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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know if already quoted, but this is still really funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHKVsEknCrI&feature=player_embedded#!

my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy.

In the same breath

If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected.
 
How much of the speech do I need to watch to get the context? I didn't just youtube five seconds, dude. Believe it or not, the first time I heard about it was via people defending it as "he's just talking about roads and bridges, this is such B.S.!" It wasn't until I went and youtubed it myself that I saw that, no, it wasn't.

http://youtu.be/nuIWgAqHzMs?t=1m8s

1:08 - 1:27

Teachers
Public infrastructure
Roads and bridges

He says it exactly in the video just before the 'you didn't build that' comment. Are you sure you youtubed it yourself? Watch it again. What are you confused about?
 
Well of course. But Romney's next step was to expand his base. He just fucked that chicken.

No doubt. Romney has thoroughly messed his drawers here. I just don't think this lost him many votes. Those who were willing to vote for him already probably won't see this as a big problem.
 
N3mbb.jpg
 
No doubt. Romney has thoroughly messed his drawers here. I just don't think this lost him many votes. Those who were willing to vote for him already probably won't see this as a big problem.

Like those folks at the dinner party. Which is why he talks to them that way, but is Mr. smirky-smirk on stage.
 
No doubt. Romney has thoroughly messed his drawers here. I just don't think this lost him many votes. Those who were willing to vote for him already probably won't see this as a big problem.

Very much agreed, proof of that is in this thread.

Its just something for people to be shocked by, but it wont matter come voting time. People will definitely vote against their own interests to get the terror of Obama out of the office, and enjoy the wealth trickling down from the table of Longshanks.
 
How much of the speech do I need to watch to get the context? I didn't just youtube five seconds, dude. Believe it or not, the first time I heard about it was via people defending it as "he's just talking about roads and bridges, this is such B.S.!" It wasn't until I went and youtubed it myself that I saw that, no, it wasn't.
I suggest you take another look, especially given that you didn't understand progressive taxation until you were corrected several times by the same group of people on this board .
 
No doubt. Romney has thoroughly messed his drawers here. I just don't think this lost him many votes. Those who were willing to vote for him already probably won't see this as a big problem.

He's not going to be gaining among the all important independants which he desperately needs and he will probably because of this lose a large majority of them.
 
How much of the speech do I need to watch to get the thIs? I didn't just youtube five seconds, dude. Believe it or not, the first time I heard about it was via people defending it as "he's just talking about roads and bridges, this is such B.S.!" It wasn't until I went and youtubed it myself that I saw that, no, it wasn't.

How about reading the full transcript of the speech? Here is the offending paragraph taken directly from Whitehouse.gov:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

How can you read the sentence directly before, the sentence directly after, and then not get the context? Most speakers have a train of thought and don't just randomly throw in a statement unrelated to everything else they have said.
 
This is how most people who would vote for Romney feel about Obama supporters anyway, and I'm not so sure this will have a huge effect on the undecided.

I mean, it's certainly not good... But I think those who are prophesying doom are off base here.
 
Very much agreed, proof of that is in this thread.

Its just something for people to be shocked by, but it wont matter come voting time. People will definitely vote against their own interests to get the terror of Obama out of the office, and enjoy the wealth trickling down from the table of Longshanks.

I think this definitely emboldens Democrats to get out and vote. Dems needed something to get angry and passionate about. I didn't care one way or another about Romney, but now I truly despise him.
 
No doubt. Romney has thoroughly messed his drawers here. I just don't think this lost him many votes. Those who were willing to vote for him already probably won't see this as a big problem.

To the independent voter, the number of which he directly discussed in this speech, this could be quite damaging.
 
How about reading the full transcript of the speech? Here is the offending paragraph taken directly from Whitehouse.gov:


How can you read the sentence directly before, the sentence directly after, and then not get the context? Most speakers have a train of thought and don't just randomly throw in a statement unrelated to everything else they have said.

Duffyvision: blahblahblahblahblahblahYou Didn't Build Itblahblahblahblahblah...
 
It happened to late in the day, they tape at 6 so the script needs to be done by at least 5 or so. On the bright side, Stewart vs O'Rielly debate was just announced.

Ok cool, will make sure to watch tomorrow's.

And awesome about the debate, I love it when those two bicker.
 
He certainly has a very unusual strategy: to go only after 53% of the electorate. He's trying to win by a tiny margin, it's so crazy it might just work!
 
http://youtu.be/nuIWgAqHzMs?t=1m8s

1:08 - 1:27

Teachers
Public infrastructure
Roads and bridges

He says it exactly in the video just before the 'you didn't build that' comment. Are you sure you youtubed it yourself? Watch it again. What are you confused about?
And just to be sure, here's the transcript:

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)
(full remarks)

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, for anybody, Duffy included who might be confused by this sentence, 'THAT' refers to roads and bridges, as is obvious when listening to more than an edited soundbite.
 
I think this definitely emboldens Democrats to get out and vote. Dems needed something to get angry and passionate about. I didn't care one way or another about Romney, but now I despise him.

I'll agree with that. I know a lot of people registered, tons more looked it up after the DNC. People weren't aware of how fucking stupid the RNC had been since they decided to get out of politics, as it was just an annoying headache. A lot of people are just voting to make a statement, I'm glad to see it. Small battle, but, it is what it is. People like Romney & the GOP can't be like this in a modern world. Its disgusting.

To me, they are both part of the evil empire & its universal plan of increasing wealth/stealing resources from other countries, etc... BUT the GOP's direct and immediate effects on the lives of tax paying citizens must not be allowed to happen. Wars will continue, innocents will die, but thats the way Superpowers work. I accept that. I'm not going to accept removing rights from human beings, or treating human beings as if they have no right to a better life.

I really wish someone would mention education reform. As its a disaster. But, Its intended for the population to be stupid. Proof is what is happening with the RNC supporters, most aren't educated, and are being convinced to vote against themselves in favor of religious kinship, as well as bigotry.

Man the hypocricy is that he actually avoids paying his taxes.

Again, wont matter. None of this actual message is going to be portrayed in its context, Rush will tell his lemmings what the message was, and that will be it. Just another attack by the Homosexual, Elite, Godless, Left.

And duffy,

This is why people make fun of you. Bookmark this thread next time you want to play the victim.

#bridges
 
And just to be sure, here's the transcript:


(full remarks)

If the Duffy guy is serious, he just needs to look up Macro / Micro economic principle. Obama's statement is essentially a textbook reference to the fact that the government protects what one would call a "public good", defined by Wikipedia as:

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Examples of public goods include fresh air, knowledge, lighthouses, national defence, flood control systems and street lighting. Public goods that are available everywhere are sometimes referred to as global public goods.

All Obama was saying was that you can't take credit for something that everyone pays into to protect.
 
David Brooks, hardly a liberal, on Romney today:

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

...

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

...

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.


Game changer? Maybe not. But the worst thing you can do in public - and as any member of an "outside" group will tell you - is play to others' fears and stereotypes about you. Obama figured this out, which is why he doesn't, say, get angry on the campaign trail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share
 
If the Duffy guy is serious, he just needs to look up Macro / Micro economic principle. Obama's statement is essentially a textbook reference to the fact that the government protects what one would call a "public good", defined by Wikipedia as:

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Examples of public goods include fresh air, knowledge, lighthouses, national defence, flood control systems and street lighting. Public goods that are available everywhere are sometimes referred to as global public goods.

All Obama was saying was that you can't take credit for something that everyone pays into to protect.

lol. Get out of here with that bullshit.
 
Irritainment. People love to be indignant.

I'm voting for Jill Stein, but I can plainly see one party is indeed the party of lesser evil. I want Obama to win, though he hardly needs my help at this point.

Internet Brofist! I like the cut of Jill Stein's jib.

I too am "throwing my vote away". I figure with the Electoral College my vote doesn't matter much anyhow. :D

I'll sleep easier at night knowing I voted for the woman who wanted to take it to the banks that butt-fucked my community.
 
holy hell he ripped Romney a new butthole. ouch
Indeed. He ends it with:

But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

My question: When will the competence start?
 
David Brooks said:
The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.


I think this really hits it home.
 
Ugh, that press conference was so bad. Mitt Romney's campaign literally has no idea what they are doing. You don't call a 2 minute press conference at 10pm to double down. What you do is arrange for a sit down interview with a morning show, with a softball interviewer, and give a prepared response to the inevitable question. He should say he misspoke, that he chose his words poorly, then pivot to talking points. But doing so in the morning, in a comfortable setting with a soft interviewer, instead of standing at a podium with a gaggle of reporters hurling questions at you and cameras snapping every second at 10pm at night makes a big difference.
 
I actually disagree with him there. It can be fueled by either depravity coupled with possibility, or possibility. Depends on the person.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Depravity is moral turpitude. Deprivation is the lack of something. Not that depraved people can't be motivated, mind you. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom