Romney tells millionaires what he really thinks of Obama voters

"Only Democrats"? I have family that are apart of the "1%" financially and everyone of them are Democrats.

This whole generalizing his non-voters is an epic fail by Mittens.

 

1. You're splitting hairs.

2. We agree on that.

 

Obama is an asshole too.

If you don't know that by now, you haven't been paying enough attention.

Charisma does not equal not being an asshole.

For example, the majority of big stars (movies, music, sports, etc.) are total fucking assholes.

Obama has charisma and star power. Obama has a "story" about who and what he is. Like many other stars it is not truth.

Being an asshole does not disqualify one from being president, most of them were. Otherwise the only president we could have would be Jimmy Carter, and despite not being an asshole, he was the biggest failure of my lifetime.

 

Why is everyone dodging the REAL issue here? Did Mitt get invited to the sex parties that the organizer of this fundraiser regularly throws?

 

Fun Fact: In 2008, of the ten states with the highest percentage below the poverty line, nine of those voted Republican.

Mississippi
Kentucky
Louisiana
Arkansas
New Mexico * (D)
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Texas
South Carolina
Alabama

So, as an independant voter, I'm confused why Romney thinks "there are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims..."

Seems to me a larger percentage of those dependent upon goverment are Republican... What am I missing?

 

Looks like it increased quite substantially between 2000-2008 as well... So your point eludes me.

 

I'm pretty sure we aren't contemplating whether to vote for Bush again or not. But, keep pretending that the "point eludes you".

 

How is this "secretly taped" video even that much news?

Romney:

If you are looking for free stuff, vote for the other guy.

Romney already put out to the world this viewpoint. We have learned little that was new by this "ambush" style video. The impression that Romney was saying something "secret" (even though he wasn't) and the Media frenzy (who is more in the tank for Obama and more actively supporting his campaign than the media has been for any candidate in my lifetime) are being whipped up to create yet another faux scandal.

Could this timing of this release be to distract from real, genuine and impactful scandals? Middle East? Embassy security? White House asleep at the switch? Bad economic news keeps piling up disrupting the Obama campaign lie that things are improving finally, just be patient?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aLpf5OMKw&feature=player_embedded

 

I love how "dependence on government" is a bad thing. Call me a crazy mixed-up socialist, but I think workhouses for poor children were actually bad, and that a government that provides for its citizens is a good thing. I know, I know, I should fuck off to Cuba.

Let's extend this line of thought: the sick are far too dependent on hospitals. They should be liberated by being set free into the streets. Oh wait, Reagan already thought of that one with the mentally ill.

My children are far too dependent on me. I fully intend to liberate them. One day when they're in school, we'll move. They'll thank me later when they've realized I was fostering their independence.

 

I thought Denny was trying to show how much it's increased under Obama... seeing as it's constantly gone up over the decades, and substantially under the president right before Obama, I don't see the point. But thanks for your substantive post.

 

I truly wish that the good citizens of Mississippi, Louisiana, et. al. took him at his word.

What's funny is that someone somewhere in the Republican party realizes that a huge part of its crazy angry white base is dependent on government programs and that if they really followed through they'd basically be unelectable. So what Romney should REALLY say is "I was blowing smoke up these fat cats' asses! I'm effectively increasing taxes on the super rich by taking their money!"

 

Healthcare and education is another matter, but when it comes to housing, food and income I don't think dependency is good at all.

 

Good points, I actually agree with or at least understand the arguement on most. I was being a little extra left side homer to prove a point. Some of the blind partisan homerism is just to much, and our scorched earth politicing is the real problem with our countery. Most of us agree on the issues that are problems, we just all seem to disagree on the best way to deal with them. My point is that if we can subsidize the whole world why cant we take care of our own people? Hand outs are not good, but giving people the tools to be sucessful are. Rich people stay rich and pass it on to their children because they have more recourses. When you are more fortunate you have better schools, health care, and food. There is no reason why decent education and health care shouln't be available to everyone. It makes us stronger in the long run as a whole when more people are healthy and have the information and resources to make good decisions reguarding their lives. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY SYTEM, get over it and factor that into the solution to minimize their effect on everyone else.

 

Pretty hard for a President to negotiate with a party who's leaders literally vowed to fight & obstruct him on everything he might propose even before he took office. Putting party over country, thats exactly what they've done. You have heard of Robert Draper's book haven't you?

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-book-reveals-that-republicans-held.html

STOMP

 

Bingo.

 

Mitt is advocating the same trickle down economic policies as W and has many of same neocons as advisors now beating the war drums for Iran. I'm pretty sure that a lot of voters equate the two because they've obviously a whole lot in common... hopefully that helps

STOMP