Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do you trust Romney?

Posted 1 year 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!

35 Comments

35 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

vote your conscience man. Whatever you think will be the most expedient means of getting the fascists out of DC -

I keep thinking that with the climate heating up, that if we hold the Global Warming banner up high enough, and confront them with the lies that in time they will fold like a cheap suit.

But whatever man.

We gotta get the fascists out of DC

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The Supreme Court changed the rules. None of the candidates can afford to ignore the opportunities these new rules present so long as one of them accepts unlimited campaign contributions.

[-] -1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't believe you are stating the facts correctly.

As candidate the only rules Candidate Obama had influence over in 2008 were the rules behind his own campaign. When McCain chose not to restrict contributions Obama followed suit.

All of this did, I believe, precede Citizens United by just over two years.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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/

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That is not what I said.

What I said is I think quite clear - I'll repeat in the event you simply couldnt hear me the first time:

As candidate the only rules Candidate Obama had influence over in 2008 were the rules behind his own campaign. When McCain chose not to restrict contributions Obama followed suit.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

yeah - I'm serious.

McCain wasn't following those rules. Why would the President.

Are you alleging some sort of fraud on behalf of the campaign? Because that's the first I've heard of it. Is it credible? There is after all, an election underway - and allegations in the past have included both the unlikely and the preposterous . . . . he's a muslim . . . he wasn't even born in America . . .

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Obama accepted fake pre-paid credit card donations in 2008.

Can you prove that? Because that sounds criminal - and I've never heard of it.

Mostly your complaint revolves around the way the dem caucuses were handled? In some manner you assert they gave the President an advantage?

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 . . .

you repelican you

next

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

repubs and dems get more publicity from the news coverage than advertising

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

Ahhh - an MSM believer !!!!

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

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

[-] 2 points by ogoj11 (263) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that sounds like a story that deserves national media attention.

I find it hard to believe that in election season, with super packs buying advertising, no one has bought an editor to run the story in a leading publication.

If someone hands me the facts and a bank roll I'll be happy to begin the search . . .

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 1 year ago

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/

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the article appears on Huffington Post - here

Scroll to the bottom - he is or has spun it as an anti Castro, anti communist claiming some of the individuals named had been tortured by Castro supporters.

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 1 year ago

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?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Oddly enough no one has killed me yet - for whatever that's worth.

But that is the extent to which corporate interests will go in preservation of new market opportunities when they feel either sufficiently threatened or they can get away with it.

Nigeria is another fine example.

[-] 1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 1 year ago

I don't trust either one.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

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

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Well, sure, indubitably; listen, he can't be any worse than Obama.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

A lot of Mormons are very well educated and very successful.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

I don't trust any party or person who uses religion to give them direction.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I don't trust any candidate that belongs to a party that is 100+ years old.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Do you trust Romney?

are you high?