• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney, liar.

JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm still skeptical. This is the Boston Globe indirectly quoting an Obama campaign spokesperson. Why would an Obama campaign spokesperson be a good source for this information?

I'm not claiming it's false, just reserving judgement until I hear it from a source that I would expect to know (such as McCain or a McCain campaign spokesperson).

[ETA: And it sounds like there was a typo in the lead in sentence to that bit. Shouldn't it have said "The volume of tax returns requested by the Obama campaign is not unusually large"? Then the 23 years of returns McCain allegedly got would stand in contrast.]
Click to expand...


Well, here's the full statement from the Obama campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...lams-romney-black-box-wants-years-119769.html

Mitt Romney has asked Americans to elect him President based on his experience as a corporate buyout specialist. Each week, new questions are raised about whether he took unusual steps to avoid paying his fair share in taxes. Today’s report suggests that Governor Romney is exploiting a loophole in order to shield his assets and investments from public review.
Mitt Romney has put his personal financial assets in a black box and hid the key, attempting to play by a different set of rules than any candidate in recent history. In fact, Mitt Romney’s own father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president. President Bush released his tax returns dating back to 1991. And President Obama released his returns dating back to 2000 when he ran for president.
Governor Romney provided 23 years worth of tax returns to the McCain campaign so they could determine if he would make a suitable Vice President. He must meet that same standard now so that the American people may judge whether he would be a suitable President, and whether there are any conflicts of interest that could cloud his judgment.
​
Click to expand...
If this weren't true, wouldn't Romney be quick to refute it and embarrass Obama? I keep looking and not even the rightwing blogs have said anything to refute it. I know that isn't proof positive, but I think it's pretty strong evidence.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I guess it means that $100K is purely symbolic for someone as wealthy as Romney!
Click to expand...

Exactly.

What's a hundred grand to a company like Bain and someone like Mitt Romney? Not even worth any effort!

As I said, I'm perfectly happy to not work for Bain for a $100K.

Anecdote: My folks/family all got into a tizzie when they learned that the newly hired president of the state university got a salary of $400K AND a free house to live in! I said, um, how much should the CEO of a company with a $5 billion budget and 10 000 employees make? BTW, at least a couple of employees are making ca. 10 times as much as she does (although they aren't getting free housing). I wonder what they will think about Romney getting $100K for doing nothing?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Me too. The more I read, the more I think they got this one wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know that their conclusion is wrong. It may very well be correct.

I think their objectivity on this one might be compromised. Not in the sense that they are being left biased or right biased, but rather that they don't appear to be truly reassessing their judgement based on new evidence. If they had gone through the new documents and said something to the effect of "Well, this contains the same information that was provided in this previous document", I would have felt a little more assured.

They appear to be blowing this off as a nuisance and a personal attack on their integrity, when I don't think either is the case.
 
pgwenthold said:
Exactly.

What's a hundred grand to a company like Bain and someone like Mitt Romney? Not even worth any effort!

As I said, I'm perfectly happy to not work for Bain for a $100K.

Anecdote: My folks/family all got into a tizzie when they learned that the newly hired president of the state university got a salary of $400K AND a free house to live in! I said, um, how much should the CEO of a company with a $5 billion budget and 10 000 employees make? BTW, at least a couple of employees are making ca. 10 times as much as she does (although they aren't getting free housing). I wonder what they will think about Romney getting $100K for doing nothing?
Click to expand...


Romney could eschew common toilet paper; he and his family could wipe their asses with $100 bills for the rest of their lives and never worry about having to resort to what the rest of us use. The guy is so in touch with the common man.

Americans cannot decide what we want in a President, we're fickle as hell. We want a guy who we can drink beer with, then we want a guy who's intellectual, now many of us apparently want an insanely wealthy man for POTUS. Why didn't that work for Perot, I wonder? (crazy ideas probably)
 
RandFan said:
I could see that coming a mile away. If the election is a referendum on the last four years and the last four years are so damnable, then why oh why is Romney still behind in the polls? Perhaps it's a bit more complex than all of that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because Romney's attack ads haven't started running yet in battle ground states, while Obama's have been, plus every comment Obama-etal make is blared by the MSM?

Romney is purported to have lots of available cash; Obama not so much.

The polls late Oct-early Nov are what will count. Today's stuff is crap as we both know.
 
Unabogie said:
Well, here's the full statement from the Obama campaign.
Click to expand...
But again, why would the Obama campaign be a good source for (or even privy to) this information?

If this weren't true, wouldn't Romney be quick to refute it and embarrass Obama? I keep looking and not even the rightwing blogs have said anything to refute it.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that reasoning at all. Does that mean we should consider any allegation to be true until it's been refuted?
 
LaBolt: We're 'absolutely' after Romney's tax returns

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...olutely-after-romneys-tax-returns-128857.html

<SNIP>

"Mitt Romney is the most secretive candidate we've seen since Richard Nixon. Mitt Romney provided John McCain 23 years worth of returns when he was being vetted for vice president but he's only shared with the American people one year worth of returns," LaBolt said, saying they "absolutely" were pushing the issue to see the tax returns.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
I don't know that their conclusion is wrong. It may very well be correct.
Click to expand...

The 6 page letter makes a pretty solid case, and I don't accept their "reasoning" that it doesn't.

The one SEC document said in clear terms that he was the CEO and "the" guy in control of the company.

He drew a salary.

The letter cites several credible sources pointing to the fact that he had an active role in the company. (The closest the Annenberg article does to refute them is to say that while Mitt had an active role in investment decisions, he wasn't involved in the day to day operations of the company. But isn't the issue over a fairly large investment decision? And didn't his sworn affidavit say he had no active role whatsoever, not only that he wasn't involved in day-to-day operations?)

The article claimed that the SEC documents only alleged that he was the owner, but that's not true. They also name him as CEO, active partner, President, etc.
 
AlBell said:
The polls late Oct-early Nov are what will count. Today's stuff is crap as we both know.
Click to expand...
Yes, today's stuff is crap, just as yesterday's was. And guess who's wearing it. This isn't over yet. Not by a long shot. The way things are progressing, I won't be surprised if Romney ends up being forced to withdraw. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
 
AlBell said:
Perhaps because Romney's attack ads haven't started running yet in battle ground states,
Click to expand...

False. http://www.therolladailynews.com/co...-ad-accusing-Obama-of-dishonesty-poorly-timed

plus every comment Obama-etal make is blared by the MSM?
Click to expand...
Does the MSM not cite comments made by Romney? (There's a thread about Romney's speech to the NAACP and his subsequent comments about the speech. I've seen that all over the MSM.)

Romney is purported to have lots of available cash; Obama not so much.
Click to expand...
Wait a second, conservative were complaining not long ago that Obama will be spending an all time record amount of money on this campaign. (Didn't they claim he was going to spend $1 billion on it?) Last I heard is that while Romney is raising more money right now (like last month or this week), the Obama war chest was still larger than that of Romney. Confounding this, though, is the fact that both sides will get the benefit of huge amounts of money spent by outside groups.

Anyway, you seem to have ALL of your facts wrong.

Care to try again? Why is Romney trailing in the polls?
 
BenBurch said:
I have a bit of rank speculation. Somebody in the McCain camp has tipped off Obama on Romney.
Click to expand...

What good is rank speculation on a skeptics' forum? I'd still like to see evidence for this before I'm willing to accept it. It really sounds fake to me.
 
The Ronulans have to be loving this. If Romney is forced to withdraw, then mayyyyybe St. Ron still has a chance of getting the nomination!

(After, of course, everyone else has been considered. Including the janitor who may or may not be an illegal immigrant.)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
What good is rank speculation on a skeptics' forum? I'd still like to see evidence for this before I'm willing to accept it. It really sounds fake to me.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope the Obama campaign keeps saying it then, so Romney is forced to confirm or deny it. I think it's true. VP vetting is usually serious business. That's what made the Palin pick such a disaster for McCain. He panicked and went for a game-changer without doing his due diligence.
 
AlBell said:
The polls late Oct-early Nov are what will count. Today's stuff is crap as we both know.
Click to expand...

From http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/:

Obama is currently favored over Romney 65.6% to 34.4% -- nearly a 2 to 1 advantage.

If you don't know about Nate Silver and his historical accuracy regarding election predictions due to his statistical approach, you've had your head in the sand. Right now, Romney's ship isn't sunk but it's listing to one side very badly and anything else is liable to toast him.

You can call that "crap" all you like, but the facts read: if Romney doesn't manage a miracle it's four more years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom