2012 Romney Nomination Explained; Why Would the GOP Nominate Such an Obvious Loser?

[JimBowie1958]

Put this together for a response in another thread, but thought I would share it here also.

Why would the GOP pick a loser for a Presidential candidate in 2012? Because the Big Money Banksters demanded it, and in fact bought the nomination for Romney. The goal was to keep their bought POTUS in the White House for 4 more years.

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.

Romney contributors 2012: banksters and financial firms.
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500


Obamas contributors in 2008: banksters and Universities recycling tax payer money
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This is what the banks have gotten so far on their investments:
Daily Kos: The total cost of the Bank Bailout

"#2: How big was the bailout?

" Many are still under the impression that TARP = The Bailout.
" In fact, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

" The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars — (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— are responsible for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
" $29 Trillion is around twice the size of America's GDP.
" The Federal Reserve claims they only lent $1.7 Trillion to the big banks. Why the huge difference in totals? Because the Fed only counts the most outstanding at any one time.
Here's a quick list of the Fed borrowers:"

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

So to sum up, the banksters are donating hundreds of thousands or millions but gaining trillions in payback 'special deals'.

THAT is why a loser like Romney had the nomination bought for him by Wall Street banks; they were merely protecting their investment in Obama.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"The GOP" is just the sum total of people registered Republicans.

Republicans across this country voted for Romney, that's how (and why) he was nominated.

Wall Street always donates to both sides, to hedge their bets. Hence the support that Wall Street receives from both sides of the aisle.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"The GOP" is just the sum total of people registered Republicans.

Yeah, right, guess that's why the GOPe has rules defined by the RNC without the need of state party orgs meeting in convention now? Because they are so much just the sum of their members?

What a laugh. Read the GOP planks in the platform about abortion and gay marriage and then look at what the fucking GOP Congresscritters actually support in legislation.

Bo, the top GOP does not reflect the thinking and will of its membership, not even remotely.

Republicans across this country voted for Romney, that's how (and why) he was nominated.

Its funny how you simply ignore the millions of dollars given to Romney, not even considering the 'independent' PACs that slandered his opponents for him.

You don't think that money comes with strings? You don't think that being able to buy millions of dollars in advertising smears against candidates like Gingrich had anything to do with Romney winning in Floriduh?

Wall Street always donates to both sides, to hedge their bets. Hence the support that Wall Street receives from both sides of the aisle.

But they didn't contribute to Obama in 2012 very much at all. Why is that?

You seem all too willing to assume that all this money is given in contributions, then the banks get trillions in bailouts, and there is no connection. Really?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Put this together for a response in another thread, but thought I would share it here also.

Why would the GOP pick a loser for a Presidential candidate in 2012? Because the Big Money Banksters demanded it, and in fact bought the nomination for Romney. The goal was to keep their bought POTUS in the White House for 4 more years.

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.

Romney contributors 2012: banksters and financial firms.
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500


Obamas contributors in 2008: banksters and Universities recycling tax payer money
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This is what the banks have gotten so far on their investments:
Daily Kos: The total cost of the Bank Bailout

"#2: How big was the bailout?

" Many are still under the impression that TARP = The Bailout.
" In fact, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

" The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars — (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— are responsible for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
" $29 Trillion is around twice the size of America's GDP.
" The Federal Reserve claims they only lent $1.7 Trillion to the big banks. Why the huge difference in totals? Because the Fed only counts the most outstanding at any one time.
Here's a quick list of the Fed borrowers:"

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

So to sum up, the banksters are donating hundreds of thousands or millions but gaining trillions in payback 'special deals'.

THAT is why a loser like Romney had the nomination bought for him by Wall Street banks; they were merely protecting their investment in Obama.

So, if the GOP nominated such a "loser", then why did America wind up electing one for President? Twice?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"The GOP" is just the sum total of people registered Republicans.

Yeah, right, guess that's why the GOPe has rules defined by the RNC without the need of state party orgs meeting in convention now? Because they are so much just the sum of their members?

What a laugh. Read the GOP planks in the platform about abortion and gay marriage and then look at what the fucking GOP Congresscritters actually support in legislation.

Bo, the top GOP does not reflect the thinking and will of its membership, not even remotely.

I didn't say they were. I was speaking in relation to how Romney became the nominee, nothing else.

Republicans across this country voted for Romney, that's how (and why) he was nominated.

Its funny how you simply ignore the millions of dollars given to Romney, not even considering the 'independent' PACs that slandered his opponents for him.

I'm not "ignoring" it at all - that money would have gone to whoever the nominee was. If Perry had beat Romney in the primary, he'd be the one cashing checks from JPMorgan.

You don't think that money comes with strings? You don't think that being able to buy millions of dollars in advertising smears against candidates like Gingrich had anything to do with Romney winning in Floriduh?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Wall Street always donates to both sides, to hedge their bets. Hence the support that Wall Street receives from both sides of the aisle.

But they didn't contribute to Obama in 2012 very much at all. Why is that?

They sure did. From your own post:

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

You seem all too willing to assume that all this money is given in contributions, then the banks get trillions in bailouts, and there is no connection. Really?

Of course there's a "connection".

What did I say that implied I'm "assuming" that there's no quid pro quo?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Put this together for a response in another thread, but thought I would share it here also.

Why would the GOP pick a loser for a Presidential candidate in 2012? Because the Big Money Banksters demanded it, and in fact bought the nomination for Romney. The goal was to keep their bought POTUS in the White House for 4 more years.

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.

Romney contributors 2012: banksters and financial firms.
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500


Obamas contributors in 2008: banksters and Universities recycling tax payer money
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This is what the banks have gotten so far on their investments:
Daily Kos: The total cost of the Bank Bailout

"#2: How big was the bailout?

" Many are still under the impression that TARP = The Bailout.
" In fact, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

" The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars — (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— are responsible for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
" $29 Trillion is around twice the size of America's GDP.
" The Federal Reserve claims they only lent $1.7 Trillion to the big banks. Why the huge difference in totals? Because the Fed only counts the most outstanding at any one time.
Here's a quick list of the Fed borrowers:"

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

So to sum up, the banksters are donating hundreds of thousands or millions but gaining trillions in payback 'special deals'.

THAT is why a loser like Romney had the nomination bought for him by Wall Street banks; they were merely protecting their investment in Obama.

So, if the GOP nominated such a "loser", then why did America wind up electing one for President? Twice?

Because both parties are controlled by Big Money and special interest groups.

They do their best to give us a false choice between hard socialism of the Dems and Fabian socialism of the GOPe and they succeeded in 2008 and 2012.

But that complete tidal wave of Big Money doesn't bother you at all? It's OK for Banksters to buy nominations?

 

[JimBowie1958]

[MENTION=28727]Doc[/MENTION]torisin; The data on Obama donations was from 2008 and they stopped coming from the BigBanks in 2012. Totally different time frames.

And I think my observations also explain how ever time Romney got behind in the polls, he would see his opponent smeared into irrelevance by supposedly independent PACs that plainly worked to get him elected. Didn't even count the money spent by those frauds. Romney started with about 20% support in the polls, but as each GOP leader was destroyed by slander campaigns, he was left untouched and finally the only candidate left standing other than Santorum and he was simply not organized well enough to challenge Romney.

The Wall Street banksters BOUGHT the nomination for Romney.

 

[Old Rocks]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

 

[JoeB131]

Put this together for a response in another thread, but thought I would share it here also.

Why would the GOP pick a loser for a Presidential candidate in 2012? Because the Big Money Banksters demanded it, and in fact bought the nomination for Romney. The goal was to keep their bought POTUS in the White House for 4 more years.

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.
.

Romney was a bad choice, but so were all the other picks.

Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman were outright nuts.

Rick Perry imploded when it became obvious he had no idea what running for president entailed.

Newt Gingrich was a smart candidate, but he had a shitload of baggage.

Rick Santorum was a religious fanatic.

Pawlenty would have been a good choice, but he never capitalized. He panicked and quit after the useless Ames straw poll.

So the real question is, why didn't anyone better than Romney run?

Oh, I know, the evil Banksters threatened them if they did.

 

[JoeB131]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

And that was kind of the problem.

The best guy the GOP had was Tim Pawlenty. Moderate to conservative who could win a blue state- twice. Solid record of performance.

And despite his best efforts, he lost to Bachmann and Paul, who probably aren't even sane.

Romney got the nomination beause of his willingness to pander to the crazy. It wasn't like the Crazy had anywhere else to go.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

1. I am not a Republican, thank God, so no, I didn't put anyone up for the GOP nomination, lol.

2. For the GOP to win they have to nominate genuine conservative candidates so that means Gingrich, Cane, Santorum, or Perry could have beaten Obama since more of the Republican base would have shown up. Romney failed to get conservatives out to vote because he spent 8 months slandering all the conservative flag bearers for the last thrity years.

3. You skipped any comment about the shameless amounts of bankster cash that swamped Romneys opponents and seem to have no problem with the trillions given to Wall Street banksters over the last few years.

4. And you call me an idiot?

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

And that was kind of the problem.

The best guy the GOP had was Tim Pawlenty. Moderate to conservative who could win a blue state- twice. Solid record of performance.

And despite his best efforts, he lost to Bachmann and Paul, who probably aren't even sane.

Romney got the nomination beause of his willingness to pander to the crazy. It wasn't like the Crazy had anywhere else to go.

The discussion is about the GOP nomination, not the Green Party. Fuck off, liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Put this together for a response in another thread, but thought I would share it here also.

Why would the GOP pick a loser for a Presidential candidate in 2012? Because the Big Money Banksters demanded it, and in fact bought the nomination for Romney. The goal was to keep their bought POTUS in the White House for 4 more years.

Romney got hundreds of millions in donations so that the Wall Street banksters could keep Obama in the White House to do the job they got him in there for; shoveling tax payer cash to the big banksters by the trillions. Literally trillions.
.

Romney was a bad choice, but so were all the other picks.

Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman were outright nuts.

Rick Perry imploded when it became obvious he had no idea what running for president entailed.

Newt Gingrich was a smart candidate, but he had a shitload of baggage.

Rick Santorum was a religious fanatic.

Pawlenty would have been a good choice, but he never capitalized. He panicked and quit after the useless Ames straw poll.

So the real question is, why didn't anyone better than Romney run?

Oh, I know, the evil Banksters threatened them if they did.

People better than Romney did run, but they got chewed up in the PAC advertising blitz.

And anyone you like is a loser as far as the GOP goes, and anyone you dislike is probably a genius, saint and hero all rolled into one, you fucking lying piece of shyte.

 

[Mr. H.]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

Like it or not, that "47%" comment was spot on.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

Like it or not, that "47%" comment was spot on.

If you are referring to Romneys claim t hat people who draw benefits from the government will not vote GOP, no it was in error.

Servicemen, retirees, disabled veterans, DoD contractors and Intel community contractors all draw from the government payroll and all have significant GOP elements.

But not after Romney ran his stupid ass mouth off.

And the lemmings keep talking about 'Ooops!' roflmao

 

[Votto]

From my vantage point the powers that be position men in both parties that they can live with. They would have been happy with either candidate.

Having said that, you should look at the propensity of modern day President winning two terms. There is a pattern that has developed and I dare say it's not by chance. Looking at how the IRS under Obama helped influence the last election, it's not hard to see how this sort of thing happens now.

In addition, look at how families are dominating the Presidency, as if family dynasties are now fashionable again. We had the Bush clan and the Clinton clan that more than likely will be back in 2016.

Just my two cents.

 

[JoeB131]

And who else on that list of losers the GOP put up in 2012 would have had a chance of winning the election? You want to win a national election, put up somebody that has a reasonable philosophy of governance, and give them a platform that they can sell to the American Voter.

You idiots had Romney running against his own health care plan. And then there was the 47% comment that insulted a vast amount of voters, expecially those serving in the Armed Forces.

And that was kind of the problem.

The best guy the GOP had was Tim Pawlenty. Moderate to conservative who could win a blue state- twice. Solid record of performance.

And despite his best efforts, he lost to Bachmann and Paul, who probably aren't even sane.

Romney got the nomination beause of his willingness to pander to the crazy. It wasn't like the Crazy had anywhere else to go.

The discussion is about the GOP nomination, not the Green Party. Fuck off, liar.

Guy, I represent what the GOP was before the crazy nutjobs took it over.

Before someone had to pass the Hate Radio Smell Test to get nominated.

The ironic thing about Romney was that he wasn't part of the crazy. But he spent 5 years pandering to it.

People better than Romney did run, but they got chewed up in the PAC advertising blitz.

And anyone you like is a loser as far as the GOP goes, and anyone you dislike is probably a genius, saint and hero all rolled into one, you fucking lying piece of shyte

.

Who? Who was better?

Anyone who blames the media or the PACs or anyone else for their candidate being eliminated before Iowa needs to get a sense of perspective.

Here's the real reason why Romney lost. Most Republicans back to Reagan took the Bitter Pill of Plutocracy and wrapped it up in the Bible and the Flag, with heavy doses of racism and homophobia.

Romney couldn't do any of that. He couldn't play up the religious bullshit GOP nominees usually use because he belonged to that weird cult of people who wear Magic Underpants. He really couldn't play up the flag angle because he dodged the draft. Kind of hard to play up the homophobia when gay marriage was legalized on your watch.

In short, people got to see what the GOP is actually about today, and they recoiled in horror.

What the GOP needs to do is get back on the side of working folks.