If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   While it's true Mitt Romney was CEO, sole owner, and managing director, he says he didn't have anything to do with Bain, so Obama is a liar. It's all laid out in this text wall of obfuscation   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 686
    More: Followup, Securities and Exchange Commission, securities laws, portfolio company, Securities Exchange Act, investment fund, Obama campaign, Bain Capital  
•       •       •

2911 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2012 at 12:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



686 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-13 05:52:48 PM

WombatControl: Of course not, it's the "blame America first" mentality again - it's somehow all America's fault.


Aren't you blaming the US for the rise of the islamicists in Egypt?
 
2012-07-13 05:53:30 PM

Serious Black: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: 1.) Yes, they can. But when you have pro-democracy movements that could use international support and you sit on your ass and do nothing to help them, that's an abdication of leadership. Especially after giving a lofty speech in Cairo on how important real democracy is. Oh, wait, every Obama promise comes with an expiration date, doesn't it?

Worked great in Iran when we backed the Shah...

Or when we helped install Ngo Dinh Diem as President of the Republic of Vietnam and then assassinated him.


But this time it'll totally be different! WombatControl told us so!
 
2012-07-13 05:54:15 PM

Serious Black: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: OK, I bow to your superior self-regard. Let's stop creatingthe conditions that causes us to be in conflict wit the Middle East. We'll bomb Israel into dust, execute all our gays, make sure no women vote, drive, own property, or travel without a male relative and generally embrace Salafi Islam. There, no more wars in the Middle East.

Read Sayid Qutb, because he's very clear on what Islamism's political and military goals are. Our mere existence is viewed as an affront to Islam.

The funny thing is that you think intervening in every Middle Eastern country is going to help when history shows that strategy blowing up in the US faces everytime...literally.

Have you read Washington Rules or The Limits Of Power by Andrew Bacevich? Those were both mind-blowing books that really crystallized my views on our foreign policy.


No but they do sound interesting. But I never have time to read books anymore it seems.
 
2012-07-13 05:57:10 PM
Obama: "Now, my understanding is that Mr. Romney attested to the SEC, multiple times, that he was the chairman, CEO and president of Bain Capital and I think most Americans figure if you are the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what that company does." video
 
2012-07-13 05:58:55 PM

Mrtraveler01: Serious Black: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: 1.) Yes, they can. But when you have pro-democracy movements that could use international support and you sit on your ass and do nothing to help them, that's an abdication of leadership. Especially after giving a lofty speech in Cairo on how important real democracy is. Oh, wait, every Obama promise comes with an expiration date, doesn't it?

Worked great in Iran when we backed the Shah...

Or when we helped install Ngo Dinh Diem as President of the Republic of Vietnam and then assassinated him.

But this time it'll totally be different! WombatControl told us so!


Egypt is moving along democracy-wise, maybe not in the way we want, but that is not a requirement for a Democracy. I really can't think of anything worse to do right now in Egypt than have a foreign country promoting violence from the outside. Who in their right mind would think that is a good move right now?
 
2012-07-13 06:01:02 PM
Wow this thread sure took a hard derp into BFE.

Never mind that Romney is a crooked unethical "businessman," Obama is screwing up in Egypt [Citation Needed] now so the heck with that.
 
2012-07-13 06:02:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Serious Black: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: OK, I bow to your superior self-regard. Let's stop creatingthe conditions that causes us to be in conflict wit the Middle East. We'll bomb Israel into dust, execute all our gays, make sure no women vote, drive, own property, or travel without a male relative and generally embrace Salafi Islam. There, no more wars in the Middle East.

Read Sayid Qutb, because he's very clear on what Islamism's political and military goals are. Our mere existence is viewed as an affront to Islam.

The funny thing is that you think intervening in every Middle Eastern country is going to help when history shows that strategy blowing up in the US faces everytime...literally.

Have you read Washington Rules or The Limits Of Power by Andrew Bacevich? Those were both mind-blowing books that really crystallized my views on our foreign policy.

No but they do sound interesting. But I never have time to read books anymore it seems.


Much of his thesis that he builds up in The Limits of Power and then fully fleshes out in Washington Rules is that we do things with our foreign policy that, if any other country were to do them, we would treat as an act of war. But because it's us that is doing them, we see it as trying to bring peace to the world. In the first chapter, he goes through all the stuff that we've done, including building bases in foreign countries all across the planet, dividing the world into six different areas of responsibility and building commandant commands with 4-star generals at the head to oversee all military activity in those areas, and spending more money than the rest of the world combined on our military. If China tried to do anything remotely close to what we've done with our military, especially trying to open a military base on Mexican soil, we'd be bombing them faster than Usain Bolt can run the 100 meter dash.
 
2012-07-13 06:04:38 PM

Serious Black: Have you read Washington Rules or The Limits Of Power by Andrew Bacevich? Those were both mind-blowing books that really crystallized my views on our foreign policy.


I have not read Washington Rules. I did read The Limits of Power.

What's interesting about Bacevich's thesis is that he gets a great deal right - but he misses the larger point. He argues that America's crushing debt limits our ability to influence world affairs. He's absolutely right on that. But he wants to argue that it's the fault of the "military industrial complex." We spend less on military spending as a percentage of GDP than we did during the Cold War - a lot less. We are spending ourselves into oblivion, but it's not on the War on Terror. It's on the War on Poverty, a war that is by definition unwinnable inasmuch as poverty is relative and consumes far more of our national fisc than anything else. (All while poverty rates are essentially flat.)

I'll have to check out The Washington Rules. I like getting better arguments from the other side than most of the shiat that gets published. Yes, I get it, you think all Republicans are crooks, go fark yourself. What I want to know is what you real governing philosophy is, how you get there and what preconceptions you make along the way. That's what matters, not another crappy book bashing the other side.
 
2012-07-13 06:06:03 PM
"Look - the president needs to talk about the direction he'd take the country, and stop these kinds of ads and attacks that are so disparate from what the American people want to talk about," Romney concluded, adding later that the president "has demeaned the leadership which he should be bringing to this country." Link

It appears the President has hurt Mr. Romney's feelings. Hurrumph.
 
2012-07-13 06:12:09 PM

WombatControl: What I want to know is what you real governing philosophy is, how you get there and what preconceptions you make along the way.


Well, first I start by blatantly lying about things like how an acquaintance of mine had to pay $10,000 for a building permit to install just one shower stall. Then I use this manufactured rage to conclude that "government bad". Then I apply the axiom of "government bad" to everything. When called out on my original lie I cry something like "It doesn't matter if my evidence is totally made up, my point is still correct! Harumph!"

Oh wait, that's your philosophy and your preconceptions. My bad.

No run along and try your pathetic attempts to deflect from the topic and jack the thread somewhere else.
 
2012-07-13 06:16:48 PM
Apparently Mitt just pledged on CNN that he won't release any more of his past tax returns.

That seems to be a very, very stupid move on his part.
 
2012-07-13 06:22:56 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Apparently Mitt just pledged on CNN that he won't release any more of his past tax returns.

That seems to be a very, very stupid move on his part.


armagideon-time.com

WTF is this guy's problem?
 
2012-07-13 06:24:35 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Apparently Mitt just pledged on CNN that he won't release any more of his past tax returns.

That seems to be a very, very stupid move on his part.


It would prove he is a felon, he can't do that. He just has to hope the Americuns are dumb enough to let him slide.
 
2012-07-13 06:37:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: That seems to be a very, very stupid move on his part.


Romney's decided the hits he'll take over secrecy are easier than explaining what's in his tax returns. Dems should make that hurt.

- David Roberts (@drgrist) July 13, 2012
 
2012-07-13 06:43:20 PM

Hobodeluxe: Obama's already got a new ad out. Ouch


Classic....but my teabagger friends will say he's rich...doesnt matter how...he can run the country like his businesses
 
2012-07-13 06:51:03 PM

Weaver95: The Homer Tax: Weaver95: apparently, we're not supposed to talk about Bain capital or something.

Which is fascinating because we're talking about a candidate whose entire campaign that's doesn't consist of "I'm not the other guy," is "Government should be run like a business, and I have experience running a business."

But when you start looking at how he ran that business or what he did, it's "This doesn't concern you!"

we aren't supposed to ask questions about Romney's business career, nor are we supposed to talk about Bain capital. But we're supposed to assume that Romney is an incredibly awesome businessman and that everything he does is super great. questions are rude and we should be sorry for asking in the first place.


The crux of it is that Romney is running on his experience.
But we aren't allowed to ask about Bain.
But we arent' allowed to ask about his term as MA Governor.
And we aren't allowed to ask about how he manages his personal finances.

So... the question voters have is... what experience are we supposed to base our support of him on?
 
2012-07-13 06:52:04 PM

firefly212: So... the question voters have is... what experience are we supposed to base our support of him on?


The experience of not knowing how many hundreds of millions you have in the bank and what a feeling.
 
2012-07-13 06:56:26 PM

firefly212: Weaver95: The Homer Tax: Weaver95: apparently, we're not supposed to talk about Bain capital or something.

Which is fascinating because we're talking about a candidate whose entire campaign that's doesn't consist of "I'm not the other guy," is "Government should be run like a business, and I have experience running a business."

But when you start looking at how he ran that business or what he did, it's "This doesn't concern you!"

we aren't supposed to ask questions about Romney's business career, nor are we supposed to talk about Bain capital. But we're supposed to assume that Romney is an incredibly awesome businessman and that everything he does is super great. questions are rude and we should be sorry for asking in the first place.

The crux of it is that Romney is running on his experience.
But we aren't allowed to ask about Bain.
But we arent' allowed to ask about his term as MA Governor.
And we aren't allowed to ask about how he manages his personal finances.

So... the question voters have is... what experience are we supposed to base our support of him on?


got me. all I know is that if you ask questions about Romney's record as a businessman you get called a socialist.
 
2012-07-13 06:58:23 PM

whidbey: firefly212: So... the question voters have is... what experience are we supposed to base our support of him on?

The experience of not knowing how many hundreds of millions you have in the bank and what a feeling.


And our collective sense of correct and incorrect heights of trees.
 
2012-07-13 06:59:43 PM

coeyagi: whidbey: firefly212: So... the question voters have is... what experience are we supposed to base our support of him on?

The experience of not knowing how many hundreds of millions you have in the bank and what a feeling.

And our collective sense of correct and incorrect heights of trees.


Don't forget: Dogs. On the roof of the car.

The whole trip.
 
2012-07-13 07:00:00 PM

Serious Black: Mrtraveler01: Serious Black: Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: OK, I bow to your superior self-regard. Let's stop creatingthe conditions that causes us to be in conflict wit the Middle East. We'll bomb Israel into dust, execute all our gays, make sure no women vote, drive, own property, or travel without a male relative and generally embrace Salafi Islam. There, no more wars in the Middle East.

Read Sayid Qutb, because he's very clear on what Islamism's political and military goals are. Our mere existence is viewed as an affront to Islam.

The funny thing is that you think intervening in every Middle Eastern country is going to help when history shows that strategy blowing up in the US faces everytime...literally.

Have you read Washington Rules or The Limits Of Power by Andrew Bacevich? Those were both mind-blowing books that really crystallized my views on our foreign policy.

No but they do sound interesting. But I never have time to read books anymore it seems.

Much of his thesis that he builds up in The Limits of Power and then fully fleshes out in Washington Rules is that we do things with our foreign policy that, if any other country were to do them, we would treat as an act of war. But because it's us that is doing them, we see it as trying to bring peace to the world. In the first chapter, he goes through all the stuff that we've done, including building bases in foreign countries all across the planet, dividing the world into six different areas of responsibility and building commandant commands with 4-star generals at the head to oversee all military activity in those areas, and spending more money than the rest of the world combined on our military. If China tried to do anything remotely close to what we've done with our military, especially trying to open a military base on Mexican soil, we'd be bombing them faster than Usain Bolt can run the 100 meter dash.


He sounds like a very intelligent man. Examples like these really emphasize the "Imperialist-like" mentality neoconservatives have.

WombatControl: What's interesting about Bacevich's thesis is that he gets a great deal right - but he misses the larger point. He argues that America's crushing debt limits our ability to influence world affairs. He's absolutely right on that. But he wants to argue that it's the fault of the "military industrial complex." We spend less on military spending as a percentage of GDP than we did during the Cold War - a lot less.


And yet even now we spend 4 times more than the next country down which is China.

But no...the Defense part of the budget isn't riddle with waste and fraud and isn't a huge drain to the budget at all. It's all the poor people's fault.
 
2012-07-13 07:00:49 PM

whidbey: Wow this thread sure took a hard derp into BFE..


well it's not like the GOP shills can actually discuss Romney's business record. they HAVE to change the subject...and fast too, before anyone notices.
 
2012-07-13 07:01:48 PM
remember folks - the GOP wants to change the subject. they don't WANT to talk about Bain capital.
 
2012-07-13 07:09:12 PM
Mitt in an interview with CNN.

Romney says he had "no role whatsoever in the management of Bain capital" after 1999. He says he "relinquished all authority and role at Bain Capital after 1999." Which is horsepucky, if he's not only CEO, but also the chairman of the board. Unless the Bain charter said something different, the board of directors of a company has oversite of the officers that handle the day-to-day operations. One could argue that "management" meant day-to-day operations. However, chairman of the board is very definitely a position of authority and a role in the company.

He claims he was "associated" with Bain because he was the owner of the company; the then makes the argument that there is a difference between being a shareholder/owner and running an entity. Yes, there is a big difference between being a shareholder and running the place. But Mitt's claim ignores the "controlling person of Bain Capital" line in the SEC filings.
 
2012-07-13 07:10:35 PM

quizzical: Mitt in an interview with CNN.

Romney says he had "no role whatsoever in the management of Bain capital" after 1999. He says he "relinquished all authority and role at Bain Capital after 1999." Which is horsepucky, if he's not only CEO, but also the chairman of the board. Unless the Bain charter said something different, the board of directors of a company has oversite of the officers that handle the day-to-day operations. One could argue that "management" meant day-to-day operations. However, chairman of the board is very definitely a position of authority and a role in the company.

He claims he was "associated" with Bain because he was the owner of the company; the then makes the argument that there is a difference between being a shareholder/owner and running an entity. Yes, there is a big difference between being a shareholder and running the place. But Mitt's claim ignores the "controlling person of Bain Capital" line in the SEC filings.


-----------------

You mean you can't just write a random, unaffiliated person in as CEO when filing with the SEC? Don't be ridiculous!
 
2012-07-13 07:22:15 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: Have you read Washington Rules or The Limits Of Power by Andrew Bacevich? Those were both mind-blowing books that really crystallized my views on our foreign policy.

I have not read Washington Rules. I did read The Limits of Power.

What's interesting about Bacevich's thesis is that he gets a great deal right - but he misses the larger point. He argues that America's crushing debt limits our ability to influence world affairs. He's absolutely right on that. But he wants to argue that it's the fault of the "military industrial complex." We spend less on military spending as a percentage of GDP than we did during the Cold War - a lot less. We are spending ourselves into oblivion, but it's not on the War on Terror. It's on the War on Poverty, a war that is by definition unwinnable inasmuch as poverty is relative and consumes far more of our national fisc than anything else. (All while poverty rates are essentially flat.)

I'll have to check out The Washington Rules. I like getting better arguments from the other side than most of the shiat that gets published. Yes, I get it, you think all Republicans are crooks, go fark yourself. What I want to know is what you real governing philosophy is, how you get there and what preconceptions you make along the way. That's what matters, not another crappy book bashing the other side.


Where the fark did that come from?
Maybe it's time to dial the roids back just a tad.
 
2012-07-13 07:23:23 PM

Aldon: Hobodeluxe: Obama's already got a new ad out. Ouch

Nice, perfect tone. Now Romney's only choice is to say he has been lying about no involvement or that even though the documents say he is in charge, he wasn't because of some nuanced reason that might be hard for the unwashed masses to understand.

It is not about what is 'technically' correct or legally defensible, the Obama campaign seems to know that.

If you asked someone what he did for a living and he said he was the CEO and sole share holder of Bain capital, then you find out he did nothing in Bain and actually worked for the Olympics you would think the person lied to you about what he did for a living. It doesn't really matter that no law was broken and that he might be right on some nuanced technicality.


Legality is not the issue. Romney has been basically painted into a corner. His campaign has hinged for years on his "business experience as a job creator. However, now it's come to light that Bain had a pretty shady record insofar as outsourcing and other things.

Now, Romney can deny he was involved with Bain for several years during some shady practices, but that requires him to say his role as CEO was ineffectual and he really didn't do anything. However, logic dictates that if that is the case, he probably also didn't have much to do with any "job creation" that was a result of Bain.

He can shoot himself in the right foot or the left foot on this issue, but one of his shoes is still gonna get ruined.
 
2012-07-13 07:39:03 PM
Romney interview with CBS: I still retained an ownership interest, I had the capacity if I were not on leave, if I were actually wanting to run the business to do so, but I did not.

Romney had the power to run the company if he chose to use it. And I can only imagine that if the company was starting to go in a direction he really didn't approve of, as owner, he would have stepped in.
 
2012-07-13 07:46:42 PM

quizzical: Mitt in an interview with CNN.

Romney says he had "no role whatsoever in the management of Bain capital" after 1999. He says he "relinquished all authority and role at Bain Capital after 1999." Which is horsepucky, if he's not only CEO, but also the chairman of the board. Unless the Bain charter said something different, the board of directors of a company has oversite of the officers that handle the day-to-day operations. One could argue that "management" meant day-to-day operations. However, chairman of the board is very definitely a position of authority and a role in the company.

He claims he was "associated" with Bain because he was the owner of the company; the then makes the argument that there is a difference between being a shareholder/owner and running an entity. Yes, there is a big difference between being a shareholder and running the place. But Mitt's claim ignores the "controlling person of Bain Capital" line in the SEC filings.


Did you notice none of these "journalists" asked him why was he still receiving his CEO salary on top of his dividends during this time he was away. He was still being paid to do the job he said he wasn't doing. hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. They should have asked him if he felt he earned that salary considering he wasn't actually managing the company. and if he thought about paying it back.
 
2012-07-13 08:00:26 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Which is one of the cases that I based my analysis on, including Bailey v. Drexel Furniture.


Misunderstanding a case, "citing to it," and then calling the resulting pile of scat an "analysis" doesn't make it an actual "analysis."
 
2012-07-13 08:07:52 PM

spongeboob: At this rate what is Mitt going to be able to list as an accomplishment in August at the convention?

I guess that he had five kids and never got a divorce.



Unless one of his kids does something to embarrass his campaign.

Then Mitt will be all: "Just because I told the IRS they were 'dependents' doesn't mean I was their 'dad'. They were being raised by the executor of a blind trust at the time. It just took a few years for me to change my title from 'father' to 'non-voting familial shareholder'."
 
2012-07-13 08:13:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Apparently Mitt just pledged on CNN that he won't release any more of his past tax returns.

That seems to be a very, very stupid move on his part.


Especially since it was his own damn father who started the practice of releasing tax returns in presidential elections.

Mitt Romney: wants to force Latinos to show their papers, but refuses to show his own. What a hypocrite.
 
2012-07-13 08:18:50 PM

balloot: quizzical: Mitt in an interview with CNN.

Romney says he had "no role whatsoever in the management of Bain capital" after 1999. He says he "relinquished all authority and role at Bain Capital after 1999." Which is horsepucky, if he's not only CEO, but also the chairman of the board. Unless the Bain charter said something different, the board of directors of a company has oversite of the officers that handle the day-to-day operations. One could argue that "management" meant day-to-day operations. However, chairman of the board is very definitely a position of authority and a role in the company.

He claims he was "associated" with Bain because he was the owner of the company; the then makes the argument that there is a difference between being a shareholder/owner and running an entity. Yes, there is a big difference between being a shareholder and running the place. But Mitt's claim ignores the "controlling person of Bain Capital" line in the SEC filings.

-----------------

You mean you can't just write a random, unaffiliated person in as CEO when filing with the SEC? Don't be ridiculous!


Wow. Just wow. Mitt's candidacy may be over before it starts. Either he committed a felony by filing false SEC statements, and possibly fraud by collecting a salary for work he didn't do, OR he's lying outright about his activities at Bain Capital. Indictments, please.

Seriously, cons, you need to start thinking about picking Newt at the convention. Looks like he might have a better chance than this sociopath.
 
2012-07-13 08:21:50 PM

Aldon: You simple, simple unwashed masses....you simply don't understand the free market where you are paid for your contributions and abilities and on official papers you put your name on things and sign things for 3 years that mean nothing.

Sometimes you get paid for doing nothing and having no responsibilities for years... not you of course but the truly special people, like Willard Mitt Romney.
Sometimes you sign documents but have no responsibilities for what you sign for years.... not you of course but the truly special people, like Willard Mitt Romney.

When rich, connected people get paid and have no responsibilities or duties it is the free market. When anyone else does that they are freeloading welfare queens.

I know it is hard for you little people to understand, just trust your betters.


Precisely! If a poor person lies to the SEC, it's a felony - but if a rich person does it, it's just a simple misunderstanding that the unwashed masses wouldn't understand and here's a couple thousand dollars just go away OK thanks.
 
2012-07-13 08:23:49 PM
So Mitt just went on TV and said he had "NO ROLE" at Bain after February 1999. But Bain says he was on "PART TIME leave." In what farking alternate reality does earning 6-figures per year for working part time equal "no role"???
 
2012-07-13 08:30:43 PM

shower_in_my_socks: So Mitt just went on TV and said he had "NO ROLE" at Bain after February 1999. But Bain says he was on "PART TIME leave." In what farking alternate reality does earning 6-figures per year for working part time equal "no role"???


The fact that his defense is that he earned $100,000 for doing absolutely nothing at Bain, is pretty amusing coming off criticizing members of the NAACP who want "free stuff."
 
2012-07-13 08:33:09 PM

Sgt Otter: shower_in_my_socks: So Mitt just went on TV and said he had "NO ROLE" at Bain after February 1999. But Bain says he was on "PART TIME leave." In what farking alternate reality does earning 6-figures per year for working part time equal "no role"???

The fact that his defense is that he earned $100,000 for doing absolutely nothing at Bain, is pretty amusing coming off criticizing members of the NAACP who want "free stuff."


This: and to be clear, we're talking about salary paid in compensation for work purportedly done. Not dividends paid from shares. What a dick.
 
2012-07-13 08:39:30 PM

bugontherug:
Wow. Just wow. Mitt's candidacy may be over before it starts.


Sarah Palin is picking out outfits as we speak.
 
2012-07-13 08:39:42 PM

Sgt Otter: shower_in_my_socks: So Mitt just went on TV and said he had "NO ROLE" at Bain after February 1999. But Bain says he was on "PART TIME leave." In what farking alternate reality does earning 6-figures per year for working part time equal "no role"???

The fact that his defense is that he earned $100,000 for doing absolutely nothing at Bain, is pretty amusing coming off criticizing members of the NAACP who want "free stuff."


Typical libtard, you don't see the difference. Mitt Romney is white. It's not a handout when he gets it.
 
2012-07-13 08:44:24 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: quantum_csc: rohar: But he can't campaign on his experience as Governor of Mass. Obamacare and all. So it's down to the Olympics. Give it a week and that will be pulled out from under him too.

Wasn't there some massive bribery scandal around the Olympics?

Yes, regarding the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Romney was then brought in to clean it up. Probably not the example you were looking for to discredit Romney.


So, he was kind of like a 'community organizer?'
 
2012-07-13 08:45:08 PM

Dr.Zom: bugontherug:
Wow. Just wow. Mitt's candidacy may be over before it starts.

Sarah Palin is picking out outfits as we speak.


Kansas City sure is a nice town, isn't it?
 
2012-07-13 09:12:46 PM
The thing that strikes me the most is how much this story resembles the "Fall of Cain" from last November. The rhythm, timing, and especially the way that Romney is reacting: first ignoring, then doing some half assed denying, then starting to panic and then going full in damage control mode. I'm pretty sure that Cain had a point somewhere around the equivalent time period in his saga that he angrily said that everyone should be apologizing to him.
If the story continues to follow this mold, there will be more details coming out harder and harder to refute, and building up a narrative. Republicans will first support him and then start to worry. The polls will lag and not move at first, but then start to fall. When they do, someone in the right will suggest him dropping out before the convention. Blood will be in the water and everyone will turn on him. About a week later he'll drop out.

That's what it looks like to me. You can call this a "libtard fantasy" if you want but goddamn I don't see how he is going to survive this.

Of course, what then? Who will replace him at the convention? Ron Paul is still in the race. He has no delegates of his own, but he has about half of Romney's under his control, but sworn to vote for Romney on the first ballot. Once they are released from that oath, they will be for Paul and nothing could possibly get them to change their mind or compromise. But of course there is no way in hell that Paul could win. Then there is Santorum. He has a bunch of delegates and he would certainly want to jump back in. The establishment of course will be looking for someone from the wishlist they had last winter or fall, eg Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan. I don't think any of those would be willing to jump in at such a position of weakness, since they have ideas for the future. Also, the social conservatives would throw a fit for any of those except for Paul Ryan. Then of course, Sarah Palin would have a throng white knighting her,and I am sure she would jump at the opportunity to get the nomination without having to actually campaign.

Whoever ended up being nominated would be totally farked. They would have no campaign apparatus. They would have to hire a team. They would have to somehow try to get a ground game. They would have to smooth over the major butthurt that would certainly come out of such a chaotic convention. Hell, they would have to have a VP by the end of the convention, vetted no less. And of course they would have to somehow start raising a ton of money. They would be hundreds of millions behind,and facing potential donors that had just been sucked bone dry by Mitt Romney. And once they got the money they would have to turn it into advertisements. All in 2 months. And since the nominee would probably be someone who had run earlier in the primary, or else someone from the VP short list, Obama would already have plenty of opposition research so he'd be ready to go in that regard.

Jesus Christ, what a clusterfark. If I were a Republican I would shoot myself in the skull.
 
2012-07-13 09:17:19 PM

bugontherug: Dr.Zom: bugontherug:
Wow. Just wow. Mitt's candidacy may be over before it starts.

Sarah Palin is picking out outfits as we speak.

Kansas City sure is a nice town, isn't it?


When not 103, yes, it is.
 
2012-07-13 09:24:47 PM

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: You are not involved in the DRIVING of the car (if that's what you mean by "operation")

yes, the operation of the vehicle as a stand in for the operation of the company

Gyrfalcon: but you are absolutely liable both morally and legally if your friend did anything in or with your car that gives rise to agency. And the courts construe agency very broadly in circumstances like this: If you lent your car to a friend with your knowledge and consent, so he could pick up his and your kids after school, and he gets involved in a car crash--that is sufficient to create agency (It's one of those old cases all law students have to learn in Business Associations).

sure

Gyrfalcon: So in the Bain Capital case, if your contention is that Romney merely "owned" (as sole shareholder) Bain, and handed it off to others to "drive", he is still 100% liable for the actions of his agents regardless of whether or not he personally participated.

The depends on the application of the good faith defense as mentioned earlier but theoretically, sure, he could be legally liable for their actions and if he is aware of the activity he is certainly morally liable if he fails to stop them since it is within his power to do so.

Gyrfalcon: The only way Romney is off the hook would be if he had fully divested himself of his Bain shares, and was no longer in a position of benefit and control over the company. Which he did not.

sure but that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing his statement in the OGE filing regarding his involvement in the operations of Bain capital, or, rather, lack thereof.


My interest in this whole issue is millimeters deep at this point. I trust Rmoney's "good faith" argument like I trust all those Nazi leaders who were "just following orders." He's just doing lame damage control, trying to insist he "wasn't really responsible" for the heinous acts of a company he was profiting from, and by me that's both legally and morally unconscionable. Had he merely gone ahead and said, "yes, I was involved,' and stopped there, I might be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt when someone else said, "But he wasn't actively operating the company."
 
2012-07-13 09:26:44 PM

Hollie Maea: there will be more details coming out harder and harder to refute



Those details will be in the years of tax returns that Romney refuses to release (which is unprecedented in modern presidential campaigns).

McCain released 20 years of tax returns. Obama released 7-8 years-worth when he ran in 2008, and I think he's now released 12 years of them total. I believe even the President's cabinet members are required to release 6 years of returns.

Romney released ONE year.

The only reason to not release your returns is if you have something to hide. And now there is no farking way he's going to get away with not releasing them after this total fiasco. I'm sure there are all kinds of things related to Bain and to his overseas tax shelters that will constitute the "other shoe dropping" in this growing scandal.

He was attacked over this shiat during the primaries, and the Republicans still picked him. They get what they deserve.
 
2012-07-13 09:57:03 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Hollie Maea: there will be more details coming out harder and harder to refute


Those details will be in the years of tax returns that Romney refuses to release (which is unprecedented in modern presidential campaigns).

McCain released 20 years of tax returns. Obama released 7-8 years-worth when he ran in 2008, and I think he's now released 12 years of them total. I believe even the President's cabinet members are required to release 6 years of returns.

Romney released ONE year.

The only reason to not release your returns is if you have something to hide. And now there is no farking way he's going to get away with not releasing them after this total fiasco. I'm sure there are all kinds of things related to Bain and to his overseas tax shelters that will constitute the "other shoe dropping" in this growing scandal.

He was attacked over this shiat during the primaries, and the Republicans still picked him. They get what they deserve.


This. He doubled down HARD on not releasing the tax forms. This all but proves that there is something in there that he knows will make him unable to win if it is released. I mean, seriously...even at this point he is judging that the damage it is inflicting on him is less than that which would be inflicted if he released them. The mind boggles.
 
2012-07-13 10:44:27 PM

Hobodeluxe: quizzical: Mitt in an interview with CNN.

Romney says he had "no role whatsoever in the management of Bain capital" after 1999. He says he "relinquished all authority and role at Bain Capital after 1999." Which is horsepucky, if he's not only CEO, but also the chairman of the board. Unless the Bain charter said something different, the board of directors of a company has oversite of the officers that handle the day-to-day operations. One could argue that "management" meant day-to-day operations. However, chairman of the board is very definitely a position of authority and a role in the company.

He claims he was "associated" with Bain because he was the owner of the company; the then makes the argument that there is a difference between being a shareholder/owner and running an entity. Yes, there is a big difference between being a shareholder and running the place. But Mitt's claim ignores the "controlling person of Bain Capital" line in the SEC filings.

Did you notice none of these "journalists" asked him why was he still receiving his CEO salary on top of his dividends during this time he was away. He was still being paid to do the job he said he wasn't doing. hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. They should have asked him if he felt he earned that salary considering he wasn't actually managing the company. and if he thought about paying it back.


Surely he can name who was acting CEO during his leave of absence.
 
2012-07-13 10:52:24 PM
Make no mistake. Obama sprung this trap on Romney. A couple of weeks ago, Obama hit Romney with an ad accusing him of offshoring jobs, and he intentionally made most of his citations from the period from 1999 to 2002 to make sure that Romney would come out loudly on the record protesting that he had already left Bain at that point. Once he did that, the trap sprung shut, and Romney is completely farked now. He got used to easily dispatching flunkies such as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, so he got complacent and brought a butter knife to a thermonuclear bomb fight. Christ, what a disgrace. What a farking amateur.
 
2012-07-13 10:57:39 PM

shower_in_my_socks: . And now there is no farking way he's going to get away with not releasing them after this total fiasco.


I agree that there is no way he's going to get away with not releasing them at this point. But he will NOT release them. If they contain undeniable proof that he lied about this or something else, or broke a law, or something equally bad--and it is now certain that they do--then he will drop out before releasing them. So definitely he will not release them. However, if he does not drop out, they will be leaked. Of course Obama will not leak them from the IRS--that would get him into Big Trouble. But he won't have to. They will be leaked from John McCain's former campaign. When Romney's polls start to plummet, the GOP will abandon their support for him and demand him to step aside to try to save the shards of their party. When he refuses, the tax returns will be anonymously leaked by someone associated with McCain.
 
2012-07-13 11:22:36 PM
Late to the party, but I just wanted to say how amusing it's been to see Fark's two leading semanticists twist themselves into pretzels trying to convince people that a guy that was sole owner, CEO, director, president and Grand Poobah of a company he was drawing a salary from had nothing to do with it at all.

What a hoot!
 
Displayed 50 of 686 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report