I am beginning to become scared that Romney/Ryan will win. Can smart people please post here and say reassuring things to convince me that he won't?

The logic is pretty baffling, in that one would believe Obama is a secret Muslim yet is not held in high enough esteem in the Muslim world?

He's too secret!

*dying*

He cannot go a day, literally a day, without something like this happening.

BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/romney-middle-income_n_1883819.html

haha wow

lol just came here to post that

how many douchechills can he

you are fucking kidding me

if a democrat nominee had said that the press wouldn't have enough nails for his coffin

And yet I have plenty of struggling relatives making well under that $50k figure that think Romney is their saviour.

he did (link taken from gawker story): "In a recent speech, President Barack Obama referred to the "middle class" 14 times, defining it as a family that makes up to $250,000 a year."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0718/What-does-it-mean-to-be-middle-class

but "up to" means a hell of a lot more than "$200k-$250k"

is more inclusive of, y'know, reality

i'm guessing that was a misphrasing on romney's part? number aside, it would be weird to define middle income with a range of just $50,000. but maybe i'm being overly charitable.

like what proportion of americans would fall under "middle income" if he was defining it literally as $200,000 to $250,000 in income?

good god

“I think the challenge that I’ll have in the debate is that the president tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren’t true,” Romney said. “I’ve looked at prior debates. And in that kind of case, it’s difficult to say, ‘Well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren’t quite accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about?”

i think its just a reflection of how completely out of touch he is with what most Americans actually earn. in his view, that probably seems like a reasonable estimate. the $250,000 has been a number kicked around a lot as kind of a middle-class upper limit this cycle, so i can see why he picked that as an upper limit. he probably can't even fathom how people making under $200k even live, so he just threw that one in.

yeah when youre dealing with numbers that small, whole orders of magnitude are indistinguishible. scale becomes a huge problem.

sorry guys, this is bullshit - the whole quote is “Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/mitt_romney_defines_middle_income_as_200_250000/

i.e. more or less the way Obama has been defining it

And less

you guys are really masters of freaking out over one guy's BS vs another guy's high crimes.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MR6E2REZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRB2h37tedkN_3Sz0ilydnf3OpPRo1_BY9AzuKHCksZKSajGyFY-8LJfbYTtA

high crimes

freaking out? it's more like pointing and laughing

Morbs-ese has no room for subtlety.

just because "freaking out" is the only reaction Morbs can handle...

man i forgot about High Crimes amidst all those other early 00s Ashley Judd thrillers.

does a child killed by an american drone in pakistan care about how much money middle class people make?

If that ain't the question of the month...

savage-mule Democrat 'humor'

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.

The homeless guy outside my office will be thrilled when I tell him the $5.24 he's collected this week qualifies him as "middle class".

i don't know why the democratic party has (had) a reputation for being doves. from WW2 to Vietnam to Afghanistan, democrats are always are the forefront of the killing foreigners industry.

Americans love killing foreigners. Hell, Americans love killing full stop. We're a violent bunch.

Meantime:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-filmmaker-20120914,0,6397127.story

xp WW1 too

People with power in questionably using power shockah.

xp I keep making the mistake of thinking HuffPo is a reliable news source.

i don't know why the democratic party has (had) a reputation for being doves. from WW2 to Vietnam to Afghanistan, democrats are always are the forefront of the killing foreigners industry.

i'll field that. though it's something of a "trade secret", the american democratic party is actually allied with liberal/progressive ideals and voters! these tend to pacifism and a distrust of the military-industrial complex. though democratic presidents have often been just as hawkish as their republican counterparts, this is much less true of the party as a whole.

ooh, a sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention!

the american democratic party is actually allied with liberal/progressive ideals and voters

i'm gonna let morbz field this one

this is true when "allied with" means "smiles fatuously while paying lip service to"

yeah, if pacifist values don't seem to guide the democratic party's leadership, then i suppose it's fair to wonder whether they really mean anything to the party at all. want to compare this to the republicans' cynical alliance with socially conservative christians, but at least they go to bat for those values.

the ratio of members of congress w/ pacifist values is fairly proportional to the % of americans w/ pacifist values

clearly one needs to be a committed 'pacifist' to object to the u.s.'s openly imperial foreign policy post-1947.

it's all relative, and in america 'let's kill lotsa foreigners...just in case' is m/l the moderate position. the iraq war happened cause the majority of america was alright w/ it happening.

participating in politics to fight violence is like participating in business to fight capitalism.

i don't think the bush admin would have spent eight months barraging the electorate with calumnies about hussein presenting an immediate danger to the u.s. if they were confident about 'the majority of america being alright w/it happening.'

funny how presidents won several major landslide elections by promising to keep us out of war (1916, 1940, 1964), seeing as how americans are such bloodthirsty warmongers and all.

i was using "pacifism" (incorrectly) to describe a clutch of related liberal/progressive values that might be described as "antiwar in a general sense". was shooting for efficiency, but probably just confused the issue.