# Romney deliberately lost election



## dcraelin (Sep 22, 2013)

Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care

the 2-party system is a fraud


----------



## Rockland (Sep 22, 2013)

Nope.  Hard as it may be to believe, he really _was_ that incompetent.


----------



## longknife (Sep 22, 2013)

For the intellectual content of your post ---


----------



## Wolfstrike (Sep 23, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud






yep.
I realized that "the first black president" wasn't going to be a one term president, and I started betting money that Obama would win.(and I collected)

the media reported that there was record republican turn-out in the swing states(they're telling you the election was a fraud), but somehow, Obama won anyways.

Romney passed the state prototype of Obamacare in his state.
the republican party selected Romney for that reason, to make sure that no matter what happens, the bill will become law.

the election was as fake as Bush vs. Kerry.
Romney's son saying he wanted to punch Obama, ...all showmanship

Gingrich took money to run in the south to get rid of Santorum


----------



## Politico (Sep 23, 2013)

He lost get over it. And get some treatment.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 23, 2013)

I think the theory makes a lot of sense, you'll notice critics don't have substantive criticism, just empty insults.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 23, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> I think the theory makes a lot of sense, you'll notice critics don't have substantive criticism, just empty insults.



That says a lot about you - and none of it good.


----------



## Freemason9 (Sep 23, 2013)

It might be true. Obamacare is a far cry from national healthcare, and I don't see much difference between Obama's policies and those of Bush. Both parties exist to maintain corporate capitalism and to suppress worker wages.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 23, 2013)

Freemason9 said:


> It might be true. Obamacare is a far cry from national healthcare, and I don't see much difference between Obama's policies and those of Bush. Both parties exist to maintain corporate capitalism and to suppress worker wages.




you are exactly right 

further, in an atmosphere like that of the post financial collapse, Romney was a great target for those who wanted to vote against an elitist while diverting attention from just what a patsy Obama was and is.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 24, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



Why not?  What did he have to lose?  He sure had a lot to gain, eh?

*Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)
*
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bain-capital-owns-clear-channel-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-glenn-beck-michael-savage-etc/


> Clear Channel owns more radio stations (850) than anyone else in the United States. They also own Premiere Radio Networks, the company that syndicates the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, among others. Needless to say, Clear Channel basically owns conservative talk radio in the United States. So who owns Clear Channel? Well, it turns out that Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel. Yes, you read that correctly. The company that Mitt Romney ran for so long is one of the &#8220;big bosses&#8221; over virtually all conservative talk radio in America. Of course Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore. He is a &#8220;retired partner&#8221;, but he still has a huge financial stake in Bain Capital. We&#8217;re talking about millions upon millions of dollars. If you doubt this, just check out page 34 of this public financial disclosure report.



So let's put on our big boy thinking caps and follow the money shall we?  Do these conservative talk radio stations have more listeners, and hence more ad revenue with a progressive president, or a "conservative" president?  Would this investment have made him more money if he had won or lost?  

Right, that doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.  

Another thing to point out is both Romney's "religion", and the POTUS's "religion."  (As if either gives a shit about their soul or eternity or any that crap.)  OF course they are both radically different, however, one has been known, because of it's regimented organization, to have been infiltrated by the Jesuits.  And well, Liberation Theology may not have been founded Jesuits, but rather by a Dominican? Franciscan? Benedictine? that was traveling with Christopher Columbus when he "discovered" the new world.    However, that is just it's ancient roots.  More commonly, it is known as for it's Jesuit origins, for they are the ones that took up the mantle as a useful tool for societal engineering and control. 

*What Do Bill de Blasio and Pope Francis Have in Common?*
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114817/what-do-bill-de-blasio-and-pope-francis-have-common


> Liberation theology, a movement that began in Latin America in the 1950s and '60s in reaction to extreme inequality there, happened to be in the news already, thanks to Pope Francis, who recently met with one of the movement's leaders at the Vatican &#8212; something his predecessor would not have done. Pope Francis has made waves for his recent remarks urging the church to back off an obsessive focus on homosexuality, abortion, and birth control, and to instead focus on serving the poor. It's a focus that the South American Catholic Church, out of which Francis comes, has had for years, thanks to the massive influence of liberation theology. Pope Francis has been extremely careful to make it clear that he doesn't ascribe to the more hardline, Marxist version of liberation theology, that of Father Gustavo Gutierrez. He is merely sympathetic to the viewpoint &#8212; which means a lot, clearly, in real practical terms about how he organizes the priorities of the Church.



Funny how the last Pope stepped down right after the "Anointed One" got elected to his next term in office.  Mind you, THE FIRST JESUIT POPE IN HISTORY!  Will there be a financial crises of unrivaled proportions necessitating that the POTUS use his emergency powers and cancel the next Presidential election?    My god man, can you imagine how much $$$ Romney's stations would make then !!!! 






It is still the influences and contacts with people that were and are oppressed that led and still lead the Jesuits to the belief by Rome that it was and is their duty to control and rule the world.  This whether people want their minds, souls and freedom taken from them or not.  This belief is echoed in the poor and middle class neighborhoods throughout the world.  It matters not who they use to accomplish their goals.  Mormons?  Fine.  Masons?  Just as good.  Zionists?  They'll fit the bill nicely.  Commie's in China wiping out the so called corporatists in America by dumping Treasuries?  That works.  Lately the atheists have been a fine and handy tool, as well as those pesky "Terrorists" created by D.C.'s own self-proclaimed Lusifarians who think they have only as much control as the leash they are allowed to hang themselves by.

Oh, and let's not forget one last group.  The last group is the bulk of America.  The ones who drink entirely too much fluoridated water and have their critical thinking skills compromised.  The ones who believe there is a dimes worth of difference between the choices in political candidates we are given and that the choice in policy that the controlled media give us are what is all we have to choose from.

Yeah, how's that for a conspiracy theory?  



_ "It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."_

*~Marquis de LaFayette* (1757-1834; French statesman and general who served in under the command of GeneralGeorge Washington during the American Revolutionary War) 



 President Lincoln told Catholic priest, Charles Chiniquy  (whom as a lawyer, Lincoln had defended against the Catholic Church; defeated them, revealed great scandal in the Chicago diocese, which led the Vatican and its military intelligence/assassins [the Jesuits] to become Lincoln's mortal enemy!) *Abraham Lincoln's views on the Jesuits*:

_ "So many plots have already been made against my life, that it is a real miracle that they have all failed ... But can we expect that God will make a perpetual miracle to save my life? I believe not. The Jesuits are so expert in those deeds of blood that Henry IV (king of France who was assassinated by the Jesuit Revaillac for giving liberty to his people,) said that it was impossible to escape them, and he became their victim, though he did all he could to protect himself.  My escape from their hands, since the letter of the Pope to Jeff Davis has sharpened a million of daggers to pierce my breast, would be more that a miracle.  I know that Jesuits never forget nor forsake (never give up).  Man must not care how and where he dies, provided he dies at the post of honor and duty."_


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2013)

longknife said:


> For the intellectual content of your post ---



actually the last part of his section is dead on about the two party system being a fraud.there is no difference between the two parties,they are both corrupt.Its actually a one party system designed to look like two parties so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.fools around here dont get it that romeny is no different than Obama or Obama is any different than Bush.Obama has contiuned all of Bushs policys and Romney was one of the first people to sign Obamacare,yep lots of differences there according to some sheople here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



for two people who allegedly have different views,funny they are hanging out and joking with the same people isnt it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2013)

Wolfstrike said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



I knew beyond a doubt he was going to get reelected.we dont put telect these people and put them in office,they are selected by the establishment.They were very pleased with Obamas atrocities he committed against the american people so he was rewarded a second term for it just like Bush and Clinton were. 

The corrupt always get reelected,its the good ones that never get reelected.Bush sr is the only corrupt president in recent years who did not get reelected.He didnt care,he was actually running the country under Reagan.

He was just OFFICIALLY the president from 88 to 92 so he was ready to let some new puppet take over after being in office for just one term.He didnt care.He knew the establishment was going to make his son the next president in the future after Clinton got out.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 25, 2013)

I think Bush Srs tax increases actually helped Clinton briefly balance budget, and helped lead to his re-election.


----------



## Godboy (Sep 26, 2013)

How would Romney be able to control how people voted?


----------



## SteadyMercury (Sep 26, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> I think the theory makes a lot of sense, you'll notice critics don't have substantive criticism, just empty insults.


Hah hah! You are really leaning on people for not providing anything substantive, when your initial post consisted of this:



dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



That is some funny shit.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 26, 2013)

Godboy said:


> How would Romney be able to control how people voted?





SteadyMercury said:


> That is some funny shit.



yeah _chuckle chuckle_ it is kind-of funny 

how? Well, just as in a genuine campaign, he does some polling, then blows the money where he doesnt need to,on states where hes already ahead, perhaps on overpriced contractors/consultants that kick back a bit. Maybe even hes clued in on an upset videographer and makes an insane 47% comment...for the record.

the Candidate doesnt even have to be in on it. McCain had two admitted "uncomfortable"campaign helpers now working for MSNBC Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace. I can easily see them selling out to banksters who were also uncomfortable with McCain's lackluster approach to TARP.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 26, 2013)

Hospitals losing money on welfare cases was the main reason for the ACA.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 26, 2013)

Romney was a loser when he was running for office twice.


----------



## Rockland (Sep 26, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> I think the theory makes a lot of sense, you'll notice critics don't have substantive criticism, just empty insults.



The burden of proof is on you, the OP.   "Theory" does not equal "Fact".


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 28, 2013)

I posted it in theory for a reason. I certainly don't have the access, wherewithal to prove it. But others can add more evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

Why would Romney who proved so dismal the first time around try to run again, especially when his own son said something along the lines that 'he wasn't into it'?  Romney is known from BaineCapital to be a wheeling-dealing schemer.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 30, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> Romney was a loser when he was running for office twice.



Yet without Candy Crowley acting on behalf of Team Obama, Romney would probably have won the election.

The power of a corrupt and bought press is amazing.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 2, 2013)

I dont think that the Crowley episode made all that much difference, remember Obama had a terrible first debate,  

but  the media in general is heavily funded by; 1)medical industries and 2)insurance companies so I do agree we have a corrupt and bought press.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 7, 2013)

Perhaps Romney was up to the same thing in 2008. All the other rep candidates thought he was playing a destructive role. And health-care was a part of that overall campaign.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> I think the theory makes a lot of sense, you'll notice critics don't have substantive criticism, just empty insults.



Then I think you are deluded.  

Romney wanted nothing more than to be president.  It was his lifelong dream, his 30 year plan.  

The reason why he lost is he was a big phony.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 8, 2013)

Ive never heard it was his lifelong dream. That wasnt even said in the sappy bios the campaigns typically put out.  I can believe tho that he wanted to avenge his fathers loss by screwing over the Republican party that screwed over his father. 

And I am agreeing with u that he was a big phony, even to the point of his run for president.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Ive never heard it was his lifelong dream. That wasnt even said in the sappy bios the campaigns typically put out.  I can believe tho that he wanted to avenge his fathers loss by screwing over the Republican party that screwed over his father.
> 
> And I am agreeing with u that he was a big phony, even to the point of his run for president.



Oh, I hate Mitt Romney with a passion.  

I just think the guy really, really wanted to be President and was just arrogant enough to think he could pull it off.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 9, 2013)

well, another piece of circumstantial evidence just came to mind this morning.    The inane choice of Paul Ryan for vice-presidential nominee.  Could a worse choice have been made??????


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I hate Mitt Romney with a passion.



You hate anyone to the right of Pol Pot with a passion.



> I just think the guy really, really wanted to be President and was just arrogant enough to think he could pull it off.



He didn't grasp the power of a completely corrupt press. 

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times - all part of TEAM OBAMA.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> well, another piece of circumstantial evidence just came to mind this morning.    The inane choice of Paul Ryan for vice-presidential nominee.  Could a worse choice have been made??????



As much as I HATE sticking up for Romney, Ryan did exactly what he was supposed to do as a veep- give a faction of the party that otherwise felt neglected something to cheer for.  

Compared to truly awful runningmates-  Eagleton, Ferraro, Quayle, Palin - Ryan was just fine.  He held his own in a debate with Biden and gave the base something to be enthusiastic over.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I hate Mitt Romney with a passion.
> ...



No, most of Romney's wounds were self-inflicted, dumbass.  

Frankly, I thought the media went easy on him.  They didn't point out just how batshit crazy Mormons are, and they didn't point out all the lives this douchebag ruined making himself richer.  

Instead, they just let Romney be Romney.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 10, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> well, another piece of circumstantial evidence just came to mind this morning.    The inane choice of Paul Ryan for vice-presidential nominee.  Could a worse choice have been made??????



Actually, funny thing about that.

This is something I came across the Friday before it was announced, so I can't prove it now, but it is interesting.

Mitt Romney announced Ryan would be his running mate on a Monday.  On the Friday before his announcement, I KNEW who he was going to announce.  How?  The White house.gov web site TOLD us who he was going to announce!!    (Though, to be fair, by Saturday afternoon, they took it back down again.  It was a bit premature.)

Basically, what it was, was an attack on Paul Ryan's economic plan!  Why would they outline an attack on his economic philosophy and his jobs plan, when he hadn't even been announced the running mate of Romney yet?  I was stunned.  

I was like, what, is the White house suggesting, in a round about way who they fear the most Romney might pick?  Or are they running the Republican campaign?  But then, that's just crazy talk.  lol

You never know though.  We do know these two parties get together and slice up power sharing at the CFR.  So. . .  I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next four years, we MUST get a Republican president, it is part of the compromise.  WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOAk-7F1EVU]Cheney on CFR, Council on Foreign Relations - YouTube[/ame]​
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba9wxl1Dmas]Hillary Clinton admits the CFR gives the Orders - YouTube[/ame]

_"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."_
~Joseph Stalin


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 14, 2013)

there almost seemed like coordination at one point also between Romney and Obama on approach to gay marriage. It seemed at one point that Obama made and announcement on gay marriage and Romney made a statement that almost supported him in a way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> there almost seemed like coordination at one point also between Romney and Obama on approach to gay marriage. It seemed at one point that Obama made and announcement on gay marriage and Romney made a statement that almost supported him in a way.



Actually, it was kind of hard for Romney to really attack Obama on gay marriage, given the first state to legalize it was on his watch as Governor.

But the real problem was, that wasn't a hill Romney wanted to fight on.  

The kind of people who were against gay marriage were the kind of people who were never going to vote for Obama to start with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2013)

Dammit, stop making me defend Romney!!!!


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > there almost seemed like coordination at one point also between Romney and Obama on approach to gay marriage. It seemed at one point that Obama made and announcement on gay marriage and Romney made a statement that almost supported him in a way.
> ...



those "kind of people" could just have stayed home...and appears they may have
Romney supposedly made other attempts to gain their support...why would he go out of his way to snub them on this??? He could have just made no comment


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



No, they really didn't.  

Romney did not lose because Conservatives stayed home. 

Romney lost because moderates didn't vote for him.  Just like they didn't vote for McCain.  

Here's the thing.  Romney got slightly more votes- 60 million-  than McCain did with 59 million, and only slightly less than the 62 million Bush-43 got in 2004.  In short, the swing for the GOP base as only about 3 million either way. 

And it's a lot easier to believe that Bush's 2 million margin were moderates who simply were not going to vote out an incumbant president in the middle of a war who weren't too keen on voting for more war 4 or 8 years later when everyone was sick of the whole thing.  

Seems to make sense.  

Or to look at it another way... let's look at race. 

Bush got 58% of the White vote, McCain got 55%, Romney actually IMPROVED on both of them and got 59%.  In short, if your profile of the "missing" voter is a white guy of conservative leanings, Romney was all over that shit.  

But where he lost ground is with blacks-  11% for Bush compared to 6% for Romney, (McCain got 4%)  With Asians, Bush got 44%, McCain dropped to 35% and Romney got 26%

And more importantly, with hispanics.  

Bush got a repectable 44% of the Hispanic vote, something I give him credit for working VERY HARD to build bridges.  McCain dropped that down to 31%.  Probably because after being a reasonable guy on immigration, he went ahead and embraced the Tancrazies.  Romny got all of 27% of the Hispanic vote.  

Sorry, Romney did not lose because he was failing to suck up to the white religious crazies... 

It was everyone else he managed to drive off in the process.


----------



## Toro (Oct 15, 2013)

lol

hilarious thread


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



You are certainly a hoot.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 16, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> In short, if your profile of the "missing" voter is a white guy of conservative leanings, Romney was all over that shit.


what percentage of the gay  vote did Romney get?

again I say 
Romney supposedly made other attempts to gain their support...why would he go out of his way to snub them on this??? He could have just made no comment

I dont trust your numbers anyway, there was much less exit polling done last time around than in years before as I understand it. The better to cloud the race with made-up numbers.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 16, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



This is pretty convoluted stuff even for a conspiracy theory. Let me get this straight, the allegations are that Romney could not protect "Romney-care" (Obama care) if he was elected?


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 16, 2013)

whitehall said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



Well, he could have,everyone thought he was lying on the subject anyway, but it would've been tougher.

But the real benefit of electing a rock-star cult-of-personality type like Obama is that you can get the dumb young saps that supported him to believe it is in their interests to sign up for Romneycare. The plan is heavily funded on the backs of these star struck fools.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 16, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You're absolutely correct Joe.  But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.  

You just aren't aware of how the power brokers in the elite circles operate.  If they wanted to divide the parties and split the nation, if they wanted to make sure Obama stayed in office, who better to give their nod to helm the Republican nomination?  

None of what you have written, at all, discredits in anyway dcraelin's theory.  All it does, is perhaps give us a window into what and how the political elites were thinking when they were considering who they should chose to make sure they could ensure a sitting POTUS,  with such dismal performance polls, could possibly be re-elected.  

Thanks for such a insightful and incisive commentary.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 16, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > In short, if your profile of the "missing" voter is a white guy of conservative leanings, Romney was all over that shit.
> ...



Now you are getting to the essential problem of Romney.  

No, not that he belonged to an inbred cult of evil idiots, which is why I didn't vote for him. 

The problem with Romney is that he HAD no core convictions.  He was a moderate to liberal in MA because that was the of politician he had to be to get elected.  

He was a right wing asshole who embraced homophobia in the GOP primaries because that's what you had to be to win that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 16, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> [
> 
> You're absolutely correct Joe.  But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.
> 
> ...



Here's the problem with your whole theory.  

It would assume that there was a "Real Conservative" ready to take up the mantle.  

Who was that, exactly?


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 17, 2013)

also on those numbers, u assume it is white conservatives who may have been turned off. I remember after prop 8 it was said that a higher turnout of blacks was why Prop 8 became law. Blacks were on average more socially conservative. So the people Romney may have turned off were socially conservative blacks in swing states. They may have seen Romneys statement and determined there was really no difference between the two on that issue,..so it may have freed them up to vote for Obama or perhaps they.....and also conservative Hispanics....stayed home.

And I do remember seeing that Obama got some 5 million fewer votes his second time around.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 17, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> also on those numbers, u assume it is white conservatives who may have been turned off. I remember after prop 8 it was said that a higher turnout of blacks was why Prop 8 became law. Blacks were on average more socially conservative. So the people Romney may have turned off were socially conservative blacks in swing states. They may have seen Romneys statement and determined there was really no difference between the two on that issue,..so it may have freed them up to vote for Obama or perhaps they.....and also conservative Hispanics....stayed home.
> 
> And I do remember seeing that Obama got some 5 million fewer votes his second time around.



Yes, he got less votes, although it was closer to 3 million less than 5 million.  

But when you look at the state by state number, turnout was UP in the 10 swing states while it was DOWN in the 40 states where there really wasn't a contest.  In short, meh, if you knew california was going to go blue, no point knocking yourself out to get to the polling place. 

Bottom line, Romney's stance on gay marriage isn't what killed him. It was his inability to connect with average folks because he's never had to worry about paying a bill on time.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 17, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



God Damn you can be so coy some times.  

Are you trying to pull teeth, are you obtuse, or are you purposely employing the Socratic method? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruSqkSAdWUw]Rockefeller scared of Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1rLZ3Jo&list=FLqAeF3zEY5mcCaq3ysBo3rw&index=5]Ron Paul talks about the Bilderberg Group - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 17, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Bottom line, Romney's stance on gay marriage isn't what killed him. It was his inability to connect with average folks because he's never had to worry about paying a bill on time.



Yes he was the perfect foil for Obama. 

well it wasnt gay marriage anyway, (his campaign was officially against gay marriage.)  Didnt say it was single thing that killed him, just perhaps another factor, a needless statement on his part. 

Again I say the real benefit of electing a rock-star cult-of-personality type like Obama is that you can get the dumb young saps that supported him to believe it is in their interests to sign up for Romneycare. The plan is heavily funded on the backs of these star struck fools


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line, Romney's stance on gay marriage isn't what killed him. It was his inability to connect with average folks because he's never had to worry about paying a bill on time.
> ...



Actually it was one single thing that killed him. 

The minute he blurted out his "47%" comments, he was done.  He outed himself as a heartless plutocrat.  He was done at that point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Ron Paul is batshit crazy. 

People who support Ron Paul are Batshit crazy.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall. 

After he clobbered Obama in the first debate and witnessed media malpractice by a moderator during the second debate, Romney must have felt that the whole electoral system was already rigged to re-elect that stuttering clusterfuck.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall.
> 
> After he clobbered Obama in the first debate and witnessed media malpractice by a moderator during the second debate, Romney must have felt that the whole electoral system was already rigged to re-elect that stuttering clusterfuck.



Yes, it was media malpractice for Romney to insist that Obama hadn't called Benghazi an act of terrorism when he actually had. 

Guy, has it ever occurred to you that people just voted for Obama because they like him and they didn't like your guys?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall.
> ...



Nope.


Next stupid question.

BTW, Obama didn't call it an act of terrorism. He was speaking generically about all acts of terrorism. It's impossible for any rational person to claim he was calling it terrorism at the same moment he was blaming Benghazi on a video and was the result of protests. I guess we're getting used to the constant parsing of words from the left. It's basically a failure to admit when they were wrong, nothing else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Of course it would never occur to you.  

Here's a clue.  People don't vote AGAINST someone. They vote FOR someone. 

Romney did not give people a good reason to vote FOR him.  

That's why he lost.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You are so wrong. People do vote against someone.

Ask just about any non-black Obama supporter. They can't really say what they like about Obama's policies but they know that Romney is a rich bastard that hates poor folks, homosexuals, and blacks. 

When it comes to black voters they really don't care what Obama stands for. He's black and that's all that matters. Their deep-seated racism overrules their common-sense.


Another factor you didn't consider, many GOP voters were turned off by the negativity of the campaign so they simple didn't show up in great enough numbers to counter the Democrat ballot-box stuffing going on in swing states.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> You are so wrong. People do vote against someone.
> 
> Ask just about any non-black Obama supporter. They can't really say what they like about Obama's policies but they know that Romney is a rich bastard that hates poor folks, homosexuals, and blacks.
> 
> ...



Guy, Black folks have been voting for White People for president ever since they got the vote.  

Fact is, Obama did as well with blacks as Kerry or Gore did.  

I did some very good analysis of GOP voters, but the reality is, the difference between Dubya Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008 (romney came in between them) was all of 2.5 million votes.  the notion that GOP voters stayed home or were turned off or any of the other nonsense you guys spew is just silly.  

McCain and Romney lost because the GOP has not shown itself as capable of governing.  People don't trust it anymore, and for good reason.  

Romney made the decision early on that he was going to just appeal to White People. And to his credit, he got the white vote- 59% of it.  He kissed Donald Trumps ring and did a shout out to the Birfers...  

But Blacks, Hispanic and Asians voted against him overwealmingly and he lost.  

This is the problem the GOP needs to fix.  Well, one of many.  Getting on the right side of working folks and women would probably help, too.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You are so wrong. People do vote against someone.
> ...



Why don't you give me a quote showing that Romney only wanted the support of whites.

And don't bring up the 47% comment because that has nothing to do with race. 

I mean, do you honestly want to claim that the character assassination that was going on, claiming that Romney murdered a steelworker's wife, wasn't simply a tried and tested exercise in demonizing the opponent when you know that your candidate sucks to high Heaven.

Blacks and Hispanics make up a grand total of maybe 20% of the total Democrat base. Fact is Obama had to fudge the numbers to get over the top. He had fewer votes than Gore or Bush yet he still won.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> Why don't you give me a quote showing that Romney only wanted the support of whites.



How about, "No one has ever had to ask Ann and I where we were born!"That's a direct slap in the face of all people of color.  Not to mention embracing Trump and Limbaugh and all the other insane crap they said.  





mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> I mean, do you honestly want to claim that the character assassination that was going on, claiming that Romney murdered a steelworker's wife, wasn't simply a tried and tested exercise in demonizing the opponent when you know that your candidate sucks to high Heaven.



No, it was addressing Romney's rationale for running.  He was not running on what a great governor he was.  He was running on how he was an awesome businessman and how he would run government like a business. 

That Steelworker was a victim of Romney's business practices. His plant was looted for every ounce of equity and he and his co-workers were thrown out on the street without health insurance or pensions.  As a result, his wife didn't have coverage when she got cancer.  It's a valid discussion.  





mudwhistle said:


> Blacks and Hispanics make up a grand total of maybe 20% of the total Democrat base. Fact is Obama had to fudge the numbers to get over the top. He had fewer votes than Gore or Bush yet he still won.



That's not true, either.  

Obama got 65,446,032 in 2012
He got 69,297,997  in 2008

Bush got 62,039,073 in 2004 and only 50,456,062 in 2000. 

Al Gore got 50,996,582 in 2000.  

Now, if saying there was ballot box stuffing or whatever helps you sleep better at night, that's fine.  

The simpler explanation is that the GOP has alienated minorities, women, working folks and people who want their government to work right, and nothing you are doing now is fixing THOSE problems.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 18, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> Ron Paul is batshit crazy.
> 
> People who support Ron Paul are Batshit crazy.



Okay. . . so I'm just going to ignore your unsubstantiated vitriol, that is, largely made up of media propaganda.  Because, let's face it, when you don't have an argument, invective will have to do, right?  

So now you are pushing the whole notion that a "'Real Conservative' ready to take up the mantle," is what?  Clinically insane?  Has he been diagnosed as such?


And basically, let's face it, any person that is a "Real Conservative," our corporatist controlled media is going to smear and make the less intelligent among us that do not know how to think for themselves feel that the person is "batshit crazy."

You believe all of the policy positions that Ron Paul was for, the very things that made him a "Real Conservative," are the things that made him, "batshit crazy."  Isn't that right?

States rights?  Sound money, Austrian economic theory rather than Keynesian economic theory?   A non-interventionist foreign policy?  Allowing States to determine their own culture and social policies rather than the federal government?  A tiny federal government strictly limited to what is enumerated and defined by the constitution?  Yeah, that would be too simple.   To people indoctrinated in State education, all that does probably sound, "batshit crazy."

You know, does this ring a bell?



> Section 8.
> 
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> ...



It doesn't say anything about handing the power of handling finance, coin, and interest rates, liquidity injections, etc. all over to a private banking cartel (i.e. the "Federal Reserve"), to an international monetary fund or to a global trade union.  If you read in there it does, maybe you're the one that needs to see the psychiatrist.

When the dollar is destroyed, it will be due to your support of your globalist politicians we can blame.  Then we'll know who was really the crazy one. . . .


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Assuming Romneys statement about citizenship is racist is quite à stretch even for you.

It's clear that what is needed in a poor economy is a leader with good business sensé, not some anti-business ideologue.

The claims by the steelworker were so obviously false that the Obama campaign tried to claim innocence even though they were caught red-handed.

Obama had fewer votes this time then 08' because his support was eroding. He supplemented his lack of support by manufacturing votes with month long early voting, vote-farming, same day registration, hacking into computer voting machines, and depressing GOP voters by ignoring votes, disqualifying votes, losing and destroying military ballots, fighting new voter ID laws in some states. In states that these shenanigans took place he lost 63-37%. In states where these irregularity were reported he won. Some Obama voters admitted to voting several times.

The GOP hasn't alienated anyone. Democrats have done it for them. The Tea Party is a prime example.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 18, 2013)

No, not deliberately.  He was slapped around like the proverbial red headed ...  well, he got beaten up by Obama.


----------



## dblack (Oct 18, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



He was nominated to ensure that opposition to ACA would have no option.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> No, not deliberately.  He was slapped around like the proverbial red headed ...  well, he got beaten up by Obama.



Sort of thé way Romney humiliated Obama in thé first debate.

It was brutal.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > No, not deliberately.  He was slapped around like the proverbial red headed ...  well, he got beaten up by Obama.
> ...


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

Romney could have destroyed that stuttering prick in thé last debate. He chose instead to play it safe. You see establishment Repugs are à bit cowed to accusations of racism regardless how invalid they are.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Assuming Romneys statement about citizenship is racist is quite à stretch even for you.
> 
> It's clear that what is needed in a poor economy is a leader with good business sensé, not some anti-business ideolog.
> 
> ...



Ha ha, you bring up some really good facts.  I never even really thought that he had a chance.  Romney came a lot closer to winning than several of my friends ever thought he was supposed to come.  Most of them are pretty hard core Libertarians and Anarchic-Capitalists.  They either vote third party or don't vote.  I think secretly, they were a little let down by how close he came, even though outwardly they claimed not to give a shit since there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two. 

I felt, as the OP posted, that Romney was decoy, a stooge, that he was put in there as a token so that Obama would be a shoe in.  Yet even with that there, it looked for a while that he might actually _win!_  That is how many people were actually coming out to vote against the president, this post was excellent, and truthful, for people who were paying attention to the corruption that the elites do engineer in the system to get who they want in power.  

With the astounding victory that Obama had in '08, his performance was tragic and dismal in '12.  Nobody really gave a shit about him this time around.  Everyone knows he is the biggest lying piece of shit.  I remember seeing this video, and I just about died laughing.   What pathetic piece of propaganda.   When you need to have little children use profane language to motivate your base to go out and caste a vote, you know you have sunk low and are very desperate.   I am sure this wasn't targeted at the Christian base of the Democratic party.  At the very end of the video, check out who funded this train wreck of an ad.  

This is how desperate they were to get the people that had formerly voted for Obama to come out and vote for him again.  And in the end, none of them did.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiOobBean3w]Samuel L Jackson Wake The F*ck UP Pro-Obama Ad 2012 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 18, 2013)

Yup yup


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Obama had fewer votes this time then 08' because his support was erroding. He supplimented his lack of support by manufacturing votes with month long early voting, vote-farming, same day registration, hacking into computer voting machines, and depressing GOP voters by ignoring votes, disqualifying votes, losing and destroying military ballots, fighting new voter ID laws in some states. In states that thèse shenanigans didn't take place he lost 63-37%. In states where these irrégularités were reported he won. Some Obama voters admitted to voting several times.


I think there may have been voting irregularities and that they were targeted at 3rd parties. The libertarians were fired up after RonPaul was basically robbed in Iowa and Maine. The Greens were also fired up and had a terrific candidate in Jill Stein a doctor who opposed the ACA. Even the Constitution party with Goode was threatening disruption in Virginia.



dblack said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...


exactly right 


MisterBeale said:


> I felt, as the OP posted, that Romney was decoy, a stooge, that he was put in there as a token so that Obama would be a shoe in.  Yet even with that there, it looked for a while that he might actually _win!_  That is how many people were actually coming out to vote against the president, this post was excellent, and truthful, for people who were paying attention to the corruption that the elites do engineer in the system to get who they want in power.
> 
> I remember seeing this video, and I just about died laughing.   What pathetic piece of propaganda.   When you need to have little children use profane language to motivate your base to go out and caste a vote, you know you have sunk low and are very desperate.   I am sure this wasn't targeted at the Christian base of the Democratic party.  At the very end of the video, check out who funded this train wreck of an ad.
> 
> Samuel L Jackson Wake The F*ck UP Pro-Obama Ad 2012 - YouTube



noticed at around 2minute mark Jackson says Romney will send jobs overseas....Obama is now working on the TPP and other so-called "free trade" deals that will do more of that, selling out his base.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Assuming Romneys statement about citizenship is racist is quite à stretch even for you.



NO, Birtherism is racism. Not even a debatable point.  And Romney appealling to it for votes was a low point of his campaign. 



mudwhistle said:


> It's clear that what is needed in a poor economy is a leader with good business sensé, not some anti-business ideologue.



Guy, you obviously haven't worked in the  private sector.  The LAST people I'd want anywhere near the government are business types.  

Our only two businessmen Presidents?  Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush.  Nuff said.  




mudwhistle said:


> The claims by the steelworker were so obviously false that the Obama campaign tried to claim innocence even though they were caught red-handed.



What specifically wasn't true? Did Romney buy GS Steel? Yes. Did Bain run it into bankruptcy? Yes.  Did Joe Soptic's wife die due to a lack of medical coverage. Yes.  



mudwhistle said:


> Obama had fewer votes this time then 08' because his support was eroding. He supplemented his lack of support by manufacturing votes with month long early voting, vote-farming, same day registration, hacking into computer voting machines, and depressing GOP voters by ignoring votes, disqualifying votes, losing and destroying military ballots, fighting new voter ID laws in some states. In states that these shenanigans took place he lost 63-37%. In states where these irregularity were reported he won. Some Obama voters admitted to voting several times.
> 
> The GOP hasn't alienated anyone. Democrats have done it for them. The Tea Party is a prime example.



And now you are deep in the conspiracy weeds.   

Obama got less votes because folks in states were there wasn't a contest stayed home.  No reason for them to come out, their states weren't in play.   

In the 10 or so swing states, voter participation was up, and Obama won all of them except NC.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 18, 2013)

Empire of the Senseless » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

A Lethal Competence 
Empire of the Senseless
by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

.....................
"This brazen act was soon followed by Obamas announcement that he had picked Jeffrey Zients to head the National Economic Council. Who is Zients you ask? Well, he was a top executive at Mitt Romneys Bain Capital, plotting takeovers, mass firings, raids on pensions and de-unionization of factories. He did so well at this grim job that his net worth now tops $100 million. One might view this appointment as an act of casual sadism, rubbing salt in the wounds of progressives. But the Left is so moribund, so deeply immured in a political coma that the insult didnt even prompt the slightest protest, not even a vestigial yelp for old times sake."


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Empire of the Senseless » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> A Lethal Competence
> Empire of the Senseless
> ...



Okay, so this proves, what, exactly?  I mean other than you need to get your meds adjusted.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 19, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> you need to get your meds adjusted.



ahuh ahuh ahuh, Joeby made a funny


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 23, 2013)

the afformentioned Jeffrey Zients was the object of a story in the WSJ today about all the different roles hes played in the Obama administration. Now hes being put in charge of fixing the Romneycare website...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 24, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> the afformentioned Jeffrey Zients was the object of a story in the WSJ today about all the different roles hes played in the Obama administration. Now hes being put in charge of fixing the Romneycare website...



I'm sorry, are you still off your meds?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 24, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 24, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat.



At the time he assassinated Lincoln, he had converted to Catholicism, and was a Jesuit seminarian.



> You can drive past old Bryantown Tavern, where Booth met with Confederate agents before the assassination; St. Mary's Catholic Church, where Mudd is buried and where he first met Booth in 1864; the Zekiah swamp, which the fugitives entered; and Rich Hill, the former home of wealthy Samuel Cox, who sent provisions to Booth and Herold when they hid in a nearby thicket for several days. (Booth and Herold got rid of their horses at the thicket, fearing the animals would hasten their detection by the federal cavalry.)
> 
> By obtaining permission, you can enter property now privately owned by a Jesuit retreat and drive past Huckleberry Cottage, former home of Confederate agent Thomas A. Jones; and you can park near the retreat's bluffs along the Potomac River, which Booth and Herold crossed in a rowboat owned by Jones. The view from the bluffs and across the Potomac is beautiful and dramatic. Here the river is about two miles wide, making one realize how desperate Booth and Herold must have been to cross at night with federal gunboats in the area.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/civilwar/booth.htm


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 24, 2013)

another Bain partner or employee is an on and off guest of the corporate Democratic party's MSNBC, a Conard? I think his name is. Also found this article MSNBC?s Schultz Finally Discloses Three-Year Old NBC-Bain Capital Partnership [Video] that talks about the Channels connections with Bain


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 26, 2013)

perhaps it was a transactional relationship. The money behind Obama hired Bain for Romney's acting ability.  I think I remember during campaign that Romney was still being paid by Bain even tho he supposedly no longer worked there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 26, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> perhaps it was a transactional relationship. The money behind Obama hired Bain for Romney's acting ability.  I think I remember during campaign that Romney was still being paid by Bain even tho supposedly no longer working there.



No, you see, guy, the "Transactional" relationship would be you going to the pharmacy and getting your meds.  

Romney lost because people like me didn't vote for him.  Voted for McCain. Voted for Bush. Even voted for Dole. 

Romney is where I drew the line.  And so did a lot of other people.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 26, 2013)

I post at 9:21

you post at 9:22

put a lot of thought into it did you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 26, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> I post at 9:21
> 
> you post at 9:22
> 
> put a lot of thought into it did you?



It's a conspiracy. 

I put as much though into your crazy rantings as they merit.  

Romney lost because he was an awful candidate who didn't address people's concerns.  

If we didn't have so many racists in this country, he'd have lost 49 states.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 29, 2013)

heres another interesting link I found regarding another person tied to the Obama administration....    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 29, 2013)

Yeah, okay... doesn't make you less crazy.  

Romney lost because he sucked. He sucked in 2008, he still sucked in 2012.  

And the GOP nominated him anyway.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 4, 2013)

Another event that seems to show Romney was deliberately losing was putting Clint Eastwood on stage.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Another event that seems to show Romney was deliberately losing was putting Clint Eastwood on stage.



Romney didn't lose because of Clint.


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 4, 2013)

Romney was the last Repub in the Primary that hadn't imploded yet. He just waited for the others to make their gaffes which they always do. The repub Establ may have wanted him but the Repub voters didn't seem overly enthused.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Another event that seems to show Romney was deliberately losing was putting Clint Eastwood on stage.
> ...


It didnt help.


Dot Com said:


> Romney was the last Repub in the Primary that hadn't imploded yet. He just waited for the others to make their gaffes which they always do. The repub Establ may have wanted him but the Repub voters didn't seem overly enthused.


I dont think there really is a "Republican" or "Democratic" establishment,...its just the establishment. And they divide and conquer the rest of us through manipulation of the parties, of which this is a great example.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 5, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Romney was the last Repub in the Primary that hadn't imploded yet. He just waited for the others to make their gaffes which they always do. The repub Establ may have wanted him but the Repub voters didn't seem overly enthused.



Some candidates in the primaries never made gaffes.  They stayed on point and true to their message at all times.

Of course the establishment wanted Romney, especially the liberal media establishment.  Anything that would bring about real change and shake up Washington was systematically ignored, misrepresented, and in many cases, down right slandered.  

This doesn't even include all of the instances of documented corruption.

We can hypothesize  until the dollar crashes and is worthless about what might have happened if the genuine candidate had gotten equal time and been treated fairly in the media.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 5, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



It didn't hurt him, either.  

What killed Romney was the 47% remarks.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 6, 2013)

New Jersey Democratic governor candidate complains of "betrayal from our own political party."

"The Democratic political bosses, some elected and some not, made a deal with this governor," she said, according to NorthJersey.com. "They didn&#8217;t do it for the state. They did it out of a desire to help themselves."

Buono's last-minute campaign efforts also came with little involvement from President Barack Obama or other high-profile Democrats. 

More evidence of collusion among bigwig Dems and Reps.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> New Jersey Democratic governor candidate complains of "betrayal from our own political party."
> 
> "The Democratic political bosses, some elected and some not, made a deal with this governor," she said, according to NorthJersey.com. "They didnt do it for the state. They did it out of a desire to help themselves."
> 
> ...



Or conserving your resources smartly.  

No one is going to spend a lot of money in a redneck cracker district trying to elect a Democrat, and no one is going to waste money in an inner city district trying to elect a Republican.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 6, 2013)

New Jersey is a traditional Democratic stronghold.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> New Jersey is a traditional Democratic stronghold.



With an incredibly popular governor. 

If Corey Booker ran against Jabba, they'd have put the money in. 

But what's her name.  What was her name again?


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 6, 2013)

Buono I believe is how its spelled.  Its funny I was watching Bush voter Mathews on MSNBC and he didnt mention her name either...maybe he forgot.....but he sure did bring up her term, Betrayal, alot.....It was obvious he was upset that she came out and told it like it is.

   Someone elsewhere on board posited that there was some trading that went on by the scum at the top of both major parties to get sell-outs elected in both Virginia and NewJersey.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 9, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> I think the theory makes a lot of sense, you'll notice critics don't have substantive criticism, just empty insults.



If he was trying to lose, why spend the cash? Why not just let Michele Bachman run on her platform of saying stupid, factually inaccurate, garbage? 

Your theory is par for the course, though.

Right in line with all the other crap.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 9, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> If he was trying to lose, why spend the cash? Why not just let Michele Bachman run on her platform of saying stupid, factually inaccurate, garbage?


Dont fall for the smear tactics of partisans and also Dont underestimate the idiocy of partisan loyalists on either side. I dont think,absent Romney, Bachman would have made it past Perry or Gingrich, or even Pawlenty tho u have to wonder about shill games there also, but even if she did She would have got a sizable vote against a President who lost substantial votes in his second election. 

The Betrayal of Buono points to how the scum at the top of both major parties are playing the electorate. If the big-wig Dems were truly considering the well being of their constituents they would have convinced Booker to run for governor (if he was indeed a more popular candidate) and done their utmost regardless of candidate to keep Christy from winning.


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 15, 2013)

the collusion of grafting  Democrats with grafting Republicans is pretty well acknowledged in the NewJersey case, and a pathetic puff piece by Scherer of Time magazine on behalf of Christy shows that the media is playing along also.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 16, 2013)

Wolfstrike said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



there was never a doubt in my mind Obama was going to be elected the second time around in this ONE PARTY SYSTEM. 

I knew Clinton would get relected,same with Bush,same with Obama because the establishment was pleased with their atrocities they committed against mankind so they reward them with a second term.

They would have with Bush sr but he didnt want it at that point.Reagan had gotten alzhemiers by his second term so he was actually running the country back then and had alreeady served two terms as president and was ready to just stay behind the scenes and give orders to his lone time friend clinton and his son Bush.

He was till running the country those years.pretty much as since he was VP under reagan.this is all too complicated for many people here to understand or even want to so they will just sling insults of course and call you loony.thats cause they want to live in denial.

Good presidents never serve in office more than one term anymore.the last decent one we had was carter.thats just another expample of another good president like kennedy who didnt get to serve in office very long.

romney was one of the first people to sign obamacare that the sheople here critisize Obama for yet the fools were eager to vote for him. no wonder america is in the mess that it is.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> I knew Clinton would get relected,same with Bush,same with Obama because the establishment was pleased with their atrocities they committed against mankind so they reward them with a second term.
> 
> *They would have with Bush sr but he didnt want it at that point*.



What a crock. Please stick your idiot guesswork where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 16, 2013)

one of the paid shills has branched out to this forum now I see to fart here as well.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 17, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> one of the *paid shills *has branched out to this forum now I see to fart here as well.



Once again, take your idiot guesswork and put it where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 17, 2013)

someone farted in here.

that means you just made my ignore list paid troll.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 17, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.
> 
> that means you just made my ignore list *paid troll*.



Liar 

You don't have an ignore list and once again more idiot guesswork. You nutcase trufers really are something else. I mean, people disagreeing with you, thinking you're all a bunch of brain dead fruitcakes, they must be paid by da ebil gubment

Saddo.


----------



## Rockland (Nov 17, 2013)

Why doesn't Whackjob just put *everybody* on his (imaginary) ignore list?  That way, he can have the entire forum to himself and pretend that he's not a paranoid, delusional, insignificant twatwaffle. 







Whackjob posts "someone farted in here hurr hurr hurr" in 5...4...3...


----------



## dcraelin (Nov 30, 2013)

read recently that New Jersey just legalized internet gambling.. Gotta wonder if this is why all the big-wig Dems rolled over for Christy.  Are establishment crooks hoping hell become president and legalize internet gambling across the USA?


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 6, 2013)

I see the media is showing more of other republican candidates now. Seeing a little of Walker and Santorum. Probably just taking the heat off a fat bastard out of New Jersey.  Cant have too much media attention right now as they just legalized internet gambling there, something the establishment wants to inflict on the whole nation. How else to skim money from the sheep after the Yellin stoked Stock bubble pops?


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 15, 2013)

and the elimination of the filibuster for nominees was probably aimed specifically to get Yellin appointed and had little to do with judges as Harry Reid hasn't shown much concern for that before. 

also as I said in  "Big-wig dems rollover for fat-assed new Jersey Squish" the latest drama on road closings and  Christy just look like a diversion from his legalization of internet gambling and the Dems own collusion.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 18, 2013)

saw in the news today that there is a netflix movie on Romney coming out now,.....'it makes him more human'...like he didnt run Bain Capital for years as a dirty wheeler-dealer......and couldn't possibly have run for president just to eliminate non-RINO competition and to protect insurance companies.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 18, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



About 20 or so years ago that went on alot in this really strange place.

It was called congress.

When the work was done? The boys would call it a day and head out to the local watering hole.

There were no enemies after 5pm.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 18, 2013)

saw in the news today that there is a netflix movie on Romney coming out now,.....'it makes him more human'...like he didnt run Bain Capital for years as a dirty wheeler-dealer......and couldn't possibly have run for president just to eliminate non-RINO competition and to protect insurance companies.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 20, 2013)

more news on the netflix biopic of Romney's losing candidacy (or candidacies?)......  Why so much attention to a losing Candidate?...........Its arguable that Gore actually won.....but havent seen a movie about his run.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 20, 2013)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



the two-party system is a fraud/fascism but I think he wanted to win nonetheless.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 23, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



Im sure he wouldn't have turned it down if he had......but the outcome regarding Romney/Obama care probably wouldnt have changed.

I think his job was done once he beat the true Republicans in the primaries/ republican nomination fight.


----------



## dcraelin (Dec 31, 2013)

seems like the establishment is trying to drum up some sympathy for the fake republican Romeny, playing the hated media agaisnt the despised Romney, using a propped up hero of the right. 


Sarah Palin: MSNBC ?despicable? - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 5, 2014)

yet another instance of the media drumming up sympathy for Romney this morning, Fox news had him on to offer his thoughts on a non-story that got blown up over comments on MSNBC......since when does fox or its viewers care about what is said on MSNBC?


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 6, 2014)

another instance of Romney seeming to undermine his own campaign.  Remember when he said in a debate that Obama didnt use word terrorists when describing BenGhazi raid? (or something along those lines) Seems thats something his debate preparation would have prepared him for. Seems like an almost deliberate screw-up.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 21, 2014)

apparently towards the end of the new Romney documentary Romney says they kinda had to steal the nomination.  Ron Paul supporters in Iowa and Maine know it to be highly likely


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 17, 2014)

Saw Romney on TV yet AGAIN the other day!!!  Even Al Gore, who arguably really won the presidency, hasn't seen so much TV time.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> About 20 or so years ago that went on alot in this really strange place.
> 
> It was called congress.
> 
> ...


Mormons don't drink

According to Liberation Theology, (of which the POTUS counts himself a member) White men are the bane and cause of the misery of the colored man's existence.

Your explanations as to why these two men would be meeting with an executive member of the Church of Rome does not make any sense.  Are they meeting just for shits and giggles?  Not unless they were both sell outs to everything they believed and happened to be courting the belief of this man's organization.

(Note, both the bishop, and Romney are flush, signs that they have been drinking.)  Although drinking is allowed in Catholicism, it is not allowed among Mormons.

But I don't have to tell a member of the Jesuits or Opus Dei that, do I?


----------



## Mojo2 (Feb 19, 2014)

longknife said:


> For the intellectual content of your post ---



You are being too charitable.

There IS no intellectual content in that post.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 19, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > For the intellectual content of your post ---
> ...



no one knows who your talking about when you dont identify the  post your talking about


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 20, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 27, 2014)

now we are seeing the major media tell us Romney might run yet again.

Yes I guess the establishment lost their main patsy Christy and may yet pull Romney's puppet strings one more time. 

It seems to me they are running Cruz as a shill against Paul


----------



## jillian (Feb 27, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



lol nice baseless conspiracy theory.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 27, 2014)

jillian said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



Its based on idea that Romney-care and Obama-care are the same thing really, and that either way Romney got his name in the history books. 

Also what do you think of idea that Cruz is posing as a shill against Paul fro the establishment.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 26, 2014)

I think the election was rigged, and not cos of Romney. Obama had ballot box stuffers in every single swing state. And that's why none of them were even close. It's really sad that rigging a presidential election is that easy in this day and age.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



You really think Romney cared about being the guy who got his name in the history books as the guy who didn't win? Do some research, and you'll see that Romney gave up a lot of fortune and time that he could have been using for himself. I don't feel like Romney had the great principles that Ron Paul has. But I do think he wanted to make a real (good) difference. That's far from what Obama is. Obama is the most vain person we could have ever elected.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 26, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



well in a way I agree with you, but it probably meant more to him to get his idea....i.e. Romney/Obamacare...passed, than it did to win. He ran interference in the GOP primary where everyone else was hostile to Obama/Romneycare. 

As I think I said  below somewhere I believe he was actually still being paid by BAin capital...for what?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 26, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



There are signifcant differences between Romney-care and Obama-care. And yes, Romney-care reflects the socialist mindset of the very liberal Massachusetts. But Obama-care is a total scam and unconstitutional no matter what the bought and paid for Supreme Court says.

It's a fun conspiracy theory; but Romney did not lose the election on purpose. He has too much character for that.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 27, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



too much character!!!  he ran Bain capital....read "america what went wrong" I believe is the title...a book that talks about all the little gimmicks in the law and tax-code that these kind of businesses used to basically rob take-over targets...especially pension funds...in these buyouts.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 27, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Pensions? Really companies use 401Ks that belong to the employees. Pensions and the associated laws are a joke.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 27, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



they were compensation promised to employees


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 27, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Again, pensions are constantly being changed. And usually they're bloated and that leads to a company's demise in the first place. I'm not shedding a tear for people who knowingly participate in f'd up systems. Again, 401Ks are real accounts. Pensions are wishes and prayers.

And in the second place, Romney went to companies who presumably can't pay the pensions once they've went bankrupt. It's not his job to pay bloated pensions out of the goodness of his heart.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 28, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



people certainly dont "knowingly participate in F'd up systems"....they were made a promise, a promise that should be kept.....if a company goes bankrupt they should be the first obligations in line to be paid.   Any money borrowed from them, in some purported "turnaround" should also be an obligation.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 28, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



People knowingly participate in f'd up systems all the time. Just look at social security and medicare. They just pray the bubble doesn't burst. Look at pension laws, they are promises. They are not the sound systems you want to make them out to be. These employees could have done 401Ks and they chose to  try to milk their companies. They took a risk and it failed.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 28, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I think what they really did was in effect sign a contract that was broken by the companies.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 28, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



What often happens is they leverage themselves right into bankruptcy. Happens all the time. Making Romney the villain isn't going to change that reality.


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 28, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I dont have to make him a villain, he made himself one. And I think he was the  perfect foil for Obamas run. The country was rightfully upset with crooked bankers and scum wheeler-dealers like Romney.  The money manipulators behind the scenes thought theyd throw up a shill everyone would love to hate...in order to get another patsy into office.


And I think they're gong to do it again.......Hillary is a sure loser......a proven loser......so she is blocking any halfway, partially legitimate democrat......Cruz has the rhetoric of an outsider but the resume of an insider,...so he is the shill blocking Paul.  And Christy is busy making the rounds "redeeming" himself courtesy of the networks, to be the next financial patsy president.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 29, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Re: 2016 Prez

I think we'll get a loser prez no matter what, and I don't pay much attention to the media spew anymore.

Re: Romney

Sorry, but you can find countless of stories of Romney not acting like the cut-throat business man that the left made him out to be. Sometimes, he said or did stuff that wasn't fully in touch with the common man. But really, he's a guy who understands systems and how to get them working right. You don't pick a computer repair man based on how he picks an NCAA bracket. And like I've said, I don't even think Romney did lose. Obama had ballot stuffers in all the swing states. That was the real sham.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Mar 29, 2014)

Obama won by lying to the American and covering up his corruptions.. The oath of office means nothing to him, much like Clinton,.They're both traitors and Democrats love them for it...


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 29, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Well I agree with you on loser presidents...the system seems designed to give us such. (which means Romney would have been one also)

Romney and his company did understand how to manipulate the tax code and navigate their way through the financial gimmicks.  Romney seems like a very pleasant man......but he is a front, a figurehead,....the power behind him was surely purely self-interested, and bad for the country. 

I too think there well could have been ballot fraud.....but not against Romney.....It was more likely to tamp down the independent, libertarian, and green vote......polls consistently say people want a third party.....I have never seen so much interest in one as in 2012, but somehow it didnt show up in the ballot box.....hmmmm.


----------



## Impenitent (Mar 29, 2014)

Liberals mercilessly decry
Romney's religion is a cult
It's so unfair to imply
A baseless and cheap insult

"Black Liberation Theology"

Some will win, some will lose
Southern Steel, AMPAD, KB Toys
Poor Mitt, the liberals accuse
What spurious tactics they employ

"Solyndra"

Don't give me vulture capitalist crap
You can't even make me look
I expect him to ply his craft
I don't care about deductions he took

"Socialist"

What is there not to like of Ann
Beauty, grace, honesty and humility
I get it you people aren't fans
A dutiful wife and a family of tranquility

"Moochelle"

Liberals quickly play the race card
When Mitt just tells a joke
That is such a misleading canard
They twist, they lie, and they poke

"Kenyan"

Liberal fact checkers misrepresent
Our political rhetoric and contribution
Fox has a right to truth and dissent
A free press is guaranteed by the constitution

"Lame-stream Media"


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 29, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Manipulate the tax code or operate within the tax code? Why would Romney pay one more red cent to a wasteful govt. than he has to? Seriously? 

Again, Romney would be a lot richer if he had stayed out of politics. And he would have done so without a lot of whiny bitches being up in his bizzo. You're totally miscalculating the money angle. Politicians like Obama who never made it in private enterprise do use govt. to enrich himself and his benefactors. Romney and Obama are not the same person--not even close.

You're delusional about the third party fraud, imo. They were never going to be a factor in the election. They simply didn't have the support. I hope more parties do rise to prominence. But I won't believe in cockamamie conspiracy theories to that end. The reality is that Obama did a lot of illegal fund raising and he paid off a lot of people to get the results he wanted. And the reason it's never gonna come out anytime soon is that the govt. controlled media will not be having that.


----------



## Wolfstrike (Mar 30, 2014)

you guys are going to be hearing a lot about Romney.
when the sht hits the fan for obamacare, the media will be talking about how much was passed by republican traitors like romney


----------



## dcraelin (Mar 30, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Both, lobbying for special loopholes and using them and others for crooked gain. Part of the governt waste s allowing manipulators like Romney (or the real brains behind his company)  to use the tax code to make money. 


TheGreatGatsby said:


> Again, Romney would be a lot richer if he had stayed out of politics. And he would have done so without a lot of whiny bitches being up in his bizzo. You're totally miscalculating the money angle. Politicians like Obama who never made it in private enterprise do use govt. to enrich himself and his benefactors. Romney and Obama are not the same person--not even close.



Didnt say they were the same person, but both front men for establishment crooks. Romney has always been in politics fromthe days when he worked on his fathers campaign to Thedays when he essentially lobbyed and used government influence in his "business".


TheGreatGatsby said:


> You're delusional about the third party fraud, imo. They were never going to be a factor in the election. They simply didn't have the support. I hope more parties do rise to prominence. But I won't believe in cockamamie conspiracy theories to that end. The reality is that Obama did a lot of illegal fund raising and he paid off a lot of people to get the results he wanted. And the reason it's never gonna come out anytime soon is that the govt. controlled media will not be having that.



Even a few percentage points one way or the other in a close race between the puppet parties would make a difference. But tampening down 3rd party suport is part of maintaining the puppet parties, thats why ballot access laws are rigged against them.


----------



## dcraelin (Apr 8, 2014)

The only reason Romney would get involved in yet another presidential run is to throw it again. Perhaps the establishment will want him to run to interfere with Paul's run. 


Romney's return to public life stokes speculation about potential 2016 run | Fox News


----------



## dcraelin (Apr 10, 2014)

the only reason FOX news would report on a supposed Romney run is to give this discredited hack (and the "republican" sell-outs that supported him) some legitimacy. 

And those posting in the below thread are tools of the system

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...kes-speculation-about-potential-2016-run.html


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Apr 10, 2014)

You're Romney losing on purpose theory loses its fizz when you find that he won independents by ten points. There was shennanigans; but they weren't on Romney's end.


----------



## dcraelin (Apr 11, 2014)

Mayor's friend could profit from hotel built with taxpayers' money | Feature | Chicago

great article on one of the major contributors to Romney being a good friend of Rahm Emanuel....current Mayor of Chicago and former Chief of staff I believe to Obama.

Also the brother of one of the architects, I think, of the so-called "affordable" health care plan.


----------



## dcraelin (Apr 12, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> You're Romney losing on purpose theory loses its fizz when you find that he won independents by ten points. There was shennanigans; but they weren't on Romney's end.



well, more americans than ever are calling themselves independents. And with the teaparty prominence in recent years I would think it would trend republican. 

found article that said "In 2008, many independents who voted for Obama also voted for President George W. Bush in his 2004 contest against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry." ....maybe in 2012 they just found their way back. 

another site I went to says he only won independents by 5% overall 
perhaps both sides were robbing the 3rd party vote. 

state by state numbers also important...I dont think it damages the theory. 

this article Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » Setting the Record Straight: Correcting Myths about Independent Voters 
actually said
"in fact, in all three closely contested presidential elections since 1972, the candidate backed by most independent voters lost."


----------



## dcraelin (Apr 26, 2014)

And now I see another "centrist" sell-out hack is thinking of running for office 

Jeb?s awkward entry into the 2016 presidential race

"Mr. Bush serves as a paid director to Tenet Health Care, the giant hospital owner, which supported President Obama's Affordable Care Act, ...


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 18, 2014)

A new article on how Romney-care in Massachusetts got (and still gets) extra dollars from the federal government. Seems maybe string-pullers wanted to set up Romney-care as a "good model" for healthcare reform ...to push for Obama/Romney-care on national level. 


How Romney paid for Romneycare with federal help - The Washington Post


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 18, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> A new article on how Romney-care in Massachusetts got (and still gets) extra dollars from the federal government. Seems maybe string-pullers wanted to set up Romney-care as a "good model" for healthcare reform ...to push for Obama/Romney-care on national level.
> 
> 
> How Romney paid for Romneycare with federal help - The Washington Post



Without even reading it, this article can't possibly prove too much. The federal government wants their hand in everything. I'm sure they're giving federal dollars to every state health care system. The Washington Post and Romney haters are just doing their spin. None of this is to say that I want Romney Care. But I won't pretend it's the same thing as Obama Care, which is stripping Constitutional rights, left and right.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 19, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > A new article on how Romney-care in Massachusetts got (and still gets) extra dollars from the federal government. Seems maybe string-pullers wanted to set up Romney-care as a "good model" for healthcare reform ...to push for Obama/Romney-care on national level.
> ...


Well, without rereading it,  I believe it states that the feds are going beyond the norm in Massachusetts. And did before the passage of Obama/Romney care.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 21, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



They probably are going beyond the norm. Mass. is very govt-centric relative to most states.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 21, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


well no I meant the federal government is going beyond the norm and went beyond the norm in funding romney-care


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 25, 2014)

just thought of another wrinkle

What did Clint say about Romney?....."he can't do that to himself"

Maybe Clint knew....that's exactly what he was doing to himself, throwing the election.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 10, 2015)

The news is full of Romeny's supposed exploration of yet another presidential run.  If he does run, it will most likely be to insure that Obama/Romney care stays up and running. He will likely be used as a shill to interfere with legitimate republican candidates


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 11, 2015)

How in the hell do you diliberatly lose an election?

"Vote for me and I'll kill your dog!"


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 11, 2015)

It was so stupid, it did kind of seem like it.  Even if he tried to lose the election, he couldn't have done a better job.  My personal favorite was the binders full of women thing...


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 11, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> How in the hell do you diliberatly lose an election?
> 
> "Vote for me and I'll kill your dog!"


well read some of the above posts,  I think a good case is made.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 11, 2015)

Sorry, but diliberatly throwing an election means jail time, loss of credibility and billions and billions of lawsuits!


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 12, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Sorry, but diliberatly throwing an election means jail time, loss of credibility and billions and billions of lawsuits!


there is no law against deliberately throwing an election.    And theory says he did it a the behest of his donors.


----------



## dcraelin (Jan 24, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but diliberatly throwing an election means jail time, loss of credibility and billions and billions of lawsuits!
> ...




Now we see he may be up to the same trick again.

MSNBC  is again hyping Romney.....citing name-recognition numbers as some sort of proof Romney has a lot of support.....remember MSNBC also had, maybe still does, a former Bain capital person as a commentator, and I believe had/has other ties to the company.


----------



## dcraelin (May 24, 2015)

https://www.google.com/search?q=rom..._JMLmoASMn4HgCg&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=634
So........Romney had a fake fight with Holyfield..........kind of like his fake fight with Obama


----------



## Impenitent (May 24, 2015)

Romney Rash

I was in my quiet room late one night
When my eyes beheld a young gun
of the right
He wrote a marvelous budget and his star began to rise
Name of Paul Ryan and much to my surprise 

He had the rash
He had the Romney Rash
The Romney Rash
It was a Wall Street smash
He had the rash
He caught it in a flash
He had the rash
He had the Romney Rash

It's something in your past that's icky and itchy
And you don't dare explain 'cause it's sticky and fishy
A guy like that could be another jokester and funster
And on top of that, he looks just like ...Eddie Munster

Suddenly they were all in my room
Celebrating what Ryan caught so soon
The also-rans so clueless and confused on facts
Crawling out the doors of Ann's two Cadillacs

There's Rick Santorum with Michele Bachmann
Without her husband but with her eyes wide open
Newt Gringrich and his Booty Callista
Brought her favorite party favor, a game of twister

There was Rick Perry, all forgiving with no regret
Trying hard to remember the Texas Two Step
And Herman Cain was looking so fine
Ready to Tea Party like it's 18-999

I put on a lampshade, made of magic underwear
We partied all night and nobody mentioned Romneycare
I was glad the gang was all there and getting down
For what is a circus without all the clowns

They had the rash
The Romney Rash
They brought the cash
The Romney cash 
It's in my stash 
The Romney stash
We're ready to bash
At the Romney Bash

Sarah Palin fell out of the dumbwaiter with a scream
Seems she was troubled by just one thing
She looked around the room and shook her fist
And said, "Whatever happened to my Peppermint Twist?"

We'll take back the White House, wait and see
Who wouldn't vote for an Anglo-Saxon like me?
We'll win on Tuesday without much hullabaloo 
Then there'll be no more Watusi or Boogaloo

The USA will have the Rash
They'll have the Romney Rash
The Romney Rash
It was a Wall Street smash
It caught on in a flash
Since we  had the cash
To buy the white trash
The Romney white trash


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 25, 2015)

yet more evidence 

"After years of denying that Obamacare was closely modeled on the universal healthcare insurance plan Romney helped pass as Massachusetts governor, the former presidential candidate took credit for its influence in a Boston Globe obituary for a longtime friend,"

Mitt Romney says Mass. healthcare plan influenced Obamacare


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 25, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud


lol. He lost because he's an out of touch rich guy w/ 14 bank accounts.


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> 
> the 2-party system is a fraud



do you really believe the insane conspiracy theories you post?

nut bar....


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> yet more evidence
> 
> "After years of denying that Obamacare was closely modeled on the universal healthcare insurance plan Romney helped pass as Massachusetts governor, the former presidential candidate took credit for its influence in a Boston Globe obituary for a longtime friend,"
> 
> Mitt Romney says Mass. healthcare plan influenced Obamacare



you mean he finally told the truth.

good on him.

i love the rightwingnut butthurt, though.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Oct 25, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> yet more evidence
> 
> "After years of denying that Obamacare was closely modeled on the universal healthcare insurance plan Romney helped pass as Massachusetts governor, the former presidential candidate took credit for its influence in a Boston Globe obituary for a longtime friend,"
> 
> Mitt Romney says Mass. healthcare plan influenced Obamacare



Tis sad; good post though.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 25, 2015)

jillian said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > yet more evidence
> ...



who?,,,me?, I'm not really a rt-winger....just a guy who thinks truth in politics is badly needed

and Romney/Obama care.....with its roots in just plain Romney Care..both heavily influenced by big pharma and other corporate medical interests...is bad for all Americans


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 25, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



He didn't really lose, he took a dive for his corporate masters.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 25, 2015)

jillian said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care
> ...



Have you seen other posts of mine you would consider "insane conspiracy theories"?   

I dont think too many people would deny that corporate special interests have a huge influence on politics in this country.  That they would treat politicians as just little pawns to play in their interest I dont consider too much of a stretch either, do you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 26, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


And again, this is ridiculous nonsense. 

This is typical of a partisan rightist who refuses to accept the fact that a majority of the voters rejected the republican agenda.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Of course.   You have to really be stupid to blow your campaign right out of the water completely by not being able to control your own stupid mouth like Romney did.  It had to be on purpose...


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Im not a rightist, 

and it looks like Obama fooled the majority of voters to accept the republican or rather corporatist agenda in Romney care


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


No.  Voters just saw what a pair of psychos the Romneys are and voted for the best choice.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 26, 2015)

Sarah G said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I thought you agreed with me in above post in that he deliberately lost.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


There you go thinking again.  The reason he lost is because he was an inept candidate with nothing to say beyond Republican talking points.  Most Rs can't think beyond what they hear on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 26, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> lol. He lost because he's an out of touch rich guy w/ 14 bank accounts.



Worth almost half of what the rich old white hag Hillary is...


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 27, 2015)

Sarah G said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



There were many in the republican primary who did that better than him.   As I said in above posts he was the perfect foil for Obama, it couldn't have been staged better.


----------

