I just don't like mitt Romney

[GenMarshall]

I dont think that is a callous statement at all. Why would you? I thought you'd actually rather confirm it anecdotally.

You do realize that the people Mitt willingly bashed don't pay Taxes because they have enough tax credits, itemized deductions and exemptions to not end up in the tax bracket that their income would be taxed.

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

That just strikes to me as being very callous and out of touch with the common man. He also wrongly generalize that people won't pick up the bootstraps. I'm fully aware that there are some people who don't take personal responsibilities, it's unfair to state that all people that he describes are like that.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Mitt openly and unashamedly acknowledges that he does not worry about the working class.

Mitt openly and readily acknowledges he wishes to lower tax rates for the top percentiles and end up raising taxes on the middle class (only other alternative is to allow even worse budget deficits, or cut government programs so much that there will be violent protests in the streets).

So, if you're working class or out of work, Romney doesn't even begin to formulate an agenda to care about or help you. If you're middle class, you're about to start paying the taxes rich people aren't going to be paying.

Romney feels he can win this election by getting 1% of the vote, apparently.

Class warfare exists, it exists because the rich do everything in their power to manipulate the system to ensure it favors them. They lobby the government, they bankroll the candidates, they write the laws, they bust up the unions, they lower their own taxes, and discuss why unemployment compensation should not be extended.

They have all the levers of power and they always use them to shaft the people who are disproportionately not represented in government, and always use them to give themselves loopholes, tax exemptions, or Congressional raises, while making sure minimum wage does not raise to even meet inflation.

Mitt Romney is unashamedly promoting an agenda which perpetuates this kind of plutocratic nightmare. However, certain folks are going to vote against their own interests and support Romney, because they have a dim grasp of what's good for them, and believe that anyone calling themselves a "conservative" is therefore better for the country than anyone calling themselves a moderate or liberal.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, actually, that makes MY point. A third party will never, ever, ever win the Presidential election in this nation.

Ever.

Really? You forget that the Republicans were once a third party, and that before that, the Whigs were a third party.

Now, I tend to agree with you that the major parties are in all likelihood not going to change in terms of which parties they are, but it is possible that enough people voting for a third party would result in an ideas shift so those people will vote for a major party again.

My vote isn't cheap. Deal with it

The end result of you voting third party is the simple fact that you help vote in an administration that you are even more politically aligned against.

Honestly, not really. I loath Mitt Romney as much as I loath Obama at this point. The only reason I care at all is because Obama is guaranteed to only have four more years, while Mitt Romney being elected will ensure that we don't get another Republican primary in '16 .

You dont think that its going to be one of those 2 parties that wins isnt logical?

In New York? The idea that Romney is going to win here is probably just as as the idea of Gary winning New Mexico, or Goode winning Virginia, is. Romney has no chance here, essentially. And if he won here this year, he'd have won practically everywhere else by default except the capital and maybe California. So in my case, even if I could vote this year, NOT voting for Romney would not IN ANY WAY help Obama win. Obama has this state locked up anyway, and even if he gets killed in this election, heck, even if he is killed the way John Mccain was killed four years ago, Obama will still have NY.

So, why vote for Romney this year if you live in NY? Whatever your answer to that is probably the same reason I'd vote for Johnson. I assume your answer is somewhat along the lines of "Romney won't win in NY because not enough people will vote for him." Ditto for the candidate I support.

I think it is extremely logical and it has the weight of history behind it, and there is simply no way you can avoid it. Its going to happen, and continue to happen. You can either continue to be a non-factor, or you can actually vote for a party that might actually win a presidential election.

I'll do that when one or the other party gives me a candidate I can care about.

The statement was not the way of empathy but of a sign that Mitt might not be a good choice. There is a reason why many conseratives are joining in the denouncement of Mitt after his statement.

Most of us have been denouncing Mitt Romney long before The only people that actually like Mitt are VRWCAgent, a couple of other normal people, and the GOP establishment. Most of the Tea Party types (Whether they are from the more libertarian wing or not) do not like Romney. Some of them are voting for him, but none of them actually like him.

 

[Ailedhoo]

The case has been parodied by Something Awful. Quite funny.

 

[JollyRoger]

I dont think that is a callous statement at all. Why would you? I thought you'd actually rather confirm it anecdotally.

There are a lot of Romney voters that are part of that 47%, so I wouldn't call it callous so much as idiotic.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wonder, was the explicit framing in terms of such-and-such percent intended as being in some way a belated rebuttal to the 99%/1% motif? Too literal-minded, probably, but given that he's essentially sketching out a counter-narrative to that of OWS-style populism, it seems not implausible.

 

[Borachio]

Quite funny.

True.

The 12 percent of his household staff who were fired for making eye contact with Ann Romney's horse.

 

[MobBoss]

Really? You forget that the Republicans were once a third party, and that before that, the Whigs were a third party.

You dont think the precedent of the last 160 years carries weight?

My vote isn't cheap. Deal with it

You don't have a vote yet. Deal with that.

 

[Murky]

This is sort of funny depending on how you look it. It comes from somethingawful.com

Other Percentages of Americans Romney Won't Bother With

The Romney campaign suffered a setback this week with the release of a hidden-camera video in which Romney seemed to write off a huge proportion of the American population as freeloaders: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," the candidate told a group of wealthy donors. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing. My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

These remarks caused considerable consternation in the left, and even some high-profile groaning on the right. However, Romney has refused to distance himself from the position. In fact, the 47 percent who pays no income tax isn't the only demographic Mitt has decided not to pursue--- in the full version of the video, he mentions several other buckets of the population who he might as well not bother campaigning to:

The 2 percent of the 99 percent who aren't convinced they're going to be part of the 1 percent once their jet ski repair business picks up.

The 39 percent of Americans who are not yet fully committed to the Vagina Denialist movement.

The 77 percent of his high school class who called him "Sitt Wrongly" after he fell out of his chair on two occasions.

The 27 percent of the working poor who will be dead within a year of Paul Ryan's budget taking effect anyway, so who cares.

The 16 percent of Americans who actually know what the whole deal with Mormonism is.

The 12 percent of his household staff who were fired for making eye contact with Ann Romney's horse.
The 33 percent of major-label rappers who haven't sworn their eternal allegiance to the Illuminati.

The 20 percent of his sons who will be arbitrarily cut out of the will by a dice roll, just to keep them all on their toes.

The lowbrow 88 percent of yacht owners who subscribe to Yacht Fancy Magazine instead of the superior Yachtsman of Surpassing Discernment Quarterly.

The 80 percent of Ron Paul supporters who will simply never find Romney's policies catastrophically ridiculous enough for their tastes.

The 7 percent of Americans who have seen the 1988 John Carpenter movie They Live.

The 5 Percent Nation, who believe Romney was created in a laboratory by the evil scientist Yacub.

The 30 percent of Republican congressmen who might embarrass him at a fundraising dinner by pronouncing it "Mo-way" instead of "Mo-wet."

The 0.00000008 percent of Americans who one time said "keep truckin'" and tried to high five him.

The 8 percent of his campaign staff who call him "Big Love" behind his back, plus the 31 percent who call him that to his face.

The 22 percent of registered Republicans who, in a recent poll to gauge his likeability, responded "So Unlikeable We Actually Noticed."

100 percent of the employees of Bain-owned companies, who have been converted into miniature corporations and must vote however the board tells them or be sold to China.

The 12.6 percent of Americans who, y'know, "look like Obama voters," if you catch his drift.

The top 10 percent of the 1 percent, who are too busy voting for real stuff (like Supreme Wizard of the Bohemian Grove) to waste time with our absurd democratic farce.

The 52 percent of Americans who love updog-- (What's updog?) (it's a dog on top of a car.)

The 4 percent of the extremely wealthy who came by it honestly.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You dont think the precedent of the last 160 years carries weight?

Sure it does. But here's the thing, if enough people, even if far from the majority, vote Gary Johnson instead of Romney, and Obama wins a landslide, the Republican party might think "OK, so the Libertarians aren't just going to roll over and elect a candidate they can't stand, maybe we should pick a candidate that also has some appeal with them so we can win."

Or maybe not, but that all depends on how many people vote third party, doesn't it

You don't have a vote yet. Deal with that.

True

 

[MobBoss]

Sure it does. But here's the thing, if enough people, even if far from the majority, vote Gary Johnson instead of Romney, and Obama wins a landslide, the Republican party might think "OK, so the Libertarians aren't just going to roll over and elect a candidate they can't stand, maybe we should pick a candidate that also has some appeal with them so we can win."

Thats not how it works, nor would that occur if Obama wins in a landslide. You are quite in error if you think this how it would occur.

If losertarians want to see their ideals realized, then they should work it from within the Party most closely aligned with them. Ron Paul himself has done this to an extent and has actually been far more effecting than say, voting for Gary Johson would be.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Thats not how it works, nor would that occur if Obama wins in a landslide. You are quite in error if you think this how it would occur.

If losertarians want to see their ideals realized, then they should work it from within the Party most closely aligned with them. Ron Paul himself has done this to an extent and has actually been far more effecting than say, voting for Gary Johson would be.

Ron Paul did do this, yet he did not endorse Romney, which is driving the GOP crazy these days.

I'm not saying "Don't work with the Republican Party." I'm not saying I'm never going to vote for a GOP candidate. I said I don't support Mitt Romney.

Honestly, if we are going to have a Republican House and Senate (Which we very well might) I'd rather have Obama than Romney solely to prevent the government from passing even more laws regulating our lives. Keeping them unable to do anything is the absolute best scenario for libertarianism at this point.