Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Even More Awesome Presidential Election Thread
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 308 (672770)
09-11-2012 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
09-09-2012 5:32 PM


Re: Clinton
I've been hearing a lot about Clinton's speach but I haven't seen it. I'm not gonna be able to watch an hour long video here at work.
What did he talk about? What was so good about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2012 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 112 by Taz, posted 09-11-2012 1:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 114 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 308 (673315)
09-18-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Granny Magda
09-18-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Moochers
Couldn't a state be a Republican one and still have 40% of its people voting for Obama?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Granny Magda, posted 09-18-2012 12:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Rahvin, posted 09-18-2012 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 166 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2012 2:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 308 (673424)
09-19-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Granny Magda
09-19-2012 2:21 AM


Re: Moochers
The 47% figure that Romney was mangling is about households, not individuals. Since there is typically more than one person in a household, if 47% of households are going to block vote Democrat, the state will turn blue, guaranteed.
Are you assuming that households that vote Democrat have more people in them than those that vote Republican?
If Romney seriously believes this drivel, he ought to give up now, because it would not be possible for him to win.
What are the odds of a politician seriously believing their drivel?
Anyway, that's not the point.
I was just questioning because your joke seemed to be a non-sequitor. Take Texas. We can all agree that's a red state, right? Your map has 39% of filers with no liability. According to wiki: In 2008, 55.48% (4,467,748) voted Republican and 43.72% (3,521,164) voted Democrat in the presidential election. So it doesn't necessarily follow that all those filers couldn't have voted Democrat while the state is red. I don't doubt that not all of them did, it just doesn't follow in the hurr-durr sense that you were joking about.
the point is that Romney is apparently so retarded as to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone in that 47% is an Obama voter.
Well, yeah. It is retarded. I think that the bigger mistake is assuming all of those 47% are the moochers. I think he was talking mostly just about the moochers, and had his figure wrong about how many of them there really are.
That is an insult, not so much to Democrats, but to all those poor dumb-ass working class republicans in the 47%.
There's old retired people that fall into that group too and many of them will vote against Obama regardless of who is running against him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2012 2:21 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2012 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye 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

  
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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 308 (673491)
09-19-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Dr Adequate
09-19-2012 2:08 PM


Re: Moochers
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.
You might be right. Its hard to tell. That 47% is a real figure. I wonder if the concept came first and then he dug up the number, or if the concept was derived from having found that number.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2012 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ooh-child, posted 09-19-2012 5:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 308 (673558)
09-20-2012 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by ooh-child
09-19-2012 5:37 PM


Re: Moochers
Some background on the 47% meme
Hey thanks. That was interesting.
So... he's just lying. I think he knows that the 47% aren't really as he was describing them and that he was just throwing the figure out there to a crowd as a political tool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ooh-child, posted 09-19-2012 5:37 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 218 of 308 (673596)
09-20-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Coyote
09-20-2012 1:46 PM


A bit of a summary would have been nice...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Coyote, posted 09-20-2012 1:46 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 308 (673605)
09-20-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by NoNukes
09-20-2012 2:07 PM


Re: Journalism at its finest.
I live in (southern) Illinois and its pretty much accepted that you have to be corrupt to get through Chicago politics. We even joke that our ex-govenors make our license plates... you know, cause they're in jail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 09-20-2012 2:07 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024