RedskinsFan44 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Here is what left leaning Chuck Todd said about the voting machines: "The voting machine conspiracies belong in same category as the Trump birther garbage."http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9651 It apparently does not concern the Obama campaign or they would have made a stink about it. But the whole cozy relationship between a voting machine company and a candidate will not give the opposition's supporters a warm and fuzzy feeling. Edit: I think it would be reasonable to ask political candidates to refrain from investing in voting machine companies and members of the boards of those companies to refrain from making donations to candidates involved in elections the machines will be used in. And I am not a conspiracy theorist on this, it is just makes sense to maintain an air of impartiality to reassure the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Maybe I'm naive, but I can't buy a conspiracy to steal the election via fraudulent voting machines. I don't agree with much of his platform, but Romney is probably a decent man who would not stoop to this level even if it is for the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Oh come ON! Cut the man some slack. He's just trying to increase efficiency by having the voting machines pre-set to a 60/40 RMoney victory. That way nobody has to worry about missing time from work with unproductive voting time. So see, his primary concern is the country, not his desire to be POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think it's funny how people suggest that someone with millions and millions of dollars, who does very well to make sure he keeps as much of that money as possible, has no earthly idea of what other people are doing with his money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 What has also been made public are the emails those employers have sent to their employees with an implied threat that if they don't vote for Romney they may lose their jobs. Could someone please tell me how an employer could know how an employee had voted? Or does "threat" mean the bad economical landscape consequences that the other candidate might bring toward said company if elected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Tagg is the one with the investment. That makes it worse. Makes it seem like Mitt is getting his children to do his dirty work for him. It also goes to show that they'll cheat to win. (At least, it appears to be a possibility.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Nice work here... Just in case Obama loses because he has been lying and doing nothing for 4 years, there has to be an excuse for the loss... It's pretty weak but the left will cling to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Nice work here... Just in case Obama loses because he has been lying and doing nothing for 4 years, there has to be an excuse for the loss... It's pretty weak but the left will cling to it. Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The democrats don't seem to have a problem admitting defeat. Just look at the reaction to the first debate. Democrats everywhere agreed that Obama stunk and was soundly beaten by Romney. What happens when Romney looses? "He was interrupted too much by a biased moderator". If anyone looks for excuses, its the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The democrats don't seem to have a problem admitting defeat. Just look at the reaction to the first debate. Democrats everywhere agreed that Obama stunk and was soundly beaten by Romney. What happens when Romney looses? "He was interrupted too much by a biased moderator". If anyone looks for excuses, its the republicans. Bingo. Glad to see Obama pretty much dominate the last 2 debates though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 In every debate, he has that face of a liar. You know, the kind of guy that will spew out what he thinks the lemmings want to hear. He'll do and say anything to get in office. You know, with his 5, 7, 3, 12, 10 point plans. He looks like the type that will get in office and the first day he sits on the oval office chair, you hear, "Mwuhahahahaha." He is so deceitful looking its not funny. He has the face of a liar. I don't trust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 In every debate, he has that face of a liar. You know, the kind of guy that will spew out what he thinks the lemmings want to hear. He'll do and say anything to get in office. You know, with his 5, 7, 3, 12, 10 point plans. He looks like the type that will get in office and the first day he sits on the oval office chair, you hear, "Mwuhahahahaha." He is so deceitful looking its not funny. He has the face of a liar. I don't trust him. On Twitter, funniest thing ever I saw yesterday. Mitt Romney's 5 Point Plan 1) To the left 2) Take it back now ya'll 3) Right foot, let's stomp 4) Left foot, let's stomp 5) Cha-Cha now ya'll hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Is there a more reliable source for the claims made in the OP? The article wants you to draw the conclusion that Romney controls this company, but the factual connections are kept vague. What does "major investors?" mean? I have developed a fine sense of radar for deliberately biased, misleading or incomplete stories from partisan stories, and this sets my radar off just as much as an article from the Daily Caller or NewsMax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 this is sketchy to say the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tagg-romney-not-investor-voting-machine-company_657183.html Tagg Romney Is Not an 'Investor In a Voting Machine Company'Solamere Capital, an investment fund founded and run by Tagg Romney, is a financial partner with HIG Capital, a private equity firm that manages a whole range of investments. HIG also invests in Hart Intercivic, a polling machine company that operates machines at polling places in Hamilton County, Ohio. But Solamere does not have any financial interest in Hart, a spokesman for Solamere tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. A recent article in the Nation about Solamere claims that the fund indirectly invests in Hart, and a report from MSNBC repeats this implication: H.I.G. Capital, a large investment fund, is a 'significant investor' in Hart Intercivic, according to an announcement put out last year by Hart. And H.I.G., in turn, is one of the largest partners, with nearly $10 billion of equity capital, of Solamere Capital, the investment fund founded and run by Tagg Romney (pictured), Mitt’s eldest son, The Nation recently reported*. The MSNBC article also quotes former top elections official from Ohio, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, saying that it “doesn’t look good for a presidential candidate’s son to be an investor in a voting machine company.” But the Solamere spokesman says that is “totally wrong.” “Not only does Solamere have no direct or indirect interest in this company [Hart Intercivic], Solamere and its partners have no ownership in this company, nor do they have any ownership in nor have made any investments in the fund that invested in the voting machine company,” the spokesman said. So while Solamere does partner with HIG on investments, none of those investments involve Hart Intercivic. HIG may be simultaneously managing investments with both companies, but the investments are kept separate, as required by law. Put simply, Tagg Romney is not an “investor in a voting machine company.” As even the liberal Think Progress points out, some left-wing blogs have floated the idea that Hart’s machines in Ohio might be tampered with to benefit Mitt Romney in the presidential election. But, Think Progress notes, there’s “absolutely no evidence” of any plans to tamper with those machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 So, any mea-culpa's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Yeah... I'll admit that I sniffed out that bull :pooh: You should listen to me more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 This ranks right up there with the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory on my "ridiculous" scale. ---------- Post added October-23rd-2012 at 12:24 PM ---------- I have developed a fine sense of radar for deliberately biased, misleading or incomplete stories from partisan stories, and this sets my radar off just as much as an article from the Daily Caller or NewsMax. A little discernment gets one far in life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Interesting. I just reviewed every post (they're up to #42 as of this writing). And for the couple of posters who seem to be imply otherwise, out of 42 posts there are a total of 6 seemingly bothered to some degree by the idea. That's 6. There is a seventh making a joke about it that could be taken as #7. So some folks should maybe take a moment to check their own bias-blinders for too tight a fit. Most non-firmly-right folk here dismissed it to one degree or another. Most dedicated partisans I observe (and denial of being one is no real refuge) don't just suck, they often blow immense chucks. Sadass weak **** is their norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Interesting. I just reviewed every post (they're up to #42 as of this writing). And for the couple of posters who seem to be imply otherwise, out of 42 posts there are a total of 6 seemingly bothered to some degree by the idea. That's 6. There is a seventh making a joke about it that could be taken as #7.So some folks should maybe take a moment to check their own bias-blinders for too tight a fit. Most non-firmly-right folk here dismissed it to one degree or another. Most dedicated partisans I observe (and denial of being one is no real refuge) don't just suck, they often blow immense chucks. Sadass weak **** is their norm. I'm not sure who's butt got charred with that post. Hope it wasn't mine. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tagg-romney-not-investor-voting-machine-company_657183.html So happy I just saw that. With the way this thread was going, I was going to post the Radar-Online (NON)story about Obama's alleged drug use/dealing - to show a point that crappy web-sites that rely on traffic to their sites will print almost anything to get folks to go there. Don't want to be a "Sadass weak ****" as my 'norm'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 So happy I just saw that.With the way this thread was going, I was going to post the Radar-Online (NON)story about Obama's alleged drug use/dealing - to show a point that crappy web-sites that rely on traffic to their sites will print almost anything to get folks to go there. Don't want to be a "Sadass weak ****" as my 'norm'. Then learn to drop sadass **** like your self-immolating last sentence, especially since the un-specific comment you're quoting didn't even need to apply to you unless you make it so. So since you did, and since your line of "the way the thread was going" does speak directly to the odd skewing of how the thread ACTUALLY was going, i will repeat my recently stated take that you have indeed deteriorated in that regard. You had been doing better, since you were once frequently "that way" (the more "energetic" partisan), and then it's like you regressed. Just my observation, fiwiw. Now on to a more definitive matter, With six previous rule violations from three moderators, including multiple bans, there is little reason why we should put up with ANY form of nonsense from you, even if it's just a chip on your shoulder like the snark in your last sentence. You're out of rope. <attn: no posters were harmed in the making of this post> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Then learn to drop sadass **** like your self-immolating last sentence, especially since the un-specific comment you're quoting didn't even need to apply to you unless you make it so. So since you did, and since your line of "the way the thread was going" does speak directly to the odd skewing of how the thread ACTUALLY was going, i will repeat my recently stated take that you have indeed deteriorated in that regard. You had been doing better, since you were once frequently "that way" (the more "energetic" partisan), and then it's like you regressed. Just my observation, fiwiw. Now on to a more definitive matter, With six previous rule violations from three moderators, including multiple bans, there is little reason why we should put up with ANY form of nonsense from you, even if it's just a chip on your shoulder like the snark in your last sentence. You're out of rope. <attn: no posters were harmed in the making of this post> I apologize if my post came of the way that you see it. That was not my intent. I only quoted you original message in what I thought was a positive, but funny, way. I guess it didn't come across the way that I intended. Sometimes typing doesn't convey the tone of the message. While we can disagree with the tone of this thread, I certainly didn't mean to push the overall discourse in a more negative way. (In a note to the MOD, you will notice that I've stayed away from political threads for at least 6 months). Again, I didn't mean to bring the forum 'down' and will be more careful in the future to try to get my overall meaning into my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I apologize if my post came of the way that you see it. That was not my intent. I only quoted you original message in what I thought was a positive, but funny, way. I guess it didn't come across the way that I intended. Sometimes typing doesn't convey the tone of the message.While we can disagree with the tone of this thread, I certainly didn't mean to push the overall discourse in a more negative way. (In a note to the MOD, you will notice that I've stayed away from political threads for at least 6 months). Again, I didn't mean to bring the forum 'down' and will be more careful in the future to try to get my overall meaning into my posts. I hear ya on tone, and sometimes we get typecast from past events when it's not deserved. If I did such unfairly to you, as it seems here, I am the one to apologize. And I do. Further, and just in general, I have no personal desire or interest for people to avoid topics or "be" ways they are not naturally, other than if it's the only way they can manage actual rule-related behaviors. I do, as does any member, have the freedom to voice my opinion and judgement as to posting content and style. And I do so choosing to always remain with the rules, even if I do so harshly when I feel it's merited. I am always being honest in what I say, right or wrong in anyone else's opinion, and no matter what I say, I strive to make it an objective and accurate analysis, whether harsh or flattering. I hold such thoughts back far more often than I share them. And when I do in such cases, it's with what I regard as the best interest of the forum in mind, and not connected to any specific topic-related position of my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I'll fess up and say that I posted about Tagg. It was something I read, didn't know if it was true. Mea culpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.