Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Is Romney Trying to Throw the Election

Posted 10 years ago on Sept. 20, 2012, 9:48 p.m. EST by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

“I can think of three good reasons Mitt might be psychologically satisfied with attaining the GOP nomination alone: avenging his father, legitimizing his religion and, well, winning the Republican nomination is generally very good for business.” - Leslie Savan http://www.thenation.com/blog/170059/does-mitt-romney-even-want-be-president?rel=emailNation

I been wondering for days if Mitt's had an epiphany: he's seen the destructiveness of the greed and arrogance of his class over, especially, the last 40 years. He doesn't want to be in charge when things inevitably get worse, since the rich are largely unrepentant for their crimes against humanity. He is afraid he'll be found guilty of being himself, if he's elected president and supposed to be responsible for everything the ruling class parasites do to us.



Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

“Commenting on Mitt Romney’s declaration that 47 percent of the nation was nothing more than freeloaders, Stiglitz said, 'the real divide is between those who see the country as a community and those who don’t.'”

http://www.alternet.org/joseph-stiglitz-calls-abolish-capitalist-church-self-interest Lynn Parramore, Alternet, 9/20/12

And “those who don't,” see the rest of us as a conquest. In the thrall of their own hubris, they fail to see that employee/customers do the real work that produces the wealth they take for themselves. The profits of the one percent and the 9% of sellouts, sycophants and wannabes are the everything tax the “free market” lays on the human race. The rich are a greater threat to our survival than all the tyrants and terrorists since the beginning of civilization. They're part of the problem that's greater than the whole.

Read more about dysfunctional culture and economy: https://www.createspace.com/3852916

[-] 4 points by schwartz (20) from Moosic, PA 10 years ago

write on!

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

"The rich are a greater threat to our survival than all the tyrants and terrorists since the beginning of civilization."

I suppose you could point to the Forbes 500 list of the richest people on the planet and show me which one of them are murdering more people than the tyrants around the globe? Please, just show ONE STATISTIC, ONE FACT, to back this up. JUST ONE!

[-] 9 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

There are forty million people in the US, because the rich parasites who own the place won't pay adequate wages, in order to increase profits. If they each live ten years less than an average of 80, that's 5,000,000 lost lifetimes per year that the greed of the rich costs the Human Race. Wake up! This is the only time you'll get from me. I find specious fools boring and will waste no more of my precious life on you.

Thoreau??? That's ironic.

[-] 3 points by schwartz (20) from Moosic, PA 10 years ago

The oil companies.

[-] -2 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

So if you went to court to try and prove somebody committed a crime, your whole allegation is:

"He did it. "

Not very convincing.

[-] -3 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

Governments killed 170,000,000 of their own people in the last century.

On top of which, corporations are a government protected entity. You know what that means? Corporations exist at the benefit of the guns of government.

Ironic? Ever read Civil Disobedience? Strangely, it's not an attack on corporations. "I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"


I am very wide awake, thanks. That's why I'm able to see through emotional platitudes, logical fallacies, and nonsensical arguments put forth by yourself and Stiglitz.

[-] 8 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

Corporations own the governments. The rich own, at least enough that they control, the corporations. If the governments killed 170M as you say, the rich are responsible for the crimes done by their orders. Logic? It's not just a word.

[-] 1 points by jdjohn1990 (3) 10 years ago

This is likely beyond the corprations control, and outside the scope of their relationship.

[-] -3 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

I suppose you'd have to provide some proof to say that the corporations own the governments. It may SEEM like that. But governments make the laws. Governments control the militaries. So... let's see some facts?

Where do I get my numbers? Oh, scholarly research! http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094f.asp

Let's see, I'm counting TWO posts by you, and ZERO facts. Yer doin great work.

[-] 6 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

making direct attacks(you) puts a poster in a bad light

[-] -3 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

What can a person do when they ask for facts or logic and all they get is "pfffft!" ?

[-] 4 points by equibble (34) from East Point, GA 10 years ago

The facts ag referenced are common knowledge and implied by the sylogisms employed, Logic isn't contained in the use of the word, despite what Ayn Rand may have conditioned her thralls to believe.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

either attempt to clarify why the post responded to is important or find someone else

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

You illustrate why the right left divide is always going to be there. This is the hard truth you righties cant fathom. Government is a tool, and if the tool kills indiscriminately, then someone in the society has deemed the killing necessary. Blaming the government without blaming the people who championed the legislation is like a dog who bites the tire of car that runs it over. If you run me over, I am not biting the tire, I'm punching the driver.

[-] 2 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

I'm not on the right. I'm on the side of non-violence. BOTH the left AND the right seek to use the violence of the state against each other, and other countries. I seek to stop both of them from being immoral. Better luck next time.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago


[-] 3 points by hazencage (58) 10 years ago

The tobbacco companies!

[-] 7 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

But no. That can't be. Brain dead rich conservatives don't have the intellect to appreciate the truth about anything. Much less the capacity for self awareness.

Read about dysfunctional economy and culture: How Does That Work? https://www.createspace.com/3852916

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 10 years ago

they wouldnt be rich is they were " braindead".

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

Doubtful. I do believe Romney is 'relatively' moderate. I think much of his problems, seen all the way back in the primaries, is the Republican base. He had to try to be something he is not. I almost feel sorry for him. Because unfortunately, he simply doesn't have the leadership skills, or isn't strong enough, to talk sense into the crazy that is driving the Republican bus right now.

The Party has no one to blame but themselves. They'll try to blame Romney. Not that he's totally blameless. But the bigger problem is the crazy that is driving the bus. The crazy that would only be satisfied with - I don't know - Rush Limbaugh, as their nominee. Because quite honestly, I don't think Chris Christie is crazy enough for those maniacs. So Romney tried to throw the crazies a bone - the Ayn Randian, Draco himself - Paul Ryan. Then put a sock in his mouth, knowing full well his Ayn Randian Draconian views might disturb the moderates. The Party needs to take a look at itself. And see that the problem is them.

I mean, when Jeb Bush criticizes the Party, that Reagan nor his father would not be electable in the current environment. They've got a serious problem with the crazies. The traditional moderate Republican's need to grab hold of the wheel and move the crazies to the back of the bus where they belong. Everyone, including Democrats, would benefit from this.

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

True, I too believe the Repus painted themselves into a corner with the wingnuts Fox News spun into a frenzy. That doesn't mean Romney didn't seek the nomination, not to win, but for the reasons Savan outlined in the Nation article cited in the original post. Read it. It's not very long and well thought out.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

You're spot on about Fox News whipping them into a frenzy. At some point I have to believe that the monster (like Frankenstein) they have created for themselves with Fox News, will eventually be the thing that destroys them (perhaps my wishful thinking).

The article above about Stiglitz is right on too. The choice between 'you're on your own, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, sink or swim' mentality v. 'we're all in this together'. And when Romney implies that 47% of the population don't want to take responsibility for their lives, whether he truly believes this, or is just a bit of hyperbole, pandering to his audience - doesn't matter. It's still feeding the sickening right wing narrative that people choose to be, and enjoy being, on welfare, and Pres. Obama wants them there. And completely ignores the economic reality that people are facing, after the financial crisis. The results of 30 years of globalization, the damage the financial crisis has caused, and the structural changes in the economy, of a manufacturing driven economy to a knowledge based economy. He didn't even come close to touching on these subjects. But instead chose to feed the sickening right wing narrative, denigrating the poor and the working poor.

The Savan article - interesting but I disagree. I think he's driven by ambition, certainly following his father's footsteps. I think he's checking off the boxes. Successful business man - check. Governor - check. Next stop - President. I think he thinks he's entitled. Perhaps divine. The White Horse Prophecy.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

I've often wondered if the cult of individual ambition, the 'winner take all' mentality, that relies on a community to exploit, isn't a symptom of schizophrenia. Are the thralls of Rand (the source of so much logical absurdity) more than merely confused and inconsistent?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

Sociopathic, anti-social, paranoia brought on by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Tea Party knuckle-draggers et al. Rand is just the latest rationalization to justify their anti-social disorder.

Beats me how people think public policy should be based on a piece of third rate hack fiction. Unless they're mentally ill.

[-] 4 points by howitworks (34) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

I think you'r onto something.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

there really might be some truth to this... McCain seemed to intentionally throw the election when he picked Palin for running mate... then R picks the biggest idiot... and does all kinds of other crazy stuff... I can't believe he's really that stupid .... they are trying to throw the election... imo... unless they really are that dumb ???? ;)

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

I've always wondered. Are conservatives/libertarians deliberately obtuse or is it authentic stupidity?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

Since the start of the republican primaries I've been telling everyone the republican candidates are so fucking stupid this year it has to be a conspiracy to get Barack Obama re-elected.


[-] 1 points by jdjohn1990 (3) 10 years ago

The consequences of this being true are enourmous. No man would throw an election, expecially after accepting the nomination. This allegation is a joke.

[-] 1 points by jdjohn1990 (3) 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

I have been concerned all along that Romeny would intentionally throw the election to the benefit of the money mongers. I mean let's face it - the media should be eating Obama alive right now and they're not. We're being manipulated - another four years at this pace would allow them to greatly advance their agenda, after which they will turn on his fiscal policy while simultaneously enriching him with humanitarian pats on the back. An American expatriate, he will occupy a billionaire's palace and fly in only for multimillion dollar guest appearances.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 10 years ago

Romney isn't throwing it but maybe his party is. They can pat themselves on the back now for nominating a Mormon.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Mitt Romney has been a very moderate person his whole life. He has been thrown into this.

It was ALWAYS going to be Romney winning the primaries. And it was ALWAYS going to be Obama beating Romney.

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago

I'm sure you're right about the outcome, despite the media's desire to entertain by making it look tight. But read the Nation's article. It's short and interesting.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 10 years ago

You could be right about that.

[-] -1 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 10 years ago

And that will make the vast majority of OWS happy.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago


Bush threw this election 4 years ago

Walker is an athlete. got a good throwing arm

[-] -1 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 10 years ago

You are the single most delusional person I have seen here. Whatever. Your god Obama will save you....

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (2516) from Fredericksburg, TX 10 years ago