• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Mother Jones: "Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this unusual? I'm routinely irritated by the idea that people who have no idea about anything will be casting votes based on said ignorance. It doesn't matter if they're voting for the better candidate if the only reason they're voting for them is because of some manipulative add campaign or because they thought the man on the poster was handsome.
I don't know how often it occurs. On a personal basis, however, I would never dream of taking away someone's vote. That's the whole basis of a democracy, that everyone has an equal say, whether you're unsuccessful, stupid, ugly, whatever. To deny that is to go against that very foundation, and seems like a step backward into the dark ages.
 
Is this unusual? I'm routinely irritated by the idea that people who have no idea about anything will be casting votes based on said ignorance. It doesn't matter if they're voting for the better candidate if the only reason they're voting for them is because of some manipulative add campaign or because they thought the man on the poster was handsome.

As a country, we get the government we deserve. If you don't want people to vote out of ignorance, the only choice is to advocate for a system that helps people rise out of ignorance.
 
I don't know how often it occurs. On a personal basis, however, I would never dream of taking away someone's vote. That's the whole basis of a democracy, that everyone has an equal say, whether you're unsuccessful, stupid, ugly, whatever. To deny that is to go against that very foundation, and seems like a step backward into the dark ages.

How do you feel about denying voting rights to people under 18, or to criminals?
 
How do you feel about denying voting rights to people under 18, or to criminals?

Teenagers have developing minds -- we agree as a society that minors, as a rule, can't be trusted to the extent that adults, as a rule, can, and science basically backs us up on that. I don't think there's any real justification for denying the vote to convicts.
 
Teenagers have developing minds -- we agree as a society that minors, as a rule, can't be trusted to the extent that adults, as a rule, can, and science basically backs us up on that. I don't think there's any real justification for denying the vote to convicts.

The question was directed at him specifically because he seems to be totally opposed to the idea of not letting someone vote - although if he's an American, voting franchise is already far less than universal. I have no problems with not extending voting franchise to children, although I probably would let 17 year olds in on the action.
 
How do you feel about denying voting rights to people under 18, or to criminals?
I'm ok with it. I don't begrudge the right to vote of any legally functioning adult. If you've shown that you're a felon (meaning you encroach on the right of others) you should not have that right.

As to what adult means, whether that should be 18 or 16 or 13 or whatever is up for discussion and based on our current society. I can't say I know what age it should be.
 
The question was directed at him specifically because he seems to be totally opposed to the idea of not letting someone vote - although if he's an American, voting franchise is already far less than universal. I have no problems with not extending voting franchise to children, although I probably would let 17 year olds in on the action.

That example seemed more like an extreme though. Of course we could inhibit people who are ignorant or stupid from voting but then that's not equal representation. I'd like to think that America is based upon the belief that the entirety of the country is able to voice their opinion, and that's why the tea party is still here.

On topic though, Romney is just flaming and burning now. I hope the people who signed in the 'will Romney win' thread stick by their guns. Ha, this is a pretty sad implosion.
 
How do you feel about denying voting rights to people under 18, or to criminals?
I think we can all agree we need some age limit on voting (like, you don't want a 3 years old to vote, right?) and 18 makes sense as much as any other number (though a snappy song and LSD in the drinking water may change my mind).

I wholeheartedly disagree with denying criminals the right to vote, felony disenfranchisement is a travesty and an affront to democracy and the founding principle of the United States - the consent of the governed.
We really need to re-write the 14th amendment.
 
A3Flm1vCYAAND1b.jpg:large


And here we go. Dot gif.
 
Is this unusual? I'm routinely irritated by the idea that people who have no idea about anything will be casting votes based on said ignorance. It doesn't matter if they're voting for the better candidate if the only reason they're voting for them is because of some manipulative add campaign or because they thought the man on the poster was handsome.

Well there's two ways out of that quandry. Either come up with some way of filtering citizens by level of ignorance and only allowing the non ignorant ones to vote or work towards a society that emphasizes civics and media criticism in its schooling.

The first is impossible, the second isn't.
 
I only listen to Rush when there's a really bad story for Republicans, he is a master of spin. It's fascinating. Romney making headlines with this could be the turning point in the campaign, it's created an opportunity to talk about conservatism! lol
 
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

I'm curious what the other 53% believe should be the government's responsibilities.
 
I only listen to Rush when there's a really bad story for Republicans, he is a master of spin. It's fascinating. Romney making headlines with this could be the turning point in the campaign, it's created an opportunity to talk about conservatism! lol

This is right up Rush's alley. He's been saying this out loud on the radio for years
 
DAYUM!!

Tina Dupuy ‏@TinaDupuy
There's nothing funnier than a dude with secret service protection sneering [at] those dependent on the government.

tumblr_m9135pCT8e1rry9ec.gif
 
...which would in turn be things that benefit *them*. So they also want the government to 'care for them'.

Rational (in before "rational lol") conservatives I know can't even defend the party's current "platform", they either just try to ignore it or they talk about how the party doesn't represent them.
 
DAYUM!!

Tina Dupuy ‏@TinaDupuy
There's nothing funnier than a dude with secret service protection sneering [at] those dependent on the government.

tumblr_m9135pCT8e1rry9ec.gif

This doesn't make much sense. Romney has to have SS protection as a major presidential candidate. It's not like he couldn't afford his own security.

This whole flap is kind of silly. Conservatives have considered half the country lazy parasites for decades now. I don't see what is shocking about this.
 
So far as I've seen, the collective right-wing response to this has been to dredge up Obama's gaffes (namely "God & Guns") out of context and claim how he's equally dismissive of voters. Smart response would be to use this as a rallying cry or don't bring it up at all.
 
This whole flap is kind of silly. Conservatives have considered half the country lazy parasites for decades now. I don't see what is shocking about this.
I consider it to be significant because this is the first time we've seen the GOP's *actual* platform laid bare by the candidate himself in unflinching terms.

For those of us who pay attention, it isn't shocking--but for those voters who still think the GOP is reasonably moderate, this is absolutely damning evidence.

And Mitt can't explain it away by talking about "context" or whatever. We're talking about paragraph after paragraph of pure derision toward those who are less fortunate than him.

Indies and undecided moderates who see this might not vote for Obama, but they sure as hell won't vote for Mitt either.
 
766 Likes on Facebook as of this posting.

304605_467062326660015_615660343_n.jpg

They forgot to include that they do not care about personal responsibility and they they do not care about their own lives.

That depends, what are the better options available to the person? How much are they being paid? What were they doing before? What were they being paid for that? You want to propose a situation and then express moral outrage but you don't want to think about the actual reason for the person doing the job. You also seem unaware historically what happens to poor countries with cheap labor bases.

"Ends justify the means by any and all means necessary so long as it's better".

There is no morals, it's just something that you'd like to attribute. It's just cause and affect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom