Mitt Romney Rolling Stone Article.... It's Over For This Guy

[AndyA]

I apologize if this was already posted but did anyone read this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

I mean, he calls 47% of Americans parasites.... he is the definition of a parasite

[beemk]

47% is way off. I think it's much higher than that.

[bronco67]

Technically, he is done...but the Koch brothers will buy the election.

[DTK]

it's been discussed https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1081112

[DudeRick]

Obama down 6% from last week. Keep wishing! ;)

[DTK]

Originally Posted by DudeRick

Obama down 6% from last week. Keep wishing! ;)

try again, dingbat.

RCP Average 9/4 - 9/17 -- -- 48.4 45.5 Obama +2.9

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by DTK

try again, dingbat.

RCP Average 9/4 - 9/17 -- -- 48.4 45.5 Obama +2.9

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

He's talking about the brand new poll from Gallup out today:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Robbie

He's talking about the brand new poll from Gallup out today:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Nice Headline: "Romney Has Support Among Lowest Income Voters"

So the people that need taxpayer money the most are going go elect the guy that will cut their funding.

What is really interesting is that the 47% that Romney slammed are his base. As long as he keeps talking about God, guns and keeping rights away from certain people they'll still vote for him.

[Why]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

lol at people still fighting over democrats and republicans

How dumb can people be?

how green is grass? how many stars are in the sky?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by epitome

Nice Headline: "Romney Has Support Among Lowest Income Voters"

So the people that need taxpayer money the most are going go elect the guy that will cut their funding.

I think it shows that even people who do get a govt. check realize it's out of control.
Problem is...he's not going to cut the military (neither will Obama to any degree that matters).

Looks like the plan is to just keep printing money no matter if Obama or Romney wins.

They are both multi-millionaires (as are every member of Congress and the Senate), so they will all keep the gravy train of money going until it crashes I guess.

Reality is...it won't affect Romney OR Obama. They are both rich as hell and both have enough political and financial connections to ride out any economic storm that may come.

Only dumbasses like all of us will suffer.

[DTK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

He's talking about the brand new poll from Gallup out today:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

I don't have a dog in the fight (because they're both dogs), but RealClearPolitics.com aggregates numerous polls, thus giving a more clear picture than a single poll can do.

Gallup's 7 day tracking shows: Gallup Tracking 9/11 - 9/17 3050 RV 2.0 47 46 Obama +1

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by DTK

I don't have a dog in the fight (because they're both dogs), but RealClearPolitics.com aggregates numerous polls, thus giving a more clear picture than a single poll can do.

Yes, but they are aggregating polls that are not accurate. (remember "shit in, shit out") Gallup is much more accurate than say an MSNBC poll or a Fox News Poll. So you take all that crap out when you see the Gallup poll.

I don't know how much credence is given to the Rasmussen Poll...but I have heard it spoken about with respect from both "sides" as well.

They are showing Romney ahead by 4 points today:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

[Why]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think it shows that even people who do get a govt. check realize it's out of control.
Problem is...he's not going to cut the military (neither will Obama to any degree that matters).

Looks like the plan is to just keep printing money no matter if Obama or Romney wins.

They are both multi-millionaires (as are every member of Congress and the Senate), so they will all keep the gravy train of money going until it crashes I guess.

Reality is...it won't affect Romney OR Obama. They are both rich as hell and both have enough political and financial connections to ride out any economic storm that may come.

Only dumbasses like all of us will suffer.

at least state facts... every member of the house and senate is not a multimillionaire, in fact some are not even millionaires.

romney is much wealthier then obama, like at least 10x.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Why

at least state facts... every member of the house and senate is not a multimillionaire, in fact some are not even millionaires.

romney is much wealthier then obama, like at least 10x.

Oh yeah...Ron Paul isn't. lol

I think you get my drift. Anyone in the Senate or Congress who is a career politician is a multi-millionaire. The one's who aren't just haven't been there long enough yet to set up the deals back home with companies to funnel money back to them and get it sent back around in a way that looks "innocent".

And Obama is a multi-millionaire...you can try to make it out like he's just a "poor" multi-millionaire, but face facts: he's one of the "1%" even though you don't want to say that.
Don't know how he got that way since he's never had any job in the private sector. Must be that good ol' tax money getting funneled around and coming back home to roost.

[DudeRick]

Originally Posted by DTK

try again, dingbat.

RCP Average 9/4 - 9/17 -- -- 48.4 45.5 Obama +2.9

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Try again dipshit...

Mitt Romney's presidential bid has been gleefully portrayed as doomed after a series of supposed stumbles that have delighted Democrats.

Voters, however, apparently view things rather differently.

Romney has closed to just one point behind Barack Obama - a drop of six percentage points in a week for the President, according to the latest Gallup tracking poll released on Tuesday. Obama is now on 47 points and Romney 46.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz26rJg6Dyt

[DudeRick]

WSJ The Data Behind Romney?s 47% Comments

In his comments to fundraisers captured on video, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans would almost automatically vote for President Barack Obama because they were ?dependent? on the government, in part because they received government benefits and paid no federal income taxes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...s-47-comments/

[mynameisjim]

Well, national polls don't matter all. It's a state by state election. The national or popular vote means nothing, just ask Al Gore.

A big part of this comes down to Ohio. If he can't win Ohio, he has to nearly run the table on every other state. The polls coming out of Ohio and a few other states are the only ones that matter and the only ones the campaigns look at.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Well, national polls don't matter all. It's a state by state election. The national or popular vote means nothing, just ask Al Gore.

A big part of this comes down to Ohio. If he can't win Ohio, he has to nearly run the table on every other state. The polls coming out of Ohio and a few other states are the only ones that matter and the only ones the campaigns look at.

That seems to be what I see on the news. It's like every state is already either Dem or Repub except a few like Ohio.

I wonder if that's really true? How the heck did Obama carry the Repub states in the last election though? Or Bush carry the Dem states in the past?
Or did they just happen to win the swing states only (other than the states the media are telling us are pre-determined)?

I'm really starting to question the poll numbers and charts from the media. They were way off-base on that recall vote in Wisconsin. Hell, Ed Shulz on MSNBC was actually broadcasting outside the capital in Wisconsin when that vote happened and gleefully showing exit poll numbers that they had and claiming it was all over. lol
Then the next day he looked like somebody had took his lunch money or something.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Oh yeah...Ron Paul isn't. lol

I think you get my drift. Anyone in the Senate or Congress who is a career politician is a multi-millionaire. The one's who aren't just haven't been there long enough yet to set up the deals back home with companies to funnel money back to them and get it sent back around in a way that looks "innocent".

And Obama is a multi-millionaire...you can try to make it out like he's just a "poor" multi-millionaire, but face facts: he's one of the "1%" even though you don't want to say that.
Don't know how he got that way since he's never had any job in the private sector. Must be that good ol' tax money getting funneled around and coming back home to roost.

Yeah, Obama is a multi-millionaire. Ironically, they are both part of the "1%" that OWS bitch about.

[Juicy D. Links]

Romney looks like he is pacing a 10 inch cock under those pants..

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Well, national polls don't matter all. It's a state by state election. The national or popular vote means nothing, just ask Al Gore.

A big part of this comes down to Ohio. If he can't win Ohio, he has to nearly run the table on every other state. The polls coming out of Ohio and a few other states are the only ones that matter and the only ones the campaigns look at.

Seems wrong that 1 state would have that much sway, when that state doesn't even matter to people who don't live there.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by KillerK

Seems wrong that 1 state would have that much sway, when that state doesn't even matter to people who don't live there.

I think it's bullshit that the electoral college numbers don't follow the percentage of votes too.

What I mean is...it SHOULD be that if a guy gets 30% of the popular vote in a state, he should get 30% of that states electoral votes.

But it's "winner take all" Which means that Romney could get 51% to Obama's 49% in a particular state (maybe only by a couple of hundred votes) but he gets 100% of the electoral votes.
It's total bullshit.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think it's bullshit that the electoral college numbers don't follow the percentage of votes too.

What I mean is...it SHOULD be that if a guy gets 30% of the popular vote in a state, he should get 30% of that states electoral votes.

But it's "winner take all" Which means that Romney could get 51% to Obama's 49% in a particular state (maybe only by a couple of hundred votes) but he gets 100% of the electoral votes.
It's total bullshit.

Yes that would make more sense right? However I would prefer just to goto a popular vote only. That way every vote counts.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by KillerK

Yes that would make more sense right? However I would prefer just to goto a popular vote only. That way every vote counts.

I agree. I think both parties are afraid of that though.

Actually...I saw Jesse Ventura on Piers Morgan yesterday talking about a run for President in 2016 with NO Party affiliation at all! Not even Independent!

He's a very interesting guy and I'd like to see him run for President to see what happens.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by DudeRick

WSJ The Data Behind Romney’s 47% Comments

In his comments to fundraisers captured on video, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans would almost automatically vote for President Barack Obama because they were “dependent” on the government, in part because they received government benefits and paid no federal income taxes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...s-47-comments/

there's lots of analysis of the "47%" data, like that's what really matters. Most what he said isn't far off the mark. The important thing to note about that leaked video is the fact that Romney was acting like an elitist asshole with behavior not becoming of a man running for for president. That's what should be under discussion. He's a lower form of life.

This isn't an isolated incident. There's video evidence of him being a heartless dickwad on multiple occasions.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

[Redrob]

As a vet, I know most of the US's enlisted military men fall in the income group that pays no federal income taxes ($18K/yr). I don't consider them to be leeches on society just because they fall into the "no tax" group.

Rmoney sucks!

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by DudeRick

WSJ The Data Behind Romney?s 47% Comments

In his comments to fundraisers captured on video, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans would almost automatically vote for President Barack Obama because they were ?dependent? on the government, in part because they received government benefits and paid no federal income taxes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...s-47-comments/

And what is wrong with the Truth? Or what someone believes is the Truth? Who would the vote for someone to take away the free stuff?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Redrob

As a vet, I know most of the US's enlisted military men fall in the income group that pays no federal income taxes ($18K/yr). I don't consider them to be leeches on society just because they fall into the "no tax" group.

Rmoney sucks!

http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money...-soldiers.html

"Chart reflects Basic Pay only and does not include bonuses, allowances and other benefits. Learn about
total Army compensation."

I have family in the military. It's VERY good (unless you're getting shot at...which most are not)

And active military does pay some income tax...but it's a pretty sweet deal for sure:
"Basic pay and most other pays are generally subject to federal income tax; however, certain allowances are not taxed, such as the basic allowances for housing and subsistence. DOD considers the federal tax advantage as the additional income military members would have to earn in order to receive their current take-home pay if their allowances for housing and subsistence were taxable. In fact, DOD views the federal tax advantage as part of service members' cash compensation when it compares military pay with civilian pay. "

[mineistaken]

harsh, but true.

[Relentless]

Look at all the tax free advantages these 'moochers' get!
http://militaryadvantage.military.co...or-recipeints/
Clearly all our problems would be solved if we started taxing their pension and used that money to fund tax loopholes for hedge fund managers instead...

After all, Congressional Medal of Honor winners aren't technically 'job creators', they are only patriots, heros and national treasures.

[Coup]

Originally Posted by AndyA

I apologize if this was already posted but did anyone read this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

I mean, he calls 47% of Americans parasites.... he is the definition of a parasite

Matt Taibbi is a badass. Great fucking article.

Obama ran on "change" in 2008, but Mitt Romney represents a far more real and seismic shift in the American landscape. Romney is the frontman and apostle of an economic revolution, in which transactions are manufactured instead of products, wealth is generated without accompanying prosperity, and Cayman Islands partnerships are lovingly erected and nurtured while American communities fall apart. The entire purpose of the business model that Romney helped pioneer is to move money into the archipelago from the places outside it, using massive amounts of taxpayer-subsidized debt to enrich a handful of billionaires. It's a vision of society that's crazy, vicious and almost unbelievably selfish, yet it's running for president, and it has a chance of winning. Perhaps that change is coming whether we like it or not. Perhaps Mitt Romney is the best man to manage the transition. But it seems a little early to vote for that kind of wholesale surrender.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz26st5U9In