Print

[Frenchfry]

No matter how much the righties use the "look over here" but "not over here" nonsense...
This is what the focus should be on:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney chose to pay more in taxes than he needed to, forgoing about $250,000 in deductions to keep his tax rate above 13 percent.

The decision to pay more in taxes than necessary was political. Romney had told reporters that he hadn't paid an effective rate of less than 13 percent over the past decade, in an effort to deflect Democratic attacks.

"It's almost like he's conceding, 'Hey, no one's going to want to see me go less than that 13 percent rate so I'm going to massage my deductions and actually forsake some of them to placate the American public,'" said Tony Nitti, a partner at WithumSmith & Brown PC in Aspen, Colorado, who prepares returns for high-income taxpayers. "I don't know if it will placate anybody. The people who have issues with his tax rate are still going to have issues with his tax rate." Romney's return is at odds with a July 29 statement in which the former private-equity executive said he didn't think he would be qualified to be president if he paid more taxes than he owed.

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/mitt-romney-pays-13-tax-rate-forgoing-charity-tax-break-for-2011-1.4040763

Mitt Romney's Taxes: A Look at the Numbers

And you can bet he'll amend those returns after the election.
He's a slimeball....and his supporters are no better.

[Frenchfry]

Romney heavily invested in main foe

Mitt Romney's 2011 tax returns have gained the attention of many Americans and even got the attention of Penthouse Magazine mogul, Larry Flynt. At one point Flynt offered a reward of $1 million to whoever was able to provide the Republican candidate's 2011 tax returns, but now that Romney tax information has been revealed what can we gather from Mitt's financial investments? RT's Liz Wahl has more.

Romney heavily invested in main foe

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chinese Oil Company's Romney Connection Fouls Mitt's Campaign Message

Chinese Oil Company's Romney Connection Fouls Mitt's Campaign Message (1/2)

Chinese Oil Company's Romney Connection Fouls Mitt's Campaign Message (2/2)

[Frenchfry]

Mitt Romney's Tax Returns: What Else is He Hiding?

[Monroe Native]

How much did Ryan give? Do you know? I do.

By the way I remember someone around here complaining about someone changing the subject whenever things got too heated.

Do you remember who that was? I do.

Can you remind me what the subject is?

This board doesn't stay on a subject that the thread was started on.

I don't remember after the French Fry Video and name calling montage.

So - I didn't answer whatever you wanted me to.  Whatever.  I'm just trying to follow the topic of the moment and trying not to call anyone names.  You answer a question with a question then whine that no one answered your question.  Funny, but sorry if I don't always play by your rules.

I also notice no one besides Will was willing to say what Obama did to earn his Nobel Peace Prize, so apparently you do the same thing.

The real answer:  it is no longer a Nobel Peace Prize.  Instead it is a kind of lifetime achievement award for socialists / liberals.

[ducksoup]

I hear and read that the right is blaming Romney for being a bad candidate.  I don’t agree with that.  During the primaries he tried to be a moderate to a lot of far right candidates who revolved around taking some state primaries.  Since Romney became the one running he has had to shift hard right and cater to the far right hoping to get them to vote for him, abandoning the middle.  By pandering to the extreme right he has annoyed the center independents.  Romney isn’t the “fault” with the campaign, the tea radical agenda is.  That is what is being rejected.

As per past polling the majority of people do blame the tax cuts as a part of the deficit problems.  They see Republican economic policy as a big share of why the economy crashed so badly.  Cut taxes for the very rich (to provide jobs that never materialized) and cut regulation which allowed the banks to gamble and lose.  They see that the Democrats policies have only slowly helped the economy, but don’t want to go back to what has shown to fail.

Then all the social radical stuff.  The push to make having any abortion illegal even if it is legal;  not wanting women to receive equal pay for equal work; the thinly disguised racism.

But, it all may not have mattered because the hostage taking of the debt limit extension again went too far.  I know the right blames Obama for no budget or the debt ceiling having to be raised.  But the people saw one side play chicken with the economy and their lives.  People saw it completely as a political ploy to make the D’s give them everything that they wanted or else.  They didn’t like it.  It doesn’t even matter a bit if they were right or wrong, the people saw blatant extortion.  So, in a way, when the R’s push the refusal to raise the debt limit or work on a budget (blaming Obama when it is their job) the people are reminded of the extortion instead.

But, what I think is more prominent than anything is the divide.  Yeah, the media says it is both and that is the rhetoric.  The “my way or the highway” brand of politics the right pushes is slowly becoming clear to people.  People are used to political spin and procedural tools to try and get compromise.  They don’t get the “if it can’t be my way then no way” mentality.

It is like with Governor Walker or even Snyder.  They were elected and both rushed through extreme policies.  The right called it their just due because they won.  Obama and the D’s won, and were fought tooth and nail at every step.  Why does one side get to ram bad legislation through and the other not get compromise?

In short, Romney is losing because of the intolerance of the far right that took over the R party and people are starting to see the extremism as bad; maybe not the political views, but the refusal to compromise.

This place has never been tolerant of anyone else’s views.  It always has had those that prefer to piss people off in any way rather than talk.  What I wonder about lately is the upping of the hate is because they know Romney is not doing well, or because they realize that the extremism that they want is becoming clear to the majority and being rejected as too extreme.

I think for those here it is an attempt to raise their own and other’s emotional level enough to hold their noses and vote for someone they don’t want because that other guy is a pure evil socialist Nazi Kenyan Muslim space alien.  They do not see the beginnings of the rejection of their extremism.

I do not think the election is a sure thing, but Romney has never had a lead at any time that I can recall.  The wholesale voting registration purges WILL have an effect.

[lilly]

Can you remind me what the subject is?

This board doesn't stay on a subject that the thread was started on.

I don't remember after the French Fry Video and name calling montage.

So - I didn't answer whatever you wanted me to.  Whatever.  I'm just trying to follow the topic of the moment and trying not to call anyone names.  You answer a question with a question then whine that no one answered your question.  Funny, but sorry if I don't always play by your rules.

I also notice no one besides Will was willing to say what Obama did to earn his Nobel Peace Prize, so apparently you do the same thing.

The real answer:  it is no longer a Nobel Peace Prize.  Instead it is a kind of lifetime achievement award for socialists / liberals.

Yep. It's Obama's fault that he received the Nobel Peace Prize and then donated the money to charity.

What a cold heartless bastard he is.

He also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own HARD EARNED money. And instead of acknowledging that, you say that he didn't earn the money from the Nobel Peace Prize,, and go on to ask how much does Biden donate. (it's around 1% of his income and really who cares?) By the way Ryan donated 4% and 1% of his income in his last two tax returns. (But really who cares?)

[Will Sweat]

But, what I think is more prominent than anything is the divide.  Yeah, the media says it is both and that is the rhetoric.  The “my way or the highway” brand of politics the right pushes is slowly becoming clear to people.  People are used to political spin and procedural tools to try and get compromise.  They don’t get the “if it can’t be my way then no way” mentality.

It is like with Governor Walker or even Snyder.  They were elected and both rushed through extreme policies.  The right called it their just due because they won.  Obama and the D’s won, and were fought tooth and nail at every step.  Why does one side get to ram bad legislation through and the other not get compromise?

In short, Romney is losing because of the intolerance of the far right that took over the R party and people are starting to see the extremism as bad; maybe not the political views, but the refusal to compromise.

This place has never been tolerant of anyone else’s views.  It always has had those that prefer to piss people off in any way rather than talk.  What I wonder about lately is the upping of the hate is because they know Romney is not doing well, or because they realize that the extremism that they want is becoming clear to the majority and being rejected as too extreme.

In the end Gov. Romney is a moderate who worked with Democrats while in Mass., I believe that if he ran on "who he is", he would be doing much better.  However - I do believe it is a very close race. 

I disagree on your analysis of Gov. Snyder and Gov. Walker.  While I think both did what they believed was the correct thing, so to did Pres. Obama who was able in his first 24 months to have a Democrat majority in the House and Senate.  Somehow acting as if Gov. Walker and Gov. Walker were not fought "tooth and nail" rings hollow in my assessment.  If I recall - Gov. Walker had a group of legislatures leave the State for several days instead of attending to there duties as a means of protest.  Additionally, the man was put back on the ballot for a recall.  In terms of Gov. Snyder we too was threatened with a recall - although those interested came up short. 

I think the off year elections (2010) were a reflection that in general the American public prefers "moderation" and checks and balances.  I believe this will lead to both Gov. Walker and Gov. Snyder to be tempered in the upcoming election - and that's perfectly fine . . . If people can begin to work together. 

In terms of the perception - I refuse to give either party a pass because both equally entrench themselves and by extension so to do the adherents of the parties.  As you noted - just this place - is intolerant of other views and the logical reasoning of this is that; "I am right, your wrong" which can rarely be the case.  A cooperative environment must be fostered from our elected officials. 

[MM1]

Today's Rasmussen Poll:

Obama 48%    Romney 46%     3% Other   3% undecided



Interesting.

[ducksoup]

In the end Gov. Romney is a moderate who worked with Democrats while in Mass., I believe that if he ran on "who he is", he would be doing much better. However - I do believe it is a very close race.

That was the point I was trying to make.  Romney is more naturally a moderate, yet he has been forced to run as farther right, which is not helping him.  That isn’t his fault but the more extreist faction of the R party.  I agree it is a close race, but had Romney been able to run as a moderate he would be on the plus side of close instead.

I disagree on your analysis of Gov. Snyder and Gov. Walker. While I think both did what they believed was the correct thing, so to did Pres. Obama who was able in his first 24 months to have a Democrat majority in the House and Senate. Somehow acting as if Gov. Walker and Gov. Walker were not fought "tooth and nail" rings hollow in my assessment. If I recall - Gov. Walker had a group of legislatures leave the State for several days instead of attending to there duties as a means of protest. Additionally, the man was put back on the ballot for a recall. In terms of Gov. Snyder we too was threatened with a recall - although those interested came up short.

The recalls were a part of the point, enough people were upset with the forging ahead “my way or the highway” attitude.  The one’s that left in protest had no other avenue to try and stem the forced laws.  There was not even an attempt to get cooperation.  The difference between those and Obama is the first two gave no bipartisan care, and rammed it through.  Obama had, as you said, a 24 month battle that DID result in compromise.

I think the off year elections (2010) were a reflection that in general the American public prefers "moderation" and checks and balances. I believe this will lead to both Gov. Walker and Gov. Snyder to be tempered in the upcoming election - and that's perfectly fine . . . If people can begin to work together.

I am unsure that you are correct.  I know you are partly correct.  People DO want cooperation.  I just mean as a primary rather than secondary.  My thinking is that the R’s sold that the D’s wouldn’t cooperate, despite having compromised many times on ACA.  Along with that the idea that spending was out of control and that they would fix it.  I think many still believe that idea, that spending is too high, but have seen no R attempts to do more than tax cuts for the very wealthy, as if that will fix it.  I am not saying any of that is reality either way, but saying what I think people see.

But then too, it could be you are spot on and the people gave the R’s the chance to work together in 10, and now are going to try the other way, but I don’t see D gains in the house/Senate, probably no appreciable change.

In terms of the perception - I refuse to give either party a pass because both equally entrench themselves and by extension so to do the adherents of the parties. As you noted - just this place - is intolerant of other views and the logical reasoning of this is that; "I am right, your wrong" which can rarely be the case. A cooperative environment must be fostered from our elected officials.

I agree that neither party gets a pass, and don’t think people in general are giving them a pass.  They see a posture of refusal to cooperate more from one than the other.  That doesn’t mean that both do not. 

As a candidate, I don’t see what Romney has always been as a bad choice.  Unfortunately, one that has to cater to the extremists now shows he would have to bow to that same extremism if elected, and THAT disallows cooperation in Congress. 

The “I am right, and you are wrong” is only part of it.  The second part is the conscious willingness to set out to anger the opposition regardless of right or wrong.  The setting up of a separatist ideal.  “We are the one’s with the money, we have the educated ones…” or conversely “All of you are stupid, all of you are uneducated, all of you are socialist, none of you can comprehend reality…” the list goes on and on.  It divides, and the intent is to divide.

[ducksoup]

Today's Rasmussen Poll:

Obama 48%    Romney 46%     3% Other   3% undecided



Interesting.

September 30, 2012, 10:34 am

Sept. 29: As Iowa Goes, So Go Romney’s Chances?
 
By NATE SILVER


Saturday, not Sunday, is the news media’s traditional day of rest — and so it is the slowest day of the week for polling.

But the national tracking polls were published on Saturday, and continued to show President Obama in a fairly strong position. He held at a six-point lead in the Gallup national tracking poll, although his approval rating dipped. He also maintained a rough seven-point advantage in the RAND Corporation’s online tracking poll. Mr. Obama also pulled ahead to take a two-point lead in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, which had differed from other polling firms by previously showing a tie. (Another national tracking poll, from Ipsos, is not regularly published on the weekends.)


We’re getting to the point in the campaign where a day on which the polls are in line with expectations is a winning one for Mr. Obama, since Mr. Romney trails in the race and now has just five full weeks to make the deficit up. Mr. Obama’s forecast rose slightly, to an 83.8 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, from 82.7 percent on Friday.

The Des Moines Register also published its highly regarded Iowa Poll on Saturday, which showed Mr. Obama with a four-point lead, 49 to 45. This result is quite consistent with other polls of Iowa published since the conventions, which also have shown Mr. Obama ahead by four points on average.

The only prior Des Moines Register poll this year, which was conducted in February, showed Mitt Romney up by two points instead. So this represents a favorable trend for Mr. Obama.

On the other hand, the same polling firm, Selzer & Co., conducted a national poll for Bloomberg recently, which gave Mr. Obama a six-point advantage. So they have Mr. Obama polling slightly worse in Iowa than he is nationally.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast concurs: we have Mr. Obama projected to win Iowa by 3.6 percentage points on Nov. 6, smaller than his 4.1-point advantage in the national race.

These are marginal differences, obviously, but they matter some in terms of the electoral math since any hope that Mr. Romney has of winning the Electoral College without Ohio probably requires him to win Iowa. In the simulations that we ran on Saturday, Mr. Romney won the election only 2 percent of the time that he lost Iowa.

This isn’t a good poll for Mr. Romney, but it does suggest that Iowa hasn’t gotten out of hand, and that it could trend back toward him if the national race does.

Iowa ranks seventh on our list of tipping-point states, but it packs a lot of bang for the buck because its television markets are fairly small and cheap to advertise in. We estimate that a dollar spent there will do twice as much to sway the Electoral College outcome as one spent in Florida.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sept-29-as-iowa-goes-so-go-romneys-chances/

[MM1]

  Relax!

[Baggins]

Wow.  You are jaded.

30% of income donated, and now you are picking apart what it went to.

I gave money to heritage too.  Does that mean I am trying to run for office, or that I am supporting a Conservative group? (yes, it does mean you're supporting a conservative group...Are you that dumb not to recognize the irony of your own words?)

Is it just possible....  he MIGHT be conservative?

You guys make me laugh.  Obama and Biden don't donate squat and you love them.  Romney donates 30% and you call him a "greedy prick."

Your values are SKEWED.  It only counts if you give TAX PAYERS dollars?

Jaded?  Maybe, but it comes from digging deep in the workings of a man with little consideration of the working class...So now, all of a sudden he's the man of the people when before he shipped off jobs overseas, bought and sold companies for the sole purpose of closing them down because it's just more cost effective and he could gain a profit while the workers are forced to rely on programs he now calls a tax burden...I call that out for the BULLSH*T it is!

I don't think he's a greedy prick because of the donations, you're twisting my point, he's a man of well means and wants more and more...As if money is going to BUY him happiness...He wants to cut taxes for the most wealthy, himself included...Oh and to repeat myself, his donations to the conservative right are nothing but self promoting.

No, you gave to those same institutions because you're as skewed and biased as almost anyone when it comes to politics, you're backing your side, when you could have donated that money to more worthy and humanitarian causes.

Excuse me, but when have I ever said I "love" Obama...?  Just to set the record straight, I'm not voting for the man!

Excuse me again, but isn't that a function of government to spend tax payer dollars...?  I want them to be spent on the right things though, not special interests and wars to fatten our oil consumption...The problem is that they are not being spent wisely enough or within the countries means of stability...That being the fault of BOTH sides!  I've said exactly that before many times, but you're obviously not interested in taking in what others think and say because it doesn't support your view, you've got those ear plugs and blinders on tight!   I hate making things personal, but there comes a time when you have to fight fire with fire...Don't make your issue of this about me.  I pointed out "facts" of his donations because some were touting them as a righteous endeavor, but in honesty, it was for personal gain...But again, you would have gotten that if you took the time to consider the words before attacking me for exposing the selfishness and personal ambitions of the man.

The vast majority of Mitt Romney's charitable donations in the past two years have gone to the Mormon Church.   The Mormon Church is a major contributor to his Super PAC and also supports things like the anti gay marriage movement.   80% of that generousness of 30% of his income went to the church!

[lilly]

Nationwide Polls mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the election.

The fact is, a person could win only 24% of the popular vote and still be elected president. While highly unlikely, it is possible, and there have in fact been times when a President has been elected by the electoral college and lost the popular vote.

The only accurate means of seeing who is currently ahead in the polls, is to do a state by state poll and add up the number of electoral college votes in each state.

Here's the latest data.




http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

[sammy]

Apparently, some polls is more equal than others!

[T-M-T]

Today's Rasmussen Poll:

Obama 48%    Romney 46%     3% Other   3% undecided



Interesting.

Ask President Gore how meaningful those percentages are.

Final results of 2000 Presidential Election:

Al Gore:  48.4%
George W. Bush:  47.9%

This year's election will be decided in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  Romney is behind and fading fast in all three.