• 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!

Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

Did the 47% video save President Obama from losing?

  • Total voters
    54
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair - the comments were, in my view, meant to be contemptuous in a way that prodded people who oppose that type of government dependency, reliant upon their tax dollars, to get out an vote for the other side of the argument. It's not a bad message, considering the financial condition of government in general.
Click to expand...

I agree it was his intent however I think it would be dangerous to have president who catered to that kind of thinking. Also, I don't think that people on public assistance is the reason for the financial condition of the government.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Classic example of people looking to get offended.
Click to expand...
The real gaffe of the "binders full of women" comment was that it was a list of women who had good qualifications that was presented to him. Romney never asked for said list but he tried to take credit for compiling said list.

Just like what happened with the 1984 Olympics, Romney was caught trying to take credit for other people's work.
 
tres borrachos said:
Romney never said that 47% of Americans don't work.
Click to expand...

no he said:

"there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


So can you explain to me what the bolded pieces mean.

The last line suggests they take no responsibility what do you think he meant?
 
opendebate said:
I agree it was his intent however I think it would be dangerous to have president who catered to that kind of thinking. Also, I don't think that people on public assistance is the reason for the financial condition of the government.
Click to expand...

Correct - people on public assistance isn't the reason for the financial condition of the goverment - politicians who pander to them and encourage dependence upon public assistance is the main reason for the financial condition of the government. When you have politicians ignoring fixes to the economy and doing the hard lifting and instead playing up increases in unemployment eligibility, increases in food stamp distribution, resisting fixes to the social safety net and instead giving taxpayers a "holiday" from their commitment to those programs, you create a society that becomes increasingly unwilling to do what's necessary to get the country back on sustainable financial ground.
 
I agree with what Romney said about the 47%. Doesn't mean I would vote for him. Just saying that, what he said, in the context he was saying it in, had merit.
 
10 of the top 20 positions in Romney's MA administration were held by women. His lieutenant governor was a woman. His chief of staff was a woman.

The "binder full of women" attacks were nothing but partisan sensationalism.
 
What troubles me most is that people believe that Americans that are using the assistance programs are lazy and do not work. The truth is that a majority of those utilizing government assistance are those employed in low paying jobs and actually go to work everyday.

So Mitt was really talking about Wal-Mart employees and their like in his given comments.
 
reinoe said:
The real gaffe of the "binders full of women" comment was that it was a list of women who had good qualifications that was presented to him. Romney never asked for said list but he tried to take credit for compiling said list.

Just like what happened with the 1984 Olympics, Romney was caught trying to take credit for other people's work.
Click to expand...

Yea, Obama has neeeevvver done that.
 
Sababa said:
no he said:

"there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


So can you explain to me what the bolded pieces mean.

The last line suggests they take no responsibility what do you think he meant?
Click to expand...

And he never said 47% of Americans don't work.
 
tres borrachos said:
10 of the top 20 positions in Romney's MA administration were held by women. His lieutenant governor was a woman. His chief of staff was a woman.

The "binder full of women" attacks were nothing but partisan sensationalism.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It was Romney's, "You didn't build that," moment. Totally taken out of context and partisan sensationalism. No shortage of that going around from either side.
 
Captain America said:
Absolutely. It was Romney's, "You didn't build that," moment. Totally taken out of context and partisan sensationalism. No shortage of that going around from either side.
Click to expand...

Not a good comparison, sorry. Romney wasn't disparaging women, nor was he attemping to say that women weren't entitled to lay claim to their success without giving the government credit.
 
opendebate said:
I agree it was his intent however I think it would be dangerous to have president who catered to that kind of thinking.
Click to expand...

You mean like describing someone as a "typical white person"?
 
tres borrachos said:
Not a good comparison, sorry. Romney wasn't disparaging women, nor was he attemping to say that women weren't entitled to lay claim to their success without giving the government credit.
Click to expand...

I disagree sir. Apples and oranges, perhaps, but both scenarios were taken out of context and twisted for partisan sensationalism. That is the only point I was trying to make. Both sides do it.
 
Or how about when Obama was explaining his difficulty winning over middle class voters in the midwest and Pennsylvania? "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Even Hillary Clinton was all over that one.

Is that a window into Obama's soul? Is it what he truly thinks about people of faith, or people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?
 
Captain America said:
I disagree sir. Apples and oranges, perhaps, but both scenarios were taken out of context and twisted for partisan sensationalism. That is the only point I was trying to make. Both sides do it.
Click to expand...

I'm a ma'am, hence the pink ribbon over there in the "Gender" field <---------------------------------

"You didn't build that" was a dig at small business owners. They most certainly did build that. And Romney most certainly did have a great number of women in high level positions in his administration - moreso, in fact, than Obama has in his.
 
But I do agree with your larger point that both sides do it, Captain. They're both like spiders watching flies in their webs.
 
ecofarm said:
Rocket, he was referring to campaigning and not policy. That's the context being dropped. Stop being a sucker for context drops.
Click to expand...

