Tell me why you are voting for Romney

[Anonymous]

And once again, he was referring to the 47% committed to voting once again for the Hope and Change....not the lies that you continue to spew.

My god, do you actually think you can spin the 47% speech enough to make it go away? He was stupidly conflating the two, but his vitriol was about the people who don't pay income tax, and many of the people who will vote for him don't.

"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.

Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.

I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.

You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.

Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally

Yeah, well, your candidate just learned a tough lesson that what you say and how you say it matters, whether you think it is private or not. You are running for President - NOTHING YOU SAY IS PRIVATE OR OFF THE RECORD. Boo fucking hoo. Face it, he's not ready for prime time. Period.

Maybe he should spend some time hobnobbing with celebs like Obama, champion of the poor (vomit)

[Anonymous]

Mitt would be hobnobbing with those same celebs if he would have them. Instead it's just Eastwood, Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

[Anonymous]

Whoops, if they would have him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.

Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.

I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.

You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.

Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally

No, what he said and what he MEANT was that he can't ever convince these people to care more about their lives. That's what he says.

He is a despicable human being for that. How dare he insult Americans. Most people have been in the 47% at one point or another. No self-respecting Republican would vote for someone who said such a terrible, disrespectful, and unAmerican thing.

So he got his numbers messed up. 47% of the people in the U.S. aren't going to vote for him no matter what. There is some number of people who do not pay income tax. There is another number of people who actually get a tax refund yet they have never paid income tax because of the earned income tax credit (which Reagan put in place, btw). This, I care about because I do pay taxes and I don't believe one group should shoulder all the burden while another group recoups benefits for extended periods of time. Welfare programs are necessary, but they should not a stopping point. There should be programs to make these people self sufficient.

A rising tide floats all boats, the problem is the tide isn't rising. If Obama stays on track, will the tide rise? I don't know. If we elect Romney, will the tide rise? I don't know. The key difference between the two is that Obama won't cut programs and spending, but Romney will.

I frankly don't like my choices at all, and I don't know who I will vote for. Won't matter for me though, I live in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47% isn't one solid, unchanging group, genius. People access government services when they need them -- until they hit 65 and tap Medicare and Social Security. Then we're all in the 47%.

Who are you talking to genius? And once again, he was referring to the 47% committed to voting once again for the Hope and Change....not the lies that you continue to spew.

Except that's not actually what he said.

It isn't anywhere CLOSE to what he actually said. He said those people feel "entitled" to be "dependent on government" and that they are "victims."

That group, by the way, includes active-duty military serving in harm's way (since their combat pay is excluded from taxes). How DARE he insult America's armed forces? First he leaves any mention of the war out of his acceptance speech, then he insults them by accusing them of having a victim mentality?

And he wants to be PRESIDENT of this country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.

Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.

I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.

You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.

Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally

No, what he said and what he MEANT was that he can't ever convince these people to care more about their lives. That's what he says.

He is a despicable human being for that. How dare he insult Americans. Most people have been in the 47% at one point or another. No self-respecting Republican would vote for someone who said such a terrible, disrespectful, and unAmerican thing.

So he got his numbers messed up. 47% of the people in the U.S. aren't going to vote for him no matter what. There is some number of people who do not pay income tax. There is another number of people who actually get a tax refund yet they have never paid income tax because of the earned income tax credit (which Reagan put in place, btw). This, I care about because I do pay taxes and I don't believe one group should shoulder all the burden while another group recoups benefits for extended periods of time. Welfare programs are necessary, but they should not a stopping point. There should be programs to make these people self sufficient.

A rising tide floats all boats, the problem is the tide isn't rising. If Obama stays on track, will the tide rise? I don't know. If we elect Romney, will the tide rise? I don't know. The key difference between the two is that Obama won't cut programs and spending, but Romney will.

I frankly don't like my choices at all, and I don't know who I will vote for. Won't matter for me though, I live in Maryland.

The premise of what I bolded is incorrect. By any and every measure, the economy is better than the numbers when Obama took office. With the nominal exception of unemployment, which is a lagging indicator -- and unemployment is certainly better since the stimulus took effect. Moreover, a large chunk of the American people really do understand things would have been worse under a McCain-Palin administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe he should spend some time hobnobbing with celebs like Obama, champion of the poor (vomit)

Why do you hate the poor? And what the hell is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

What I love is that Romney has been going around saying that Obama is "worse than Jimmy Carter." And then it turns out that the infamous 47% Boca fundraiser dinner tape was found by one James Carter -- grandson of you-know-who. Just (fancy) desserts for you, Mittens!

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I just feel more comfortable with a man like Romney--he just looks like a president should. And I like money! I am Mormon, it's true--and I went to BYU. I don't care about the Supreme Court appointees being anti-abortion. I have all sons--wish I had 6 like Anne! I would hope that they will do as they were raised to and marry a girl in that situation. I do not feel comfortable with a person like Obama just on general principle--he isn't a typical black so race has nothing to do with it. I think most Romney supporters would agree with me. People wouldn't want to go out and have a beer with me anyway, as I am Mormon, of course I don't drink!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.

Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.

I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.

You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.

Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally

No, what he said and what he MEANT was that he can't ever convince these people to care more about their lives. That's what he says.

He is a despicable human being for that. How dare he insult Americans. Most people have been in the 47% at one point or another. No self-respecting Republican would vote for someone who said such a terrible, disrespectful, and unAmerican thing.

So he got his numbers messed up. 47% of the people in the U.S. aren't going to vote for him no matter what. There is some number of people who do not pay income tax. There is another number of people who actually get a tax refund yet they have never paid income tax because of the earned income tax credit (which Reagan put in place, btw). This, I care about because I do pay taxes and I don't believe one group should shoulder all the burden while another group recoups benefits for extended periods of time. Welfare programs are necessary, but they should not a stopping point. There should be programs to make these people self sufficient.

A rising tide floats all boats, the problem is the tide isn't rising. If Obama stays on track, will the tide rise? I don't know. If we elect Romney, will the tide rise? I don't know. The key difference between the two is that Obama won't cut programs and spending, but Romney will.

I frankly don't like my choices at all, and I don't know who I will vote for. Won't matter for me though, I live in Maryland.

The premise of what I bolded is incorrect. By any and every measure, the economy is better than the numbers when Obama took office. With the nominal exception of unemployment, which is a lagging indicator -- and unemployment is certainly better since the stimulus took effect. Moreover, a large chunk of the American people really do understand things would have been worse under a McCain-Palin administration.

The premise of what I bolded is incorrect. Just because some of the numbers are improving doesn't mean the tide is rising. It is ebbing and flowing. It is unstable and our debt continues to grow.

In the Clinton era, the tide rose.

The bottom line is we aren't going to get anywhere with all this squabbling, paraphrasing and turf-grabbing.

The White House is important, but Congress is even more important. If the parties continue to dig in their heals and not work for the good of the country as a whole, we are all screwed. It won't matter whose president if grid-lock prevails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I just feel more comfortable with a man like Romney--he just looks like a president should. And I like money! I am Mormon, it's true--and I went to BYU. I don't care about the Supreme Court appointees being anti-abortion. I have all sons--wish I had 6 like Anne! I would hope that they will do as they were raised to and marry a girl in that situation. I do not feel comfortable with a person like Obama just on general principle--he isn't a typical black so race has nothing to do with it. I think most Romney supporters would agree with me. People wouldn't want to go out and have a beer with me anyway, as I am Mormon, of course I don't drink!

What 'kind of person' is Obama that you are not comfortable with?

[Anonymous]

Question for all of you who think the 47% are mooching off of you -- why don't you just join them?

You make it sound like they're having a ball, lounging around the pool and popping bon-bons while you slave away. So, what's stopping you from quitting your job, going on welfare and living the high life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I just feel more comfortable with a man like Romney--he just looks like a president should. And I like money! I am Mormon, it's true--and I went to BYU. I don't care about the Supreme Court appointees being anti-abortion. I have all sons--wish I had 6 like Anne! I would hope that they will do as they were raised to and marry a girl in that situation. I do not feel comfortable with a person like Obama just on general principle--he isn't a typical black so race has nothing to do with it. I think most Romney supporters would agree with me. People wouldn't want to go out and have a beer with me anyway, as I am Mormon, of course I don't drink!

What 'kind of person' is Obama that you are not comfortable with?

I am pretty sure this is sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for all of you who think the 47% are mooching off of you -- why don't you just join them?

You make it sound like they're having a ball, lounging around the pool and popping bon-bons while you slave away. So, what's stopping you from quitting your job, going on welfare and living the high life?

Hold up, no one told me Bon-Bons were being given out. Can a get a phone too??????

Why on earth did I get two MA's and an MBA, I need to get some student loan forgiveness...