I don't like Romney.

[bcoop]

But why exactly is Perry down there?

There are plenty of reasons to put Perry down there, IMO. Career politician, more of the same, the whole NTTA fiasco, Trans Texas Corridor, gardisil crap, etc.


He likes to boast about TX being a free state, but in reality, it's anything but.

[mstng86]

I don't really think it matters who the GOP goes with. I have a feeling whoever wins doesn't stand a chance.

[mustangguy289]

There are plenty of reasons to put Perry down there, IMO. Career politician, more of the same, the whole NTTA fiasco, Trans Texas Corridor, gardisil crap, etc.


He likes to boast about TX being a free state, but in reality, it's anything but.

This^. I equally dislike Romney and Perry. They both suck and keep criticizing each other. I wish the debates would stop being centered around them.

[bcoop]

This^. I equally dislike Romney and Perry. They both suck and keep criticizing each other. I wish the debates would stop being centered around them.

I haven't watched a single debate yet. But, that said, if Romney is acting like a bitch (and that's how it appears), and Perry keeps getting flustered, they will blow up on each other if the debates continue to be centered around them. I say let it keep happening, it's only a matter of time. That way, one of the better candidates can emerge once those two have made fools of themselves.

[Up0n0ne]

The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election

The American Dream
Wednesday, October 19, 2011


We are never going to restore legitimacy to our political system until we get the money out of politics. Typically, in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time. In 2008, Barack Obama raised almost twice as much money as John McCain did. 3 of the top 7 donors to Obama’s campaign were big Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup).

Now Wall Street is doing it again. The big Wall Street banks are already trying to buy the 2012 election. So who do they want to win in 2012? Based on contribution patterns so far, the overwhelming favorite of the Wall Street banks to win in 2012 is Mitt Romney. The big Wall Street banks have given to Romney as pile of money that is more than 4 times larger than they have given to anyone else. Even though most Republicans really don’t want him, if history is any indication this means that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012.

Posted below are numbers from a recent analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics. These numbers reflect monetary donations to presidential candidates by employees of these big Wall Street banks (and their wives) between January and September 2011.

As you can see, somehow Mitt Romney is at the top of each list by a wide margin. Clearly there is a “consensus” (some would call it a conspiracy) among the Wall Street elite that Romney is the man for the job.

When you want to find out what is really going on in American politics, just follow the money. If Mitt Romney does not win the Republican nomination, it is going to be a massive upset. History tells us that it is incredibly difficult to overcome the kind of monetary advantage that Romney is piling up.

Once again, the following numbers were put together by the Center for Responsive Politics. As you can see, Wall Street is once again trying to buy an election, and they very clearly want Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination….

Goldman Sachs

Mitt Romney: $352,200
Barack Obama: $49,124
Tim Pawlenty: $25,000
Jon Huntsman: $6,750
Rick Perry: $5,500
Ron Paul: $2,500

Morgan Stanley

Mitt Romney: $184,800
Tim Pawlenty: $41,715
Barack Obama: $28,225
Rick Perry: $20,750
Jon Huntsman: $9,750
Newt Gingrich: $1,000
Ron Paul: $1,000
Herman Cain: $500

Bank of America

Mitt Romney: $112,500
Barack Obama: $46,699
Tim Pawlenty: $12,750
Jon Huntsman: $4,250
Ron Paul: $3,451
Rick Perry: $2,600
Thad McCotter: $2,000
Herman Cain: $750
Michele Bachmann: $500
Newt Gingrich: $250

JPMorgan Chase

Mitt Romney: $107,250
Barack Obama: $38,039
Rick Perry: $27,050
Tim Pawlenty: $16,750
Jon Huntsman: $7,500
Ron Paul: $5,451

Citigroup

Mitt Romney: $56,550
Barack Obama: $36,887
Tim Pawlenty: $5,300
Rick Perry: $3,000
Herman Cain: $1,465
Michele Bachmann: $1,000
Ron Paul: $702

As you can see, no other Republican candidate even comes close to Romney at any of these big Wall Street banks.

In fact, of the candidates that are left in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has raised 13 times as much Wall Street money as anyone else has.

The following are the overall donation numbers from employees of the big Wall Street banks and their wives….

Mitt Romney: $813,300
Barack Obama: $198,874
Tim Pawlenty: $101,515
Rick Perry: $58,900
Jon Huntsman: $28,250
Ron Paul: $13,104
Herman Cain: $2,715
Michelle Bachmann: $1,500
Newt Gingrich: $1,250

These numbers paint a very disturbing picture. Even though Romney’s poll numbers are in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of this year and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates combined.

Hopefully the American people will wake up and will think for themselves.

But we have seen this story play out time after time after time before.

The candidate with the most money almost always wins. The establishment is almost always able to pick the candidates that they want, and the rest of us are often left with trying to choose between “the lesser of two evils”.

A while back, Dylan Ratigan absolutely lost in on air during a panel discussion on MSNBC. This epic rant about money in politics is not something that you will often see in the mainstream media, and it contains a lot of truth….



Ratigan is right about this issue. We do have a bought Congress. We also have a bought president.

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination and the general election in 2012, we will have yet another bought president.

Until we get the money out of politics, we will continue to have a situation where it seems like nothing ever changes no matter who we send to Washington D.C.

The way that election laws are written right now, the big Wall Street banks and the ultra-wealthy are able to have a much greater say in who gets elected than the rest of us do.

It is fundamentally wrong and it has turned our political process into a giant farce. Instead of being “elected”, most of the time our politicians are “selected” for us by the establishment.

Please share this information with as many people as you can. The American people need to understand how things really work in the political world. Perhaps if they begin to understand how our candidates are “bought”, then perhaps they will start demanding real change.

http://www.infowars.com/the-big-wall-street-banks-are-already-trying-to-buy-the-2012-election/

[mustangguy289]

It should be made illegal for companies to donate to campaign elections so that this would stop happening.

[CJ]

....

It would probably be best posting your own thoughts then pasting a big article, that's fit for it's own thread.

[bcoop]

It should be made illegal for companies to donate to campaign elections so that this would stop happening.

I agree. Private industry has ZERO business donating campaign money to anyone. This should have been illegal decades ago. And I'd be willing to bet, if Paul were to get elected, he'd push hard for legislation that states as such. I'm no Paul nuthugger, I don't think he's electable. But his smaller govt platform suggests (to me anyways), that he'd support and push for legislation along those lines.

[CJ]

I agree. Private industry has ZERO business donating campaign money to anyone. This should have been illegal decades ago. And I'd be willing to bet, if Paul were to get elected, he'd push hard for legislation that states as such. I'm no Paul nuthugger, I don't think he's electable. But his smaller govt platform suggests (to me anyways), that he'd support and push for legislation along those lines.

Hard to say, a strict libertarian would say it isn't the governments business to interfere with what a company does with it's money.

[bcoop]

Hard to say, a strict libertarian would say it isn't the governments business to interfere with what a company does with it's money.

touche, and solid point sir.


I still think it should be illegal, however. lol.

[CJ]

touche, and solid point sir.


I still think it should be illegal, however. lol.

I'm split. I can see it both ways. The argument less voiced is why should companies have no say in who regulates them? How can individual citizens be expected to protect a company's best interests? Company and corporations are very important, they employ us, they provide products for other businesses required for growth, etc.

[machteck]

I would vote in this order:

Cain
Gingrich
Paul
Santorum
Romney
Perry

I will probably be accused of having "white guilt" for my choice but so be it. The people throwing that out are just as bad as the people who were calling everyone a racist that didn't vote for Obama.

When it gets down to whoever vs Obama.. I will vote for "whoever".

I just hope some idiot that has a big following doesn't come as an independent and do a Ross Perot all over again and hand the presidency to Obama.

This

[bcoop]

I'm split. I can see it both ways. The argument less voiced is why should companies have no say in who regulates them? How can individual citizens be expected to protect a company's best interests? Company and corporations are very important, they employ us, they provide products for other businesses required for growth, etc.

The flip side of that is why should anyone other than said company's employees be responsible for protecting said company's interest? They are a corporation. Solid, staying corporations adapt and overcome. Those that can't, don't last. Why corporations cant adapt and overcome just like you and me, is beyond me. Buying a politician to protect your interest shouldn't even be an option.

Corporate lobbyists are a large part of the reason we have so many fucked up regulations in this country, and also a large reason as to why we are in the mess we are in now. Fuck em and feed em. This is capitalism. If you can't adapt, someone new will come along who can. You can't run and cry to a politician and pad it with a fat check. That's the schoolyard equivalent of running to the teacher because she's your Mom.

[CJ]

The flip side of that is why should anyone other than said company's employees be responsible for protecting said company's interest? They are a corporation. Solid, staying corporations adapt and overcome. Those that can't, don't last. Why corporations cant adapt and overcome just like you and me, is beyond me. Buying a politician to protect your interest shouldn't even be an option.

Corporate lobbyists are a large part of the reason we have so many fucked up regulations in this country, and also a large reason as to why we are in the mess we are in now. Fuck em and feed em. This is capitalism. If you can't adapt, someone new will come along who can. You can't run and cry to a politician and pad it with a fat check. That's the schoolyard equivalent of running to the teacher because she's your Mom.

Well, that's not a difficult answer. Some VERY large companies have VERY few employees in comparison. Take Google, for instance. Also, you could argue that the donations ARE the employees. The average voter is not going to protect a company, it isn't in their best interest. And by and large 90% of companies have no direct effect on the average person's day to day life. I think a company should have a say in it's future. What about Exxon - Obama just up and ended oil company's ability to drill off shore, just like that - on a whim. That ends companies overnight. Or, how about Gibson guitars. The Obama administration just decided to raid their facility, and throw bullshit laws at them. Shouldn't the company have the ability to donate money to another candidate?

[Vertnut]

Well, that's not a difficult answer. Some VERY large companies have VERY few employees in comparison. Take Google, for instance. Also, you could argue that the donations ARE the employees. The average voter is not going to protect a company, it isn't in their best interest. And by and large 90% of companies have no direct effect on the average person's day to day life. I think a company should have a say in it's future. What about Exxon - Obama just up and ended oil company's ability to drill off shore, just like that - on a whim. That ends companies overnight. Or, how about Gibson guitars. The Obama administration just decided to raid their facility, and throw bullshit laws at them. Shouldn't the company have the ability to donate money to another candidate?

Interesting how the president of Gibson is a republican, and the president of Martin (who was not raided) donated to the democratic party.