|
|
On October 28 2012 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 08:39 zeru wrote:On October 28 2012 08:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Laughed at and ridiculed for what? I don't think the rest of the world knows America well enough to have a reasonable idea as to what policies are best. To make it short: The astounding amount of lies, the failure he calls budget plan, his incredible flip flopping skills. Sounds like Obama or a typical European politician. I guess Berlusconi is an honest guy in your book? And that Papandreou did a great job with Greece's budget?
This man you are knocking down, he is made of straw.
Seriously, you can't declare your opponent to be Greece suddenly and fight him, then declare some sort of victory over whatever real topic you left behind.
|
Northern Ireland23765 Posts
On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption.
Depends on your concept of what qualifies as corruption. If you draw the line at actual illegality, then no I don't think Romney can be accused of corruption.
If you regard it as a wider, systemic issue over donor power over both parties, with a healthy sprinkling of corporate cronyism then yes, Romney is corrupt by that interpretation. That said then so is Obama.
|
On October 28 2012 09:07 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:39 zeru wrote:On October 28 2012 08:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Laughed at and ridiculed for what? I don't think the rest of the world knows America well enough to have a reasonable idea as to what policies are best. To make it short: The astounding amount of lies, the failure he calls budget plan, his incredible flip flopping skills. Sounds like Obama or a typical European politician. I guess Berlusconi is an honest guy in your book? And that Papandreou did a great job with Greece's budget? This man you are knocking down, he is made of straw. Seriously, you can't declare your opponent to be Greece suddenly and fight him, then declare some sort of victory over whatever real topic you left behind.
No straw man here. Declaring that an American politician would be laughed out of Europe for lies and what not opens the door for a comparison to European politicians.
|
On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption.
You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.'
Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt?
I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something.
|
On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you.
He responded that he had to be more corrupt than Obama. I think it would be pretty easy to show that Obama is more corrupt then your examples of possible corruption on Romney's part. From the fact that Obama has persecuted more whistle-blowers than every other president combined after running on a platform of protecting whistle-blowing, to the use of drone strikes to execute American citizens without due process.
|
On October 28 2012 09:14 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. He responded that he had to be more corrupt than Obama. I think it would be pretty easy to show that Obama is more corrupt then your examples of possible corruption on Romney's part. From the fact that Obama has persecuted more whistle-blowers than every other president combined after running on a platform of protecting whistle-blowing, to the use of drone strikes to execute American citizens without due process.
So you don't think Romney would do either of those? Really??
I mean he came out in favor of Obama's drone usage...
|
On October 28 2012 09:09 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. Depends on your concept of what qualifies as corruption. If you draw the line at actual illegality, then no I don't think Romney can be accused of corruption. If you regard it as a wider, systemic issue over donor power over both parties, with a healthy sprinkling of corporate cronyism then yes, Romney is corrupt by that interpretation. That said then so is Obama.
If you want to go down that road Romney is looking to close the tax expenditures,discretionary spending and regulations that are the hallmarks of donor privilege and cronyism.
Obama, in contrast, has handed out a wealth of tax expenditures, special government spending programs and regulations - many of which, at least at face value, look an awful lot like quid pro quo deals.
|
Northern Ireland23765 Posts
On October 28 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. Depends on your concept of what qualifies as corruption. If you draw the line at actual illegality, then no I don't think Romney can be accused of corruption. If you regard it as a wider, systemic issue over donor power over both parties, with a healthy sprinkling of corporate cronyism then yes, Romney is corrupt by that interpretation. That said then so is Obama. If you want to go down that road Romney is looking to close the tax expenditures,discretionary spending and regulations that are the hallmarks of donor privilege and cronyism. Obama, in contrast, has handed out a wealth of tax expenditures, special government spending programs and regulations - many of which, at least at face value, look an awful lot like quid pro quo deals.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mitt Romney is looking to change the entire political culture of Washington?
|
On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something.
Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told.
|
On October 28 2012 09:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. Depends on your concept of what qualifies as corruption. If you draw the line at actual illegality, then no I don't think Romney can be accused of corruption. If you regard it as a wider, systemic issue over donor power over both parties, with a healthy sprinkling of corporate cronyism then yes, Romney is corrupt by that interpretation. That said then so is Obama. If you want to go down that road Romney is looking to close the tax expenditures,discretionary spending and regulations that are the hallmarks of donor privilege and cronyism. Obama, in contrast, has handed out a wealth of tax expenditures, special government spending programs and regulations - many of which, at least at face value, look an awful lot like quid pro quo deals. Are you seriously suggesting that Mitt Romney is looking to change the entire political culture of Washington?
Umm, no. Where did I mention Washington's political culture?
|
On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told.
That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is.
Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oil
Edit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html
|
Northern Ireland23765 Posts
On October 28 2012 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 28 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. Depends on your concept of what qualifies as corruption. If you draw the line at actual illegality, then no I don't think Romney can be accused of corruption. If you regard it as a wider, systemic issue over donor power over both parties, with a healthy sprinkling of corporate cronyism then yes, Romney is corrupt by that interpretation. That said then so is Obama. If you want to go down that road Romney is looking to close the tax expenditures,discretionary spending and regulations that are the hallmarks of donor privilege and cronyism. Obama, in contrast, has handed out a wealth of tax expenditures, special government spending programs and regulations - many of which, at least at face value, look an awful lot like quid pro quo deals. Are you seriously suggesting that Mitt Romney is looking to change the entire political culture of Washington? Umm, no. Where did I mention Washington's political culture?
It was somewhat inferred by the claim that he's looking to close things that are the 'hallmarks of donor privilege and cronyism'. I was operating on the assumption that that was how a lot of deals were done in Washington given the influence of lobbyists and the cash in the system. Apologies if that was not what you were referring to.
|
ROMNEY IS COMING TO MY HIGH SCHOOL TOMORROW.
Holy. Shit.
|
On October 28 2012 09:44 Steelavocado wrote:
ROMNEY IS COMING TO MY HIGH SCHOOL TOMORROW.
Holy. Shit.
You know what you must do.
|
On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html
Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy.
|
On October 28 2012 09:49 FecalTank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:44 Steelavocado wrote:
ROMNEY IS COMING TO MY HIGH SCHOOL TOMORROW.
Holy. Shit. You know what you must do.
lol. best post in a while.
|
On October 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy.
You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed.
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf
|
Of course you'll have to find the left sources that make those allegations. I gave it a read. Here's one source from the right analyzing what poverty assistance means today.
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
Spending $60,000 per household in welfare programs, administered by both federal government and states? And these people are said to be in poverty? (Note that it includes state contributions to federal programs, and not every dime is to the poor since some, like pell grants, affect both. Still, it's a starting point for a conversation on spending cuts). I don't know if Romney is a guy I'd trust to fight the fight on this, but his pick of Ryan gives me hope that they'll come in there with serious plans of reform. As stupid as it sounds, cut the middleman and give something like a $50,000+ check from the government to every poor household! Ridiculous.
|
On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm frankly pretty shocked that people still want to vote for Romney. I understand that people don't like Obama. But I'm just not understanding why anyone would vote for someone who is so obviously bought and paid for like Romney is.
Yes, I understand that Obama is too, but jesus he is not at all so brazen about it. I mean Romney basically came back from talking to Oil Companies and said he now has an energy policy. His main economic plan that he's revealed is flat tax cuts which benefit the rich extraordinarily. Romney has come out for Corporate Personhood. At least Obama has the decency to have rhetoric against it. The flip-flopping on all social policies is yet another reason to think that Romney does whatever money tells him. I mean do you honestly think Romney will make responsible policies for banks and wall street?
So Romney-voters, I have to ask: what exactly does a guy have to do to make himself too corrupt to vote for? I really want to know. What would Romney have to do in order to lose your vote? Be more corrupt than Obama. Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something.
No, meeting with people that you will regulate and asking what they think about your plan, never was considered corruption.
You know, corruption is basically impossible to totally root out. Even if you put a policeman to watch over the shoulder of every politican, that just means the bribe size needs to be doubled.
At some point, fighting bribery becomes more liability than bribery itself.
The only really good way to get the corruption rates decrease, is to make goverment less capable of giving handouts and favourable regulations, making goverment more transparent, and making elections way, way cheaper and media exposure affordable, becase quite frankly, if in order to win, you need millions upon millions of dolars in expendits, you need to make those money in your time in the office.
|
Wow, that does look concerning.
I don't know why it singles out food stamps, considering food stamps is probably not what's increasing that value at all. Why doesn't it tell the breakdown of what the $60,000 is? I feel like it's kind of a useless study if I don't have that. Is it Healthcare? Public Housing? What's blowing up the figure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
