Romney's Message Is Changing/Romney Secret Tape (merged)

[jericho]

So Mitt's plan is to help the rich and hope that they help the poor? He has no actual plans to help poor people.

I've been trying to find a way to say this more eloquently, but here it goes anyway.

The problem for Mitt Romney and republicans is that their message is harder to translate than democrats. It's easy to say (and show) government programs that some say "help people", and present that as doing good. But what's tougher is presenting a way that's actually better for society, but isn't wrapped up nice and pretty. It's kinda like the idea of "tough love". You never want to throw your 30 year old deadbeat kid out of the house, but there comes a point where you need to. They have to learn to live life on their own. That's the message of republicans. And at the same time, republicans want to make the society for that child as safe and opportunistic as possible (i.e. a strong economy). But it doesn't come easy and it doesn't happen pretty. Sacrifices have to be made. And all the while, the other side keeps telling you how bad a parent you are for throwing your kid out (i.e cutting back programs) and that you have no heart and you hate everyone.

Now, before everyone goes off about me calling the 47% deadbeats, I'm not referring to everyone in that 47%. In fact I'm probably referring to maybe 10%. I know there are people who can't help themselves (i.e elderly, physically handicapped etc.).

[formergothardite]

I thought it was a Todd Akin thread. Turns out it was somewhere in the DNC thread. SO WHAT? Give me a break, this is nonsense.

Because, my point, jericho, was that you never ever go into threads that cast a republican in a bad light and agree with us that yes, republicans are being shitting. When questioned about this behaviour in other threads you have said you didn't agree with those statements, but have never done so unprompted.

So, if you go back to my original question, I asked, why don't you post on those threads that rational republicans don't support people like that. You originally claimed that you do do that, but since that obviously isn't true, can you please answer the question? Are you only here to be a drama whore, which would explain why you avoid all threads where you would agree with us on an issue, or do you want to appear as a rational republican who doesn't support the crazies who are also republicans? If you are just here to be a drama whore, fine, just own up to it.

[jericho]

Because, my point, jericho, was that you never ever go into threads that cast a republican in a bad light and agree with us that yes, republicans are being shitting. When questioned about this behaviour in other threads you have said you didn't agree with those statements, but have never done so unprompted.

So, if you go back to my original question, I asked, why don't you post on those threads that rational republicans don't support people like that. You originally claimed that you do do that, but since that obviously isn't true, can you please answer the question? Are you only here to be a drama whore, which would explain why you avoid all threads where you would agree with us on an issue, or do you want to appear as a rational republican who doesn't support the crazies who are also republicans? If you are just here to be a drama whore, fine, just own up to it.

If I am guilty of what you say, then are you guilty of never commenting on on things that show democrats in a bad light?

[Austin]

I've been trying to find a way to say this more eloquently, but here it goes anyway.

The problem for Mitt Romney and republicans is that their message is harder to translate than democrats. It's easy to say (and show) government programs that some say "help people", and present that as doing good. But what's tougher is presenting a way that's actually better for society, but isn't wrapped up nice and pretty. It's kinda like the idea of "tough love". You never want to throw your 30 year old deadbeat kid out of the house, but there comes a point where you need to. They have to learn to live life on their own. That's the message of republicans. And at the same time, republicans want to make the society for that child as safe and opportunistic as possible (i.e. a strong economy). But it doesn't come easy and it doesn't happen pretty. Sacrifices have to be made. And all the while, the other side keeps telling you how bad a parent you are for throwing your kid out (i.e cutting back programs) and that you have no heart and you hate everyone.

Well, I suppose we should fall to our knees and thank you for the mansplanation. However, as someone who was a republican, voted republican for 22 years of my adult life, it translates just fine to me. I know the arguments well, as with varying levels of intensity, I have espoused them. And don't preach about sacrifice. I've made plenty and so has my family. The difference is that I used to pompously think (if not say), "We've never taken a handout from anyone" and now I see clearly that I should be grateful we've never had to and there but for the grace of God go I. Liberalism is not about not taking personal responsibility, no matter what you hear on Faux News. It's not about raising your children not to take responsibility for their lives (mine do, thank you very much). It's about a lot of things, and one of them is that we are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers, we are part of something larger than ourselves, and we believe that when some are weak, others who are in a stronger position give a hand up.

I have kicked my (then) deadbeat niece out of my house, more or less. I gave her a deadline to get an apartment, helped her set it up, and left her to her own devices. She was either going to sink or swim. She swam, and now, almost year and a half later, she's doing great because she possessed all the ability in the world to do so, which I always knew she did. But not everyone does, and I recognize that, as well.

[formergothardite]

When you pointed out that democrats said things that were in bad taste in the DNC thread, I agreed with you. If someone started a thread about it here (feel free to do so) I would have commented.

Now answer the damn question, are you just here to be a drama whore not?

[emmiedahl]

I've been trying to find a way to say this more eloquently, but here it goes anyway.

The problem for Mitt Romney and republicans is that their message is harder to translate than democrats. It's easy to say (and show) government programs that some say "help people", and present that as doing good. But what's tougher is presenting a way that's actually better for society, but isn't wrapped up nice and pretty. It's kinda like the idea of "tough love". You never want to throw your 30 year old deadbeat kid out of the house, but there comes a point where you need to. They have to learn to live life on their own. That's the message of republicans. And at the same time, republicans want to make the society for that child as safe and opportunistic as possible (i.e. a strong economy). But it doesn't come easy and it doesn't happen pretty. Sacrifices have to be made. And all the while, the other side keeps telling you how bad a parent you are for throwing your kid out (i.e cutting back programs) and that you have no heart and you hate everyone.

Now, before everyone goes off about me calling the 47% deadbeats, I'm not referring to everyone in that 47%. In fact I'm probably referring to maybe 10%. I know there are people who can't help themselves (i.e elderly, physically handicapped etc.).

Their message is hard to translate into terms that sound compassionate because it lacks compassion. There is no nice way of saying, "I don't care if those children starve; it is not my problem." Or, "If talented poor people cannot pay $200,000 out of pocket for medical school, then they can work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives because I don't like student loans." Or, "I may earn millions in investments, but I am unemployed so I totally understand what poor people go through."

The Republicans plan for the economy has been tried over and over and it failed. It got us in this mess in the first place. There is no reason to keep trying it. It does not work. Supply-side economics is a lie invented by the rich to convince people like you to be on their side.

Jericho, here is an example. My husband lost his job several years ago. Before that, he had worked for decades. I was in school and pregnant with our fifth child. Since then, I have worked full time from home, gone to school full time, and managed the home while he goes through a program that requires full time classes and also 40 hours a week of internship. We are below the poverty level. We receive a very minimal amount of food stamps and our children get Medicaid. But thanks to grants and student loans, we will soon be earning six figures. We will pay at least a million in taxes over our lifetimes, exponentially more than we received.

Obama thinks: give them food stamps so the kids are fed. Expand grants and scholarships so they can get through school and be productive citizens again.

Romney thinks: If they want their kids to eat, that is not my problem. And grants and loans are bad; they can work at McDonalds or something.

Tell me how Romney's plan is better for my family. Tell me how it is better for the community.

[jericho]

When you pointed out that democrats said things that were in bad taste in the DNC thread, I agreed with you. If someone started a thread about it here (feel free to do so) I would have commented.

Now answer the damn question, are you just here to be a drama whore not?

Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question. I think that's a question that can't really be answered. Each person will form their own answer on what they think of me.

[emmiedahl]

If I am guilty of what you say, then are you guilty of never commenting on on things that show democrats in a bad light?

Look, I am not a huge fan of Obama. He is the best choice, but that is not saying a lot in this situation. Austin and I had Epic Thread Battle over him about a year ago. So you are just wrong. Neither candidate plans to reinstate habeas corpus, for example, and I see that as a fundamental right that Bush was wrong to take away. The economic recovery act was a bipartisan porkfest and Obama let it happen. The ACA is a compromise bill modeled on Romneycare that does not address the fundamental flaws in our system. I am critical as hell of Democrats and I have argued with many, many people, here and otherwise, about it.

That does not change the fact that Romney will be a fucking trainwreck as a President.

