GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Axver said:
And for speeches he's made a thousand times before, and to remind him what city he's in.

At least Obama didn't say "Thanks, Houston!" when he came through my city!
 
team Romney just pulled their adds from PA and MI, meaning, essentially, that they do not believe they can win these two.

the path to a GOP victory gets narrower.
 
oooooo thanks for that news! you could be on to sometime ! :hyper:

unless they're going to change ads drastically in place of what's there now. Clinton has 'em runnin'

Funny the 2 taqlking heads at CBS last niht were very impressed with Pre CLinton's speexchand said he articulated Pres Obama's reasons to be re-elected bettwer than Obama has yet.

That really would be something because unlike voter suppress in Virginia & Texas where theVoting Rights Act is meant to protect African-Americans and also now Latinos, and so can be chalanged legally from that angle ( and it sure wopuld help poor/working and falling middle Class white folk as well).... MIchigan & Pennsylvania are not under it and thus harder to repeal the VS efforts in place therte now. (
 
PA had literally zero chance of being flipped. You wonder why they'd even run ads there other than to help some down-ticket candidates.

MI was at least probable. As in like 2% chance probable.

Again, this is the plan...

1) He has to win Florida, North Carolina and Ohio. 253 Electoral Votes.

2) Virginia + Iowa = 272 Electoral Votes.

3) Loses Virginia. Needs to pick up Iowa, Colorado and one of either Wisconsin or Nevada. Wisconsin will likely be way out of play once the early Ryan bounce is factored out and the Obama convention bounce factored in. Basically, this scenario is extremely unlikely. If Romney loses Virginia, it's not all that probable that he'll suddenly pick up these states that have tended to be much bluer according to polling all year long.


I think the margin in Ohio will be insurmountable and put a nail in Romney's coffin.
 
Another gem on the Republican side.

According to Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), federal student loans are the start of a “slippery slope” that could eventually lead to a Holocaust. While speaking at Maryland’s Allegany College on Wednesday, Bartlett invoked this horrid comparison while arguing that government loans are unconstitutional:

Not that it’s not a good idea to give students loans, it certainly is a good idea to give them loans. But if you can ignore the Constitution to do something good today, tomorrow you will be ignoring the Constitution to do something bad. You could. There are more people in our, in America today of German ancestry than any other [inaudible]. The Holocaust that occurred in Germany — how in the heck could that happen? And when you start down the wrong road, it can be a very slippery slope.
 
It's rare that I, a straight white male of mixed Irish and German heritage, can feel offended, but I feel mildly offended. He should have stopped at the somewhat justifiable belief that it would be bad to violate the direct wording of the constitution because that could be abused in the future... the insinuation that Germans will use that to exterminate America's Jews was quite unnecessary.
 
I'd like some trickle down from that. I'm sure he'll open some new casinos and create new jobs instead of pocketing it. And the middle class can go there and lose lots of money.


Huffington Post

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson's backing of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney may not just make political sense for the billionaire -- it may also be in his best interest financially.

Adelson has vowed to spend as much as $100 million to help sway the 2012 election. According to a new report by Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Adelson could turn that investment into a $2 billion tax cut if Romney is elected.

From Hanlon's report on how Romney's tax plan could benefit Adelson:

• Cut top tax rates, saving Adelson approximately $1.5 million on his annual compensation as chief executive of his casino company.

• Maintain the special low rates on dividends, potentially saving Adelson nearly $120 million on a single year’s worth of dividends, more than enough to recoup his political donations.

• Maintain the special low rates on capital gains, allowing Adelson to make back his political donations in capital gains tax cuts just by selling a fraction of his stock.

• Provide a tax windfall of an estimated $1.2 billion to Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands Corp., on untaxed profits from its Asian casinos, as well as a tax exemption forfuture overseas profits. Adelson’s casinos already enjoy a special foreign tax exemption from the Chinese administrative region of Macau, and Gov. Romney would make those foreign profits exempt from U.S. taxes as well.

• Eliminate the estate tax, potentially providing a staggering $8.9 billion windfall to Adelson’s heirs.
 
Nah, we clearly don't need any of that money, MrsS. Clearly he would suffer if he lost even a fraction of that money to a higher tax rate! All we need to do is work as hard as he does and we can be swimming in that dough in...how many years does it take to save up that kind of cash again?

Seriously, see, people, this is what we're talking about when we say there is a point when it's clear you have more than enough money.
 
Why is it more than enough money?

Because what on earth would they do with it all? If I found myself with that kind of cash I'd be giving nearly all of it back because I can't fathom what I would need most of it for. Given that we have so many people in this country who can barely afford to feed their families, or pay for their rent or heat, to see people walking around with that kind of money just seems absurd.
 
Would it be more than enough money if he planned on founding hospitals and orphanages with it? Or is it just more than enough money if he plans on buying a solid gold car?
 
Would it be more than enough money if he planned on founding hospitals and orphanages with it? Or is it just more than enough money if he plans on buying a solid gold car?

If he were doing good things with it, that'd be fine. Because he's not hoarding it all for himself, he's giving some of it back and helping people with it.

If he's buying 20 cars for himself with that cash, or 5 yachts, or whatever, aka, things he doesn't really need, though, then yeah, it's a pretty big waste of money and pretty selfish.

That's the big thing here-it's fine to make a nice living for yourself, if you have honestly worked hard for your money and legitimately earned your riches, great. But I don't understand the people who, when they get into the multi-millions or billions, look at what they've got and STILL think they need more. At what point, if any, do they think they have more than enough money to live on?
 
And there's the rub. The left finds income "acceptable" based on what it's used for. Who's is it to decide what's "good" and what's "wasteful"?
 
The right does that, too, though. Spend tons of money on defense and making sure the job creators get their bucks, but suggest more funding for social programs and they often talk about how wasteful those are.

Everyone has their things they want and don't really need, sure, that they love to spend money on. But I guess in the broader sense, if money is being used to help people in general-make sure people can be fed and clothed and sheltered and taken care of in that way, things that are necessities that people have to have to survive, that would be considered a good use of money. I have my things I want, too, but I try to get all the things I need out of the way first. I love buying CDs, but if it comes down to buying CDs versus buying food, well, obviously, the food has to come first.
 
That's outrageous !! Adelson's heirs receiving the inheritance rather the government.

I don't think he has any obligation to give it to the govt, and it's not outrageous to give it to his heirs. What's "outrageous" to me is to pretend that these tax breaks for the wealthy are solely for the purpose of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. To me that's laughable.
 
What's "outrageous" to me is to pretend that these tax breaks for the wealthy are solely for the purpose of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. To me that's laughable.

I agree. I have been to big libertarian conferences (don't ask me why) as an observer, conferences populated by millionaires and even billionaires, and I can say that these people openly advocate stashing money overseas and investing in developing markets like Argentina. They absolutely do not advocate philanthropy or "creating jobs" in the US; in fact many of them actively discourage such behavior, saying that it is foolish from a perspective of personal finance. So yes, absolutely the hyper-rich in general are not an altruistic bunch.
 
Huffington Post

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney held a press conference in response to the attacks in Libya and Egypt on Wednesday morning, continuing to criticize the Obama administration's response to the tragedy and President Obama's foreign policy.

Romney took issue with a statement put out by the U.S. embassy in Cairo condemning an anti-Muslim video backed by extremist Florida pastor Terry Jones.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," read the statement.

"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, protesters were inside the grounds," said Romney at his press conference. "They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a -- a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked, and being breached, that the first response to the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. And apology for America's values is never the right course."

The embassy's statement, however, came before the protests -- not after, as Romney claimed. The embassy did subsequently tweet that it stood by its condemnation of the video, but it also condemned the attacks.

When reporters pointed out that the White House disavowed the Cairo embassy's statement, Romney said he agreed with that response. He still, however, said that the embassy was part of Obama's administration, and therefore the president was ultimately responsible.

"It's their administration," said Romney. "Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come his mouth but also from the words of his ambassador's, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world, and the statement that came from the administration, and the embassy is the administration."

Romney also criticized Obama for showing a "lack of clarity" on foreign policy -- a charge that has been frequently leveled at Romney himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom