2012 Presidential Debates

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 2:41pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?[/quote]I’ve been saying this forever. Exactly right and blacks were the perfect target for it with a legitimately unjust past and it’s commensurate ripeness for an entitlement mindset. “you are owed and we will see to it that they pay if you vote for us.” Whoever “they” exactly are. The result has been the seduction of a large % of an entire demographic into a voluntary bondage worse than slavery itself. Detroit is an object lesson. This has nothing to do with being black and everything to do with being human. African ethnicity situationally incidental. Anybody would fall for people handing them other people’s stuff all the time. I would. Which is why I will not take it. Ever.
[/quote]

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

Does anyone actually believe that if a genie were to appear before Barack Obama today and promise to raise every American’s income to at least $100,000…does anyone believe he’d refuse?
No, because presidents–more than anything else–want to be looked upon kindly by posterity.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Sounds to me like Mitt Romney intends to more or less maintain the status quo. If he changed nothing, and I mean really nothing, I doubt he’d be accused of the kinds of things Obama’s accused of around here.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 2:44pm

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ll be shocked if the next debate goes the same way[/quote]

So will I. Obama didn’t like the feeling when he awoke the next morning and read the reviews. He will be much sharper next time around. But then again how could he be any worse? All he has to do is show up stop looking like he’s at a funeral and say a few smart things and he’ll beat expectations.

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 2:48pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ll be shocked if the next debate goes the same way[/quote]

So will I. Obama didn’t like the feeling when he awoke the next morning and read the reviews. He will be much sharper next time around. But then again how could he be any worse? All he has to do is show up stop looking like he’s at a funeral and say a few smart things and he’ll beat expectations. [/quote]

haha. Agreed. As long as he’s alive and his pulse is over 30, he’ll be doing better.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 2:49pm

[quote]therajraj wrote:
No not talking about mittens. I’m talking about Obama lack of performance.

Mitt did well but Obama helped him out.

[/quote]

One other point that needs to be considered is that when your opponent is “on” you tend to play his game and lose. Obama might have not been able to get his footing with Romney throwing so many shots at him.

That is possible, but I’ll stick with my original theory. When you already think that you are God’s gift to the world and the smartest man who ever drew a breath you don’t need to practice.

So he was defeated not only by Romney but by his own arrogance.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 2:52pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude…

[/quote]

I had to look this up to believe it.

This guy, Gore, is truly whacked out. This climate thing defines him, I’m thinking.

Good thing (bad thing for him, I reckon) that he decided to harass that massage therapist at sea level. If he’d gone after her at 5,280 ft I bet the fat fuck wouldn’t have had the energy to hit on her.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-gore-blames-denvers-high-altitude-for-obamas-lackluster-debate-performance/[/quote]

As Colbert might say, altitude has a well-known conservative bias.[/quote]

Then Al Gore had the moral obligation to blow some of his very hot air Obama’s way.

Seriously, I could see this effecting an athlete but all the guy had to do was step up to the podium and talk for about half of the 90 minute debate. And…he couldn’t do it!

He’s not an old guy (for a President) at 50 or so and he does play lots B Ball. I’m sure not buying the oxygen excuse.

[/quote]

Ya know, as someone who knows all too well the effects of jet lag, I was a bit surprised to hear on CNN that he flew into Denver (from DC, I assume).

I dismissed my own thought about this as silly, but now I’m not so sure…[/quote]

My understanding is he flew in from Vegas. He actually prepped for the debate at a resort out near Lake Mead. FWIW, I stayed there at that resort just a little over a month ago.[/quote]

Ah, ok, thanks.

So… did you feel any less intelligent after your stay?[/quote]

Yes, I did. I drove home from Vegas. In fact, went straight through to Butte, MT, elevation 5500 ft (but I don’t live there), and when I got there I could barely remember my middle name.

I think Al Gore is on to something.

Or on something.

I bet he could use another massage.[/quote]

Hey why not his wife already left him what does he have to lose?

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 2:52pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I don’t believe so. Innuendo is difficult to quote in a sharp way during a debate. “Obama implied that…” is nothing like “Romney said that…”
[/quote]

My evidence is that he didn’t use the 47% bit. Why? Why, in a debate that included subjects about income, and mentions of people in need, would Obama not go for it? Because he does not want a video clip war, right there on the debate stage, with dozens of millions watching. What’s he going to do? Exchange the idea that Romney might have doubted his ability to reach and convince 47% of voters, for his own bald-faced lies (and hypocrisy) used to paint George Bush and the Federal Government as being racist? Having his hypocrisy over the Stafford act exposed in the process?

Let me tell you something, if you think a politician’s doubting that he can reach a certain percent of the voters wouldn’t be drowned out by Obama’s outright disgusting pandering, you’re very wrong. Do you really think ‘the Great Uniter’ wants Romney to pique everyone’s interest over this clip? Do you think he wants to push Romney to use his own clip-grenade, in front of those dozens of millions, FORCING the media to have to look into the story and report on it? Think about that for a second. It would force widespread reporting and showing of this thing. Something the media had never shown before.

They would HAVE to cover the story if Romney counter-punched with it. And it would be THAT story, not the 47%, that would spread like wild-fire, erupting on talk show after talk show, in column after column. It would be debated back and forth by every pundit, in print and on the tube. It would be at least two weeks of damage control, when there isn’t much time left on the clock as is. He knows Romney will pull the pin on this story if he dared start a video clip war right there on stage.

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 2:55pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

related, lol[/quote]

Ok, fine, it won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. Gee.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 2:56pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter. And when it does it will be described as “old news” which means nothing. This is where the MSLM does it’s best work for Obama. They convince the masses that they are not seeing what in fact they are seeing.

Of course I hope that you are correct.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 3:04pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?[/quote]I’ve been saying this forever. Exactly right and blacks were the perfect target for it with a legitimately unjust past and it’s commensurate ripeness for an entitlement mindset. “you are owed and we will see to it that they pay if you vote for us.” Whoever “they” exactly are. The result has been the seduction of a large % of an entire demographic into a voluntary bondage worse than slavery itself. Detroit is an object lesson. This has nothing to do with being black and everything to do with being human. African ethnicity situationally incidental. Anybody would fall for people handing them other people’s stuff all the time. I would. Which is why I will not take it. Ever.
[/quote]

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

Does anyone actually believe that if a genie were to appear before Barack Obama today and promise to raise every American’s income to at least $100,000…does anyone believe he’d refuse?
No, because presidents–more than anything else–want to be looked upon kindly by posterity.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Sounds to me like Mitt Romney intends to more or less maintain the status quo. If he changed nothing, and I mean really nothing, I doubt he’d be accused of the kinds of things Obama’s accused of around here.[/quote]

He also doesn’t come from a background of street organizer and racial rabble rouser. Nor, has he ever been friends with a former terrorist, or attended a racist church, or been a member of a socialist group while attending College.

Everything Obama does should be open to question.

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 3:10pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I don’t believe so. Innuendo is difficult to quote in a sharp way during a debate. “Obama implied that…” is nothing like “Romney said that…”
[/quote]

My evidence is that he didn’t use the 47% bit. Why? Why, in a debate that included subjects about income, and mentions of people in need, would Obama not go for it? Because he does not want a video clip war, right there on the debate stage, with dozens of millions watching. What’s he going to do? Exchange the idea that Romney might have doubted his ability to reach and convince 47% of voters, for his own bald-faced lies (and hypocrisy) used to paint George Bush and the Federal Government as being racist? Having his hypocrisy over the Stafford act exposed in the process?

Let me tell you something, if you think a politician’s doubting that he can reach a certain percent of the voters wouldn’t be drowned out by Obama’s outright disgusting pandering, you’re very wrong. Do you really think ‘the Great Uniter’ wants Romney to pique everyone’s interest over this clip? Do you think he wants to push Romney to use his own clip-grenade, in front of those dozens of millions, FORCING the media to have to look into the story and report on it? Think about that for a second. It would force widespread reporting and showing of this thing. Something the media had never shown before.

They would HAVE to cover the story if Romney counter-punched with it. And it would be THAT story, not the 47%, that would spread like wild-fire, erupting on talk show after talk show, in column after column. It would be debated back and forth by every pundit, in print and on the tube. It would be at least two weeks of damage control, when there isn’t much time left on the clock as is. He knows Romney will pull the pin on this story if he dared start a video clip war right there on stage. [/quote]

What I’m saying is, how does Romney counterpunch with that?

Scenario: debate has turned to income levels or taxes.

Obama: How can Mitt Romney come up with a comprehensive plan if he believes that half of the country sees itself as victims…blah blah…that 47% number is ridiculously misleading and includes tons and tons of stalwart Republican voters, like the elderly and many veterans, and also families paying payroll tax…blah blah blah.

Romney’s response: In 2007, Barack Obama implied [note: as I said, implied doesn’t sound good] that some kind of discrimination was responsible for Bush’s bungling of the response to Katrina.

It just doesn’t fit into Romney’s narrative of Obama, which, unlike the hard right focus on race and class, is entirely consumed with technical incompetence. Whereas Romney’s 47% comments fit into Obama’s narrative like a tailored Milanese suit.

Of course, you could be right about why the strategists avoided the 47%. But, given how fucking disastrous this all was for Obama, I’m saying it wasn’t wise either way.

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 3:09pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?[/quote]I’ve been saying this forever. Exactly right and blacks were the perfect target for it with a legitimately unjust past and it’s commensurate ripeness for an entitlement mindset. “you are owed and we will see to it that they pay if you vote for us.” Whoever “they” exactly are. The result has been the seduction of a large % of an entire demographic into a voluntary bondage worse than slavery itself. Detroit is an object lesson. This has nothing to do with being black and everything to do with being human. African ethnicity situationally incidental. Anybody would fall for people handing them other people’s stuff all the time. I would. Which is why I will not take it. Ever.
[/quote]

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

Does anyone actually believe that if a genie were to appear before Barack Obama today and promise to raise every American’s income to at least $100,000…does anyone believe he’d refuse?
No, because presidents–more than anything else–want to be looked upon kindly by posterity.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Sounds to me like Mitt Romney intends to more or less maintain the status quo. If he changed nothing, and I mean really nothing, I doubt he’d be accused of the kinds of things Obama’s accused of around here.[/quote]

He also doesn’t come from a background of street organizer and racial rabble rouser. Nor, has he ever been friends with a former terrorist, or attended a racist church, or been a member of a socialist group while attending College.

Everything Obama does should be open to question.

[/quote]

Are you implying that Barack Obama is consciously happy that millions of Americans are poor and is actively trying to keep them there?

And if Romney plans to change nothing re:the safety net, will he not be guilty of the exact same thing?

This kind of accusation needs some serious substantiation, that’s my point.

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 3:28pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter.[/quote]

Sorry Zeb, but I disagree. It’s CNN calling bull-crap on Obama lately, over the attack in Libya. Its CBS reporting on Fast and Furious. Some stories just can’t go away. They’re too big. They’re too incendiary. And with too many people wanting to hear more about them.

Now let a Presidential candidate drop a bombshell story, involving a despicable little man lying his ass off to divide us by race. Bald-faced, lying his ass off, to grossly slander a President, and foment a racially charged (built on lies) atmosphere. Let this Presidential candidate toss out that little grenade, live, in front of many millions of Americans. That’s not a story that can be ignored. Period. The clip would HAVE to finally be shown, throughout the media.

There’s a limit, even for the media. And they aren’t going to pretend the next day that Romney didn’t drop a bombshell in front of millions upon of millions of people (who are then bringing it up to family, friends, and co-workers who missed it). No, sorry, that strains even their reluctance to go after this President.

If Romney dropped this bomb, it would be a widespread story the very next day. For maybe a day you’d hear ‘this is old news’ from a few pundits stupid enough to try it. But then the emails and phone calls would start pouring in. “Dear sirs, this isn’t old news. You never played this clip in the media, though you’ve played ‘safer’ snippets, conveniently enough.”

See, here’s the problem, the audience is going to hear some pundit saying ‘old news,’ but even the liberals at home are going to say something to themselves like, “Hmm, then how in the hell could I have missed something like this? I don’t remember hearing anything about this, and that just seems impossible. I’d remember this dust-up.” The ‘old news’ thing would fall apart in the first 48 hours. Way too many Americans reading blogs these days. And I think most of the mainstream media realizes this. If Romney uses this to offset Obama’s taking advantage of the 47% thing, it’ll be Obama doing damage control for weeks.

Look, you know I agree that the MSLM would love to see this President re-elected, but there’s only so much water they can carry for him. Again, look at the Fast and Furious reporting done by CBS. And even CNN implying that the Administration attempted to cover their ass over the death of an Ambassador. Even CNN is throwing a flag on Obama for pressing the $5 trillion figure on Romney’s tax-plan. There’s only so much they can, and are willing, to do. If Romney counter-punches with this story in a video-clip war on the debate stage, in front of millions upon millions, they will report on it the clip, airing it widespread. Obama wants no part in causing that.

countingbeans · October 5, 2012, 3:31pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

[/quote]

This plays into the success of it if you’re a believer.

countingbeans · October 5, 2012, 3:37pm

This is why he didn’t bring it up. Obama doesn’t want Romney to appear human. And if Romeny comes out and says, look I was wrong. I do care because I’ve done X, Y & Z in my life for people who fall into the 47% of non-payers.

Romney would could have spun the words to win back some of the angry people and still keep the people who agree with him fired up.

The other thing is I bet Obama was in prevent defense mode. “Lets just ride this lead with 5 weeks to go, no need to stir up shit. Let the commericals hammer the 47% and keep this debate boring and forgettable, he is a mormon, he’ll play softball and we just need to stay clam and ride out on our lead.”

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 4:08pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I don’t believe so. Innuendo is difficult to quote in a sharp way during a debate. “Obama implied that…” is nothing like “Romney said that…”
[/quote]

My evidence is that he didn’t use the 47% bit. Why? Why, in a debate that included subjects about income, and mentions of people in need, would Obama not go for it? Because he does not want a video clip war, right there on the debate stage, with dozens of millions watching. What’s he going to do? Exchange the idea that Romney might have doubted his ability to reach and convince 47% of voters, for his own bald-faced lies (and hypocrisy) used to paint George Bush and the Federal Government as being racist? Having his hypocrisy over the Stafford act exposed in the process?

Let me tell you something, if you think a politician’s doubting that he can reach a certain percent of the voters wouldn’t be drowned out by Obama’s outright disgusting pandering, you’re very wrong. Do you really think ‘the Great Uniter’ wants Romney to pique everyone’s interest over this clip? Do you think he wants to push Romney to use his own clip-grenade, in front of those dozens of millions, FORCING the media to have to look into the story and report on it? Think about that for a second. It would force widespread reporting and showing of this thing. Something the media had never shown before.

They would HAVE to cover the story if Romney counter-punched with it. And it would be THAT story, not the 47%, that would spread like wild-fire, erupting on talk show after talk show, in column after column. It would be debated back and forth by every pundit, in print and on the tube. It would be at least two weeks of damage control, when there isn’t much time left on the clock as is. He knows Romney will pull the pin on this story if he dared start a video clip war right there on stage. [/quote]

What I’m saying is, how does Romney counterpunch with that?

Scenario: debate has turned to income levels or taxes.

Obama: How can Mitt Romney come up with a comprehensive plan if he believes that half of the country sees itself as victims…blah blah…that 47% number is ridiculously misleading and includes tons and tons of stalwart Republican voters, like the elderly and many veterans, and also families paying payroll tax…blah blah blah.

Romney’s response: In 2007, Barack Obama implied [note: as I said, implied doesn’t sound good] that some kind of discrimination was responsible for Bush’s bungling of the response to Katrina.

It just doesn’t fit into Romney’s narrative of Obama, which, unlike the hard right focus on race and class, is entirely consumed with technical incompetence. Whereas Romney’s 47% comments fit into Obama’s narrative like a tailored Milanese suit.

Of course, you could be right about why the strategists avoided the 47%. But, given how fucking disastrous this all was for Obama, I’m saying it wasn’t wise either way.
[/quote]

We’re not talking about some narrative that Romney has spun on Obama. We’re talking about something enshrined on video. Something that would then absolutely have to be shown the next morning on channel after channel. “This is the previously unaired clip with which Romney challenged Obama’s status as a uniter…”

I know you’ve seen the video. Did Obama not prey upon racial fears, using bullcrap ‘facts’ that he had to have known were just that, bull-crap? Smh, you’re a decent fella. I really am glad you stick around with us right-wingers, and can kill some time with us. Sometimes willing to agree, sometimes not. But now I’m asking you straight up, do you not see Obama twisting facts, even outright lying, in a racially charged way? Do you have any doubt, from what’s there right in front of you on video, that the now President of the United states was stoking racial fears? Even willing to use falsehoods to do it? You don’t see it?

What do you think independents will see when the media is forced to run it (because Romney dropped it onstage)? What do you think they will see when the reporting inevitably has to point out the untruths used to slander Bush and the federal government?

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 4:09pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter.[/quote]

Sorry Zeb, but I disagree. It’s CNN calling bull-crap on Obama lately, over the attack in Libya. Its CBS reporting on Fast and Furious. Some stories just can’t go away. They’re too big. They’re too incendiary. And with too many people wanting to hear more about them.

Now let a Presidential candidate drop a bombshell story, involving a despicable little man lying his ass off to divide us by race. Bald-faced, lying his ass off, to grossly slander a President, and foment a racially charged (built on lies) atmosphere. Let this Presidential candidate toss out that little grenade, live, in front of many millions of Americans. That’s not a story that can be ignored. Period. The clip would HAVE to finally be shown, throughout the media.

There’s a limit, even for the media. And they aren’t going to pretend the next day that Romney didn’t drop a bombshell in front of millions upon of millions of people (who are then bringing it up to family, friends, and co-workers who missed it). No, sorry, that strains even their reluctance to go after this President.

If Romney dropped this bomb, it would be a widespread story the very next day. For maybe a day you’d hear ‘this is old news’ from a few pundits stupid enough to try it. But then the emails and phone calls would start pouring in. “Dear sirs, this isn’t old news. You never played this clip in the media, though you’ve played ‘safer’ snippets, conveniently enough.”

See, here’s the problem, the audience is going to hear some pundit saying ‘old news,’ but even the liberals at home are going to say something to themselves like, “Hmm, then how in the hell could I have missed something like this? I don’t remember hearing anything about this, and that just seems impossible. I’d remember this dust-up.” The ‘old news’ thing would fall apart in the first 48 hours. Way too many Americans reading blogs these days. And I think most of the mainstream media realizes this. If Romney uses this to offset Obama’s taking advantage of the 47% thing, it’ll be Obama doing damage control for weeks.

Look, you know I agree that the MSLM would love to see this President re-elected, but there’s only so much water they can carry for him. Again, look at the Fast and Furious reporting done by CBS. And even CNN implying that the Administration attempted to cover their ass over the death of an Ambassador. Even CNN is throwing a flag on Obama for pressing the $5 trillion figure on Romney’s tax-plan. There’s only so much they can, and are willing, to do. If Romney counter-punches with this story in a video-clip war on the debate stage, in front of millions upon millions, they will report on it the clip, airing it widespread. Obama wants no part in causing that.
[/quote]

You raise many legitimate points Sloth. But, Romney cannot be the one who brings this story to the public. That can be considered far too racially charged and will boomerang on him. Independents won’t like it and women will hate it. Those are two groups he needs to win more f in order to win the election. Others have to do it and they won’t. What date did you first see this video? I saw it about 4 days ago. So far I’ve read nothing in the liberal press and have seen it played only one time on Sean Hannity. Soon it will drift back into the closet.

Now if one particular network or cable outlet would show it and make a big story out of it THEN and only then do you have something that may harm Obama. But who is going to do it? Do you think CNN is going to pound this story daily? Think again.

As I said before I hope you are correct that video made me sick to my stomach. But there needs to be a vehicle where it can be launched from and absoltely Mitt Romney cannot play that role. It would be the kiss of death for his campaign. The only way he may be able to mention it is in defense of his leaked 47% tape. And that is why Obama didn’t mention the 47% tape and will not.

So…where does this story go?

Nowhere.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 4:14pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?[/quote]I’ve been saying this forever. Exactly right and blacks were the perfect target for it with a legitimately unjust past and it’s commensurate ripeness for an entitlement mindset. “you are owed and we will see to it that they pay if you vote for us.” Whoever “they” exactly are. The result has been the seduction of a large % of an entire demographic into a voluntary bondage worse than slavery itself. Detroit is an object lesson. This has nothing to do with being black and everything to do with being human. African ethnicity situationally incidental. Anybody would fall for people handing them other people’s stuff all the time. I would. Which is why I will not take it. Ever.
[/quote]

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

Does anyone actually believe that if a genie were to appear before Barack Obama today and promise to raise every American’s income to at least $100,000…does anyone believe he’d refuse?
No, because presidents–more than anything else–want to be looked upon kindly by posterity.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Sounds to me like Mitt Romney intends to more or less maintain the status quo. If he changed nothing, and I mean really nothing, I doubt he’d be accused of the kinds of things Obama’s accused of around here.[/quote]

He also doesn’t come from a background of street organizer and racial rabble rouser. Nor, has he ever been friends with a former terrorist, or attended a racist church, or been a member of a socialist group while attending College.

Everything Obama does should be open to question.

[/quote]

Are you implying that Barack Obama is consciously happy that millions of Americans are poor and is actively trying to keep them there?

And if Romney plans to change nothing re:the safety net, will he not be guilty of the exact same thing?

This kind of accusation needs some serious substantiation, that’s my point.[/quote]

Let’s face facts, who are a large part of Obama’s supporters? Those on food stamps, welfare, Hud, unemployment and an endless list of government give-a-way programs.

What happens when these people succeed, or even feel that they can succeed?

From this administration forward the only way that the democrats win is to make sure that they have that built in constituency. Not only must those people stay down, but they must feel like there is no hope for them and government is the only way.

Simple.

Mufasa · October 5, 2012, 4:19pm

Zeb:

Rest assured that there are a large number of Romney supporters on food stamps, welfare, Hud, unemployment and an endless list of government give-a-way programs.

Mufasa

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 4:31pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You raise many legitimate points Sloth. But, Romney cannot be the one who brings this story to the public. That can be considered far too racially charged and will boomerang on him. Independents won’t like it and women will hate it. Those are two groups he needs to win more f in order to win the election. Others have to do it and they won’t. What date did you first see this video? I saw it about 4 days ago. So far I’ve read nothing in the liberal press and have seen it played only one time on Sean Hannity. Soon it will drift back into the closet.

Nowhere.[/quote]

This is something akin to what I’m getting at, Sloth. I don’t see the 2007 video as a politically viable weapon in a debate for Romney.

To answer your question about my own feelings–yes, it is certainly a video to be noted, to be taken into consideration. Pandering is a politician’s business, so I don’t think it’s a terribly damning revelation that Obama was doing it, but the racial implications were disingenuous and unsubstantiated. And, as someone has pointed out, Obama apparently voted against waiving the Stafford Act.

What I’m saying has more to do with politics. I don’t believe that the risks of hammering the 47% remarks in a debate outweigh the rewards, from a political standpoint. The electorate has shown willingness to disregard this sort of thing in the past(Rev. Wright), and I’m almost sure that Romney’s advisers would have him steer absolutely clear of mentioning “the other race speech.”

And I’m glad I stick around here with you right-wingers too. Keeps me from going full Chris Matthews.

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 4:38pm