• 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
Everyone has read the transcript.

He was talking about CAMPAIGNING.

Obama says lots of things about his political enemies. He could be painted the same. Enough with the demonizing rhetoric.

I'm not demonizing anyone. I think he said exactly what he thought would appeal to his audience. What he thought would show them that he "identified" wink wink with them.

What does the fact that he was campaigning have to do with anything. He said

are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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 has NOTHING to do with campaigning. If his point was to communicate that there are a group of voters dedicated to Obama and they are lost to him he did not have to use this language which was judgmental and condemning of them. Not to mention, inaccurate. His statements are about the character and values of this group of voters and it fit right in with snobby out of touch rich dude image.
 
Oh puh-lease......so you bought into Romney's belief that 47% of the people in this country don't work and scrounge off the government? You really should educate yourself if you really believe that.

Its not buying into a belief. How many people are actually working?
 
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?

Mr. Etch-A-Sketch was doomed to lose the second he ran.Running a RINO did not work in 2008,Running a even bigger RINO 2012 definitely did not work. Why bother voting for Obama-lite when you can vote for a real Obama? Most of the people who voted for Romney are die hard party-tards(these are people who support their party no matter what and regardless of the politics of the candidate running just as long as that candidate is a member of their party).
 
Its not buying into a belief. How many people are actually working?

220 million, give or take.

But Romney never said that 47% don't work anyway. He said that 47% don't pay federal taxes, which is a somewhat true statement.
 
No, but it did not hurt the chances of Obama in winning the presidential elections.
 
Then why is there a stigma againist long term unemployed people?

Well when you get 99 weeks to sit around and "look" for a job, whats the hurry? Used to be about 6 weeks of unemployment and then you are on your own.
 
I'm not demonizing anyone.

You are. You're turning a brief rant regarding the campaign into a hatred of poor people by a mean old cold hearted businessman. You're turning him into the Scrooge just because he painted his political enemies in a bad light. If we did that every time a politician complained about the votes they cannot get, every politician ever would be the Scrooge.

You're making a mountain of a molehill, as a result of and to serve political bias.
 
Do you REALLY believe that 47% of Americans are "non-working"? Seriously?

I believe he was right in saying he wasn't worried about that 47% because he wasn't going to get those votes anyway. But people want to make more of it than there is. Or did, we are talking 6 years ago.
 
You are. You're turning a brief rant regarding the campaign into a hatred of poor people by a mean old cold hearted businessman. You're turning him into the Scrooge just because he painted his political enemies in a bad light. If we did that every time a politician complained about the votes they cannot get, every politician ever would be the Scrooge.

You're making a mountain of a molehill, as a result of and to serve political bias.

I never said he hated anyone.
I never said he was a cold hearted businessman
I never said he was a Scrooge
I don't see that he was painting his political enemies in a bad light he was painting the people who might vote for him in a bad light
No mountain here, calm down.
 
I never said he hated anyone.
I never said he was a cold hearted businessman
I never said he was a Scrooge
I don't see that he was painting his political enemies in a bad light he was painting the people who might vote for him in a bad light
No mountain here, calm down.
I don't matter what you say, it only matters how others on here wish to frame it.
 
I'm sorry but I think you are referring to the revised version of what he said. This is what he claims he "meant". But if you check the transcript

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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...


Not so much

Good afternoon OD

I'm curious - do you quibble with the 47% as it relates to his description or do you believe his description is completely invalid?
 
I never said he hated anyone.
I never said he was a cold hearted businessman
I never said he was a Scrooge
I don't see that he was painting his political enemies in a bad light he was painting the people who might vote for him in a bad light
No mountain here, calm down.

So you have no claim at all.
 
Good afternoon OD

I'm curious - do you quibble with the 47% as it relates to his description or do you believe his description is completely invalid?


Hey CJ

I can actually understand the point he may have "intended" to make; that those voters are out of reach to him. IMO his embellishments state clearly what he thinks of those individuals and that's the part I have a problem with. I would be just as condemning of any politician regardless of party if I thought something they said like this was more than just a clumsy way of stating an opinion but an accurate reflection of how they feel about a group of people.
 
how was it out of context........

Many people thought he meant retirees, disabled (truly disabled), disabled vets and those type of people. And it was framed that way by the left many times.
 
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.

won't is a contraction of will not............

What he was ham handedly trying to say was that 47% of the people pay no taxes and thus wouldn't vote for him because they don't want to work.

HE basically called a bunch of people lazy so while I think he would have lost anyway it didn't help.
 
Hey CJ

I can actually understand the point he may have "intended" to make; that those voters are out of reach to him. IMO his embellishments state clearly what he thinks of those individuals and that's the part I have a problem with. I would be just as condemning of any politician regardless of party if I thought something they said like this was more than just a clumsy way of stating an opinion but an accurate reflection of how they feel about a group of people.

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.
 
won't is a contraction of will not............

What he was ham handedly trying to say was that 47% of the people pay no taxes and thus wouldn't vote for him because they don't want to work.

HE basically called a bunch of people lazy so while I think he would have lost anyway it didn't help.

For the third time, he never said that 47% of the people don't work.
 
won't is a contraction of will not............

What he was ham handedly trying to say was that 47% of the people pay no taxes and thus wouldn't vote for him because they don't want to work.

HE basically called a bunch of people lazy so while I think he would have lost anyway it didn't help.

Actually, Romney said that 47% of people don't pay income taxes so his message related to lowering income taxes is of no appeal to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom