What's new
By:
Filters

Romney: Obama won with "gifts" to African Americans and Hispanics

Why do you think what he's saying is so divisive? I don't have the transcripts but what I've seen isn't anything everyone else isn't already saying. In fact, he was very fair and matter-of-fact about it. The Mayor of San Antonio, a democrat and hispanic, was explaining the day after the election how much Obamacare and amnesty means to hispanic voters. Looks to me like Romney is regurgitating that and insinuating his party move toward the center.

Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now twenty-six years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008….

You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.

Read more: https://www.newyorker.com/online/bl...lames-obama-gifts-for-loss.html#ixzz2CJZvlKFz
Click to expand...

I would expect some Washington Post columnist to spin that into some racist diatribe and that's exactly what they did.

BabyPeterzz said:
Wow. Romney crying hard. Dude needs to let it go and help his party rebuild. Talk like this is exactly why he lost.
Click to expand...

As far as crying, getting over it, etc., Romney is giving a typical "we lost because" speech to his committee and big donors. The media and liberals are the ones who need to get over Romney and let him go.
 
I keep hearing that the Repubs need to be more inclusive. What exactly does that mean? They simply need to give more people what they want regardless of ramifications? Obamacare, free birth control for college aged women, free cell phones, amnesty for any child born to parents that came here illegally and advocating for gay marriage. I'm sure there are many more. All of this caters to very specific segments of society, all of which voted for Obama. Blacks, Hispanics, young voters, women, gays, etc. When you create programs that make certain groups happy, those groups will vote for you every time. To me, the term "more inclusive" simply reads as catering to those whom you want to vote for you.
 
Serious question on immigration to all that are here.

Would you take a compromise on immigration that does the following:

- Truly secure border (fence, national guard...)
- No more anchor babies for babies born in the future
- Amnesty (6 month temp status to get the ball rolling) to everyone here right now that is not breaking additional laws such as robbery, rape, murder, drug dealing...
- Deportation of those here illegally that are breaking other laws
- Increased legal immigration flow. Streamline process and dramtically increase the flow. Particular emphasis on doctors, engineers, vets and other high skill sets.
 
Not a fan of the amnesty bit but I would take the deal just to get **** done.

Oh, and I agree with the thought that we should be throwing green cards to any and every well educated person on the planet; doctors, engineers, nurses, etc. That said, we can deport the lawyers and politicians.
 
Scat said:
Not a fan of the amnesty bit but I would take the deal just to get **** done.

Oh, and I agree with the thought that we should be throwing green cards to any and every well educated person on the planet; doctors, engineers, nurses, etc. That said, we can deport the lawyers and politicians.
Click to expand...

I knew my proposal had something left out! Thanks Scat. I edited it.
 
Scat said:
I keep hearing that the Repubs need to be more inclusive. What exactly does that mean? They simply need to give more people what they want regardless of ramifications? Obamacare, free birth control for college aged women, free cell phones, amnesty for any child born to parents that came here illegally and advocating for gay marriage. I'm sure there are many more. All of this caters to very specific segments of society, all of which voted for Obama. Blacks, Hispanics, young voters, women, gays, etc. When you create programs that make certain groups happy, those groups will vote for you every time. To me, the term "more inclusive" simply reads as catering to those whom you want to vote for you.
Click to expand...

If they want to win then yes they need to do most if not all of those things. Its a popularity contest, plain and simple.
 
kennykyle said:
If they want to win then yes they need to do most if not all of those things. Its a popularity contest, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

And this is why I do not have a good feeling about where things are heading.
 
franklin said:
Why do you think what he's saying is so divisive? I don't have the transcripts but what I've seen isn't anything everyone else isn't already saying. In fact, he was very fair and matter-of-fact about it. The Mayor of San Antonio, a democrat and hispanic, was explaining the day after the election how much Obamacare and amnesty means to hispanic voters. Looks to me like Romney is regurgitating that and insinuating his party move toward the center.



I would expect some Washington Post columnist to spin that into some racist diatribe and that's exactly what they did.



As far as crying, getting over it, etc., Romney is giving a typical "we lost because" speech to his committee and big donors. The media and liberals are the ones who need to get over Romney and let him go.
Click to expand...

His language, and most conservatives', tells a greater story here and points to exactly why Republicans lost. It speaks to their world view and their overall perception of America. Those that voted for Obama again don't see health care as a privilege or a "gift", fair treatment of kids born in the U.S. is not a gift, equal treatment of homosexuals is not a gift. Freedom and public health are priorities and should always be key components to our economic strategy. That's why I voted for Obama.

Until the R party understands this they won't be able to compete in our new landscape. Language matters. Keep spouting this **** and the R's will continue to lose.
 
I'm sure you left out the "young" part of that quote just as an oversight, huh? So what Romney is saying here is that people don't like Austerity talk? They don't like when they feel you are going to take something away? I'm floored. Let's get 4000 comments on the Washington Post disputing that when there is a whole world on anti-austerity fire right now as real world evidence. Who's in the streets protesting in the countries? The unemployed, minorities, and the young? Isn't that what Romney is saying? Does it not apply to the United States as well? Of course it does. That may or may not have been what made up the differential in this particular election, but there were certainly a lot of people on twitter talking about how Romney was coming after "them". That racial genocide was just around the corner via austerity.....Which of course is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
Serious question on immigration to all that are here.

Would you take a compromise on immigration that does the following:

- Truly secure border (fence, national guard...)
- No more anchor babies for babies born in the future
- Amnesty (6 month temp status to get the ball rolling) to everyone here right now that is not breaking additional laws such as robbery, rape, murder, drug dealing...
- Deportation of those here illegally that are breaking other laws
- Increased legal immigration flow. Streamline process and dramtically increase the flow. Particular emphasis on doctors, engineers, vets and other high skill sets.
Click to expand...

1) No problem there
2) Pretty much a myth. I would be opposed to changing the 14th Amendment, though, if that's what you meant. Looking at countries without it, you wind up with generational second-class natives (such as the grandchildren of Turkish workers in Germany).
3) Sound good.
4) Isn't that already happening (departation after jail)?
5) I would agree with that provision.
 
Scat said:
They simply need to give more people what they want regardless of ramifications? ... All of this caters to very specific segments of society,...
Click to expand...

That's as opposed to the gifts of the separate tax struture for capital gains taxes, the lowering of the top marginal tax rate, etc., which doesn't cater to any segment of society? I may have misread your tone, but to me it reeked of "those people want goodies instead of a responsible, fair government". Do you have enough self-reflection to see that both sides see themselves as wanting a responsible, fiar government, and both sides can paint the others as the ones demanding the goodies?
 
One Brow said:
1) No problem there
2) Pretty much a myth. I would be opposed to changing the 14th Amendment, though, if that's what you meant. Looking at countries without it, you wind up with generational second-class natives (such as the grandchildren of Turkish workers in Germany).
3) Sound good.
4) Isn't that already happening (departation after jail)?
5) I would agree with that provision.
Click to expand...

How do you figure. A child born to illegal parents in the US is a US citizen. I do not agree with that. Keep in mind my offer of a deal would only deal with those that are born in the future not the ones already born.

Example. A year after the deal goes into effect and the border is secure an illegal immigrant arrives int he US and after a few months has a child. That child is an illegal immigrant as well. So when we catch mom and dad and send them home their child goes with them and has no rights to US citizenship.

That would of course require estensive immigration enforcement.
 
Kind of ironic the Master Flip Flopper of our age complaining about Obama catering to people and offering folks promises and gifts in exchange for votes. Just what exactly was his motivation in flip flopping and changing his point of view on literally every single campaign issue?

Offering folks what they want and making campaign promises is the very definition of campaigning. That's what the election is for.

Mitt Romney offered tax cuts for the rich, greater defense spending, wanting to get tough against Iran and China, the elimination of Big Bird, and the repeal of Obamcare... Then he offered the complete opposite a few hundred times as well... LOL... In fact, was there anything that Mitt Romney didn't promise? Difficult to keep track.

anyway, depending on your perspective, you could easily accuse Mitters of catering to the rich, promising more defense spending (and checks to contractors), promising more private ownership and funding into PBS, and catered to his special interest groups for Obamacare. He promised old white Christian males a lot of things. And lost.

If promising stuff was wrong then the whole campaign system is wrong.

If repubs want to get rid of making promises and offering "gifts" then that's fine. Just make sure that you folks play the same rules.

No more talk of repealing Obamacare, No more talk of privatizing SS, no more defense spending increases, no more oil/gas subsidies, no more promises that you'll "get tough" on immigration, no more wall construction talk between us and Mexico, and my personal favorite, NO MORE PROMISES TO BUILD SPACE BASES ON THE MOON WHILE CAMPAIGNING IN FLORIDA!!!

How is promising to allow homosexuals to be married promising gifts, free stuff, buying off votes different from promising to define marriage as a union of a man and woman? Isn't that essentially buying people off? I don't get how it's different.

tumblr_lyfiagvrpP1qf10tro1_400.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
How do you figure.
Click to expand...

If a baby is born in the US to illigal immagrants, the parents can still be deported. They will normally take the child with them. When the kid turns 18, the child can return to the US as a citizen, and then request the legal immigration of their parents, which is still not guaranteed. I just find it very difficult to believe that people have kids in order to legally immigrate to the US 19 years in the future.


Stoked said:
A child born to illegal parents in the US is a US citizen. I do not agree with that.
Click to expand...

According to the 14th Amendment, if illegals can be prosecuted for violations of drug laws and the like (and thus are subject to our laws), their kids born on US soil will be citizens. Do you really want ot repeal that? Alternatively, do you want to say those illegal immigrants aren't subject to our laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top