On September 28 2012 01:59 RCMDVA wrote: Intrade has it 75/25.
That's not quite overwhelming.
I am just going off oddschecker. UK only bookies to be fair, but it compares the current odds of numerous different bookies. Obama is as low as 1.14 to win. The lowest Romney gets is 4.2 to win. In a race with only 2 possible outcomes those are staggering odds.
No matter how this election ends, the U.S. is in serious trouble. Instead of debating facts, policy, or - God forbid - a canidate's past performance, we are argueing over what "47%" and "You didn't build it" really means. Lets be honest...Romney has made some pretty dumb remarks, but that is not why he is down in the polls. He is low in the polls because saying he is in the 1% is a vast understatement, and during a recession people who are struggling to make ends meet are not going to look favorably on another uber rich white guy. And to be fair, there will be some conservatives who wil never vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.
The last four years have not been great in the U.S. from an economic stand point, but instead of focusing on Obama's record (which alone should have won this election), Republicans - pulled by the Tea Party - have created a giant cluster fuck - by dragging social issues into an economic debate. Guess what...Roe Vs. Wade is not going to be overturned....and over time states will legalize gay marriage. Whether you agree or not, the "liberal"/ "progressive" social agenda is moving forward, and will not be stopped.
If all of the news media did their jobs, and not attempt to line their pockets with advertising revenue through selational stories, then we may have a better educated, better informed electorate, that could chose candidates based on fact and not drama. Policy stories are boring, and most Americans can give two shits about the nuts and bolts of what the candidates are really proposing, but it is certainly the information that is needed.
This election should revolve around a few questions (and don't start your answer with "But" ... answer the question, then explore reasons why or why not):
1) Did President Obama deliver on his promises from the 2008 campaign?
2) Is the country better off now than it was four years ago?
3) In what ways will the United States be better off with Mitt Romney as President?
Besides Fox News (cough), will any news agency touch Obama's record? Lets talk Romney specifics: Repeal Obama Care, maintain defense spending, continue Bush era tax cuts... and thats about it. Great choices : - / ...Americans, who is the most likeable? Vote that way! I am sure everything will be just fine...derp derp
Well atleast we know the Jewish population is supporting Obama now over Romney, aren't Jewish people more often then not convservative.
Every generalization ever would say yes but the answer is HELL no.
Well I was just bringing up the point due to the financers of the ad and I thought I saw earlier in the thread that people where debating who the Jewish community will support.
On September 28 2012 04:00 RCMDVA wrote:
12 Jewish democratic Senators. 0 Republican
And offhand I think the only conservative Republican Jew is Eric Cantor in the House.
I didn't know your ratios for Jewish representation by party.
New York Times elaborates on how Democrats have managed to counteract Romney/Rove's massive Super PAC edge, and have more ads in battleground states.
One of the dogs that hasn’t barked in this campaign is the massive financial advantage Mitt Romney was expected to enjoy on account of nearly unlimited funds available to him from conservative Superpacs. Yet, even including the efforts of outside groups, Obama has been out-advertising Romney in the key swing states.
The full story of how the financial tsunami failed to strike has yet to be untangled, but bits and pieces have dribbled out over recent days.
The Democratic Superpacs, reports the New York Times today, have gotten their act together, even if they can’t match the Republican effort. The GOP Superpac effort may have underwhelmed in part because it offers a more scattered message, not controlled by the campaign, that fails to drive the central theme as effectively.
What’s more, Obama seems to be getting way more bang for his buck. Republicans are paying their staff twice the rate Democrats are paying theirs, allowing Obama to have twice as many people working for him for the same amount Romney is spending. And the Washington Post today reports the little-known fact that campaigns, by federal law, can command lower advertising rates than Superpacs, giving Obama consistent, and occasionally huge, savings: In one Ohio ad buy slated to run just before the election, for example, Obama is paying $125 for a spot that is costing a conservative super PAC $900.
Most of the reporting until recently has focused on inputs, like the financial imbalance between the two sides. But the outputs are a different story.
Well atleast we know the Jewish population is supporting Obama now over Romney, aren't Jewish people more often then not convservative.
Every generalization ever would say yes but the answer is HELL no.
Well I was just bringing up the point due to the financers of the ad and I thought I saw earlier in the thread that people where debating who the Jewish community will support.
And offhand I think the only conservative Republican Jew is Eric Cantor in the House.
I didn't know your ratios for Jewish representation by party.
Thanks for the info.
A lot of Jewish Americans are liberal on social issues but aren't confident that Obama supports Israel enough. Then again when Netanyahu does stuff like drawing on his Batman cartoon bomb clip art at the U.N. this is probably less of an issue than it was in 2008.
It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.
Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).
If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.
I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.
It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.
I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.
See how easy that was?
No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.
This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.
What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.
If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?
Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc.. Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people. Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes
Neither statement needs defending.
Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine:
What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.
This is an actual fact, 47% of people actually pay no income tax.
True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.
You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
He summed up exactly what he was talking about if it wasn't clear enough.
On September 27 2012 02:18 Mazer wrote:
You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.
No I actually believe what I said, I am not lying to myself, and I think your opinion is disgusting too
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
You're an ignorant fool for buying into the "you didn't build that" spin. Cheers.
