BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

AussieReaper wrote:

Taken out of context this looks pretty bad too

Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.
-----------------------
Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions. As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Taken out of context this looks pretty bad too

He didn't say that, either.

FFS, can you people not bother to actually read the transcripts of what was actually said?

Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.
-----------------------
Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions. As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.

He clearly said it should be something the states should do, not the federal government. He never said it shouldn't be done. He didn't even say "we can't afford disaster relief." He was talking about spending money we don't have, regardless of the reason--a bigger picture issue, not specific to disaster relief.

Context.

FEOS wrote:

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He was talking about election strategy and where he and his team needed to focus their efforts. The 47% were the ones he was never going to sway in the election...which is exactly what he said. He never said he was "writing them off" from a governance perspective. But that didn't stop knuckleheads from running with that "context" which was not the context of the statement. Hence "out of context."

He said he was wrong because that was the only thing that was going to get the hounds off his back. He explained clearly what the true context was, and that was ignored, because it was more fun to keep pushing the "he doesn't care about po' people" line, and that particular spin put it right in that vein.

But let's not try to be objective and apply the same rules to both sides. That would just expose too much hypocrisy.

Mitt Romney wrote:

"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 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. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I like doing this. I don't have to argue anything, Mitt speaks for himself.

The polls were showing 47% "definitely" for Obama at the time. That is what he was referring to. He never said he wouldn't work for them if elected, which is what all you knuckleheads here have been saying he said. He never said that. Anywhere. Anytime.

So yes...it DOES speak for itself. It totally eliminates the argument that "Romney doesn't care about 47% of America."

If you would, please point out where he says that. Please point out where my argument is invalid.

Oh that's right. You can't.

Let me know when you guys are ready for your next lesson.

MITT Romney's wife pushed him to run for the US presidency after his first attempt in 2008, according to a newly released audio tape.
The Republican contender confirmed to wealthy private donors in California that his wife, Ann, insisted he enter the race a second time because a "grown-up" was needed in the White House.

Mr Romney's comments come from a secretly taped audio recording in March released yesterday by Mother Jones. The left-leaning US magazine was also behind the release of a secret video recording last month that damaged Mr Romney's campaign when he was seen telling wealthy donors in May that 47 per cent of Americans were government dependents who paid no tax.

Ann Romney was previously reported to have told her husband she did not want him to run again after he lost the Republican presidential nomination to John McCain in 2008, but in the audio tape, Mr Romney is heard telling his California fundraiser host a different story: "David, you mentioned Ann, and the fact that she insisted that I get in this race. That is the truth.

"I wanted to talk it over with her. And every time I'd say, 'Let's talk about the pros and cons', she'd say, 'Talk to the hand, talk to the hand. We're just doing this. We've got to do it.' And so she absolutely insisted that I get in this because she was convinced that I was the only one that had the capacity to beat President Obama."

Mrs Romney, who attended the campaign event, then pans Mr Obama's presidency.

"The ship's going over the waterfall, it's almost there. And we look what's happening in Greece, and we look what's happening around the world, we look what's happening internationally. This is a frightening world, and we need a grown-up, and we need someone that understands the economy."

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-10-31 05:38:22)

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ty wrote:

I like doing this. I don't have to argue anything, Mitt speaks for himself.

The polls were showing 47% "definitely" for Obama at the time. That is what he was referring to. He never said he wouldn't work for them if elected, which is what all you knuckleheads here have been saying he said. He never said that. Anywhere. Anytime.

So yes...it DOES speak for itself. It totally eliminates the argument that "Romney doesn't care about 47% of America."

If you would, please point out where he says that. Please point out where my argument is invalid.

Oh that's right. You can't.

Let me know when you guys are ready for your next lesson.

No doubt Romney is talking about campaign strategy here and highlighting the political realities of America - there is a large section on both sides who will vote one way no matter what. I don't dispute that. But Romney didn't just say that. He called this 47% - the entire 47% - government-dependent useless scrounging victims who accept no responsibility and pay no income tax.

I don't know what you've been reading but speaking as one of the knuckleheads I know that I have never said these comments meant he would not govern for this 47% if elected. Of course he would, he'd have no choice. But that isn't the point. The point is that here he is sharing his opinion. He gets that a large proportion will never vote for him, that much is true. The issue here is why Romney thinks they will never vote for him. And according to Romney it wasn't because of differing political ideologies or Hell, the belief that Obama would do a better job than him, it was because they're human garbage. That's not being taken out of context, that is context.

Your argument is "Here's what he meant to say". What I'm saying is "Here's what he said." And what Romney's saying is "Hey, I was wrong to say this." So I'm honestly not sure why you're even bothering trying to justify this.

Ty wrote:

Yeah Mitt, you really know what it's like brother. He referred to the middle class as "those who earn between $200,000 to $250,000 a year", (ahh, no,) later qualifying this by saying he meant total household income, (still no - try about a quarter of that.)

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Population of all of California: 37,691,912
Population of all of New York State: 19,465,197
Population of United States: 311,591,917

So, Mitt was actually speaking of the situation for roughly 18% of the American population? And that's if we're generous and assume that absolutely all of New York and California require $200,000+ to qualify for middle class status (highly, highly doubtful).

Even if this is the case, what does speaking about 18% of the population's conception of the middle class in states which usually don't clinch elections actually achieve? He must be 10 steps ahead of everyone else. A genius for the future to decipher.

Not just California and New York. Add in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington State, Maryland, Northern Virginia, Washington DC, and Illinois.

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Population of all of California: 37,691,912
Population of all of New York State: 19,465,197
Population of United States: 311,591,917

So, Mitt was actually speaking of the situation for roughly 18% of the American population? And that's if we're generous and assume that absolutely all of New York and California require $200,000+ to qualify for middle class status (highly, highly doubtful).

Even if this is the case, what does speaking about 18% of the population's conception of the middle class in states which usually don't clinch elections actually achieve? He must be 10 steps ahead of everyone else. A genius for the future to decipher.

Not just California and New York. Add in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington State, Maryland, Northern Virginia, Washington DC, and Illinois.

Yeah, I guess I can take back the generous allowances in my calculations to account for a few more cities where this might be the case, but I'm certainly not going to believe the number is above 20% of the American population.

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Not just California and New York. Add in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington State, Maryland, Northern Virginia, Washington DC, and Illinois.

Yeah, I guess I can take back the generous allowances in my calculations to account for a few more cities where this might be the case, but I'm certainly not going to believe the number is above 20% of the American population.

NYC metropolitan area is 22.2M
Greater Los Angeles is 12.9M
DC metro area is 8.6M
Chicago metro is 9.8M
SF metro is 7.2M
Seattle metro is 3.5M
Greater Boston is 4.5M

Just those alone equal out to 68.7M or 22%...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Why? Salaries usually already are adjusted.don't like it? Move!  That's usually your libertarian states rights argument. At the least you should be consistent or recognize the fallacy of that argument.

How is it a states rights argument when it's a federal problem? Yes, our salaries are adjusted for the cost of living, but we pay a higher percentage of our income to the feds than people in lower cost of living places do. If I lived in Florida and made an equivalent income adjusted for cost of living I would pay 3% less to the feds.

then move to florida.