• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Obama didn't mention the '47%' comment

marsden

marsden

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
256
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
marsden said:
Today 06:02 PM
Re: How can Romney defend this?
OMG! Didn't any of you actually get what he was saying in that speech to potential donors?

He was discussing the campaign strategy and how it is counterproductive to spend money on ads to a group that numbers 47% of the total electorate that will be virtually impossible to win.

Jeez, all these weeks I've been waiting for SOMEONE to state the obvious.

But, I guess it's my duty/honor/pleasure to reveal the mystical, magical answer.

He was talking marketing talk. Something BUSINESS people understand. But not just comprehensible by the WHITE electorate, the principle was used by tennis legend, Arthur Ashe in becoming a champion.

When he lost a point, a game or a set, he wouldn't expend any psychic energy on that loss. He would focus on what he could win.

That's what Romney was describing.

And that's the (simple) truth.
Last edited by marsden
 
I will answer with a question, why WOULD Obama use the 47% Comment? Because, its a fact. Obama knows it, Romney knows it, and anyone who understands demographics and the current political process in Washington knows that the Government has bought 47% of the vote for Barrack Obama, they will vote for him NO MATTER WHAT, so both of them know its the 53% they both need to get. And that type of jab just isn't appealing to those of us who pay taxes.
 
marsden said:
marsden said:
Today 06:02 PM
Re: How can Romney defend this?
OMG! Didn't any of you actually get what he was saying in that speech to potential donors?

He was discussing the campaign strategy and how it is counterproductive to spend money on ads to a group that numbers 47% of the total electorate that will be virtually impossible to win.

Jeez, all these weeks I've been waiting for SOMEONE to state the obvious.

But, I guess it's my duty/honor/pleasure to reveal the mystical, magical answer.

He was talking marketing talk. Something BUSINESS people understand. But not just comprehensible by the WHITE electorate, the principle was used by tennis legend, Arthur Ashe in becoming a champion.

When he lost a point, a game or a set, he wouldn't expend any psychic energy on that loss. He would focus on what he could win.

That's what Romney was describing.

And that's the (simple) truth.
Last edited by marsden
Click to expand...



Yep.. I also have been stating that truth...its so obvious... if you are asking for a donation that person wants to know the money wont be wasted on the wrong strategy..
 
David Watson said:
I will answer with a question, why WOULD Obama use the 47% Comment? Because, its a fact. Obama knows it, Romney knows it, and anyone who understands demographics and the current political process in Washington knows that the Government has bought 47% of the vote for Barrack Obama, they will vote for him NO MATTER WHAT, so both of them know its the 53% they both need to get. And that type of jab just isn't appealing to those of us who pay taxes.
Click to expand...

excellent point
 
Obama may use that in the last debate but for now he doesn't want to give Romney a chance to explain it in a reasonable way to tens of millions of people when Obama is running ads exploiting the ignorance of people to fall for cheap crap like that.
 
David Watson said:
I will answer with a question, why WOULD Obama use the 47% Comment? Because, its a fact. Obama knows it, Romney knows it, and anyone who understands demographics and the current political process in Washington knows that the Government has bought 47% of the vote for Barrack Obama, they will vote for him NO MATTER WHAT, so both of them know its the 53% they both need to get. And that type of jab just isn't appealing to those of us who pay taxes.
Click to expand...

It creates an opening for Romney to talk about Obama's massive expansion in Entitlements. Romney can tie all the waste and fraud together within the Stimulus, the deficits, everything. Go ahead, bring up the 47% in a debate. It's gift wrapped waiting to be opened.

Obama lost the debate because he's the worst President in American History. Period.
 
I agree with every point including the worst President in History. However, Woodrow was close.

And I believe Mitt Romney is actually an excellent candidate up against anyone, so this should be in the bag.
 
David Watson said:
I will answer with a question, why WOULD Obama use the 47% Comment? Because, its a fact. Obama knows it, Romney knows it, and anyone who understands demographics and the current political process in Washington knows that the Government has bought 47% of the vote for Barrack Obama, they will vote for him NO MATTER WHAT, so both of them know its the 53% they both need to get. And that type of jab just isn't appealing to those of us who pay taxes.
Click to expand...

By all means, tell me more about how deployed combat troops see themselves as victims who can't be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.

