2012 Elections in the USA
Well the impact of the recent interpretation of the "corporate right to free speech" is starting."Swift Boat Centeral" here we come. The fact that Mitt is using hedge fund $$ to indirectly issue personal attacks against the crazy old ass-hole doesn't reflect my personal feeling about Newt, Mitt nor Obama. This is merely a comment of the further erosion of a working republic and destruction of the concept of free elections. With virtually unlimited corp contributions to "super pac's" anyone with enough money can further any cause and actually effect the results of an election.
There are intelligent educated people in the USA who still believe that sudam was responsible for 911-karl rove is maybe the most effective propagandist since herman gerbels. I am not implying the karl rove is in any may in league with gerbel's beliefs-only that they were both masters of manipulation so that even sophisticated, intelligent people can be and are mislead.
In Argentina, elections are manipulated by increasing pensions and welfare by 100 pesos. In the USA, there maybe us$100 million dollar slush funds for independent "super political action committees or PACs" which will buy propaganda tv time and public relations assistance that might sell the impression the black in white and white is black.
The democracts will do the same thing that mitt is starting. Another level of sleaze corrupts the process:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/politics/restore-our-future-attack-ads-harm-gingrich-in-iowa.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2[/url]
This boy might end-up voting for Mitt, but still wants to call him on contributing to the destruction of the election process. Maybe a pragmatist has no real choice, but to use the process and his wall street connections to his advantage. The real test of his courage will come when it is time to regulate.
Or control the hedge fund barons and wall street investment banks. Does Mitt have the integrity to possibly bite the hand that feeds him or funds his pac slush funds? Time will tell.
In the past, Mitt has been a first rate problem solver with a first rate mind-who has been driven by data, not political ideology. This type of person could put off the fall of the USA by a full generation or more or advert boom and gloom. I hope that he hasn't sold his soul for power. The devil knows how negotiate with the best.
Mitt Myths! Bob, look carefully. Lots of money can paint lots of pretty pictures.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob;420370]Mitt has been a first rate problem solver with a first rate mind-who has been driven by data, not political ideology.[/QUOTE]Romney may have started as a businessman, but today he is a politician pure and simple. The critical problem he wants to solve is how to get into the White House. As a Massachusetts native and Romney watcher for two decades, I believe it is fair to say, his empty rhetoric notwithstanding, there is little evidence he has a real vision for the country. He didn't for Massachusetts and as a result was a very mediocre chief executive.
In 1994, in his first campaign, he ran as a liberal Republican against Ted Kennedy and got creamed. He ran successfully for governor in Massachusetts as a moderate Republican, as he had to to win. In 2008, as a candidate for President, he ran again as a moderate against the establishment's favorite, John McCain, and got creamed. Now running for Pres, he has morphed into a born-again right wing ideologue; ignoring, denying or distorting every liberal and moderate position he ever took.
The great antipathy to him from his fellow Republican leaders, the citizens of Massachusetts and three quarters of Republican voters stems from the sense that he has no core beyond a lust for office. The establishment Republicans' recent warming up to him is all about panic that Obama is a slam dunk winner, should any of the other midgets in the race capture the Rs nomination.
What has driven Romney's ambitions, since he first entered politics is a highly personal agenda which has to do with redeeming his father's reputation which was destroyed in the presidential election in 1968. George Romney was a former auto exec and popular governor of Michigan well positioned to beat Nixon in the Republican primaries. But, after he publicly admitted US generals in Vietnam had "brainwashed" him into erroneously thinking that the war was being won, his candidacy and political ambitions imploded. Mitt revered his Dad and wants to redeem the Romney name.
We saw what "W" did in Iraq, as a result of his daddy complex.
The one constant for Romney, since he was first tapped to rescue the Denver Olympics, has been his place in the inner circles of the corporate oligarchs. He actually believes corporations are people. Of course, they are his kind of people. He is as likely to bite the hands of the big money interests, as John McCain would have cut defense spending or Obama will someday tap the ANWAR oil fields in Alaska.
If Romney wins, it will be back to the days of cowboy capitalism and if that floats your boat, better keep a life jacket handy.
He who pays the piper calls the tune!
[QUOTE=Miami Bob;420370]Does Mitt have the integrity to possibly bite the hand that feeds him or funds his pac slush funds? Time will tell. I hope that he hasn't sold his soul for power.[/QUOTE]The election cycle has hardly begun and to-date here are the numbers on Mitt's largest campaign contributions:
Goldman Sachs: $367, 200.
Credit Suisse Group: $203, 750.
Morgan Stanley: $199, 800.
HIG Capital: $186, 500.
Barclays: $157, 750.
Nuf said!
Mitt's personal worth is in the hundreds of millions of dollars-he could aford to literally buy it
Do they give double green stamps when you purchase an election?
Ask mr exxon123 about mormon $$ and power. The are not comments about the actually religious believes of the church of the later day saints, but the political arm of the cultural group. Mitt's religuos beliefs have nothing to do with these comments. I have zero problem votong for a person of the mormon faith
WELL Mr Exxon123-I aggree and posted that I would bet big that Mitt has been hanging w / the Devil
This could be McCain all over again: a good guy with a good history sells out to the radical right and christian right. Bachman would make a great stand-in or Palin or how about Santorum. The reasons that Newt insults Mitt are the very reasons I would vote for him: data and factually driven decision and policy making rather than idelogical belief.
I am absolutely shocked Exxon-some very wealthy peopleh hide money and avoid taxes
Are you implying that some Mormons along with many others have used swiss bankers to avoid taxes. What does this have to do with anything?
Well, I guess it is always good to keep posting on a site that caters to internal travelers and ex-patriots to report all your assets and income or you could be in for some big problems. Follow the rules or pay the piper.
Exxon-what point are you trying to make?
Mitt is laundering money? Every mormon is X; therefore Mitt is X. The article you linked says nothing about mormons nor Mitt. It is an article about hiding money off shore.
I started this thread because I am assuming that the upcoming USA elections will involve Mitt vs Obama and Mitt was starting to flex his financial muscle. It saddens me to think that any of the other folks running might actually become the leader of the USA, I don't want to turn this into the other political thread-which I haven't looked at in years.
Are you telling me that I am stupid or lack any brains or common sense because I will not prejudge mitt because of his religion? The new york times has been doing a series of in depth looks and the republican candidates pasts. The people who were in mitt's be school study group say the same things about him that his co-workers at bain said and the mass political people all said: he is a brilliant hard working guy who has no real ideology except problem solving based upon data and the facts If finding that description by a variety of different people at different points in his life is offense to you, so it will be.
I subscribe to a number of public policy publications and the policy wonks from both the left and right find him to be a very impressive intellect who is pragmatic and gets the job done. I voted for Obama before and may do so again, but mitt has been an impressive guy. I am concerned that he has made so many compromises and promises that they may interfere with him doing the job of the presidency in the same manner that he has performed in the past-which is a shame. The man who repaired the Olympics, built bain capital and ran Massachusetts would likely be a great president. The mitt of days past was never a doctrine anything, but a brilliant problem solver and this country has lots of big problems that need practical solutions.
The mitt at the "debates" was not the mitt who accomplished so many things in his past. Newt is probably right-he was re-building himself to fit into the polling data as much as he could. Almost too much so. I would not vote before I would vote for newt.
Well mr exxon123 explain yourself or go back to filling yourself with hate for any one mormon. I'm not a mormon. I am disappointed with you mr 123-I expected better.
I agree with david33, the religion is not all that spiritually appealing to me. I also see what can be done to the new testament by political operators and also scratch my head. In 1960 it was said that JFK would be controlled by the pope.
This statement almost doesn't deserve a response BUT.
[QUOTE=David_33;420429]
If Romney gets in, he will follow his religion's dictates of only dealing with other Mormons when at all possible. [/QUOTE]
My response is very simple. Maybe the stupidiest thing ever said on this board! Congrats on becoming the latest "village idiot". Crawl back under your rock fool. You understand little about mormons and / or the man Mitt Romney. Take your obvious liberal hate spew and get back to commenting on chicas. Oh, I forgot, you rarely if ever post anything valuable about the putas. IALOTFLMAO. Happy mongering All except for the uniformed and uneducated David33, Toymann
ps. for the benefit of the board please post all credible links to "said docrines". IALOTFLMAO again.
Toymann-I am not disagreeing, but there is a grain of truth to what david says
I tried to bring in mormon financing on a little something I tried to put togehter. The investment banker is greek orthodox. He told me that the mormon investors wanted mormons involved in the operation or they wouldn't invest. The operation's guy had a great cv and is a very pleasant guy who is it hard not to like. I couldn't understand. The bottom line was somesort of inte-rchurch stuff. It was sort of offensive.
I can't make any generalizations about all mormons from this experience, but from what the investment banker told me, his mormon investors liked having church boys in positions of authority. Very close to non-negociable. Our loyality to the operations guy screwed the deal.
My ultra-orthox jewish cousin hooked me up with introductions thru the ultrarthodox jewish community-a tight group where one of the ways trust can be established is through their community which binds them together in a way that individuals are less likely to screw each other. Do all jews form a secret society that control the world-adolph hitler thought so?
Now, back on point: mitt didn't pack bain capital, the olympics committee nor his mass policy advisors from any one group. Will he be influenced by the church: as a devote man, likely the same way Obama is effected by his faith as was W and other actively practicing executives are effected by their views of the world and may be influence by people they trust. Jkf met with cardinals, but the church didn't likely play a major role in his decision making but may have been a factor at times.
I might be equally or more worried about mitt's wall street backround. We live in times when regulation vs lack of reugulation of large financial institutions will required difficult policy decisions to be made. Over-regulate and the big boys will move overseas, but underregulate and in the process of engorgring themselves with profit[that is their reason to be] they can bring down the economy.