Reid Suggests Romney Paid No Taxes for 10 Years

#326
#326
MG1968 said:
I hate to sound like an embittered Ron Paul supporter, but the media are playing a big part in all this. It's hard to get your message out when the biggest part of the media has decided they don't want you to win and have thrown their support behind the incumbent.
Click to expand...

Sounds like 2004
 
#327
#327
lawgator1 said:
1) Because every candidate for the past 40 years has given more.

2) Because he wants to win based on his ability to deal with the debt and run the economy and he touts his business success. He has opened the door wide open to this question.

3) He turned $450,000 into $102 million as he was investing it into an IRA.

Tax free.

I'm sort of curious as to how he managed to do that.

4) He wants to change tax structure. That is part of his platform. Again, he is the one who has made this relevant.
Click to expand...

1- Obviously is was legal

2- Want to know how he did it? Pay a good financial advisor!
 
#329
#329
PKT_VOL said:
I am not. I could care less about either Romney or Obama; I'm voting for Johnson. I could care less about his tax returns.

I am just analyzing the presidental race from an objectIve standpoint. The tax returns are political fiasco. The overall Romney campaign and the GOP since the mid-terms have been a train wreck. The GOP should be up by ten points right now if they were competent. As it stands, they would loose handily today.
Click to expand...

objective?
 
#332
#332
lawgator1 said:
1) Because every candidate for the past 40 years has given more.

2) Because he wants to win based on his ability to deal with the debt and run the economy and he touts his business success. He has opened the door wide open to this question.

3) He turned $450,000 into $102 million as he was investing it into an IRA.

Tax free.

I'm sort of curious as to how he managed to do that.

4) He wants to change tax structure. That is part of his platform. Again, he is the one who has made this relevant.
Click to expand...
hold up. Are you actually saying that something here disqualifies the guy as capable of dealing with the economy or talking jobs? Are you freaking serious? You've voted for the financial 3rd grader occupying the office and watched him preside over a debt neutral free HC program as you complain about a guy who earned too much.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#333
#333
PKT_VOL said:
You're missing the point. On the backdrop of a new candidate, not incumbent, for POTUS. Not to mention is very unpopular background.

This is campaign politics.
Click to expand...

No, I very much understand the point and don't give an F what his tax returns say. I am more interested in why there is an entire group of people in this country that are so enamored with an individual that couldn't lead his way out of a wet paper bag without his wife and Valerie Jarrett showing him how and David Axelrod approving it, that they just turn a blind eye to the fact that he FOUGHT releasing a BIRTH CERTIFICATE for years. When he did, it was so transparently fabricated that it wasn't funny. The same guy won't even release his college transcripts. Why is that. Romney, as far as you or I know, has broken no tax laws. As such, his returns are NO ONES business. The issue here is that you and your ilk want to vette Romney to the ends of the earth while your same group turned a blind eye to several issues with your candidate that would have gotten him disqualified for any other government or government contracting job in the US.
 
Last edited:
#334
#334
MG1968 said:
I hate to sound like an embittered Ron Paul supporter, but the media are playing a big part in all this. It's hard to get your message out when the biggest part of the media has decided they don't want you to win and have thrown their support behind the incumbent.
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't have it as easy as Obama in the press, but they keep making retarded mistake after retarded mistake. At some point you have to help yourself.
 
#335
#335
TNGlen said:
No, I very much understand the point and don't give an F what his tax returns say. I am more interested in why there is an entire group of people in this country that are so enamored with an individual that couldn't lead his way out of a wet paper bag without his wife and Valerie Jarrett showing him how and David Axelrod approving it, that they just turn a blind eye to the fact that he FOUGHT releasing a BIRTH CERTIFICATE for years. When he did, it was so transparently fabricated that it wasn't funny. The same guy won't even release his college transcripts. Why is that. Romney, as far as you or I know, has broken no tax laws. As such, his returns are NO ONES business. The issue here is that you and your ilk want to vette Romney to the ends of the earth while your same group turned a blind eye to several issues with your candidate that would have gotten him disqualified for any other government or government contracting job in the US.
Click to expand...

So said I wanted to vette Romney to the ends of the Earth? The vetting of Obama was the GOP's and Clinton's responsibility back in '08.

Romney is the challenger, Obama is the incumbent with a record. The vetting this election cycle is on Romney.
 
#336
#336
PKT_VOL said:
So said I wanted to vette Romney to the ends of the Earth? The vetting of Obama was the GOP's and Clinton's responsibility back in '08.

Romney is the challenger, Obama is the incumbent with a record. The vetting this election cycle is on Romney.
Click to expand...

1) You and your ilk refused to listen to the vetting done by the GOP AND Clinton. The media was too busy being googly eyed at the messiah.
2) Double standard much? Leave Romney alone like your boys left Obama alone.

Don't give me this, "I'm voting for Johnson" crap. If you aren't voting for Romney, you are voting for Nobama. You know that, I know that, Nobama knows that. I don't like it, but it is what we have to deal with. I actually liked Johnson the best out of the 2nd tier candidates btw.
 
#337
#337
TNGlen said:
When the company is ready to fold, yes, they take over to carve it up and sell the assets. Point being, that is a company that is ALREADY failing, not one that is seeking VC.
Click to expand...

The original VC agreement will specify how much more of the company they will get for failure to hit projections. They do that to keep from seeing management take the company down the tubes and the VC money along with it.
 
Last edited:
#338
#338
This has got to be a trap. Romney has been prepping for this for over 8 years it would seem to the normal person he would have everything like his personal taxes on the up and up.

I'm willing to bet his tax returns pop up at a certain point right before the election and show nothing much and then the Obama campaign is left floundering for something else to build on with little to no time before voters go to the polls.
 
#339
#339
MG1968 said:
while FNC has a large market share among the cable networks, it is nothing compared to ABC, NBC and CBS, not to mention a majority of big city newspapers

nice try, though
Click to expand...

i'll admit, the networks lean so far left that they are about to fall over. But so many people watch fox it's impossible to deny their influence. Or maybe it's because of where I live that they seem larger than they are.
 
#340
#340
MontereyVol said:
This has got to be a trap. Romney has been prepping for this for over 8 years it would seem to the normal person he would have everything like his personal taxes on the up and up.

I'm willing to bet his tax returns pop up at a certain point right before the election and show nothing much and then the Obama campaign is left floundering for something else to build on with little to no time before voters go to the polls.
Click to expand...

sadly this will sway a lot of voters. Either way. Luckily my decision will already be made by that point so it'll be nickelodeon, disney, discovery, and travel channel for me during that final stretch.
 
#341
#341
Romney says he has not paid less than 13% the last 10 years.

I think he should just come out and say that he wants to set a 13-15% rate for all income over poverty level.

If 13% is good enough for Mitt, it good enough for me.

I would then gladly vote for him....
 
#344
#344
TNGlen said:
1) You and your ilk refused to listen to the vetting done by the GOP AND Clinton. The media was too busy being googly eyed at the messiah.

Yeah, no. Neither did a good job. The GOP was hopeless from the get go. There was nothing they could have done to win that election.

2) Double standard much? Leave Romney alone like your boys left Obama alone.

Leave him alone? Seriously? Leave him alone because I dislike Obama only slight more than him?

Your disdain for Obama is blinding you to Romney and the GOP's downfalls.

Don't give me this, "I'm voting for Johnson" crap. If you aren't voting for Romney, you are voting for Nobama. You know that, I know that, Nobama knows that. I don't like it, but it is what we have to deal with. I actually liked Johnson the best out of the 2nd tier candidates btw.
Click to expand...

I don't know that.

I am actually voting for Johnson because he is by far the best candidate of the three. It is not even close.

Don't get me wrong, if someone held a gun to my head and told me to choose between Obama and Romney, I (like most Johnson supporters) would side with Romney. If Romney loses to Obama due to Johnson supporters, it will be worth it because the third party cause would have been perpetuated to a point where it was relevant upon the election.

A multi-party system trumps the shortfalls of another Obama term.
 
#346
#346
PKT_VOL said:
I don't know that.

I am actually voting for Johnson because he is by far the best candidate of the three. It is not even close.

Don't get me wrong, if someone held a gun to my head and told me to choose between Obama and Romney, I (like most Johnson supporters) would side with Romney. If Romney loses to Obama due to Johnson supporters, it will be worth it because the third party cause would have been perpetuated to a point where it was relevant upon the election.

A multi-party system trumps the shortfalls of another Obama term.
Click to expand...

what?

as said above, look at Ross Perot in 1992 and to a lesser extent 2000, when Ralph Nader siphoned off just enough votes from Al Gore
 
#349
#349
MG1968 said:
would you vote for him if he answered all of your questions to your satisfaction and then gave you a big wet kiss right on the mouth?

didn't think so
Click to expand...

The fact that he won't suggests strongly to me that he can't answer to my satisfaction, or to that of the voters. Which is why he is not disclosing.

It's a rock and a hard place situation.
 
#350
#350
lawgator1 said:
The fact that he won't suggests strongly to me that he can't answer to my satisfaction, or to that of the voters. Which is why he is not disclosing.

It's a rock and a hard place situation.
Click to expand...
Laughed at your satisfaction, yet you found a way to believe Obama.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top