deep
Blue Crack Addict
I still think Romney will win
* over 200 electoral votes.
* over 200 electoral votes.
GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5
- Thread starter yolland
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Poll shows voters' reaction to Romney tapes
(CNN) – The surreptitiously recorded video of Mitt Romney at a campaign fund-raiser has had a moderately negative effect on registered voters, a poll released Wednesday indicated.
The poll, taken Tuesday, showed 36% of registered voters indicating they would be less likely to vote for Romney after the tapes were released. Twenty percent said they were more likely to vote for Romney, and 43% said the tapes made no difference.
Among independents, 15% said they were more likely to vote for Romney in November, compared to 29% who were less likely and 53% who said the tapes made no difference.
The Gallup survey was taken by telephone from 885 registered voters, and the sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. Among independents the sampling error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.
(CNN) – The surreptitiously recorded video of Mitt Romney at a campaign fund-raiser has had a moderately negative effect on registered voters, a poll released Wednesday indicated.
The poll, taken Tuesday, showed 36% of registered voters indicating they would be less likely to vote for Romney after the tapes were released. Twenty percent said they were more likely to vote for Romney, and 43% said the tapes made no difference.
Among independents, 15% said they were more likely to vote for Romney in November, compared to 29% who were less likely and 53% who said the tapes made no difference.
The Gallup survey was taken by telephone from 885 registered voters, and the sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. Among independents the sampling error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Someone should print this out for Mitt. Eye crossing numbers and math (makes me want to run away screaming), but I think he could handle it.
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over “the 47 percent” is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from “how much in taxes do you pay” to “how much in federal income taxes do you pay?” This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It’s bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There’s a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax — it’s the tax we’ve designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we’ve done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don’t know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren’t paying federal income taxes, they’re outraged — even if they’re among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they’re paying taxes, and there’s no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren’t classified as “federal income taxes.”
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he’s not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That’s the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it’s a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who’s paying what in taxes, you don’t want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes — you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes — which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more — paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you’re mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that’s another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you’re omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
But here is really the only tax graph you need: It’s total tax burden by income group. And as you’ll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren’t paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.
That’s really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income — which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.
When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren’t really paying taxes, it’s usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn’t look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that’s one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don’t like to show you these numbers.
* Romney’s 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn’t released his state and local returns for 2011, so we can’t say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it’s likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical.
The one tax graph you really need to know
At the heart of the debate over “the 47 percent” is an awful abuse of tax data.
This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from “how much in taxes do you pay” to “how much in federal income taxes do you pay?” This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It’s bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.
There’s a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax — it’s the tax we’ve designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we’ve done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.
But most people don’t know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren’t paying federal income taxes, they’re outraged — even if they’re among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they’re paying taxes, and there’s no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren’t classified as “federal income taxes.”
Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.
Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he’s not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.
That’s the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it’s a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.
But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?
Which is why, if you want to understand who’s paying what in taxes, you don’t want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes — you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes — which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more — paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:
As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you’re mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that’s another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you’re omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.
But here is really the only tax graph you need: It’s total tax burden by income group. And as you’ll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren’t paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.
That’s really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income — which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.
When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren’t really paying taxes, it’s usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn’t look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that’s one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don’t like to show you these numbers.
* Romney’s 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn’t released his state and local returns for 2011, so we can’t say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it’s likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Bingo.
I love it when the actual data comes along to point out the complete lies in statements like Romney's.
This is exactly how I feel. Watching him on Letterman last night, after seeing the clip with Romney, dear god, it wasn't even a contest as to who was the better person. Obama was measured, thoughtful, understanding, intelligent, funny...and yet he made a great pointed comment that when you are president, you serve EVERYBODY, not just some.
He is. Definitely. There are times he certainly could stand to be more forceful and tough (though I tend to suspect he saves those moments for the stuff we don't get to see take place on TV). When he was at the Republican retreat a couple years back and he got them all deeply uncomfortable with his critique of their platform, I really, REALLY liked that, and I definitely want to see more of that from him. And who knows, maybe with a second term we'll see more of that side of him. I hope so.
But at the same time, I do like that he keeps his humanity and compassion and understanding as well. I don't want him to lose that, and I think there's a way he can be tougher and yet still balance that with the caring side. And I do respect his wish for compromise and working together-I wish the GOP was for that, too.
As I've said before, there are things about his administration I haven't agreed with. There are policies I think he could work more on, or things he could do that he hasn't done yet, and people he could fight harder against (hi, Wall Street people!). But I also know some of that is sort of a "hands tied" scenario-unfortunately the presidency doesn't seem to hold the same power now it once did, now everyone must answer to corporate and special interests, they're the ones who seem to be really running things and we can't seem to escape them. And I also know change doesn't happen overnight-believe me, I wasn't one of those people who felt that I'd wake up the day after the election in 2008 and everything would automatically be sunshine and rainbows.
Ultimately, though, I still feel like he genuinely cares about people, that he is actually interested in them and their lives and is trying his best, and trying to make people happy. I don't get that feeling from Romney, especially not after that recent video. His attitude is deeply insulting and patronizing.
Heh.
Thanks for the story about the kids, it's neat to hear their thoughts and see actual interest in politics at that age. Hopefully they continue to keep that interest and go on and do good things with it.
It's not a shock, really, at least, not to me. Rather, it's mainly just depressing to find another example of this sort of attitude out there. I'm just so tired of this. I would love for people like Romney to come live the life my family has lived the last few years for a certain amount of time. Maybe a year or something, I don't know. But I just want him and those who think like him to actually try living the way we do just once. Maybe then they'd finally shut the hell up.
Welcome back, by the way! Hope you had a good time in that evil socialist land
.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
abcnews.com
Sep 18, 2012 5:57pm
Republicans Hit Obama for ‘Redistribution’ Remark in 1998 Recording
Hoping to help Mitt Romney reframe the debate sparked by his comments on social class and taxes, Republicans are pointing to a newly resurfaced 14-year-old audio recording of Barack Obama appearing to endorse the redistribution of wealth.
“There is a tape that just came out today where the President is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree,” Romney said in an afternoon interview with Fox News.
The audio, posted to YouTube by an unidentified user and dated Oct. 19, 1998, appears to be of remarks by then-Illinois State Sen. Obama at a conference at Loyola University in Chicago.
“Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we’re going to have to do is resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all,” he says.
“There has been a systematic — I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a ‘propaganda campaign’ against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. The Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making, and neither necessarily has been the Chicago Public Schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking what are the delivery systems that are effective and meet people where they live.
“And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick — and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues — I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution,” he said, “because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody’s got a shot.”
The Romney campaign signaled that it plans to make the comments a focal point of its messaging in the coming days. It appeared to be an attempt in part to try and deflect criticism from Democrats over Romney’s surreptitiously-recorded comments referring to Obama supporters as people who are “dependent on the government” and feeling “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”
Some Republicans outside the Romney campaign, including conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh, called on Romney Tuesday to “finally take the gloves off” and “start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don’t have to be in that 47 percent.”
“I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America,” Romney told Fox. “We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution. The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth, not to redistribute wealth.”
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Romney’s attack on comments Obama made 14 years ago is a sign the Republican nominee is “so desperate to change the subject.”
“Fourteen years ago, then-Senator Obama was making an argument for a more efficient, more effective government — specifically citing city government agencies that he didn’t think were working effectively,” LaBolt said. ” He believed then, and believes now, that there are steps we can take to promote opportunity and ensure that all Americans have a fair shot if they work hard. Unlike Governor Romney, he doesn’t believe that if you’re a student who applies for a loan you’re looking for a handout.”
Apparently NBC obtained the entire video, which is more than the clip that has been discussed and shown
NBC News and Obama's 'redistribution' video - POLITICO.com
The full tape of then-state Sen. Obama's remarks left a far different impression from the clip posted to Drudge Report earlier this week. Far from championing the wholesale redistribution of wealth, Obama was seen advocating a competitive, free-market system in which "everybody's got a shot" -- no different from comments he made during the 2008 campaign. (As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted yesterday, Romney also "believes in redistribution," -- specifically, "a progressive tax code, the Medicare program, the Medicaid program, the food stamp program, the Social Security program and pretty much every other feature of the federal government that’s involved in redistributing income.")
Sep 18, 2012 5:57pm
Republicans Hit Obama for ‘Redistribution’ Remark in 1998 Recording
Hoping to help Mitt Romney reframe the debate sparked by his comments on social class and taxes, Republicans are pointing to a newly resurfaced 14-year-old audio recording of Barack Obama appearing to endorse the redistribution of wealth.
“There is a tape that just came out today where the President is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree,” Romney said in an afternoon interview with Fox News.
The audio, posted to YouTube by an unidentified user and dated Oct. 19, 1998, appears to be of remarks by then-Illinois State Sen. Obama at a conference at Loyola University in Chicago.
“Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we’re going to have to do is resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all,” he says.
“There has been a systematic — I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a ‘propaganda campaign’ against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. The Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making, and neither necessarily has been the Chicago Public Schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking what are the delivery systems that are effective and meet people where they live.
“And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick — and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues — I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution,” he said, “because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody’s got a shot.”
The Romney campaign signaled that it plans to make the comments a focal point of its messaging in the coming days. It appeared to be an attempt in part to try and deflect criticism from Democrats over Romney’s surreptitiously-recorded comments referring to Obama supporters as people who are “dependent on the government” and feeling “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”
Some Republicans outside the Romney campaign, including conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh, called on Romney Tuesday to “finally take the gloves off” and “start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don’t have to be in that 47 percent.”
“I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America,” Romney told Fox. “We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution. The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth, not to redistribute wealth.”
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Romney’s attack on comments Obama made 14 years ago is a sign the Republican nominee is “so desperate to change the subject.”
“Fourteen years ago, then-Senator Obama was making an argument for a more efficient, more effective government — specifically citing city government agencies that he didn’t think were working effectively,” LaBolt said. ” He believed then, and believes now, that there are steps we can take to promote opportunity and ensure that all Americans have a fair shot if they work hard. Unlike Governor Romney, he doesn’t believe that if you’re a student who applies for a loan you’re looking for a handout.”
Apparently NBC obtained the entire video, which is more than the clip that has been discussed and shown
NBC News and Obama's 'redistribution' video - POLITICO.com
The full tape of then-state Sen. Obama's remarks left a far different impression from the clip posted to Drudge Report earlier this week. Far from championing the wholesale redistribution of wealth, Obama was seen advocating a competitive, free-market system in which "everybody's got a shot" -- no different from comments he made during the 2008 campaign. (As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted yesterday, Romney also "believes in redistribution," -- specifically, "a progressive tax code, the Medicare program, the Medicaid program, the food stamp program, the Social Security program and pretty much every other feature of the federal government that’s involved in redistributing income.")
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Unbelievably lame of Mitt Romney to try to attack with this. Any thinking person can see there's no kind of comparison between what Romney and Obama said in their respective recordings. Romney is hanging all over one word that Obama used that taken in context isn't all that radical (though not "conservative" but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Ridiculous.
This election is clearly now a referendum not on the candidates but on the intelligence of the electorate.
This election is clearly now a referendum not on the candidates but on the intelligence of the electorate.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
if that is the case, looking back at 2000* and 2004, Romney has a good shot at winning.
* it is amazing to me that people say W won in 2000, not only did he lose the national popular vote, he also got less votes from people in Florida that went to the polls to vote. But the intelligence of the electorate allowed it to be close enough for the Court to give it to W.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Yeah, I'm with Sean here, the two things aren't even remotely comparable. Especially since, unlike Romney, Obama didn't insult a good portion of the nation in his comments. I may be in that percentage that's going to vote for Obama, but one of the big reasons I'm voting for him is because he's not a condescending asshole to people who are struggling.
I didn't realize sharing and helping each other were such BAD concepts now.
I didn't realize sharing and helping each other were such BAD concepts now.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
whatever stuggling people have, they need to pay something, it does not have to be a lot, they need to feel vested, that they have a part in paying in, not just recieving money from the one's that are paying in.
Kaine: 'I Would Be Open to a Proposal to Have Some Minimum Tax Level for Everyone' | The Weekly Standard
Kaine: 'I Would Be Open to a Proposal to Have Some Minimum Tax Level for Everyone' | The Weekly Standard
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
Also, *some* people make me sad:
Texas Republican Lynches A Chair To Symbolize The Lynching Of President Barack Obama (PHOTOS) | Global Grind
Texas Republican Lynches A Chair To Symbolize The Lynching Of President Barack Obama (PHOTOS) | Global Grind
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
That is not to say that "if you disagree with me you're dumb." There's a difference between a reasoned support of an political position that I think is wrong and people being swayed by pure nonsense.
Back in 2000, I don't think it was as clear cut as it is now. I know people like to characterize Bush as a dummy but I never felt that was entirely fair. He might have come across as glib or whatever but there wasn't the blatant cynical lying and misleading that I see now--at least I don't remember it. I thought the Bush administration was dead wrong on Iraq from the beginning, but even then I could see how persuasive case could be made for the war, particularly with the intelligence they supposedly had.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I find this statement baffling, you must have been a casual observer, I think it would be far more reasonable to find 2012 Romney tolerable to Bush 2000
the man was a complete idiot, he was asked to name a philosopher, he could have said, I don't recall the names and schools of philosophy from my college days, but I do believe in the philosophy of self determination our founding fathers believed in. Instead he said. Jesus Christ.
He ran on “I Will Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House”. A no blow job pledge was enough for 49% of an ignorant public.
Romney/Ryan is pleading "12 million new jobs" * in a time when people are worried about jobs. Why would 50.1 % not want to vote for that?
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8d23ec-f769-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html
2000 = no (blow) jobs
2012 = 12,000,000 jobs
GOP believes it wins with focus on jobs
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I'll see that
and raise with
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kill-romney-disturbing-page-appears-on-facebook/#
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Appalling on both counts.
I hate idiot assholes.
I hate idiot assholes.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I wasn't as involved as I am now, but I wouldn't say I was a casual observer. Granted I was on the other side of the world, so there might have been somewhat of a disconnect. But I still maintain that this is worse.
At least Bush was asking people to make a voting decision based on actual events. We might both feel that "no blow jobs" is not a serious platform, but at least it was based on something that actually happened. What was left was a disagreement on whether what happened resulted in dishonor that needed to be restored.
This time we have a candidate just making shit up about 47% of the country being moochers. People who believe that aren't making a decision based on any kind of reality.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
really ?? Bush was running against blow jobs? or Bill Clinton and his behavior?
I thought he was running aginst Gore/Liberman, and I don't recall Gore/Liberman as being for that kind of behavior.
I thought he was running aginst Gore/Liberman, and I don't recall Gore/Liberman as being for that kind of behavior.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
You were the one who brought up the blow jobs, I was just responding to your assertion.
I recall Gore/Leiberman worked hard to distance themselves from the Clinton shenanigans. I recall Bush trying to make the race about Clinton's behavior.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
our conversation was about the America public being not very smart in choosing who to vote for in presidential elections.
And yes in the 2000 election I remember watching the news the last month. Bush was barnstorming the swing states with a short stump speech the was always on the news with the soundbite of him pleading to 'Restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse."
Gore's stump speech was "I will fight for you"*
* I'm running for president because I want to fight for you. I want to fight for your family. I want to fight for Philadelphia. For Pennsylvania! For the future of the United States of America. God bless you. I need your help.
October 24, 2000
And yes in the 2000 election I remember watching the news the last month. Bush was barnstorming the swing states with a short stump speech the was always on the news with the soundbite of him pleading to 'Restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse."
Gore's stump speech was "I will fight for you"*
* I'm running for president because I want to fight for you. I want to fight for your family. I want to fight for Philadelphia. For Pennsylvania! For the future of the United States of America. God bless you. I need your help.
October 24, 2000
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I read it like that originally, too 
.
*Rubs temples, sighs in exasperation* Ugh...
What was that people kept insisting about the opposition to Obama not being rooted in racism again?
Hey, idiots who did both these things? You're not helping the conversation. Shut up.
.*Rubs temples, sighs in exasperation* Ugh...
What was that people kept insisting about the opposition to Obama not being rooted in racism again?
Hey, idiots who did both these things? You're not helping the conversation. Shut up.
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
He's finally released his 2011 tax returns.
You know you're in trouble when....
You know you're in trouble when....
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I just wanted to say-never thought I'd see that posted here. Historic moment in FYM that needed to be highlighted.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
This hasn't been a great week for the Romney campaign, but Ann Romney has had quite enough of hearing fellow Republicans criticize her husband. "Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring," she said during an interview with Radio Iowa yesterday. "It’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country."
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I just wanted to say-never thought I'd see that posted here. Historic moment in FYM that needed to be highlighted.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Grim week for Mitt.
Seems all the GOP has left is voter suppression.
Seems all the GOP has left is voter suppression.
Jeannieco
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Ya and this morning on the Sunday news shows, his advocates are now saying the old standard line when they have nothing left 3......2........1....everyone altogether now....
" It's the media's fault"
" It's the media's fault"
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I read two newspapers everyday. The Sunday comics are a dying breed, I rarely read them. I saw one today. And I think it applies to this election, because in a few states, our brown brothers and sisters will be the deciders.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
This is the thing that is baffling me as an outsider, the extend to which one party tries to prevent groups of people to cast their votes. And only because those groups are more likely to vote for the other party. That undermines one of the fundaments of a democracy, the right of a person to cast his/her vote in a free election.
Today I also came by this article that also went on about this same subject.
Voting Wrongs by Elizabeth Drew | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books
- Status
Similar threads
