As opposed to two as close to the middle as either party will allow?

SI

Maine Governor Just Can’t Stop Comparing ‘Obamacare’ To The Holocaust | TPM2012

I can't wait to vote this dumbfuck out of office.

WOW....homeboy has been out in the backcountry a little too long ;)

Because just about anything that you disagree with can be compared to the Holocaust.

Purposely slaughtering 6 million jews = raising taxes, allowing gay marriage & now health care reform.

Why does this always seem to be the default counter argument for these people? Keep Godwin'ing yourself out of any coherent arguments, please. Makes it real easy to know who to not vote for.

Interesting choice, could help with some of the minority votes but have to believe her abortion stance is a non-starter.

Romney's Condi Rice Trial Balloon

Caught an interesting Time article on the plane.

Congressman Rigell's 20% Budget Solution - TIME

This was nothing more than something to push the Bain thing off the front page.

dola:

Not that I think that the Bain thing needed pushing. That's just not the kind of story about which anyone cares come November.

Political Junkie: "Did you hear about what's going down with Bain's filings with the SEC??!!?!"

Normal Voter: "What does the new Batman movie have to do with college football?"

See I think that ought to be the Dem's leading line at every opportunity.

Picture of Romney signing something
"Don't let Bain's Profiteer put America out of Business"
Obama 2012

None of the specifics matter, but if they can define Romney as a lying, out of touch, rich prick that idea will stick with a lot of undecided voters. It's very much out of the 2004 Rove playbook. Take the opponent's strength and make it a weakness.

I really don't think there is a story here.

John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012? - CNN.com

Sure there is: Obama's campaign is running major ads, calling him a liar, and some are suggesting Romney is a felon, all over one tiny piece of data they didn't bother to dig into.

What was all that talk about "change" again?

"Data point"? SEC filings listed Romney as involved in Bain. And he testified in 2002 he held meetings and had contact with Bain officials after 1999, too. Either Romney is lying to the American public now, or Bain filed misleading securities documents--typically frowned upon under our legal regime--and Romney lied to the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in 2002.

Not to mention that he's still being paid a retroactive severence agreement (which he signed in 2002 - gee that sure sounds like having something to do with Bain even right there), and is receiving payouts on that still.

Not a surprise to those of us here in MA, or really most anybody else out there at this point I'd assume, but the guy seems to be a compulsive liar.

Here's another POV on Bain. Yes, I do want to know about Romney's tax return and the (likely) tax avoidance strategies he used.

Bained | Swampland | TIME.com

14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever

Good read, but I'm a fan of Ezra Klein's work.

Those countries are just giving back to us after we gave them protection/rebuilding instead of allowing their destruction/occupation by their enemies. I'm sure most unselfish people understand that.


Did the bases in the UK have any value to the UK from 1942-1990? Of course. Now we need a favor and the UK is helping us out now.

But yes, you're are right, turning your back on your friends, particularly when they need your help, does open up opportunities with your friend's enemies. I'm not sure what strategic benefits you get teaming up with the "anti-US" crowd is though once you "unfriend" us. :)

Not done for any US interest whatsoever, right?

Are you saying it's wrong? No nation on Earth works in one-way support roles where one side always go to help others and never receives any assistance in return. The short-term non-UK interest (to pick an example) might be true, but the long-term strategic interest far outweighs those short-sighted concerns.

The US Interest in Germany, Italy, and Japan was to create long-term strong economic allies. We formed new alliances with those nations after we helped rebuild them (which was a 180 from the way we handled our victories after WWI). The key word there is "allies". They are no longer our foes in large part because of the way we built a two-way committment to them. Part of that two-way committment is sometimes the US will be in need, and we'll go to them for help.

I thought this went without saying with the USA/UK alliance which is one of the strongest alliances we have.

I understand that Romney has/will meet the min requirements for tax returns but IMO the below is a mistake. He's going to take a hit either way, better to do it now which will give him some time to recover.

Romney blasts 'dishonest' Obama ads; president continues attacks - CNN.com

Here's How Many Years Of Tax Returns Obama Has Released... - Business Insider

Here's the list/years of Presidential tax returns.
Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

I like how the President can just list his address as "The White House"

I like how Romney released more years of tax returns (wasn't it like 20+) to McCain in his VP-vetting then he will to the public.

That's fucked up.

I'm not looking down on the US assistance during World War 2 at all, it was vital to the repatriation of Europe.

It is however worth looking in context - if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour its likely the US would have been happy to let Europe fall, once involved in the conflict it was in the best interest of the US to ensure the war was fought abroad rather than wait for it to 'come home'.

Out of interest what 'value' to the UK do you percieve them as having had? - the UK during that period had quite a significant standing army and a decent navy and of course nuclear deterrants (as do various other European nations).

So allowing US troops to be stationed on the island brought in marginal economic help (not much because most US bases sell their own items UK tax free internally so its only their sporadic off-site purchases).

The main 'advantage' during the cold war that those bases gave the UK was that we then became the main immediate first target for Soviet missiles because we were closer than the US and thus liable to be able to commit a first strike against them than other locations ... ;)

I don't think the UK (or Europe) has turned their back on the US ... however I see part of friendship as telling that friend hard truths at times.

The majority of English people (according to surveys when the wars began) don't at all agree with the fact that we followed the US into illegal wars which were based largely on lies, I'm one of those people and am not ashamed to indicate it.

This however doesn't mean that I don't wish the best for the troops of both the US and UK in those conflicts, its just that I disagree with the premises that sent them there.

PS - If you look around Europe you'll find that most countries are partially winding down their militaries because they accept they're largely out dated and unrequired for modern conflict - the US hasn't accepted this and the cost of that military is likely (in the long term) to cause serious problems with the balancing of the budget imho.

(the UK navy famously now 'shares' its only Aircraft Carrier with france if you weren't aware - quite a change from the days where the British Navy 'ruled the waves' ;) )

You may be right about the US population as a whole, but the US government was actively engaged prior to Pearl Harbour.
Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You beat me to it ... apparently it's just a minor detail easily forgotten.

They kept you from speaking Russian as a first language.


You'd have been a fucking speed bump, and that's being generous.

LOL :D

Bought into the paranoia of the cold war a little much there haven't you?

But enjoy your paranoia while you sit in your bunker ;)

(England already posessed enough nukes to seriously damage the entire globe, I doubt the American arsenal made much difference - you can only destroy the planet so many times after all :D)

I like that Romney had $112 withheld on his W2 while owing $3 million in taxes, lol. Someone should take him to take more exemptions!

The lend lease program was a huge help definitely - but there is a big difference from offering a discount on purchases and actively being involved in a conflict imho.

(its a bit like the countries that some in the US look down on today - who will posture and send financial aid to help in some modern day conflicts but refuse to actually commit troops to the cause)

The lend lease while a substantial assistance simply wouldn't have been enough to retake Europe or indeed have kept the UK independant in the long term (simply put there would have been a point at which we'd have run out of people to fight, come the Battle of Britain the training many of the pilots involved had recieved before flying was already farcically inadequate*).

*This lead to very inflexible flying formations - or as the German pilots referred to them ... "rows of idiots" ;)

The Russians didn't fear you, no reason to when they could have sunk your little island in about 15 minutes.

But, judging from the worthless tripe you post here so frequently, that's a disappointment must be a disappointment of sorts. You seem wounded to the core that you didn't find a proper socialist to fully throw in with.

Our very own token arrogant p.o.s. who doesn't seem to have gotten over the fact that you got your asses royally kicked by a third rate fighting force 200+ years back AND then had to have your asses saved by those very same folks or else you'd have been speaking German before you could have gotten the chance to speak Russian. Instead, you're free to come here & speak fluent bullshit on a far too frequent basis.

You're nothing more than a miserable ungrateful cocksucking bastard and I wish to hell you'd vanish into the depths from whence you came. At the very least, I wish you'd shut your fucking kidney piehole instead of giving me heartburn every time I look at FM because it grieves me to think about what an unbearably pompous braindead horse's arse they employed.

Thats like saying that Israel is defenseless because they're surrounded by antagonistic states with superior manpower ...

Warfare isn't simply two sides slugging it out until there is a winner - especially if one side has access to nuclear weaponry ... the fact they had more makes no difference at all, as I said little point destroying the planet 5 times, once is more than enough ;)

Not at all - like yourself I have my viewpoints and stand by them, regardless of other peoples opinions.

LOL - England (and the English) don't really tend to think much about the American war of independance any more than we do India or other countries which were once part of the empire ... its all distant history tbh (as is WW2 today imho, its reduced in Europe largely to a few mocking songs to wind up specific countries during Football matches rather than something to get excited about).

That you for your kind words - I'm not entirely certain why you're jumping up and down and swearing.

I'm not going to apologise for not approving of all of America's actions ever, nor for the fact that I don't approve of all of the actions of England ever.

I've acknowledged that without US assistance Europe would be very different today and that England would not be an independant country ...

It wasn't my intention to get anyone worked up to the extent that they swore in the thread. I fully realize that intelligent people can often have different points of views and do my best to respect them, if this outburst was caused by my comment about 'cold war paranoia' apologies - it wasn't meant harshly at all.

Why on earth are you apologizing?

Seriously?

It's one thing to disagree with someone respectfully. It's another thing entirely to insult them as a person.

This. You do realize don't you Marc that this is just par for the course for Jon, and that nobody on here feels compelled to apologize to him anymore, as he displays a remarkable lack of civility and manners on a regular basis.

Please rescind your apology - it makes you look weak, and I can assure you that Jon viewed it in that same way and probably actually laughed because he got you to apologize.

The arms race was purely a USA vs USSR battle. The value add of course was during the Cold War, Europe was devastated while the USSR was just getting warmed up. At any time from 1945 until about 1970, the USSR could have demolished Europe without even a fight HAD IT NOT BEEN for the USA contantly reminding the Soviet Union that if they attacked you, it was going down. We risked the lives of OUR citizens for Europe's citizens, everyday during that "cold war". During the Cuban Missile Crisis, we went to Defcon 5...people thought we were going to have a nuclear war with the Soviets. It wasn't a joke, Marc.

FWIW, I agree with you, the UK didn't really need the economic boost that Europe proper did. You won the war. The value add to the UK was that had the USSR taken over Europe, you would have stood alone. The UK honestly wouldn't have lasted very long on their own without us. It was clear then but it's getting muddier as we move that period of time futher into history.

It's nice that "we" won and we can joke about those doomsday what-if scenario's now, but the reality is that the Soviets were no joke and their intentions of expansion were clear.

Things get heated here but that stuff is over-the-line. Really no place for the personal attacks because you don't believe with someone's political views.

Oh, it's not a personal attack when Jon does it. He's never going to get banned no matter how much vile shit he spews.

Yeah that was pretty over the top. I've always thought the developers like Jim, Gary, and Marc were given a little more leeway in this community from flaming (even when they are wrong :) ) I also thought Jon had toned it down recently but I guess the old Jon decided to make an appearance.

EDIT: The part in the parentheses is a joke I don't agree with JIMGA at all on his rant.

Wasn't intending it to be a 'joke' ... however ....

Its hard for me to assess the situation and mentality from before my birth (for obvious reasons); however during my life time there was little serious thought given to the risk of soviet invasion.

My father (who served in the RAF) never considered it a large risk purely on the basis of nuclear deterrents (which various European countries held) and long range missiles - which is undoubtably where I get my perspective on this situation from*.

There was real fear over a nuclear war when I was younger (pre-teen) largely based upon tensions between the US and Russia - but most people within the UK felt somewhat 'surplus' to this situation (i.e. we were in a 'shit happens' situation where it would unfold with us as affected and potentially bombed spectators to the ultimate decision making - its this aspect which is why the US bases in England were the subject of numerous protests etc. during this period).

Again thought I was largely too young to fully appreciate this at the time and only really realized it because of "When the Wind Blows" which was a cartoon about a nuclear attack on England (quite harrowing for a young kid to read tbh) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Wind_Blows_(film)

*in a similar manner I expect most people on this forum similarly post-date this time period and get their perspectives from their culture or relatives who lived through it?

I try and be polite as a matter of practice, I apologized in case it hit a nerve which I didn't know about; its easy to under-estimate peoples sensitivities especially online when we often know, but don't know them in the widened manner which we might if they lived in our community irl.

I have somewhat pacifistic views, it might interest Jon to know they're based largely on the fact I come from a somewhat militaristic family (to the extent that mine is the first generation which haven't been in the military) and have listened to the accounts that previous generations of relatives have given of wars and also seen the effect of conflicts upon them both physically and mentally.

Its for this reason that I decided to apologize to Jon - for all I know he might have lost relatives during one of the conflicts in the cold war in which case I can fully understand why he reacted why he did.

(if that makes me 'weak' so be it - to me its doing the right thing ...)

I've never seen Marc flame anyone and we haven't agreed on some political issues. He's always come across respectful to me.

Seriously Jon, wtf? I don't see how that isn't deserving of some time off. It's totally uncalled for.

+1. Marc has always been very gracious on this board and simply didn't deserve that.

+1. That was ridiculous from Jon, especially given the suspensions around here.

When you've got nothing to fall back on to support your views, you go where Jon went.

Alliances don't mean they do whatever you say no questions asked. I think that Americans have this silly idea that because of rebuilding countries they are indebted forever and thus have to follow the US into whatever ridiculous wars we decide.

Strong alliances doesn't mean a blank check. We'd be smart to learn that.

An interesting article on the Obama Middle East inner workings. Interesting but same old stuff ... no progress.

Obama searches for Middle East peace - The Washington Post

You mean, like the "blank check alliances" from WWI where England and France mobilized against Germany because Germany mobilized against Russia because Russia mobilized against Serbia? And then millions of people were slaughtered for no reason? I haven't seen that sort of alliance from the USA and the UK or others.

And certainly you aren't suggesting we go back to the strategy of segregated isolation like when France and England obliterated the Germans economically in post WWI and abandoned those people to the hatred of the Nazi ideology? Causing a whole new war where 60 to 80 million people died?

I think we've come a long way in our alliance development, no? Relatively speaking, the alliances of the last 60 years have been EXTREMELY advantageous to our allies. I'd say the USA has learned a thing or two about how to work with others, not the other way around.

We have nothing even remotely close to a "blank check" that you speak of. Our effort in Iraq drew up only token support from anyone. How does that translate into a blank check?

But history has proven that the lesson isn't to choose between a "blank check alliance" and the 180 reversed segregated isolation. Both of those have led to disaster. The US has done an extraordinary job of balancing the liberties of all (including our former enemies) while leading the industrialized world through decades of relative calm. To me, the US efforts after WWII of reorganizing the worlds diplomacy has been nothing short of brilliant and the effects are still enjoyed to this day.

My favorite annoyance with Europe and alliances was the mid-80s strike on Lybia. I loved the fact that France refused to let us fly over their airspace for the strike, depsite the fact that they were in a shooting war with Lybia in Chad at the time...

Outside of the (perhaps necessary) imperialistic diplomacy in the middle east which continually leaves us the options of hated dictators that when overthrown bring in anti-American leadership for the first periods of their democracies, I'd agree.

Most of those countries are so newly established post WWI/WWII that a more nuanced approach may not have worked anyway, but. *shrug*

I have to say I've enjoyed the discussion between Marc and Dutch and everyone else, because I'm learning quite a bit about things that were most certainly before my time.

I think one of the reasons for that sort of 'blind' alliance (and the huge slaughter of troops) back then was down to a LOT of factors which are now obsolete:

1. Acceptance of a much stricter class system (the upper class who controlled such wars really did view themselves as 'apart' from the lower class and thus losses were 'acceptable' in a way which simply isn't the case today).
2. General acceptance of authority and risk of death in society (ie. people didn't live as long and often died because of dangers in a profession, health issues etc.).
3. Less knowledge of the world / fear of unknown countries & societies
4. Limited weaponry (ie. no massively devastating missiles)
5. Limited communication
6. Limited education for the masses (compared to today)

Back in WW1 the way the Germans were demonised in propoganda to the English lower classes with their fear of them making the sacrifice they made far more acceptable to them.

The lack of knowledge/education available to the English lower classes meant they were far more accepting of the propoganda - I recall one of the things we were taught in History was about the shock of the troopers when they first came across German corpses and realised from the crosses etc. on the bodies that they were also Christians.

You're right, but I will say that the dramatic shift in the Middle East is similiar to the dramatic shifts that happened in post-colonial Africa. There is this myth that independence brings with it--industrialized nation status, which is simply not true. But you have to start with independence/liberty, democracy (or representative democracy) and then the people basically get to "choose your own adventure". Once the people realize that THEY voted those backwards Islamic brotherhoods in but THEY can vote them out, it's a whole new ballgame.

The idea of eliminating dictatorships isn't to install puppet governments (which would be a short-term gain at best) but to allow the people to do what they want. If they choose to hate America, so be it, gives our military reason to stay prepared and our alliances together.

I agree, lack of knowledge is a prime conditioner for propaganda. Of course, the Germans being "demonised" was probably a neccessary evil (white lies?) because prior to the communist threat, fascism was even more insane...so I don't mind the intent there.

I generally stay away from these sorts of discussions, but since Marc is such a well respected member of this board, I wanted to make sure he understood the inaccuracies and wrong-headedness of his pacifism. :)

Low class. I can get this being done to Bill but to the victim is pretty sad.

Protests as Clinton holds meetings in Egypt - CNN.com

That's pretty tame compared to how Egypt typically treats women.

Kindof surprised Karl Rove was orchestrating rallies over in the Middle East. Good of him to get out of the house every once in a while

Also, Egypt knows or cares who Bill Clinton was doing? That's two Presidents ago. I'm pretty sure Sarcozy was having an affair or two but I don't remember their names. I'm not even sure I knew their names. I didn't think people in other parts of the world knew or cared.

SI

I guess 1998 finally made it to Egypt?

My God are they going to hate Limp Bizkit.

Gotta ask: was that the first awful pop culture thing that came to mind or did you go through a few and settle on Limp Bizkit as the worst?

SI

It was the first.

Are you sure you're American? If you were, you would know that everyone cares about us. :p

As it should always be.

Nothing new, same stuff that we have been debating on. Just another POV.

Five Obamacare Myths - NYTimes.com

Not sure if this was better here or in the official Zombie Apocalypse thread. Its great how its all things zombie now.

The myth of the 'Zombie Economy' - Jul. 16, 2012

Its likely Romney-Pawlenty per NY Times ...

Pawlenty Looked at as Romney Running Mate - NYTimes.com

On paper, Pawlenty is very qualified. He's a logical pick in a lot of ways. But he looks like this:



I think that you might get a Dan Quayle/John Kerry effect here. The fact that you are not a goober does not matter much to the American Public if you look like a goober. And Pawlenty looks like a goober. And he has a goober name. Not his fault. I have nothing against the guy. But what does he bring to the table?

Personally, I think that Romney should pick Governor Susana Martinez. Give us someone to be excited about.

Also, if Team Romney is going to drop the VP pick now, that means that they are running scared from the Bain information that's come out. I'm still doubtful that the Bain thing has legs, but I'm not on the inside, so maybe I am missing something.

If Pawlenty hadn't finished behind Bachmann in a straw poll and dropped out, he probably should have been the Republican nominee in the first place.

Romney's running from Bain, he can't talk about being governor because of RomneyCare, which leaves him the 2002 Olympics? He's just a poor choice when you want to repeal health care and dealing with an economy still struggling back from being tanked by financiers.

VPs generally don't make any difference, so Pawlenty is as good as anybody.

He's probably as good of a safe pick as Romney can make. He won't upstage him, he is pretty well-vetted (essentially ran for president for 2-years and was a governor for 8-years), he is Midwestern(ish), no ties to the Bush administration and is pretty qualified to be one heartbeat away.

I understand if they don't pick Portman (tied to Bush), but I think he has been a much better surrogate as far as attacking Obama with teeth. Pawlenty is a little too flimsy (or, as albion put it: a goober) to be the attack dog. I think Pawlenty was pretty unpopular in Minnesota in the last poll that I saw, as well.

Watching the Republican ticket come together, you have to think that Jeb Bush would really love to give his brother a good, swift kick in the ass.

Jeb Bush should probably fake his death and get a new name like he doesn't have DirectTV if he wants to run for president.

Jeb Bush's future was pretty much determined when he lost in 1994 to Lawton Chiles, while his brother beat Ann Richards at the same time. If Jeb had won in 94, then I think he would've been the one to run in 2000.

Ben has been AFK. Two weeks to cool off, pending his review.

Good to see. That was way, way over the top.

Found Romney's VP: Cat has been mayor of Alaska town for 15 years | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

If it can happen with Palin...

To get back to the meat of this discussion, I think it's very widely acknowledged nowadays that the USSR didn't have anywhere near the military capability they tried to suggest, and indeed that a major cause of their downfall was ridiculously high military spending in trying to keep their antiquated military anywhere near up to U.S. standards. How much the U.S. and UK realized that is more than I can speak to, but I think it's certainly hyperbole to suggest that the USSR could have easily taken over Europe if U.S. forces were removed. Certainly it would have been much easier, but I think the idea of U.S. stationing in Europe had more to do with a deterrent to keep the USSR from slowly advancing out of E. Europe, not preventing some inevitable and easy conquest.

There military was quite formidable from 1945-1970 (at least), especially when compared to what was left of the armies of Europe immediately following the aftermath of WWII (the Germans were defeated and shattered, the French had been occupied for 4 or 5 years and dismantled and never returned to their former power, the Italians were, of course, laughable as usual when it came to defense. While those countries healed, they never formed a military even remotely close to what the Soviets had. Not to mention the nuclear stockpiles that still exist today. While their conventional abilities did dwindle over time, the threat of nukes still more than made up for it. You are absolutely right though that their communist economy had no chance to compete long-term with our capitalist economy. They were forced to spend way too much of the GDP on defense and it sunk them. I have no idea what the %'s were but the communists got the boot when they couldn't provide basic services to the populace anymore.


I don't see that as hyperbole. I think the reality is that, at best, it wasn't something we wanted to prove. I mean, how do we walk away chest-bumping because "...the Russian offensive stalled 650km past Paris...but hey they didn't get to Madrid!!!"


The big concern was that the Soviets might take over Europe and then hold it hostage with nukes. Remember, the Soviets were still just a little bit pissed at Europe for initiating the death of some 30-50 million Russians. Think about that for a minute. They had a lot of motivation to say, "Fuck it." The reason that they held off after WWII was because the US/UK/France and the USSR were allies and "the west" controled West Germany...the Russians didn't want to stop at Berlin, remember they past Berlin, they only stopped when they ran into western troops and had to. Once we became adversaries, it was the threat of nukes that kept the Soviets at bay.

I don't really think Romney is as bad as Obama portrays him but I am glad to see Obama on the offensive. Bain and lack of tax returns are going to plague Romney. Romney will need to redirect back to economy somehow.

President Obama attacks Mitt Romney’s jobs plan - The Washington Post

I agree with you. Had friends in the active military at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 but in the 80's the Soviet Union was a real threat, West Berlin a trip wire at best and the outcome of quantity vs quality was not a foregone conclusion.

I do believe without US troops, equipment and/or deterrent, the USSR would have walked over the other NATO forces in mainland Europe.

Will one candidate or the other please stand up and tell me what's good about you rather than what's wrong with the other guy?

Interesting. I thought the rebels were on the ropes ... and now they are in Damascus?

BBC News - Syria conflict: 'Fresh clashes rock Damascus'

Unfortunately, I think its been proven negative adds work better.

Thats not how you win elections. You gotta tell people whats wrong and point at eh other guy and say he's to blame for it and make them afraid of it.


Haven't you ever seen "The American President"?

More pundits. If Bill Kristol says he should do it, he should do it.

Eugene Robinson: Romney’s problem of his own making - The Washington Post

My favorite movie about a President is My Fellow Americans (1996) - IMDb.

Can anyone explain to me why so many conservatives are coming out publicly and suggesting that Romney release more tax returns, and be more forthcoming about Bain? Doing this publicly can only hurt their candidate's credibility. Keeping these suggestions within the party would seem to make more sense. Is there a play here that I am not seeing? Are they somehow trying to discredit Romney so someone else can be put on the ballot? Are moderate Republicans finally taking a stand against the conservative members of their party? This just seems like such a bad strategy move that there must be a different strategy involved.

My guess is that the returns don't show anything bad. So they are trying to collapse the whole Bain argument into "He should release the returns." Then he does, and there's nothing there.

If Romney were politically brilliant, he'd release the tax returns a week from Friday (the 27th), which, in addition to being a Friday, is also the day of the Opening Ceremoney of the Olympics.

So, based on his campaign, he'll probably choose his Vice President that day?

I think you're giving him too much credit. If there was nothing in there, he would've released them during the GOP primary. I don't think there's anything illegal in there, but probably enough to counter his own argument that the rich are taxed too much.

Agreed. Likely nothing illegal but probably some embarrassing grey area with tax avoidance etc. which will be difficult for him to explain/justify to the common person.

Decaf, you pussy.

"Hail to the Chief
he's the chief and he needs hailing."

Bain killed Romney in his 1994 Senate run. How can he not have an answer to these attacks after almost twenty years?

After breaking Batman's back, Romney is small potatoes... wait, wrong Bain?

SI

I see you've fallen for the devious liberal conspiracy.

Rush Limbaugh: Batman's 'Bane' Similar To 'Bain Capital' - Business Insider