He still said that 47% of the voting public were "dependent victims." Whether that's policy or not...well, you can debate that. But he basically started by insulting half the country no matter how you cut it.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm a ma'am, hence the pink ribbon over there in the "Gender" field <---------------------------------

"You didn't build that" was a dig at small business owners. They most certainly did build that. And Romney most certainly did have a great number of women in high level positions in his administration - moreso, in fact, than Obama has in his.
Click to expand...

My apologies ma'am. I should have noticed that. Not meaning to derail the thread but the "You didn't build that," context was delivered to point out that the nation, it's education systems, infrastructure, security agencies, sets up business owners to succeed and it was mostly all built with public tax dollars. If someone is to take advantage of these things, by hiring educated workers, using highways and airports, utilizing police forces to protect their assets, etc., and profit thereby, there is a certain obligation to "pay back," for these services. I can produce the speech in it's entirety if you need me to.

It was not meant to say that successful people did not deserve or work for their success. It merely pointed out that without these systems in place, chance are their success would be minimized. But that is what the partisans wanted us to believe he meant. They did that by using a clip from this sentence and a clip from that sentence and giving a partial overview of what was actually said.

Point is, in today's political environment, taking things out of context, often to the point of it almost becoming an outright lie, is common practice in today's politics. The democrats used Romney's "47%" comments and did the very same thing as the republicans did to Obama's "You didn't build that," comment.

Again, my apologies for my gender error. Have a wonderful day Ms. Borrachos. :2wave:
 
tres borrachos said:
10 of the top 20 positions in Romney's MA administration were held by women. His lieutenant governor was a woman. His chief of staff was a woman.

The "binder full of women" attacks were nothing but partisan sensationalism.
Click to expand...

"Binders full of women" was a very unfortunate choice of words. Funny in a way, but unfortunate.
 
In my eyes he lost by being a mormon. I can't see anyone who wears "magical underpants" as our president.
 
Captain America said:
My apologies ma'am. I should have noticed that. Not meaning to derail the thread but the "You didn't build that," context was delivered to point out that the nation, it's education systems, infrastructure, security agencies, sets up business owners to succeed and it was mostly all built with public tax dollars. If someone is to take advantage of these things, by hiring educated workers, using highways and airports, utilizing police forces to protect their assets, etc., and profit thereby, there is a certain obligation to "pay back," for these services. I can produce the speech in it's entirety if you need me to.

It was not meant to say that successful people did not deserve or work for their success. It merely pointed out that without these systems in place, chance are their success would be minimized. But that is what the partisans wanted us to believe he meant. They did that by using a clip from this sentence and a clip from that sentence and giving a partial overview of what was actually said.

Point is, in today's political environment, taking things out of context, often to the point of it almost becoming an outright lie, is common practice in today's politics. The democrats used Romney's "47%" comments and did the very same thing as the republicans did to Obama's "You didn't build that," comment.

Again, my apologies for my gender error. Have a wonderful day Ms. Borrachos. :2wave:
Click to expand...

No worries, Captain - it happens all the time! Maybe the horse pic throws people off.:lol:

I posted after my original post to you that I agree with you that both sides do it. That's why politics is so frustrating. We no longer live in a decent democratic society.

You have a great day as well Captain!
 
rocket88 said:
"Binders full of women" was a very unfortunate choice of words. Funny in a way, but unfortunate.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. I had a quick vision of a bunch of ladies stuffed into a 3-ring something or other when I heard him say it.:lamo Then I was like "WTF did he say?" to my husband.
 
tres borrachos said:
No worries, Captain - it happens all the time! Maybe the horse pic throws people off.:lol:

I posted after my original post to you that I agree with you that both sides do it. That's why politics is so frustrating. We no longer live in a decent democratic society.

You have a great day as well Captain!
Click to expand...

Looking over at your pink gender thingy, (did that sound right? LOL,) I also notice you are a conservative that lives in New England. Kudos to you for keeping the faith. That can't be easy. That would be much like a liberal living in Texas.
 
Captain America said:
Looking over at your pink gender thingy, (did that sound right? LOL,) I also notice you are a conservative that lives in New England. Kudos to you for keeping the faith. That can't be easy. That would be much like a liberal living in Texas.
Click to expand...

LMAO at "thingy".:lol:

Yes we are among the very few left up this way. It is NOT easy, but so far New Hampshire (where I live) hasn't tipped too far off center - we still don't have an income tax so the Massachusetts expats haven't brought their special brand of liberalism to complete control (yet). Yes I can't imagine being a liberal in Texas either...
 
tres borrachos said:
LMAO at "thingy".:lol:

Yes we are among the very few left up this way. It is NOT easy, but so far New Hampshire (where I live) hasn't tipped too far off center - we still don't have an income tax so the Massachusetts expats haven't brought their special brand of liberalism to complete control (yet). Yes I can't imagine being a liberal in Texas either...
Click to expand...

I know a SHSU professor in Texas that is a tree-hugger. She makes Rachel Maddow look like Rush Limbaugh. She is a real sweetheart who would give the shirt off he back but she is a bit too liberal for my tastes. Anyways, she had one of her neighbor's shoot her "Vote for Obama," yard sign with a shotgun, not once but twice. Once, she witnessed him get out of his truck, walk into her yard and blast it point blank. She called the cops but was left un-assisted. They suggested that she remove her Obama sign to avoid further trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom