Romney says that 47% remark was wrong

[mrveggieman]

Wow ya think?

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insid...pletely-wrong/

[JustAlex]

Breaking News: "Romney now admits that that water is indeed wet!"

[Wickabee]

Let's look at this in order:

1 - Romney made a stupid statement (which I truly believe he believes) to a room full of rich, white Republicans and it was taped.
2 - Tape comes to the public.
3 - Outcry that favours "liberals" somehow (I'm sure there are at least a few conservatives in the 47%)
4 - Romney says he stands by his remarks
5 - Republican spin machine tells everyone they took it wrong, but no other possible and meaning that makes any sense is given
6 - Romney receives a bump in the polls
7 - Romney finally admits it was a completely wrong statement to make

What does this tell us? I don't know about you, but it tells me Romney will stand behind anything he says until his popularity goes up and the party tells him to disavow it.

Oh, but Romney doesn't flip flop.

[shrewsbury]

talking with my 18 year old daughter, who is voting for obama, i found she didn;t know why, but she thought it was the right thing to do, which she is an adult and can vote for whomever she likes.

talking to a younger male coworker, i pretty much here this

Republican spin machine tells everyone they took it wrong

and he believes it and is not voting for obama

i am trying to look at it without bias, and neither of the two should be president at this point. there is some odd things going on around here(presdential election) and i don't like it

[Wickabee]

Shrew, when you've got a system as messed up as you guys, you only have 4 choices

1 - Vote for Liar A
2 - Vote for Party-Puppet B
3 - Vote for a forgone loser
4 - Don't vote

So many people say not voting is lazy, but I see it as a vote itself. If no one is good enough, why force yourself to go against what you believe and try to pick between a pile of crap and a lump of feces? There should be a "non of the above" option and, if that wins, two new candidates until the parties realize the people have taken the power back.

Because the parties hold the power. They just let the people think they have it. Voting is basically useless in this system.

[duwal]

Shrew, when you've got a system as messed up as you guys, you only have 4 choices

1 - Vote for Liar A
2 - Vote for Party-Puppet B
3 - Vote for a forgone loser
4 - Don't vote

So many people say not voting is lazy, but I see it as a vote itself. If no one is good enough, why force yourself to go against what you believe and try to pick between a pile of crap and a lump of feces? There should be a "non of the above" option and, if that wins, two new candidates until the parties realize the people have taken the power back.

Because the parties hold the power. They just let the people think they have it. Voting is basically useless in this system.

but wouldn't the none of the above winning also be a problem for a lot of people as well. Finding two different viable candidates, having them go on their months of campaigning and fundraising and then having time for Americans to vote for either of those two or to select none of the above again. If that happened President Obama might have a term of 5 and a half years by the time he is replaced in office. Also Romney sadly enough beat out a lot of the other possible candidates for the Republican side so if you don't vote for Obama or Romney you could actually be voting towards someone that has worse ideas and mentality than the current two

[Wickabee]

but wouldn't the none of the above winning also be a problem for a lot of people as well. Finding two different viable candidates, having them go on their months of campaigning and fundraising and then having time for Americans to vote for either of those two or to select none of the above again. If that happened President Obama might have a term of 5 and a half years by the time he is replaced in office. Also Romney sadly enough beat out a lot of the other possible candidates for the Republican side so if you don't vote for Obama or Romney you could actually be voting towards someone that has worse ideas and mentality than the current two

I realize it's not a viable option (who wouldn't) but something needs to be done. Until you guys figure out how to get the message out, you're screwed and stuck with these two idiots, whatever their names may be in the future.
In Canada we have a bunch of parties. We only really ever vote in one or the other, either Liberal or Conservative (we don't get creative with party names) unless they'rboth being idiots, then we vote for the NDP and the Greens and Bloc Quebecois get bumps too. It's not a great system either, but it's slightly better than an entire nation picking teams every four years.

[*censored*]

He agreed with the 47% before he disagreed with it.

[Wickabee]

He agreed with the 47% before he disagreed with it.

Because his numbers were low and he didn't want to look like he was flip flopping. As soon as he got a boost in the polls, he could afford it, in order to apologize to half the country and admit his mistake. I would respect him for admitting his mistake, except that he had to wait for a bump in the polls to do it. I think it speaks to his character and that he thinks of the American Public as puppets. Unfortunately, he's just projecting what he is to the party onto the people.