ANOTHER AMERICAN NO-BRAINER… THE POLLS ARE LIES… MITT ROMNEY HAS NO SUPPORT:
Romney can’t draw a crowd: Just 1,250 turn out to hear him speak in stadium with 60,000 capacity
Mitt Romney has had a few awkward moments throughout the primary season. But few could match his speech to the Detroit Economic Club at Ford Field yesterday.
The 65,000-seat home of the National Football League’s Detroit Lions seemed like an odd choice of venue for an appearance in front of a crowd of just 1,250 people.
Mr Romney spoke from a podium on the 30-yard line of the football field in Detroit, Michigan, as the crowd, mostly men in suits, sat in chairs set up on the artificial turf.
In an attempt to counter his critics, Mr Romney emphasised his Michigan roots and love for the cars produced by the state’s auto industry.
The former private equity executive has taken some criticism in the state because he opposed an $81billion federal bailout credited with helping save the auto industry.
He pointed out that he drives a Ford Mustang and Chevrolet pickup truck, and that his wife, Ann ‘drives two Cadillacs, actually’ – a comment analysts said could alienate some blue-collar voters by reminding them of Mr Romney’s vast wealth.
Closing his speech, he said of Michigan: ‘You know, the trees are the right height, the streets are just right.’
The remark was met by puzzled murmurs in the otherwise silent stadium, the New York Daily News reported.
Message: Mr Romney focused his speech on his economic plan, outlining fiscally conservative policies he hoped would win him support in the economically hard-hit state
Quiet: The occasion saw a few more of Mr Romney’s odd ad libs, which were met with bemused murmurs from the crowd
Mr Romney spent most of his speech yesterday discussing his economic plan, saying a 20 per cent cut in personal income tax rates would help the economy grow and create jobs.
He also called for reforms to Medicare, the federal health programme for the elderly, which would raise the age at which citizens become eligible for the benefit.
During his speech, Mr Romney declared himself the Republican presidential candidate with ‘the only chance’ to defeat President Barack Obama.
Mr Obama has been most vulnerable on the economy as the general election approaches in November, but signs are growing that the recovery from the Great Recession is picking up speed.
Mr Santorum has switched the campaign narrative recently to focus on social issues, and he has risen in the polls to a near tie for the Republican lead after his surprise victories in three states on the same day earlier this month.
Mr Romney’s campaign rests on a foundation of economic know-how, and the multimillionaire former venture capitalist continues to present himself as a lifelong businessman with the skills to end to the worst recession in decades.
The economy is a safer issue for Mr Romney, as he still faces scepticism from more conservative Republicans over his shifting positions on sensitive social issues such as abortion.
Laid back affair: Members of the press sit on the goal line at Ford Field as they prepare for Mr Romney’s speech
Family values: Mr Romney gives a hug to his sister, Lynn Keenan, after his address
Mr Romney and the Republican establishment that largely supports him are counting on the idea that he is the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama to get him the nomination at the party’s convention in August.
He remains the front-runner in terms of delegates to the convention and in campaign fundraising, though finance reports released this week show the momentum from Romney donors slowed in January.
Backed by ads attacking Santorum from his own campaign and from Restore Our Future, an outside group that supports him, Mr Romney has made gains in the past week in Michigan.
But numerous polls show that Republicans who say they support one of the candidates could change their mind.
Well, if most people don’t vote for a constitution candidate, perhaps the spotlight should be on the “main-slime” media for not informing the good sheeple that undeclared wars should and still must be avoided; Now power to go to war has been stolen by the executive branch which is using NATO to engage in illegal war. Maybe a free and independent media–something in the long distant past– would produce a drastically different election result. Above all, Ron Paul would have been given equal press coverage, not the globalist, Bilderberg attendee receiving lopsided attention.
The movie on u-tube: “They Live” is a good watch.
The golden rule, due unto others as you’d have done unto you is pretty cut and dry. Anyone of average intelligence watching the main stream media can see that the wars are unnecessary. How many times does someone have to be given a questionable excuse for war before they figure out that they’re not being told the truth? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This is the duplicity of democracy in action, don’t do it to me, but I’ll vote to have it done to somebody else. The media and internet have stripped away and exposed most of the disinfo used in decades past to support war, and most people still approve of them. The government and media are giving up even trying to justify the wars as necessary, and are simply appealing to people’s political intolerance and desire for conquest.
The issues that you cite are minor factors in the face of overwhelming evidence that these are wars of choice not necessity. Gaddafi bent over backwards to try to mend fences with NATO, and they turned on him without remorse. Libya, and many of these non democratic governments are no threat to the west. The wars are based in fascism, avarice and political system intolerance, not national security.
I had a customer a few loads ago from Libya, I asked him if the war was worth it, he said “to get rid of Gaddafi, absolutely, I lost a brother in the war.” This is from an immigrant who came to the U.S. and didn’t fight in it, but was OK with sacrificing a brother for the cause. Is this an attitude shared by most Libyans, I don’t know, I haven’t seen any polls on the topic. I didn’t ask him if he died in battle or a NATO/GCC/proxy opposition torture chamber. The way that a lot of Gaddafi government supporters did and still are in Libya. Are most Libyans going to have better lives because of the war anytime soon, I doubt it. Most of them are probably going to play years of catch up just to get up to the standard of living and quality of life that they had before the war. And many have had their lives ruined with injury and loss.
Without NATO/GCC air support and personnel and logistical support on the ground. The Libyan army would have retaken Misrata and Benghazi with a fraction of the injury, death and destruction that the war caused. NATO/GCC/proxy opposition killed an estimated 30,000 people in 6 months, 5 times more than the 7,000 killed in Syria in a year. With massive property damage in Libya compared to Syria which is a cohesive nation with small pockets of violence and destruction. A stop needs to be put to the money, weapons, personnel and political support fueling the conflict in Syria. The governments doing this are just as guilty, or more guilty of the crimes that they are accusing the Syrian government of.
NATO wants to roll up all of the satellite states to the Russian/China border to take down Russia and China and assimilate them into their matrix. And eliminate all of the non democratic governments in the process. Forced democratization is the primary cause of war on this planet, and has been for many years. There would be a lot less deprivation and a much higher standard of living in many places. A lot of these non democratic governments over the years haven’t threatened the west, and have tried to work with them, and were subverted and subjected to regime change anyways. With all of the injury, death, destruction, deprivation and human and civil rights violations that go along with it.
Fascism can be present in both democratic and non democratic governments. The majority of the electorate approving of it doesn’t make these crimes any less fascist. A lot of people have died under torture in wars and campaigns of forced democratization, that fact that it’s done to impose a democratic system rather than a non democratic system doesn’t make it less criminal. People trying to replace democratic systems with non democratic systems have been, and are being tortured to death at the hands of people running democracies, in their nations, and outside of them.
A democracy is no guarantee of good government, anymore than a non democracy. Governments need to be judged by how good of a job they do, not the political system that they use.
There would be a lot less deprivation and a much higher standard of living in many places if these unnecessary regime change wars hadn’t occurred. You’re always going to have people who don’t like the government, and who leads it, regardless of the political system used.
Agree with you Cap. Just that on the face of it, evidence shows there aren’t a majority of aware individuals–not average intelligence, as you say, watching the idiot box. Have a doctor and architect friend-highly intelligent-just not aware or choose to stay in their own reality–true reality being too repulsive for them to accept. Also Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were both one beat away from using their own gold standard–a no no against the bankers. Thus the false humanitarian reason for removing dictators was/is a lie. Is NATO now killing people in Syria blaming its government?–a real consideration now. Gets me how can one believe or trust government which has lost all credibility due to past and present false flags. But then awareness is the issue again.
If there is anything to full consciousness, it’s that people will be more exposed to the end result of their own decision making.
If you study the history of irregular warfare, by the U.S., British, and others, they purportedly have a long history of terrorist activity, that they use to attempt to frame the regime targeted for change with, as part of the regime change process.
I’ve no doubt that the CIA, MI6 and other democracies have produced stomach churning video to rival anything that occurred in Iraq, Libya and Syria. It’s wrong no matter who does it.