(they pay no income tax and are therefore in Romney's 47%)

This "fact" is the best sort of lie. While it's true that 47% of Americans did not pay federal income taxes in 2009, the picture that the GOP has implanted in your head is wildly inaccurate. Want some more examples?

- Small business startup who takes a year or two to become profitable.
- Millionaire whose income comes mostly from capital gains
- Retired seniors who paid into Social Security their whole lives and are now collecting
- Virtually every high school or college student with a crappy part-time job
- Family of four earning $26,000

Virtually everybody in that 47% either pays payroll taxes or is retired. You want to tell me those are all people who can't be convinced to take responsibility for themselves? Go ahead! Tell me! You believe Romney's statement to be factual. Defend it. Own up to your beliefs and tell me all these people are lazy.

Christ, I mean a substantial portion of Republicans are in that 47% but they're still eating it up. Their golden boy candidate (retroactive, they hated him during the primary) went and **** all over their character but they've convinced themselves that it's only Democrats he was talking about. So pathetic.
 
Last edited:
No, he was talking about the 47% of people who receive Government hand-outs. And I stand with Mitt.
 
Wow. This 47% thing makes me giddy. On one hand you have a bunch of people all too happy to pounce and claim that half the country are a bunch of leeches and parasites who are bought by government "hand outs" and who contribute nothing to this country because they don't pay taxes. On the other hand, the same people argue that taxes are inherently evil and need to be lower at all costs. The cognitive dissonance needed to hold those conflicting views in your head simultaneously is amazing. And if businesses get a lower tax rate or cut, it's not a "hand out". Absolutely brilliant! :2razz:
 
CriticalThought said:
Wow. This 47% thing makes me giddy. On one hand you have a bunch of people all too happy to pounce and claim that half the country are a bunch of leeches and parasites who are bought by government "hand outs" and who contribute nothing to this country because they don't pay taxes. On the other hand, the same people argue that taxes are inherently evil and need to be lower at all costs. The cognitive dissonance needed to hold those conflicting views in your head simultaneously is amazing. And if businesses get a lower tax rate or cut, it's not a "hand out". Absolutely brilliant! :2razz:
Click to expand...

The only one who called anyone a leech or a parasite was you, Gary Johnson. And taxes don't need to be lowered at all costs, GOVERNMENT needs to be CUT at all costs. Then there is no need for so much tax and waste. And if a business gets a lower rate (when? my boss pays 40% because he's forced to pay the individual rate), its not a "hand out" because it will influence that job to hire people who will pay more taxes, dig it?
 
It doesn't matter how logically you look at his statement or how much you express what was meant. Obama and his lapdog media will continue to demagogue and spin this thing until it's too dizzy to do them any good.

The bad thing is there are dumb-ass people who will be swayed by the spin.
 
CriticalThought said:
Wow. This 47% thing makes me giddy. On one hand you have a bunch of people all too happy to pounce and claim that half the country are a bunch of leeches and parasites who are bought by government "hand outs" and who contribute nothing to this country because they don't pay taxes. On the other hand, the same people argue that taxes are inherently evil and need to be lower at all costs. The cognitive dissonance needed to hold those conflicting views in your head simultaneously is amazing. And if businesses get a lower tax rate or cut, it's not a "hand out". Absolutely brilliant! :2razz:
Click to expand...

No cognitive dissonance here.

If the 47% were paying their fair share, taxes would be lower for us in the remaining 53%.

Taxation isn't inherently evil. There is a need for government to perform certain functions, and a need for those of us who benefit from these functions to pay our share of the costs. We all need to pay our fair share. Half of us shouldn't be compelled to pay the other half's fair share on top of our own.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No cognitive dissonance here.

If the 47% were paying their fair share, taxes would be lower for us in the remaining 53%.

Taxation isn't inherently evil. There is a need for government to perform certain functions, and a need for those of us who benefit from these functions to pay our share of the costs. We all need to pay our fair share. Half of us shouldn't be compelled to pay the other half's fair share on top of our own.
Click to expand...

"Fair share"? Sounds socialistic. Oh...you mean proportional, right? Why not just make everyone pay a nominal amount? Every American should just pay $6700 a year in taxes and those who can't afford it should be thrown out of the country. By the proportional standard that would be fair, and we would get the same 2 trillion in tax revenue that we get from income taxes each year.
 
