🚓 Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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.

Your claims have been duly addressed. You dismiss that though and then beg for more. That's no fault of mine.

So we are in agreement there.

It is 100% factual that the number of households who receive payouts from the government are at or above that number. To say they would never vote for him is pretty factual as well. President Obama won the election with 52% of the vote. John Kerry lost with 48% of the vote. Al Gore lost with 48% of the vote. Clinton won with 49% of the vote in his first second term. Clinton won with 43% in his first term and Dukakis lost with 46% of the vote.

Call me crazy but the average of all those elections is......47.66% and it represents every election since 1988 or 20 years of Democratic results.

So since his 47% is completely defensible, the reasoning that comes after it, based on claiming it cannot be defended DOES NOT FOLLOW.

The number isn't significant. Polls show that both Republicans and Democrats in this election are supporting their respective candidate at about a 90-10 ratio. President Obama has alienated white males, Catholics, Black churches that do not support gay marriage, etc. Clearly the math must show certain more energized groups might show up more others. As an example clearly Obama is more concerned about losing progressives with regard to gay marriage support than losing black religious voters. He pitched one aside for the other. Will there be some black religious voters who go to Romney? Sure but as a block he must feel he will retain enough to justify the gains within another group. There are plenty of Romney voters who simply want the spending cut and whether they realize that might impact them or not, they support it in principle and this message will motivate them.
 

Pretty much every factor the media have claimed will move the need with regard to Obama vs Romney haven't when they have portrayed it as a negative for Romney and a positive for Obama.

Perhaps you should look up recalcitrant and realize you are being ironic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

So you are sticking with Romney  has no off shore assets?

And now you're shifting gears?

You must be brilliant.

I don't know whether Romney has offshore assets or not. Nor do I know that he has failed to declare all of his income.

In the meantime I won't engage any further with your fallacious "reasoning."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

So you are sticking with Romney  has no off shore assets?

 

And now you're shifting gears?

 

You must be brilliant.

 

I don't know whether Romney has offshore assets or not. Nor do I know that he has failed to declare all of his income.

 

In the meantime I won't engage any further with your fallacious "reasoning."

Don't feel bad mstone. This is where I always end up with him. He must think anyone with a different opinion is Fallacious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

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.

 

Your claims have been duly addressed. You dismiss that though and then beg for more. That's no fault of mine.

 

Quote:

 

As I pointed out, but you ignored of course, his comment that 47% pay no taxes is both factually correct and defensible.

 

So we are in agreement there.

 

Quote:

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.

 

It is 100% factual that the number of households who receive payouts from the government are at or above that number. To say they would never vote for him is pretty factual as well. President Obama won the election with 52% of the vote. John Kerry lost with 48% of the vote. Al Gore lost with 48% of the vote. Clinton won with 49% of the vote in his first second term. Clinton won with 43% in his first term and Dukakis lost with 46% of the vote.

 

Call me crazy but the average of all those elections is......47.66% and it represents every election since 1988 or 20 years of Democratic results.

 

So since his 47% is completely defensible, the reasoning that comes after it, based on claiming it cannot be defended DOES NOT FOLLOW.

 

Quote:

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.

 

The number isn't significant. Polls show that both Republicans and Democrats in this election are supporting their respective candidate at about a 90-10 ratio. President Obama has alienated white males, Catholics, Black churches that do not support gay marriage, etc. Clearly the math must show certain more energized groups might show up more others. As an example clearly Obama is more concerned about losing progressives with regard to gay marriage support than losing black religious voters. He pitched one aside for the other. Will there be some black religious voters who go to Romney? Sure but as a block he must feel he will retain enough to justify the gains within another group. There are plenty of Romney voters who simply want the spending cut and whether they realize that might impact them or not, they support it in principle and this message will motivate them.
 

Pretty much every factor the media have claimed will move the need with regard to Obama vs Romney haven't when they have portrayed it as a negative for Romney and a positive for Obama.

Quote:

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.

Perhaps you should look up recalcitrant and realize you are being ironic.

BZZZZZ! Wrong. It really depends on if you agree with his inference of who the 47 % is and if they're really make up that much of the percentage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Don't feel bad mstone. This is where I always end up with him. He must think anyone with a different opinion is Fallacious.

You end up here because you regularly spew fallacies as facts and arguments. Stop doing so and you won't end up here.

P.S. Having a difference of opinion is not a fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Don't feel bad mstone. This is where I always end up with him. He must think anyone with a different opinion is Fallacious.

 

You end up here because you regularly spew fallacies as facts and arguments. Stop doing so and you won't end up here.

 

P.S. Having a difference of opinion is not a fallacy.

Well someone's spewing!

You've got that part right!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You've got that right!

I know. But apparently you think I'm guilty of accusing people of fallacious reasoning simply because they have a different opinion than mine. This is untrue. People get accused of fallacies when they use fallacies. You might do well to do s a bit of study on the subject of fallacies to better understand this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

So you are sticking with Romney  has no off shore assets?

 

And now you're shifting gears?

 

You must be brilliant.

 

I don't know whether Romney has offshore assets or not. Nor do I know that he has failed to declare all of his income.

 

In the meantime I won't engage any further with your fallacious "reasoning."

Your reasoning is the same as the all other Republican fallacies. Things that are so painfully obvious have to proven yet you guys argue the most improbable strategies as practical. Tax cuts to businesses creates jobs: Wrong. Global warming is not attributable to human activity: Wrong. Public education should be replaced with vouchers for charter school to improve test scores: Wrong. Medicare, welfare and social security and public assistance of all kinds should be privatized. Wrong.

Republicans are on the wrong side of every single issue. It is a party for the wealthy, the racists, religious fanatics and the warmongers. America and the world can only be made worse off by Republican policy.

So why did the Republicans switch sides in the House to defeat a bill for job benefits for returning soldiers just today? I tell you. They would rather harm their own initiatives and their own military veterans than to allow the Dems a job bill passed so close to elections. The only group more despicable than Republicans is Al Qaeda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You've got that right!

 

I know. But apparently you think I'm guilty of accusing people of fallacious reasoning simply because they have a different opinion than mine. This is untrue. People get accused of fallacies when they use fallacies. You might do well to do s a bit of study on the subject of fallacies to better understand this.

Yes by all means lets get off on this off topic conundrum ( not! ). ( roll eyes if I could )

You've got someone talking to you above ( mstone ) I suggest you answer. I'm just here for support and the occasional jab. ( wink if I could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

BZZZZZ! Wrong. It really depends on if you agree with his inference of who the 47 % is and if they're really make up that much of the percentage.

The average Democratic voter return has been 47% in presidential elections for the last 20 years. Both parties have their bases. No one is going to win appealing to the base of their opponent and alienating their own base. They try to capture their base and then grab the middle. Nice to see you dismiss the figure with sound effects instead of reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Your reasoning is the same as the all other Republican fallacies.

You're free to show how.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Things that are so painfully obvious have to proven yet you guys argue the most improbable strategies as practical.

Not sure what you're talking about that is "painfully obvious" and what "improbable strategies" you're referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Tax cuts to businesses creates jobs: Wrong. Global warming is not attributable to human activity: Wrong. Public education should be replaced with vouchers for charter school to improve test scores: Wrong. Medicare, welfare and social security and public assistance of all kinds should be privatized. Wrong.

So you get to declare a bunch of your opinions as facts and anyone that disagrees with you as wrong. I got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Republicans are on the wrong side of every single issue.

Well I'd say they're on the wrong side of about half the issues. The Democrats are on the wrong side of the other half.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

It is a party for the wealthy, the racists, religious fanatics and the warmongers. America and the world can only be made worse off by Republican policy.

What you're describing is both parties. You just seem to be blind to the failings of one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes by all means lets get off on this off topic conundrum ( not! ). ( roll eyes if I could )

You're the one who went off-topic. mstone and I were on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You've got someone talking to you above ( mstone ) I suggest you answer.

You are also free to contribute to the topic if you like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

BZZZZZ! Wrong. It really depends on if you agree with his inference of who the 47 % is and if they're really make up that much of the percentage.

 

The average Democratic voter return has been 47% in presidential elections for the last 20 years. Both parties have their bases. No one is going to win appealing to the base of their opponent and alienating their own base. They try to capture their base and then grab the middle. Nice to see you dismiss the figure with sound effects instead of reasoning.

Apparently you didn't read this earlier in the thread : http://theweek.com/article/index/233461/mitt-romneys-claim-that-47-percent-of-americans-dont-pay-taxes-true-or-false

There are some facts in here you might be interested in ( or not ). Yes it's an opinion piece but it does contain facts on this matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

BZZZZZ! Wrong. It really depends on if you agree with his inference of who the 47 % is and if they're really make up that much of the percentage.

 

The average Democratic voter return has been 47% in presidential elections for the last 20 years. Both parties have their bases. No one is going to win appealing to the base of their opponent and alienating their own base. They try to capture their base and then grab the middle. Nice to see you dismiss the figure with sound effects instead of reasoning.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120919,0,2408537.column?track=rss

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

It is 100% factual that the number of households who receive payouts from the government are at or above that number. To say they would never vote for him is pretty factual as well. President Obama won the election with 52% of the vote. John Kerry lost with 48% of the vote. Al Gore lost with 48% of the vote. Clinton won with 49% of the vote in his first second term. Clinton won with 43% in his first term and Dukakis lost with 46% of the vote.

 

Call me crazy but the average of all those elections is......47.66% and it represents every election since 1988 or 20 years of Democratic results.

 

So since his 47% is completely defensible, the reasoning that comes after it, based on claiming it cannot be defended DOES NOT FOLLOW.

So just to be clear on this - none of the 47% to whom he referred vote Republican? You want to go with that conclusion? Really? Because that implies without further assumption that all Republicans pay taxes and receive no government payouts, while almost all Democrats are non-taxpaying self-entitled victims. Sure you don't want to rethink that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Quote:

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.

Perhaps you should look up recalcitrant and realize you are being ironic.

 

Now you are just caricaturing yourself. I'm curious how long you can keep ignoring all arguments while proclaiming that you are addressing them. I'll give you credit for trying to address the arithmetic problem above, but the attempt was catastrophically embarrassing.

I'm sure that you just looked up recalcitrant, but perhaps you should also look up ironic and figure out that I wasn't being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yes by all means lets get off on this off topic conundrum ( not! ). ( roll eyes if I could )

 

You're the one who went off-topic. mstone and I were on topic.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You've got someone talking to you above ( mstone ) I suggest you answer.

 

You are also free to contribute to the topic if you like.

I was just making an observation. By all means continue. I think mstone is doing just fine ( besides I did contribute with trumpy above ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

What you're describing is both parties. You just seem to be blind to the failings of one of them.

Well, admittedly I will be blind to every Republican checkbox of the ballot on election day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I think mstone is doing just fine.

By your standards I have no doubt. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Well, admittedly I will be blind to every Republican checkbox of the ballot on election day.

So you admit you're a blind partisan*. Good. Admitting it is the first step as they say.

*Not that this is any great surprise to anyone tuned into your posts thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Don't feel bad mstone. This is where I always end up with him. He must think anyone with a different opinion is Fallacious.

 

You end up here because you regularly spew fallacies as facts and arguments. Stop doing so and you won't end up here.

 

P.S. Having a difference of opinion is not a fallacy.

Don't forget that fallacy has two somewhat different meanings: (1) an erroneous belief and (2) illogical reasoning. You guys are using it differently. One less thing to argue about...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Apparently you didn't read this earlier in the thread : http://theweek.com/article/index/233461/mitt-romneys-claim-that-47-percent-of-americans-dont-pay-taxes-true-or-false

 

There are some facts in here you might be interested in ( or not ). Yes it's an opinion piece but it does contain facts on this matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120919,0,2408537.column?track=rss

Both of them are opinion pieces and nothing about either of them alters the fact that the average Democratic voter return for 20 years has been 47.66%

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So just to be clear on this - none of the 47% to whom he referred vote Republican? You want to go with that conclusion? Really? Because that implies without further assumption that all Republicans pay taxes and receive no government payouts, while almost all Democrats are non-taxpaying self-entitled victims. Sure you don't want to rethink that?

I'd probably want to go with that if I wanted to set up a strawman and knock it down like you are attempting to do badly. I stated point blank that even when considering no other variable beyond party that no one captures 100% of the vote. 100% Republicans won't vote for Romney and 100% of Democrats won't vote for Obama. I never stated what you are trying to claim above.

Here is what I did say rather than the strawman version.

The number isn't significant. Polls show that both Republicans and Democrats in this election are supporting their respective candidate at about a 90-10 ratio. President Obama has alienated white males, Catholics, Black churches that do not support gay marriage, etc. Clearly the math must show certain more energized groups might show up more others. As an example clearly Obama is more concerned about losing progressives with regard to gay marriage support than losing black religious voters. He pitched one aside for the other. Will there be some black religious voters who go to Romney? Sure but as a block he must feel he will retain enough to justify the gains within another group. There are plenty of Romney voters who simply want the spending cut and whether they realize that might impact them or not, they support it in principle and this message will motivate them.

Not realizing you were defining yourself just doubles the irony and makes it twice as funny. Do you seriously consider bluster the same as reasoning? You've done nothing but attempt to bully and bluster your way through this terrible thread the entire time. You claimed the 47% number couldn't be defended. 20 years of election returns show that 47% is almost exactly what every Democratic candidate averages no matter who the Republican candidate happens to be. The fight isn't over the Democrats base or their voters. The vote is over leaners and the disengaged voters who don't start paying attention for another month and will likely vote their pocketbook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Don't forget that fallacy has two somewhat different meanings: (1) an erroneous belief and (2) illogical reasoning. You guys are using it differently. One less thing to argue about...

I have been using it, primarily, in the second sense. The real point is that I wasn't accusing someone of illogical reasoning because their opinion differed from mine. I was accusing of them of engaging in a specific logical fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Apparently you didn't read this earlier in the thread : http://theweek.com/article/index/233461/mitt-romneys-claim-that-47-percent-of-americans-dont-pay-taxes-true-or-false

 

There are some facts in here you might be interested in ( or not ). Yes it's an opinion piece but it does contain facts on this matter.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120919,0,2408537.column?track=rss

 

Both of them are opinion pieces and nothing about either of them alters the fact that the average Democratic voter return for 20 years has been 47.66%

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So just to be clear on this - none of the 47% to whom he referred vote Republican? You want to go with that conclusion? Really? Because that implies without further assumption that all Republicans pay taxes and receive no government payouts, while almost all Democrats are non-taxpaying self-entitled victims. Sure you don't want to rethink that?

 

I'd probably want to go with that if I wanted to set up a strawman and knock it down like you are attempting to do badly. I stated point blank that even when considering no other variable beyond party that no one captures 100% of the vote. 100% Republicans won't vote for Romney and 100% of Democrats won't vote for Obama. I never stated what you are trying to claim above.

 

Here is what I did say rather than the strawman version.

 

The number isn't significant. Polls show that both Republicans and Democrats in this election are supporting their respective candidate at about a 90-10 ratio. President Obama has alienated white males, Catholics, Black churches that do not support gay marriage, etc. Clearly the math must show certain more energized groups might show up more others. As an example clearly Obama is more concerned about losing progressives with regard to gay marriage support than losing black religious voters. He pitched one aside for the other. Will there be some black religious voters who go to Romney? Sure but as a block he must feel he will retain enough to justify the gains within another group. There are plenty of Romney voters who simply want the spending cut and whether they realize that might impact them or not, they support it in principle and this message will motivate them.

 

Quote:

Now you are just caricaturing yourself. I'm curious how long you can keep ignoring all arguments while proclaiming that you are addressing them. I'll give you credit for trying to address the arithmetic problem above, but the attempt was catastrophically embarrassing.

 

I'm sure that you just looked up recalcitrant, but perhaps you should also look up ironic and figure out that I wasn't being.

 

Not realizing you were defining yourself just doubles the irony and makes it quite as funny. Do you seriously consider bluster the same as reasoning? You've done nothing but attempt to bully and bluster your way through this terrible thread the entire time. You claimed the 47% number couldn't be defended. 20 years of election returns show that 47% is almost exactly what every Democratic candidate averages no matter who the Republican candidate happens to be. The fight isn't over the Democrats base or their voters. The vote is over leaners and the disengaged voters who don't start paying attention for another month and will likely vote their pocketbook.

Oh Jesus! So you're trying to say it's just about Democrats? I stated that they were opinion pieces that talk about who the 47 % are and it's not just made up of dead beats. That's the point trumpy. You're hopeless but I already knew that. It's like arguing with someone who doesn't speak the same language ( the difference is that with a different language the other person is at least trying to understand ). Don't worry though. I'm sure the voters can sort out what Mr. Romney meant. ( wink if I could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

You claimed the 47% number couldn't be defended. 20 years of election returns show that 47% is almost exactly what every Democratic candidate averages no matter who the Republican candidate happens to be. The fight isn't over the Democrats base or their voters. The vote is over leaners and the disengaged voters who don't start paying attention for another month and will likely vote their pocketbook.

There is not any value in historical election analysis going back 20 years. At that time there was no Internet and the Latino vote was irrelevant. Fast forward to 2012 and check your figures. The Latino vote is 100% against your candidate, well except for Rubio. Like it or not there is a huge ethnicity factor in this election, more than ever before. Romney needs to practice up on his Spanish. ¡Hasta luego!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

There is not any value in historical election analysis going back 20 years. At that time there was no Internet and the Latino vote was irrelevant. Fast forward to 2012 and check your figures. The Latino vote is 100% against your candidate, well except for Rubio. Like it or not there is a huge ethnicity factor in this election, more than ever before. Romney needs to practice up on his Spanish. ¡Hasta luego!

I'd gladly look at any link you have that shows the Latino/Hispanic vote going 100% Democratic or for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

There is not any value in historical election analysis going back 20 years. At that time there was no Internet and the Latino vote was irrelevant. Fast forward to 2012 and check your figures. The Latino vote is 100% against your candidate, well except for Rubio. Like it or not there is a huge ethnicity factor in this election, more than ever before. Romney needs to practice up on his Spanish. ¡Hasta luego!

 

I'd gladly look at any link you have that shows the Latino/Hispanic vote going 100% Democratic or for Obama.

No you wouldn't because you are in denial. Your location says 'in the future' but I'm sorry to break it to you, you are decidedly in the past. This time around the battle states are in the northern midwest but the tide is turning my friend, You will need to retreat ever further and further north as the years proceed to find like minded individuals, until you cross the border into Canada where you will find even more liberals. Your ilk is in the minority and receding rapidly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So just to be clear on this - none of the 47% to whom he referred vote Republican? You want to go with that conclusion? Really? Because that implies without further assumption that all Republicans pay taxes and receive no government payouts, while almost all Democrats are non-taxpaying self-entitled victims. Sure you don't want to rethink that?

 

I'd probably want to go with that if I wanted to set up a strawman and knock it down like you are attempting to do badly. I stated point blank that even when considering no other variable beyond party that no one captures 100% of the vote. 100% Republicans won't vote for Romney and 100% of Democrats won't vote for Obama. I never stated what you are trying to claim above.

 

Here is what I did say rather than the strawman version.

 

The number isn't significant. Polls show that both Republicans and Democrats in this election are supporting their respective candidate at about a 90-10 ratio. President Obama has alienated white males, Catholics, Black churches that do not support gay marriage, etc. Clearly the math must show certain more energized groups might show up more others. As an example clearly Obama is more concerned about losing progressives with regard to gay marriage support than losing black religious voters. He pitched one aside for the other. Will there be some black religious voters who go to Romney? Sure but as a block he must feel he will retain enough to justify the gains within another group. There are plenty of Romney voters who simply want the spending cut and whether they realize that might impact them or not, they support it in principle and this message will motivate them.

That's better - at least you are back on the topic. However, you don't get off that easily, and I'll spell out again the simplest consequence of his comments:

Romney said that 47% of the electorate paid no taxes etc., and would never vote for him. You said he was 100% correct. But if they would never vote for him, then they are not Republicans. But OK, let's relax that to mostly not Republicans, since you are arguing that some Republicans would never vote for Romney. Republicans who would never vote Romney or never vote Republican do you think? - anyway - unimportant, so to continue:

Since only that 47% pays no taxes etc., the remaining 53% who do pay taxes must then include most Republicans. Further, that requires that since that 47% are mostly not Republican, they are Democrat or Independent, which therefore requires that most Democrats and Independents don't pay taxes. Reductio ad absurdum. It cannot be so.

In what way have I misrepresented what either Romney or you have stated or argued? Presumably I must have done so for that to be a strawman argument.

As for what you said, what number is not significant? What you said is not a reasoned argument in support of Romney's statement in any sense at all, and it is not what you said earlier that I took issue with - it's just a collection of random observations about voting groups. We could discuss those, although I suspect that's not why you wrote them. Let's try:

If you mean there are statistics to show that, I don't doubt it. But what's your point, or what point are you trying to counter?

Possibly that is a cynical cost/benefit calculation, or maybe on personal freedom principles he regards equal rights for gays as more important than pandering to any particular pressure group that doesn't have a dog in that fight but would really like to restrict what gays can do and what rights they can have. Why is your conclusion "clearly" correct? And what does it have to do with Romney's comments on non-taxpayers?

OK - that's enough randomness. Not interesting at all.

I will ask again, with the now almost totally faded hope that you will give a straight answer, how you can possibly rationalize an equality, or even a significant statistical connection between the set of people who pay no tax with the set of people who voted for Democratic Presidential candidates (and for Republican Presidential candidates too, of course)? The only solution to that set of boundary conditions is that people who vote Democrat pay no tax. Your position, if you insist on taking it, is a ludicrous non sequitur. My accusation that you are a spectacular source of logical fallacies is borne out by almost every post you make. Remarkably, it turns out that around 47% of the population is also male; would you like to make the case that men pay no tax and will never vote for Romney?

I won't encourage your whining about bullying and blustering by responding, and seriously - the irony is actually all in your accusations. The thread is terrible mainly because you have repeatedly tried to derail it, although I'm sure it is terrible from your point of view for quite different reasons. I'm having fun even if you aren't, but I realize that you just can't stop.

The WP does a breakdown of "the 47%".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-are-the-47-percent-the-3-groups-mitt-romney-called-out-in-his-controversial-remarks/2012/09/20/00d299c4-02f2-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

That's better - at least you are back on the topic. However, you don't get off that easily, and I'll spell out again the simplest consequence of his comments:

 

Romney said that 47% of the electorate paid no taxes etc., and would never vote for him. You said he was 100% correct. But if they would never vote for him, then they are not Republicans. But OK, let's relax that to mostly not Republicans, since you are arguing that some Republicans would never vote for Romney. Republicans who would never vote Romney or never vote Republican do you think? - anyway - unimportant, so to continue:

You're sort of hilarious when you get called out on a strawman, get slapped down with the words you didn't quote and instead mischaractereized and now you declare that to be me getting "back on topic."

Do you see the bolded part of your statement there. No one EVER said that. No one. You're not doing someone a favor be "relaxing" it to some other statement because you have the quote function and you can just address the words typed instead of mischaracterizing them and then attacking that mischaracterization, aka a strawman argument.

You are making this an argument about party. That by definition is another strawman because Romney nor Obama will not win an election because everyone in their party votes for them. They win because they get the majority of the votes and no one gets a majority even if capturing 100% of their party vote. Some people are party voters. Some people are single issue voters. Some people are voting their own special interests. Whatever the rationale for their votes, Romney believes that Obama captures 47% of the vote with the rationales Romney outlined. Historical comparisons show Romney is right with regard to Democratic election performance.

I pointed it out quite plainly. I included your mischaracterization and included my original quote. Try a little harder.

You call them random observations about voting groups because you mischaracterize the statements and the race as being ONLY about party. To double down on that bad reasoning, you focus on capturing 100% or nearly 100% of the vote which no one anywhere ever declared would happen. Even without this statement 10% of each party wander off and vote for the opposition candidate for any number of reasons. This is true in almost every election whether Romney makes his statement or not. The fallacy here is guilt by association or the association fallacy. You are attributing to Romney, that which happens regardless of Romney being in the race or making his statement. George Bush, hell even Ronald Reagan never captured 100% of Republicans. That means to get to 50+1% of the electorate, the candidates need to appeal to some other factor than just party.

It is absolutely a cost to benefit calculation. Obama changed his position on gay marriage. He wouldn't have done this to just cost himself the election and he didn't change it prior to his election because it would have cost him too many votes. Again the point that you need to realize is it is never about just party. No one gets elected even with 100% of their party support and no one ever gets 100% of their party support. As for why it is correct, neither one of us can gain access to the campaigns and their inner workings. We are both stating what we think. However with regard to being clearly correct, it matches the numbers and what the various campaign managers declare they do for their candidates be they Republican or Democratic. If you look at interviews with Dick Morris, David Axelrod, Karl Rove, etc. they micro-target voters REGARDLESS of just party. Certainly you've run across discussions of wedge issues or single issue voters. This isn't nonsense I've just conjured. No political party in America has a majority of the population at the national level. They start with their base and have to find some combination of additional factors to get them a majority.

You rationalize it because 53%, regardless of party are having money taken from them and percentages of them will vote for the person who promises to let them keep their own money. Romney provided the reasoning within his statement. A tax cut and promising to let you keep your money doesn't appeal to any group that pays zero tax. Romney stated correctly that Obama has a baseline number of voters. He stated correctly that his attempt to get to 50+1% will involve appeals to people who are trying to keep what they earn and have because those paying nothing and taking something already have their candidate.

If Mitt Romney declared tomorrow that he isn't going to get any voters who are upset about having to give Walmart $9 a month for their birth control pills, he would be telling the truth. Single women are decidedly for Obama. No one said 100% of course but Obama has an advantage there. Romney will instead appeal to married women who do not like seeing their paychecks shrink to pay for the birth control of single women via government. Does that group go against Obama 100%? Of course not. Are some of those married women Democratic? Of course they are but this is about small percentages over a number of issues.

As for derailing the thread, when the premise is a strawman, by definition it is derailed by anyone who doesn't buy into or accept the strawman and the knocking down of it. I'm more than happy to "derail" any logical fallacy by applying the facts and reason.

Romney will start to win the Latino vote pretty soon when the debates happen in Oct.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

People overwhelmingly like and trust Obama.

What people? What percentage is in an "overwhelmingly?" They "like and trust" him compared with what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

When Obama points out Romney's inconsistencies or outright lies people will believe him.

But because they don't trust Romney, when he points out Obama's inconsistencies and outright lies, people* won't believe him (Romney)? Is that it?

*"People" being this vague, ambiguous grouping you've not defined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

 

So you agree with Romney that the big problem in America is that too many people don't pay enough taxes?

I would agree. But while many look at the 'poor' folks working under the table to avoid taxes, the illegals etc. I look at the rich being allowed loophole after loophole to save on taxes. 

In the UK they avoid income based taxes in favor of across the board higher sales taxes on basically everything, at least the non essentials like bread and milk etc. And they managed to have free basic health care for all. And it's been that way for a good 20 years. And yet folks in the US scream and throw fits over such ideas. Why? Because it's the rich that would be having to pay up when they buy their fancy cars, their fancy clothes etc. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

That's better - at least you are back on the topic. However, you don't get off that easily, and I'll spell out again the simplest consequence of his comments:

 

Romney said that 47% of the electorate paid no taxes etc., and would never vote for him. You said he was 100% correct. But if they would never vote for him, then they are not Republicans. But OK, let's relax that to mostly not Republicans, since you are arguing that some Republicans would never vote for Romney. Republicans who would never vote Romney or never vote Republican do you think? - anyway - unimportant, so to continue:

 

You're sort of hilarious when you get called out on a strawman, get slapped down with the words you didn't quote and instead mischaractereized and now you declare that to be me getting "back on topic."

 

Do you see the bolded part of your statement there. No one EVER said that. No one. You're not doing someone a favor be "relaxing" it to some other statement because you have the quote function and you can just address the words typed instead of mischaracterizing them and then attacking that mischaracterization, aka a strawman argument.

 

Quote:

Since only that 47% pays no taxes etc., the remaining 53% who do pay taxes must then include most Republicans. Further, that requires that since that 47% are mostly not Republican, they are Democrat or Independent, which therefore requires that most Democrats and Independents don't pay taxes. Reductio ad absurdum. It cannot be so.

 

You are making this an argument about party. That by definition is another strawman because Romney nor Obama will not win an election because everyone in their party votes for them. They win because they get the majority of the votes and no one gets a majority even if capturing 100% of their party vote. Some people are party voters. Some people are single issue voters. Some people are voting their own special interests. Whatever the rationale for their votes, Romney believes that Obama captures 47% of the vote with the rationales Romney outlined. Historical comparisons show Romney is right with regard to Democratic election performance.

Very nice - I see that I inadvertently gave you an angle to attack there by referring to Republicans and Democrats and failing to note the lack of exact identity with the associated voting pattern.

But you must have realized that I can, and will, reframe the argument without reference to party, with just the same outcome. And by the way - my statement above that you labelled as a misquote or mischaracterization - that was a deduction. As you are aware, a reasoned argument typically contains observations (in this case what was said plus other data) and deductions (what one may conclude from the observations). Do I need to label those to stop you from doing that again? I can do that.

Anyway, to reframe:

Romney said that 47% of the electorate paid no taxes etc., and would never vote for him {OBSERVATION: QUOTE}. You said he was 100% correct {OBSERVATION: QUOTE}. Since that 47% is the set of people who pay no taxes etc. {OBSERVATION: DATA} that requires that everyone who would vote for him must be a taxpayer {DEDUCTION}. But that is clearly untrue; even the most cursory study of demographic data shows that many committed Republican voters are poor and non-taxpaying {OBSERVATION: DATA}. Reductio ad absurdum {DEDUCTION}.

Ergo his statement was incorrect. I invite you to refute.

When this discussion started I was not really focussed on that point at all, since I thought it was too obvious to argue about, but more specifically on the further conclusion that since many people in the non-taxpayer 47% would, in fact, be expected to vote for Romney (possibly even the majority of them based on demographic data that those who vote democrat have higher average education levels and higher average incomes), it seemed a mistake for him to have labeled them as self-entitled victims who would never vote for him. I'm sure that would not alienate all of them, but it's not going to help motivate them to get out and vote for him.

Edit: corrected an autocorrect error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

The American people

All of them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

and compared to Romney.

So we're grading on a curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

I can assure you that Obama is still very popular in Europe too.

Who cares?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

He's seen as a sane politician as opposed to the Denialist Repubs who are seen as being motivated only by their own elitist agenda to enrich themselves at any price.

I guess we can't help whether people's perceptions are based on truth and reality or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Yes, I don't think Romney saying that Obama has lied will have much effect. It'll look way too hypocritical.

So you're saying that people are immune to receiving the truth from Romney?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

But I do understand your frustration. Obama should be challenged on the things he promised but failed to deliver, like closing Guantanamo. Romney though is the wrong person to do it for the reason I have stated, successfully that is.

You may be right. I also don't have much confidence in the American people broadly seeing Obama for what he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

I think Romney has a hard time persuading a lot of his own party that he's telling the truth. Independents will be even harder to convince and Dems on the fence even more so.

As I said, you may well be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Ron Paul would have been convincing and these debates would be a lot more engaging if someone like him was in Romney's place. Both Dems and Repubs largely don't fault his honesty or his integrity. He's almost the exact opposite to Romney. If Ron Paul was up there, I think you'd see a big shift in support from Obama.

You're probably right. Paul has some negatives that are mostly superficial having to do with his age. But he's the intellectual and moral superior of both Obama and Romney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

I think Obama would still win, but the American people might actually put some pressure on Obama to slow down and even back off. 

Yeah, maybe. But that's all moot now.

We'll be stuck with either Obama or Romney...only shades of difference between them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Obviously my post went over your head, again.

 

Perhaps this won't though. Romney went on Fox today and repeatedly stated Obama's for wealth redistribution and that he is against it. So watch this and tell me it's not wealth redistribution that Romney wants. I bet you can't and neither could our Repubs.- 

Uh, it's not wealth redistribution he wants?  There.  There ya go.  You know why?  Because he opposes wealth redistribution.  What you are referring to is wealth inequality.   That is a natural state of affairs (or problem, if you prefer).  You favor government "solving" that problem by forcibly taking the fruits of a person's labor and giving them to someone else.  Mitt Romney does not.  

Also, ditto on this:  

Exactly.  It doesn't matter what Romney does...you'll start a thread condemning him for it.  One has to wonder if you actually agree with President Obama, or if you just have your blue jersey on.