for themselves (to learn to fish instead of being handed a fish). He should say that he wants to increase American individual initiative and self-sufficiency as much as possible. To approach it from a positive light would sound much better.

As it stands, he came across, literally, as calling 47% of Americans as among those that are of the entitlement mentality, and I think that he overstated the case through indelicate wording. I don't think we are quite that high, yet. But, he was right about that number or nearly that number being rock solid Obama supporters no matter what, and to get elected he would, in fact, be wasting a lot of his time and money to try to convince them to switch sides. He has to win on the 5 or 10 % in the middle -- if he can't convince those in the middle there, then he can't win.

The more I look at the numbers, the more I am inclined to think that Ian is correct, and Obama is at this time -- at this time -- very likely to win reelection. I shudder to think what he will do with a second term, and his "increased flexibility" as he noted off-mic to the Russian PM Medvedev.

It will be what it will be. Romney is so far running a very weak campaign. I suspect he thinks the debates will be where the final push for the 5 or 10% will come. Maybe so. That will be his chance.

[Kristie]

I think his comment stupidly phrased, and comes across as very callous, but to some extent a good portion of Obama supporters do, in fact, think they are entitled to state sponsored food, clothing, shelter and health care. I've heard many Obama supporters come right out and say it, that it is the state's responsibility to provide those "basic needs." That's exactly what he said. Those people think they are entitled to those things. He'll never convince them to vote for him, because he doesn't stand for entitlements.

A good portion? This site http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ states that only 4.1% of Americans are on some form of welfare. How is 4.1% a good portion?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The "patrician " wannabees have no trouble making up stats ... and lies.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think his comment stupidly phrased, and comes across as very callous, but to some extent a good portion of Obama supporters do, in fact, think they are entitled to state sponsored food, clothing, shelter and health care. I've heard many Obama supporters come right out and say it, that it is the state's responsibility to provide those "basic needs." That's exactly what he said. Those people think they are entitled to those things. He'll never convince them to vote for him, because he doesn't stand for entitlements.

A good portion? This site http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ states that only 4.1% of Americans are on some form of welfare. How is 4.1% a good portion?

I didn't say they were all receiving the entitlements. I said that a good portion say that it is the state's responsibility to provide those entitlements. And, I have heard many Obama supporters say that. And, that stat of 4.1% is demonstrably wrong.

But, 46 million Americans are on food stamps. That's about 15% of the population.
About 55 million people receive Medicaid -- almost 17% of Americans.
The CBO estimated that 25,000,000 Americans will receive health insurance subsidies under Obamacare.

[Mysturji]

Of course Obama isn't perfect... Nobody is.
But just look at the alternative!
Romney recently came to the UK, and was unable to visit his country's "Greatest friend and ally" without insulting them.
Apparently, he can't even go to his own country without insulting half of them.
Thank you, Mr. Romney, for ensuring you will not be elected president.
The world is now a safer place.

[Gerald McGrew]

The Obama campaign has been trying to frame this election as a clear choice between two very different philosophies. With the new video leak, Romney has played into that perfectly. He clearly articulated the modern conservative viewpoint that people who receive "government assistance" are moochers, takers, and self-identified victims.

The Iraq war vet who receives his health care from the VA? Someone playing victim and mooching off government entitlements.

The elderly widow living off social security and getting her health care from Medicaid? Someone playing victim and mooching off government entitlements.

The single mother working two part-time jobs and using food stamps to help feed her kids? Someone playing victim and mooching off government entitlements.

The college student using federal loans to pay tuition and housing? Someone playing victim and mooching off government entitlements.

See, this is the version of reality that modern conservatives have now. Never mind that it was billionaire Wall St. bankers who gambled and crashed the economy, thus making it harder for the single mother, the college student, or the war veteran to find a decent job so they can pay for housing, health care, and food themselves. The Romney-Ryan plan is to give those billionaire bankers more tax breaks while simultaneously cutting services to the people listed above. The Obama campaign has been saying this for months, and now Romney has been caught on tape saying it for them.

I believe this election is over.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Repulsives have screwed the pooch, but I won't count my chads until they hatch. I put nothing past the Evil Empire.

[Gerald McGrew]

The Repulsives have screwed the pooch, but I won't count my chads until they hatch. I put nothing past the Evil Empire.

Very true. There's still all the voter suppression efforts, including reports now that tea bagger groups are mobilizing to "police" polling locations (read: intimidate poor and minority voters).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Repulsives have screwed the pooch, but I won't count my chads until they hatch. I put nothing past the Evil Empire.

Very true. There's still all the voter suppression efforts, including reports now that tea bagger groups are mobilizing to "police" polling locations (read: intimidate poor and minority voters).

We need an escort service then. Abortion clinic escorts know the drill.

[Ian]

As it stands, he came across, literally, as calling 47% of Americans as among those that are of the entitlement mentality, and I think that he overstated the case through indelicate wording. I don't think we are quite that high, yet. But, he was right about that number or nearly that number being rock solid Obama supporters no matter what, and to get elected he would, in fact, be wasting a lot of his time and money to try to convince them to switch sides. He has to win on the 5 or 10 % in the middle -- if he can't convince those in the middle there, then he can't win.

Ah, but the cherished conservative notion that "47% of people don't pay income taxes" is bollocks. Many of that 47% pay payroll taxes, are elderly and living on Social Security, are disabled, are active duty military while deployed overseas, etc. Only a small percentage (maybe 7%) pay no federal income taxes simply due to low income.

I'll give him some benefit of the doubt in that he was probably just telling a handful of rich donors what they wanted to hear, and maybe he actually knew better. But nevertheless it comes across as something completely unworthy of a President.

Moreover, many of those "moochers" who are on welfare or otherwise have the "entitlement mentality" conservatives like to believe is rampant are from very red states: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... bly-get-5/

Polls do show Obama with solid support from forty-something percent of the population, but it's lunacy to think that this is somehow nearly the same 47% that does not contribute income taxes, as Romney clearly inferred. Absolute nonsense.

[Coito ergo sum]

As it stands, he came across, literally, as calling 47% of Americans as among those that are of the entitlement mentality, and I think that he overstated the case through indelicate wording. I don't think we are quite that high, yet. But, he was right about that number or nearly that number being rock solid Obama supporters no matter what, and to get elected he would, in fact, be wasting a lot of his time and money to try to convince them to switch sides. He has to win on the 5 or 10 % in the middle -- if he can't convince those in the middle there, then he can't win.

Ah, but the cherished conservative notion that "47% of people don't pay income taxes" is bollocks. Many of that 47% pay payroll taxes, are elderly and living on Social Security, are disabled, are active duty military while deployed overseas, etc. Only a small percentage (maybe 7%) pay no federal income taxes simply due to low income.

That 7% figure is bull. By payroll taxes you mean social security and medicare, which are not income taxes. If we're being precise about terms, then the 47% is not bollocks. Obviously, people who pay no income taxes will still pay for Social Security and Medicare, as well as state taxes like sales and property taxes.

Polls do show Obama with solid support from forty-something percent of the population, but it's lunacy to think that this is somehow nearly the same 47% that does not contribute income taxes, as Romney clearly inferred. Absolute nonsense.

What he was referring to, as I hear it, with the 47% that are staunch obama supporters is not that they are all moochers per se, but that they are all of the entitlement mindset, that the government should be supplying those "basics" I referred to above. Obviously, some percentage of Obama supporters don't need the government assistance, but are nevertheless of the entitlement mindset. None of those people will be convinced to support Romney.