• 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.

Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor"

Hare said:
It's a shame that an out of context quote is deemed worthy of news coverage.
Click to expand...

Its worse than that. Its intentional. This nothing more than something to play on the stupid. Sadly, it works.
 
Matt Foley said:
I'm shocked at how some of you think. If a politician doesn't say what they think they do nothing but regurgitate Political Correctness, and then nobody will know what drives policy: the politician or the Political Correctness.

You can even take what I just said out of context, "I'm shocked at how some of you think." You can say, "OMG he's out of touch with some Americans."

Eventually we guard our language enough ,we should just stop communicating altogether. Take Ron Paul for instance, we will never know how wacked out his ideas are because he uses euphamisms. His euphamism for returning to slavery is Free Market, his reverse-euphamism for Tariffs is Taxes.

Everyone is being bombarded 24/7 by propaganda by all sides, language don't mean squat anymore, you guys don't even know what Capitalism means anymore.
Click to expand...

Srsly, wtf are you talking about?
 
Redress said:
Srsly, wtf are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I think he's saying it's the responsibility of the people in general to discover the context, not the responsibility of the speaker to figure out all the ways he can be taken out of context and try to avoid it.
 
Harshaw said:
I think he's saying it's the responsibility of the people in general to discover the context, not the responsibility of the speaker to figure out all the ways he can be taken out of context and try to avoid it.
Click to expand...

Responsibility has nothing to do with it. Reality does. Tucked away in a campaign add, most people are not going to bother to fact check.
 
Hare said:
I prefer factual content in my "News" as opposed to sensationalized drivel.
Click to expand...
Everything in the OP and the source is factual. All the context for the quote is there. So what's the problem?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Everything in the OP and the source is factual. All the context for the quote is there. So what's the problem?
Click to expand...
I was referring to news outlets portrayal of the story. Most of the articles I saw listed the quote as the headline only to mention the rest of the quote in passing. It's silly to make a news story out of something such as this when much bigger issues should be on the table for actual discussion.
 
Hare said:
I was referring to news outlets portrayal of the story. Most of the articles I saw listed the quote as the headline only to mention the rest of the quote in passing. It's silly to make a news story out of something such as this when much bigger issues should be on the table for actual discussion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I think comments like these just like Obama's "cling to guns and bibles" comments are important to people because the nuance of word choice gives people insight into how well a candidate relates to them. There are plenty of articles on policy that coexist with articles on quotes like these.
 
Redress said:
Responsibility has nothing to do with it. Reality does. Tucked away in a campaign add, most people are not going to bother to fact check.
Click to expand...

I think that's the point. They should.

Romney explained himself well enough. What he said wasn't even very long. If people are taking sentence-fragment blurbs at face value, the shame's on them, not Romney.
 
Harshaw said:
I think that's the point. They should.

Romney explained himself well enough. What he said wasn't even very long. If people are taking sentence-fragment blurbs at face value, the shame's on them, not Romney.
Click to expand...

Half true. If people are not fact checking then it is their own fault when they believe things not true. However, that does not remove blame from those who misrepresent or take comments out of context.
 
Erod said:
Typical liberal spin on a quote taken entirely out of its context.

I should expect better, but I gave that up long ago.
Click to expand...

Uh oh, there goes that liberal, Newt Gingrich. That didn't take long! :lol:

Gingrich quoted Romney’s remarks from CNN and explained, “it gives you a perfect distinction of our two approaches”:


GINGRICH: I’m fed up with politicians in either party dividing Americans against each other…the Founding Fathers wrote that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among with are life and the pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers meant all of us. Let me shock the Wall Street crowd. The Founding Fathers meant the 1 percent, who they called Americans. The Founding Fathers meant the very poor, who they called Americans. My goal is to find steps for every American to have a job, every American to work, every American to buy a house. I believe America was founded on a dream that we are in fact created equal and we have a chance to go out and have a chance to pursue happiness and that nobody of any background should be denied.
Click to expand...
 
It came off sounding poor... lol. I do understand what Romney was attempting to say though, and that is that he will be working for the middle class the most. He did say that he will fix problems that are going on with the poor. Still though, it is something that will be used against him. Actually what bugs me the most about what he says or any of the other candidates for that matter, and the sitting POTUS is how we no longer have candidates or POTUS who incorporate an "us" feel to it. That is perhaps why Reagan was so popular with moderates and independents. It wasn't what he was going to do, it was what we together can do. Reagan empowered the people and made them feel a part of it all. Such a shame how our politicians regardless of party now put themselves so far up ahead of the people.
 
Redress said:
.....It will be taken out of context and used against him.......
Click to expand...

Mitt is making it much too easy for the Democrats.

There will be no shortage of sound bytes from Mitt to put into 30 second ads.
 
Frankly, the "very poor" are doing the same as they have been for quite some time. It's the middle class and those who have lost their jobs who really need some concern.
 
Harshaw said:
.......If people are taking sentence-fragment blurbs at face value, the shame's on them, not Romney.
Click to expand...

And what if people vote based on sound bytes in 30 second political ads? Who "loses" then?
 
Redress said:
Half true. If people are not fact checking then it is their own fault when they believe things not true. However, that does not remove blame from those who misrepresent or take comments out of context.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree with that, but the shame still isn't on Romney in that case.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Mitt is making it much too easy for the Democrats.

There will be no shortage of sound bytes from Mitt to put into 30 second ads.
Click to expand...

This is true. There will be no shortage of soundbites from Obama as well. It will, as always, boil down to the swing voters in the swing states. I wish there was a better accounting of exactly how many people that is... not just the people who call themselves moderate, centrist, or independent... but the ones that really, truthfully, do evaluate the candidates without regard to party affiliation. These will be the people that really elect the president.

I would venture to guess that most centric voters are not anti-capitalist, don't suffer from wealth envy (though they do feel squeezed), and are of the middle class. (The very poor and the very rich KNOW who they must vote for). I really don't think they will be dissuaded by the soundbites on either end.
 
Last edited:
Quoted from post #1 source - Romney tries to explain what he meant:
My focus is on middle-income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can't find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college.
Click to expand...

I think he is out of touch with those persons and families that is not able to make $10,000 bets like its pocket change. Check this his focus is on middle income Americans - A lot of retirees living on SSI are pooooor. When people can't find work, they still have to pay the bills;Since paying the bills with little or no income (work) is a direct cause of poverty, they become pooooor because what ever savings they may have gets consumed. Is it better to invest like Romney or save? I guess if you have enough wealth that losing $10,000 or even $350,000 isn't much to worry about because that's a small amount ... nothing to him. Finally, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college is not restricted to the wealthy or middle class; poooooor people also have kids that want to go to college,some that are extremely motivated to do well in college. :confused:
 
Last edited:
amph said:
.....I think he is out of touch with those persons and families that is not able to make $10,000 bets like its pocket change.....
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about that little sound byte.
 
amph said:
Quoted from post #1 source - Romney tries to explain what he meant:


I think he is out of touch with those persons and families that is not able to make $10,000 bets like its pocket change. Check this his focus is on middle income Americans - A lot of retirees living on SSI are pooooor. When people can't find work, they still have to pay the bills;Since paying the bills with little or no income (work) is a direct cause of poverty, they become pooooor because what ever savings they may have gets consumed. Is it better to invest like Romney or save? I guess if you have enough wealth that losing $10,000 or even $350,000 isn't much to worry about because that's a small amount ... nothing to him. Finally, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college is not restricted to the wealthy or middle class; poooooor people also have kids that want to go to college,some that are extremely motivated to do well in college. :confused:
Click to expand...

Oy, his explanation is worse than the original comment.
 
Well in the debate did he challenge Perry to make a $10,000 bet? or not? Why not $50? Which isn't unreasonable. Perhaps, he had a need to show some chutzpah.
 
My advice to Romney is don't sugar coat it or hold back. Let us know how you really feel. Let it off your chest.

People like you are the glue that holds this increasingly flaky society together. God help us when the glue runs out.

lol
 
Harshaw said:
Well, I agree with that, but the shame still isn't on Romney in that case.
Click to expand...

There is no shame in what Romney said, but it was something to avoid, since it gives your opponents easy ammunition.
 
Rush said today this quote would taken out of context and used to attack Romney, and look, Rush was right. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom