Romney Might Be In TROUBLE

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by phantomjack
Hey Gang,

With comments that the President made today regarding the Romney-Bain Capital-SEC Filings that are under intense attack by the White House, I think that Romney might be in political trouble.

“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,” Obama said.
Obama told Scott Thuman of WJLA, the ABC affiliate in the Washington, D.C., area, that Romney “absolutely” must answer questions about his tenure at Bain and whether it continued past 1999 — when Romney has said in the past he left — to 2002, as Securities and Exchange Commission documents suggest.


Read more: www.politico.com...

To me, those are some pretty HEAVY words coming from a seemingly confident POTUS. I do not think that Obama would put his political neck out there like that unless he and the Democratic machine have something more than what Mitt Romney might be hiding.

I personally felt that Romney was clean on the SEC filing where he is listed as CEO during years he claims he was working 24/7 for the Olympics.

In my professional life and experience, I can tell you that Romney is probably clean, just based on what I have read in the SEC filing myself.

But Obama shocked me today....strong words....without some sort of proof?

This might begin to get very exciting, very soon.

What say you my ATS Friends?

I think there was plenty of proof. Documents filed with the SEC in 2002 listed Romney as, and I quote, "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president."

But he had NOTHING to do with Bain after 1999? That's what he says: "There is absolutely no evidence that I had any role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February 1999,"

So, uh, somebody obviously forged these documents and put his name on them?

I guess. He's demanding an apology from the Obama campaign, which is a classic, long-standing right wing tactic: the best defense is a good offense. Make as though you're a victim, make as though charges against you are outrageous. Finally, although this hasn't happened yet, make the charge that the allegations against you "demonstrate how desperate" the other candidate is. It's a good strategy, at least in America. Many people are more influenced by attitude and emotion, as opposed to facts and logic.

However, as we get deeper and deeper into the election (I wish these things didn't last so long -- they're painful and damaging to the USA, IMO) we are, in fact, seeing a Romney who is trying to hide his past. I think he'd be better off, and would stand a better chance of winning, if he was just "out" about everything. Americans respect a guy who is clever about money, and he obviously is. If I were him, I wouldn't worry about giving the Obama campaign "ammunition" because trying to hide stuff is giving them the best ammunition possible.

That having been said, in the interest of disclosure, I do prefer Obama, because right now I believe the right is more driven by hysteria and misinformation.

Lets keep in mind though, that a corporation is an entity, which, can live in perpetuity. In my state, one can be the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, as well as any CXX classification, as a single individual. So there is nothing saying that BAIN can't exist with one person, even if it is not an active entity.

I have several corporations that are 10 plus years old, that list me as the President/CEO, but there is no activity in the corporation, therefore they are dormant.

So I am not sure what people on the left are trying to say here. Just because he lists himself does not mean a thing.

Originally posted by soyentist
I honestly don't understand people getting hung up on this stuff. Isn't it pretty common knowledge that to even get to that level, you have to be corrupt.

On a side note, Romney looks like the most stereotypical rich douchebag ever. Like, of I was castin a film for a part called "Rich Douchebag," I'd cast him on appearance alone.

Seriously? You are going to judge someone based on their looks?

There is something inherently problematic with that. Does that mean you cast your vote based on looks?

I dont like how Romney does his hair. So what....that doesn't mean I judge him on how he would act as President.

If that were the case, don't you have a problem with Obama's Mole? Or his big Ears?

Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, SURE!!! Romney's not dirty. The actions of the Bank he ran have nothing to do with him, and those offshore bank accounts as well.

Most people aren't so stupid as to believe that Obama is responsible for the economic train wreck left by the republican controlled admin of GW.

It is frauds like Romney who engineered this disaster. Making Romney POTUS after what bankers have do e to this country, and the world, would be FUBAB.

Please...lets not leave out the fact that the "republican controlled admin of GW" had both a Democratic House and Senate.

So how much power do you think GW Bush REALLY had?

In the case of Obama, his first two years in office, he had TOTAL control of both the House and Senate. So what is his excuse exactly?

Quit blaming Bush ... just because it is fashionable to do so.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by phantomjack
Hey Gang,

With comments that the President made today regarding the Romney-Bain Capital-SEC Filings that are under intense attack by the White House, I think that Romney might be in political trouble.

“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,” Obama said.
Obama told Scott Thuman of WJLA, the ABC affiliate in the Washington, D.C., area, that Romney “absolutely” must answer questions about his tenure at Bain and whether it continued past 1999 — when Romney has said in the past he left — to 2002, as Securities and Exchange Commission documents suggest.


Read more: www.politico.com...

To me, those are some pretty HEAVY words coming from a seemingly confident POTUS. I do not think that Obama would put his political neck out there like that unless he and the Democratic machine have something more than what Mitt Romney might be hiding.

I personally felt that Romney was clean on the SEC filing where he is listed as CEO during years he claims he was working 24/7 for the Olympics.

In my professional life and experience, I can tell you that Romney is probably clean, just based on what I have read in the SEC filing myself.

But Obama shocked me today....strong words....without some sort of proof?

This might begin to get very exciting, very soon.

What say you my ATS Friends?

I think there was plenty of proof. Documents filed with the SEC in 2002 listed Romney as, and I quote, "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president."

But he had NOTHING to do with Bain after 1999? That's what he says: "There is absolutely no evidence that I had any role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February 1999,"

So, uh, somebody obviously forged these documents and put his name on them?

I guess. He's demanding an apology from the Obama campaign, which is a classic, long-standing right wing tactic: the best defense is a good offense. Make as though you're a victim, make as though charges against you are outrageous. Finally, although this hasn't happened yet, make the charge that the allegations against you "demonstrate how desperate" the other candidate is. It's a good strategy, at least in America. Many people are more influenced by attitude and emotion, as opposed to facts and logic.

However, as we get deeper and deeper into the election (I wish these things didn't last so long -- they're painful and damaging to the USA, IMO) we are, in fact, seeing a Romney who is trying to hide his past. I think he'd be better off, and would stand a better chance of winning, if he was just "out" about everything. Americans respect a guy who is clever about money, and he obviously is. If I were him, I wouldn't worry about giving the Obama campaign "ammunition" because trying to hide stuff is giving them the best ammunition possible.

That having been said, in the interest of disclosure, I do prefer Obama, because right now I believe the right is more driven by hysteria and misinformation.

Lets keep in mind though, that a corporation is an entity, which, can live in perpetuity. In my state, one can be the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, as well as any CXX classification, as a single individual. So there is nothing saying that BAIN can't exist with one person, even if it is not an active entity.

I have several corporations that are 10 plus years old, that list me as the President/CEO, but there is no activity in the corporation, therefore they are dormant.

So I am not sure what people on the left are trying to say here. Just because he lists himself does not mean a thing.

However, Bain was not "dormant" 1999 thru 2003. That's why Romney is trying to distance himself. Are you really "not sure" what people on the left are trying to say here?

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, SURE!!! Romney's not dirty. The actions of the Bank he ran have nothing to do with him, and those offshore bank accounts as well.

Most people aren't so stupid as to believe that Obama is responsible for the economic train wreck left by the republican controlled admin of GW.

It is frauds like Romney who engineered this disaster. Making Romney POTUS after what bankers have do e to this country, and the world, would be FUBAB.

Please...lets not leave out the fact that the "republican controlled admin of GW" had both a Democratic House and Senate.

So how much power do you think GW Bush REALLY had?

In the case of Obama, his first two years in office, he had TOTAL control of both the House and Senate. So what is his excuse exactly?

Absolutely incorrect.. BOTH the House and the Senate had Republican majorities from 2000 - 2006. Get your facts right.

I want to expand upon my original post on the first page a bit.

Why this hurts Romney is more about how it looks than about any actual, possible wrongdoing. It's most likely that the SEC paperwork was all fine, that his company filed all of that stuff the way it should have been done, or at least made their level best attempt to do so. Having worked in the corporate world, including at high level executive offices, I know that even they are capable of making mistakes and getting things wrong with stuff like this. Mistakes get made sometimes, but even so as that Washington Post fact checker look at it went, it seems nothing illegal was done there. But then that leaves him still as a liar now probably, lying to distance himself from Bain, which his campaign now sees as a liability to him politically.

All of this plays right into the story about Romney that the Obama campaign wants to tell about him, which is that he's the poster child for corporate greed. He's like the perfect actor you'd cast from Central Casting for the role of sleazy, greedy corporate prick and he can't run away from that. To then start telling lies about it just makes it worse. Big, big political win for Obama. I think they probably only wish this story had broke two months from now so that it could peak around election time. But it happened now, so they are going to make the most of it. Obama has showed in past campaigns he's very good at this sort of political knife fighting, at telling the story about his opponent that becomes the public perception of them and the Romney camp just made that 100 times easier for him.

If Obama wasn't already going to win this thing (and I think he probably was), this may well turn out to be the final nail in Romney's political coffin. Obama knows how to bring this sort of thing home in a political fight and he won't shy away from it now.

Originally posted by phantomjack


Lets keep in mind though, that a corporation is an entity, which, can live in perpetuity. In my state, one can be the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, as well as any CXX classification, as a single individual. So there is nothing saying that BAIN can't exist with one person, even if it is not an active entity.

I have several corporations that are 10 plus years old, that list me as the President/CEO, but there is no activity in the corporation, therefore they are dormant.

So I am not sure what people on the left are trying to say here. Just because he lists himself does not mean a thing.

Why do you think the SEC makes you file paper work listing the officers and top management?

The SEC wants to know who is running the corporation. There's rules and requirements that apply to these people. Insider trading is one example.

This was a very active corporation. If he really wasn't the President, then someone else was acting as the President and the SEC should have known about this. (Plus anyone who engaged in transactions with this business!)

Plus why do you think they kept his name on the paper work? I filed these types of forms, most people know to update the paperwork. This firm SPECIALIZED in business reorganizations, they know about this stuff.

Don't you think it gave the firm more credibility in their dealings if a high profile person was running the show?

reply to post by ClintK


Thanks for straightening that out.

At what point do repubs wake up to the reality they have been completely duped.

I can see people worth over 10 M voting repub, but anyone else is voting against their best interests. The repubs are also bad for small businesses.

reply to post by LifeInDeath


A great many corporate execs cheat at every opportunity. People with morals don't survive the exec vetting process. Honesty got tossed out the window long ago. Corp execs make dc pols look like honest people.

And yeah, I know plenty of these people.

Romney doesn't just look the part, he is the real McCoy.

If you're listed as CEO/Sole owner of a company, and receive a stipend for being such, and you have no idea what's going on with that company you're not a very good business man. I'm sure Willard IS a good business man (not that I'm a fan of his way of doing business), so I'm sure he knew what was going on.
He lied to the American people, or he lied to the SEC. One of these options is a felony, the other is unbecoming of a presidential candidate. Either way, he should pay for his actions. If you still vote for him knowing that he lied to you, you deserve his presidency.

He has multiple offshore accounts - Cayman Islands, Switzerland, and possibly some we don't know about.
He talks of ending capital gains tax.
If he did so, the money in those accounts, which would not be taxed as income, would count as capital gains. Tax free money. He and his friends with similar would save themselves millions. Instant access with no tax. The end of capital gains tax he cites as a bonus for the middle income bracket is just a front.
If he were elected to POTUS, he would simply profit. That's his agenda. Profit.
He claims that they are blind trusts (conveniently opened at opportune times), and that he has little knowledge of them. Again, that shows he is not a good business man. A good business man would know where every penny is.

Willard has no thought for the man/woman on the street. It's about money for him and his friends. Period.

Remember when he was running against McCain (to whom he lost, and McCain went on to lose badly against Obama)? The whole party was screaming "JOBS!"
He and his friends did create jobs. Overseas. They dismantled US companies and farmed them out overseas.
He lied about Bain to either the American public, or to the SEC.
He doesn't care, by his own words, about the poor.
He created the blueprint for "Obamacare" but wants it abolished.
His policies seem to depend on which crowd he's in front of.

Unless you are a billionaire, or a temporarily inconvenienced billionaire, the policies being presented in his campaign will hurt you. If you are middle class or below, you will not benefit. Period.
He will.
He will make an enormous amount of money. That's his reason for running.

Over the past few weeks I have chatted with many people about how they think this next election is going to turn out...and the majority think that Romney is just a tool being used by many of TPTB ... to make sure that President Obama gets reelected.

reply to post by filosophia


Completely agree there. Everyone puts the blame on bush, he did do a few bad things but Obama has done much worse. Obama is the singlehandedly worst president we ever had. How's the hopey changy thing working for you?

Obama can't win an election without sliming his opponent.
He did it in Chicago. He did it to Hillary.
Now he's doing it to Romney.
Why won't anybody slime this creep?
There seems to be enough dirt to fill a city dump.

I'm not at all crazy about Romney, but it's the height of hypocrisy for the liar Obama to call Romney a liar. Hell, if I had a nickel for every lie Obama has told, I'd be rich. And if I had a nickel for every lie Romney has told on top of that, I'd be very rich!

They are BOTH despicable!

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by phantomjack

 

There's even more coming out. 2003 reports. This is why he hides those tax reports. We need to look at them. The truth about his true motives are in those tax reports. After November, we will never have this chance again.

This man is dangerous.

Why is he dangerous? Obama has hidden virtually everything from his past. Everything. How incriminating can college transcripts be? And the standards should be different for Romney?

To my way of thinking, Obama opened the door and set precedent regarding transparency. If I were Romney, I'd tell Obama to go to hell until he decides to open his own records and books...and I don't even like Romney. Romney should photoshop some a bunch of financial reports and put them on a bogus website for all the world to see, just like our Clown-in-Chief.

I think it's plain as day that it becomes more of a joke every 4 years. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but I think it's plain as day that the Republicans don't want the office right now. When McCain picked Palin that was an automatic fold. You can't win the presidency with a Vice President with the IQ of a can of beans. It looks the same way now with Romney. The guy is a JOKE who really has no business even trying to be president. He has never put the people first in his life, not a good candidate to be a U.S. president.

If people would put aside their foolish ideals and ego's they would see plain as day that they are being forced to vote for a puppet and then maybe an independent could win. Someone who is a true patriot and someone who wants to be a leader for the people's best interests, and the best interests of this once great nation.

reply to post by Imightknow


How dare you say that? You just insulted all cans of beans around the world! Their IQs' are WAAAAY higher than the person you mentioned, plus they taste good.

CJ

Obama in trouble, Romney in trouble... no. In one year they will both be just fine. In ten years they will both be just fine.

It's the American people that are in trouble... ain't no "might" about it.

Good luck to us. we need it, especially since one of these professional liars will be POTUS

but if people want to act like the 'choice' between these two clowns really matters (as if presidents of today make any meaningful decisions), by all means, that's your prerogative. enjoy the show

Wow, I wish he'd feel the same way about the too big to fail banks. I know my vote is useless, but I'm a vote Ronald Paul still. Gynecologist are brave men.

reply to post by phantomjack


I agee, if he continues to dodge the release of his tax returns, he's going to have voters thinking he's hiding something. I think a lot of voters are getting sick of dishonest politicians, Obama included.