Anyways, my question is this: Is the electorate more distrustful of Mitt Romney's Wealth because of Bain? If so, is there any way he could change that? I don't think so. Also, the guy is doing himself no favors by not disclosing tax info etc. I think Romney is effectively toast come Nov. What do you think?
When JFK ran there wasn't as much in depth scrutiny from the media. Not as many stones were overturned. I'm guessing if the media was as vulturous as they are now, there is no way JFK gets the nomination. Too many Marilyn's and probably quite a few shady dealings/tax shelters etc. Great thought though.
Times really have changed, even since Clinton was elected. It's an amazing time we live in.
- My question is what will be the next really big technological invention?
One of the things that baffles me about modern technology is that it still (often) requires cables and even plugs for electricity. When we can get to a point where you don't have to plug something in, at all... it will be a much more attractive world. When my grandkids are someday alive and old enough, my hope is that they live in a much less cluttered world. No electrical wires/towers littering the landscape. What do you think? What's the next big thing?
I haven't mention medical advances because that impact is on a different level.
I recall seeing one that used water sourced from a hose that dangled down in to a lake. Only problem, you can really only use it on a lake or a body of water. I wouldn't be surprised if personal jet-packs were a reality in the not too distant future. Seems they could be incorporated in to the anti-gravity technology you envision.
Their target recreational price is $100,000. Not exactly affordable but also not so insanely priced that you'll never see one. I'll bet someday you'll be able to rent one for $100 a 1/2 hour. I'd do it.
he needs to read. http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-sto...
so he saves the cigars for his friends.
An action I now regret.
Anyways, Mitt is slick and I think BO has a tough road ahead of him. It's going to be a close one imo.
I kid, I kid. Unless things dramatically improve by Nov, it's going to be about Jobs and if I were Romney I would essentially say, "hey, I want all of you to be so successful that having a tax shelter is something that you have to consider". Because the truth is, not many people as wealthy as him wouldn't consider it.
I agree with b_b. If I were a Dem strategist, I'd keep hammering him for hiding money offshore.
- My guess is that his accounting is borderline illegal and his calculation says that it is better to let the world think you're a criminal than for the world to know you're a criminal.
If I were the Obama campaign I would hammer away at ads with Mitt saying one thing when he was previously running then him flip flopping now and ask "doesn't a president need convictions"? There is so much film on Romney from the gazillion times he's run for office that this would be easy and a slam dunk. But I would sprinkle some bain/tax shelter in there too. But for me its close to a non issue. I actually respect how successful the dude was. It's not my thing, but then neither is golf and I'm still shocked by how good Tiger Woods is. The guy knows business/finance.... I should be turned off by this?
I know that this quote is all over Hubski but its appropriate here: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -Steinbeck
If there's anything I want to be "independent" from, it's partisan tomfoolery. Unfortunately, I think this is more of a systemic problem, and has more to do with in-group mentality and human nature than the nuance of politics, as it were. If that's the case, then I'm completely screwed and I should give up on seeing things turn around. To comment on the part where you probably don't believe me, if you were going to put a gun to my head and make me fill out a ballot sheet, I will vote for the secular/populist/socially liberal candidate every time, regardless of which party they came from. This time, it's the Democrats by a slim margin (I could argue that both candidates are merchant class sellouts, but I digress). So I suppose you could say I'm a de-facto Democrat, but I still identify as Independent, since I vote according to whichever candidate represents me better, and not according to party affiliation. When people say they're independent, I think that's what they mean.
I like to think of it this way: I'm not a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan; I'm a baseball fan. I like to watch a good game, and I appreciate the game itself more than any individual team. Right now, baseball sucks and I don't like watching it. That's what being independent means to me.
In a flourish of irony and Shyamalanian Twistery, I say we create a political party for people who hate political parties. What will we call it?
I guess that by calling myself an independent, it's my way of saying "this system sucks and I wish I had better (more) options". By declaring myself DEM or GOP, I would be endorsing a system that I find ridiculous. But yeah... I'm pretty liberal at heart.
I don't think Romneys work with Bain is the story though. I think his stances on social issues, healthcare and reproductive rights are. He's flip-flopped quite a bit. That's his Achilles heel IMO. But you're right, most "independents" know exactly who they'll vote for.
The GOP is out to win BIG TIME so don't be surprised when a meth head wearing nothing but lingerie and a Romney pin shows up at your door.