Mitt Romney's overseas tour

BenBurch said:
Chamberlain bought BADLY needed time. Almost an entire year.
Have you any concept of how much better prepared the UK was in September 1939 over September 1938?

In early August 1938, the very first Spitfires went to a pair of squadrons, and if I recall they each received one a week.

Do you imagine that the RAF was ready for combat a month later?

And there were less than 100 Hurricanes as well.

Take on the Luftwaffe with the Glouster Gladiator and the Fairey Battle?

:dl:
Click to expand...

That is a very good point. Chamberlain is often badly thought of for "appeasing Hitler", but if you dig a bit deeper you realise that the time he bought us had a huge effect on the outcome of the war. Without this delay to increase armanents and planes, we would probably have been invaded and the world would be a very different place.
 
So apparently, Mitt's press secretary (a man who should know how to deal with the press moreso than anyone else in his entire entourage) utterly lost his cool with the press, who, to be fair, were shouting questions nonstop at Mitt following his visit to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw, Poland.

Here's a transcript of the questions and Gorka's response:

CNN: "Governor Romney are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip?

NYT: "Governor Romney do you have a statement for the Palestinians?

Washington Post: "What about your gaffes?

NYT: "Governor Romney do you feel that your gaffes have overshadowed your foreign trip?"

CNN: "Governor Romney just a few questions sir, you haven't taken but three questions on this trip from the press!

Gorka: "Show some respect"

NYT: "We haven't had another chance to ask a question..."

Gorka: "Kiss my ass. This is a Holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect."

Moments later, Gorka told Jonathan Martin, a reporter for Politico, to "shove it." About a half-hour later, the aide called reporters to apologize.
Click to expand...

Shouting questions at a fairly sacred site or not, doesn't the man realize that, by setting himself up as a Presidential candidate, shouting questions in the hopes of getting SOME sort of an answer at a candidate is pretty much standard procedure? Especially considering that Mitt has answered a grand total of THREE, count 'em, THREE questions from the press during his entire overseas trip? He's Romney's press secretary for Pete's sake; he KNOWS they'll be shouting questions, and it's his responsibility to field reporters in a diplomatic fashion. The gaffes from the Romney crew just keep coming, it seems.
 
Sabrina said:
So apparently, Mitt's press secretary (a man who should know how to deal with the press moreso than anyone else in his entire entourage) utterly lost his cool with the press, who, to be fair, were shouting questions nonstop at Mitt following his visit to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw, Poland.



Shouting questions at a fairly sacred site or not, doesn't the man realize that, by setting himself up as a Presidential candidate, shouting questions in the hopes of getting SOME sort of an answer at a candidate is pretty much standard procedure? Especially considering that Mitt has answered a grand total of THREE, count 'em, THREE questions from the press during his entire overseas trip? He's Romney's press secretary for Pete's sake; he KNOWS they'll be shouting questions, and it's his responsibility to field reporters in a diplomatic fashion. The gaffes from the Romney crew just keep coming, it seems.
Click to expand...

Because nothing shows respect for a holy site like yelling "kiss my ass!"

:D
 
IchabodPlain said:
:dl:

Your partisanship really knows no bounds. Entertaining, though.
Click to expand...

The point I have been making for weeks now is that until he gives us transparency I have given myself license to imagine the worst POSSIBLE interpretation of events, and tell the world what that interpretation is.

Not that I believe that is what is happening, but Willard Mitt Romney; Mystery Man leaves me with no information to develop confidence that his actions are innocent.
 
BenBurch said:
The point I have been making for weeks now is that until he gives us transparency I have given myself license to imagine the worst POSSIBLE interpretation of events, and tell the world what that interpretation is.

Not that I believe that is what is happening, but Willard Mitt Romney; Mystery Man leaves me with no information to develop confidence that his actions are innocent.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no need to do that, because those are birther tactics.

What might be legitimately questioned is this: If, as it seems to be implied, direct funding from foreign countries is illegal, then is it illegal for someone else such as Mr. Adelson to collect lots of funds and then pass them on to Romney's SuperPac?
 
BenBurch said:
Not Birtherism because I am not saying I believe it. I am saying his intransigence makes the worst possible interpretation mandatory until he starts being honest.
Click to expand...


"What's the problem? I'm just asking questions, aren't you so-called skeptics supposed to be curious?"

"Who can say he's not (fill in the blank). Prove that he's not."

Seems familiar somehow...
 
mikedenk said:
"What's the problem? I'm just asking questions, aren't you so-called skeptics supposed to be curious?"

"Who can say he's not (fill in the blank). Prove that he's not."

Seems familiar somehow...
Click to expand...

Except we have specific documents NOT provided. We are not arguing over which form his taxes are printed on, we have no copies whatsoever of his taxes from 2002-2009, and a incomplete copy of his 2010 taxes. And he has an extension to file on his 2011, too.

When it gets down to asking if the copies provided were photoshopped to remove where he signed the forms "Romney, Prince of Insufficient Light" then we can start talking Birtherism.

Until then, it is slander upon my person and I deserve an apology.
 
angrysoba said:
Well, there's no need to do that, because those are birther tactics.

What might be legitimately questioned is this: If, as it seems to be implied, direct funding from foreign countries is illegal, then is it illegal for someone else such as Mr. Adelson to collect lots of funds and then pass them on to Romney's SuperPac?
Click to expand...

How is it a birther tactic to comment on the lack of forms that actually should be provided, when birthers were demanding a form that should never have been demanded or provided (they had no right to it) and refused to accept it when it was provided?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Correct. But he could mention some of the super Pacs that he's not working with that support him.
Click to expand...

I think steering donors to super PACS would be collusion and also illegal. Besides, I don't think he has to. I'm sure foreign supporters know exactly who those entities are.
 
angrysoba said:
What might be legitimately questioned is this: If, as it seems to be implied, direct funding from foreign countries is illegal, then is it illegal for someone else such as Mr. Adelson to collect lots of funds and then pass them on to Romney's SuperPac?
Click to expand...

I think that question would depend on whether or not Adelson is acting only as an agent of the super PAC or is also connected with and coordinating with the Romney campaign in any way.
 
BenBurch said:
Except we have specific documents NOT provided. We are not arguing over which form his taxes are printed on, we have no copies whatsoever of his taxes from 2002-2009, and a incomplete copy of his 2010 taxes. And he has an extension to file on his 2011, too.

When it gets down to asking if the copies provided were photoshopped to remove where he signed the forms "Romney, Prince of Insufficient Light" then we can start talking Birtherism.

Until then, it is slander upon my person and I deserve an apology.
Click to expand...

First, I thought the "prove that he's not" question wasn't about Romney's tax return but about the possibility that he is receiving foreign campaign donations. As has been pointed out, that would violate federal election laws. If you're alleging that he's done so, they're right, Ben, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that he is, not them to prove he is not.
 
BenBurch said:
Without donation disclosure, how can we know? How do we know he isn't taking money from foreign enemies of the United States?
Click to expand...

How do we know Obama isn't? They both have to abide by the same campaign regulations. Both are assumed innocent of a crime unless or until proven guilty.

Under current law, candidates must disclose the names, occupations, employers and addresses of all individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. So I assume the Romney campaign is doing so wrt any overseas fundraisers. If he doesn't, he will be in huge trouble. The campaign has to account for the money in and the money out. And these fundraisers aren't secret affairs.

I think your JAQing about Romney taking foreign campaign contributions is baseless and unreasonable.

ETA: Why do you think there is no disclosure? Are you maybe confusing the barrier of anonymity that superPacs and other organizations can provide with the actual candidate's campaign? The McCain-Feingold rules that apply to the candidates themselves were unchanged by Citizens United. (For that matter, the disclosure laws affecting third party campaigns were also upheld in the Citizens United decision.)
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
First, I thought the "prove that he's not" question wasn't about Romney's tax return but about the possibility that he is receiving foreign campaign donations. As has been pointed out, that would violate federal election laws. If you're alleging that he's done so, they're right, Ben, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that he is, not them to prove he is not.
Click to expand...

Since there are no longer any disclosures on who donates, the point there was, How do we know? I am pointing out a defect in our system there, not a defect on Romney. Clearly it could be worked by both sides.
 
Romney stumbles on world stage but will it hit him at home?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...US+/+Top+News)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

(Reuters) - Mitt Romney upset Londoners, Palestinians and U.S. journalists on his ill-fated tour abroad, but with voters focused on the economy at home it is unclear whether the Republican presidential challenger's fumbles will have a lasting effect on the November 6 election.

Romney is facing doubts about whether he can handle himself on the world stage as he tries to replace President Barack Obama.

His blunt comments on the London Olympics, Israel's culture and the status of Jerusalem showed an awkward tone and an inability to control his own message, a problem that could be magnified in the heat of the campaign's next 100 days.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
I would add, however, that it's a political blunder for the Romney campaign to conduct fundraisers overseas when he has been criticizing Obama for being too "foreign".
 
BenBurch said:
Since there are no longer any disclosures on who donates,
Click to expand...
That's not true.

Why do you think it is? Are you confused about what the Citizen United decision was about? It said nothing about the rules pertaining to candidates. No candidate campaign was even a party to the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom