Friday, November 9, 2012

So... Romney...

In previous posts, I spoke of how I did not feel confident at Mitt Romney being the republican candidate and I wasnt sure I would be able to bring myself to vote for him if I lived in the US. I got some comments back about how it's better than Obama, regardless if Romney wouldnt exactly be great at turning things around, at least he would be able to slow things down, etc. I replied about how I just did not trust the guy and did not think he could pull this off.

And it seems that too many other people felt the same way. honestly, I dont know how anyone could vote for Obama after the last 4 years, I really can't, but at the same time, I do understand why Romney was not able to pull it in. The popular vote wasnt too bad really, pretty darn close, but after what went on the last 4 years, you'd think he would have won by a landslide. Or at the very least top off in the popular vote, even if it did not work out through the electoral voting districts.

But he didnt. He simply was not the right candidate.

A host I listen to on Sirius called this back in April 2009. He said that Mitt Romney will be the next Republican candidate, after falling on his sword to let McCain win (and then lose) in 2008, and that Romney would not be able to win either. And Mike Church was all too right.

I had a hard time watching the election because while I would have loved to see Obama lose, I would not have been excited about Romney winning. It was a catch-22 I guess. I did not see that Romney would be able to STOP FRICKEN SPENDING, which is the failing death throes of all our countries (not just the US, in case someone hasnt noticed). It doesnt matter how much revenue any of us send in to the govt, they will always spend more. ALWAYS. Even the surpluses some countries have had, like Canada, eventually went down the toilet due to spending - and it was the conservative parties just as much as the liberal parties, who did all that spending.

The way I see it, none of us are getting out of this unless some serious, hard planning goes in to curb this spending addiction. The money goes to so many things, it's unfathomable. It really is. I dont see how any of our countries are going to survive much longer if they continue in this manner. It's downright scary. Even the next day, Speaker of the House Boehner was talking about doing things to INCREASE REVENUES. They don't need to increase revenue, they are bringing in more money each year than ever before imagined for the federal govt to have at it's disposal --- just think about that for a minute --- but it's still not enough. It will never be enough.

Someone needs to be at the helm who is serious about really tightening up and rolling back what has been happening and get back to what the govt's role is actually supposed to be. Here in Canada too. And people need to be behind this in the house, the senate, and at home. But who wants to do that? Apparently no one, based on the voting records over the years.

that is sad and scary and I dont want to be part of it. I will not be voting for anyone anymore unless I really think they are serious about trying. I will not take time to vote for someone just because of the party or trying to keep another party out. Things are going to get really bad up here in Canada as well and I have 4 children and a brand new grandchild to be concerned about. It makes me sad and scared. I dont understand why so few others seem to feel the same. It's like everyone has blinders on. The spending has GOT to stop.

11 comments:

  1. You are one of the few that sees things they way they are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes being honest nowadays means nothing in Canada as in America.The worst president in the history of the USA re-elected because he is black.Elected by the 47% of the population who pay no taxes and are on the dole or collecting food stamps..Now the great Obumma wants to tax the rich more,the very ones who create the jobs in the first place.In his first 3 or 4 days as a re-elected president thousands more people have been laid off by companies who cannot afford to pay these higher taxes.Quite the smart people these Americans,elect a black president who knows nothing about running a country so they can look good to their Muslim friends.The rich in America will never see the tax increase as they will just move or find more loop holes in the tax system.That is what they pay their lawyers for.That country ,the USA is just about ready for another civil war,if they go any further into debt and it seems like that is what will now happen.When will this climate worship end and when will we start jailing the likes of Suzuki and Gore,for that is where all the money is going ,into GREEN ENERGY scams.Just have to look to ONTARIO to see how that works,or maybe Spain,Greece or any country that was stupid enough to adopt this windmill,solar panel scam.Or the corn into fuel and starve the poor nations scam.What do we get from these GREENIES but a pile of BS about Sandy being part of global warming.We live in an insane world where we let newspapers or the MSM run our lives and elect our politicians with whatever headlines people will believe.They destroyed Romney with 12 months of smears,tearing him down and making him into a boogey man and built up Obumma,making him look like superman,when in fact he was not fit to be President.They have been trying for 4 elections to try the same thing here in Canada,but PM Harper is just too smart for all the MSM,Libs and NDP combined.What a sad world we live in today,god help us all and the hell with it.MERRY CHRISTMAS

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thx anonymous! I assume you are one of the few as well :)

    Bertie - you reminded me of a program I watched a couple of weeks ago. It was like a documentary thing on a news channel. It was talking about how well Solar Power is doing in Germany and went on and on, showing all the businesses and people using it. I cannot for the life of me remember the % of power in Germany coming from solar panels now, but the figure was surprisingly high. So most of the show was all about how wonderful it was.....

    Then suddenly at the end, it said that despite it's wide use catching on more and more, most of the large solar companies are GOING BANKRUPT. WTF??? i could not believe my ears! go on about how fantastic and clean it is, and then sneak in a tidbit at the end about how they were still relying largely on subsidies (meaning from the German govt of course) and how the cost of making these panels and the research etc etc is so high, they are floundering badly and will need more investment ( I assume they meant from the govt and you know, RICH PEOPLE), if they are going to survive. What the hell? I was angry! Sneak in a short 5 minute part at the end about how they are going bankrupt left and right, after a long program about how wonderful it is? what a crock!

    Are the German people so convinced we are ruining the world, they will sacrifice their country and people to try to save it? Really?? I lived there in the early 90s and they were way ahead of us for being clean. I had multiple garbage bins that I had to carefully manage to make sure things like paper and cardboard ONLY went in one, tins and cans and bottles and such in another, and remaining garbage that didnt fit the other 2 in the third - and it was about a 2000 Deutschmark fine if you were caught doing it wrong... But that's at least stuff people can handle. The cities and towns buy some bins and trucks and pay people to pick it up and deal with it - but the cost for that is far lower, or HAS to be far lower, than the cost of subsidizing these solar companies. It's insane, in my humble opinion. And dangerous. I know that Germany pretty much concluded that wind energy wasn't working out the way they planned, after doing it for much longer than we have, but now they put all their eggs into solar?? Wow.

    I saw a couple on there who was from the US but living in germany and they were thrilled with the energy they were getting from their solar panels. But at the end of the little blurb about them, I caught the comment about how in XX many years, they will have made back the money it cost to buy the panels, and AFTER that would be 'pure profit'. Really? What about if a big hail storm hits or their house catches fire, or whatever? Does it cost more to insure homes with high-priced solar panels now? I imagine it would - so do they factor those extra costs in as well? If it takes a decade to make back the price you paid for the panels, and they only last 20 years, how much are you REALLY saving compared to previous bills with standard heating/electricity? I dont know - these shows never seem to go over that and THAT should be a red flag to anyone because if it was truly more cost effective, they would be pumping the numbers every chance they got - but they don't. RED FLAG. And all on the premise that man is supposedly destroying the earth? So many are willing to stake their hard earned money on it? hmmmm... something stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I should add here that I dont get into conversations about Obama and Muslim links. I dont go into talks about his birth certificate anymore, etc etc. But I do look at who votes for him and why. It's not just the assumption that 'the 47%' voted for him - look how many rich celebs were out in full-force backing him. It's far more than just the takers in the tax system propping him up. If he is going to tax the rich people more, why did so many rich celebs go on commercials for his campaign?

    There were some downright nasty ones featuring female celebs that were against Romney. People like Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen showed up at rallies for the pres. Mr Born In The USA penned a campaign song for him. I dunno, maybe they all have good accountants who hide their money off-shore to protect it from a possible tax hike lol, but they were out in force to influence voters and they pushed hard.

    Just like celebs who appear on ads about going green. I still laugh my ASS off at the thought of the one where Jason Bateman talks about only flushing the toilet if you've done a number 2, not a number 1... omfg you mean to tell me that in his posh apartment/house you can walk into his bathroom and find his peepee in the toilet? Bull shit!!! That ad made me mad at first but now I just laugh. as IF you go to a fancy party at his place and he tells everyone not to flush if they just piddle in the can. AS IF. It's hysterical to think those people actually went on ads and said that crap. Maybe he doesnt flush the potty all the time when he is home alone, but when there are guests coming? Puh-leeeease!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. when people are given something for nothing they come to expect more for nothing not less. i see no way out except complete financial ruin and a reset. the takers have to be removed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am getting more than a little weary of the 'Romney lost because' refrain. With the level of corruption in the American election process including rigging the voting machines not to count Republican votes especially Republican women's votes I suspect George Washington would have 'lost' to Joseph Stalin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe, I weary of the 'Romney lost because.... the votes are rigged against Republicans' refrain.

    Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I find it amusing how many people I have heard claiming that the votes are rigged, but they would not accept that as a possibility when Ron Paul was running for candidate and had his delegates blocked from entering the process, in clear majorities in their local delegate 'election' counts, ON VIDEO, where Romney was announced the winner with the most delegates in each situation, while Ron Paul's people called out NAY to not agree, and were completely ignored, again all ON VIDEO.... something that there is actual proof for allllll over the internet but Romney people denied the VIDEO proof....

    and now people are complaining that voting machines are rigged. Something that there is no clear-cut proof for that I have seen (otherwise you and everyone else would be on international news right now giving your proof)... well booohoooo! Let's all cry at the travesty!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kez you are simply muddying the waters by showing even more corruption. Was there vote rigging at the Republican convention? ABSOLUTELY. Was there vote rigging at the 2008 Democrat convention? ABSOLUTELY. Was there clear evidence of vote manipulation by voting machine in 2008 and 2012? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

      The level of deceit and corruption in the American Electoral process has to my mind removed the USA from the list of Democracies in the world today. When you have vast swaths of districts that vote 100% for one candidate you can be assured that there was massive vote manipulation.

      Delete
  8. hi again Joe. I did not see any vast swaths of districts that voted 100% for Obama. I'm not saying there aren't any, but during the election night coverage and the next day, I was bored and I painstakingly went through the electoral map for over half the states, and I could hover over each county to see the percents and I only saw a few that were in the 60-70% range, and the rest were either close, or Romney won them by a similar range of margins. If there are any 'vast swaths of districts' voting 100% for Obama, I did not manage to find any of them myself.

    The vote has become a joke regardless of voting fraud. I think it is exposing that there is a problem with democracies anyway, even if they are done 100% legitimately.We have a system where literally 51% of the people can vote the rights of the other 49%, and when you get to a federal election where over 100 million people voted, you have 50% voting the rights of the other 48% (based on what I saw for the latest tallies), which means approximately 50 million people each, voting on the rights of 300 million people total. Either way, done right or wrong, the vote SUCKS.

    Just like up here in Canada when Harper finally won a majority - the rest bellyached because according to the popular vote and seat counts, it meant that about 2/3's of Canadians did NOT vote for Harper. So they still felt that they were being ignored.

    The US is basically split right down the middle and has been for years. Throw in voting fraud and it can tip the scales over that 50% mark. Throw in that the districts are heavily weighted in urba areas that tend to vote left, and that leaves the rest of the state feeling completely ignored - which also happens in Canada. There are more people living in the Greater Toronto area than the entire province of Alberta and they wonder why we feel left out of the vote sometimes.

    I personally think our countries are way too big for one central federal govt to watch over. In the US, the states are not supposed to be so bullied by the feds either because each state is actually a Republic, or like mini-countries, but they are no longer treated that way. The Federal govt comes in, whether Republican or Democrat, and tries to tell them what to do over what are supposed to be State's issues. It gets into one big mess.

    What I meant from above anyway, is that voter fraud can happen in the Republican's favor just as easily as in the Democrat's. I seem to recall a big to-do when Bush won his second election. There were calls of voter fraud all over the place, and the Repubs said 'no, you're just sore losers'. now it's the Repubs time to be on the receiving end of that again, and they are crying foul.

    How about this - Americans are severely divided, and those int he middle are having a hard time picking who to vote for because neither of the candidates jumped out at them for being 'the great one'. I will close this here and open another comment or it will cut me off lol.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It makes me think back to the days of Reagan in the 80s. I have read reports that so many people voted for Reagan the first time around, Carter was already out before all of the polling stations even closed. According to 3 sites I just checked for 1980 poll results, Reagan ended up with 489 Electoral Votes (Carter 49), and carried just over 50% of the popular vote compared to Carter's 41%. So Reagan won a HUGE amount of Electoral votes, but still only won the popular vote by 9%. An independent took 0 Electoral Votes but 6% of the popular vote. Could people say there was some vote rigging back then?

    When you go up to 1984, there was a bigger difference in the popular vote for Reagan, almost 19% more, and he won even more Electoral Votes (leaving only 13 for the challenger). So that seems like a clearer majority, but still less than 60% even though he won over 500 Electoral districts. It's all funky math when you look at it.

    Even Margaret Thatcher in the UK is looked at as having the highest majority in recent times, but the vote was split between the other two parties, so when you added them up, it came out to a higher popular vote AGAINST Thatcher than for her.

    Democracy sounds good, but when you put it to the larger scales of entire countries with millions of people, there is bound to be trouble brewing. But I have read several times that if the Representatives were chosen based on population as listed in the constitution or ammendments made way back when, there would be over 10,000 in the house and/or senate alone. Yikes! Imagine having to pay for all those govt workers and staff. Holy hell.

    It's crappy from every direction you look at it. I think in this day and age of electronics, it should be much easier and faster to count votes properly but it's not working out that way at all and the people can't find ways to deal with it. We are shut out of the very process that is supposed to be working for us, no matter which side you lean, left or right.

    I have seriously thought about signing up to work at the next federal, or at least provincial, polling station to see how things work but I would probably end up having to sign some sort of gag order that would not allow me to talk about it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I had to come back once again because I read a forum where people were discussing possible voter fraud in areas like Phili and Cleavland. Finally someone started posting actual numbers and links and also links to past elections in those same districts. For example, 59 of the over 1000 districts in the Phili wards went to Obama at 99-100%, however in past elections it was the same. McCain getting between 0-5 votes, and before that, Bush getting 0-8 votes. These were districts where only 500 or so people voted total. Seems totally retarded to me that only 500 people were voting, why is that even a district/ward at all?

    But my point is, yes there is news that Romney did not log any votes at all in some districts - but looking back in time, the trend has been the same, so is it even actual news? It's not NEW news, that's for sure. I would be more interested in how these wards/districts are divided up in the first place when some have many thousands of voters and others only have a few hundred. THAT is what I would want to look into and change.

    I also read where some of those districts where Obama won a huge amount only have a dozen or so registered Republicans, and when a newspaper journalist tried to find them to see why they didn't vote, none of them lived in the same homes as on the register so they couldnt find ANY to talk to. Perhaps they moved, perhaps the reporter is lying - but at any rate, the republican site itself only listed 10 registered in one particular ward I checked. so is it hard to believe that Obama won 100% in those areas? No.

    It's just something to think about and be careful of. As soon as I read your post, I thought 'hmm well I remember from voting day that one district in an eastern state was reporting very early because they only had TWELVE people'. Some rural area (it was split between romney and obama, I believe). So my next thought was 'hmm, I want to know how many people voted all together and if these were very small districts'. Just like there are districts that went 100% Romney in Oklahoma, and back in 2008 for McCain as well.

    To put it in more numbers, Romney did not receive any votes in only 3% of the voting stations in Phili. Big deal. He only received 14% of the vote total, so it's not a big surprise that some polling stations came up with big fat Zeros.

    You have to be very careful with statistics and look into them yourself before repeating what you hear on news programs or on blogs. Even this one. Go look them up. I googled 'Did Obama receive 100% of the vote in districts' and 'How many districts voted 100% Obama' and came up with tons of links to check. It doesnt take long to open your mind.

    ReplyDelete

*Disclaimer

These are my views and opinions. If you don't agree or think I am sadly misguided, that is your view. Feel free to share your thoughts but I also reserve my right to moderate content (IE foul language, excessive flaming, etc).

Financial Center Live Stock Ticker