Why Do So Many Liberals "Like" Mitt Romney On Facebook? 376
pigrabbitbear writes "Mother Jones reports that, 'In recent weeks, a host of liberal types have complained that their Facebook accounts have erroneously "liked" Romney's page, and some are floating the theory that the Romney campaign has deployed a virus or used other nefarious means to inflate the candidate's online stature. This conspiratorial notion has spawned a Facebook community forum, and its own page: "Hacked By Mitt Romney" (cute url: facebook.com/MittYouDidntBuildThat)' So what's going on? Is the Romney campaign engaging in some tech wizardry to hijack Americans' Facebook pages? Seems unlikely, but Romney did somehow manage to acquire millions of fake Twitter followers. But it looks like the Romney campaign isn't behind this one — Facebook and its mobile app is."
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Abortion. He's gone back and forth on that since the 90s.
He's been pretty solidly advocating new laws against abortion recently, but a couple days ago he told the Des Moines Register, "There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda." Then his campaign hastily "corrected" that a couple hours later and said he "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
Re:Because Romney is a liberal. (Score:2, Informative)
"Liberal" is yet another term co-opted by the spin doctors over time. Other such terms are "hacker" and "anarchist". None of which are recognized by the general public under their original definitions.
Re:Simple mix up (Score:5, Informative)
One other thing is, to participate on discussions on a page, you must "like" it.
So some of those liberals that "like" him may have "liked" him for the purposes of trolling the page.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
No, he didn't.
He took a statistic from a WSJ article that said 47% of the population was getting a check from the gov't for one reason or another and assumed that meant they were all welfare queens, life-long Democrats and rabidly pro-Obama.
He didn't take into account the number of people getting Social Security. Nor Veteran's Benefits. Nor Military Pensions. Hell, nor active duty military drawing a paycheck. Nor many, many other categories of payments that go to people who aren't just in it for a handout.
Or are you trying to tell me that every military person, active duty or retiree; senior citizen or person drawing veteran's disability is a died-in-the-wool Democrat and Obama supporter?
He was talking to a bunch of fucking morons who can't think beyond simple sentences and telling them what they wanted to hear. He was being a money grubbing, lying politician.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
My grandmother and grandfather invested post-tax for decades. They did this so they could draw their investment income in retirement and not have to pay federal tax on it. In their retirement years they collected Social Security -- for which they paid into earlier, and drew from their retirement funds -- which had been taxed years before. They paid no income tax during their retirement years and rightfully so.
My daughter has a job that earned her only a couple of thousand dollars last year. She didn't pay income tax because she lived at home and went to school full time. She was claimed on MY return and her income was reported there.
However, under the method used by the WSJ she would be reported as paying no Federal tax as it was all returned.
Keep in mind, anyone working has Social Security and Medicare withholdings. Both are FEDERAL taxes they pay and aren't returned at tax time. They just aren't INCOME tax.
The amount of money would would collect from the lowest end of the spectrum is offset by what it would cost for you to collect. You'd actually LOSE money processing their returns and everything that goes with it.
Think of those pictures that occasionally make the news where a doctor frames the $0.01 check he received from Medicare and the $0.42 stamped envelope next to it. Are you honestly saying you want to see that?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, elegant and wrong. Demanding that EVERYONE pay SOMETHING is an example.
Re:And "obama care" (Score:0, Informative)
Governor Mitt did some "liberal" things about healthcare when he was governor of Mass. Then as Rep Pres candidate, he was against Obama Care - similar to what he did - WTF?!? Now, he's back to being in favor of it - I think - I lost track.
His stance is and always has been that the states should have the right to test out healthcare systems that they think fit the needs of that state. And other states have the right to copy those systems if they feel they would be beneficial to their constituency. But the federal government should not be imposing its views of what healthcare system may or may not be best on everyone.
tl;dr: Massachusetts chose an individual mandate. Other states should be allowed to choose as well. The federal government shouldn't be forcing them.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Informative)
The statistic has a narrow meaning but has been taken and padded to sound like half the country is mooching.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly, anyone working (or able to work) should be working AND...have to pay SOME federal tax..I don't care if it is $10 or so....just as long as everyone has some skin in the game, eh?
I couldn't disagree more. First of all these people ARE paying taxes...just not income tax. They pay payroll taxes, often sales taxes, often property taxes etc.
I've had others including a close friend make this "everyone should be paying some income tax" argument, but I'm sorry. A working family that has to choose between buying their kids shoes or food should most certainly not pay income tax.
This whole thing about people who aren't paying income tax always seems to imply that this is something new. These people under similar circumstances wouldn't have paid income tax at any time in our history, because making them do so is just plain wrong. If anything, the big difference is that decades ago the same people would have been much more likely to be making enough money to exceed the tax threshold, which if you ask me has much more to do with this new Gilded Age the so-called "free markets" have given us than anything else.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And "obama care" (Score:5, Informative)
Except that our healthcare as it exists today is "up to the states" by and large. And you know what? The states have completely fucked up the laboratory experiment that is Healthcare. We know that doesn't work.
The only real option is a public, single payer system, and getting to a state where the US funds subsidies of drug prices around the world. Recently in AZ, where I live, there was a lady who had a major adverse reaction to a bark scorpion bite. 6 doses of antivenin that is manufactured in Mexico were administered. If she was in Mexico, total cost would have been about $600. Her bill? $35,000 for the same medicine that costs
Want more? I used to work for a multinational. They explicitly said that they will hire more people in Canada, the UK, France and Germany, while reducing their roster in the US. Reason? Healthcare costs. Paying the extra taxes and having universal healthcare is a powerful reason to move good high paying engineering jobs out of the US.
Re:Perfect Match (Score:4, Informative)
http://mittromneysflipflops.com/ [mittromneysflipflops.com]
I took a quick perusal and there was a pretty good list. Anybody who doesn't think Romney is a serial flip-flopper has their head in the sand.
Sure, Obama and every politician does to some extent, but Mitt takes the cake.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Realistically, you should realize that you have 6 choices [isidewith.com] to choose from. If you believe that your choices are 2 instead of 6 then you're taking the bait. Take that quiz and figure out who best represents you, and sack up and vote for that person even if you don't think they'll win. If Romney represents you the best, so be it. But don't vote for him just because you don't think you have another choice, that's a stupid reason to vote for something.