[formergothardite]

Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question. I think that's a question that can't really be answered. Each person will form their own answer on what they think of me.

Only you can tell us your real reason for being here. You originally claimed it was to snark fundies, but since that is obviously not true, it now appears that you are only here to go into threads and try and cause drama. If you feel like that is not the reason that you are here, feel free to offer proof that you are here to do otherwise.

[Linnea]

Now, before everyone goes off about me calling the 47% deadbeats, I'm not referring to everyone in that 47%.

But your man Romney was. He said that the 47% consider themselves victims and don't take responsibility for their lives.

[edited to fix quote, and then to fix my fix]

[emmiedahl]

But your man Romney was. He said that the 47% consider themselves victims and don't take responsibility for their lives.

[edited to fix quote, and then to fix my fix]

Yes, according to Romney (a man who writes off his ponies and used government funds to go to the Olympics), all of the working class and a good portion of the middle class are lazy and entitled. That includes a great deal of his voting base. It likely includes jericho. I would never vote for someone who views the workers of his country that way.

[lamariposa]

The problem for Mitt Romney and republicans is that their message is harder to translate than democrats. It's easy to say (and show) government programs that some say "help people", and present that as doing good. But what's tougher is presenting a way that's actually better for society, but isn't wrapped up nice and pretty. It's kinda like the idea of "tough love". You never want to throw your 30 year old deadbeat kid out of the house, but there comes a point where you need to. They have to learn to live life on their own. That's the message of republicans. And at the same time, republicans want to make the society for that child as safe and opportunistic as possible (i.e. a strong economy). But it doesn't come easy and it doesn't happen pretty. Sacrifices have to be made. And all the while, the other side keeps telling you how bad a parent you are for throwing your kid out (i.e cutting back programs) and that you have no heart and you hate everyone.

I love how the whole 'bootstrap' argument treats systematic oppression as a complete non-factor.

[emmiedahl]

I love how the whole 'bootstrap' argument treats systematic oppression as a complete non-factor.

Romney totally understands oppression. His parents made him spend the dividends from his own trust fund to pay his living expenses in college! That's right; they only paid his Ivy League tuition and bought him a house and gave him a trust worth several million. Ann had to go weeks sometimes without money to entertain! They only had a cleaning lady come in once a week instead of full time staff!

[mpheels]

The problem with Romney is that his in conflating three different groups of people - the ones who do not pay income taxes (~47%), the ones who receive assistance from the federal government (~49%), and the ones who will vote for Obama (somewhere near 50%).

The first two groups have a lot of overlap, but not entirely. For example, but parents receive Medicare because my step-dad is over 65 (and has kidney failure, so would get Medicare regardless of age), but my mother earns almost $200K/year and they do not have any significant deductions, so they pay plenty of income tax. The third group includes some of the wealthiest, most highly educated people in the country, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. On a smaller scale, I live in one of the wealthiest counties in my state, and it is also the most liberal by far. Nearly everyone here is in the ~50% voting for Obama, but relatively few are in the 47% or 49%. Personally, I will vote for Obama, I pay income tax, and I do not receive any direct federal or state benefits. In fact, I pay far more into the system than I get out of it, and I'm OK with that because eventually I will need the system myself.

[StarrieEyedKat]

*Butts into the grown up's conversation*

You know what would be fun? If Romney were required to spend a month living on minimum wage, like Morgan Spurlock and his fiance did.

[emmiedahl]

*Butts into the grown up's conversation*

You know what would be fun? If Romney were required to spend a month living on minimum wage, like Morgan Spurlock and his fiance did.

I have thought about inviting him to spend a day at my house. I make more than my state's already high minimum wage and we are still below the poverty level. Like, WAAAYYYY below.

I am trying to think of how I frame this so he accepts it. Because this would be awesome. I could take Ann grocery shopping and watch her eyebrows hit the stratosphere when I tell her the budget. It would be a chance for Romney to redeem himself... but somehow I think he would just fuck it up worse.

If any important Romney people read here, here's a deal: Mitt follows my husband and/or Ann follows me. At the end of the day, you tell me what I am doing wrong that makes me not earn $45 million a year. Deal?

[Sola]

I thought it was a Todd Akin thread. Turns out it was somewhere in the DNC thread. SO WHAT? Give me a break, this is nonsense.

You want a break? Why should we give you a break? You are perfectly capable of pulling yourself up on your own. You don't NEED a break. If we gave you a break you would not gain anything from this valuable learning experience. If we gave you a break you would not appreciate that break because you haven't earned that break all by yourself. If we gave you a break we'd have to give everybody a break and where would that end?

Now, back to business; Trickle down economics. It doesn't work and has been proven not to work. So why do you want it when it will only make the economy worse? I'll keep asking Jericho, because you know, you seem to have all the answers.

[formergothardite]

*Butts into the grown up's conversation*

You know what would be fun? If Romney were required to spend a month living on minimum wage, like Morgan Spurlock and his fiance did.

I think him and his whole family should be forced to work in the sweat shop he owned. He seemed to think paying people nothing was such a great idea, so lets take away all of his money and see if he can pull himself out of poverty on the amount he paid the "girls" he employed in China.

[samurai_sarah]

You want a break? Why should we give you a break? You are perfectly capable of pulling yourself up on your own. You don't NEED a break. If we gave you a break you would not gain anything from this valuable learning experience. If we gave you a break you would not appreciate that break because you haven't earned that break all by yourself. If we gave you a break we'd have to give everybody a break and where would that end?

Now, back to business; Trickle down economics. It doesn't work and has been proven not to work. So why do you want it when it will only make the economy worse? I'll keep asking Jericho, because you know, you seem to have all the answers.

Please answer the bolded. Trickle-down economics has repeatedly failed. As Sola pointed out before, look to the UK for a recent example. Isn't it the definition of insanity to try the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result? But to give Romney some credit, maybe he's going to do it differently. Could you explain how his ideas are different? How is it going to work this time around?

[MyName]

I think him and his whole family should be forced to work in the sweat shop he owned. He seemed to think paying people nothing was such a great idea, so lets take away all of his money and see if he can pull himself out of poverty on the amount he paid the "girls" he employed in China.

Oh but don't you know it was a great place to work. So great that their fence was to keep people from coming IN to work...not to keep the prisoners workers from getting out. :whistle:

[formergothardite]

Yeah, even if that bit is true, which I rather doubt, it is just so great to live in a country that people are so desperate and hungry that they will work in a sweat shop so that their family won't starve. America needs to become just like China!

[ILoveJellybeans]

*Butts into the grown up's conversation*

You know what would be fun? If Romney were required to spend a month living on minimum wage, like Morgan Spurlock and his fiance did.

I think it should be required to spend some time living on minimum wage if you want to work for the government.

A lot of these people seem out of touch with regular people.

[mpheels]

And now we have a new complaint courtesy of Ann Romney - Campaigning for president is hard, so lay off Mitt. No shit. Running for president is a lot of work (though you'd think Mitt would be used to it after 7 years). Actually being president is even harder. If Mitt can't handle the effort and criticism now, how will he handle it in office?

[Linnea]

The problem with Romney is that his in conflating three different groups of people - the ones who do not pay income taxes (~47%), the ones who receive assistance from the federal government (~49%), and the ones who will vote for Obama (somewhere near 50%).

The first two groups have a lot of overlap, but not entirely. For example, but parents receive Medicare because my step-dad is over 65 (and has kidney failure, so would get Medicare regardless of age), but my mother earns almost $200K/year and they do not have any significant deductions, so they pay plenty of income tax. The third group includes some of the wealthiest, most highly educated people in the country, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. On a smaller scale, I live in one of the wealthiest counties in my state, and it is also the most liberal by far. Nearly everyone here is in the ~50% voting for Obama, but relatively few are in the 47% or 49%. Personally, I will vote for Obama, I pay income tax, and I do not receive any direct federal or state benefits. In fact, I pay far more into the system than I get out of it, and I'm OK with that because eventually I will need the system myself.

QFT

[longskirtlotsakids]

I want an itemized list of those who receive assistance. Is he counting college kids on students loans amongst that percentage?