Originally Posted by trumptman
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:
Clearly the math must show certain more energized groups might show up more others.
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?
As an example clearly Obama is more concerned about losing progressives with regard to gay marriage support than losing black religious voters.
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.
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.
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.