Thread: Mitt Romney

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It almost does seem to be a completely pointless election.

on some levels yes...they're both essentially moderates.

but as i see it they differ on two very important points:

one, romney wants to push forward a tax plan that would increase taxes on the middle class so that he can give tax cuts to the extremely wealthy. this is not just my opinion, this is a fact.

Obama: Romney tax cuts for 'people like him' - POLITICO.com

two, he doesn't seem to be fully engaged or informed on foreign policy issues....and as we saw with GWB, that can lead to disastrous results. and it's also worth noting that his foreign policy team is made up of GWB retreads. again, a fact.

'Quite Far To The Right': Meet Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Team | ThinkProgress

a little more on romney being a moderate....

if he had been elected in 2008, you can bet there would have been a vicious primary battle to try and unseat him before the general in 2012.

think buchannan in '92...but triple the amount of venom.

It wasn't on Obama's watch that the US banking system was essentially committing fraud on a massive scale, selling toxic debt disguised as safe investments.

So the debt racked up in 2011 wasn't fuck all to do with Obama then harry ? All down to the banks then ?
Have a fucking word mate !
it wasn't the banks racking up this debt it was the fucking US Government and unless I'm very much mistaken that would be Obama's Government !

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

it wasn't the banks racking up this debt it was the fucking US Government and unless I'm very much mistaken that would be Obama's Government !

Are you aware that the USA does not have a Parliamentary system of government?

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

So the debt racked up in 2011 wasn't fuck all to do with Obama then harry ?

what percentage of the 2011 debt was the interest due on the unfunded wars in iraq and afghnistan? in case you didn't know, those wars were 'paid' for with borrowed money.

what percentage of the debt in 2011 was the interest due on the republicans massive prescription drug plan signed into law by GWB? in case you didn't know, this was 'paid' for with borrowed money.


republicans run up the credit card....and then complain about someone else not paying it down fast enough.

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

So the debt racked up in 2011 wasn't fuck all to do with Obama then harry ? All down to the banks then ?
Have a fucking word mate !
it wasn't the banks racking up this debt it was the fucking US Government and unless I'm very much mistaken that would be Obama's Government !

In case you didn't notice, Bush didn't exactly leave the economy in an admirable state. When you get bills for the previous incumbent's rather catastrophic (in case you didn't notice) fuck up, and you haven't got the cash to pay them, you have to borrow.

I can't believe people seem to have forgotten just how massive this financial meltdown actually was. You'd think Bush left a big pot of gold, and Obama's just frittered it all away.

FFS some people seem to have the attention span of gnats.

Is that why they give Ritalin to grown ups in the US? I'm starting to think Git and Hansuman's conspiracy theories might have some legs.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You'd think Bush left a big pot of gold, and Obama's just frittered it all away.

interestingly enough, clinton did leave bush a surplus which he burned right through with tax cuts for the 1%.

Sub-primes was the original cause of the long on the way US and World financial breakdown, and sub-primes was a Democrat baby born under Jimmy Carter and forced on the Banking sector, and with later shifting Dem and Rep Governments/Senate majority failing to step in before it was to late, notably the colossal meltdown in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two Democrat backed institutions, that the G.Bush government red flagged back in 2001 and since issued 34 warnings about the need to reform, But they where staunchly defended by the Democrats notably Barney Frank, we all know how that ended!! so the G. Bush era was not the cause and origin of the US troubles just a part of it, just like Obama have to take responsibility for the printing of money, stimulus etc. that he has decided on was OK to add to the debts of the US.

They all had their fingers in the making of that bad pie, and claiming it was just the one side is plain rubbish, but casting backwards blame is part of both sides election clap trap since none of them apparently have much to offer in terms of plans for a better future.

back on topic....

even some on the right can see that this is starting to slip away from romney....not nationally, but in the states that matter. national polls don't mean a damn thing anymore. it's all about 10% of the voters in a handful of states.

“I worry that some of our friends are reassuring themselves by challenging the merits of yesterday’s Quinnipiac swing state polls and others, focusing on the partisan split in the samples and other explanations. But are almost all the swing state pollsters making mistakes—and in the same direction? Here's what I think is happening.



“The national numbers aren't changing much because Romney is actually gaining in the states that are not being bombarded with media. Yesterday’s Connecticut poll has Obama by only 8 for example. And red states seem to be getting even redder. This is happening because the daily news is about the economy, Washington problems, etc. and that is the main message getting through. So, polls in these states reflect how voters who only see national news and national advertising (to the degree there is any) respond.


“But.


“In the swing states they are being assailed with ads and campaigning, as well as the news. And here Obama seems to be building a bit of a margin. He now is ahead by solid margins in the most recent surveys in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. It's very close in Colorado, and Romney has a slight lead in North Carolina.


“One can draw a lot of different conclusions here—but doesn't it seem likely that the Obama attack on Romney is working where it is deployed in full measure? I think many analysts have erroneously concluded that because the national tracking has not moved, the Obama attack on Romney's wealth, Bain, taxes, etc. is not effective. The results in these states suggest otherwise. (And the partisan splits in the polls may be following the ballot test in these states—if you're turning away from Romney, you're less likely to self-identify as a Republican. So the polls aren't necessarily bad. The real trends could well be bad.)


“Team Romney needs to consider this possibility. I don't think it will be enough for them merely to continue the passive approach they are taking. Romney needs to stand for some things the voters want.”

Cause for Concern | The Weekly Standard

if obama wins this election by only advertising in swing states, you can bet that republicans (i.e. their dark money donors) will introduce legislation to get rid of the electoral college.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sub-primes was the original cause of the long on the way US and World financial breakdown, and sub-primes was a Democrat baby born under Jimmy Carter and forced on the Banking sector, and with later shifting Dem and Rep Governments/Senate majority failing to step in before it was to late, notably the colossal meltdown in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two Democrat backed institutions, that the G.Bush government red flagged back in 2001 and since issued 34 warnings about the need to reform, But they where staunchly defended by the Democrats notably Barney Frank, we all know how that ended!! so the G. Bush era was not the cause and origin of the US troubles just a part of it, just like Obama have to take responsibility for the printing of money, stimulus etc. that he has decided on was OK to add to the debts of the US. They all had their fingers in the making of that bad pie, and claiming it was just the one side is plain rubbish, but casting backwards blame is part of both sides election clap trap since none of them apparently have much to offer in terms of plans for a better future.

You got a link to back up all those assertions?

the newest crushing ad from the obama campaign:





once again this ad is effective because it continues the established narrative (which as my post above indicates, is resonating in the swing states): romney's a rich guy who doesn't give a shit about the middle class and he doesn't think the rules apply to him.

i particularly like the shot of trump's plane in the background...and no it's not photoshopped.

^ Ray, I am not a supporter of Romney, but you do know that TV ads are aimed at the dumbest segment of the voting population.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sub-primes was the original cause of the long on the way US and World financial breakdown, and sub-primes was a Democrat baby born under Jimmy Carter and forced on the Banking sector, and with later shifting Dem and Rep Governments/Senate majority failing to step in before it was to late, notably the colossal meltdown in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two Democrat backed institutions, that the G.Bush government red flagged back in 2001 and since issued 34 warnings about the need to reform, But they where staunchly defended by the Democrats notably Barney Frank, we all know how that ended!! so the G. Bush era was not the cause and origin of the US troubles just a part of it, just like Obama have to take responsibility for the printing of money, stimulus etc. that he has decided on was OK to add to the debts of the US.

They all had their fingers in the making of that bad pie, and claiming it was just the one side is plain rubbish, but casting backwards blame is part of both sides election clap trap since none of them apparently have much to offer in terms of plans for a better future.

If anyone took the regulatory finger off the pulse it was Bush.

Unbridled greed led Wall Street executives to behave recklessly.When President Bush took office, the subprime lending market was in its infancy, and most borrowers got conventional or “prime” loans. But within a few years, the subprime mortgage market exploded as commercial and investment banks competed fiercely to originate more and more home mortgages by dropping their lending standards lower and lower. Many mortgage lenders, such as Countrywide, laid the groundwork for the home foreclosure crisis by using misleading business practices to entice millions of home buyers into unaffordable adjustable-rate mortgages. The greed-driven explosion in subprime mortgage lending was accompanied by the growth of a massive market in risky new financial products that no one really understood. Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and insurance companies like AIG took big and reckless gambles on these products—gambles that ultimately resulted in huge losses that had devastating ripple effects on these companies and our entire economy. Wall Street executives rode the wave and lined their pockets until the housing bubble burst. Then it all came crashing down.

And let's not forget the favours he did to Ken Lay (including replacing the head of the FERC when he started delving into Enron's - for want of a better word - "misuse" of financial instruments).

Do not underestimate the Bush/Cheney effect.

Originally Posted by barbaro

What ever it takes to win, ay?

when has it ever been different?

certainly not in my lifetime.


and btw, IMO this is only going to get uglier. we're still 100 days out and there's literally hundreds of millions of dark money dollars waiting to be put to use thanks to citizens united.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by barbaro

What ever it takes to win, ay?

when has it ever been different?

certainly not in my lifetime.

Understood.

and btw, IMO this is only going to get uglier. we're still 100 days out and there's literally hundreds of millions of dark money dollars waiting to be put to use thanks to citizens united.

Yes, I see this coming also.

It's a shame that two grown men and their campaign teams are going to try and win an election simply by bitching and growling at each other.

It's a sad indictment of the system that you end up voting for someone you don't really care about simply to keep the other bloke out.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's a shame that two grown men and their campaign teams are going to try and win an election simply by bitching and growling at each other. It's a sad indictment of the system that you end up voting for someone you don't really care about simply to keep the other bloke out.

IMO it's due to a number of reasons:

1. an incumbent running in a tough economic climate
2. citizens united
3. a challenger who voters don't like personally--and curiously refuses to try and define himself
4. citizens united
5. the 24 hour news cycle driven by cable news and the internet
6. citizens united


the system has been a mess for a long time, but now it's become absurd.

I wouldn't vote for someone whose name is an anagram of "My, I'm Rotten".

an incumbent running in a tough economic climate

That's kind of a passive way of explaining how things are. It's been three years with him at the helm. He confidently stuck his chin out and said because of his measures unemployment would not rise above 8%. He promised because of the steps he took he'd cut the deficit in half.

He made it a point that he is in charge.

"Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," Obama said. "It comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing."

Obama: Change 'comes from me,' not his appointees | McClatchy


When someone says something like that. They deserve all the credit.