| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16092 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:27 rogzardo wrote: I still don't get that out of hundreds of millions of people, he became the GOP nominee. wtf. Because as hard as it is to believe, all of the other candidates were WORSE. At least as far as the GOP primary voters were concerned. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:28 JinDesu wrote: As much as I dislike Santorum's social policies, I can't figure out how he lost to this guy. I think it had something to do with his social policies ... | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:28 JinDesu wrote: As much as I dislike Santorum's social policies, I can't figure out how he lost to this guy. Thanks for reminding me. Now I remember why its Romney. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:30 Kaitlin wrote: I think it had something to do with his social policies ... It was always the obvious answer  | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:13 ticklishmusic wrote: ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) So about those 47% moochers Romney... Given how good this community is with statistics, wouldn't the more relevant information be, of the %'s in those states that pay 0% income tax, how many vote Democrat ? Even the #1 state, Mississippi, shows 45% which is still a minority. For all we know, 99% of them could vote for Democrat, not that I think the % is that high, but I'm not sure you can extrapolate some of the conclusions that you guys have, based only on what's in the map. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
The internet would FUCKING EXPLODE. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:46 Defacer wrote: Can you imagine a world where Obama said, out loud, in a room full of people: "You know, 47% of America is upper, middle-class white people. My job isn't to worry about them. They're not going to vote for me, anyways." The internet would FUCKING EXPLODE. No it wouldn't because the media would explain that he was referring to road and bridges. That is, IF they reported it at all. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:46 Defacer wrote: Can you imagine a world where Obama said, out loud, in a room full of people: "You know, 47% of America is upper, middle-class white people. My job isn't to worry about them. They're not going to vote for me, anyways." The internet would FUCKING EXPLODE. The reason the internet is not exploding with Romney because no one is exactly surprised. | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
| ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote: No it wouldn't because the media would explain that he was referring to road and bridges. That is, IF they reported it at all. I love how the right in your country believes the media is biased against them. I must say as an outside observer it often seems quite the opposite. In fairness, there exists bias on both sides. | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 18 2012 11:27 rogzardo wrote: Obama's 'didn't build that' line: Democrats - He was referring to bridges, roads, infrastructure Republicans - He was referring to small businesses Romney's 'i don't care about them' Line: Democrats - He was referring to the poor. Republicans - He was referring to the poor's vote. This one is a bit more cut and dry, since there is no way to interpret calling the 47% of the country that is Democrats whiny entitled losers as not being referring to calling half the country whiny entitled losers. | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On September 18 2012 13:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: This one is a bit more cut and dry, since there is no way to interpret calling the 47% of the country that is Democrats whiny entitled losers as not being referring to calling half the country whiny entitled losers. Agreed. It's just too sweet though, my brain can hardly handle it. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote: No it wouldn't because the media would explain that he was referring to road and bridges. That is, IF they reported it at all. LOLz. There's no comparison between a candidate tripping over his words and making a shitty point about how we need the government to provide infrastructure, and a guy saying -- literally, in a clandestine meeting of the power-elite -- that he doesn't care about 47% of the vote because those voters are poor and losers anyway. And the sad thing is that you know this. | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On September 18 2012 13:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: This one is a bit more cut and dry, since there is no way to interpret calling the 47% of the country that is Democrats whiny entitled losers as not being referring to calling half the country whiny entitled losers. Technically, he actually called anyone who didn't meet the federal income tax threshold after rebates whiny entitled losers, and then claimed they were all Democrat voters. It's tempting to suggest that if they weren't before, they are now, but I honestly suspect there'll be quite a few low-income families backing him despite this. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:56 Candadar wrote: It's just, it's just shocking me. As the article says, it's fucking mind blowing that the potential President -- the representative of the people of this country, just wrote off 47% as lazy entitled assholes who he doesn't care about. I think he's right that there is a certain segment of the population that is lazy and entitled. I think he's roughly right about 47% of Americans not paying Federal income taxes. But lumping those two groups into the same pot is just crazy. Bad move. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/Breakdown3-06-17-11.gif) At best, if you were truly, truly cynical, you can make the case that 7% of people are fucking freeloading assholes (aka part-time students/poor). Unless you want to shit on the elderly, too. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 18 2012 13:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I think he's right that there is a certain segment of the population that is lazy and entitled. I think he's roughly right about 47% of Americans not paying Federal income taxes. But lumping those two groups into the same pot is just crazy. Bad move. On that point, I personally wouldn't mind the sentiment if it was more clear that those "47%" were in their position because of their own faults and mistakes. Even moreso if those people were given clear opportunities to redeem themselves in life. However, you mix this animosity with the fact that economic mobility is at a very clear low, while you sit there solidly in a very privileged position, and you become the world's biggest dick. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:28 Vindicare605 wrote: Because as hard as it is to believe, all of the other candidates were WORSE. At least as far as the GOP primary voters were concerned. Ron Paul was definitely not worse in MY opinion, unfortunately the republican parties favors a candidate that will be more likely to draw in moderate and conservative voters rather than libertarians. I know this discussion is about Romney and Obama, but I am responding only to mention that another candidate would have appealed to me more. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 18 2012 12:42 Kaitlin wrote: Given how good this community is with statistics, wouldn't the more relevant information be, of the %'s in those states that pay 0% income tax, how many vote Democrat ? Even the #1 state, Mississippi, shows 45% which is still a minority. For all we know, 99% of them could vote for Democrat, not that I think the % is that high, but I'm not sure you can extrapolate some of the conclusions that you guys have, based only on what's in the map. Most really poor people don't vote at all. The same states that have a really high % of people who don't have any tax liability are also the states that have the lowest voter turnout percentages. A lot of those people are elderly and have social security as their only/main source of income. Seniors are voting Republican by a 2:1 margin these days. Still, I'd guess that more than half of voters who don't have to pay federal income taxes are voting Democratic. But the ideological shifts in this country over the last decade or two make this closer than Mitt thinks. Polarization along social and foreign policy issues has pushed a lot of intelligent high-earning people into the Democratic Party and a lot of poorly-educated low-earning people into the Republican Party, despite those alignments perhaps being against those people's personal financial interests. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby1494 Beastyqt623 Skadoodle458 Liquid`VortiX195 ToD171 KnowMe166 Pyrionflax141 Mew2King102 Trikslyr49 rGuardiaN29 fpsfer  1 |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
