Mitt Romney Scandals

[karel]

mitt is a duche bag,an d if he gets in we are all fucked.......power to health care bitches so sick of you war hungry fucking republicans,i think you have done this country enough damage.

you cant trust A REPUBLICAN,ESP MITT ROMNEY
you fascist bastards

[Army of GOD]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

I would think this is true for both sides. I mean, PLAYER admitted herself than she is going to vote Obama just because she doesn't want Romney to win (or I read it wrong).

It's ridiculous though. The Tea Party and OWS are very similar movements yet neither of them have anything in common with either Romney or Obama.

I previously would've hope that this site would have a lot of half-intelligent people who wouldn't fall into the two-party thinking like most of the country but it seems otherwise.

One of my brothers is like this too though and it's annoying seeing his Facebook statuses always being something along the lines of "hurrdurr Obama sucks Romney's awesome!" (ok, maybe that was exaggerated a bit) when I absolutely know his political interests are best fit with a third party candidate. It's this stupid hivemind thinking that will forever keep us in this two party system (or well it might just be systematic and inevitable as I learned from CGP Grey).

[Woodruff]

It's ridiculous though. The Tea Party and OWS are very similar movements yet neither of them have anything in common with either Romney or Obama.

Absolutely correct.

I previously would've hope that this site would have a lot of half-intelligent people who wouldn't fall into the two-party thinking like most of the country but it seems otherwise.

I think this site may be frankly loaded down with the half-intelligent.

(As an aside, I had an uncle who would constantly tell me that I was half-fast when I was a little kid. I couldn't understand what the hell he meant until I was around 16, and it finally dawned on me...

[Night Strike]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

Actually, it's more like most if not all conservatives and libertarians on this site voted for (or would have voted for) someone other than Romney in the primaries. However, just because our specific other candidate may have lost in the primaries doesn't mean we won't vote for the better choice in the general election. Romney is still an infinitely better candidate than Obama, even if Romney wasn't my first (or second, or third) choice in the primary.

The Tea Party and OWS are very similar movements yet neither of them have anything in common with either Romney or Obama.

They are nothing similar. That idea has been perpetuated by the media to try to legitimize Occupy in spite of the massive problems with that group. Occupiers have been known to protect lawlessness, violence, littering, and demanding that the government grows to enact every socialist policy they can come up with. The Tea Party is completely opposite in every single way. The only thing that's similar between the two groups is that they both protest in public.

[Symmetry]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

Actually, it's more like most if not all conservatives and libertarians on this site voted for (or would have voted for) someone other than Romney in the primaries. However, just because our specific other candidate may have lost in the primaries doesn't mean we won't vote for the better choice in the general election. Romney is still an infinitely better candidate than Obama, even if Romney wasn't my first (or second, or third) choice in the primary.

So the news about Romney's potential criminal fraudulence as head of Bain won't sway you? Or are you still voting for not-Obama?

[Night Strike]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

Actually, it's more like most if not all conservatives and libertarians on this site voted for (or would have voted for) someone other than Romney in the primaries. However, just because our specific other candidate may have lost in the primaries doesn't mean we won't vote for the better choice in the general election. Romney is still an infinitely better candidate than Obama, even if Romney wasn't my first (or second, or third) choice in the primary.

So the news about Romney's potential criminal fraudulence as head of Bain won't sway you? Or are you still voting for not-Obama?

Or as the links I posted in the other thread clearly state, there was absolutely nothing criminal going on and the Obama campaign is trumping-up the false claims. You've clearly already made up your mind that he's guilty of it, even though there are a plethora of sites that have already debunked the claim.

[Symmetry]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

Actually, it's more like most if not all conservatives and libertarians on this site voted for (or would have voted for) someone other than Romney in the primaries. However, just because our specific other candidate may have lost in the primaries doesn't mean we won't vote for the better choice in the general election. Romney is still an infinitely better candidate than Obama, even if Romney wasn't my first (or second, or third) choice in the primary.

So the news about Romney's potential criminal fraudulence as head of Bain won't sway you? Or are you still voting for not-Obama?

Or as the links I posted in the other thread clearly state, there was absolutely nothing criminal going on and the Obama campaign is trumping-up the false claims. You've clearly already made up your mind that he's guilty of it, even though there are a plethora of sites that have already debunked the claim.

You know he lied about it though, right, even if you've drunk the Kool-Aid on it not being criminal?

[Night Strike]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

Actually, it's more like most if not all conservatives and libertarians on this site voted for (or would have voted for) someone other than Romney in the primaries. However, just because our specific other candidate may have lost in the primaries doesn't mean we won't vote for the better choice in the general election. Romney is still an infinitely better candidate than Obama, even if Romney wasn't my first (or second, or third) choice in the primary.

So the news about Romney's potential criminal fraudulence as head of Bain won't sway you? Or are you still voting for not-Obama?

Or as the links I posted in the other thread clearly state, there was absolutely nothing criminal going on and the Obama campaign is trumping-up the false claims. You've clearly already made up your mind that he's guilty of it, even though there are a plethora of sites that have already debunked the claim.

You know he lied about it though, right, even if you've drunk the Kool-Aid on it not being criminal?

Considering several people who are way smarter than me when it comes to corporate structures have immediately come out and stated that there is absolutely nothing criminal that took place, I'm much more inclined to believe them over Obama, who has a track-record of lying and deceiving. This accusation has been thrown out there and thoroughly debunked in less than 2 days. That means that there is clear evidence that the claim was false and didn't even take much time to crunch the numbers or dive into the details to sort everything out.

[Symmetry]

Considering several people who are way smarter than me when it comes to corporate structures have immediately come out and stated that there is absolutely nothing criminal that took place, I'm much more inclined to believe them over Obama, who has a track-record of lying and deceiving. This accusation has been thrown out there and thoroughly debunked in less than 2 days. That means that there is clear evidence that the claim was false and didn't even take much time to crunch the numbers or dive into the details to sort everything out.

So you simply have faith? Religious belief in a politician seems odd to me. You seem to want to avoid the suggestion that he lied, which is fairly obviously the case, by suggesting that he did nothing criminal when he lied.

No surprise that your lack of defense involved an attack on Obama though.

[Night Strike]

Considering several people who are way smarter than me when it comes to corporate structures have immediately come out and stated that there is absolutely nothing criminal that took place, I'm much more inclined to believe them over Obama, who has a track-record of lying and deceiving. This accusation has been thrown out there and thoroughly debunked in less than 2 days. That means that there is clear evidence that the claim was false and didn't even take much time to crunch the numbers or dive into the details to sort everything out.

So you simply have faith? Religious belief in a politician seems odd to me. You seem to want to avoid the suggestion that he lied, which is fairly obviously the case, by suggesting that he did nothing criminal when he lied.

No surprise that your lack of defense involved an attack on Obama though.

Except that there's no evidence he (Romney) lied either. Watch the Krauthammer video in the Blaze link. He left Bain in a hurry before all the legal paperwork could be formally taken care of. Therefore, he was listed in SEC filings for different things even though he wasn't actually doing anything with the company. His name was on the paperwork until that paperwork could be transferred to new ownership. Corporate holding changes are huge legal pains to go through to get everything changed over.

I have a little bit of experience with this in that the company I work for took several months longer to get the name changed over than what the bosses had been projecting. The original company I work for was bought out long before the name of our plant was actually changed over to the name of the new owners because of having to go through many legal procedures. But just because we had the old name didn't mean that the old owners were in charge of what was going on with the company (although in this case the purchase had been made and completed, even though the name changes hadn't all been filed and completed).

[Symmetry]

Considering several people who are way smarter than me when it comes to corporate structures have immediately come out and stated that there is absolutely nothing criminal that took place, I'm much more inclined to believe them over Obama, who has a track-record of lying and deceiving. This accusation has been thrown out there and thoroughly debunked in less than 2 days. That means that there is clear evidence that the claim was false and didn't even take much time to crunch the numbers or dive into the details to sort everything out.

So you simply have faith? Religious belief in a politician seems odd to me. You seem to want to avoid the suggestion that he lied, which is fairly obviously the case, by suggesting that he did nothing criminal when he lied.

No surprise that your lack of defense involved an attack on Obama though.

Except that there's no evidence he (Romney) lied either. Watch the Krauthammer video in the Blaze link. He left Bain in a hurry before all the legal paperwork could be formally taken care of. Therefore, he was listed in SEC filings for different things even though he wasn't actually doing anything with the company. His name was on the paperwork until that paperwork could be transferred to new ownership. Corporate holding changes are huge legal pains to go through to get everything changed over.

I have a little bit of experience with this in that the company I work for took several months longer to get the name changed over than what the bosses had been projecting. The original company I work for was bought out long before the name of our plant was actually changed over to the name of the new owners because of having to go through many legal procedures. But just because we had the old name didn't mean that the old owners were in charge of what was going on with the company (although in this case the purchase had been made and completed, even though the name changes hadn't all been filed and completed).

Did they list the same guy as CEO, and owner, or are you talking apples and oranges?

[Night Strike]

It was a new CEO and owner. However, according to these articles, Romney's involvement in Bain Capital Inc. was essentially the holder who paid the bills and did not actually make any profits. His formal removal from Bain transferred all his holding to Bain Capital LLC.


Also, this story about the SEC filings was actually clarified/debunked back in January, 6 months before this week's attacks and articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-obama-campaigns-suspect-claim-about-romneys-role-in-store-closings/2012/01/17/gIQA6wey6P_blog.html


By the way, the Boston Globe (the paper that "broke" this story) actually published this story in 2002!
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/boston-globe-repackages-its-2002-romney-bain-ceo-story-as-breaking-news/

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ers/54489/

Romney was listed as Bain's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" on Securities and Exchange Commission filings until 2002, the Boston Globe's Callum Borchers and Christopher Rowland report Thursday. Further, Massachusetts state documents show that Romney owned 100 percent of Bain in 2002, and that he earned at least $100,000 as an executive of Bain in 2001 and 2002. That follows a Vanity Fair report earlier this month showing that Romney still gets income from Bain -- $2 million in June alone, and investments in the firm's Cayman Island funds could be worth as much as $30 million. And Mother Jones found that November 1999 SEC filings concerning Bain's deal with Stericycle state that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to" more than 2 million shares of Stericycle stock "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities involved.

Romney's campaign says Romney's name was still on the paperwork for legal technicalities, and that it doesn't really mean he was there. But former SEC commissioner Roberta S. Karmel told the Globe that claim strains credulity:

"You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing… It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations. Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?"

[Woodruff]

It's almost as if the more conservative posters have no opinion on who they elect as long as its not Obama.

Actually, it's more like most if not all conservatives and libertarians on this site voted for (or would have voted for) someone other than Romney in the primaries. However, just because our specific other candidate may have lost in the primaries doesn't mean we won't vote for the better choice in the general election. Romney is still an infinitely better candidate than Obama, even if Romney wasn't my first (or second, or third) choice in the primary.

The Tea Party and OWS are very similar movements yet neither of them have anything in common with either Romney or Obama.

They are nothing similar.

They absolutely are.

That idea has been perpetuated by the media to try to legitimize Occupy in spite of the massive problems with that group. Occupiers have been known to protect lawlessness, violence, littering, and demanding that the government grows to enact every socialist policy they can come up with. The Tea Party is completely opposite in every single way. The only thing that's similar between the two groups is that they both protest in public.

Wow...the media has certainly perpetuated SOMETHING in your direction, but it's not an objective viewpoint.

[Juan_Bottom]

NOT A SCANDAL



I just thought that this was great:

From a black man to Mitt Romney: f*ck you.
Black people don't want free shit, you out of touch Dr. Reed Richards hair having motherfucker.

We want the same shit that your white constituency wants: Opportunity, good schools, safe streets, JOBS, a house that doesn't fucking double and triple in interest rate while the value plummets, a place to shit with a door on it and the ability to not be denied coverage when we have a medical problem. We're no different than anybody else but you wouldn't know that because the only black person you probably know personally you just happen to be running against him for president.

I'm tired of these piece of shit Republicans talking DOWN and whitesplaining to people of color AS IF they had it hard all their lives. NO Mitt Romney, you never had to worry about the price of milk ever in your fucking life. You were raised with a silver spoon in your mouth and your father probably owned a silver spoon factory.

If you were really in touch, you'd talk about JOBS because we have a 14% unemployment rate in the black community but your party couldn't pass a fart through cotton much less a fucking jobs bill. You'd talk about the safety net but we all know that you and Rand Paul are looking to take a pair of comically large shears to that motherfucker.

Instead you walk in front of the NAACP and talk PAST them and your message hits your goddamn racist, sexist, homophobic, bible thumping, hate ridden, against their own interest base that ignores when we spend half a million on cruise missiles but complain when they see somebody cashing an unemployment check that happens to own an iPhone. f*ck YOU.

I have a goddamn question for you, Willard:

What about your perpetually poor white voters in states like West Virginia, Mississippi, Missouri and Louisiana that vote for you even though you give no fucking care about them. As long as you hammer on how black Obama is, how the liberals want to shoot their white women with abortion guns and the fact that gays want to marry your children they'll continue voting for you. They staff your fucked up infantry and you've spent the past 60 years brainwashing them into thinking they deserve to get welfare checks but the second black people get them, it's a problem.

f*ck you and your face. f*ck your hair. f*ck your party. f*ck Newt Gingrich and f*ck the whole conservative movement that has allowed their side to turn into this giant self-eating mutated blob.

Partake in the finest selection of horse penises.

[Woodruff]

NOT A SCANDAL

I just thought that this was great:

From a black man to Mitt Romney: f*ck you.
Black people don't want free shit, you out of touch Dr. Reed Richards hair having motherfucker.

We want the same shit that your white constituency wants: Opportunity, good schools, safe streets, JOBS, a house that doesn't fucking double and triple in interest rate while the value plummets, a place to shit with a door on it and the ability to not be denied coverage when we have a medical problem. We're no different than anybody else but you wouldn't know that because the only black person you probably know personally you just happen to be running against him for president.

I'm tired of these piece of shit Republicans talking DOWN and whitesplaining to people of color AS IF they had it hard all their lives. NO Mitt Romney, you never had to worry about the price of milk ever in your fucking life. You were raised with a silver spoon in your mouth and your father probably owned a silver spoon factory.

If you were really in touch, you'd talk about JOBS because we have a 14% unemployment rate in the black community but your party couldn't pass a fart through cotton much less a fucking jobs bill. You'd talk about the safety net but we all know that you and Rand Paul are looking to take a pair of comically large shears to that motherfucker.

Instead you walk in front of the NAACP and talk PAST them and your message hits your goddamn racist, sexist, homophobic, bible thumping, hate ridden, against their own interest base that ignores when we spend half a million on cruise missiles but complain when they see somebody cashing an unemployment check that happens to own an iPhone. f*ck YOU.

I have a goddamn question for you, Willard:

What about your perpetually poor white voters in states like West Virginia, Mississippi, Missouri and Louisiana that vote for you even though you give no fucking care about them. As long as you hammer on how black Obama is, how the liberals want to shoot their white women with abortion guns and the fact that gays want to marry your children they'll continue voting for you. They staff your fucked up infantry and you've spent the past 60 years brainwashing them into thinking they deserve to get welfare checks but the second black people get them, it's a problem.

f*ck you and your face. f*ck your hair. f*ck your party. f*ck Newt Gingrich and f*ck the whole conservative movement that has allowed their side to turn into this giant self-eating mutated blob.

Partake in the finest selection of horse penises.

That's quite a...uh...closing statement.

Aside from that, what really was this rant about? It just seems to me like a lot of unnecessary swearing. Has Romney been particularly anti-black (I haven't seen it, I don't think)?

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh, well that is a scandal. A social scandal.

Google Mitt Romney at the NAACP.

He basically said he was going to repeal Obamacare cuz black people always want free stuff. Or something like that. And he got booed.

If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for? Vote for the other guy, that’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about.

[bradleybadly]

If only Juan would've been this zealous in vetting Obama back in 2007-2008.

[Symmetry]

If only Juan would've been this zealous in vetting Obama back in 2007-2008.

He joined in 2008, it's right there under his name. How could he have been here in 2007 vetting Obama?

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm sorry, you've been confused by some of the people above who are posting incorrectly.

This thread is not about Obama at all; it's a thread to keep track of all the Romney Scandals. As you can see, they seem to just keep coming. I've skipped over a few mini-scandals too like his compulsive hiding of money to avoid US taxes.

[Night Strike]

I've skipped over a few mini-scandals too like his compulsive hiding of money to avoid US taxes.

That hasn't been done either. Romney has paid the proper taxes on all his earned income, even if he stores the money outside the US.

[bradleybadly]

If only Juan would've been this zealous in vetting Obama back in 2007-2008.

He joined in 2008, it's right there under his name. How could he have been here in 2007 vetting Obama?

Yup, cause I clearly restricted the statement to being registered on CC.

[Symmetry]

If only Juan would've been this zealous in vetting Obama back in 2007-2008.

He joined in 2008, it's right there under his name. How could he have been here in 2007 vetting Obama?

Yup, cause I clearly restricted the statement to being registered on CC.

One might wonder how you know he wasn't vetting like a zealot in 2007 then, elsewhere.

[Phatscotty]

If only Juan would've been this zealous in vetting Obama back in 2007-2008.

He joined in 2008, it's right there under his name. How could he have been here in 2007 vetting Obama?

Yup, cause I clearly restricted the statement to being registered on CC.

One might wonder how you know he wasn't vetting like a zealot in 2007 then, elsewhere.

please do not get a new strategy! please please please don't change!

[Juan_Bottom]

I've skipped over a few mini-scandals too like his compulsive hiding of money to avoid US taxes.

That hasn't been done either. Romney has paid the proper taxes on all his earned income, even if he stores the money outside the US.

Yes. Stores money in places where he doesn't pay taxes on it.

One might wonder how you know he wasn't vetting like a zealot in 2007 then, elsewhere.

At least you've exposed him as someone who doesn't admit when he's wrong.