Sigh..quote me, in ANY of that saying anything that remotely implies that I "bought" into the "you didn't build that" spin. Read it more carefully:
I'll show you in bold print that I actually said just opposite:
"Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc.. Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people. Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes"
Furthermore, both campaigns (and candidates) put a spin on both of the quotes, and I DO concede that Romney's full statement does sound substantially worse, but still not nearly as bad as the "spin" that is put on it, which is saying that 'Romney simply does not care at all about those people. Period. End of Story.'
To re-quote this for the billionth time and bold the part that I agree does sound bad. "And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
What my interpretation of that he meant to say is 'Those who pay no income rely too heavily on the government, are going to vote for Obama, and nothing I do is going to change that, so my focus will be on trying to get a vote from the rest'. The way he worded it implies that he thinks people would rather get extra help from the government than try to be more ambitious about their pursuit of success, in my opinion.
It only cited the "You didn't build that" gaffe to say that, while Obama supporters may deny it, it was a small blow to Obama, similarly to how the "47%" gaffe is a small blow to Romney, both were not very tactful, and that Romney's 47% gaffe will pass over time (which is the whole point of the article) and not be game-ending, just as Obama's gaffe did not totally screw him over.
Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).
If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.
I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.
It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.
I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.
See how easy that was?
No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.
This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.
What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.
If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?
Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc.. Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people. Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes
Neither statement needs defending.
Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine:
What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.
This is an actual fact, 47% of people actually pay no income tax.
True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.
You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
He summed up exactly what he was talking about if it wasn't clear enough.
On September 27 2012 02:18 Mazer wrote:
You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.
No I actually believe what I said, I am not lying to myself, and I think your opinion is disgusting too
Here's the summary:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
You're an ignorant fool for buying into the "you didn't build that" spin. Cheers.
Sigh..quote me, in ANY of that saying anything that remotely implies that I "bought" into the "you didn't build that" spin. Read it more carefully:
I'll show you in bold print that I actually said just opposite:
Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc.. Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people. Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes
That's not Romney's actual statement in full context though. What he said was (paraphrasing): 47% of people believe they are victims, that they are entitled to such and such, and will not take personal responsibility for their own lives. They vote for Obama and I could never get their vote.
That is blatantly incorrect, as we have proved over and over and over and over and over and over again.
On September 27 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 27 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 26 2012 23:33 Mazer wrote: [quote]
Calling the two incidents 'gaffes' as though they were somehow equivalent is complete bullshit. Anyone with a brain understood exactly what both people were talking about when they heard the full clips. Obama got taken out of context (which was then abused to the max for gain). Mitt showed his true colours and took a dump on half of Americans (it did not need to be spun in any way).
If the two 'gaffes' ultimately result in similar hits in the polls then it really is an indicator of how terrible American politics are.
I don't understand why people try to defend Romney on this one. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minnimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.
It's funny, I remember Bush saying to a group of billionaire "people call you the elite, I call you my base". What is very surprising is that Republicans get more than 1 or 2% votes. That's what weight the interests they represent in the demographic.
I don't understand why people trying to defend Obama on his "you didn't build that" quote. He said what he really thought. You can agree with him, or you can find it plain disgusting, but trying to minimize it as a "gaffe" doesn't make sense.
See how easy that was?
No, I don't think either person meant what they said. It is one-sided distortion of comments taken out of context in BOTH cases. You are completely ignorant if you actually don't realize that Romney was actually saying he doesn't care about trying to convince those people to vote for him. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is that Romney simply doesn't care about those people AT ALL.
This has already been hashed out and both sides in these forums have agreed that there is a spin on both comments.
What Obama said doesn't need defending. It's a self-evident truth.
If you own a business you didn't build the roads and bridges. Do you disagree with this obvious statement?
Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc.. Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people. Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes
Neither statement needs defending.
Since you edited your post, I'll edit mine:
What Romney said was that 47% of people feel entitled to government handouts, and that he can't convince them to take personal responsibility. The Obama quote was taken out of context and even deceptively edited in the Republican convention to change it's meaning. Ironically, it was even plastered on the walls of the convention center, built with mostly government money. The Romney quote wasn't taken out of context, the context is in the video.
This is an actual fact, 47% of people actually pay no income tax.
True or false? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.
You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
He summed up exactly what he was talking about if it wasn't clear enough.
On September 27 2012 02:18 Mazer wrote:
You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting.
No I actually believe what I said, I am not lying to myself, and I think your opinion is disgusting too
Here's the summary:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
You're an ignorant fool for buying into the "you didn't build that" spin. Cheers.
Sigh..quote me, in ANY of that saying anything that remotely implies that I "bought" into the "you didn't build that" spin. Read it more carefully:
I'll show you in bold print that I actually said just opposite:
Actual statement: If you own a business, you didn't build that Actual meaning: If you own a business, you didn't build the roads, bridges, etc.. Actual statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about those people. Actual meaning: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. My job is not to worry about getting those peoples votes
That's not Romney's actual statement in full context though. What he said was (paraphrasing): 47% of people believe they are victims, that they are entitled to such and such, and will not take personal responsibility for their own lives. They vote for Obama and I could never get their vote.
That is blatantly incorrect, as we have proved over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Sorry, i just finished editting my post, please read (i included the full context, and do concede that the message is poorly articulated and actually kind of does sound bad)
Also, the whole point of my last message was to retort the notion I was buying into the "you didn't build that" nonsense.
And....FUCK YOU ROMNEY I HATE TRYING TO DEFEND YOU. It seriously feels like punching myself in the face.
The media spins everything to hell but I think some things are deserving of it. I believe Romney's comment falls under that category, but that's my personal opinion.
EPT
