PDA

View Full Version : Elections Will Romney lose the election because hes too rich?


Deberg_1990
10-01-2012, 12:37 PM
Just MHO but i think the guy loses. Ive heard this same sort of response with alot of working class people when discussing Romney. (Both Repub and Dem)

Basically they cant relate because they think hes elitist.


Discuss....



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/meet-the-ohio-voters-who-are-killing-romneys-campaign/263061/




The Obama ad is called "Not One of Us," and that was another theme of my conversations with voters about Romney. (It's an insidious title -- can you imagine Romney making an anti-Obama ad called "not one of us" without getting shouted down for implicit racism?) Those opposed to Obama cited various reasons, from disappointment to anger to being convinced he's a Muslim. But the impressions of Romney were remarkably consistent: He's for the rich.

"I think Obama's more for the regular working class people, and Romney's for the big business and the well-to-do," said Eric Burkhead, the road and cemetery superintendent for Kirkwood Township, working on a truck in the gravel driveway of the local garage. The 66-year-old didn't like what he saw happening with coal and wasn't wild about Obamacare, but he planned to vote for Obama.

I heard it over and over again from Ohioans -- the idea that Romney stands for the wealthy and not for them. Obama's depiction of his rival as an out-of-touch rich guy, which has gotten no little assistance from Romney himself, has made a deep and effective impression with these self-consciously working-class voters.





<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TXudE_NKe00" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bump
10-01-2012, 12:46 PM
Romney is in it for the money and fame. He's clearly not interested in the common man, in fact, I bet he hates them and thinks we are all sub human.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 01:14 PM
People can't relate to Romney?
Interesting, I don't know anyone that can relate to obama.

Deberg_1990
10-01-2012, 01:47 PM
People can't relate to Romney?
Interesting, I don't know anyone that can relate to obama.

They dont, but i think thats why alot of people are torn this election.

Neither of these candidates excite moderates, Independants or even alot of conservatives.

FishingRod
10-01-2012, 01:50 PM
I really don’t begrudge anyone for getting rich ( I would like to give it a try) but, I supposed I would be more suspicious of those that get rich during and after serving in public office than ones who did so beforehand.

Direckshun
10-01-2012, 01:50 PM
Not necessarily.

Being rich is not a huge knock.

Appearing as being for the rich at the expense of everybody else, however, is.

Which is the hole Romney's allowed Obama to pigeon him into, and which he's just done an awful job demonstrating otherwise.

ChiTown
10-01-2012, 01:52 PM
No, that won't cost him. Sucking as a Candidate and not being able to project the correct image will.

FishingRod
10-01-2012, 02:00 PM
Not necessarily.

Being rich is not a huge knock.

Appearing as being for the rich at the expense of everybody else, however, is.

Which is the hole Romney's allowed Obama to pigeon him into, and which he's just done an awful job demonstrating otherwise.

That is a fair take on things

Saulbadguy
10-01-2012, 02:02 PM
I just kind of assumed all presidents are rich.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 02:04 PM
They dont, but i think thats why alot of people are torn this election.

Neither of these candidates excite moderates, Independants or even alot of conservatives.

Sad but true.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 02:05 PM
Not necessarily.

Being rich is not a huge knock.

Appearing as being for the rich at the expense of everybody else, however, is.

Which is the hole Romney's allowed Obama to pigeon him into, and which he's just done an awful job demonstrating otherwise.

Huh? Care to specify what this means? Which modes of profit meet with your high standards, and which do not?

Is it your position that if you were presented with the opportunity to earn the same amount of profits in the same manner by which Romney realized his financial successes you would decline to do so?

The jealousy and class envy that oozes out of some of you is disgusting.

alnorth
10-01-2012, 02:08 PM
Of course not. If being rich is a political drawback, it isn't much of one, at all.

Romney is going to lose, aside from facing a tough opponent who would be difficult for anyone to beat, because Romney is a terrible politician who is utterly unlikable. Secondary to that, is the 47% thing discussed behind everyone's back, which has really stuck with a lot of people.

InChiefsHell
10-01-2012, 02:09 PM
It's sad that the dude has an effective tax rate of like 11% or so, and also gives like 35% to charity...but he's an asshole who doesn't care for people...

...Romney has done a terrible job of image packaging but in today's world, there's probably not much he could do anyway.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 02:09 PM
Of course not. If being rich is a political drawback, it isn't much of one, at all.

Romney is going to lose, aside from facing a tough opponent who would be difficult for anyone to beat, because Romney is a terrible politician who is utterly unlikable. Secondary to that, is the 47% thing discussed behind everyone's back, which has really stuck with a lot of people.

:LOL: Please tell me you were trolling there......

Deberg_1990
10-01-2012, 02:14 PM
Of course not. If being rich is a political drawback, it isn't much of one, at all.

Romney is going to lose, aside from facing a tough opponent who would be difficult for anyone to beat, because Romney is a terrible politician who is utterly unlikable. Secondary to that, is the 47% thing discussed behind everyone's back, which has really stuck with a lot of people.

:LOL: Please tell me you were trolling there......

Well, its hard to be an incumbent in any election.

HonestChieffan
10-01-2012, 02:25 PM
People who vote against Romney because he has been successful also can relate to Obama because he has been a failure? Losers hang with losers

vailpass
10-01-2012, 02:27 PM
Well, its hard to be an incumbent in any election.

Every economic indicator shows that, historically, there is no way obama should win. Incumbents with his record of economic and employment failure have always lost.

Which tells me, since obama is up in the polls:

1- The Rs failed in their nomination/Romney has run a horrible campaign

2- The focus in elections has moved away from qualifications into image manipulation like never before as the social media generation comes of age.

3- The voting demographics in this country have shifted in a way that bodes very, very ill for the US.

I'm not without hope though. The liberal and socialist big government pursuits of the current regime are fiscally unsustainable. Once the people feel the pain they will, by nature, raise up and pursue conservative, fiscal and social responsibility once again.

ChiTown
10-01-2012, 02:30 PM
Of course not. If being rich is a political drawback, it isn't much of one, at all.

Romney is going to lose, aside from facing a tough opponent who would be difficult for anyone to beat, because Romney is a terrible politician who is utterly unlikable. Secondary to that, is the 47% thing discussed behind everyone's back, which has really stuck with a lot of people.

I agree with everything except for that. If we had a candidate that wasn't a political boob, I think Obama would be trailing big right now. Of course, that is speculative at best, but that is my belief.

Iowanian
10-01-2012, 02:53 PM
If Romney loses the election it's not because He is too wealthy, it will be because too many Americans are stupid.

Pitt Gorilla
10-01-2012, 02:58 PM
W was incredibly wealthy. W was more likable than Gore.

fan4ever
10-01-2012, 02:59 PM
Well, its hard to be an incumbent in any election.

Especially one the media has been in the tank for from day one.

qabbaan
10-01-2012, 03:02 PM
We prefer a nice smile to people who have a business acumen, who have experience running a state, and who have occupied leadership positions for most of their life. That's where American politics is today.

fan4ever
10-01-2012, 03:02 PM
Every economic indicator shows that, historically, there is no way obama should win. Incumbents with his record of economic and employment failure have always lost.

Which tells me, since obama is up in the polls:

1- The Rs failed in their nomination/Romney has run a horrible campaign

2- The focus in elections has moved away from qualifications into image manipulation like never before as the social media generation comes of age.

3- The voting demographics in this country have shifted in a way that bodes very, very ill for the US.

I'm not without hope though. The liberal and socialist big government pursuits of the current regime are fiscally unsustainable. Once the people feel the pain they will, by nature, raise up and pursue conservative, fiscal and social responsibility once again.

The question is, will those numbers by then be large enough to over-ride those who have become dependent on government. Will we be a government with a country or a country with a government?

Fish
10-01-2012, 03:07 PM
If Romney loses the election it's not because He is too wealthy, it will be because too many Americans are stupid.

Actually, most studies show a much stronger correlation between the Republican party and lower intelligence than the opposite...

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:11 PM
Actually, most studies show a much stronger correlation between the Republican party and lower intelligence than the opposite...

Dude.

patteeu
10-01-2012, 03:17 PM
If Romney loses the election it's not because He is too wealthy, it will be because too many Americans are stupid.

Winner

VAChief
10-01-2012, 03:22 PM
Actually, most studies show a much stronger correlation between the Republican party and lower intelligence than the opposite...

I think the study you are referring to was related to the IQ of those who expressed a preference for conservative views.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 03:22 PM
Every economic indicator shows that, historically, there is no way obama should win. Incumbents with his record of economic and employment failure have always lost.

Which tells me, since obama is up in the polls:

1- The Rs failed in their nomination/Romney has run a horrible campaign

2- The focus in elections has moved away from qualifications into image manipulation like never before as the social media generation comes of age.

3- The voting demographics in this country have shifted in a way that bodes very, very ill for the US.

I'm not without hope though. The liberal and socialist big government pursuits of the current regime are fiscally unsustainable. Once the people feel the pain they will, by nature, raise up and pursue conservative, fiscal and social responsibility once again.

It is your reply that belies why Romney won't win this election. Romney is the representative of the Republican Party. The problem is that most Republicans are blinded to the fact most Americans don't like the Republican Party because of how far to the right they have nested. The Republican Party has often been to the right, but most people believed they would cozy back to the middle if they won. They don't believe it that any longer.

The Rebs continue to make enemies of the working class, of minorities, of women, and then you guys go into absolute denial that its true. The Republicans abandoned the middle because they believed the way they could secure the most votes in an election was to get in bed with the religious right. As the religious right gets more conservative, the candidates have to take outlandish positions in their primaries so that the political center of the country looks at them as either religiously extreme or corporate elitist, or both.

Many of the core values of the Republican Party could appeal to the middle, to minorities, and to women, but they are going to have to divorce themselves from looking like a safe have for Christian extremism and Corporate greed. Until then, it won't matter who the Rebs put up there or how good/bad the previous guy is perceived in doing his job. If you keep making your party more and more "exclusive", you'll never find the majority appeal.

fan4ever
10-01-2012, 03:22 PM
Actually, most studies show a much stronger correlation between the Republican party and lower intelligence than the opposite...

Well studies show a lot of you geniuses are likely to do something really, really stupid in November.

Fish
10-01-2012, 03:24 PM
Dude.

What? It's true. That's not to say that all Republicans are dumb and all Democrats are smart. Very far from it. There's plenty of idiocy on both sides. But there's a pretty obvious correlation between conservative views and intelligence level, and it's been that way forever.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:24 PM
It is your reply that belies why Romney won't win this election. Romney is the representative of the Republican Party. The problem is that most Republicans are blinded to the fact most Americans don't like the Republican Party because of how far to the right they have nested. The Republican Party has often been to the right, but most people believed they would cozy back to the middle if they won. They don't believe it that any longer.

The Rebs continue to make enemies of the working class, of minorities, of women, and then you guys go into absolute denial that its true. The Republicans abandoned the middle because they believed the way they could secure the most votes in an election was to get in bed with the religious right. As the religious right gets more conservative, the candidates have to take outlandish positions in their primaries so that the political center of the country looks at them as either religiously extreme or corporate elitist, or both.

Many of the core values of the Republican Party could appeal to the middle, to minorities, and to women, but they are going to have to divorce themselves from looking like a safe have for Christian extremism and Corporate greed. Until then, it won't matter who the Rebs put up there or how good/bad the previous guy is perceived in doing his job. If you keep making your party more and more "exclusive", you'll never find the majority appeal.

Corporate greed? Christian extremism? Dead giveaways.

Forgive me if I don't take seriously a Californian resident's views on what constitutes conservatism without first qualifying your stance.

For instance: do you advocate a single-payer health insurance system?

patteeu
10-01-2012, 03:29 PM
Corporate greed? Christian extremism? Dead giveaways.

Forgive me if I don't take seriously a Californian resident's views on what constitutes conservatism without first qualifying your stance.

For instance: do you advocate a single-payer health insurance system?

His world view is pretty much dominated by how good the most recent air traffic controller's collective bargaining agreement is for the union. Once that predominant issue is out of the way, he's just the west coast Dave Lane. :)

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 03:30 PM
Forgive me if I don't take seriously a Californian resident's views on what constitutes conservatism without first qualifying your stance.

For instance: do you advocate a single-payer health insurance system?

First of all, color me shocked you can't take an honest assessment from someone not of your shared opinion. It is exactly that type of pride that keeps you from seeing your own flaws, you don't even honestly want to assess them.

I grew up in Kansas, voted for Bush I and Dole, supported Reagan before I could vote., so at least I can say I have been on the other side, and the Reb Party of today resembles nothing of that period. So, I don't really give a shit about your qualifying standards to be able to assess your Party's fall. There they are you can assess or ignore them at your own peril, I'm not looking to rejoin.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:30 PM
His world view is pretty much dominated by how good the most recent air traffic controller's collective bargaining agreement is for the union. Once that predominant issues out of the way, he's just the west coast Dave Lane. :)

Another that ran to California seeking job protection from the mother state.
Thanks for clarifying. Good thing unions are being weakened or eliminated systematically, perhaps it will bring those types back into focus with the reality of today's world.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:32 PM
First of all, color me shocked you can't take an honest assessment from someone not of your shared opinion. It is exactly that type of pride that keeps you from seeing your own flaws, you don't even honestly want to assess them.

I grew up in Kansas, voted for Bush I and Dole, supported Reagan before I could vote., so at least I can say I have been on the other side, and the Reb Party of today resembles nothing of that period. So, I don't really give a shit about your qualifying standards to be able to assess your Party's fall. There they are you can assess or ignore them at your own peril, I'm not looking to rejoin.

Agreed, the R party of today has strayed widely from it's roots.
As has the D party.
It's one of the reasons nothing gets done in DC.

Do you approve of obamacare in place of the system as it was before obamacare?

Would you vote for or against a single-payer health care system in the US?

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 03:34 PM
His world view is pretty much dominated by how good the most recent air traffic controller's collective bargaining agreement is for the union. Once that predominant issue is out of the way, he's just the west coast Dave Lane. :)

Yes, it is, but at least I can honestly say I vote in my own interests. And by the way, it didn't used to be this way. Air Traffic Controllers used to be fairly split in political allegiences. The Republicans decided to make Labor their enemy. NATCA actually supports the campaigns of both parties as long as the candidates support NATCA positions. But, of course, its much easier to trade barbs with ignorant generalities than do an honest self assessment.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:35 PM
Yes, it is, but at least I can honestly say I vote in my own interests. And by the way, it didn't used to be this way. Air Traffic Controllers used to be fairly split in political allegiences. The Republicans decided to make Labor their enemy. NATCA actually supports the campaigns of both parties as long as the candidates support NATCA positions. But, of course, its much easier to trade barbs with ignorant generalities than do an honest self assessment.

Everyone votes in their best interest, or thinks they are.
Nobody can blame you or anyone for that as long as you are honest about it.

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 03:38 PM
Agreed, the R party of today has strayed widely from it's roots.
As has the D party.
It's one of the reasons nothing gets done in DC.

Do you approve of obamacare in place of the system as it was before obamacare?

Would you vote for or against a single-payer health care system in the US?

I'm not herre to discuss my political preferences, it wasn't the point of the OP. Besides, it just descends into a microcosm of the same barbs the two parties lob back and forth. Its tiresome and a bore. You think you can solve what ails you by trying to win an internet argument.

I'm not saying Republicans have to adopt Democratic ideas. I'm saying you've abandoned Republican ideas that could appeal to the middle. It could be reclaimed, but you either can't or are unwilling to do it because you are afraid of losing the current Republican base. As long as you believe the current Republican base will deliver victory on the national stage, the longer your misery is going to continue.

Iowanian
10-01-2012, 03:43 PM
Actually, most studies show a much stronger correlation between the Republican party and lower intelligence than the opposite...



Obama is the Matt Cassel of American Presidents.


Those who vote for him are the fans still wearing #7 jerseys around the KC Metro....in line for free obamaphone!

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 03:46 PM
Another that ran to California seeking job protection from the mother state.
Thanks for clarifying. Good thing unions are being weakened or eliminated systematically, perhaps it will bring those types back into focus with the reality of today's world.

See, this is the example. Instead of reaching out to the middle, you attack and derride it. "Ran to California"? I mean, you do realize ATC is a national scope profession? You talk about how it is a good thing that unions are being "systematically" eliminated, and yet are often the standard for which middle class wage earning Americans would call their "American Dream". How do you expect to win back the middle when your attitude is that anyone who makes a wage as opposed to entrepeneurship, is somehow a dependent drain on the American culture? When are you going to divorce yourself of this vitriol? People who attack the union have no idea what the union does FOR the American well being and safety, how they now work in concert with management for the improvement and economic streamlining of the system. They prefer to swin in the stereotyping because the Republicans decided to make them one of the scapegoats of their platform.

ChiTown
10-01-2012, 03:47 PM
Obama is the Matt Cassel of American Presidents.


Those who vote for him are the fans still wearing #7 jerseys around the KC Metro....in line for free obamaphone!

Mitt will have my Vote in November, but I think the Republican Party fucked themselves and this Country by not putting up a better candidate.

Mitt has less public appeal than McCain. I'm not sure how that is even possible, but imo, it's true.

LOCOChief
10-01-2012, 03:55 PM
If Romney loses the election it's not because He is too wealthy, it will be because too many Americans are stupid.



this.

Pitt Gorilla
10-01-2012, 03:56 PM
Obama is the Matt Cassel of American Presidents.


Those who vote for him are the fans still wearing #7 jerseys around the KC Metro....in line for free obamaphone!If Obama is Cassel, Romney is Blackledge.

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 03:57 PM
Mitt will have my Vote in November, but I think the Republican Party ****ed themselves and this Country by not putting up a better candidate.

Mitt has less public appeal than McCain. I'm not sure how that is even possible, but imo, it's true.

It is systematic of the Republican Party. Who is this magical candidate that can appeal to the Republican base AND the American middle? That person doesn't exist without getting himself caught in a bevy of contradictions when switching from Primary to National appeal. Its not just the people, its the party.

McCain was "maverick" who the party squarely rejected in favor of Bush, so he contorted his previous persona to appear like the "conservative" the Reb base would accept. Romney was a Mass governor who embraced Reb ideas that have now been abandoned as liberal sins, middle America opinions on women's issues into a "Pro-Life"er. Its not the candidates, its the party.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:57 PM
I'm not herre to discuss my political preferences, it wasn't the point of the OP. Besides, it just descends into a microcosm of the same barbs the two parties lob back and forth. Its tiresome and a bore. You think you can solve what ails you by trying to win an internet argument.

I'm not saying Republicans have to adopt Democratic ideas. I'm saying you've abandoned Republican ideas that could appeal to the middle. It could be reclaimed, but you either can't or are unwilling to do it because you are afraid of losing the current Republican base. As long as you believe the current Republican base will deliver victory on the national stage, the longer your misery is going to continue.

You are aware you are in the DC forum, no?

Mr. Laz
10-01-2012, 03:59 PM
Gov. Romney left Massachusetts a billion-dollar deficit and the highest debt per person of any state in the country.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 03:59 PM
See, this is the example. Instead of reaching out to the middle, you attack and derride it. "Ran to California"? I mean, you do realize ATC is a national scope profession? You talk about how it is a good thing that unions are being "systematically" eliminated, and yet are often the standard for which middle class wage earning Americans would call their "American Dream". How do you expect to win back the middle when your attitude is that anyone who makes a wage as opposed to entrepeneurship, is somehow a dependent drain on the American culture? When are you going to divorce yourself of this vitriol? People who attack the union have no idea what the union does FOR the American well being and safety, how they now work in concert with management for the improvement and economic streamlining of the system. They prefer to swin in the stereotyping because the Republicans decided to make them one of the scapegoats of their platform.

Unions have long since gone beyond the purpose they were formed to serve and have now become a drain on the employer and the enemy of the bottom line. Hide behind that "if you are against the union you are against the working man"schtick while you can. People aren't fooled by it anymore.

Look around you; the end is nigh.When they replace your job with machines will you support them in the event they look kindly on you once they become self aware?

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 04:02 PM
You are aware you are in the DC forum, no?

I am, but I'm also aware that each thread is an animal unto itself, and I'm trying not to derail it. I used to get into these big political tiffs until I became sick of the pointlessness of it. At one time it was fun, now it just makes me ill, expending so much energy and negative feelings so that I could declare victory in some cyber war of opinions. I'm much more at peace today, largely because I don't visit the DC forum as much as I once did, and post even less.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 04:03 PM
I am, but I'm also aware that each thread is an animal unto itself, and I'm trying not to derail it. I used to get into these big political tiffs until I became sick of the pointlessness of it. At one time it was fun, now it just makes me ill, expending so much energy and negative feelings so that I could declare victory in some cyber war of opinions. I'm much more at peace today, largely because I don't visit the DC forum as much as I once did, and post even less.

Oh, I can respect that. I never mistook this hole for the real world so don't give a shit what people here say.

I'll quit trolling you now. Have a good one.

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Unions have long since gone beyond the purpose they were formed to serve and have now become a drain on the employer and the enemy of the bottom line. Hide behind that "if you are against the union you are against the working man"schtick while you can. People aren't fooled by it anymore.

Look around you; the end is nigh.When they replace your job with machines will you support them in the event they look kindly on you once they become self aware?

When that day comes, who will buy all these products the machines make?

vailpass
10-01-2012, 04:04 PM
When that day comes, who will buy all these products the machines make?

Sarah Connor and her family.
Duh.

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 04:05 PM
Oh, I can respect that. I never mistook this hole for the real world so don't give a shit what people here say.

I'll quit trolling you now. Have a good one.

Same to you, glad your real world is more appealing!:thumb:

HolyHandgernade
10-01-2012, 04:05 PM
Sarah Connor and her family.
Duh.

RUN!:D

stonedstooge
10-01-2012, 04:10 PM
I'd rather have a candidate that made his money in the business world than a candidate that made his money that was taken from people via a tax.

vailpass
10-01-2012, 04:12 PM
I'd rather have a candidate that made his money in the business world than a candidate that made his money that was taken from people via a tax.

Affirmative Action POTUS bobble-heads free to every voter!

Iowanian
10-01-2012, 04:18 PM
I agree, if Romney wasn't a dbag this would be a blowout by halftime.

So I'll hold my nose and vote for the vet FA quarterback for the country instead of the Matt Cassel whom I know is nothing but and L in our stat sheet every week.


An Obama that doesn't have to worry about re-election will be disastrous for this country.

Mitt will have my Vote in November, but I think the Republican Party ****ed themselves and this Country by not putting up a better candidate.

Mitt has less public appeal than McCain. I'm not sure how that is even possible, but imo, it's true.

alnorth
10-01-2012, 04:48 PM
:LOL: Please tell me you were trolling there......

You are talking about someone who, with this economy, should be getting crushed by Blimpie the Clown.

You cant blame it all on Romney, and Obama's ability as a politician is undeniable.

fan4ever
10-01-2012, 07:29 PM
You are talking about someone who, with this economy, should be getting crushed by Blimpie the Clown.

You cant blame it all on Romney, and Obama's ability as a politician is undeniable.

Yeah, that "You didn't build that" was a masterstroke.

Iowanian
10-01-2012, 07:33 PM
If Obama is Cassel, Romney is Blackledge.


So you're admitting he's a better choice. IT's a start

Pitt Gorilla
10-01-2012, 07:41 PM
So you're admitting he's a better choice. IT's a startLMAO How in the world could one come to such a conclusion?

Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD
1,136 1,928 58.9 12,757 6.6 81 52 154 854 81.5 200 758 3.8 4
0,424 0,881 48.1 05,286 6.0 29 38 73 583 60.2 81 325 4.0 2


I'll let you figure out which one is which.

Baby Lee
10-01-2012, 08:35 PM
Not necessarily.

Being rich is not a huge knock.

Appearing as being for the rich at the expense of everybody else, however, is.

Which is the hole Romney's allowed Obama to pigeon him into, and which he's just done an awful job demonstrating otherwise.

And here's the rub. People decry people who wear their faith on their sleeve. But Romney is circumspect about his his religion, so he's doing an 'awful job' of painting himself as a compassionate person, because he's very private about that aspect of his life.

In return, you have supposition like Bump's thoroughly unfounded opinion in the first reply.

How many people here are, or even KNOW, someone who has given >$2M to charity in their life, let alone in a year.

J Diddy
10-01-2012, 08:59 PM
And here's the rub. People decry people who wear their faith on their sleeve. But Romney is circumspect about his his religion, so he's doing an 'awful job' of painting himself as a compassionate person, because he's very private about that aspect of his life.

In return, you have supposition like Bump's thoroughly unfounded opinion in the first reply.

How many people here are, or even KNOW, someone who has given >$2M to charity in their life, let alone in a year.

Yes he donated 15% of his income to taxes. Both of those listed were to groups who had a huge agenda towards fighting gay marriage. So before putting him on this giant pedestal, I would submit that he was following his religious agenda with a tax write off, not feeding the poor.

Baby Lee
10-01-2012, 09:05 PM
Yes he donated 15% of his income to taxes. Both of those listed were to groups who had a huge agenda towards fighting gay marriage. So before putting him on this giant pedestal, I would submit that he was following his religious agenda with a tax write off, not feeding the poor.

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc468c1d" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=48774131&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc468c1d" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=48774131&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

patteeu
10-01-2012, 09:06 PM
Yes he donated 15% of his income to taxes. Both of those listed were to groups who had a huge agenda towards fighting gay marriage. So before putting him on this giant pedestal, I would submit that he was following his religious agenda with a tax write off, not feeding the poor.

Which were the two groups listed? I assume his church is one of them because I think most of his charitable donations go to the church. Complaining about that is pretty weak (and it's beyond silly to connect that with "fighting gay marriage" as the only itemized effort of the donee). I suspect that most of the charitable giving of most middle class households is to their church as well. Maybe he's more in touch than some people give him credit for being.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Yes he donated 15% of his income to taxes. Both of those listed were to groups who had a huge agenda towards fighting gay marriage. So before putting him on this giant pedestal, I would submit that he was following his religious agenda with a tax write off, not feeding the poor.

Judgmental hypocritical bullshit here J Did. You honestly feel it's ok for you to criticize someone's charitable donations that aren't going toward illegal activities?

InChiefsHell
10-02-2012, 02:19 PM
Judgmental hypocritical bullshit here J Did. You honestly feel it's ok for you to criticize someone's charitable donations that aren't going toward illegal activities?

That's like saying all money taken in by Planned Parenthood is for abortions. All money that Romney donated goes to hateful anti-gay organizations and of course this makes him anti-gay.

I can't wait to have me a Chik-Fil-A once they open the one down the street. And of course that means I am anti-gay.

bandwagonjumper
10-02-2012, 02:29 PM
Honestly, Mitt Romney is John Kerry's republican twin.

Garcia Bronco
10-02-2012, 03:37 PM
It's sad that the dude has an effective tax rate of like 11% or so, and also gives like 35% to charity...but he's an asshole who doesn't care for people...

...Romney has done a terrible job of image packaging but in today's world, there's probably not much he could do anyway.

His effective tax rate means little to me. That's why these jackass commercails try to present it as a percentage and not an actually dollar amount because he's pays as much in taxes at 14 percent than over 250 income tax paying families in this country.

Comrade Crapski
10-21-2012, 12:34 AM
It is your reply that belies why Romney won't win this election. Romney is the representative of the Republican Party. The problem is that most Republicans are blinded to the fact most Americans don't like the Republican Party because of how far to the right they have nested. The Republican Party has often been to the right, but most people believed they would cozy back to the middle if they won. They don't believe it that any longer.

The Rebs continue to make enemies of the working class, of minorities, of women, and then you guys go into absolute denial that its true. The Republicans abandoned the middle because they believed the way they could secure the most votes in an election was to get in bed with the religious right. As the religious right gets more conservative, the candidates have to take outlandish positions in their primaries so that the political center of the country looks at them as either religiously extreme or corporate elitist, or both.

Many of the core values of the Republican Party could appeal to the middle, to minorities, and to women, but they are going to have to divorce themselves from looking like a safe have for Christian extremism and Corporate greed. Until then, it won't matter who the Rebs put up there or how good/bad the previous guy is perceived in doing his job. If you keep making your party more and more "exclusive", you'll never find the majority appeal.

ROFL