http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent
The Republican told a group of donors that the 47 per cent of Americans who do who do not pay income tax would automatically support President Barack Obama because they "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it"."My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,"
So thats that one wrapped up then.
It's not a surprise. He is one of those wealthy people who genuinely believes that people struggling at the bottom are there because they deserve to be and it's their own fault.
He's not even talking about the bottom. 47% includes pensioners who have contributed taxes all their lives. And people who pay payroll taxes, which pay for benefits......How do you get elected in a two horse race if you write off 47% of the electorate? Someone do the maths and tell me how much of the remaining 53% he has to get?
Will be interesting to see the detailed Obama responce. From what I've seen so far the 47% quoted by Romney as "scroungers" includes pensioners !
The private equity business he ran put many many people out of work, they had jobs before he got involved. He fired them. It is not surprising this is his attitude.
Personally I'm absolutely delighted he made such a gaff.
"My job is not to worry about those people"
So if elected he doesn't intend to be president to 47% of Americans ?
Which nicely emphasises just how polarised American society is......the United States isn't very united, it would appear.
So if elected he doesn't intend to be president to 47% of Americans ?
Empathy - he doesnt have any. You can certainly argue that Obama has been a disappointment and has tried and has failed on the economy and jobs, I know lots of Americans who think that. But I dont know many/any who will vote for Romney. The Republican Party has lost its mind.
He's an absolute tool, with all the charm and charisma of a damp dishcloth.
If what he said is actually what he means, it'll be a first. His track record suggests he'll change his opinions/beliefs/policies depending on what his audience want to hear.
And right now he's targetting uber-right wing, evolution-denying Tea Party nut-jobs who regard Sarah Palin as a dangerously wishy washy liberal.
How do you get elected in a two horse race if you write off 47% of the electorate?
You don't. Which is fortunate, because he''d be an utter calamity as president. I bet Obama can't believe his (continued) good fortune when it comes to his opponents' choices of candidate
You can certainly argue that Obama has been a disappointment and has tried and has failed on the economy and jobs, I know lots of Americans who think that.
Hasn't unemployment gone down under Obama ? This appears to suggest that it has :
[img] 
[/img]
Thing is its notoriusly difficult to overturn an incumbent President.
It doesn't happen that often most of them get their two terms once they are in.
Romney is a joke, the serious Republican heavyweights are waiting in the wings for another four years
Hasn't unemployment gone down under Obama ?
Does that mean Romney has to revise down his figure to 46%?
You have to remember the audience he's addressing though Ernie. Their never going to give him any credit for anything. Ever. These Fox 'news' watching, willfully ignorant, Luddites in the bible belt are still convinced he's a Muslim, as that's what fits with the ultra-narrow, blinkered worldview they have spoon-fed to them
Hasn't unemployment gone down under Obama ? This appears to suggest that it has :
It has.....but a lot of people think the price of that has been another huge leg up in the national debt and the chickens are going to come home to roost for the US before too long.
You wont catch me arguing for a vote against Obama, I love the guy. But a good Republican candidate that isnt in thrall to the insane wing of the GOP could have beaten him.
Republican Party = Taliban in mansions
i'm afraid that i have to take issue with mcboo thread title.that's just insulting to planks 🙂 he is a huge tool (with apologies to tools 😳
You have to remember the audience he's addressing though Ernie. Their never going to give him any credit for anything. Ever. These Fox 'news' watching, willfully ignorant, Luddites in the bible belt are still convinced he's a Muslim, as that's what fits with the ultra-narrow, blinkered worldview they have spoon-fed to them
Aye, I think even just last week one of the Republican senators (for Kansas, I think) was trying to get Obama removed from the presidential election ballot papers because of the 'evidence' that he wasn't a proper US citizen.
Romney is a joke, the serious Republican heavyweights are waiting in the wings for another four years
That's an interesting take on things.
I was pondering this morning that out of a potential 150 million republicans in the US, what state of affairs could exist that Mitt was the best they could find, but that goes a long way to answering it.
He's only a candidate there at the moment. Here we have people with those sort of attitudes in government.
I think a rousing speech from his wife will get things back on track 😉
What's really worrying is that he is, effectively, running a billion $ turnover company for the election.
And yet he comes out with stuff like that.
Why do right wing people always assume that the poor have somehow all inflicted poverty on themselves. It saddens me.
Just think, if that plank can garner enough votes by fair means or foul, he'll be C-in-C of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal...
The Republican Party is now paying the price for its opportunistic indulgence of the seriously fruit-loop Tea Party faction. Its effectively painted itself into a corner.
For a candidate to win over the majority nomination of the GOP, they have to pander and prostrate themselves to these utter headcases, as they now wield all the power within the party hierarchy. Yet the more they do this, the more unelectable they become to the majority of the American population with anything between their ears.
Obama must be laughing his socks off
You could make the same points about the 'right' v 'left' here. The trouble is that things arn't that simple. Given the uninformed american electorate there is the very real chance that he'll get elected.
Yet the more they do this, the more unelectable they become to the majority of the American population with anything between their ears.
And yet - at best - the polls only have Obama 6 points ahead and - at worst - 1 point
Obama must be laughing his socks off
I dunno. If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it's the Dems.
I would like to see someone do a comprehensive study assessing the ability of individuals to empathise with other people. Then correlate that with their voting behaviour and economic status.
ohnohesback - MemberHe's only a candidate there at the moment. Here we have people with those sort of attitudes in government.
^^^^
this
sadly i thought romney still has a good chance of getting in
They've elected bigger planks before.
It wouldn't be any kind of shock to see him win.
Edit
I would like to see someone do a comprehensive study assessing the ability of individuals to empathise with other people. Then correlate that with their voting behaviour and economic status.
That would be fascinating!
Romney's a little over 2/1 at the bookies so Obama's the favourite but not by a mile
The Grand Old Party in terminal decline and Romney without any feet left to shoot himself in.
Republicanism ain't what it used to be.
[b]ohnohesback[/b] - Member
He's only a candidate there at the moment. Here we have people with those sort of attitudes in government.
IMO Obama is to the right of most UK Conservatives. The GOP are off the charts.
[b]molgrips[/b] - Member
I would like to see someone do a comprehensive study assessing the ability of individuals to empathise with other people. Then correlate that with their voting behaviour and economic status.
You've two studies there and you might be quite surprised at the results.
A couple of thoughts
A friend of mine works with female prison in-mates. She was doing a session around voting (as most of them didn't vote). She asked a lot of questions about their attitudes to issues. All declared they would vote labour if they voted at all. They were quite surprised that their political views were very much to the right.
I think you would find no strong correlation between empathy and voting behaviour. If there was a bias I would suspect the centre right learning voting population would have stronger empathy.
You will find a strong bias between economic status and voting behaviour as the parties tend to align themselves that way to appeal to a certain group, don't confuse which is driving which.
IMO Obama is to the right of most UK Conservatives. The GOP are off the charts.
+1, although I have a sneaky suspision he'd be close to the centre if that didn't have him incarcerated in a padded cell for the rest of his life for being a loony communist Such is American politics 🙂
I find it interesting... Everyone said Dubya was stupid, but Romney's definately not stupid. He does seem to be willfully ignorant though and that's worse.
"My job is not to worry about those people", he said today. Yep, they're only half the nation you want to lead.
OT wrt Romney.
But relevant to jambalaya/molgrips voting behaviour debate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqmyw/Analysis_Political_Prejudice/
IMO Obama is to the right of most UK Conservatives. The GOP are off the charts.
😯
Not so sure about that! CMD's quietly dismantling the NHS, whilst Obama's a "socialist" for trying to make one. And that's just the start...
I think both are restrained by the country's that elected them, cameron would rush to the right if he could, and Obama to the left. Although I do think Obama is a more practical politician and more likely to realistically evaluate likely outcomes rather than religiously sticking to dogma.
[i]How do you get elected in a two horse race if you write off 47% of the electorate? Someone do the maths and tell me how much of the remaining 53% he has to get?
[/i]
Until they (and anyone else) have mandatory voting the key is to get enough people in enough places to vote for you - maybe the 47% don't actually vote, or vote in places that are 'un-winnable' (sic).
Its a strange place when a millionairre tax avoider can lecture folk for living of the state, can have "whacky" christian views and be this right wing and actually still have a chance of getting elected.
I once got called a liberal by an american and this was apparently an insult we were discussing our socialist helath care system at the time.
think you would find no strong correlation between empathy and voting behaviour. If there was a bias I would suspect the centre right learning voting population would have stronger empathy.
You think the right wing are more empathetic than the left wing ?
Seems counter intuitive an I would need to see some evidence.
How do you get elected in a two horse race if you write off 47% of the electorate? Someone do the maths and tell me how much of the remaining 53% he has to get?
I thought I'd read a different 'version' of that speech that implied Mitt was talking about 47% of Obama voters so that equates to 25% of the electorate (assuming 50/50ish split between Obama and Romney.
You think the right wing are more empathetic than the left wing ?
I seem to recall something about people becoming more left wing on most issues when questioned specifically about those individual issues, but voting to the right when elections come round. I think the conclusion was the way electioneering tends to create fear as the greatest vote winner.
Politics.. Its all very confusing.
for example.. most of the hippy, right on surfer dude/dudets or supposed socialists I know follow the lefty line to the hilt. Yet in any one to one conversation, the vast majority offer opinions far more to the right than even me (and I’m pretty right wing). They show no empathy to anyone. The only exception being a couple of Christians (who the left bizarrely seem to despise).
On the other hand.. most of the people at my sailing club are Tories, yet they spend a great deal of time doing social deeds with the disabled/less well off (something the supposed lefties I know don’t appear do at all). For supposed selfish, greedy tories, they seem to show much greater empathy that the 'caring' left.
What it all means I have no idea..
Politics.. Its all very confusing.
Indeed, I've worked on elections and voting stations. A lot of the Labour supporters I've dealt with would have been kicked out of NF meetings for being too extreme. They just vote Labour because their fathers did, etc. etc.
breatheasy - like you, I thought/assumed that this was what he said (hence my edited post earlier!) as even by US political standards his actual words seemed too stupid to be true. Surely, he meant 47% of Obama's supporters - but no!
The difference between political rhetoric and political/economic reality always amuses me especially in the UK eg, who are the parties who actually cut spending, who are the true Keynesians and/or monetarists, who does what with taxes etc.
But the UK's confusion on these matters is nothing compared with the US. So last night Stephanie Flanders suggested that Obama was responsible for a Keynesian style response to the crisis. And this is a widely held view. But is it correct? Well not exactly, since most of the Keynesian policies (eg bailing our US autos etc) were pushed through by Bush. As in the UK, there is a striking sense of continuity in policy between parties whose rhetoric suggests major differences.
The irony is highlighted when someone like Paul Krugman writes, "In short, if you want to see government responding to economic hard times with the “tax and spend” policies conservatives always denounce, you should look to the Reagan era — not the Obama years....
...As many economists have pointed out, America is currently suffering from a classic case of debt deflation: all across the economy people are trying to pay down debt by slashing spending, but, in so doing, they are causing a depression that makes their debt problems even worse. This is exactly the situation in which government spending should temporarily rise to offset the slump in private spending and give the private sector time to repair its finances. Yet that’s not happening.
The point, then, is that we’d be in much better shape if we were following Reagan-style Keynesianism. Reagan may have preached small government, but in practice he presided over a lot of spending growth — and right now that’s exactly what America needs."
Funny old world!
