*applause*
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Plech...feck off with your facts an' shit.
You're right, it's not as if Jake will click on the links.
Pessimist that I am, I can't see this harming Romney and I think it might actually help him. Most people probably didn't know that 47% don't pay income tax (I know I didn't, not that I'm a yank). What a lot of payroll tax payers will take away is "47% don't pay tax" - which is of course what Romney intended his audience to take away. Since they know they pay tax, instead of thinking they might be in that 47%, they'll just assume there are a huge bunch of black people somewhere making up the numbers, and that they're paying for it.
Pessimist that I am, I can't see this harming Romney and I think it might actually help him. Most people probably didn't know that 47% don't pay income tax (I know I didn't, not that I'm a yank). What a lot of payroll tax payers will take away is "47% don't pay tax" - which is of course what Romney intended his audience to take away. Since they know they pay tax, instead of thinking they might be in that 47%, they'll just assume there are a huge bunch of black people somewhere making up the numbers, and that they're paying for it.
It's like Rafa and net spend...
It's apparently been a standard Republican-voter attack line to say "47% of Americans pay no tax" of late, so I don't think it's putting anything out there that the base aren't already going for. In fact, it's actually helping to inform a lot of people of the reality (including the "thoughtful 10%" that Romney needs to win over). Add to that Romney's general tone and language, I really can't see it being anything but a hindrance (to put it mildly). He really needed a clean campaign with the focus on the economy, which is definitely not what's happening.
We all knew team Obama would be trying to paint Romney as the rich asshole who doesn't give a feck about poor people. They didn't expect him to do it himself though. Obama should just sit back and let this play out without commenting too much on it. Save a few zingers for the debates to skewer him with and job's a good 'un.
As for income tax, I had one year where I didn't pay any income tax because of my deductions. I still paid a feckload of other taxes though. It's a bullshit statistic.
They are not going to attack the 'tax' bit.
Its his scathingly calling half the country that voted/will vote for Obama 'lazy good for nothings'.
Its his scathingly calling half the country that voted/will vote for Obama 'lazy good for nothings'.
Look, he claimed that 47% of the population were 'takers' because they didn't pay income tax, and that these were the same people who voted for Obama.
In fact, most of the 47% who don't pay income tax pay the payroll tax, most of those that don't are OAPs and students, and nearly 100% of Americans pay taxes during their working lives.
And here are the states where most of the non-income-tax-payers live. You know, the ones who will inevitably vote for Obama because they won't take responsibility for their lives. Hint - they're the red ones:
Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from moocher states. Obama will probably get 5.
There is undoubtedly a problem with a culture of entitlement.
In my view it's exemplified by a man claiming he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and earned everything he made, when he was given 400K in stocks before going to college; a man with $250 million striving to cut taxes on those like himself, refusing to release his own taxes but admitting he paid 13%, all while disparaging people who on average pay 15% as 'takers'; and a man who clearly feels entitled to be President but feels no obligation to serve the interests of those who didn't vote for him.
I don't disagree with you, it's quite clear that some of the poorest most disadvantaged people vote Republican. This is not what we are debating.
We are debating if what Romney said was totally wrong. I don't think he is, I do truly believe that he thinks there are probably enough people entitled to some sort of government benefits that Romney does not believe should exist and thus not vote for him, on the assumption that they would vote for their self-interest. It's a very harsh and generalist argument, but it's not wrong. I think he was clumsy, but the notion that 47% of people depend on government support, a government that shouldn't exist in Romney's world isn't wrong for the US conservative base. I got to say it was a bad statistic, because a lot of those 47% can't vote. It's pretty obvious his comments were only for fundraising purposes.
He seems to have done it without their help. I was thinking earlier that if Romney loses it will be a vindication of people's social antennae: we may not know that much about policy, but most of us can spot a total arsehole. But then, he's made it pretty hard not to notice... "I'll bet you ten thousand dollars"...FFS. I even gave him the benefit of the doubt with his "I'm not concerned about the very poor" line, assuming it was taken out of context. But this video proves he meant it, and that's not a point that's been made enough.
Other evidence against my 'arseholes' point... we elected a party with George Osborne as chancellor.
A bote for Mr. Ferguson is a bote for big espending. A bote for me is a bote for net espending. This difference is technical. The leebral media, they claim that espending in my first term was big. They say I espend $1.6 trillion on illegal wars with Mr. Ferguson, and also on Josemi. But they no look at net espend. Because two years after, I sell the best players of the cloob for $1.9 trillion which I split into complex Robbie Keane swaps and use to buy a hundred thousand bad players. This is a difficult procedure, which is to say technical, I will be blogging about it later. But in the meantime let me say that the pie cannot be divided equally. Some people, they need more pie. In my first term, I take many pies, and you all can see that there was growth. There was expansion in the middle sector. This is a technical matter, but important. Yes, thank you, I will have more pie. Bote Rafa/Lee 2012.
Yeah, very prescient of Romney. I mean it's not like poor white folk ever voted against their interests before. They almost always vote for dems.
Plech.Its definitely a gaffe.
Romney was talking about scousers.
Romney was talking about scousers.
FiveThirtyEight Forecast: G.O.P. Senate Hopes Slipping
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...tyeight-forecast-g-o-p-senate-hopes-slipping/
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...tyeight-forecast-g-o-p-senate-hopes-slipping/
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back By State Supreme Court To Lower Court For Reconsi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html
In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.
The law, passed by a Republican legislature and governor, requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID -- a move that opponents say could disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, students, and the elderly.
"We are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials," the court wrote of arguments that voters would not be disenfranchised by the law.
The court ruled 4-2, with two dissenting justices saying it should have blocked the law outright. One justice accused the court of "punting" and said she would have "no part in it."
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin the law. Given the fact that there are less than two months until the election, the justices wrote, "the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate."
The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which the court itself made clear was not the case. "The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms," the justices wrote.
The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."
If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced...that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.
The court agreed that the short timeframe of the law's implementation just months before Election Day presented a potential constitutional issue, but noted that even the appelants agreed that such a law could be implemented.
The two Democratic justices who were most outspoken during last week's oral arguments both dissented from the majority opinion, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.
The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion.
"Today’s decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a big step in the right direction for the Commonwealth's voters," said Penda D. Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, one of the groups that sued to overturn the law. "The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court, stating in strong terms that the state’s restrictive voter ID must be stopped in time for the fall elections unless the lower court finds that ‘there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the ID requirement.'"
Opponents of the law saw the battle turning in their favor, though not yet won, with the burden of proof now being on the state rather than the plaintiffs. "It's only a victory in the sense that it vacates the adverse result below," said David Gersch, the attorney for the plaintiffs. "But the court has gotten us at least part way there, and we're very appreciative of that…We don't believe that the Commonwealth can make the showing that the Supreme Court says has to be made
looks like this Voter suppression law will not effect this election.
And if the voters vote out the Republicans in the Legislature they can just reverse the law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html
In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.
The law, passed by a Republican legislature and governor, requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID -- a move that opponents say could disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, students, and the elderly.
"We are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials," the court wrote of arguments that voters would not be disenfranchised by the law.
The court ruled 4-2, with two dissenting justices saying it should have blocked the law outright. One justice accused the court of "punting" and said she would have "no part in it."
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin the law. Given the fact that there are less than two months until the election, the justices wrote, "the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate."
The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which the court itself made clear was not the case. "The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms," the justices wrote.
The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."
If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced...that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.
The court agreed that the short timeframe of the law's implementation just months before Election Day presented a potential constitutional issue, but noted that even the appelants agreed that such a law could be implemented.
The two Democratic justices who were most outspoken during last week's oral arguments both dissented from the majority opinion, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.
The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion.
"Today’s decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a big step in the right direction for the Commonwealth's voters," said Penda D. Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, one of the groups that sued to overturn the law. "The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court, stating in strong terms that the state’s restrictive voter ID must be stopped in time for the fall elections unless the lower court finds that ‘there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the ID requirement.'"
Opponents of the law saw the battle turning in their favor, though not yet won, with the burden of proof now being on the state rather than the plaintiffs. "It's only a victory in the sense that it vacates the adverse result below," said David Gersch, the attorney for the plaintiffs. "But the court has gotten us at least part way there, and we're very appreciative of that…We don't believe that the Commonwealth can make the showing that the Supreme Court says has to be made
looks like this Voter suppression law will not effect this election.
And if the voters vote out the Republicans in the Legislature they can just reverse the law.
Clint Eastwood: "If somebody's dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they're gonna have to take what they get," Eastwood said on "Extra" (via The Washington Post).
Clint Eastwood: "If somebody's dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they're gonna have to take what they get," Eastwood said on "Extra" (via The Washington Post).
I knew he was an Obama Team mole after that Chrysler commercial.
Clint Eastwood: "If somebody's dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they're gonna have to take what they get," Eastwood said on "Extra" (via The Washington Post).
So now he calls the Romney team dumb. Eastwood really turned out to be a bad pick.
JS was in great form last night.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...onservatives-rethink-middle-eastern-democracy
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...onservatives-rethink-middle-eastern-democracy
Romney has taken a beating in the media today. His ratings will plummet in the next few days.
Linda McMahon and Scott Brown, both in tight senate races, have distanced themselves from Mitt with their comments today. He's getting to be toxic.
Why are we still talking about this? The man called half of America spoiled, scrounging dicks for expecting to get to eat food. Surely the only way Romney can win this election now is if he kills everyone else in America before election day and managed to stir up the competence to vote for himself?
I agree with the last poster, whatever he said.
gah stop posting shit not everyone can see.
Well, to be fair, they're in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
I'd bang Linda McMachon
Wait, wait. Linda McMahon as in from wrestling?
Well the polls since the video leak aren't in yet, but 538 currently gives Romey a higher than 1/4 chance of winning.
So, hold on, your argument has gone from "It's not wrong, I would've said this" to "he's not wrong, because he believes what he says is right"
What? I'm sure Harold Camping believes what he says is right. It doesn't make him any less wrong.
I'm increasingly baffled as to what the Republicans want from office. If Romney doesn't give a shit about people that aren't like him (which I think we can unequivocally say he doesn't) and his supporters who are largely people like him think that the government are doing too many governmental things, and essentially should just basically stop doing anything to the rich and self sustainable...Then, what is it he wants to do in government?
Not do anything to help the poor and less fortunate (because it's their fault really) and not do anything to hamper the rich and successful (cos they deserve it)....Erm...What exactly IS he going to do in government? Abolish it from the inside? Play Pong on his phone and invade Iran? Is he basically running for the chance to sit in a famous room?
Judging by that video, Romney's the least inspiring public speaker since that priest from Father Ted who was stuck in the lingerie department.
Pah. If I were American I'd see Ming the Merciless as a preferable candidate to the Republican goon cabal right now.
I bet Ming pays more tax than Romney too.
Well Mitt does have a bit of a connection to Mass.
Plus if Jon Stewart got uppity with Ming the Merciless, he's just kill him with his power ring.
Surely Romney isn't so stupid that he thinks people who pay 'payroll tax' aren't paying income tax. Surely he's not saying it's retired people not paying income tax that are bringing down America.
As much as it would be easier to hate Romney if he believed what he said in that first video, I think rather he's telling his rich audience what they want to hear.
Not that demonizing the poor isn't despicable.
As much as it would be easier to hate Romney if he believed what he said in that first video, I think rather he's telling his rich audience what they want to hear.
Not that demonizing the poor isn't despicable.
Get Mitt the Merciless to yellow up Von Syndow style, kill people with his ring and try to kidnap and marry Michelle Obama, watch the votes fly in.
I know this. However unfortunately the majority of the American electorate (or indeed, any electorate) will never grasp the utter horror and despicableness of the tactics explained on the last page.
This is why Democracy doesn't work. People are stupid. A benevolent dictatorship is the only way. I nominate Pete.
- Status