Forum Post: Do you trust Romney?
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 26, 2012, 12:16 a.m. EST by jimars
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Do you trust Romney?For the love of money is the root of all evil. I know some nice Mormons but would never trust a Mormon that loved money. Never trust a mans word that believes every one else is going to Hell!
most people are going to hell. it is written in scripture, all shall pass thru the fire, and 1/3rd shall live and 2/3rd shall die.
You can not trust anyone that has been in politics long enough to make it a career or has climbed high enough to run for president. Neither man running for the Presidency can be trusted.
Fortunately the real power is in the legislature, unfortunately we seem to ignore the possibility of packing it with enlightened people new to the process.
I think it's more complicated than that. Do I trust a candidate who I know I have to watch because he is pro banker (Romney), or do I trust a candidate who has most of his voters fooled into thinking he is a populist president, when he is indeed pro wall street and banking himself?
I may just vote third party.
[Removed]
The most expedient way, that is a tough one. I believe expediency comes from not being in debt to those who already have too much money. Unfortunately, none of the major candidates take that position seriously.
[Removed]
Ironically, in 2008, that was BARACK OBAMA, who after saying he would not take unlimited campaign funds, did so. And, Obama also relaxed the donation rules so that anyone could donate to him from a pre-paid credit card even if they falsified their name and address.
[Removed]
So the 2008 ABC NEWS Headline that states, Obama to break promise, Opt out of public financing for General Election...is, wrong?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/
[Removed]
Are you serious? It was Obama who chose to not follow matching public funding after stating he would. I provided a link.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/
What planet are you from?
And the rules that Obama created for his own campaign were wrought with fraud. Just like the 2008 democrat caucus contests, and the primaries that moved up their dates. The primaries that moved up their dates that backed Obama counted, the ones that did not back Obama were not counted until they became irrelevant.
And donating to Obama with a pre-paid credit card and a fake name and address still resulted in the donation going through, that was not the case for either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
[Removed]
Frankly, I don't care if Obama is a muslim, muslim's don't believe in usury, and that is a huge point in their favor. I also don't care if he was born in america or not. I care more that his father was a non entity in the U.S., making Obama the first president ever to have a dad who had no american ties, that disturbs me some.
However, that is so far down the list. Obama accepted fake pre-paid credit card donations in 2008. Illinois moved their primary date up from the end of March to the beginning of February. That gave Obama a huge 54 delegate push just before the caucuses.
Hillary Clinton was denied her Florida and Michigan delegates because they moved up their dates. Obama waited until the final day to take his name off of the Michigan ballot and then cried politics because Hillary Clinton did not have time to do the same.
North Carolina was awarded either 14 or 28 bonus delegates for not moving up their primary. (Of course, this was an Obama stronghold).
Obama gamed a 2-1 margin of victory in all of the caucus contests even though all polling before hand showed he and Hillary Clinton either tied, or Clinton leading.
MSNBC had such a hard on for Obama I went from watching that channel most often to never watching it again other than maybe once a year.
Huffington Post was so for Obama I could not believe a supposed news source could be so for one democrat candidate (Barack Obama), and so against another (Hillary Clinton).
The democrat party is infested with trash and sludge at the top, monied by George Soros. I know the republican party is not any better, however, they actually don't interfere during the primaries the way that the media and the democrats did in 2008.
News flash, in 2012 Obama got 88% of the primary vote even though no one was running against him this time around. It's a shame he was not challenged by Dennis Kucinich, I think people would have been surprised to see how well Kucinich could have done.
[Removed]
Your quote "Let me guess - you never complained at the time because you didn't care, and probably figured a black man would not generate the support that a woman might have . . ." end quote
I am a democrat, so your quote makes no sense.
The caucus issue. Caucuses were held at night and usually during the work week and required people be there for anywhere from 3 to 6 hours.
This instantly gave an advantage to younger voters. Those with families could not just take off a winter's night (it was February of 2008) and leave the kids home, and the elderly were not going to be able to participate either.
The democrat tenet of "fair reflection" was violated, and the Obama people did not even know what the term meant or that it was part of the democrat vow of honesty, nor did they care.
I'll do these one at a time. Here is the Obama fake credit card donations from 2008. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/obamas-easy-credit/
repubs and dems get more publicity from the news coverage than advertising
Ahhh - an MSM believer !!!!
um, all the mainstreet media did was shill FOR Barack Obama. I documented just a tiny morsel of out on my 2008 blogs.
www.caucuscheating.blogspot.com, www.fair-reflection.blogspot.com, www.florida-michigan.blogspot.com, www.hillary-wins.blogspot.com
About a week ago, The Nation and Democracy Now ran a story detailing how Romney's financial success at Bain received an important boost from families connected to El Salvador's death squads. To me, that speaks to where Romney's moral compass points.
[Removed]
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/10/romneys_death_squad_ties_bain_launched
To me the US led atrocities in Guatemala and ElSalvador place the US in the same category as Nazi Germany, except the Germans generally acknowledge their disgrace and the American murderers are still honored members of society.
Please, I'm asking people with opinions on this -and other matters to post comments on Occupy Raleigh's forum to help generate discussion. We need to feel your energy. Thanks. http://forum.occupyraleigh.net/
[Removed]
Thanks Zen. The Huff article is more complete. I suppose I should find it chilling that Romney can justify his connections to genocide (Have you seen Granito?), but I think the man was just working Florida's Cuban rightists for donations.
I think it's wise for every one of us in Occupy to ask ourselves: If they dragged all those people out of their homes, tortured, mutilated and murdered them - the very best people - the ones who cared about making a better world -what's keeping them from doing the same to us?
[Removed]
I don't trust either one.
I wouldn't trust anyone the mainstream "parties" (Cartels) put forward as an option. They're puppets and sociopaths to other interests. In the event one steps out of line, they likely get threatened by their puppet masters. I have a feeling Kennedy was probably off'ed because he wanted to end the Vietnam war, but we may never know the truth to that story.
A Jew once said "It is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven"
He also said something about how we will be judged by how we treat "the least of us"
I would expect a "willard's world" to treat "the least of us" by grilling or roasting - think soylent green
if you havent seen the movie, watch it and think "willard-paul-ayn" -
and shudder
No!
[Removed]
Well, sure, indubitably; listen, he can't be any worse than Obama.
A lot of Mormons are very well educated and very successful.
I don't trust any party or person who uses religion to give them direction.
I don't trust any candidate that belongs to a party that is 100+ years old.
[Removed]