Looks like Romney already won the US presidential elections

By | August 10, 2012
Two ugly, ugly consequences you will hate.

The ballot boxes are stuffed. Romney is going to win, because Wall Street says so:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/goldman-sachs-leads-split-with-obama-as-ge-jilts-him-too.html

But why?
There are two sweeping changes in US legislation that you should know about. I certainly hope the rest of the world does not follow suite – we need to keep our eyes open for copycat legislation trying to sneak through the gatekeepers!

1. Romney promises to protect the way big banks make money. Obama passed new legislation requiring that banks become more transparent about the way they make and manage money. That's what citizens want: more transparency, more whistle-blowing, and less corruption The banks obviously don't like that, and they want that law repealed. Romney promises to repeal it.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/08/fiat-money-explained-4-minutes-163901/

2. Romney supports locking dissident citizens up. Of course, only so that the government propaganda machine, which itself is a puppet of Wall Street and other large corporate lobby groups, can have it's way. By the way: Obama signed  #NDAA  into law, so Romney doesn't need to do it. And the US mainstream news has been quiet about it. You can now be arrested for saying things that Wall Street doesn't like.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/104621204832216628958/posts/GuZLKEDa3ub

Goldman Sachs Leads Split With Obama, as GE Jilts Him Too
Goldman Sachs Group employees have changed to red from blue.

14 thoughts on “Looks like Romney already won the US presidential elections

  1. Simon Reidy

    I don't have time for a full response right now, but thanks for such a detailed and articulate reply. Very interesting. I'll have to read up on it some more.

    Reply
  2. Sterling Anderson

    Romney was behind health care reform — which is slightly different in both methods and purpose from "government funded" healthcare. At the time he crafted the Massachusetts plan, it was heralded by both Democrats and Republicans as a wise application of free market principles (championed by conservatives) to achieve the goals Democrats had long pushed for through more public means. When Romney campaigned in 2008, that plan was the envy of both sides and was a strong talking point for him in the Republican primary. Had he won the nomination, it undoubtably would have been a positive for him in the general campaign as well.

    What happened between 2008 and now was that the Obama administration co-opted Jonathan Gruber (MIT), Tim Murphy (JP Morgan), and others from Romney's MA team to design the Affordable Care Act. Among other differences, this plan attempted to do for a heterogenous collection of states what the Massachusetts plan did for one state under a very specific set of circumstances. I'll let any constitutional law wonks reading this chime in on the legal difficulties this presented in a federalist system (even the Supreme Court had to make some adjustments to justify it), but from a purely practical standpoint, imposing reforms of this magnitude on a country as large and diverse as the United States can be very inefficient in that it cannot address the specific circumstances of each state. This article from The New Yorker last year is one of the better ones I've read describing the history and methods of both Romney's and Obama's plans: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_lizza

    Romney still stands by his plan today (and cautiously proposes that other states try similar approaches), but the more extreme voices on the right have effectively made it impossible for him to strongly support it. As anyone who knows him personally will attest, the man is an intense pragmatist — not an ideologue. That explains both his caution in dealing with his own party (whose votes he needs), as well as his willingness to buck ideologically-driven stupidity when he can (like he did as governor of Massachusetts). 

    Reply
  3. Simon Reidy

    That's a fair call. I have plenty of Christian friends. Never met a Mormon to be honest, and I've only read a little about your beliefs. The difference with my Christian friends in comparison to evangelicals is that they aren't fundamentalists. They don't really really believe in the old testament, and have a more symbolic interpretation of the bible. As a result I find them more open-minded to science, and discussion or debate about progressive issues. They aren't as locked into as narrow a vision tunnel as a fundamentalist. They don't discriminate against the LGBT community, they aren't all anti-abortion, and some of them are even completely comfortable with progressive issues like gay marriage.

    A question about Romney, I seem to remember when he was Governor, that he was right behind Government funded health care? Do you think it is solely to toe the Republican line that he is now against federal healthcare reform? Or are there other reasons I'm not aware of? I don't have much knowledge on this issue, so I'm genuinely interested if you wouldn't mind filling me in with your thoughts on his healthcare reforms in comparison to "ObamaCare".

    Reply
  4. Sterling Anderson

    I'm Mormon (Romney and I attend the same church here in Boston when he's around). I certainly can't speak for all people of faith, but I do like to think that I'm capable of meaningful self-thought.
    I think either of us would err to believe that reasoned thought is the sole purview of the religious or unreligious. I work, study, and debate with colleagues of many persuasions and have thus far found something of value in things each have said.

    Reply
  5. Simon Reidy

    Excellent points, however I still tend to think that fundamentalist evangelicals are the most impressionable of the bunch when it comes to how to vote. How can anyone that seriously thinks the world is only 6,000 years old, be capable of any meaninfugl self-thought? They've already been brainshwashed to not think beyond the bible and the ideals of their local Church. However I'll concede that my opinion is probably heavily biased by being an atheist.

    Reply
  6. Sterling Anderson

    …or union, or ethnic group, or favorite celebrity, etc. etc. etc. Of course religious groups tend to vote similarly — they consist of self-selected members with a shared set of values. Not at all unlike secular groups that organize around a cause. I would no sooner condemn a religious voter for voting with his/her congregation for the values they share than I would members of a women's rights organization who did the same. Unions are a bit of a different story, but I don't have the energy or the time to explain that here. Bottom line — the result of a democratic election is only as good as the plurality of the electorate. Our goal should be to help others vote on well-informed reason, rather than knee-jerk sentiment like that elicited by meaningless media narratives (read: "rich and out of touch") and empty campaign catch phrases.

    Reply
  7. Simon Reidy

    Sorry for the presumption you lived in the US +Sophie Wrobel . Not sure why I jumped to that conclusion without bothering to check you profile first!

    While I certainly agree with you both about the power of big corporations and their backing of politcal parties having a huge influence, I get more concerned about the massive power of the religious right, who will seemingly vote for whoever their local preacher tells them to.

    However the question on everyone's lips that I know, is whether fundamentalist Christians will get behind a Mormon presidential candidate? I'm presuming a lot of them can be persuaded to do so, but it's certainly not a guaranteed vote for Republican, which has nearly always been the case with evangelical Christians in the past.

    I really hope people can see past Romney's bullshit and that Obama can hang on to power.

    Reply
  8. Sterling Anderson

    I think we agree on the outsized influence of big money supporters on executive administrations. I would argue, though, that this influence is the result of system-inherent biases rather than any one candidate or party. In hyper-partisan times like these, it's easy for people to forget that and hastily label (ironically based on ads paid for by big money interests) the "other side" as the bad/corporate/big money campaign.
    Interestingly, pandering to various voter classes (Iowa voters with corn subsidies, the unemployed with benefit extensions, unions with expanded collective bargaining rights, pensions, etc.) can be just as damaging to the country's financial state and prospects as big money. In many cases, it's even more so.

    Reply
  9. Sophie Wrobel

    +Sterling Anderson My argument is that the candidate who wins is based primarily on whomever big industry (in particular the fiancial industry) cares to support. And the candidate who wins is, as a result, nothing other than a puppet of that industry during their career in office.

    Reply
  10. Sterling Anderson

    The conclusion you've led with does not seem to be supported by any of the articles you've referenced. In fact, both points seem to only tie Obama and Romney closer together rather than disambiguate them.
    1- If receiving more money from big banks amounts to "ballot stuffing" or portends administration-sanctioned preference for corrupt practices, would you argue that Obama was ballot stuffing last time or that he was viewed as more favorable to Wall Street interests? In fact, with a 75-25 split, this argument would have made him more liable than Romney, with his current 70-30 split. It would seem that both men are just taking money from whomever will give it to them.

    2- As you noted, Obama signed NDAA into law. I don't see how Romney's support for it means he will win any elections because of it. This is not to say that I agree with NDAA, but rather, that its influence in the context of the original argument seems moot.

    Reply
  11. Sophie Wrobel

    +Simon Reidy I don't live in the US either. But they do have a reputation for trying to sneak nasty legislation into every international treaty they can get their hands on. I also don't like that so many core internet services are based in the USA – they have more data about non-residents of the USA, and are bigger extradition bullies, than I'm comfortable with.

    Reply
  12. Simon Reidy

    Your opening sentence is simply too terrifying a reality for me to contemplate. And I don't even live in the States! 🙂

    Unfortunately the way things are going, Australia is even more likely to swing to the right, and elect a conservative government at our next federal election.

    What a horrible decade we are headed for if this happens in both our countries 🙁

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.