He felt he was too cool to mention it.... you know..... the cool President .... :roll:


I hope the American people know who their President is.... (apart from being the food stamp President)
 
marsden said:
marsden said:
Today 06:02 PM
Re: How can Romney defend this?
OMG! Didn't any of you actually get what he was saying in that speech to potential donors?

He was discussing the campaign strategy and how it is counterproductive to spend money on ads to a group that numbers 47% of the total electorate that will be virtually impossible to win.

Jeez, all these weeks I've been waiting for SOMEONE to state the obvious.

But, I guess it's my duty/honor/pleasure to reveal the mystical, magical answer.

He was talking marketing talk. Something BUSINESS people understand. But not just comprehensible by the WHITE electorate, the principle was used by tennis legend, Arthur Ashe in becoming a champion.

When he lost a point, a game or a set, he wouldn't expend any psychic energy on that loss. He would focus on what he could win.

That's what Romney was describing.

And that's the (simple) truth.
Last edited by marsden
Click to expand...

This is such BS! Watch the video (video #1 at MotherJones.com) AND LISTEN to the question that was asked at the 35:11 mark :

For the past 3 years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry; we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it with two months before the elections to convice everyone they've got to take care of themselves?
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney's reply had absolutely NOTHING to do with campaign strategy - NOTHING! He spoke candidly based on his beliefs and, as such, threw 47% of the U.S. population under the bus. And there you and others are defending him never once stopping to think that maybe, just maybe he got it wrong?! But not to worry...

Deuce said:
By all means, tell me more about how deployed combat troops see themselves as victims who can't be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.

(they pay no income tax and are therefore in Romney's 47%)

This "fact" is the best sort of lie. While it's true that 47% of Americans did not pay federal income taxes in 2009, the picture that the GOP has implanted in your head is wildly inaccurate. Want some more examples?

- Small business startup who takes a year or two to become profitable.
- Millionaire whose income comes mostly from capital gains
- Retired seniors who paid into Social Security their whole lives and are now collecting
- Virtually every high school or college student with a crappy part-time job
- Family of four earning $26,000

Virtually everybody in that 47% either pays payroll taxes or is retired. You want to tell me those are all people who can't be convinced to take responsibility for themselves? Go ahead! Tell me! You believe Romney's statement to be factual. Defend it. Own up to your beliefs and tell me all these people are lazy.

Christ, I mean a substantial portion of Republicans are in that 47% but they're still eating it up. Their golden boy candidate (retroactive, they hated him during the primary) went and **** all over their character but they've convinced themselves that it's only Democrats he was talking about. So pathetic.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'd think you guys would be pissed off that someone who's running for the office of the President of the United States would dismiss half the country so easily.
 
CriticalThought said:
"Fair share"? Sounds socialistic. Oh...you mean proportional, right? Why not just make everyone pay a nominal amount? Every American should just pay $6700 a year in taxes and those who can't afford it should be thrown out of the country. By the proportional standard that would be fair, and we would get the same 2 trillion in tax revenue that we get from income taxes each year.
Click to expand...

works for me-those who pay more than their fair share should get some sort of benefit or recognition rather than the affirmative action poster child telling us we are not paying are fair share
 
TurtleDude said:
works for me-those who pay more than their fair share should get some sort of benefit or recognition rather than the affirmative action poster child telling us we are not paying are fair share
Click to expand...

You aren't paying your fair share. I'm not either. And God knows Mittens isn't.
 
AdamT said:
You aren't paying your fair share. I'm not either. And God knows Mittens isn't.
Click to expand...

I am paying far more than my fair share as is Romney. So stop the blood clot lies
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah its sad-I pay more income tax than 47% of America combined.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm...gotta love it.

Considering that the 47% didn't pay any federal incomes taxes, I'd say paying $0.01 would suffice to support your claim. Then again, that's not a stretch. You could pick up a penny off the streets, from your car ash tray or from between your sofa cushion and mail it in to the IRS. So, you're not really winning any battles here. Still, nicely done even if it's rather trite.
 
Last edited:
I would say it is quite clear why he didn't mention it. He wanted to look presidential and he does not want to give Romney an opportunity to respond. Obama feels it is better to talk about the 47% in advertisements.
 
Camlon said:
I would say it is quite clear why he didn't mention it. He wanted to look presidential and he does not want to give Romney an opportunity to respond. Obama feels it is better to talk about the 47% in advertisements.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he doesn't give a damn about the 47% but rather the other 0.47% who put hundred of millions in his political warchest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom