Originally Posted by trumptman
Originally Posted by muppetry
Originally Posted by trumptman
It is never a mistake to say that a party made up not of ideas and principles but of interest groups with their hands out screaming "gimme" isn't going to vote for someone who doesn't want to hand over other people's money just because it assures them of their vote. Be snotty, be upset, be whatever emotion you want to be. The reality is the government borrows a trillion a year and they are doing so in part because nearly half pay nothing and nearly half take something. Could there be some overlap between those who give and receive? Of course but dependency is a huge issue and they aren't going to vote for someone who is going to take away, cut or do anything to their check.
Noting that it is near 50% and that it could make it almost impossible to elect someone who isn't going to engage in this sort of behavior doesn't make what Mitt Romney said bad or wrong. It means as a country we are nearly done. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year. We've gone through two credit rating downgrades. We have borrowed 100% of our GDP and are well on our way to 200% of GDP. Everyone's living standards will fall DRAMATICALLY and no lie or program can change those facts.
And there it is - a perfect, seamless transition from tu quoque to strawman. You are a veritable living, breathing logical fallacy factory. At least I assume that you made these all yourself, rather than using pre-owned, recycled versions from your favorite "news" outlet. That would be terribly disappointing, and I'm afraid I don't follow that august organization's output closely enough to be sure.
The premise of the entire thread is a strawman. Claiming what Romney said cannot be objectively defended is nonsense because Romney spoke with facts so it is defended simply by noting it is fact and not opinion. Declaring it will cost him votes, there isn't a way to prove that. We can speculate or engage in conjecture. You clearly don't like my conjecture and now you've lost your temper. Don't worry, you aren't the first and you won't be the last.
I assume that you mean that the thread's premise was a strawman because of the title, and you would be correct, but that mischaracterizes the subsequent posts. There was no strawman element to my posts, the contents of which you have studiously avoided addressing.
Claiming what Romney said cannot be objectively defended is nonsense because Romney spoke with facts so it is defended simply by noting it is fact and not opinion.
As I pointed out, but you ignored of course, his comment that 47% pay no taxes is both factually correct and defensible. His additional comments that this same 47% believes that they are victims, have self-entitlement, and would never vote for him are obviously neither factual nor defensible. If you would like to challenge the simple reasoning that I used to demonstrate that they were incorrect and that his arguments were flawed, then great, we can discuss it. If you prefer just to dismiss it as nonsense then presumably the reader may assume that you cannot.
I made no effort to prove that this would cost Romney votes - all I did was point out that insulting a significant number of his supporters and independents, who happen to be in that 47% demographic, by calling them self-entitled victims seemed likely to have that effect. Perhaps you could enlighten us why that is incorrect - or is this another of those "you can't prove it so I'm not interested in hearing about it" situations? Maybe those lazy bums just needed a kick up the ass and they will be grateful for his down-to-earth honest assessment of them.
As for your conjecture, that would be that the country is ruined? If so, I haven't commented on it because it was not the topic of the conversation, at least until you changed the subject. But, now that you mention it, correct - I disagree. And while it's an interesting card to try to play, sorry, but no one is losing their temper with you - we are all being very patient and understanding. It's wonderful practice for arguing with recalcitrant students.