Why Do So Many Liberals "Like" Mitt Romney On Facebook?

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."

Comments

Simple mix up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the folks just assumed they were liking a page about an android. Honest mistake, that's all.

Re:Simple mix up

[Andy Dodd]

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:Simple mix up

[Penguinisto]

...which makes this comment from one of TFAs twice as funny:
“I’ve deleted 5 people,” one read. “This is the only place that I have any intolerance. If you like that dude, even just on the Internet, we are enemies. No apologies.”

(Basically, if you facebook-like Romney, that guy considers you an enemy.)

Re:Simple mix up

[gfxguy]

Sad, funny, what's the difference? I've seen a lot of posts like that on FB, though... "I will unfriend anybody who [has a different opinion on politics]." Even when I agree with some point, I often post contradictory just to see if they follow up on it... and if they do, I'm better off for it.

Re:Simple mix up

[TheCarp]

Several people have asked my why I "like" obama's facebook page even though I consider him a mass murder (for drone attacks), and have a litany of other issues with him (most of which apply just as well to Mitt, and I have no intention of voting for him either, I consider them equivalent candidates)

The answer was always that....tthere is no dislike button and I can't troll the page without hitting like. That is also why I like a page on the assault weapons ban, not because I favor gun control, but because I want to argue with the people who do.

Re:Simple mix up

[PopeRatzo]

Sad, funny, what's the difference? I've seen a lot of posts like that on FB, though... "I will unfriend anybody who [has a different opinion on politics]."

Not just politics. I'd bet that you'd find people who will unfriend anyone who has a different opinion on Bleach Subbed or the latest installment of Mass Effect.

But to get back to the politics part, I saw this yesterday and your post reminded me of it. I can understand taking politics really seriously, but I've got enough in-laws from various parts of the former Yugoslavia to know that you can take the tribalism of politics way too far.

We're all used to hearing one side call the other "insane" or "evil" or "the antichrist" or "inhuman" because our commercial media is full of that kind of stuff. But when you start seeing friends or family in those overheated terms because of their political views, it's a sure sign that you've let yourself be used by someone else's political agenda, pumped into your head by some media big-mouth.

It's a shame that more people don't realize that the "other side" is mostly just scared.

Re:Simple mix up

[rwa2]

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.

This.

If you've ever been to either Obama's or Romney's page, all the comments are pretty much chock-full of hatin' from the other side.

I worked for Microsoft Game Studios for a while and our FB page was pretty much the same way. It was kinda nice, because all of the trolls would hang out on FB and forums... where no one would read them except for other haters. Anyone who was actually playing our game would then be pretty much free to play online relatively unmolested by trolls in-game.

Same thing with youtube... if it wasn't for youtube trolls, we'd probably have many more here :P

Re:Simple mix up

[Bryansix]

Ya, well I did unfriend someone once but not because they had a different opinion then mine. I unfriended them because they called everyone who didn't share their opinion, a bigot.

Re:Simple mix up

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, because we all must get along. There is always two sides to every story and both opinions .. wrong or right are valid. We also must give a gold star to anyone who at least tries.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

I'm not saying any of that shit. I'm saying that ending decades-long friendship over a political disagreement is stupid. Comparing someone with whom you disagree with Hitler or the Antichrist is stupid.

And, last but not least, I'm saying that you are stupid.

Re:Simple mix up

[Archangel Michael]

Gary Johnson has NEVER appeared as a "like" option in FB, even though I am a Libertarian. Those are Sponsored ads and my guess is that Gary Johnson is much better suited to the G+ crowd. The interesting thing is Mitt is also on G+ as is Obama, but I see more +Gary Johnson posts in the WHAT'S HOT section. Or is it just that I tune out Mitt Obama and Barack Romney crap?

Issues

[Oh Gawwd Peak Oil]

The thing is, Romney has been on every side of every issue. So there's something to like about him for everyone!

Re:Issues

[Oh Gawwd Peak Oil]

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:Issues

[fustakrakich]

I believe he's taking a 'wide stance' on the abortion issue.

Re:Issues

[Sponge Bath]

That's the great thing about Romney as a presidential candidate: there are so many choices. I like moderate Mitt! I like severely conservative Mitt, with Spock's beard accessory! Collect them all!

If pro-choice Mitt met pro-life Mitt, would there be an antimatter explosion?

Re:Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum wage
Vietnam service
Abortion
Roe v. Wade
Stem cell research
Healthcare
47%
Gun control
Climate change and greenhouse gas reduction

It was actually not a joke. There is *no* issue which this man has not claimed to stand for just one side of.

Re:Issues

[Shadow99_1]

I'm a registered independent and frankly I think that soap dish would be better then 4 years form either of them...

Re:Issues

[chill]

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

[chill]

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:Issues

[Glothar]

Everyone who works pays Federal taxes on their wages.

Not everyone pays Federal Income taxes, because Income taxes are only supposed to be paid on wages earned over a certain level required for some standard of living.

Example: When I was in college (which I paid for, unlike so many of the welfare-children who drank away mommy & daddy's hard work), I worked part time and made about $12k/year. Between standard deductions, student tuition deductions, and student loan interest deductions, I paid $0 in federal income taxes. However, I still paid FICA (and a couple other small taxes, I think), and that wasn't an insignificant amount, considering that I was paying my own way through college.

Another example: My mother (one of those greedy, money-grubbing teachers) raised three children on $19k/year. She also paid no income taxes, but still paid a decent chunk in FICA, property, and state taxes. I've heard people complain about how pissed they are that some people don't pay Federal [Income] Taxes. My response has always been: My mom would have gladly traded spots with you. She'll pay income tax, and you can sleep in a cold house because there isn't enough money to keep the house any warmer.

Re:Issues

[jd2112]

I get it now! Romney wants to become part of the 47%!

Re:Issues

[frosty_tsm]

The statistic is 47% living and breathing people paying no federal income tax. Many more still pay the 15% for medicare / social security, the gas tax and others. And often paying state income, sales, and real estate taxes. Others are too young or too old (retired).

The statistic has a narrow meaning but has been taken and padded to sound like half the country is mooching.

Re:Issues

[digitalaudiorock]

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

[Sparticus789]

Like any politician is any better? Gitmo was supposed to closed in January 2010. No tax increases, after the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was a tax. Drone strikes increase 3-fold under Obama. The "most transparent government" said that Benghazi was a protest about a Youtube video, then admitted it was a terrorist attack and are now engaged in Newspeak, claiming they never said it was a protest about a Youtube video.

WMDs in Iraq, Watergate, Iran-Contra, arming the Taliban in the 1980s, the list goes on and on.

Re:Issues

[Minwee]

A liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar.

The bartender says "Afternoon, Mitt! What can I get for you?"

Re:Issues

[CanHasDIY]

I believe it was more along the lines of 47% of the people in the US that pay no federal tax...many of which are also on the dole...

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make your belief fact. Here are Romney's exact words:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

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?

We all have skin in the game, by virtue of the fact that, as American citizens, we are collectively affected by federal policy. That's a dumb phrase too often trotted out by asshole narcissists.

Do us all a favor and don't be an asshole narcissist.

I don't like it that a large block of people are just voting themselves more money out of the general tax fund.

Yea, well, then demand that corporate lobbyists be banned from DC. I know you must be talking about corporations, since the poor people you so blithely dismiss hardly have access to the resources required to "vote themselves more money."

It's a bit mind blowing, how much influence some people think the least of our populace have over the government, meanwhile dismissing the vast amount of overt corporate influence that actually exists.

Re:Issues

[simula]

Here is a breakdown of who the 47% are. An interesting point of the pie chart is that 23% of the country is now low-income (an income below $26,400 for a family of four).

Re:Issues

[amicusNYCL]

Realistically, you should realize that you have 6 choices 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.

Re:Issues

[RazorSharp]

If you leave the money in circulation then it creates jobs

No it doesn't. Companies don't hire because they're paying less in taxes, they hire because they need people to get things done. Not to mention that taxing doesn't actually pull money out of circulation the way you're thinking -- it slows inflation or causes deflation. Taxes change the value of money, which is why cutting taxes only has short term benefits for an economy; inflation will eventually catch up so despite having more dollars available their value will be diminished. Likewise, when raising taxes, the money the government collects doesn't just disappear. First, it's used to pay for expenditures and goes toward lowering the deficit (and hopefully, eventually the debt). Second, as I mentioned, the rate of inflation will decrease in proportion to the money being taxed, thus resulting in the same amount of wealth in the economy regardless of the fact that there might be less money. Assuming that cutting taxes will create more wealth is like assuming that printing more money will create more wealth; it doesn't, it just affects the currency's market liquidity.

Of course, if you're voting based on the abortion issue, you're the type of sucker the Republicans love. Do you actually believe that guys like Romney and Ryan are against abortion? Even if they were elected, they have no way to overturn Roe v. Wade and they know it. It's just an issue they can make a lot of noise about to rally voters who care about nonsensical issues that have nothing to do with how the country is run. Also, what good is it to save the unborn when most aborted babies, if they were to be born, are likely to end up in prison? Here's a primer.

Finally, a president's economic policies usually take longer than their one or two terms to actually have an effect. One of the many reasons a four year election cycle is stupid. When judging an incumbent's economic policies, one shouldn't consider whether they did good, one should consider whether they will do good. Not to mention the fact that, although the president has more influence over the economy than most, that influence is extremely limited, especially with a divided congress.

Because Romney is a liberal.

[Kenja]

except when he's not.

Re:Because Romney is a liberal.

[flyingsquid]

If you'd asked me about Romney a month ago, I'd have said he seemed like an okay guy. Boring, but okay. I'd have voted for him if I thought he had a better economic plan than Obama.

But the Libya press conference changed my mind. He was openly gloating. Maybe the Obama administration did screw up in Libya. But Romney saw this first as an opportunity to score points on Obama, and second as a tragedy, if he even thought it was a tragedy at all. He went through the motions of expressing regret, but that asshole smirk was the only genuine, believable part of his entire performance. What kind of person does that, I thought? Then it hit me: the kind of person who picks on a gay kid, holds him down, hacks off his hair, then when confronted years later, lies about it. An asshole.

That Romney went back behind the curtain again for a bit. I wondered if maybe I'd been too harsh on him. Then came the 47% clip. Some people said he was just playing to the crowd. But again what I found striking was the way Romney spoke. He was dynamic, engaged, alive. He didn't sound like the pandering guy on the campaign trail. There was conviction.

People ask about the real Mitt Romney... watch those speeches, and you'll see him, you'll see the real Mitt Romney slip out from behind the carefully constructed mask.

Re:Because Romney is a liberal.

[ArcherB]

But the Libya press conference changed my mind. He was openly gloating. Maybe the Obama administration did screw up in Libya. But Romney saw this first as an opportunity to score points on Obama, and second as a tragedy, if he even thought it was a tragedy at all.

And the fact that Obama kept saying it was a protest of a video and not a terrorist attack for weeks after even the State Dept was claiming that there was no protest doesn't both you at all? It's one thing to criticize the president over inaction, and 16 hours of silence qualifies as inaction on the part of the White House, but to lie about the cause to try to minimize the political damage is simply disgraceful. And then there is there is the fundraising in Vegas while people were dying overseas at our embassies... I guess we just have different priorities.

Using "Like" to stream "Lies"

[domulys]

Some people "like" Romney only to get updates from his social media feed. Think of it as automated 'opposition research'. What Romney days one day, my neighbor repeats the next, so it gives me a leg up.

Obligatory Sun Tzu

[cmiller173]

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu

I'd be willing to be the Obama campaign has an account somewhere that has liked Mitt as well.

uhh, practical reasons

[ThorGod]

Perhaps they just wanted to see what his current platform was by viewing their wall.

Also, it's routine for people to "challenge" the choices of others when those choices are apparently strong and rigid. Maybe some liberals "like" conservative topics/people as a way to show their friends that they've considered those topics/people.

Why "Like"?

[DarthVain]

Why do I have friends on Facebook that "like" pepsi, amex, costco, walmart, etc...

Why do they post religious jesus quotes in cheesy photos of angles or little girls praying, or images with stupid insperational quotes, or stupid photos of things to "like": Like if you don't want to kill kittens, etc...

Tempted many times to simply post on my wall: "Seriously WTF is wrong with you people!"

This is not a Romney issue, it IS a Facebook issue

[Aqualung812]

I have noticed a ton of my friends that "like" things I know they know nothing about.

For example, a friend of mine that is a stay at home mom that can't use her iPhone "likes" Barracuda networks. When I asked her about this, she was clueless.

I've also seen many other friends liking things that do not fit them at all. I mean, they shouldn't be even seeing ads for these things, so I don't buy TFA's assumption that these are fat-finger issues.

I won't join Facebook until...

[Kaenneth]

They add a Loathe button.

Re:I won't join Facebook until...

[Nationless]

I like this.

But I don't have any mod points.

So I'm just going to leave this oddly meta post about liking what you just said.

Like == Follow

[JustinKSU]

I "Like" all my representatives regardless of party and whether or not I agree with them. In essence what I want to do is "follow" them so I can keep tabs on what my representative's PR machine is pumping out.

Proof is in the reporting of what was and now is

[SuperKendall]

Since Obama is carrying over, and mostly doubling down on, most Bush policies (use of drones, attacking Libya for freedom, warrantless wiretapping, funneling government money to large corporations, TSA/Homeland Security) yet receives none of the same negative coverage of same that Bush received - I fail to see how you can possibly make the case that Obama's negative coverage is anywhere near what a Republican would receive.

Romney cannot carry forward the same policies without a ton a negative press. Obama can. That has been proven to us over four years now.

Re:Perfect Match

[mcgrew]

I'm sure this is futile, since you sound like either an Obama hater, a Romney lover, or a tea partier, but here we go:

a man who claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open

He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.

claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan

The Iraq war (which he opposed) is over, Afghanistan is winding down because the surge worked and we'll be out of there in two years.

claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks

Rubbish, if he hadn't done that we'd be in a depression so bad it would have made the Great Depression look like boom times.

claims to hate the oil industry while taking huge donations from BP before the oil spill.

Any politician wil take any money offered. If Koch offered Obama money he'd take it, if Michael Moore offered Romney money, he'd take it just as quickly.

On the other hand, during the Republican debates Romney said he wants Roe v Wade overturned, two nights ago said he wouldn't outlaw abortion.

I do agree with you on one thing: The press does not care at all what Democrats will do, and rationalize any action they take. However, the same goes for Republicans. The "liberal media" is a myth; ABC only looks liberal compared to Fox or Rush, who are slightly to the right of Mussolini.

At least when you vote Republican you know the press will do their damnedest to catch them out in something

That's pure laziness; the Republicans make it easy.

Re:Perfect Match

[squiggleslash]

He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.

Congress kicked and screamed. They, at one point, threatened to withhold funding for moving the prisoners (which would have meant a group of people currently charged with no actual crimes whatsoever would have had to be released and sent back to their home countries. Oh boo-hoo.)

But Obama made the decision to keep it open, and was the only one with executive authority to do so.

Let's be straight here. The GP was right on the money. Any liberal who votes for Obama without holding their nose at this election is a fucking tool.

Re:Proof is in the reporting of what was and now i

[Jeng]

mostly doubling down on, most Bush policies (use of drones, attacking Libya for freedom, warrantless wiretapping, funneling government money to large corporations, TSA/Homeland Security)

The drone strikes was part of his original campaign. He stated that he would strike in Pakistan with them and all the other candidates said they would not. I completely support this.

Now "attacking Libya for freedom"? Can you explain what you are trying to say here? We are attacking Libya for freedom? That makes no sense. We have no troops in Libya. We are not attacking an abstract idea in Libya.

Warrantless wiretapping, yes I would like to see this stopped.

funneling government money to large corporations

You do realize that the Republicans are the greatest the supporters of corporate welfare? The amount this is happening under Obama vs Bush is laughable. It's like complaining about a couple drops of water in the desert vs being on the bottom of the ocean.

Re:Perfect Match

[GameboyRMH]

Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.

Re:Perfect Match

[GameboyRMH]

You've been intentionally avoiding them. Tax plans, abortion, health care, opinions on the "47%," it takes a thick layer of willful ignorance or perhaps a carefully filtered media intake to not notice what he's doing.

Re:And "obama care"

[gander666]

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

[Raenex]

http://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.