Romney says he is poor Americans' best bet

Looks like they removed the vid, so here is a working link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zH0GaJzEzk

Now look who's angry. But then again, you are right. ;-)

I'm not angry at all. I am just giving you facts through a news source that you said you are comfortable with and confident that they report the truth (which is debatable), yet you get all offended and tell me that I am spinning things, when they agree with the so-called "liberal media".

All this serves to prove is that you choose to believe what you want to believe no matter what the source is. If DailyKos were reporting that Romney was ahead by 10 points, you'd say that they were correct. All this says is that you have a disconnect from reality. And yes, I am right, because I don't believe anything until I see multiple sources reporting the same thing.

Rasmussen, Gallup and Politico

Hello? These are all right leaning poll organizations... You need to know how these polling organization obtain their info. I've already told you that Rasmussen and Gallup tend to be off the mark because their polling technique is flawed and leaves out a large portion of important demographics. But I suppose this all means nothing to you because you choose to go with the news that you agree with regardless if its bias.

Like Obama is trying to distance himself from the 1998 video where he admitted of being an income redistributionist

Wrong again Bob. First of all, this video was taken in 1998 (14 years ago) not last May. Obama wasn't even Senator back then. Secondly, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with his statement. He does not promote socialism; all he is saying is that he believes that there should be some degree of redistribution to give a everyone a fair shake and the opportunity to succeed. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? Besides, that is what taxes are, redistribution of income. It ensures that we have a fire and police department, our streets stay clean, and our roads are safe.

Redistribution becomes WRONG, when we unfairly tax those who have less to fund people and corporation through tax breaks and gov't subsidies (ie Romney's billionaire buddies and the corporations who he thinks are living beings)

Dems are on high alert for damage control on this one

There you go again, making things up. Dems are not doing anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, Obama's whole campaign is based on this, so he hasn't changed his stance at ALL since 1998 which is good. If you watched the DNC, the whole theme of the convention was to get across the message that we need give those less fortunate a chance to succeed by providing the essentials for life, and a chance at getting a quality education. And if Obama is true his word on this, then I think he will have an awesome 2nd term.

Here is a PRIME example of how the government's "redistribution of wealth" actually HELP someone and gave them an opportunity to succeed. And if it weren't for the welfare program, Mitt Romney LITERALLY would not be running for POTUS nor would he be a multi-millionaire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZPaysBTqk

@global

0+1=0, 0x1=0. Got my point?

yup, thought you'd go that route. lol

A somewhat philosophical view but here we go: I've always see the state of the US as a big tree with the roots being the homeless~working poor, the trunk being the middle class~upper middleclass, and the branches and leaves being the working wealthy~uber rich. Now the wealthiest folks are enjoying the sunshine at the top of the tree and as leaves taking in sunshine to keep everything going for everybody, but for some strange reason they think that they should hire a lumberjack to start whacking with his tax axe at the middle of the tree so that they can keep all that sunshine for themselves and not have to try and keep things going for anything below the leaves. Taking into consideration that this is a tree, and if the trunk gets cut everything above will collapse with it and crash into the roots (symbolically speaking) thus destroying EVERYTHING.

I don't agree with the democrats trying to install new programs(like obamacare) instead of trying to improve and streamline the programs we already have. I don't mind having the taxes raised, or current funding cuts beind re-directed (to get the US out of debt), but I'd prefer for it not to be wasted on trying to start needless and wasteful projects until our economic ability is restored to a much better situation.

I don't agree with the republicans idea that cutting taxes for the wrong group will "stimulate" jobs... its shown time and time again that the extra cash being saved does not "trickle down" it just puts more money in the wrong pockets.

If anything the federal tax system needs to be fixed first so all the loopholes people have been abusing are closed. Just my 2 cents for now.

@global

I do not lower myself to your level.

And why would you? Liberals have already done that time and time again, kinda like the gift that keeps on giving.

@bass, 0+1=0, 0x1=0. Got my point?

@global

I do not lower myself to your level.

And why would you? Liberals have already done that time and time again, kinda like the gift that keeps on giving.

I do know his ideology while Romney has NADA. bass, tell me about his ideology, will you? You cannot.

I just did. What else can I do for you?

http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2011/09/fact-sheet-mitt-romneys-plan-turn-around-economy

0

bass4funkSep. 21, 2012 - 02:43AM JST

@global

This guy will tell you everything you want to hear. That's how he is and that he has been in his entire life.

Then you really must hate Obama then.

@bass, I do not lower myself to your level. I do know his ideology while Romney has NADA. bass, tell me about his ideology, will you? You cannot.

@global

This guy will tell you everything you want to hear. That's how he is and that he has been in his entire life.

Then you really must hate Obama then.

This guy is not doing political campaign speeches like he used to do as no Republicans want to be seen with >Romney any more.

Like Obama is trying to distance himself from the 1998 video where he admitted of being an income redistributionist, which is a socialist term. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_hY4updfTc

100% socialist, big government! Trust me, Dems are on high alert for damage control on this one (but we always knew the truth)

I believe this guys will be going down the tube and he will take many with him. The Democrats will take over >Senate and more congressional seats at the end

If only that were true, if only that were true. Dems did that in '08 and look what happened, they did nothing, won't be no round 2! Repubs will never agree to go against their core beliefs on certain issues when voting with the Dems and vice versa, that is just the way it is. Two completely different philosophies and ideologies and on the majority of them the way things are going in this cycle and you wait until Obamacare gets on their desk, before they even sign it, there will be many amendments and provisions redone and taken out. It will be gutted and tailored for sure. you won't see any real bipartisan anytime soon.

@Seren

Keep dreaming Bass!

Yep, which is a very good thing and because I dreamt and worked hard, I have an affluent life, but yes, it all started with a dream and a deep passion to make it.

But thanks anyway.

@Mirai

'My' spin? That link is from Fox News. Your only source in news, so its gotta be accurate right? Are you saying >that Fox News is wrong? So, Fox News is always right, dependable, fair and honest, excpet when they differ >with what you believe...Well, isn't that convenient.

Now look who's angry. But then again, you are right. ;-)

Again, you have been going through the archives of Daily Kos and ThinkProgress and I know where you got that from, so you need to come clean. Nate Silver, I personally know of him, nice guy, but a staunch liberal FOR SURE, nothing wrong with that, but I can see where all this is leading. But let us stick to really fair polling.

The 3 MOST political and reliable polls that are used with confidence in the US (NOT my polls or opinion) But when I was in the Business

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/poll-fox-most-trusted-political-news-source/

Rasmussen, Gallup and Politico

Let's all remember that these people didn't cause the economic failure. Bush's bad economic policies coupled >with the irresponsibility of the people on Wall street caused it. And sorry to differ with you, but EVERYONE is >entitled to the basic necessities for life. All that these people are asking for is a means to live and an >opportunity to succeed and Romney has shut the door on them.

Yes, and remember, Obama added to that $16T and counting... Dems want to pass that blame, but again, you are wrong... Let Matt Taibbi explain it to you once and for all!

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/08/12/matt-taibbi-what-wall-street-accomplished/

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/aig_and_the_big_takeover_matt

As for necessities, sure! If you work hard for it, we can create jobs to generate income to pay for taxes and stimulate the economy so that it can grow and flourish and get people off welfare and unemployment, but if there are NO jobs, you cannot get the basic necessities. For you to say, Romney doesn't want to is a total insult. I myself have provided jobs for people and in turn they too were able to move up, pay taxes and then help with stimulating the economy. Obama hasn't done it! He hasn't, for it he did, why is it that the unemployment is 8.1% and the National debt $16T and he didn't mention anything about that during the DNC, if he is such a job creator and Romney isn't, but hey, if you want to do a side by side comparison on who is better, take your best shot, Obama won't even come close to what Romney created as far as in the Private sector.

If I were poor I wouldn't take that bet.

Why not? It's only ten grand... that's chump change!

This guy will tell you everything you want to hear. That's how he is and that he has been in his entire life.

This guy is not doing political campaign speeches like he used to do as no Republicans want to be seen with Romney any more.

Yes, but 'this guy' ran a successful business - your guy was a lawyer and 'community organizer'. His lack of experience and fiscal knowledge have become quite apparent these past four years. Perhaps he's telling us what we want to hear because he'll do what we want him to do, as opposed to forcing lame and non-working policy down our collective throats whether we like it nor not.

Keep dreaming Bass!

My father the Mayor is voting for Mitt, my best girl is voting for Obama. Me, I am lost in thought, I dont know who is right for the USA. I don't know who to cast my vote for. All these opinion's, dont help me. I guess I will just flip a coin, and go fishing...

This guy will tell you everything you want to hear. That's how he is and that he has been in his entire life.

This guy is not doing political campaign speeches like he used to do as no Republicans want to be seen with Romney any more.

I believe this guys will be going down the tube and he will take many with him. The Democrats will take over Senate and more congressional seats at the end.

"You're hearing the the plutocratic, condescending cynical words he was saying, not the aspirational, optimistic message he in retrospect should have been meaning - it's like Romney jazz - it's the words you don't hear."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/jon-stewart-fox-news-romney-47-percent-video_n_1899787.html

Herve Nmn L'Eisa-san,

However, the US is not, never has been, a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic, at least officially.

You are quite correct. I had forgotten that. Officially it is a Constitutional Republic.

Though these days it seems that definitions in politics are not strictly adhered to. The poor old constitution has been amended so many times and various bits conveniently and blatantly ignored so that they may as well just chuck it.

To be honest, it's difficult to work out what the U.S.A. is. Most of its presidents read speeches written by other people and make decisions according to their "advisors."

Whether the puppet-in-chief is democratically elected is another matter. The two candidates are preselected.

You mean it's a kind of ceremony, like in Japan?

There's merely the illusion of choice acting as the opiate of the masses. Flip a coin.

Sad words Herve, old bean.

America (and the world) need a President like Ron Paul. He's held the courage of his OWN convictions for many years and those convictions could only lead to a better America and consequently a less war-torn world. It's one of the greatest travesties that Libertarians do not get a level playing field...and it's one of the greatest scandals as to why they don't get a level playing field. In reality, the bottom line is that the U.S. is not a true democracy; there would be more real, viable political alternatives in a real democratic country with a population of over 300,000,000.

here is a person who Mitt would think of as a freeloading mooch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZPaysBTqk

you'll love this!

Best people to analyze the latest polls?...the bookmakers of course. Latest betting:

Obama is the 2 to 7 favorite with Romney at 3 to 1. Looks like Mitt is going to have pull off quite an upset to be the next President.

Elbuda, no, USA is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy, though the political leaders are democratically elected. Please read up on the subject to clarify for yourself.

As for the two candidates, I don't support either one for different reasons each. However, Obama is by far more disastrous for the economy in general and for the lower/middle class specifically. The worst is that his policies negatively affect the wealth producers, which in turn further exasperate the struggling classes(you and me). It's not a race issue, though idiots try to make it one. I suggest you read some articles by Thomas Sewell on the racial/economic issue as that directly applies to Hispanics as well. But please tone down the rhetoric.

Lo and Behold! Mirai, we actually agree on something!! Indeed, the system is rigged to the candidate with the biggest financial backers! But, alas, it's a more tangled web woven. The RNC /DNC hold the reins quite tightly, but don't underestimate the purse-string controllers of the fourth branch of US government, the major media outlets. There hasn't been an honest election since Taft..

The system is gamed far deeper than campaign finance reform can fix.

I do think Gary Johnson is a better choice than the other two, but with the current system, he won't even be invited to any debates, so the electorate will remain ignorant.

Herve?? The USA is NOT a DEMOCRACY??? Go to CUBA, go to North Korea, go to CHINA then you will repent for your sins of saying such BS. The USA has a majority of white race people, but our president Obama is BLACK, try to get a minority to be the leader of Cuba, North Korea, China etc.. Just a couple of decades ago, Black people could not vote and if they did the KKK would come after them, sure the USA is not perfect but it is a YOUNG DEMOCRACY, this is why millions of people suffering from repression all over the world, including Chinese, yearn to live in AMERICA! Yes, many Mexicans do too, many Japanese do too etc.. So please cut the BS and remember if this rich, filthy greedy bastard MITT ROMNEY gets into the US White House, poor people in America will be worse off, and that 0.00001% of filthy rich Americans will be laughing all the way to the bank$$$$$$!!

There's merely the illusion of choice acting as the opiate of the masses. Flip a coin.

Admittedly, because the campaign finance laws are pretty flimsy, the presidency tends to be given to the person with the most money. And until there is REAL campaign finance reform this is the way it is going to be for awhile. Having said that, at least we have some choice (although limited). There are more than two people running for POTUS. Gary Johnson of the libertarian party, who has very sound principals but lacks a multimillion dollar campaign budget so he'll never be heard. And there is Rosanne Barr, who is almost literally a clown. We also have the choice of just writing in someone...but unfortunately only the loudest voices with money behind them will get the voted. I still contend that this is tons better than a parliamentary system where we have to depend on a room of stuffy old men (and sometimes women) to choose a very weak leader for us.

Bertie, I agree there's but a shade of difference.

However, the US is not, never has been, a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic, at least officially. Whether the puppet-in-chief is democratically elected is another matter. The two candidates are preselected.

There's merely the illusion of choice acting as the opiate of the masses. Flip a coin.

And I have a unicorn for each of you who believes this.

Herve Nmn L'Eisa-san,

Bertie, to which useful idiot do you refer?

I don't know about useful.

Putting it technically, Romney seems like a two faced git and we know that Obama is.

And they call this democracy?

America's a free country, and so we get to choose our idiot, as opposed to those people living in unliberated countries who have their idiot chosen for them.

It gets worse for Romney. The NYT today reported that he has substantially fewer funds than were reported - and who would want to toss good money after what is increasingly clear to have been bad?

I LOVE THIS. Apparently, the GOP sees the Romney campaign as somewhat of a risk and a lot the money is being rerouted to congressional races and the GOP national committee. There's also speculation that some of Romney's Super PACs (the people who fund a lot of Romney's ads) like Karl Rove's American Crossroads will also bail in order to make more resources available to the congressional and senate races.

THIS IS AWESOME! Without money, Romney's campaign is a house of cards. All it would take is a quiet sneeze and his campaign crumbles. This totally explains why Romney hasn't been aggressive in striking back at the dem's flurry of recent attacks. Romney is in much worse shape than I thought. I kind of feel bad for the guy...(no I don't)

@ Laguna

his latest gambit is going with a 14-year old video of Obama saying he favors limited redistribution. (Heads up here: so do most Americans.)

pssst...so does Romneyhood....except he redistributes to the rich...

If poor people were to make a bet that things are going to get worse instead of better, then sure Mitt's their best bet.

Unfortuantely many poor Americans are already an underclass who have little hope (beyond sports or rap or selling drugs) of rising our of abject poverty.

What are you talking about? I'm calling you on your spin! Absolutely NOT TRUE! sorry...

'My' spin? That link is from Fox News. Your only source in news, so its gotta be accurate right? Are you saying that Fox News is wrong? So, Fox News is always right, dependable, fair and honest, excpet when they differ with what you believe...Well, isn't that convenient.

There is 47% of the population that will never vote for Romney and that that will always need and depend on the government. These are the majority of the takers. They will always want and expect the government to do more.

Except, ....Romney now says he is for the 100%. He's like popcorn...a little heat and he flips.

some people don't want to face the facts, but the US is becoming an entitlement society, unemployment benefits, deficit debt are all signs of total economic failure

Let's all remember that these people didn't cause the economic failure. Bush's bad economic policies coupled with the irresponsibility of the people on Wall street caused it. And sorry to differ with you, but EVERYONE is entitled to the basic necessities for life. All that these people are asking for is a means to live and an opportunity to succeed and Romney has shut the door on them.

All that I am saying is, don't be so irresponsible and spin like that

Bring it down man! I'm touched that you're riding on my every word, but it's like my opinion man!...although my opinions are pretty close to the facts. But if I am wrong, then I am wrong. You can post what an idiot I was for making such a far fetched prediction 6 weeks from now when JT has a story of who one the election....I will be here, and I will happily concede. But mark my words, unless something REALLY disastrous happens, you can stick a fork in Romney, because he is done!!

@pamelot

You sound like your riding tall on your high horse, but you neglect the simple fact that corporations are sitting on more cash now than they have ever had.

It is not a question about them wanting to invest in the economy, because it is clear that they don't want to do that.

It is a question of those that gained their wealth in a basically illegitimate way through the finance sector, without contributing anything at all to the real economy, wanting to preserve their status in the false income bracket hierarchy based on their finance sector funny money.

If they don't get another insider back in the White House, they're finished, because we're gonna dispatch the IRS to the Caymans baby!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 46% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.

Wrong again Bob! If this were 2004, Rasmussen would be the crown jewel of all polls, but the fact of the matter is, they have not changed their polling technique in MANY years. They still call and depend solely on land lines to do ALL of their polling. However, in recent years, with the cost reduction of cell phones and usage fees, many younger people (especially students) don't have land lines anymore. They use their cell phones as their main number. Rasmussen doesn't call cell numbers, hence leaving a huge part of the voting population out of their samplings. If you look at their numbers now, they have Romney up by 1%...REALLY? Romney up over Obama after all of the crap in the last 3 weeks??? All of the other polls have Obama up by 3 to 7%. It takes a real dummy (or a republican) not to realize that there is a flaw in their system when they are off by several points from the average.

Here are my sources again:

Rasmussen bias:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/22/nyt-calls-out-rasmussen-for-conservative-bias-in-wisconsin-poll/

Bass, there is no reason to throw a tizzy at what was clearly a prediction from Mirai. Obviously, the people will decide - but this leads to further problems for Romney.

You might still see cars in America with faded "Obama '08" bumper stickers on them, but their corresponding McCain stickers have long ago been razor-bladed off. For all the attention paid to the "undecided," they are for the most part sheeple who simply do not want to vote for the loser - if they did have any ideology, they would have already decided. As Romney appears increasingly smaller in the rearview mirror of Obama '12, they will side with the presumed winner - and this is how a self-fulfilling prophesy is fulfilled.

It gets worse for Romney. The NYT today reported that he has substantially fewer funds than were reported - and who would want to toss good money after what is increasingly clear to have been bad? Also, Romney has been urged to provide specifics for his thus-far bare-boned economic proposals (Bueller? Bueller?), but trying to explain his gaffes takes away from the fewer than 50 days remaining for him to do so and also makes his proposals a more difficult sell. He hasn't started well; his latest gambit is going with a 14-year old video of Obama saying he favors limited redistribution. (Heads up here: so do most Americans.)

So good luck there and all, but take it easy. Romney may look down and out now, but in another two or three weeks, he'll likely appear far worse.

Romney says he is poor Americans' best bet

Encouraging the poor to gamble now are we, Mr. Romney!? Tsk tsk...

Mitt has pool cleaning jobs for anyone that wants to apply. Or mechanic for his car elevators.

Right now Obama is 75% certain to win the election. But give Mitt a few more gaffes and that number no doubt will go up to 90%. What is your guess on who Mitt insults next. So far its been the English, the Arabs, half of America. Maybe left handed people are next? They are suspicious.

Thanks, Bass, excellent post.

" But 55% of voters nationally who are not affiliated with either of the major political parties still consider the choice between Romney and the president as voting for the lesser of two evils."

This is what I've been saying.

The leftists here want to loudly proclaim their candidat's victory. Perhaps that should be left to the actual voters to determine and not to the spinners.(though I preferred The O-Jays)

@Mirai

Mitt is done...I'm calling it. He's lost 3 critical states in the last 2 days. Without these states, there is ABSOLUTELY NO >WAY he can win. It's over

What are you talking about? I'm calling you on your spin! Absolutely NOT TRUE! sorry...

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 46% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.

When “leaners” are included, the race is tied with both Obama and Romney at 48%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.

Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern

Romney has now edged ahead of the president in Colorado, but it remains one of seven states still rated as a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. 

The Swing State Daily Tracking Survey shows the race remains close in the battlegrounds.

But 55% of voters nationally who are not affiliated with either of the major political parties still consider the choice between Romney and the president as voting for the lesser of two evils. 

All that I am saying is, don't be so irresponsible and spin like that. As I said before, this about "makers vs takers" Romney was 100% right. There is 47% of the population that will never vote for Romney and that that will always need and depend on the government. These are the majority of the takers. They will always want and expect the government to do more. The other 53% are mostly the makers. People that want small government and want lower taxes and more empowerment and less government intrusion. Those are the people that Romney needs to focus on, forget the 47% they will vote for Obama, no matter what, he can't convince them, never, so what's wrong with that statement, he shouldn't be sorry, if I were him, I would slam Obama on that issue and run with it, I would hit hard and heavy as Romney should, some people don't want to face the facts, but the US is becoming an entitlement society, unemployment benefits, deficit debt are all signs of total economic failure. Accomplishments that NO Democrat can be proud of and the President always dodges the issues. Obama said, himself that he believes in "income redistribution" or conservatives "cling to their guns and religion" remarks that bothered many people and still does and the people need to understand that.

The election is a close one and no matter what some on JT "THINK" and hope, no one knows for sure, not even them ( you know who you are) let the people decide, but you liberals can't call it.

Seeing as Romney is a "businessman" and that this election is focused on the economy, percentages being bandied about was to be expect - though Romney no doubt had not anticipated which statistics would be so bandied.

To recap: Mitt supports 100% of the electorate, including that 47% of Americans who are moochers, 22% of whom are elderly, 14% of whom have incomes under $20,000, and 61% of whom paid payroll taxes at a rate of 15.3%, higher than the cumulative total 13.9% that Romney, who is apparently not a moocher, paid in the single tax year he's released, which is 5% of what his father released.

Also, his promises are 100% a mixture of rainbows and unicorns and 0% based on reality.

Bertie, to which useful idiot do you refer?

Luca, that's called a diversion. Romney had released previous tax info, and that's where his charitable donations are enumerated, not by his patting himself on the back. How about Obama's records from college since you bring up full disclosure. But I digress...

The issue is whether Romney's surreptitiously recorded/released comments are correct or not. Read this:

http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano68.1.html

To clarify, I will not be voting for either Obama or Romney as the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Yeah, right. You believe that? I got some oceanfront property in Arizona for you!

Gosh, if that idiot is the best bet, I wonder what the worst is?

Romney's charitable donations are well-known to be substantial....

Funny that.... Someone we all get to know how charitable he is (so much for modesty) and yet we get to know nothing about his tax payments.

" Well, you may bet your life on it that Mitt would not be helping you out of his pocket."

Here, you're very incorrect as Romney's charitable donations are well-known to be substantial aside from his religious tithing.

TheQuestion and Virtuoso are quite right, " Basically you're voting for which lobbyists get your tax dollars for the next couple years until we do it all over again.

TheQuestion@I agree with you 100%. The other thing about the rigged game is that whichever party wins, we can absolutely count on their hysterical screaming and complaining over the occupant of the White House for the next four years."

The choice in November is which head of the two-headed hydra to choose? Choosing Obama will speed along down the same road Cuba went with Castro . Choosing Romney will lead to the Sovietisation of the once-upon-a-time formerly free Constitutional Republic once known as the united states of America(when each State was sovereign but volutarily united).

Which to choose, hmmmmm......... Is there a Choice C?

Rich or poor, America needs jobs and a lot of jobs. What U.S. does not need are empty words, deficit, division, welfare state, weak economy, and decline of power standing in the world. Nothing is free and the numbers do not lie, aren't they?

Basically you're voting for which lobbyists get your tax dollars for the next couple years until we do it all over again.

TheQuestion@I agree with you 100%. The other thing about the rigged game is that whichever party wins, we can absolutely count on their hysterical screaming and complaining over the occupant of the White House for the next four years.

Mitt is done...I'm calling it. He's lost 3 critical states in the last 2 days. Without these states, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY he can win. It's over

Source:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/

Yes, Fox News! (smiles)..they surely can't be wrong!

Saying he's the best person to help the poor is a little bit different from saying the poor don't actually want to be helped...

To bad the game's rigged. Vote for Democrats, special interests get all your money. Vote for Republicans, special interests get all your money. Basically you're voting for which lobbyists get your tax dollars for the next couple years until we do it all over again.

because it is simply below the dignity of a worthy leader to engage the nonsense coming out of the Romney camp.

You speak of the dignity of a worthy leader when millions are out of work?

He should be embarrassed to go in public, yet he goes on "Late Night with David Letterman" and boasts of his "slimness" when more than a fair few of the American people are on food stamps?

The only statement this blatantly out of touch "worthy leader" has yet to say is "Let them eat cake!"

Clint Eastwood made a simple yet precise statement; one that many have forgotten, including Obama:

"You work for us, the American people. You do a bad job, we got to let you go."

Well, you may bet your life on it that Mitt would not be helping you out of his pocket.

If the employment situation were brought up to snuff, far less people would need "help".

THAT, is the point.

Mitt Romney wants to create a better climate for business and jobs, so people can once again, get back to work.

If opportunity for advancement exists, more people would choose to grab it, than subsist on welfare.

Many on welfare are there due to the dismally high unemployment rate.

Here's how Romney might salvage his campaign: Keeping his trap shut until Nov. 7th and let Ryan speak for him. Ryan is the better liar.

it certainly will be a case of poor America if Mitt and his corporate pals get their mitts on government...

This election has quickly descended from political theater to a political side show at a second rate circus.

I just hope that Obama stays above the fray, so to speak. That's what a leader should do in this scenario, because it is simply below the dignity of a worthy leader to engage the nonsense coming out of the Romney camp.

Mitt Romney said on Wednesday he would do a better job of helping the poor than President Barack Obama

Anyone else see that pig fly past my window?

Well, you may bet your life on it that Mitt would not be helping you out of his pocket. The only certainty of winning that bet is to put money on him losing the presidential race.

Romney says he is poor Americans' best bet

And in other unrelated news, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed yesterday that "the aliens" took over famed actor Clint Eastwood leading to the latter's rambling RNC speech.

If I were poor I wouldn't take that bet.