General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPart of what made Mitt's blunder SO DUMB
is that there's still 50 days left.
Obama could be caught in a closet making out with a magically resurrected Osama bin Laden tomorrow. He could announce that he's taking the next few weeks off to go into rehab for a heroin addiction. He could marry Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the two ex-nazi girls from Prussian Blue in a plural wedding in the Rose Garden.
Obama could do something so horrible that he would lose in a landslide.
It's not likely to happen, but it totally could happen.
Yeah, there are some hardcore leftists who would never vote for Romney, but there are also a lot of people who are in that space where they genuinely could switch sides.
By insulting these people and calling them moochers, Romney just locked in a VERY high percent for Obama and gave himself that much less room to work with.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)It seems this meme is very popular amongst the right wing, yet as they rail against the moochers and lazy slobs looking for a handout they fail to notice WHO the 47% is.... Eight of the ten states with the lowest federal tax liability are solidly deep RED.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-caught-on-video-tape/2012/09/17/38578a5e-012f-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/
6.9% aren't elderly and don't have jobs. They might be unemployed, they might be disabled, they might be students, they might be generational welfare recipients.
But kicking 6.9% of the population in the teeth and calling them lazy freeloaders just doesn't have the same way about it as deriding 47% of the population.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)first place.
doesn't make sense to me.
it seems romney and his campaign managers are determined to lose.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)wealthy donors. He was feeling comfortable that he was with those, who like himself, are most worthy of life and liberty. I'll bet he's had this conversation more than once. The man is freaking clueless. He does not grasp what it is like to live on little or the dynamics that cause people to have to do so. And he has a whole laundry list of one size fits all, bootstrap solutions which basically call for cutting taxes while dismantling the safety net. Trickle down has never worked.
What did come across is that if you were hungry on the street, Mitt Romney would walk by you and not even look at you. If you are disabled, he's more than happy to charge you a "fee" for the wheelchair or medical equipment you need even if it takes away from your ability to pay for your food and shelter from limited means. If you are older, he is fine with removing from you access to the very safety net you paid into for years and to make it more expensive for you to receive health care.
Mitt is who he is and there's not a damned thing his campaign staff can do with a man who admits that he has walked around with a silver spoon in his mouth for his entire life.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)have the same question still.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The Mitts of the world and the rest of us.
The people who are not wealthy, and the wealthy.
desertduck
(213 posts)Works for me...and i hope they "unleash" tweedle dum. I hope he gets to share with us his ideas on social security & medicare. Hehe
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)And welcome to DU!
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Romney's only the latest example. The really bad part of this is the part about the 47% needing to take "Responsibility", that from a guy who takes every tax dodge in the book.
I'm sure the Republicans will be replaying Obama's "clinging to their guns and bible's comments." until you're sick of it.
Think also Richard M. Nixon's "F*@& the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." or Jesse Jackson's referral to New York as Hymietown.