Sure, money and market share are a big part of the reason for regime change, the human cost doesn’t matter much to these people. Just look at the natural resource stripping that occurs after regime change in a lot of instances. Libya being a current example. The nation ends up with a gerrymandered “democracy” run by foreign interests for purposes of exploitation and competition suppression.
After Vietnam the msm sanitised war, stopped running all of the blood and gore, pain and suffering, to make it less objectionable. It doesn’t exonerate the unnecessary war supporters, and it does make it easier to maintain the prowar legislative incumbency, to keep their military industrial complex campaign supporters in business. Because it doesn’t stoke the opposition, or push fence sitters into the peace camp as much.
Apathy is a factor, don’t know, don’t care instead of awareness, or yeah they know, but they don’t care because voting for prowar incumbents, and the wars that it results in, doesn’t negatively effect their lives. Though rising unemployment and inflation, will and is changing that.
I doubt if Ron Paul having more press coverage, or more favorable coverage would make much difference. He’s a household name, just like Denis Kucinich, people know what he stands for, they just don’t like his peace and prosperity message. Most Americans, and many others in the NATO nations have a get the dictator mentality, they don’t care how good of a job an autocratic government is doing, or how happy it’s citizens are with it. They just want it overthrown and replaced with a western style democracy. And they don’t care if a lot of innocent people are injured and killed or how much destruction there is. As far as they’re concerned people living in non democratic nations can have they’re human and civil rights violated on a massive scale as long as it’s for the purpose of forcing democracy on them.
And they don’t care if the democracy replacing the autocracy does a worse job than the autocracy, they just want the regime change to get rid of the autocracy and replace it with a democracy.
When mainstream government ” mouth piece” news networks edit film and audio to make it appear an audience boos when in reality they cheer and eliminate coverage of massive Ron Paul supporters, one can’t realistically believe the shadow government isn’t involved in full blown election stealing. We already observed the scheme of “pump and dump” –when the corrupted system chooses a Hermain Cain as the leader–then disposed of him, and a Rick Perry also disposed of. All of these shenanigans siphon off support from the candidate offering true freedom, peace, and a return to constitutional government.
Romney has been in the lead from the beginning, maybe that’s because a lot more people are voting for him than Paul because most people are not interested in a constitutionalist like Paul.
Popular vote total in the Republican primaries to date:
Romney – 1,121,800
Gingrich – 838,839
Santorum – 432,010
Paul – 308,186
Dropouts during primaries- Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman
Dropouts before primaries – Pawlenty, Cain, Johnson
Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Votes for pro unnecessary war candidates – 2,400,000
Votes for pro peace candidate – 300,000
War to peace ratio – 8 to 1
If you want to know why the U.S. and other NATO members are in endless wars, this is a big part of it.
http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/Feb201294/1.jpg
John Bolton Dodges Question; Insults Anti-War Veteran
David Icke – When The Knock Comes On Your Door!! & The Madness Of War!! …
http://freerobertgreen.co.uk/
http://www.morethanalive.com/Berkey_Water_Filters/?a_aid=9efe8e53
I’ve looked at the quality control laws and requirements for elections in the U.S., read the case law from court cases, read the complaints, and studies of the complaints, read the web sites claiming fraud, and read some of the books claiming vote fraud. If the elections in the U.S. are plagued by wide spread fraud, I haven’t been able to find the evidence to support that contention. There is fraud, but it appears to be fairly minor. There will always those who don’t like who people vote for, and claim fraud, when the election was legitimate.
There is some truth to complaints about opinion making by the media and government influencing election results with fraudulent information, and criminal activity like false flag events. But in a lot of cases there’s plenty of legitimate information for people to use to make decisions that are based in well informed opinions, and they return incumbents to office 90% of the time who they know are pro unnecessary war and catering to special interest groups funding their campaigns, and they vote for them anyways.
In all fairness to the voters, some of these issues have gotten so complex that the time required to be well informed on these topics is so extensive, that they understandably just opt out, and spend their time pursuing their interests in life, and hope that the government does a good job. Which is why I don’t think that voting and elections are a cure all, and that governments need to judged by how good of a job that they do, not by the political system that they use.