Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Even More Awesome Presidential Election Thread
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 181 of 308 (673437)
09-19-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Granny Magda
09-19-2012 2:21 AM


Speaking of colour...
Granny Magda writes:
if 47% of households are going to block vote Democrat, the state will turn blue, guaranteed.
I wish those Americans would learn that left is red and right is blue. That's the way it is on the spectrum. Communists are red and Obama is a Communist....
Edited by ringo, : Spelling - added the "u" to "colour" twice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2012 2:21 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2012 3:11 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 308 (673440)
09-19-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Granny Magda
09-19-2012 11:34 AM


Re: Moochers
Yeah, I kinda suspect that to be the case. Couldn't prove it though if I'm honest. Poorer households tend to be larger...
It seems to me that a lack of education causes people to breed more.
I mostly just think that it's amusing to watch as Romney pisses in the faces of his own supporters. Nice campaigning there fella!
To be fair, he was speaking to a private group of rich people. He didn't intend for the poor people to hear him making fun of them.
What I mostly found so funny was that Romney should insult low-income republicans like that. He should have known that he was smearing some of his own. He's conflating this 47% with Obama voters, when a child ought to be able to predict that in fact, many of them are going to be Republican or just not Obama supporters. The image fairly heavily implies that there are indeed a hell of a lot of people that in the 47% who vote Republican.
I think we need to drop the "47%" number if we're gonna discuss what he was really talking about. He was talking about people who he thinks don't take personal responsibility for themselves and instead rely on government assistance. He thinks that those people are going to vote for the party that favors giving the hand-outs no matter what and that there's no point in him trying to get their vote with his platform. He equated that group with the "47% that don't pay taxes" and that's certainly wrong, but he wasn't really talking about the people in that 47% group that don't match his caricature.
Key words there; "I don't doubt that not all of them did". Of course you don't doubt it, because those of us not living on Planet Mitt know full well that the 47% percent will include both Republicans and Democrats... and Libertarians and Greens, and other small party voters... and a hell of a lot who just don't vote. That's a big part of what makes this so stupid; people don't vote in uniform blocks like that. This whole line of rhetoric stinks of a naive view of how the world works or at least panders to one.
Right - and its even dumber than that. Even taking the subset of that 47% that are the moochers, there are still a portion of them that vote republican. The poor whitetrash hillbilly types that are more interested in gun rights come to mind.
If it's deliberate bullshit, I'm not sure that makes it any better. Is this really the best bullshit he could come up with? It's transparently stupid, it insults some of his base supporters and it makes Romney look out of touch with the real world.
There's a whole group of wealthy white people who think that poor minorities are a bunch of welfare queens. The welfare queens certainly exist, I see them in East St. Louis all the time. What's unclear is how many there actually are. The whole 47% thing seems to be an attempt to inflate their numbers... to rally the troops against them. There's lots of emails being passed around by my parents generation (I'm 31) about things like Ineptocracy. "We just have to get Obama out because they're redistributing our wealth to those lazy poor people that vote for a living instead of working for one."
The way he talks about it though, it's as though 47% will support Obama and the other 53% is, at least in part, still to play for. Well if that's the case he's totally screwed. A block vote of that size would swing it. It doesn't strike me as the best thing to say at a fundraiser.
Well he is totally screwed. That whole side of the coin is. The moochers are out breeding them anyways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2012 11:34 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2012 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 183 of 308 (673446)
09-19-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by New Cat's Eye
09-19-2012 12:23 PM


Re: Moochers
I think we need to drop the "47%" number if we're gonna discuss what he was really talking about. He was talking about people who he thinks don't take personal responsibility for themselves and instead rely on government assistance.
And he said that that was 47% of people. If he'd said: "I think such people exist", then that would be fine. If he'd suggested that they tended to vote Democrat, one would merely ask him to produce his data. But he didn't, he said that was 47% of the electorate. That is what he was really talking about, which is why it would be a bad idea to drop it.
He equated that group with the "47% that don't pay taxes" and that's certainly wrong, but he wasn't really talking about the people in that 47% group that don't match his caricature.
"He may have said: "All black people are lazy stupid criminals", and that's certainly wrong, but he wasn't really talking about the black people who don't match his caricature."
All catholic scientists blow goats. If you don't blow goats, then I haven't slandered you --- because clearly if it's not true of you, then I wasn't really talking about you. Just about the ones who do. Indeed, my statement is completely accurate if no catholic scientists blow goats, because in that case, my remarks do apply to, and are true of, the empty subset of catholic scientists who blow goats.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2012 12:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 09-19-2012 1:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 189 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2012 1:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 184 of 308 (673447)
09-19-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Granny Magda
09-19-2012 11:34 AM


Re: Moochers
Granny Magda writes:
If it's deliberate bullshit, I'm not sure that makes it any better. Is this really the best bullshit he could come up with? It's transparently stupid, it insults some of his base supporters and it makes Romney look out of touch with the real world.
My feel is that Mitt is just repeating a fairly common Republican belief that he may or may not agree with (it's always hard to know exactly what he believes). I think that Repubs have come up with this idea that there is a fairly large amount of voters in this country who are nothing more than parasites, who like being parasites, and will vote Democratic in order to keep being parasitic; and they have come up with this idea to explain why Repubs don't win more elections. After all, they (like everyone else) truly believe that their views are correct, and that anyone would agree with them if they just stopped and thought about them. How then to explain the fact that they only win about 50% of the time? It can't be because the other side's ideas are equally or more compelling to half the electorate. There MUST be another reason.
This type of behavior is certainly not found only in the Republican Party of the United States. It'sa common human behavior, but also annoying and often counter productive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2012 11:34 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 185 of 308 (673449)
09-19-2012 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dr Adequate
09-19-2012 1:04 PM


Re: Moochers
CS writes:
The whole 47% thing seems to be an attempt to inflate their numbers... to rally the troops against them. There's lots of emails being passed around by my parents generation (I'm 31) about things like Ineptocracy. "We just have to get Obama out because they're redistributing our wealth to those lazy poor people that vote for a living instead of working for one."
Precise percentage of "moochers" aside....
How prevalent in the US is the sort of thinking CS is talking about here?
In the UK it seems to be increasingly prevalent. Right wing parties seem to need to convince the electorate that there is this vast swathe of the population sponging off of the hard working, decent and productive members of society. It gives them a basis for pursuing the more controversial aspects of their individualist ideology.
So - I suspect that whilst many will see the 47% figure as hyperbolic and a result of Mitt talking to his rich mates they will also still have some sympathy with the sort of thinking CS outlines. And still think that the number of "moochers" is much higher than it actually is. These people will presumably vote Republican pretty much whatever Mitt says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2012 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 186 of 308 (673453)
09-19-2012 1:41 PM


The Fallacy of Redistribution
From "The Fallacy of Redistribution," by Thomas Sowell
Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.
In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.
More
The Fallacy of Redistribution, by Dr. Thomas Sowell | Creators Syndicate

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by nwr, posted 09-19-2012 1:44 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2012 2:09 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2012 2:53 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 196 by Theodoric, posted 09-19-2012 3:24 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 202 by hooah212002, posted 09-19-2012 4:37 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 249 by Theodoric, posted 09-23-2012 2:05 PM Coyote has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(4)
Message 187 of 308 (673454)
09-19-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Coyote
09-19-2012 1:41 PM


Re: The Fallacy of Redistribution
Self serving right wing BS.
The conservatives are very much in favor of redistributing wealth. They have been redistributing it upward (toward the rich) at every opportunity.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2012 1:41 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


(1)
Message 188 of 308 (673455)
09-19-2012 1:50 PM


Mitt's explanation
As a side note to the whole "47%" issue; is there ANYONE who believes Mitt's explanation that he was simply pointing out how there are more Americans receiving gov't assistance now under Obama? Surely EVERYONE, even folks who generally agree with the "moocher" idea, must see this for a lie? Not that it's a big shock for a politician to lie, but the sheer obviousness of this one is worth mentioning.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 308 (673456)
09-19-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dr Adequate
09-19-2012 1:04 PM


Re: Moochers
And he said that that was 47% of people.
Right, and he was wrong. But I still think he's talking about a specific caricature of people. That the 47% really also includes wealthy retired grandmas doesn't mean that they were intended to be included in his caricature. It means he described it poorly and with false data.
If he'd said: "I think such people exist", then that would be fine. If he'd suggested that they tended to vote Democrat, one would merely ask him to produce his data. But he didn't, he said that was 47% of the electorate. That is what he was really talking about, which is why it would be a bad idea to drop it.
If you want to argue about what the words he said literally meant, then that's fine. I'd rather talk about what I think the point he was trying to make was. I don't think he was trying to imply that a wealthy retired grandma is definately voting for Obama because shes a moocher.
His actual position has enough problems with it that we don't need to inject other gaffes that come from his poor description and false data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2012 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2012 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 190 of 308 (673458)
09-19-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by New Cat's Eye
09-19-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Moochers
If you want to argue about what the words he said literally meant, then that's fine. I'd rather talk about what I think the point he was trying to make was.
Well, you know, he expands on his point. It's not a single throwaway figure, it's a calculation on which he proposes to erect a political strategy.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those peopleI'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like.
It's not just something he said, it's something that he thinks, which is why he's analyzing the political landscape within this framework and making his plans to become President given that as a basis.
Now you seem to be suggesting that he can't really mean what he said because he'd have to be a damn fool to think it. Well, I'm open to the position that he is in fact a damn fool. This is, apparently what a whole lot of Republicans think and have said about people who don't pay federal income tax --- I've seen 'em do it, always condemning them en masse, and always using a percentage figure that includes retired people such as your granny. They can't all be suffering from slips of the tongue. Ideologues don't examine their talking points, if they did they wouldn't be ideologues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2012 1:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2012 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2012 6:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 191 of 308 (673459)
09-19-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Coyote
09-19-2012 1:41 PM


Re: The Fallacy of Redistribution
I guess that's why no-one round here is a Stalinist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2012 1:41 PM Coyote has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 192 of 308 (673462)
09-19-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Coyote
09-19-2012 1:41 PM


Re: The Fallacy of Redistribution
Food has always been scarce in the Soviet Union, even before there was a Soviet Union. Except for the Ukraine, the area's arable land is too far north to have much of a growing season.
It's not like starvation was something new that happened with Communism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2012 1:41 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2012 3:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 193 of 308 (673467)
09-19-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by crashfrog
09-19-2012 2:53 PM


Re: The Fallacy of Redistribution
Food has always been scarce in the Soviet Union, even before there was a Soviet Union. Except for the Ukraine, the area's arable land is too far north to have much of a growing season.
It's not like starvation was something new that happened with Communism.
To this extent?
The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.
The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent. This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met. Stalin's decision and the methods used to implement it condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation. Party officials, with the aid of regular troops and secret police units, waged a merciless war of attrition against peasants who refused to give up their grain. Even indispensable seed grain was forcibly confiscated from peasant households. Any man, woman, or child caught taking even a handful of grain from a collective farm could be, and often was, executed or deported. Those who did not appear to be starving were often suspected of hoarding grain. Peasants were prevented from leaving their villages by the NKVD and a system of internal passports.
The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, "Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings." Yet one of Stalin's lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay."..
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2012 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 09-19-2012 3:11 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2012 3:29 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 199 by Theodoric, posted 09-19-2012 3:38 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 200 by Theodoric, posted 09-19-2012 4:08 PM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 194 of 308 (673469)
09-19-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Coyote
09-19-2012 3:03 PM


Re: The Fallacy of Redistribution
What does any of that have to do with redistribution of wealth?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2012 3:03 PM Coyote has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 195 of 308 (673470)
09-19-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by ringo
09-19-2012 12:13 PM


Re: Speaking of colour...
I wish those Americans would learn that left is red and right is blue. That's the way it is on the spectrum. Communists are red and Obama is a Communist....
No, no, we've got it right. As it's played out in every wargame, Blue Force is us, the Good Guys, while Red Force is the enemy intent on destroying America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 09-19-2012 12:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 09-19-2012 3:30 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024