Class Warfare a Bust:Gallup 75% of voters don't care Romeny's rich

[JoeB131]

The rich have always acted like "dicks" but the pop culture fools educated by union teachers got to pick the dicks they liked during the late 20th and early 21 century and those dicks usually were decadent drug addicted nut cases. Democrats have been playing the little socialist game since FDR refered to Joe Stalin as "uncle Joe" and the joke was that there were more communists in the administration than the Kremlin. Radical democrats absolutely hate to be out of power so they will play any game and step on any tradition and pretty much try to ruin anyone who gets in their way including the majority of the American people.

Well, in American taught history, we won WWII single handledly when in fact the Russians were doing most of the fighting.

I'm not sure why you guys are still whining about this. We won the Cold War, didn't we?

Plutocracy actually didn't completely implode until a full 20 years after Communism did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . In this demographic 76 are indifferent to Romney’s wealth, 19 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

1 of 5 centrists are less likely to vote for MR because he is rich.

Centrists, not extremists, will decides this election.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You are one of the biggest Libtards on the website.

NO, I'm just not subscribing to the crazy that's taken over the GOP in the last decade.

The one that's cause you to lose 4 out of the last five Presidential elections.

Uhhh Joe??? Yer math SUX!!!

 

[georgephillip]

Which economic class has more today than it had five years ago?
What does the answer to that question say about capitalism and democracy?

"After five years of crisis - with no end in sight - it's time to evaluate what happened, why and what needs to be done. One key cause of this crisis is the class structure of capitalist enterprises.

"I stress that because most treatments miss it. By class structure, I mean enterprises' internal organization pitting workers against corporate boards of directors and major shareholders.

"Those boards seek first to maximize corporate profits and growth.

"That means maximizing the difference between the value they get from workers' labor and the value of the wages paid to workers. Those boards also decide how to use that difference ('surplus value') to secure the corporation's reproduction and growth.

"The major shareholders and the directors they select make all basic corporate decisions: what, how and where to produce and how to spend the surplus value (on executive pay hikes and bonuses, outsourcing production, buying politicians etc.)

"Workers (the majority) live with the results of decisions made by a tiny minority (shareholders and directors).

"Workers are excluded from participating in those decisions: a lesson in capitalist democracy."

After Five Years: Report Card on Crisis Capitalism

 

[Plasmaball]

wonder why Cons were so obsessed with John kerry for being rich and with his money and his and teresa heinz's tax returns?

that was different because he was a democrat.

10 bucks says the OP made an issue out of it back in the day. Seeing how she is tabloid trash.

We weren't obsessed with his wife being rich. We took issue primarily with his shitty post Vietnam antics. We have no issues with rich people, just rich people who bash people for being rich... it's called hypocrisy.

Stop lying, I was there for it.

 

[Chris]

The class war is over. The rich won.

 

[JoeB131]

You are one of the biggest Libtards on the website.

NO, I'm just not subscribing to the crazy that's taken over the GOP in the last decade.

The one that's cause you to lose 4 out of the last five Presidential elections.

Uhhh Joe??? Yer math SUX!!!

Uh, no, it doesn't.

1992- Clinton won.
1996- Clinton won.
2000- Gore won the POPULAR vote. That the courts stole it was sort of meaningless. Fact is, Gore won the vote. Probably won a majority in Florida, too, if someone had bothered to count the vote.
2004- Bush actually won that one- barely. Incumbant President, during a war, awful opponent, massively outspent, and he won by a whopping 2%, the lowest victory margin an incumbant got since 1916.
2008- Obama won, with the greatest number of votes anyone had ever gotten in history.

Not to worry. It will be 5 out of six.

 

[Jackson]

Being rich used to be a good thing before Barry Hussein's mini socialist revolution. FDR was arguably the richest president in history and lefties love his legacy. JFK came from a line of pop-culture new money from rum-running and Hollywood decadence and the left called it "Camelot". Today we have a former dope dealing community activists in the White House and left tells us to tighten our belts and sooner or later we will all be working for the peoples republic if we don't elect a capitalist dog.

Being rich used to be a good thing when the rich didn't act like dicks.

When they didn't get draft deferments while poor people's kids went to wars.

When they used their wealth to open factories and create jobs, not to shut down factories and destroy jobs.

A wise rich guy, Henry Ford, once said, "If my employees don't make enough to buy my products, I don't have a business."

Mitt Romney is not that kind of rich guy.

He saved companies like Staples and Home Depot. And I would much rather vote for a man who has a success record in business than a failed record as president.

 

[Jackson]

NO, I'm just not subscribing to the crazy that's taken over the GOP in the last decade.

The one that's cause you to lose 4 out of the last five Presidential elections.

Uhhh Joe??? Yer math SUX!!!

Uh, no, it doesn't.

1992- Clinton won.
1996- Clinton won.
2000- Gore won the POPULAR vote. That the courts stole it was sort of meaningless. Fact is, Gore won the vote. Probably won a majority in Florida, too, if someone had bothered to count the vote.
2004- Bush actually won that one- barely. Incumbant President, during a war, awful opponent, massively outspent, and he won by a whopping 2%, the lowest victory margin an incumbant got since 1916.
2008- Obama won, with the greatest number of votes anyone had ever gotten in history.

Not to worry. It will be 5 out of six.

Remember Kennedy won with a low margin as well.

 

[skookerasbil]

Class warfare is gay. Never wins elections as a campaign strategy. Incumbents under 50% always lose. The economy sucks balls. Hope and Change = a joke.


Just hoping all the k00ks show up in here on election night!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Being rich used to be a good thing before Barry Hussein's mini socialist revolution. FDR was arguably the richest president in history and lefties love his legacy. JFK came from a line of pop-culture new money from rum-running and Hollywood decadence and the left called it "Camelot". Today we have a former dope dealing community activists in the White House and left tells us to tighten our belts and sooner or later we will all be working for the peoples republic if we don't elect a capitalist dog.

Being rich used to be a good thing when the rich didn't act like dicks.

When they didn't get draft deferments while poor people's kids went to wars.

When they used their wealth to open factories and create jobs, not to shut down factories and destroy jobs.

A wise rich guy, Henry Ford, once said, "If my employees don't make enough to buy my products, I don't have a business."

Mitt Romney is not that kind of rich guy.

He saved companies like Staples and Home Depot. And I would much rather vote for a man who has a success record in business than a failed record as president.

HOme Depot wasn't one of Bain's investments when Romney was there. Bain picked up HD supply in 2007, long after Romney left. (We think. Romney's not been forthcoming about when he really left Bain.) Maybe Mitt Picked up some Day Laborers there to do work on his lawn, for Pete's Sake.

And Staples didn't have real success until after Bain sold them and they introduced the "Easy" Button campaign.

But let's give him the credit for Staples.

Okay, so he eliminated good paying union jobs at GS STeel and AmPad and Dade Instruments and replaced them with crappy, no benefit, minimum wage "McJobs" at Staples.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good thing. Quite the opposite, when you replace good self-sustaining jobs and replace they with low-paying jobs that make people seek government assistance, you are kind of doing the opposite of what Republicans stand for.

 

[JoeB131]

Uhhh Joe??? Yer math SUX!!!

Uh, no, it doesn't.

1992- Clinton won.
1996- Clinton won.
2000- Gore won the POPULAR vote. That the courts stole it was sort of meaningless. Fact is, Gore won the vote. Probably won a majority in Florida, too, if someone had bothered to count the vote.
2004- Bush actually won that one- barely. Incumbant President, during a war, awful opponent, massively outspent, and he won by a whopping 2%, the lowest victory margin an incumbant got since 1916.
2008- Obama won, with the greatest number of votes anyone had ever gotten in history.

Not to worry. It will be 5 out of six.

Remember Kennedy won with a low margin as well.

Not relevent to my original point, but okay.


Here's the thing. If you look at history, one party dominates.

From 1861-1932, the GOP dominated the electoral scene. The Democrats won with Cleveland and Wilson- barely- but mostly, it was the GOP in walks. Then the Great Depression hit, and that was the end of GOP dominance.

From 1932-1968, the Democrats dominated. The only Republican winner in that lot was Eisenhower, who essentially had to admit the Democrats were right about the role of government and foreign affairs, embracing Keynesian economics and rejecting isolationism.

The ground shifted again in 1968 thanks to the Damned Hippies. Republicans got the White Middle Class back by playing on their fears. So from 1968-1992, the only winner the Democrats had was Jimmy Carter, who was disliked by Democrats because he was practically a Republican. And he only barely won after Watergate decimated Republican leadership. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, he'd have probably won.

1992 the ground shifted again. Minorities became a larger slice of the pie, and suburban voters started turning back to the Democrats. So Clinton won. Gore should have won, but the court stole the election, and Obama won and will win again. Only because Bush stole the election in 2000 and we've never voted out a president in wartime, did Bush win- barely.

 

[editec]

So does that mean that Romney will get 75% of the vote?

No?

I guess that this poll basically means little, then, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Truman, 1948, under 50%
Eisenhower, 1956, under 50%
Clinton, 1996, under 50%

Class warfare is gay. Never wins elections as a campaign strategy. Incumbents under 50% always lose. The economy sucks balls. Hope and Change = a joke. Just hoping all the k00ks show up in here on election night!!!

 

[Jackson]

Uh, no, it doesn't.

1992- Clinton won.
1996- Clinton won.
2000- Gore won the POPULAR vote. That the courts stole it was sort of meaningless. Fact is, Gore won the vote. Probably won a majority in Florida, too, if someone had bothered to count the vote.
2004- Bush actually won that one- barely. Incumbant President, during a war, awful opponent, massively outspent, and he won by a whopping 2%, the lowest victory margin an incumbant got since 1916.
2008- Obama won, with the greatest number of votes anyone had ever gotten in history.

Not to worry. It will be 5 out of six.

Remember Kennedy won with a low margin as well.

Not relevent to my original point, but okay.


Here's the thing. If you look at history, one party dominates.

From 1861-1932, the GOP dominated the electoral scene. The Democrats won with Cleveland and Wilson- barely- but mostly, it was the GOP in walks. Then the Great Depression hit, and that was the end of GOP dominance.

From 1932-1968, the Democrats dominated. The only Republican winner in that lot was Eisenhower, who essentially had to admit the Democrats were right about the role of government and foreign affairs, embracing Keynesian economics and rejecting isolationism.

The ground shifted again in 1968 thanks to the Damned Hippies. Republicans got the White Middle Class back by playing on their fears. So from 1968-1992, the only winner the Democrats had was Jimmy Carter, who was disliked by Democrats because he was practically a Republican. And he only barely won after Watergate decimated Republican leadership. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, he'd have probably won.

1992 the ground shifted again. Minorities became a larger slice of the pie, and suburban voters started turning back to the Democrats. So Clinton won. Gore should have won, but the court stole the election, and Obama won and will win again. Only because Bush stole the election in 2000 and we've never voted out a president in wartime, did Bush win- barely.

Spin much?

 

[Katzndogz]

No one cares that Romney's rich. They do care that obama has caused them personal misery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1 out of 5 centrists are less likely to vote for MR because of his wealth.

Let's stay level headed, Kataz.

 

[SayMyName]

His being rich tells me he has done something right, especially with his business experience, which in running a country goes a lot further than community agitating.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's biggest mistake according to him was in not knowing what the job was. Romney isn't about to make that mistake because he's already run a major company and made decisions.l

Obama Discusses His 'Biggest Mistake In Office (VIDEO)

"The mistake of my first term —a couple of years — was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right

All he had to do was tell others what to do and go play basketball.

 

[Katzndogz]

The democrats major misstep is that the class warfare they think they can exploit to win might actually turn into class warfare. Employees battle employers who fight back by closing businesses and moving away.