• 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
TurtleDude said:
you throw a party for political supporters of a man you hope to be elected president. You hire a caterer and one of the caterer's employees secretly tapes the meeting and turns it over to an opponent. That is what I am talking about
Click to expand...
yes, good on the employee
or are you telling us what romney says at a public event should have been kept private
wouldn't want the public to know what he actually believes. the employee's video would not allow that deceit to be perpetrated on the American public. or as an attorney, do you believe truthfulness is overvalued?
 
CRUE CAB said:
You would have to ask him, he wasn't talking about taking money from vets, children, needed social programs. He was talking about the people who WONT work vs people that will not work.
Click to expand...

So 47% of this nation doesn't work and WON'T work???

His little speech he thought was just to 'his people' was offensive because this 47% he refers to DOES work, HAS worked and CONTINUES to work. A very small portion of this nation 'won't' work.
 
TurtleDude said:
you throw a party for political supporters of a man you hope to be elected president. You hire a caterer and one of the caterer's employees secretly tapes the meeting and turns it over to an opponent. That is what I am talking about
Click to expand...

Which wasn't edited and had false tape added to it like O'Keefe and his pimp crap. Nor a highly truncated tiny bit of a speech like Shirley Sherrod.

I kinda like the idea of those who decry the lack of transparency in the Obama Administration being up in arms their candidate is caught saying what the radical right loves to hear. This is why the GOP is dysfunctional.
 
Kobie said:
Why should we? Why do you? Was he violating his station in life or something?
Click to expand...

I have problems with that sort of activity. he was hired to be one of the catering staff.
 
justabubba said:
yes, good on the employee
or are you telling us what romney says at a public event should have been kept private
wouldn't want the public to know what he actually believes. the employee's video would not allow that deceit to be perpetrated on the American public. or as an attorney, do you believe truthfulness is overvalued?
Click to expand...

I think the hosts have a viable legal action against the caterer.
 
notquiteright said:
Which wasn't edited and had false tape added to it like O'Keefe and his pimp crap. Nor a highly truncated tiny bit of a speech like Shirley Sherrod.

I kinda like the idea of those who decry the lack of transparency in the Obama Administration being up in arms their candidate is caught saying what the radical right loves to hear. This is why the GOP is dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

Translation-you hate Romney and you don't care how this tape was obtained. If someone had done that to Obama, you'd be having a hissy fit as did the leaker who apparently was a gay guy who supported Obama
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not a republican or a democrat, and I certainly do not kiss the president's ass like some people. So spare me your claims of objectivity.

I hit the nail on the head. If Obama's derision was directed at you, you'd think it was more egregious than Romney's. The fact is, there's not really any difference.
Click to expand...

I make no claims about where you stand, but as none of the derisions were directed at me, I have no dog in the fight. Tell, why is it so hard to address the differences I note?
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the hosts have a viable legal action against the caterer.
Click to expand...

well then, make your legal services available to the host
but i am guessing you cannot frame an argument to initiate the action
 
justabubba said:
well then, make your legal services available to the host
but i am guessing you cannot frame an argument to initiate the action
Click to expand...

I don't know what the contract said. I suspect that hosts didn't expect some guy to have a hissy fit and intrude on a dinner he wasn't really invited to
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't know what the contract said. I suspect that hosts didn't expect some guy to have a hissy fit and intrude on a dinner he wasn't really invited to
Click to expand...

appears i was right
once again
 
justabubba said:
appears i was right
once again
Click to expand...

do you think that was part of some employee of the caterer's contract to surreptitiously record Romney's speech?
 
Boo Radley said:
Tell, why is it so hard to address the differences I note?
Click to expand...

It's not hard, it's stupid. I could come up with a hundred statements from each Obama and Romney, and you could nit pick irrelevant differences all day.

The bottom line is, Obama has done the same thing.
 
TurtleDude said:
Translation-you hate Romney and you don't care how this tape was obtained. If someone had done that to Obama, you'd be having a hissy fit as did the leaker who apparently was a gay guy who supported Obama
Click to expand...

Good thing you aren't paid to translate... you suck at it!!! ;)

I'd opine a sharp legal beagle would know if the waiter hasn't been sued by now he ain't gonna be... a dullard might think something could still happen... :mrgreen:

The CONs have had series of open mic fun fests and have plenty of 'unnamed officials' claiming everything imaginable so chill out.

I do note you can't seem to leave sexual orientation out of most discussions... hmmmmm

Anyways, it appears some CONs have got to cling to straws after the 'real' attitude of the 1% is voiced and fling poo.... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Good thing you aren't paid to translate... you suck at it!!! ;)

I'd opine a sharp legal beagle would know if the waiter hasn't been sued by now he ain't gonna be... a dullard might think something could still happen... :mrgreen:

The CONs have had series of open mic fun fests and have plenty of 'unnamed officials' claiming everything imaginable so chill out.

I do note you can't seem to leave sexual orientation out of most discussions... hmmmmm

Anyways, it appears some CONs have got to cling to straws after the 'real' attitude of the 1% is voiced and fling poo.... :peace
Click to expand...

I was hoping the waiter was dealt with in a less "legal way":mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
I was hoping the waiter was dealt with in a less "legal way":mrgreen:
Click to expand...

More CON BS... like most CON hopes it was unfulfilled. :lol:

But got to love the empty, vague and down right ignorant CON hint of 'less legal'... :roll:

I fear not any CON revolution, most CON 'patriots' seem at their best hoping for things...

Well and having a guy on K-Street on speed dial... :mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think that was part of some employee of the caterer's contract to surreptitiously record Romney's speech?
Click to expand...

and yet you still cannot identify a tort as your basis for suit
 
ecofarm said:
It's not hard, it's stupid. I could come up with a hundred statements from each Obama and Romney, and you could nit pick irrelevant differences all day.

The bottom line is, Obama has done the same thing.
Click to expand...

They are not irrelevant. We're talking one statement that included 47% of the population! make by very rich people. It's far more significant than anything you've shown. It's close to the "let them eat cake" statement. It resonates.
 
Boo Radley said:
They are not irrelevant. We're talking one statement that included 47% of the population!
Click to expand...

So what? Obama talks crap about republicans and they're 50%.

It's close to the "let them eat cake" statement.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. He was talking about campaigning, not about policy towards those people. Don't be dishonest.
 
ecofarm said:
So what? Obama talks crap about republicans and they're 50%.



No, it's not. He was talking about campaigning, not about policy towards those people. Don't be dishonest.
Click to expand...

No, he isn't. As I showed you, he's defining the 47%. And no, as most people are neither republican or democrat, republicans are smaller than 47%. Democrats would be as well.

image.jpg

Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents
 
pbrauer said:
Yeah, he thought the way to win was to lie about President Obama... About welfare, $716 billion stolen from Medicare, more. He said President Obama was dividing America. He had to have his wife, Ann, along for interviews in MSM to fix his image. He said he wasn't a politician and his campaigned proved it. Romney was the candidate Obama wanted to face, Jon Huntsman was the one he feared and Huntsman could have beaten him IMO.
Click to expand...
Several GOP'ers could have beaten Obama. But FOX NEWS and the Republican establishment decided that it was Romney's turn to run.
 
Crovax said:
Well I did bold it. If you really think Texas is going blue then you are clearly to biased to make rational argument.

Mitt Romney got 57% in Texas that's 2% just shy of the 59% Bush got in 2000. If a north easterner who was weak on social issues can get that close to a popular governor that is a strong social conservative its going to be a very long time before Texas becomes competitive let alone "goes blue".
Click to expand...
It also suggests that Republicans will vote for anyone with an -R behind their name. Which is why most Republicans should have been insulted that Mitt Romney won the nomination to begin with.
 
pbrauer said:
I was listening to a liberal radio talk show host and he made a statement that I'm not sure I believe. He said President Obama was losing until the video surfaced. What do you say?
Click to expand...

No. What cost him the election is that more of his base believed that Obama should lose than that Romney should win.
 
reinoe said:
It also suggests that Republicans will vote for anyone with an -R behind their name.
Click to expand...

And so will democrats which was the point of Mitt's 47% comment to begin with before he turned it into a gaffe

Which is why most Republicans should have been insulted that Mitt Romney won the nomination to begin with.
Click to expand...

Why is that, Romney was the best choice out of the bunch.
 
pbrauer said:
I was listening to a liberal radio talk show host and he made a statement that I'm not sure I believe. He said President Obama was losing until the video surfaced. What do you say?
Click to expand...
I don't think it hurt him that badly, but it did play into the narrative that the Obama campaign was trying to make. What Romney got wrong in that speech was the percentage. 47% is too high. Had he said 30% he would have been much more accurate and probably even a bit low.
 
reinoe said:
It also suggests that Republicans will vote for anyone with an -R behind their name. Which is why most Republicans should have been insulted that Mitt Romney won the nomination to begin with.
Click to expand...

Why? Romney was actually a very wise candidate in retrospect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom