Why Romney will not win the election

[Don Vito Corleone]

Well, I could probably go through and pick apart that bullshit piece by piece. But I'll just do the simplest thing and give you this link to show you how much bullshit this email forwarded crap you posted is.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bidens-donate-15-percent-income-charity-2011_636971.html

The quick skinny. Bidens donated about 1.5% of their income to charities, the Obama's about 22%.

In addition you have things like how Obama was awarded $1.4 million for winning the Nobel Peace Prize and didn't collect a dime and instructed the Nobel commity to give it to charity.

So how about in the future you don't post things that are demonstrably false.

Interesting.

When it comes to charitable donations, I applaud both the President and Mitt Romney for their generosity - I am nowhere near as generous (on the other hand I make much less than either of them).

I will say, as it relates to Governor Romney, however, that his faith essentially requires him to tithe 10%, and it's hard to know, in light of the revelation of his offshore entities, whether he is actually donating an overall percentage as high as the figure posted by a777pilot (assuming the figure he posted is even grounded in fact at all, since it appears the figure for the President was wildly inaccurate). Also he is astronomically wealthy and thus has a far greater ability to give generously without feeling a pinch. Again, though, he is to be recognized for his generosity in donations.

 

[zephyrprime]

I don't understand the stigma of having accounts overseas so long as he's not doing anything illegal.

The whole reason offshore accounts exist is to do stuff that is illegal. We're not talking about accounts in Canada or Britain or even China. We're talking about accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Those countries basically exist to hide money.

 

[techs]

Listen, Romney is going to win.
The fantastically huge amount of money he is going to get after the last date contributions have to be disclosed before the elections will give him a big boost.
Plus, he has not really said much about what he will do. Its scary how little he has said. That helps him a lot since people are just inferring he stands for whatever they stand for.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Listen, Romney is going to win.
The fantastically huge amount of money he is going to get after the last date contributions have to be disclosed before the elections will give him a big boost.
Plus, he has not really said much about what he will do. Its scary how little he has said. That helps him a lot since people are just inferring he stands for whatever they stand for.

At this point I would set Romney's chances at 40% or slightly less. I think the likelihood of him losing in a relative (say, 2008-style) landslide is greater than his likelihood of winning. We shall see . . .

 

[zinfamous]

Listen, Romney is going to win.
The fantastically huge amount of money he is going to get after the last date contributions have to be disclosed before the elections will give him a big boost.
Plus, he has not really said much about what he will do. Its scary how little he has said. That helps him a lot since people are just inferring he stands for whatever they stand for.

False.

Perry will be out next president.

I learned so on AT.

 

[techs]

False.

Perry will be out next president.

I learned so on AT.

Sadly, Perry thinks so.

I don't think anyone had the heart to tell him.

 

[Fern]

-snip-t.
Plus, he has not really said much about what he will do. Its scary how little he has said. That helps him a lot since people are just inferring he stands for whatever they stand for.

Hmmmm. That sounds familiar. :whiste:

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Good to see that Krugman has managed to maintain his string of idiocy. A lesser man would have slipped up by now and posted something not nonsensical. That anyone can suggest Bain Capital is poorly run and American Motors was well run is as ludicrous as, well, most of Krugman's pronunciations.

Personally I care not what Romney says, nor how much. For a politician to be competitive, everything he says is calculated to win. Everything. Politicians should be judged only on the basis of what they have done, or at the most, what they say to friendly audiences or in unguarded moments. I don't think Romney will win though - an incumbent has a huge advantage in all elections, and I just don't see him overcoming that.

 

[K1052]

I think he did too much damage to himself in the Republican primaries to regain much ground in the middle. Most of the minorities are gone already (with no hope of retrieval) and increasingly the women in swing states.

Romney is going to have to find Obama's Kenyan birth certificate stashed inside a Quran under his suicide bomb vest with "death to America" stenciled onto it to pull this out regardless of the money spent.

 

[blankslate]

Flat-out wrong according to the Washington Post itself: Quote: The actual article, in fact, does not say that transfers of U.S. jobs took place while Romney ran the private equity firm of Bain Capital. (Since Romney kept an ownership stake in Bain, he may have still benefited from transactions, but “advising” is another matter.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bbCW_blog.html Fern __________________

From the same Blog.

The Romney campaign, for its part, is attacking the article on the basis of how the Obama campaign interpreted it, not what it actually says.
As part of its demand for a retraction, the Romney campaign produced a slide show claiming that many of these companies actually created jobs in the United States. The slide show, however, only shows half of the picture — these are the jobs created at these companies, but they are replacing customer service and manufacturing jobs that had once existed at other companies. Most likely, it’s a wash — no overall job creation one way or the other.

Interestingly enough they don't say that their article was wrong. Therefore Romney was at Baine when they began investing in firms that would find ways to save labor costs by outsourcing.


Or maybe they are calling themselves liars?

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India. During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Maybe Mitt Romney had not idea what those investment might mean when they made them? I mean he could have been totally unaware of these companies that they owned or invested in.... yeah... ok.

Oh I get it since their own article quoted above isn't very favorable to Romney then it's a lie while their blog analysis of ads based on the article is fine because it is absolutely favorable to Governor Romney. Got it.

 

[blankslate]

I don't think Romney will win though - an incumbent has a huge advantage in all elections, and I just don't see him overcoming that.

I wouldn't be too sure about that....

"Voter ID, which will allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania... DONE."
~PA. House Republican Leader Mike Turzai speaks on June 23, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

If there wasn't a disparity between the exit polling and the "actual" results before I wouldn't be bringing that up...




However since this happened and is curiously overlooked by alot of people.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/240781/argonne_researchers_easily_hack_electronic_voting_machine.html

Researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory this week showed how an electronic voting machine model that's expected to be widely used to tally votes in the 2012 elections can be easily hacked using inexpensive, widely-available electronic components.

In the latest experiment, the Argonne researchers showed how a Diebold Accuvote TS touch screen voting machine can be compromised by inserting a man-in-the middle electronic component to intercept the vote cast by a voter and change it before it is recorded by the system.

The component which is less than half the size of a credit card, was assembled using a $1.29 microprocessor and a homemade circuit board that cost less than $10 to assemble.

The handmade component, which Johnston calls "alien electronics," can be simply plugged into a ribbon cable inside the system. There is no need to solder it on to the system, he noted.

Once installed the "alien electronics" can be controlled remotely from a distance of up to a half mile using an ordinary store-brought $15 remote control.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/115608/is_evoting_safe.html

Where does e-voting break down?
Closed source code: According to Rubin, "The biggest potential [for election fraud] is when the original code is being written." Mercuri, Rubin, and Selker agree: Since the public can't inspect the code these machines run, a programmer who's been bribed or threatened, or a manufacturer willing to rig an election, would have the best chance to hack the vote. And while open-sourcing the code of e-voting machines (as the Australian Capital Territory did in its 2001 e-voting pilot program) would help fix security holes and put people's minds at ease, it's not a panacea

Poorly implemented security: Independent consulting firm RABA Technologies audited the Diebold machines used in Rubin's Maryland precinct during a simulated vote. They found ample holes for hackers who could get time alone with the machines. One tester was able to pick the physical locks securing the PCMCIA flash memory card that stores the votes in about 10 seconds and gained access to a keyboard port. By attaching a standard keyboard to the voting machine, RABA's team was able to invoke supervisory functions that let them overwrite election results without leaving a trace.

I don't trust voting machines because they are almost always owned by a Corporation. Voting should be overseen by public volunteers supervised by trained personnel. It should not be counted by black boxes running code that no one outside of a few people at a corporation has seen.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/209169/paperless_evoting_a_concern_this_election_say_watchdogs.html

Last year, California officials disclosed how they had discovered numerous software errors and data deletion functions in e-voting systems, after close to 200 votes were deleted from the official results for Humboldt County during the 2008 Presidential elections.

I would rather wait a little while longer for results that are more easily audited than depend on black boxes that "lose" votes

 

[cybrsage]

The whole reason offshore accounts exist is to do stuff that is illegal. We're not talking about accounts in Canada or Britain or even China. We're talking about accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Those countries basically exist to hide money.

Wow. If anyone ever needs an example of what a statement made out of complete ignorance is, they need to look no furhter.

 

[Doppel]

An example of what happens when you don't know your audience. Painful to watch in a way, but entertaining too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EjW4GfmSrc

 

[nehalem256]

I wouldn't be too sure about that....

"Voter ID, which will allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania... DONE."
~PA. House Republican Leader Mike Turzai speaks on June 23, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

If there wasn't a disparity between the exit polling and the "actual" results before I wouldn't be bringing that up...




However since this happened and is curiously overlooked by alot of people.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/240781/argonne_researchers_easily_hack_electronic_voting_machine.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/115608/is_evoting_safe.html
I don't trust voting machines because they are almost always owned by a Corporation. Voting should be overseen by public volunteers supervised by trained personnel. It should not be counted by black boxes running code that no one outside of a few people at a corporation has seen.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/209169/paperless_evoting_a_concern_this_election_say_watchdogs.html


I would rather wait a little while longer for results that are more easily audited than depend on black boxes that "lose" votes

So basically corporations are willing to break the law to steal elections for Republicans. Of course since there is no evidence of this having happened, so we should assume it does not happen. You know the exact same standard Democrats insist on for determining voter fraud

*Note: I would say that all voting should be done with the "bubble-sheet" ballots which are as idiot-proof as possible, easy to count, and provide a paper trail.

 

[cybrsage]

*Note: I would say that all voting should be done with the "bubble-sheet" ballots which are as idiot-proof as possible, easy to count, and provide a paper trail.

They gave people in Florida a piece of paper and a pointy stick to push through the hole of the person they wanted to vote for...and that was too complicated for them. You think they will be able to actually color inside the line of a circle?

 

[1prophet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

As it stands right now at this moment, Romney will be shellacked almost as badly as McCain was in 2008. And this is going to last a lifetime too; when the ACA is inevitably as popular as SS and Medicare, and people see the economy start booming again in 2013, they won't be looking fondly upon Romney or the GOP "ideas".

The glory days where high paying jobs with benefits are the norm for the masses are gone,

What you will see is despair and hopelessness as people are going to have to take on lower paying jobs to survive while government assistance rises to record levels,

you will see municipalities tumble like dominoes into bankruptcy while the last of the jobs with pensions and excellent benefits (civil service jobs) are eliminated.

The economy is not going to boom except for a select few, and you can bank on that no matter who is president.

 

[blankslate]

So basically corporations are willing to break the law to steal elections for Republicans. Of course since there is no evidence of this having happened, so we should assume it does not happen. You know the exact same standard Democrats insist on for determining voter fraud

Please. You know that one case that Republicans like to point to in Fl. where a few hundred illegal voters committed fraud. They just happened to vote in the proportions that legal voters were already voting. In other words if they had not been caught votes would not have altered the results.

In any case the safeguards in already in place caught them without the need for voter ID laws...

If you want to fool yourself into thinking black box voting is just fine go ahead I mean it's rather likely the election fraud if any would favor Republicans given the owners of those machines.

Given the record of corporations in general when it comes to public safety or other concerns vs. profits when they are allowed to go about unregulated it's pretty stupid to just trust them with anything of importance without any supervision at all...

Of course if you lean toward voting for Republicans I guess as long as the owner's of those machines would be inclined to mistakenly count extra votes for them it's no skin off of your nose and the ridiculously facetious post is understandable.

 

[tweaker2]

I think he did too much damage to himself in the Republican primaries to regain much ground in the middle. Most of the minorities are gone already (with no hope of retrieval) and increasingly the women in swing states.

Romney is going to have to find Obama's Kenyan birth certificate stashed inside a Quran under his suicide bomb vest with "death to America" stenciled onto it to pull this out regardless of the money spent.

Don't give Romney's campaign committee any ideas. What you just mentioned must by now seem quite plausible to them, given what they've already tried and failed/flailed at. They are desperate, having been criticized from all sides, including their own exasperated supporters.

 

[chowderhead]

An example of what happens when you don't know your audience. Painful to watch in a way, but entertaining too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EjW4GfmSrc

Getting booed by members of the NAACP probably helped Romney with his voters. The speech there was intended to try and show that Romney is tough and willing to talk in front a tough audience i.e. 90-95% of African-Americans will support Obama in the election.

 

[xaeniac]

Romney is a poor candidate and it pains me to say so. Has the republican party lost touch with the common people? They are always putting the losers of the primary up.

How is he supposed to attack Obama's policies when he was a big supporter of nearly all of Obama's policies for quite some time?

It's not that he isn't doing it well enough--it's simply that he can't.

/thread

 

[cybrsage]

Romney is going to have to find Obama's Kenyan birth certificate stashed inside a Quran under his suicide bomb vest with "death to America" stenciled onto it to pull this out regardless of the money spent.

The media would either bury the story or spin it to show that Obama actually understands the people of the Middle East and is truely a better President because of it...

It would not change anyone's votes, unfortunately.

 

[Anarchist420]

At this point I would set Romney's chances at 40% or slightly less. I think the likelihood of him losing in a relative (say, 2008-style) landslide is greater than his likelihood of winning. We shall see . . .

A recent gallup poll has Romney winning 60% of white men, Obama 33%. For white women, it's 50% to 41%.

 

[chucky2]

Yes but Obama has heavily pandered to the Mexican vote, plus he'll get 90%+ of the black vote.

Rep's should understand that while they really need to go all out in this election to give it a good run, Obama is going to win. Rep's would be better served expending their efforts on picking up as many seats in Congress as possible.

Romney is the Rep version of Billary.

Chuck

 

[cybrsage]

Yes but Obama has heavily pandered to the Mexican vote, plus he'll get 90%+ of the black vote.

Don't forget the illegals vote as well.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A recent gallup poll has Romney winning 60% of white men, Obama 33%. For white women, it's 50% to 41%.

Link, please. I find those numbers a bit off base.