Romney Supporter Interviews: Ignorance and Bigotry Abounds

Watch Mitt Romney supporters' unbelievable (or should I say predictable) comments after his recent campaign event in Dalliance, Ohio (the one where he said Jeep is thinking of moving all jeep production to China.) That the reporter keeps a straight face during the interviews is quite a feat. The really crazy comments start around 0.50 seconds in.

According to his supporters, Obama is a Muslim who reads the Koran, a socialist, and a communist. He isn't a good President because he's too angry. He and his aides all have "bad things" in their past that the media has failed to report. The scary looking, unhinged white- haired lady (0.56 seconds) is completely off her rocker. Keep watching, she returns throughout becoming more unglued each time.

Not one of these supporters can describe Mitt Romney's plan (even though they are leaving a rally where he just gave a speech about it ) but they all support it. Either they are beyond stupid or Romney has no articulable plan. (Probably a combination of both.)

After two minutes, you'll want to take a shower to rid yourself of any residue of these people. Then you'll want to vote three times just to make sure they aren't picking our next President. I can't imagine anyone forgetting to vote Tuesday after watching this sorry lot explain their ignorant, bigoted opposition to Obama and support of Romney. In one day, it's had 209,000 views. I hope it goes viral over the weekend. Pass it around.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Biden: Romney "Wants to Turn Back Time" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    geez! my kingdom for an edit function! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    obviously, that should read: "ladies"

    That older gal in the pink sweatshirt who was (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:42:07 AM EST
    almost crying while talking about Romney like he was some sort of Messiah scared the crap out of me.  I had to exit at that point, couldn't continue watching.  

    What I find sad is that these people are too stupid and racist to understand that they've been brainwashed. They've been led to believe the absolute worst lies about our President.  Sickening beyond words.

    Yeah, well it wasn't that long ago... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:47:55 AM EST
    that people were crying while talking about Obama "like he was some sort of Messiah."  

    That was equally pathetic.


    Are you saying the Obama supporters in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:34:20 AM EST
    were brainwashed?  I think there's a vast difference between crying for hope and positive change and crying because you've been brainwashed to believe evil and hateful lies about someone.  

    My recollection is that the people crying for Obama did so because they wanted positive change in this country, because they were excited about the prospect of a person of color becoming president, because they saw he represented a chance for all people to participate and be counted.  The Romney supporter I witnessed about to cry on that video was crying because of perceived fear and her own hatred against people who she believes are not Christian, people who believe in a woman's choice, people who are homosexual.  Pathetic.


    Come on, Angel...a "vast difference?" (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:03:03 AM EST
    No - all you've done is justify ignorance on the part of people who support the same candidate you do, but it doesn't make those people any less ignorant, does it?  No, it just means that you don't think their ignorance hurts in the same way that that of the Republican/Romney supporters.

    It's still ignorance even if it's in service to causes or issues we've identified as the right ones.

    You might as well be defending the right of people to believe in Santa and the elves, really, where Santa is "hope" and "good," and that's all people need to know.


    No, this is about the hatred these people display (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    in their comments and actions, and the fact that they've been brainwashed to believe all of the lies and distortions the GOP dishes out.  I've never said Republican voters have a lock on ignorance.    

    they don't have a lock on hatred, eitherq (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    Where have you been?

    or (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    is Democrat hatred good, justified, enlightened, informed hatred?

    But they don't have a lock on hatred, either, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    do they?  Seems to me we express a fair amount of strongly negative opinions toward pretty much all things Republican, don't we?

    But we think we're right to feel that negative, because we believe that what they believe and what they want are bad for the country.

    I see the hateful attitudes and beliefs from these people, and I see it in the candidates they support - and I'm just as opposed to it.  And I get that your and Jeralyn's anger is directed specifically at what these people have expressed in the video, and that you have expanded it to encompass the party in general and the people who claim Republican party membership.

    My larger point was that there are far too many people on both sides of the political divide who are woefully ignorant and misinformed to the point of it being a virtual epidemic of ignorance - and I don't think those on "our side" get a pass just as long as they vote the way we want them to.

    By all means, people should have hope and believe in change, but basing one's decisions on those things alone is like clinging to the idea that Santa and the elves are real.


    What about life, liberty and the pursuit of (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by vicndabx on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:48:10 AM EST

    If you're concerned about freedom, this statement

    but basing one's decisions on those things alone
    is the last thing you should be saying.

    That's what's great about this country, we don't all have to prioritize the same way.  That's why coalitions work.


    Wrong. (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    "...and that you have expanded it to encompass the party in general and the people who claim Republican party membership."

    I have not expanded my thoughts about the ignorance of some to all of the Republican party.  Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I was talking specifically about those people who were interviewed in the video and people like them who talk and believe that way.  That is not the entire Republican party.  


    Well, perhaps you can explain where (3.50 / 2) (#26)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:54:24 AM EST

    all of the lies and distortions the GOP dishes out.

    fits in your claim that you were not addressing the ignorance of the entire Republican party.

    I won't put words in your mouth, but don't blame me for reading your own words.


    The GOP refers to the party's hierarchy. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    They are the ones dishing out lies and distortions.  The people in the video to whom I was referring are the ones who choose to believe those lies.  Those people are not "the GOP."  You are trying to split hairs and just want to argue.  

    And, these are concerned (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    and interested Republican voters who came out to a Romney rally.   They are not to be dismissed as examples of "low information" or "no information" voters.   They may not have been able to articulate and collate effectively all the Republican talking points and talking heads, but they showed their gut understanding and agreements.  The seeds took and grew in their own way.

    Their slightly more articulate leaders offer just as zany arguments, from Todd Akin's kindergarten understanding of  the human reproductive system to Richard Mourdock's rape theology.  And least we forget, Mitt Romney sees a problem in that jetliners do not have operable windows.  

    Of course, there was some 'progressivism" in the interviews, with the purple-faced woman's appreciation for Mormonism as Christianity.

    The interviewer, Chase Whiteside (New Left Media) gets my tip of the hat for his ability to not only remain dead panned, but also, his ability to follow-up on responses--a journalistic talent that is in short supply in the MSM.


    Simple question (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:39:28 AM EST
    what do you believe Obama supporters may be so "ignorant" about?  What is it they don't know that you do, or don't have access to on their nightly news?

    I have a question for you: (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:50:50 AM EST
    Why are so many Democrats and Obama supporters okay with policies and actions and agenda they were apoplectic about when Republicans were in charge?

    Where does that fit on the ignorance spectrum for you?


    What you see as ignorance (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:04:18 AM EST
    can just as easily be a calculated, informed decision.  

    Maybe for many, those issues were never that important, but part of concerns about the broader scope of the direction of the gov't.  Maybe that stuff is less important to them personally now, who knows?

    There are all kinds of potential reasons that have nothing to do w/ignorance.

    You do realize that this type of control of thought you expect goes counter to your concerns about the constitution don't you?


    first, your basic premise is wrong: (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    "Why are so many Democrats and Obama supporters okay with policies and actions and agenda they were apoplectic about when Republicans were in charge?"

    most liberals/progressives, who constitute the bulk of obama supporters, aren't happy at all, with obama continuing holdover bush policies, that we didn't like when bush was doing them. you make an assertion, with nothing to support it. typical of trolls.

    we're hardly "ignorant", we know all about it.

    "Where does that fit on the ignorance spectrum for you?"

    however, that hardly makes the case that a romney administration would somehow, in spite of everything he's professed (and take your pick, it changes almost hourly), be better than a second obama administration. trust me, it wouldn't. so, i can live with the obama policies i dislike (and there are many), and try to change them, knowing that the policies i do like (and they are also many) will continue being supported, and hopefully expanded.

    a romney presidency results in:

    1. overturning the ACA.
    2. overturning the lily ledbetter act, by executive order.
    3. a budget plan that will, quite literally, destroy our economy.

    this isn't speculation, this is fact. to think that somehow, "moderate" mitt romney will be inaugurated, is to believe every lie he's told you, since the primaries. i'm just not that stupid, are you?

    the average republican/tea partier is, by definition (consider every one of them you've personally met, and every one you've seen interviewed on tv), either wholly ignorant, or so jam packed full o' the lies of rush & FOX, that their IQ's have actually dropped several points. they've no clue how economics works (and don't want to know), they actually believe (history to the contrary), that lowering taxes (yet again) on the wealthy will, somehow, magically, result in their getting a job. they suffer cognitive dissonance, on a grand scale; professing belief in "small government", while at the same time supporting the government's right to control the reproductive lives of women, as though the two are entirely disconnected events.

    these are people so vested in the lies, that even when shown incontrovertible proof, they reject it, as some kind of weird "liberal conspiracy", of math and science in general. they aren't simply dullards, they are actively ignorant. as such, they are, in fact, a danger to national security, because they would elect people who's actions would make the country less safe.

    you may not like it, but thems are the facts. fortunately, as i noted in an earlier post, they are a dying breed. their numbers will be significantly less in 2014 (mid-terms), and fewer still, in 2016. time is on the side of liberals/progressives.


    I think what it comes down to - (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    at least in my opinion - is that people believe what they want to, but I am amazed, on a daily basis, with the kind of stuff Republicans believe.

    I know I've mentioned the man I call the little GOP tyrant, who has an office around the corner from me.  This is a man who is a noted tax lawyer, gifted at his profession - and yet - he is like a festival of Republican talking points.  Worse, he fairly whines them, but so loudly that it's almost impossible to tune him out.  At best, he can provide an outlet for those days when you just want to push his buttons and see how wound up he gets.  At his worst, he makes me palms itch for wanting to slap some sense into him.

    I know, and I've said many times, that Republicans are bad for this country, and as much as I have taken issue with Obama these last four years, I would have to be considered ignorant myself for even breathing anything that sounded like it might not be so bad if Romney won.  It would be worse than bad.  Worse than Bush. Worse in a way that really kind of scares me.

    Governance is more than just the two men - and for now, it seems it's going to be men, always men - at the top; it really is about the agencies and the thousands of policy decisions that get made within them that have the power to affect us directly, daily, and potentially, in dire ways.

    I'm not now, nor have I ever, made a case for a Romney administration being better than another 4 years of Obama - I hope that's clear.

    People believe what they want to - and I would say that the vast majority can't be persuaded to believe something different.  Those people in the video?  They might just as well have said, to the question of why they were supporting Romney, "because I am, that's why, and that's all you need to know."

    Childish, kind of, but that really does seem to be what it comes down to.

    One of the initiatives we have on the ballot here in MD is for same-sex marriage.  The ads out there from suporters are sane and rational - really, they are.  The ones from the opposition are just awful, the worst one being the couple from Massachusetts telling about how passing this referendum means our schools will be required to "teach" gay marriage - whatever that even means.  When you can't tell the truth to persuade people, just lie - seems to be the MO of a lot of Republicans.

    Oh, well...enough from me.


    crickets... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    You won't get much of an answer, because the most obvious one is that, for these people, it wasn't about the policy, it was about the party -- or person.

    But I think the more dangerous circumstance is saying well, I still don't like the policy, but I trust the party -- person -- doing it now.

    As a small, fairly benign example (compared to rendition, etc.), take President Obama's recess appointments. It was a cheap stunt the Republicans pulled, having BS pro-forma sessions to keep the president from making the appointments. It was just as bad when the Dems did it to Bush. George, the great usurper of rights, complained bitterly about it, but concluded that separation of powers kept him from doing anything about it.

    Obama said I don't care what you say, you're not in session, and made the appointments -- to wild applause from the Left. Feel free to hammer me - I'm not exactly a legal or governmental scholar - but the head of the executive branch impeding on the rules of the legislative sets a dangerous precedent. You can't unring these bells. How can the Left now complain the next time a Republican president does the same thing?

    This is actually probably a lousy example (but I hate typing so I'm not going to delete it). Much more dangerous are issues of indefinite detention, drone strikes, etc., but I wanted to stay away from the emotion those issues entail. When you say "I trust MY leader to (whatever) because we're on the GOOD side" that's a bad thing, because (a) your leader might not be so good, (b) your leader might not stay so good, and (c) what do you say to the next leader?


    Recess appointments (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    are valid, constitutional and legal.

    Whether they are fair or justified depends on the situation.

    By way of frequency, Obama has had fewer recess appointments...

    I don't see this as a salient issue.


    Besides, the GOP leg. has blocked multitudes of (none / 0) (#56)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    appts. with fake-filibusters etc.

    GOP blocking larger percentage of Obama judicial nominees than any president in history
    8/11/2011 9:15pm by John Aravosis


    I couldn't find stats right now re all the blocking of appts by the GOP, including much more than the judicial appts.

    Drone strikes and indefinite (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:27:32 PM EST

    Drone strikes as a tool can be useful and apporpriate.  On the whole, Obaam's use of drone strikes seems appropriate.  They are better than invading an entire country or leveling an entire City.  It is an act of war, so is not to be celebrated.  But the alternatives are worse.  We can't send in the FBI to capture and try Al Qaeda members in foreign countries.

    Indefinite detention.   The idea of enemy combatants has merit.  In an ideal world, it would be good to try every single person.  But not always possible.  

    I never railed against Bush for drone strikes or indefinite detention.   It was his stupid invasion of Iraq and use of torture.  


    Actually (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mojo56 on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    it was a good example. Well said.

    Ignorance may be ignorance, but ... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    ... there's certainly a vast difference between one candidate's appeals to a person's best hopes and dreams about the future, and another's not-so-thinly-veiled attempts to conjur up people's worst fears and prejudices from a bygone era.

    I'd offer that the Obama campaign of 2008 was seeking to capture the spirit of John Lennon's "Imagine," while the Romney campaign of 2012 has been perfectly content to dog-whistle "Dixie," as was the case with its recent GOP predecessors.


    Must disagree. Many of my well-educated, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    intelligent friends (who usually exercise excellent judgment) went gaga for Obama during the '08 primaries.  When I asked them why they supported him, the answer usually included they didn't believe in dynasties (Clinton).  

    Many of my well educated, well informed (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    and intelligent friends were very enthusiastic (the word is not "gaga") supporters of BHO during the primaries. They were angry about the Iraq war which was waged under a false pretext. They were angry at HRC for not owning up to her mistake about her Iraq war vote despite getting plenty of opportunities to do so in the years that followed. Mind you, some of them even voted for HRC in the 2006 Senate elections despite strongly disagreeing with her Iraq war vote but were more than willing to jump ship when an alternative viable candidate showed up. People make well informed and difficult decisions about voting and supporting candidates based on many factors. It is complicated!

    Dynasties are corrosive to democracies (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    George Washington and David Ben Gurion set wonderful examples by stepping down at the height of their popularities and laying solid foundations for democracies to flourish in their respective nations.
    Political dynasties have however been a curse to many underdeveloped nations in the world and to many Arab countries in the Middle East.

    Does two people in one family (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    serving in higher public office constitute a dynasty? Let's see... John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Charles Francis Adams; Huey Long and Earl Long; Nelson, Winthrop, and Jay Rockefeller; Al Gore Sr. and Al Gore Jr.; Birch Bayh and Evan Bayh; Thomas Dodd and Chris Dodd; Mark Pryor and David Pryor; John Chafee and Lincoln Chaffee: Teddy, Franklin, Franklin Jr., and James Roosevelt; George HW Bush, George W. Bush, and Jeb Bush; and then there are the Kennedy's, who have had so many family members in higher public office it's not even necessary to list them all.

    Looks like the Clintons are not really a rare or special case when it comes to American political "dynasties."


    And have all those families (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:59:07 PM EST
    been corosive to our democracy?

    Correct (none / 0) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:00:29 PM EST
    The Clintons are not really a rare or special case when it comes to American political dynasties.
    The Presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt (they were also from different parties)were however separated by many years. The same was true for John Adams and John Quincy Adams. The separation of their Presidencies by years prevented single families from monopolizing the politics of their parties and the nation.
    The successive Presidencies (among Republican Presidents) of George HW Bush and George Bush (with the waiting-in-line Jeb Bush)is hollowing out the Republican Party from the inside. Mark my words, the Republican Party will suffer the consequences for turning to a single political dynasty for years to come.

    Of course not. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Towanda on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    That argument was cr*p to attempt to cover for CDS.  I heard it from a lot of voters who were for many a Kennedy and others who had voted for both Bushes.  But the Clintons were different.  Why?  One has lady parts.

    Is it okay if I cry about Obama now? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:46:03 PM EST
    The Iraq War ending, I cried.  Osama bin Laden dead, I cried.  ACA upheld, I cried.

    Mitt Romney (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:45:12 AM EST
    My nephew in SC was trafficking this same (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by easilydistracted on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    line of s&&t last night through emails. With him, its more the case of hating Obama as opposed to liking Mitt. When I inquired what it was about Mitt that he liked, he responded, "he's not the &&&%## [Obama]." Its scary.

    Note to self: Its probably a good time to review and revise my Christmas Card list.

    I felt the same way about Dubya Dubya Bush (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    Hate and Anger are completely wasted on politicians.  They don't give a damn.  The time I spent typing angry polemics about Dubya on various talkboards were wasted as well.  I wish I had that time back.

    I feel (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    the exact same way. It might have been cathartic for me temporarily but it didn't do anything for anyone else.

    If they want to waste their time screaming about Obama well have at it. I'm more concerned with issues than any particular politician.


    Yeah, that was kind of hard to watch, but (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    it isn't just Romney supporters who don't really have a clue; seems to me that four years ago, there was a video of someone talking to Obama supporters, and none of those people could explain Obama's positions or plans, either.

    Ignorance abounds, but it only seems to bother us when it comes from people who don't think like we do or support who we do.  I mean, I've encountered a lot of people who will vote for Obama who aren't doing it because they're informed on the issues - all they really care about is "Democrat good, Republican bad."  In most cases, that happens to be true, but it doesn't make those people any less ignorant, does it?

    What you saw in that video was the consequence of relying on the media for information and education; it was a festival of talking points and dog whistling.  People have to get that from somewhere - and that somewhere is likely the media, in this case probably Fox News and right wing radio - and sadly, from so-called religious leaders manipulating people from the pulpit.

    Are Democrats better informed?  Not if they get most of their information from the nightly "news," at least not based on what I see there every night.

    So, yeah, it's kind of horrifying to see how ignorant these people are, but the really horrifying thing is that it isn't confined just to Republicans and Romney supporters - it's everywhere.

    Yes you are right (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by vicndabx on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:35:54 AM EST
    but the point of the post wasn't just about ignorance, rather the consequence of ignorance.  Which you seem to want to say when you state:

    all they really care about is "Democrat good, Republican bad."  In most cases, that happens to be true, but it doesn't make those people any less ignorant, does it

    Perpetuating the equivalence meme isn't really helpful IMO if your goal is to see folks better informed.  Good governance isn't going to happen overnight.

    Or was that just a thinly veiled swipe at Obama supporters who, as is their right, saw something beyond policy as a desirable outcome?


    The B-Roll (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    "Social issues" can be found here.  Starring all your favorites, except the crazy lady.  The kid in the A&F shirt who looks like Ronnie from the Jersey Shore turns out the be the most reasonable of the bunch--a low bar to be sure, but hey.  

    Never seen Joisy Shore (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    but when I saw that A&F mo-ron I thought Matt Damon's ignorant younger RW brother.

    Well I didn't even last two minutes... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by desertswine on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    before I wanted to shower.

    Enough, I am a Methodist minister and always (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by mogal on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    vote democratic as do most of the clergy I know.  We are told to "heal the sick" - "feed the hungry" - "care for the least among us" as believers in Jesus Christ.

    I was in a seminary class, still nursing my wounds from Hillary's campaign, the night O won the election in 2008.  My African Americans friends expressed what the election of  meant to them personally in such deep profound ways, I was humbled and will never think of politics and elections the same again.

    Weird how the thread turned into ... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by magster on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:11:21 PM EST
    ... Obama supporters are just as bad thread.

    I just admonished those (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    making those comments and suggested readers don't take the bait.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    Well, I guess we could be just as ignorant. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    I mean, given that Romney is probably going to capture about 55% of the white vote, I've generalized that this means most white Republican voters are prejudiced and stupid. Some would say that's an ignorant statement, while I'd retort that this video only proves my point.

    It's what happens (none / 0) (#61)
    by scribe on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    when trolls decide to set up an infestation.

    Don't feed the troll.

    Now, I've got to watch this video - I need some good laughs.


    Talk (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 05:58:26 AM EST
    about a bunch of people who are ill informed, ignorant and creepy at the same time.

    OK. (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:06:54 AM EST
    Romney has no plan.

    What is Obama's plan?

    What is a "plan"?

    lady's and gentlemen, your 2012 republican party! (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    the culmination of 30 years worth of intensive propaganda and training, they are a team fearsome to behold, in terms of sheer, raw ignorance. the love-child of rush limbaugh and jerry falwell, with a little sarah palin on the side, they are the purest expression of orwell's worst nightmare come true: the drone voter.

    my one consolation is this: in the timeline of american society, they represent history past, the neanderthal of american politics, we of history future, homo sapiens. much as neanderthal man took time to finally disappear from the human line, so it will take time for our voter neanderthal to as well. however, extinct they will go, as their inability to adapt to a changing societal environment ultimately dooms them.

    btw, you left out "atheist":

    According to his supporters, Obama is a Muslim who reads the Koran, a socialist, and a communist.

    according to the one lady, obama is a muslim and an atheist. when the interviewer attempted to point out the difficulty of being both, simultaneously, she assured him that obama is.

    in fairness, i don't expect mr. romney's supporters to be able to articulate his "plan", because neither he, nor paul ryan can either. in fact, they make a point of not providing specifics. aside from tax cuts for wealthy people, they don't seem to really have one. at least, not one that makes sense mathematically.

    this puts them in good republican company, joining every republican president since reagan. for the country, not so much.

    fortunately for us, the romney candidacy died aborning, the moment the republican "Klown Kar Masquerading as a Primary" was unveiled, before an appalled and repelled american audience. one candidate more odious than the next, until the most odious one was left: mr. romney. we've simply had to wait until nov. 6, to officially say kaddish over it.

    Makes it pretty easy to pick a side (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    even if my interest was purely at the most elemental level of who I want to associate with.

    More like 40 some years... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    ...Don't forget Nixon's Southern Strategy.

    I think it goes back to 1964 and Barry (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:59:32 PM EST
    Goldwater's campaign. That was one ugly campaign. It set the groundwork for the Southern Strategy and all the GOP nonsense and insanity that followed.

    The cause of the craziness? The Voting Rights Act. The Democrats let "those people" vote, and the Republican Party has been trading on that anger and resentment ever since.


    2012 (none / 0) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    may be the year to put the ghosts of the Vietnam War and the Southern Strategy (and the Civil War) to rest.
    Repeated losses by Republicans and the irrelevancy of Southern states in national politics may hasten the rise of a new generation of more liberal Southern politicians! I am praying for it.

    Don't hold your breath. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 09:21:51 PM EST
    People thought 2008 marked the end of the crazy in the GOP. And the Republicans doubled down on the crazy.

    Hopefully, someday, that will change, but the Civil War technically ended 147 years ago, and we are still fighting that war.

    Sadly, I doubt things will get better in my lifetime.


    Depending on the hour of the day (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 11:33:20 PM EST
    Sadly, I doubt things will get better in my lifetime.

    I go back and forth on this. On the upside, the 'new' GOP and Romney has my mother on the Left now. She's 76yo R. I also hope there is more of the younger gen that is more tolerant. My niece is a Born Again Recovering Christian, she also has some sense in her head. Maybe this extreme GOP is so offensive, they die a better than slow death?  Or we can just divide into to countries :D


    A giant swath of the American electorate (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    ...chooses to be, essentially, developmentally disabled.  What percentage of Americans literally believe in haven and hell?  It is a staggering number.  This is a nation that still considers being intellectual some kind of shameful, insidious thing. These are people who are like toddlers in high chairs spilling their milk on the floor to get attention. It would simply be sad and pathetic if it weren't so socially destructive.

    this is very interesting (none / 0) (#25)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    I take your comments about heaven and hell to extend also to afterlife in general and God, or whatever passes for God, in particular.

    I share your views. But I also realize I don't know for sure, and neither do you.

    More importantly, I don't share your belief that those who believe these things are stupid. You do realize that many of our most brilliant scientific minds have believed in an afterlife, even been -- gasp -- religious?


    and that's your right, and i'll defend to my dying (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:11:28 PM EST

    "I share your views. But I also realize I don't know for sure, and neither do you."

    the difference, between them (the believers, of rightwingnut stock), and us, is that we aren't trying to force our beliefs, or lack of, down the throat of the american electorate, by legislative fiat. they are. that, my friend, makes them far more dangerous than us unbelievers.


    But atheism is a belief system, too. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    The Judeo-Islamo-Christianista believes in God and an afterlife in which they'll either be in heaven or hell, while you just as firmly believe that individual life on this Earth merely functions by virtue of an on / off switch and that there's absolutely nothing beyond this world.

    Who's to say who's right and wrong? The point is that neither of you can prove your own contention, any more than you can disprove the other's.

    That's why I consider it far more important that we seek out our common ground with one another, rather than continue to highlight our differences with respect to our often absurd attempts to define for each other the nature of the human spirit.



    No, it's not (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by observed on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity.
    It is no more a "belief system"
    than "believing" in the force of gravity.
    I'll respect that you, if you are a Catholic (not sure about that), actually believe the counterfactual, unscientific, unsubstantiated, unTRANSsubstantiated tenets of your faith.
    You in return, should simply accept that I don't share your belief.

    I'll say it again: (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 01:14:49 AM EST
    You can no more disprove the existence of a higher power, than I can disprove your contention that when life's belltowers chime that fateful hour, the lights simply go out, the coach turns into a pumpkin and the party's over.

    So therefore, what makes you believe that your atheism is based upon anything that's factual, substantiated and / or trans-substantiated?

    When you get right down to it, atheism is really no more valid or invalid than Catholicism, Judaism, Taoism or Rastafarianism. It's simply a state of mind, and a matter of one's personal preference regarding whatever one chooses to believe about the existence of an afterlife -- or lack thereof.



    In science and all rational inquiry, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by observed on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 04:58:02 AM EST
    the burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim.
    The atheist has no burden of proof whatsoever.
    It's extremely simple. By your standard of proof, we cannot even deny the existence of gods of the sun, wind and moon.

    By the way, in your haste to write yet another comment, you falsely conflated atheism with a lack of belief in the afterlife.
    Those are independent concepts.
    However, I would argue for an evidence-based approach to this question at all; additionally, the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim---especially a claim which defies the evidence of hundreds of billions and billions of deaths.


    First of all, (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 06:53:26 AM EST
    the commenter's point was that atheists are not out there trying to convert others and shove atheism down others' throats (in contrast to may religious followers).

    Secondly, atheists do not believe that "Earth merely functions by virtue of an on/off switch", etc.

    Atheism is based on evidence from physics, biology, and other scientific explanations of the universe and the history of this planet. It's highly dubious to present a false equivalence that all of these beliefs are based on the same type of thinking or that they are all equally data-based.


    Well said, Dr. Molly. n/t (none / 0) (#76)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    Pres. Obama has also hosted a celebration (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    of an Islamic holiday in the WH, as well as celebrations of other religions and ethic celebrations.  

    the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    was deleted for stating Obama's religion is unknown. Other replies attacking commenters here as trolls have also been deleted.

    This thread is about these Romney supporters and the reasons they give the reporter for supporting Romney and opposing Obama. A few commenters here who oppose Obama are trying to change the discussion into one about Democrats criticizing  Republican policy or past Republicans. I don't recall Obama supporters in the past election attacking John McCain because of his religion or his race, or in this election, accusing Romney of lying about his faith.

    Don't take the bait. The attacks on Obama by the Romney supporters in this video are not equivalent to those voiced by Obama supporters at his rallies.

    Comments that try to justify the views of these supporters are deplorable and will be deleted.

    Also, per our election comment rules, commenters opposing Obama are limited to four such comments a day. With four days to go until the election, the rule will be enforced. If you are in doubt as to whether your comment is acceptable, save a copy on your computer so you don't lose your work if it gets deleted.


    hopey romney changey (none / 0) (#54)
    by Philly on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    The crazed lady was something else.  I'm embarrasses me to say she reminds me of some of my relatives.

    But based on people's comments (which I read before watching the youtube video), I was expecting far worse.  Aside from the crazed lady who was completely over the top, the bulk of the "man on the street" style interviews were sad, but not terribly surprising or offensive to me.  It's easy to find low-information supporters that vote based on emotions and can't articulate why.  As has been pointed out, there were a tons of mocking interviews like this ridiculing Obama supporters back in 2008.

    I'm in PA and my land line has been ringing non-stop with robocalls.  I can't wait until Wednesday.

    As an aside, Romney's painted himself into a corner with his pandering and promises.  If by some freak accident he ends up our next president, he's going to be savaged four years from now.

    There's a lot to be said for Obama's argument that he didn't realize just how bad a trajectory we were on when he made some of his pre-presidency promises, but Romney will have no such excuse.

    Pace of recovery is slow? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    The 2001 recession George Bush inherited from Clinton saw 1.63 million jobs lost.
    The 2007 recession Obama inherited from Bush saw  7.2 million jobs lost.

    It took 46 months to return to peak employment under Bush.  Using the same standards irrespective of policy, it should take 202 months to return to peak employment.  Obama is on pace to be there in 100.  

    So who had the better recovery?

    Giuliani has read "The Pet Goat" (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    But not the June 22, 2001 Daily security briefing, or W simply did not understand the word "imminent"....

    Meh. (none / 0) (#62)
    by scribe on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    I've heard worse.

    Then again, this is clearly an indictment of both the American educational system and of modern advertising and propaganda techniques.  These poor, benighted idiots who actually believe talk radio, TV, and politicians.  Of course, I've heard much the same bullsh*t out of the mouths of fellow lawyers who happen to lean Rethuglican.

    I especially enjoyed - in the sense of someone to laugh at - the woman in the pink sweatshirt.   The only thing lacking from her being a complete comedy act was that she didn't go into an OCD fit of Hail Marys, praying for that Muslim's demise.

    I would like for the reporter to have tried to egg the speakers into letting their racism show.  They all wanted to say "n*gger" and "Kenyan".  You could just see it bubbling below the surface.  A hidden camera and it would have come out.