09 October 2012

Romney Assails 47 Percent of Americans?

It really baffles me at the ignorance of people, and how quick they jump on a bandwagon of lies without even stopping to understand what is being said. I am referring to the constant use of this Romney quote about the 47% that is being used as a sound-byte and then twisted to imply things it is not even coming close to saying in the original context.

First off let me say, I am in no way a fan or supporter of Romney. However, the way this clip is being abused is just so evil and deceptive, and so many people seem to be falling for it (obviously the intent from those abusing it), and it is the utter ignorance of people who misunderstand it that is what frustrates me enough to comment. So let's get right into it.


Here is a transcript of what was said (or you can watch it in the below video):

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of American's pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people - I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some case emotion, whether they like the guy or not...

So, regardless of the silly comments made on Twitter, and especially against how the commercials are sound-biting the remarks, note what he is NOT saying:
  • 47% of Americans are worthless mooches, and I don't care about them.
  • 47% of Americans are useless, lazy, income tax dodging slobs looking for hand outs
  • 47% of Americans are dependent and lazy
  • 47% of Americans are not worth worrying about at all
These or any of the other stupid comments from people on articles such as this one need to called out for the ignorant statements they make. Now, for those too blinded to actually listen with an open mind to what IS being said, let me break it down. The key component is the opening statement, that there are 47% who are going to vote for Obama no matter what. So, let's start with that, let's cut out the comments in between, and attach the opening comment with the conclusion "And so my job is not to worry about those people - I’ll never convince them..." This is the thrust of the entire comment. He is stating that there is a group who will vote for Obama, and will not be swayed by anything Romney says during his campaign, and he acknowledges that, and therefore states his "job is not to worry about those people." - i.e. not to worry about swaying their vote during his campaign.

So, now let's add back in the parts that seem to trip people up the most. He is stating that of that group of people that will vote for Obama no matter what, they are made up of various groups of people that are:
    • dependent on the government
    • believing they are victims
    • believing it is the government's job to care for them
    • believing that food, health care, housing, etc. are entitlements the government should provide
    • paying no taxes (due to receiving  government support or receiving full refunds, etc.)
So, it is not a put-down to these people to state that this group exists for surely they do. It is simply stating that there is this group of people who are so engrained into the system - totally dependent on it, sometimes even not by their own choice - and that there are many of which who are under the confusion of what an entitlement is, and that because of their dependency, will vote for the candidate promising them the most assistance.

He is stating he should not concentrate his efforts on changing their vote or seeking to convince them to alter their lifestyle to become less dependent on the government "entitlements" they are receiving or to convince them to vote for less entitlements.

So, what is wrong with this conclusion? Why do the commercials try to twist it to say Romney doesn't care about 47% of Americans in general? It is ridiculous and dirty politics to twist the statements out of context to try to make them say something they are not - and even worse is the fact that people do not do their homework and are so quick to believe these evil twisters of truth.

So, to repeat - in a nutshell, Romney is saying there are about 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what, that he therefore cannot focus his attention on worrying about getting them to vote for him, and (it is implied) that there are likewise about an equal number that will most like already vote for him due to party affiliation or other reasons. So, because of these "fact" (if the numbers are truly accurate), then it is his job during the campaign, to "convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents" - the undecided ones who do not vote based just on party affiliations or entitlements, but that make their choices based on other thoughts and reasons.

So, honestly, in the end, I see what he is saying as being totally logical and a valid plan of attack for the campaign, and as such, I think the very commercials that attempt to make Romney look bad, just end up slapping themselves back in their lying faces if people were to listen to the comments in context. Of course, they are expecting the people to be the typical blind, ignorant sheep who will not look into it and just believe the lie they are spinning - and the evidence is showing that it works.

Of course, then you have more twisted and deceptive comments made by Obama himself on the subject, where he appeared on the Letterman show. Letterman of course sets it up in a twisted view to begin with by stating that Romney discusses in "very dismissive terms why 47% of people voting don't matter to him." So there is already a negative connotation from the start, and then Obama openly states "I don't know what he was referring to, but..." Well hold it, if you do not know what Romney is referring to, then do not comment on it, plain and simple. Instead, he goes on to make comments that imply and seek to apply Romney's words to a meaning that he is not going to "work for everyone" as President. Mr. President! You are comparing apples and oranges and shame on you for such a twisting of the intent for your own political gain!

Obama plainly says that during his 2008 race,  47% of the people voted against him. That is where the analogy stops, but he goes on to apply things differently by saying that after he won, on election night, he told those 47% that he would work hard to be their President, and that as President he represents all of the people. UH - that is not the topic Mr. President! The topic is, did you work hard during the campaign by focusing a lot of attention on attempting to sway and convince those same 47% to vote for him against their own party affiliation and beliefs? The question at hand is how to approach the campaign trail, and who to spend the most time targeting for support. It is not who you are working for, but who you are working on. Obama's words have nothing to do with that aspect, but speak of his position after becoming President, and so, in essence, his entire appearance is a further twisting and shameful attempt of abusing Romney's intent just like the commercials are doing.

Oh, and then he goes for a little extra tear-jerking sympathy by talking about all of the hardworking people struggling to make it and who do not think they are victims or entitled. Again, not the point - they are just the other 53%! To then add insult to injury, he has the audacity to state that he travels around America, and that "you don't meet anybody that doesn't believe in the American dream and the fact that nobody is entitled to success, that you've got to work hard. So, I promise you, there are not a lot of people out there who think their victims, there are not a lot who think they're entitled to something..." Wow, either he is living in a real fantasy world, or he has limited circles that he travels in.Tell you what, try pulling the entitlements, and let's see if no one complains about it.

 

And the ending is the best - he comes right in with the government assistance ploy for those who struggle and still can't make it, so the government must come in and save the day with their assistance via student loans, etc.

HELLO!! It is not the governments job - and it is unconstitutional - to spend the people's money this way. It is not a "good investment for America" - it is a form of socialism - stealing from those who make more money, and distributing it to those who make less (or none if they are totally supported by the government system to begin with). These government plans/aid are unconstitutional and should be done away with from the start. On top of that, if it were not for the illegal over taxation to begin with, the struggling of the people would not be much (if at all), and the aid would not be necessary to begin with.It is a vicious circle that intentionally keeps us in dependency. 

Government aid/assistance is not an entitlement - and in actuality, it is illegal (i.e. unconstitutional) in the majority of cases, and if they stopped them, we would see the deficit decrease quite rapidly. If the American people would learn the truth about the limitations and extent provide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Presidential race would be a whole different ballgame.