[Terez]

 Tapper, on 18 September 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

For a lighter approach to the subject of Romney: This
10 out of twelve correct for me, I was Mitt-ranking.

I got 8 out of 12. I was pissed about this one:

Quote

• 5. On his rival for the presidency: “The other day [the president] said, I know you’ve had some rough times, and I want to do something that will show the nation what faith that I have in you, in your maturity and sense of responsibility. Would you like a puppy?”
  
  Correct answer: Dan Quayle
  
  You answered: Mitt Romney

I answered Mitt for one reason and one reason only: I didn't think Dan Quayle had ever run for president. (I was very politically apathetic in 2000, when he apparently ran in the primaries.) The very idea seemed ridiculous to me; Quayle was probably the wimpiest vice president of my lifetime.

[Brujah]

 Terez, on 19 September 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

 Tapper, on 18 September 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

For a lighter approach to the subject of Romney: This
10 out of twelve correct for me, I was Mitt-ranking.

I got 8 out of 12. I was pissed about this one:

Quote

• 5. On his rival for the presidency: “The other day [the president] said, I know you’ve had some rough times, and I want to do something that will show the nation what faith that I have in you, in your maturity and sense of responsibility. Would you like a puppy?”
  
  Correct answer: Dan Quayle
  
  You answered: Mitt Romney

I answered Mitt for one reason and one reason only: I didn't think Dan Quayle had ever run for president. (I was very politically apathetic in 2000, when he apparently ran in the primaries.) The very idea seemed ridiculous to me; Quayle was probably the wimpiest vice president of my lifetime.

Dan Quayle. What a guy. Who cares about spelling? This was the last election in which I wanted a republican to win. Then I grew up, had to actually live in this world, and learned.

[worry]

Here's a good breakdown of that 47% number Romney used, in case you just want to have it handy, or if you're not in the US and are still actually curious who exactly he was talking about (It's too messy to just copy/paste the whole article, so I'll try to do the basic pertinent facts): http://www.washingto...t-those-people/




53.6 percent of households pay the federal income tax.

28.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax, but they do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they don’t need Mitt Romney to convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” They already have jobs. Most of the households in this group don’t pay any federal income tax because they qualify for enough deductions that their income tax liability has shrunk to zero.

10.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax because they’re retired and elderly. Many retirees aren’t taxed on their Social Security benefits, which they earned by paying into the system over many years.

That leaves 6.9 percent of households which are non-elderly and have incomes less than $20,000 per year and aren’t paying the payroll tax. These poorer households pay neither income taxes nor payroll taxes.

Meanwhile, just as a reminder, the vast majority of Americans still pay state and local taxes — in fact, these taxes tend to be more regressive. When you add up all the different types of taxes, most income groups in the United States tend to pay an amount that’s roughly commensurate with their share of the national income.

[worry]

I don't mean to be glib, but there's definitely something wrong with this guy. It's just bizarre sometimes: http://thinkprogress...r-of-obamacare/

Edit: Also, he literally darkened his face before his appearance on Univision.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 20 September 2012 - 09:39 AM

[cerveza_fiesta]

Oh man. What a twat. You can see the white-ness shining through on his ears and his hands aren't done up to match......holy christ.

Obama's debate argument should just be a massive youtube-style montage of Romney acting like a total halfwit (it could be hours long I'm sure) and end the presentation with "COME ON....REALLY?"

Joking aside, Maddow's show from the 18th was pretty good. She presented new official polls (I forget the name of the polling agency) that showed Obamatron ahead in all but 1 of the swing states (virginia IIRC). I understand that there are some outside factors that might change things around come election time, not least of which are the supposed "voter suppression" efforts by republican state governments, but it's encouraging to see the american public isn't completely buying into Romney's crazy message. From the outside looking in, my god...there's only one clear choice and it's Obama. He is the only one that would even get near winning a mandate from the Canadian public...and even then he's a bit too conservative for most people's taste..

She also had an interesting couple of segments about conservative media and Romney. Fox news for instance payrolls 3 or 4 people who act as "analysts" (and are introduced only as analysts) on the show, except that they are all senior advisors to the Romney campaign...meaning the campaign gets 2-3 hours of airtime every single day to pump up their candidate and spread his message under the guise of impartial opinion. Maddow went on to talk about how more respectable conservative media sources are starting to take exception to the outright falsehoods spouted by the campaign and FOX day in and day out. Even more interestingly, one of the sources maddow quoted (can't recall the name) reported being harassed online for expressing a dissenting opinion when she's "supposed to be in it with the rest of them" or something to that effect.

It's outright criminal IMO that an entire news network can purport to even *be* a news network when they are so obviously (and undeniably) the PR arm of a political party; it's just downright misleading and wrong. Not wrong in a legal sense (because I doubt they're technically violating any rules) but wrong in a moral sense. mind boggling.

I continue to watch with interest and the occasional touch of revulsion. Say whatever else you want about them, US elections are a seriously entertaining show.

[Vengeance]

 cerveza_fiesta, on 20 September 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Oh man. What a twat. You can see the white-ness shining through on his ears and his hands aren't done up to match......holy christ.

Obama's debate argument should just be a massive youtube-style montage of Romney acting like a total halfwit (it could be hours long I'm sure) and end the presentation with "COME ON....REALLY?"

Joking aside, Maddow's show from the 18th was pretty good. She presented new official polls (I forget the name of the polling agency) that showed Obamatron ahead in all but 1 of the swing states (virginia IIRC). I understand that there are some outside factors that might change things around come election time, not least of which are the supposed "voter suppression" efforts by republican state governments, but it's encouraging to see the american public isn't completely buying into Romney's crazy message. From the outside looking in, my god...there's only one clear choice and it's Obama. He is the only one that would even get near winning a mandate from the Canadian public...and even then he's a bit too conservative for most people's taste..

She also had an interesting couple of segments about conservative media and Romney. Fox news for instance payrolls 3 or 4 people who act as "analysts" (and are introduced only as analysts) on the show, except that they are all senior advisors to the Romney campaign...meaning the campaign gets 2-3 hours of airtime every single day to pump up their candidate and spread his message under the guise of impartial opinion. Maddow went on to talk about how more respectable conservative media sources are starting to take exception to the outright falsehoods spouted by the campaign and FOX day in and day out. Even more interestingly, one of the sources maddow quoted (can't recall the name) reported being harassed online for expressing a dissenting opinion when she's "supposed to be in it with the rest of them" or something to that effect.

It's outright criminal IMO that an entire news network can purport to even *be* a news network when they are so obviously (and undeniably) the PR arm of a political party; it's just downright misleading and wrong. Not wrong in a legal sense (because I doubt they're technically violating any rules) but wrong in a moral sense. mind boggling.

I continue to watch with interest and the occasional touch of revulsion. Say whatever else you want about them, US elections are a seriously entertaining show.

It is my understanding that as a forward thinking culture you guys wouldn't allow Fox to broadcast because you have a rule that states News must be true and Fox doesn't meet the requirement.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Unfortunately Fox news is very much allowed to broadcast, but only as a premium cable channel. A couple of years ago the broadcast regulators (CRTC) actually blocked a move by conservative politicians and Quebecor to force the conservative network Sun News (aka "Fox News North" to many people) into the basic cable packages offered by our cable companies. It was viewed by many as a sneaky move to wedge a Conservative Party PR platform into a suite of basic channels otherwise devoid of dedicated, slanted newscasts.

IMO that's exactly what the move it was and I'm glad the CRTC commissioner grew a pair and blocked the move.

Conservative-leaning folks have long complained that the CBC is left-leaning and that sun news would bring balance, but fuck that. CBC is a government-funded corporation and our only channel that features diverse Canadian-produced content. Regardless of your opinion on their slant, the basic cable CBC channel is hardly a 24/7 liberal propaganda machine** and they get a special spot. Full stop. Regulatory intervention at its best.

I'd hate to see the ruckus if the US regulators tried to do the same thing in the states. FREE SPEECH!!! NO RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCE!!! GUNS!!! DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!


**They do have a 24/7 news channel, but it is offered only in premium cable packages. IMO it's not that slanted compared to US channels, but that's just me.

[Vengeance]

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am to hear that Fox News is allowed to broadcast in the frozen tundra. My respect for Canada was at the same level as Norway and has now fallen to GB levels. In regards to socialized Paradises.

[Terez]

 cerveza_fiesta, on 20 September 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

I continue to watch with interest and the occasional touch of revulsion. Say whatever else you want about them, US elections are a seriously entertaining show.

Entertainment is all they're good for. The scrutiny is kind of weird, though; we don't watch anyone else's elections. Are they just boring?

[McLovin]

America just does crazy right. And we have nukes. So good luck, rest of world.

[cerveza_fiesta]

@ terez

in a word, yes.

Our elections are hellishly boring. Minor world power, not much influence outside our borders, publicly funded campaigns with spending caps, a single televised debate with no live audience to boo and cheer, passing mention in news coverage... Unless it's actually the election NIGHT, nobody really gives it much attention, even within Canada. We have huge voter apathy problems here.

USA on the other hand is a super partisan, massive economic and military superpower whose actions have repercussions for the whole world whether or not anybody cares to admit it. It matters to us in Canada especially because whatever foreign policy your future president sets directly affects us in more ways than I care to count. I mean, if you guys tighten up the borders just a little bit too much, the whole country suffers because suddenly we can't justify the hassle for exporting our shit to our biggest buyer. If your internal economic policy puts your dollar in the dumper (like now) then we can't export stuff because it costs too much. If President Romney goes soft on the big banks, it just sets you up for another economic meltdown, which sets us all up for another economic meltdown. Our economic performance is so strongly linked to the US's, I don't understand Canadians that *don't* pay attention to American politics, pure entertainment aside!

For countries that influence so much of the rest of the world, I almost think the rest of us should get some say in who gets to control it. No idea how you'd work out that system...but I like the idea. I guess it's just that feeling of nausea that a sleaze like Romney might actually get some say over what happens in my country when I don't have any voice to speak against him.

In a general sense, I think it's good that your candidates receive as much scrutiny as they do, from inside and outside the US, considering the power they eventually wield if elected.

[Terez]

 cerveza_fiesta, on 20 September 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

For countries that influence so much of the rest of the world, I almost think the rest of us should get some say in who gets to control it. No idea how you'd work out that system...but I like the idea. I guess it's just that feeling of nausea that a sleaze like Romney might actually get some say over what happens in my country when I don't have any voice to speak against him.

I absolutely agree that the world should have a say, but since an actual vote doesn't seem feasible... That is the great thing about the internet. You have a say. You have the opportunity to influence us. Some of us are more open to it than others. I wish people would speak up more about how the US is fucking shit up, because sometimes we honestly just don't know. World is big.

 cerveza_fiesta, on 20 September 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

In a general sense, I think it's good that your candidates receive as much scrutiny as they do, from inside and outside the US, considering the power they eventually wield if elected.

Agreed. I'm just not sure it accomplishes much, especially these days when we are so polarized that a clusterfuck like Romney actually has a shot at winning. And his godawful screw-ups rarely even dent his poll numbers.

[Morgoth]

 Vengeance, on 20 September 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am to hear that Fox News is allowed to broadcast in the frozen tundra. My respect for Canada was at the same level as Norway and has now fallen to GB levels. In regards to socialized Paradises.

We are quite fond of our socialist utopia

IT is technically possible to aquire Fox here too using a satelite dish. It's not like that sort of thing is scensored. To be allowed on cable you'd have to cover some minimum requirements however.

[Terez]

 cerveza_fiesta, on 20 September 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Joking aside, Maddow's show from the 18th was pretty good.

I think you are talking about the show from the 17th (Monday), which I watched. I knew I had watched it because of your details, and while she has a tendency to repeat herself for the benefit of non-regular viewers, she doesn't usually do it that thoroughly. You had me confused for a while because I got caught up in AMOLgate (long story) and just now got back to catching up on Maddow, and now I'm watching the 18th.

Anyway, on the 18th she played a clip from the primary debates where Romney tells Newt that if they got rid of the capital gains tax (Newt's plan) that Romney would have paid zero in taxes the last two years. In other words, he pays no income taxes, and needs to be taught about personal responsibility and caring for his life. Seriously though, the debate line was a misstatement because we've seen his 2011 returns and he did have some regular income (speaking fees).

[worry]

Paul Ryan spoke to the AARP today and got booed numerous times for, you know, being a one man voucher-spewing "death panel": http://2012.talkingp...aarp-speech.php

Meanwhile, the Bidens just might be the best:

[Vengeance]

 worrywort, on 21 September 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Paul Ryan spoke to the AARP today and got booed numerous times for, you know, being a one man voucher-spewing "death panel": http://2012.talkingp...aarp-speech.php

Meanwhile, the Bidens just might be the best:

I just watched that on reddit and was then going to post it. Nicely played Ww

This post has been edited by Vengeance: 22 September 2012 - 12:08 AM

[Terez]

Question for someone who has paid more attention to Romney's taxes than I have: did he pay 13% on his total income including capital gains, or 13% on his 'income' income?

Edit: I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that; 13% on total. Just making absolutely sure.

This post has been edited by Terez: 22 September 2012 - 12:13 AM

[Vengeance]

 Terez, on 22 September 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Question for someone who has paid more attention to Romney's taxes than I have: did he pay 13% on his total income including capital gains, or 13% on his 'income' income?

Edit: I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that; 13% on total. Just making absolutely sure.

I believe that it was 14.1% primarily due to the fact that he decided not to claim 1.7 mil in deductions in order to keep his level above 13%.

[worry]

Coincidentally, I was just watching Maddow (I'm West Coast time) and her first segment was a rather magnificent dissection of this very issue. If you can catch the first 15 min. of her show today (on a repeat if possible?) then you will see her weave this particular tax return into his historical record of avoiding taxes. The opening premise is the tension between Romney's saying in an interview earlier this year that if he paid more than he owed, he would not be "qualified to be president" and another statement this year that he has never paid below a 14% tax rate. So he betrayed the former claim to meet the latter claim by artificially inflating his tax rate. The clever part is that he can -- after the election -- submit a claim amending that tax return in order to claim that ~1.7 million.

She also goes into his various tax shelters and schemes (such as offering a personal mortgage to a couple on a house in Texas to avoid taxes, or claiming he lived in MA when his primary residence was in UT, or the more obvious stuff like Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Swiss bank account). Or that his blind trust is actually run by his personal attorney, not some distant account manager. If/When the clip of this segment goes online I'll post it, cuz it's well worth watching. It's also worth noting -- as Maddow does a couple times -- that Mitt has not held a steady job since 1999 (or 2002, re: the Bain or Olympics controversy). He makes a bit of money from giving speeches or whatever, as you reference Terez, but the mass of his "earnings" come from investments in what not, ie gambling. I bring this up largely because I keep seeing contrasts between Obama making his money from "a couple books" while Mitt Romney earned his the hard way, by working hard and burning the midnight oil. I made the mistake, as Terez does on occasion, of delving into too many article comments sections.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 22 September 2012 - 01:34 AM

[Terez]

I usually watch Maddow online because I hate commercials and I don't even have my TV in my room at the moment (because I never watch it) so I have to go to my mom's room to watch it on TV. They get it up pretty quickly, usually within an hour or two after the show ends. The only time I watch it on TV is when it's a particularly hot news day and I can't wait to see what she has to say about it. I'm about to watch yesterday's show; by the time I'm done with it today's will probably be online.

I've seen a good bit of Maddow ranting about the various issues with Romney's taxes. Did she mention what Romney himself said about blind trusts? He called them 'an age-old ruse'.