|
jimmyjimjim
2,773 posts
108 months
|
Many said the same about Obama winning.
|
|
|
B Huey
4,881 posts
69 months
|
|
|
Tonto
2,621 posts
118 months
|
Quote Florida speech;
"You can choose where to focus, you can focus on the rich, that's not my focus,
You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who can't find work"
Oh dear!
|
|
|
stevejh
599 posts
74 months
|
davepoth said: I think you'll find Romney has released the two years worth of tax returns that he is required to release so why should he bow to the Democrats demands for more when it's quite clearly a muck raking tactic. The irony is that we know far more about Romney's past than we do about Obama's. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/18...I know I'm quoting from a 'right-wing' blog but the points are valid and can be found on various other sources although probably not in the Huffington Post.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,660 posts
41 months
|
B Huey said: God help us if Romney wins. Devout Religious, Americans - where is this going 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
jeff m2
984 posts
21 months
|
B Huey said: God help us if Romney wins. Is that us (UK) or US? I'm in NJ which has not suffered in a similar way to many States, but now we are starting to see far too many houses for sale. Unemployment is what will win the next election, not Roe verses Wade or Mitt travelled with his dogs cage on the roof of his car 30 years ago, or Obamas uncle was a Mau Mau. With regard to the UK angle I doubt Romney would have return the bust of Churchill, if he didn't think it was fitting he would have stuck it in a cupboard. It's jobs. Currently as unemployment benefits expire for the long term unemployed people are opting for disability. Those who get disability are not counted in the unemployment numbers. Unemployment is State whereas disability is usually federal.(Social Security) There are two camps who suffer with unemployment, those without jobs who are losing their houses and business owners who get charged by the State for the States unemployment liabilities. (You didn't think the State actually paid them did you  ) It will come down who the people think can keep a roof over their head.
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
23 months
|
Just another in a long line of gormless gorillas put up by the Republicans. George H W Bush may have been tactless but his son took idiocy to a whole new level. McCain was just embarassing and any group of people that vote for a ticket with Palin on it shouldn't be allowed outside.
Romney is a very dangerous individual, the last few years have been quite nice knowing a Republican warmonger hasn't been residing in the White House. The problem is no matter how useless Romney may be, Republican voters would vote for some livestock if it wore a GOP badge.
|
|
|
jeff m2
984 posts
21 months
|
martin84 said: Just another in a long line of gormless gorillas Yep he's a real dummy In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse.[64] He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991[82][83] but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar.[64] He managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[52][56][64] Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections.[56] He turned Bain & Company over to new leadership and returned to Bain Capital in December 1992.[52][83][84]
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
23 months
|
jeff m2 said: Yep he's a real dummy
In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse.[64] He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991[82][83] but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar.[64] He managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[52][56][64] Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections.[56] He turned Bain & Company over to new leadership and returned to Bain Capital in December 1992.[52][83][84] What relevance does any of that have to whether he'd be a good President or not?
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,660 posts
41 months
|
martin84 said: What relevance does any of that have to whether he'd be a good President or not? Jack Welch for President anyone?
|
|
|
rohrl
3,927 posts
15 months
|
jeff m2 said: martin84 said: Just another in a long line of gormless gorillas Yep he's a real dummy In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse.[64] He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991[82][83] but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar.[64] He managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[52][56][64] Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections.[56] He turned Bain & Company over to new leadership and returned to Bain Capital in December 1992.[52][83][84] Making a lot of money in business doesn't make you either a good person or a good presidential candidate. You can be very sharp in business and an absolute ignoramus about foreign policy, science and technology or a million other things. Romney has produced the absolute minimum information he's required to produce on his tax affairs.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,660 posts
41 months
|
davepoth said: The Leona Helmsley approach.
|
|
|
jeff m2
984 posts
21 months
|
martin84 said: jeff m2 said: Yep he's a real dummy
In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse.[64] He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991[82][83] but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar.[64] He managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[52][56][64] Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections.[56] He turned Bain & Company over to new leadership and returned to Bain Capital in December 1992.[52][83][84] What relevance does any of that have to whether he'd be a good President or not? That he would be better than a gormless gorilla. and of course decidedly better than our current man. You must realise that UK gets fed much of its news from the White House Press corp, which could be a tad biased. He is actually quite a decent human.
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
23 months
|
rohrl said: Making a lot of money in business doesn't make you either a good person or a good presidential candidate. You can be very sharp in business and an absolute ignoramus about foreign policy, science and technology or a million other things. Quite. CEO of a company and President of the US are two incredibly different jobs. You wouldn't put someone in charge of a large multinational company because they ran a cornershop well would you? Not that long ago, the President's main policy area was Foreign Policy with others and the House handling domestic affairs, obviously that's changed but the role of President is much more than a business-esque numbers game. He might do well in a Chancellor type role, but nothing there indicates good President. Much of the President's work is ceremonious, presentational, setting a political tone on all policy areas not just bleating about low taxes. George W Bush didn't even know Wales had a border with England and could barely name another political leader on Earth. Palin thought the US were allies with North Korea, ignorance on things of this scale can be incredibly dangerous.
|
|
|
davepoth
20,186 posts
69 months
|
stevejh said: I think you'll find Romney has released the two years worth of tax returns that he is required to release so why should he bow to the Democrats demands for more when it's quite clearly a muck raking tactic. The irony is that we know far more about Romney's past than we do about Obama's. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/18...I know I'm quoting from a 'right-wing' blog but the points are valid and can be found on various other sources although probably not in the Huffington Post. I actually read the comments by Sen. Reid at the Washington Post but the interview was in the Huffington Post; always go with primary(ish) sources. There is no requirement to release them at the moment, just the clamour of the news organisations. And they smell blood. I wonder whether they have actually seen the returns - they couldn't publish them if they were obtained illegally I guess.
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
23 months
|
Why do the Americans (particularly red states and GOP voters) have something of a mistrust of educated candidates? It's been a theme for years now that the Democrats put up a skilled debater and graduate of the Ivy League (which is often later used against them) where as the Republicans think military service is required to be a politician. They really do seem to love this idea that 'anybody can grow up to be President' which you'd think Dubya would've put an end to.
I remember the anti-Obama mongering, GOP voters essentially going 'dont vote for him! he can string a sentence together!!! dangerous!'
|
|
|
durbster
3,112 posts
92 months
|
In case anybody hasn't seen it. Here's further comment on the island of England from Romney's book: Mitt said: England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,660 posts
41 months
|
durbster said: In case anybody hasn't seen it. Here's further comment on the island of England from Romney's book: Mitt said: England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. He does not mention the people that make all the difference.
|
|
|
rohrl
3,927 posts
15 months
|
Mermaid said: durbster said: In case anybody hasn't seen it. Here's further comment on the island of England from Romney's book: Mitt said: England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. He does not mention the people that make all the difference. The Mormons? Converting us after death so we can go and meet Moroni.
|
|
|
martin84
5,366 posts
23 months
|
I love how he describes the 8th biggest country in terms of industrial output as one which makes things nobody wants to buy.
Also interesting how he uses the word 'ambitions' to describe Hitler. Ambitions? Hmmmm. Interesting.
|
|
