Emails That Romney Tried to Hide Are Revealed

ABC News ^ | 5 June 2012 | Matt Negrin

[Erik Latranyi]

Once-secret emails from Mitt Romney's time as governor that were revealed today spurred a flurry of comments about the candidate's support for the so-called individual mandate. Yet there's another issue that's been revived: Romney's secrecy.

When Romney left the governor's office in Massachusetts, his staff erased all the emails from a computer server and bought the hard drives used to store data, so that their correspondence would stay hidden.

Or so they thought.

Tom Trimarco, Romney's administration and finance secretary, never deleted his emails. Some of them surfaced today in The Wall Street Journal, which submitted a public information request for emails involving Trimarco and officials in the administration.

The emails show that Romney was neck-deep in negotiations to get his health care bill passed, that he personally wrote op-eds about it, and that he defended the so-called individual mandate to buy health insurance, a provision in President Obama's law that has drawn criticism from Republicans.

[Finny]

If you vote 3rd party or don't vote for President, you still get undiluted cyanide or arsenic.

False. In 1992, enough voters were disgusted with moderate HW Bush and the Democrats to vote for Perot. Clinton won on a 43% plurality -- 57% of the vote was AGAINST him. This so diluted Clinton's mandate that two years later the Republican Revolution happened. I doubt it would have happened if HW had won OR if Clinton had won with a majority mandate.

If you vote third party, you weaken the victory of the winner -- in effect, you dilute his mandate. If enough of us come to understand this, we can dilute the mandate of whichever socialist wins and HELP conservatives we've elected to Congress.

A president who goes into office with the majority of the voters ON RECORD as opposing him, will be diluted in his power, his "mandate" will be devastated, and his opposition both in his own party and in the opposing party will have more ammunition to use against him.

I'm voting for conservatives down-ticket. On the presidential, I will vote to HELP those conservatives. Both Obama and Romney are anti-conservative politicians. Conservatives in Congress will have a better chance against either one if that president is on the defensive, embattled, and weak the minute he starts the term, and THAT is what he would be if the majority voted against him and he only won on a weak plurality.

Your tagline is convoluted rationalizing to justify voting FOR evil. Not just voting for someone with whom you disagree on a few issues -- I was willing to vote for Gingrich and I disagree with him on more than a few issues -- but voting FOR someone who has used his political office to ADVANCE evil and depravity. Romney has done that with tax-funded on-demand abortion and his promotion and support of Gay Youth Pride, which extends its outreach to kids as young as 12. THERE IS ZERO JUSTIFICATION TO VOTING FOR A PERSON WHO HAS ADVANCED SUCH WICKEDNESS, and even less to make him the most powerful Republican in America.

There no more justification for voting for defined evil than there would be for torturing a child if declining to do so meant someone else would kill ten children. By your logic, engaging in the lesser evil of torturing only one child under such a threat would be okay because if you refused, you would be engaging in greater evil. But in that case -- as with Romney and Obama and their amoral authoritarian statism -- there is no "lesser" evil. Voting for evil is a losing proposition no matter which political party it belongs to.

See my tagline.

[Finny]

See my post 221. I wash my hands of deciding between Obama and Romney and leave that to God — my only goal (if it is O vs R — let’s hope a miracle happens to give us a conservative who can beat both of them) will be to WEAKEN HIS MANDATE, and the way to do that is to give my vote to a third party for the final count. What we sat in ‘92 with Perot allowed the Republican Revolution to happen because it so robbed Clinton of any kind of mandate that conservatives were empowered.

[Future Snake Eater]

Clinton won on a 43% plurality -- 57% of the vote was AGAINST him. This so diluted Clinton's mandate that two years later the Republican Revolution happened.

A minority of the country elected Bill Clinton who immediately implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", raised taxes significantly, and pushed for socialized medicine from the First Lady, of all people. Let's also not forget other atrocities such as Waco and Mogadishu.

THAT is why the 1994 mid-term elections happened the way they did--the typical liberal inclination to overreach, not because of some "diluted mandate" fantasy.

So, let's repeat history and have a minority of the country re-elect Obama! We'll totally win if we lose!

[Finny]

So, let's repeat history and have a minority of the country re-elect Obama! We'll totally win if we lose!

And if you elect Romney, we'll totally lose if we win.

Hillary and Bill were pikers with regard to health care -- Romney succeeded where they failed! And you seriously think voting FOR that is "winning" because it's not scarecrow made-of-straw Obama?

I stand by my premise: weaken the anti-conservative winner's mandate -- it's the only way to help conservatives in Congress.

[Finny]

One more thing, yes or no: do you think the Republican Revolution would have happened if Clinton had won a majority and immediately implemented "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", raised taxes significantly, and pushed for socialized medicine from the First Lady, of all people. Let's also not forget other atrocities such as Waco and Mogadishu ...?

If his vote count indicated a mandate to do those things, do you think the 1994 mid-terms would have turned out the same? Yes or no?

[TwelveOfTwenty]

See my post 221. I wash my hands of deciding between Obama and Romney

If it comes down to Obama or Romney, I'm going to vote to keep the greater evil out.

and leave that to God

That's the bottom line.

What we sat in ‘92 with Perot allowed the Republican Revolution to happen because it so robbed Clinton of any kind of mandate that conservatives were empowered.

Unfortunately for our side, it was Clinton who was in the White House during the tech boom and Y2K. We both know they would have happened regardless of who was President, but the MSM saw to it that Clinton got the credit for all of the jobs created. That perception largely remains, and can still help the Democrats. If Bush had won, well, the MSM would not have given him credit for the jobs created, but it couldn't give the Democrats credit for them either.

But what's done is done. What matters is now, and if you can't stomach voing for Romney even to keep Obama out, I'll take a look at any Conservative candidate you want to promote.

[Future Snake Eater]

Your questions are based on the premise that Clinton was up-front about what he intended to do. He wasn’t. He lied, got elected, and did what he wanted to do.

But you go ahead and sit home. Cut off your nose to spite your face. I’m sure we’ll all be real impressed with your “purity.”

[Elsie]

There simply were was not enough conservatives MONEY to prevail against the loot Romney had available.

[Elsie]

Choose one or the other or join the irrelevant detritus that can’t summon the wherewiIthall to vote

Spoken like a True MORMON.

 

MORMON

ATTITUDES OF SUPERIORITY

 

  1. I’m Superior; I have a special gift of the holy Ghost -- you don’t!
  2. I’m Superior; I have God’s true priesthood power -- you don’t!
  3. I’m Superior; I can go in God’s secret Temple -- you can’t!
  4. I’m Superior; I’ve been Endowed with special Gifts and Knowledge -- you’re just normal!
  5. I’m Superior; I’ll have my family with me in heaven -- you’ll be with strangers!
  6. I’m Superior; I’m becoming a God -- you aren’t!
  7. I’m Superior; My women know their place as servants of man and yours don’t.
  8. I’m Superior; YOUR creeds are wrong because they come from man - mine comes from God (you can find each one printed in our Scriptures).
  9. I’m Superior; I don’t HAVE a creed - I’ve got 13 Articles of Faith.
10. I'm Superior; I have 4 "Bibles"-- the standard works (5 if you count the JST) -- you've only got one: in as far as it is translated correctly.
11. I’m Superior; I can lie with impunity about such things as church membership, church growth, church doctrine, church history, church influence, etc. —                           -- You can’t.
12. I’m Superior; I am right (everybody knows) when I say 'evangelical' Christians are lunatics -- 

                           -- You’re a hideous narrow-minded bigot, who is persecuting me by practicing discrimination by saying I'm not a Christian.
13. I'm Superior; I have a testimony about a prophet -- you don't.
14. I'm Superior; I have a Scripture-producing Amos 3:7 prophet -- you don't
15. I’m Superior; I have a Living Prophet who talks to god every day -- you have a dim-witted hireling of Satan who only talks to himself.
16. I'm Superior; I have my calling & election made sure -- you don't.
17. I’m Superior; I have magic underwear to protect me from the bogey man -- you don’t.
18. I’m Superior; I have secret clasps and grips to give the angel so I get admitted to the celestial kingdom -- you don’t ;so you can’t.
19. I'm Superior; I know secret handshake codes for afterlife entrances-- you don't.
20. I’m Superior; I will see Joseph Smith setting on the right hand of GOD, when I get to Mormon heaven, and he will recognize me and judge me favorably                              -- You’re on your own; when you get to wherever you’re going!
21. I’m Superior; I’m going to hie to Kolob -- you’re going to who knows where.
22. I’m Superior; I get to have a harem and act like a celestial stud for time and all eternity -- you don’t.
23. I’m Superior; I have sun stones, moon stones, sky stones, cloud stones, Saturn stones, and the evil eye of Osirus guarding my temple

                            -- You have nothing but a stupid cross.
24. I’m Superior; My church has billions in assets stashed away -- yours has taken a stupid vow of poverty.
25. I'm Superior; Last - we have the power to keep a whole race out of our priesthood if we wanted to reinsert our 148-year legacy  (we ARE still keeping an entire GENDER at bay!)

26.  I'm superior; I have the "higher law" -- everyone else "lives under the "lesser law' because I say so...(over and over).

 

 

Revision 46.5

Semi-Official creed of the EXclusive club of Freeper Flying Inmans.

All rights liable to be abused.

[Elsie]

Drivel =

[MHGinTN]

The strategy would look interesting IF there would be a free election to follow in 2016 with Barry bastard commie in office from 2012 to 2016. I don’t happen to believe America will survive another four years of the commie thugocracy.

[Future Snake Eater]

As a theoretical exercise, sure, but there are far too many unknowns to worry about. I’m not referring just to Obama, but also to the level of engagement by the Republicans in Congress and the population as well. Republicans are getting weaker by the day, it seems, and the population can only tolerate so many outrages before they stop caring anymore.

Romney’s a d-bag, but between him and Obama it’s no contest.

[MHGinTN]

That just about nails it.

[Finny]

But you go ahead and sit home.

I've made it crystal clear that I will be voting, not sitting at home; you've just made it crystal clear that you have poor reading comprehension.

Cut off your nose to spite your face. As if being a conservative and voting to make the most powerful Republican in America an anti-conservative who has advanced FIVE of the main liberal agendas, isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face?

I’m sure we’ll all be real impressed with your “purity.”

That comment helps explain your poor reading comprehension. A "purist" would be a conservative who, if Santorum won the nomination, refused to vote for him because Santorum supported minimum wage and the unions. A "purist" would be a conservative who, if Gingrich won the nomination, refused to vote for him because he's been twice divorced and is a sap enough to believe the premise of global warming.

Only a very desperate and worried conservative -- perfectly understandable feelings under the circumstances -- would allow hysteria and fear to cause him to vote AGAINST his best moral and fiscal interests and label those conservativs who didn't join him as "purists."

My question is based on no such premise of Clinton's truthfulness. Clinton was OPPOSED by 57% of the voters, proving that his lies failed him, as most people rejected him. And the fact that most people rejected him gave conservatives and Republicans the ammunition they needed to launch and succeed with the Republican Revolution.

Had Clinton been SUPPORTED by the majority, or had HW been re-elected, the Republican Revolution would probably never have happened.

I will be voting for limited government conservatives down ticket. I consider voting a duty, and that not to vote would be dereliction of duty. Romney and Obama are anti-conservatives, so voting for either of them would be voting against my own self-interest and the interests of the conservatives I voted for down-ticket.

But I have a DUTY to vote, therefore, if it ends up being O v R, I will be voting official third party in the presidential run in order to use that vote the only way I can to HELP conservatives -- by weakening the victory of whichever statist wins. Because whether it's Obama or it's Romney, those limited government conservatives will be dealing with an anti-conservative president who will fight them and try to shut them up.

[Future Snake Eater]

Cool, dude, you do you. I just take offense at the attempted rewriting of history and insinuation that we can win by losing an election.