• 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
Clem said:
from wikianswers ...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg: very liberal, consistently votes against the conservatives

Sonia Sotomayor: consistently votes with the progressive bloc

Elena Kagan: has consistently voted with the liberal bloc since joining the bench, but still fairly unproven

Stephen G. Breyer: usually votes with the liberal bloc, but has proven centrist in the past

Anthony Kennedy: the swing vote; considered a conservative; sometimes votes with the liberal faction

Samuel A. Alito: consistently conservative

Chief Justice John G. Roberts: consistently conservative

Antonin Scalia: extremely conservative

Clarence Thomas: extremely conservative
Click to expand...

Alright, still if original intent was taken a the prime motivation in any decision it wouldn't really matter what political view any of the judges had. I think and I do not know this, that you are more in favor of the an activist court which takes today's political views and agenda into consideration. Not was originally intended in the original document.

What I do not like is when the court reads something that is not there into the constitution. I am old school, it something is not defined in the constitution it is not there, period. That pretty much leaves that issue up to the states and or local government or the people.The powers of the federal government is pretty well defined in Article I Section 8, Section 9 of the same article list a bunch of no, no's for the federal government and section 10 lists the no no's for the states. Throw in the Bill of rights and a couple of other amendments, the powers of each, state, federal and the people are pretty clear to me. At least as to what the constitution says in plain English, but not lawyerese talk that is used to decide most cases today. Things like shall not means you will in lawyerese quite a lot of times.

When it doubt go back to original intent, there are tons of records, journals, books, writtings of all sorts. Find out what was intended and stick to it. As for changing the constitution, do it by amendment, the only legal way. Not by judicial fiat as is done today. But this is just my opinion which means little to nothing, But it is one vote in the scheme of things.
 
I think it's foolish to blame his loss on just one thing.
 
Deuce said:
I think it's foolish to blame his loss on just one thing.
Click to expand...

that video Jimmy Carter's nephew was able to disseminate may have been the silver spike in the romney campaign's heart. it seemed to confirm that romney, while smart, was also quite aloof, and disconnected from the average American's experience
 
CRUE CAB said:
That was his point, that the 47% he was referring to. Was not going to vote for him anyway.
Click to expand...

Some of the 47% were military personnel and retirees...why would they have not have voted for Romney? Surely some did.
 
Perotista said:
Alright, still if original intent was taken a the prime motivation in any decision it wouldn't really matter what political view any of the judges had. I think and I do not know this, that you are more in favor of the an activist court which takes today's political views and agenda into consideration. Not was originally intended in the original document.

What I do not like is when the court reads something that is not there into the constitution. I am old school, it something is not defined in the constitution it is not there, period. That pretty much leaves that issue up to the states and or local government or the people.The powers of the federal government is pretty well defined in Article I Section 8, Section 9 of the same article list a bunch of no, no's for the federal government and section 10 lists the no no's for the states. Throw in the Bill of rights and a couple of other amendments, the powers of each, state, federal and the people are pretty clear to me. At least as to what the constitution says in plain English, but not lawyerese talk that is used to decide most cases today. Things like shall not means you will in lawyerese quite a lot of times.

When it doubt go back to original intent, there are tons of records, journals, books, writtings of all sorts. Find out what was intended and stick to it. As for changing the constitution, do it by amendment, the only legal way. Not by judicial fiat as is done today. But this is just my opinion which means little to nothing, But it is one vote in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...

What you or I think the Con is or should be is moot, until one or both of us are appointed to the high court and confirmed by the Senate. Two things are both unambiguous and proven in centuries of practice: the Con is a living (flexible) document with a mechanism to amend; the high court is supreme in interpreting it within the context of the time (cases reaching them). Thus, and since they do not introduce legislation nor the cases before them, how they rule is governed only by their own conscious -- as is their duty. Call it activist, constructionist or whatever you wish. But it's their role to rule on matters before the court, without regard for whether you or I like it. They were specifically placed above politics (pleasing the society at large is of no consequence).

Thus, back to the point. If you think the court is Liberal now, you ain't gonna like it after a decade or two of Republicans merely playing a spoiler roll in the House in service of continued pandering to pinheaded bigots.
 
Clem said:
What you or I think the Con is or should be is moot, until one or both of us are appointed to the high court and confirmed by the Senate. Two things are both unambiguous and proven in centuries of practice: the Con is a living (flexible) document with a mechanism to amend; the high court is supreme in interpreting it within the context of the time (cases reaching them). Thus, and since they do not introduce legislation nor the cases before them, how they rule is governed only by their own conscious -- as is their duty. Call it activist, constructionist or whatever you wish. But it's their role to rule on matters before the court, without regard for whether you or I like it. They were specifically placed above politics (pleasing the society at large is of no consequence).

Thus, back to the point. If you think the court is Liberal now, you ain't gonna like it after a decade or two of Republicans merely playing a spoiler roll in the House in service of continued pandering to pinheaded bigots.
Click to expand...

I doubt I will be around in a decade or two. But you are right, what we think whether the court is liberal or conservative really doesn't matter. We are headed regardless of who sits on the SCOTUS to an imperial presidency with all the power located in Washington and none in the states. It is pretty much that way now. I can remember back when those in Washington had little to no effect on the daily lives of its citizens. Washington might as well been on Mars back then, I am a child of the 1950's and fondly remember the Eisenhower era.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure what you mean by talking about campaigning. I was unsure what you meant about context, so I follow you back to this post. If Romney had said 47% will agree with Obama no matter what, and stop there, I'd agree with you. But in context, he defines that 47%. They, the 47%, are dependent on the government. He continues to list and define the 47% as takers. That's the context. The stuff you mention Obama saying are in no way equal to this type of thing.
Click to expand...

Obama talks just as much crap about the religious right.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
He bulked all poor people together like an arrogant rich prick that nobody wants to vote for. He called us takers and beggars. He also said he didn't care about them and doesn't expect them to vote for him.

What did I miss? There was plenty reason given by Romney for a Romney fan to sit the election out in 2012. Would you disagree?
Click to expand...

Just because you satisfy one of his qualifications does not mean you satisfy all of them. Only those who satisfy all of his stated qualifications are not going to vote republican.

Why can't you just accept that you fall into one of the categories, but not all of them? Why must it be all or nothing? That doesn't make sense.
 
ecofarm said:
Obama talks just as much crap about the religious right.
Click to expand...

Not in the same way. And religious right is far more narrow. But we're not just looking at talking crap. We're talking a serious disdain for the poor, largely the working poor, that gies far beyond merely talking crap.
 
Perotista said:
I doubt I will be around in a decade or two. But you are right, what we think whether the court is liberal or conservative really doesn't matter. We are headed regardless of who sits on the SCOTUS to an imperial presidency with all the power located in Washington and none in the states. It is pretty much that way now. I can remember back when those in Washington had little to no effect on the daily lives of its citizens. Washington might as well been on Mars back then, I am a child of the 1950's and fondly remember the Eisenhower era.
Click to expand...

The liberal v conservative bias of the Justices indeed matters. Had the court been liberally biased and not conservatively biased, with two uber conservatives one of which, Justice Thomas, who might be a mute, having said or queried fewer words in his illustrious tenure than is alleged he did when describing a hair in his softdrink, some things might be different today, i.e. Super PACs might not be allowed to pour unlimited amounts of money into campaigns and lobbying with total contributor anonymity, detainees at Guantanamo might get due process and Scalia the "originalist" (lmfao) might be confident that American Jurisprudence as established by the Framers is capable of rendering justice, and that presumption of innocence is kinda nice and ... and an affirmed Constitutional thingy that an actual originalist would hold sacred. It matters greatly, truth be told.

But if the GOP is content to be the perennial opposition party in the lower chamber and cede power to a single party they ironically say are commies, perhaps a Federal Bench with a belief in people and their rights would be a nice consolation. Fingers cross President Clinton (45) chooses well.
 
ecofarm said:
In exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. I've noted a few differences. We can only move forward in the discussion with a better explanation on your part.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't see it. I've noted a few differences. We can only move forward in the discussion with a better explanation on your part.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously claiming that Obama has never said anything disparaging about republicans and the religious right? Stop playing ignorant.
 
Clem said:
The liberal v conservative bias of the Justices indeed matters. Had the court been liberally biased and not conservatively biased, with two uber conservatives one of which, Justice Thomas, who might be a mute, having said or queried fewer words in his illustrious tenure than is alleged he did when describing a hair in his softdrink, some things might be different today, i.e. Super PACs might not be allowed to pour unlimited amounts of money into campaigns and lobbying with total contributor anonymity, detainees at Guantanamo might get due process and Scalia the "originalist" (lmfao) might be confident that American Jurisprudence as established by the Framers is capable of rendering justice, and that presumption of innocence is kinda nice and ... and an affirmed Constitutional thingy that an actual originalist would hold sacred. It matters greatly, truth be told.

But if the GOP is content to be the perennial opposition party in the lower chamber and cede power to a single party they ironically say are commies, perhaps a Federal Bench with a belief in people and their rights would be a nice consolation. Fingers cross President Clinton (45) chooses well.
Click to expand...

Me thinks you are far to willing to write off the Republicans as a non-existent force. Looking at Gallups latest Party identification shows the Democrats with 29% of the electorate, the Republicans with 25%, the rest independent or third party. These are among the lowest totals for both parties since 1932, the lowest ever for the Democrats, the Republicans had been down to 21% a couple of times before. Here:

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and has now reached their all-time low of 29% of the electorate. The Republicans are now at 24%, just a bit higher than their all-time low of 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office because of Watergate.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…29……25….46………..14…………………..16………………..16…..As of April 6 2014

You can now see the dynamcis of the two parties over the long haul. Writing one or the other off is folly. Probably more important than party identification is how the American view both parties. According to CBS here are some other things to think about. I have to run, I am taking the wife to Augusta to celebrate Songkron at the Thai Wat there. So I probably won't be back until sometime late Sunday Afternoon and probably later that night. But think about these CBS numbers. I provided the poll I got them from.

Information from inside this CBS poll, there are a lot of interesting stuff/subjects polled.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1030274/new-york-times-cbs-news-feb-poll-results.pdf

Do you view the Republican Party favorably or unfavorably?
2/19-23/14 All favorably 33% unfavorably 61% don’t know 5%
REPUBLICANS 67% favorable 29% unfavorable 4% don’t know
DEMOCRATS 10% favorable 89% unfavorable 2% don’t know
INDEPENDENTS 31% favorable 60% unfavorable 9% don’t know

Do you view the Democratic Party favorably or unfavorably?
2/19-23/14 All favorably 42% unfavorably 53% don’t know 5%
REPUBLICANS 9% favorable 90% unfavorable 1% don’t know
DEMOCRATS 85% favorable 14% unfavorable 1% don’t know
INDEPENDENTS 30% favorable 61% unfavorable 9% don’t know

What is interesting is that independents have the same favorable/unfavorable view/percentages for both parties. 3/5ths of all independents dislike both political parties.

If the 2014 election for U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would
you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?

All Republican 42% Democrat 39% Other 3% don’t know/depends 16%
REPUBLICANS 86% Republican 3% Democrats 0% other 11% don’t know/depends
DEMOCRATS 3% Republican 85% Democrat 0% other 12% don’t know/depends
INDEPENDENTS 43% Republican 29% Democrat 5% other 23% don’t know/depends
It is interesting to note that 5% of independents say they will vote for a third party while 23% haven’t decided yet although as of this poll independents are vastly on the side of the Republicans. Those don’t knows/depends could easily change that though. Why the huge undecided among independents? Perhaps it is these who view both parties as evil or at least unfavorable.

In general, do you think the Republican Party has the same priorities for the country
as you have, or don’t they?
All Yes, they do 35% No, they don’t 59% DK/NA 6%
REPUBLICANS yes, they do 66% No, they don’t 29% DK/NA 5%
DEMOCRATS yes, they do 12% No, they don’t 85% DK/NA 2%
INDEPENDENTS yes, they do 35% No, they don’t 57% DK/NA 8%


In general, do you think the Democratic Party has the same priorities for the country
as you have, or don’t they?

All Yes, they do 38% No, they don’t 57% DK/NA 5%
REPUBLICANS yes, they do 7% No, they don’t 91% DK/NA 2%
DEMOCRATS yes, they do 76% No, they don’t 21% DK/NA 3%
INDEPENDENTS yes, they do 30% No, they don’t 63% DK/NA 7%

Once again the interesting thing is the independents who view the Republicans by 5 points as having the same view as they do 35-30 and don’t have 57-63. But even so, around 3/5ths of all independents think neither party has the same priorities for the country as they do.

Now you take care and have a good week end. I will give you my opinion on 2016 after the November elections. I think what happens in the midterms will have a direct effect on 2016.
 
Perotista said:
Me thinks you are far to willing to write off the Republicans as a non-existent force. Looking at Gallups latest Party identification shows the Democrats with 29% of the electorate, the Republicans with 25%, the rest independent or third party. These are among the lowest totals for both parties since 1932, the lowest ever for the Democrats, the Republicans had been down to 21% a couple of times before. Here:

Here is a list of party affiliation from 1935 to present. I find it quite interesting that the Republican Party has never been higher than 35% of the electorate and that occurred in both 1945 and 1955. Truman had replaced FDR in 1945 and WWII had come to an end. In 1955 Eisenhower was president and was popular with both parties. Whereas the Democrats have been as high as 52, 1965 a year after the Goldwater debacle and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and has now reached their all-time low of 29% of the electorate. The Republicans are now at 24%, just a bit higher than their all-time low of 21% the year after Nixon resigned from office because of Watergate.


Pew Research for the 1935-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2005-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1935…51……30……19
1940…50……32……18
1945…47……35…..18
1950…48……32…..20
1955…47……35…..18
1960…51……29…..20
1965…52……24….24
1970…47……27…..26
1975…51……21…..28
1980…45……27…..28
1985…40……32…...28
1990…38……30…..32
1995…32……32…..36
2000…34……30…..36
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…29……25….46………..14…………………..16………………..16…..As of April 6 2014

You can now see the dynamcis of the two parties over the long haul. Writing one or the other off is folly. Probably more important than party identification is how the American view both parties. According to CBS here are some other things to think about. I have to run, I am taking the wife to Augusta to celebrate Songkron at the Thai Wat there. So I probably won't be back until sometime late Sunday Afternoon and probably later that night. But think about these CBS numbers. I provided the poll I got them from.

Information from inside this CBS poll, there are a lot of interesting stuff/subjects polled.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1030274/new-york-times-cbs-news-feb-poll-results.pdf

Do you view the Republican Party favorably or unfavorably?
2/19-23/14 All favorably 33% unfavorably 61% don’t know 5%
REPUBLICANS 67% favorable 29% unfavorable 4% don’t know
DEMOCRATS 10% favorable 89% unfavorable 2% don’t know
INDEPENDENTS 31% favorable 60% unfavorable 9% don’t know

Do you view the Democratic Party favorably or unfavorably?
2/19-23/14 All favorably 42% unfavorably 53% don’t know 5%
REPUBLICANS 9% favorable 90% unfavorable 1% don’t know
DEMOCRATS 85% favorable 14% unfavorable 1% don’t know
INDEPENDENTS 30% favorable 61% unfavorable 9% don’t know

What is interesting is that independents have the same favorable/unfavorable view/percentages for both parties. 3/5ths of all independents dislike both political parties.

If the 2014 election for U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would
you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?

All Republican 42% Democrat 39% Other 3% don’t know/depends 16%
REPUBLICANS 86% Republican 3% Democrats 0% other 11% don’t know/depends
DEMOCRATS 3% Republican 85% Democrat 0% other 12% don’t know/depends
INDEPENDENTS 43% Republican 29% Democrat 5% other 23% don’t know/depends
It is interesting to note that 5% of independents say they will vote for a third party while 23% haven’t decided yet although as of this poll independents are vastly on the side of the Republicans. Those don’t knows/depends could easily change that though. Why the huge undecided among independents? Perhaps it is these who view both parties as evil or at least unfavorable.

In general, do you think the Republican Party has the same priorities for the country
as you have, or don’t they?
All Yes, they do 35% No, they don’t 59% DK/NA 6%
REPUBLICANS yes, they do 66% No, they don’t 29% DK/NA 5%
DEMOCRATS yes, they do 12% No, they don’t 85% DK/NA 2%
INDEPENDENTS yes, they do 35% No, they don’t 57% DK/NA 8%


In general, do you think the Democratic Party has the same priorities for the country
as you have, or don’t they?

All Yes, they do 38% No, they don’t 57% DK/NA 5%
REPUBLICANS yes, they do 7% No, they don’t 91% DK/NA 2%
DEMOCRATS yes, they do 76% No, they don’t 21% DK/NA 3%
INDEPENDENTS yes, they do 30% No, they don’t 63% DK/NA 7%

Once again the interesting thing is the independents who view the Republicans by 5 points as having the same view as they do 35-30 and don’t have 57-63. But even so, around 3/5ths of all independents think neither party has the same priorities for the country as they do.

Now you take care and have a good week end. I will give you my opinion on 2016 after the November elections. I think what happens in the midterms will have a direct effect on 2016.
Click to expand...

Fact. Last 6 POTUS Elections the GOP candidate got a slim majority of the votes in an election that should have been roll again / wide margin of victory for any sitting president (post 9/11 ... Oklahoma City saved Clinton's bacon ... 9/11 was on a whole other level.)

Obama got an EC landslide, then did zip to fix the economy and in fact had economic numbers that spelled 100% certain doom for POTUS re-election, and Obama got a near EC landslide, losing only two con-leaning states that went for him back when Bush left office with the economy in ruin and "Republican" was politically toxic.

In fact, funny thing about Bush 43. A mistake in the ballot design in Broward County FL got him and election he lost to Gore, by 1 EC vote. Then Osama bin Laden assured re-election, even if Jeff Dahmer was in the oval office, and with some brilliant Rove tactics, OH was won by a thread and an election that should have been and easy win barely eked by. In short, the White Libs/Minority assured win for Dems trend ain't new, it's been going on since Clinton, but some highly unusual anomalies clouded it with Bush appearing to win twice, when in reality he lost one and got a slim win on the second go in an election that should have been a whopper for any sitting pres thanks to ObL/9-11.

Spin it. Cherry pick. Go hog wild, but until the GOP attracts minorities they'll never elect a candidate for POTUS nor control the Senate. I think that support the maxim that Bigotry hurts bigots the most. What price will the GOP pay in support of pinheaded losers who now wear crosses instead of burning them, and are the opposite of "christian?" (verb)

And to think it's the party of Lincoln. Mind boggling.
 
ecofarm said:
Are you seriously claiming that Obama has never said anything disparaging about republicans and the religious right? Stop playing ignorant.
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying all disparaging remarks are not equal. Some include a larger group (Romney's), are harsher (Romney's), and are more costly (Romney's). I say there is a difference, and not the over generalization you're claiming.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I'm saying all disparaging remarks are not equal. Some include a larger group (Romney's), are harsher (Romney's), and are more costly (Romney's). I say there is a difference, and not the over generalization you're claiming.
Click to expand...

If you were the target of Obama's derision, you'd feel differently.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh please.
Click to expand...

I meant what I said. I don't see me starting threads about what politicians say. I've noted the differences. Instead of addressing them, you've taken this tactic.
 
Boo Radley said:
I meant what I said. I don't see me starting threads about what politicians say. I've noted the differences. Instead of addressing them, you've taken this tactic.
Click to expand...

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.
 
does anyone else have problems that paid help ( a caterer employee) who apparently had a hissy fit was the one who leaked this tape?
 
TurtleDude said:
does anyone else have problems that paid help ( a caterer employee) who apparently had a hissy fit was the one who leaked this tape?
Click to expand...

are you saying the video is inauthentic or are you simply pissed that the hired help dared expose romney for his actual position, undermining his campaign
i enjoy knowing that it was Jimmy Carter's grandson who made sure the public had access to that 47% video
Jimmy Carter: Grandson Thanked By Obama For '47 Percent' Tape (VIDEO)
 
justabubba said:
are you saying the video is inauthentic or are you simply pissed that the hired help dared expose romney for his actual position, undermining his campaign
i enjoy knowing that it was Jimmy Carter's grandson who made sure the public had access to that 47% video
Jimmy Carter: Grandson Thanked By Obama For '47 Percent' Tape (VIDEO)
Click to expand...


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
 
TurtleDude said:
does anyone else have problems that paid help ( a caterer employee) who apparently had a hissy fit was the one who leaked this tape?
Click to expand...

Why should we? Why do you? Was he violating his station in life or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom