The 2012 Three Ring Circus AKA The US Presidential Election

[Ashmoria]

Hmm. David Stockman has some things to say about Romney. For those who don't know, Stockman was a Republican Congressman from Michigcan (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan's OMB Director from 1981-1985 and has since been a private equity investor. He quote Hayek and believes America should return to a gold standard.

I say this to establish that Stockman is hardly a candidate for the titles of "Democratic Shill" or "Liberal", which will no doubt be levelled at him by any conservatives who read what he

has to say about Romney. It's brutal - some key highlights below.

Mitt Romney was not a businessman; He was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses.

He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better

This meant that had a modern Rip Van Winkle bought the S&P 500 index and held it through the 15 years in question, the annual return (with dividends) would have been a spectacular 17 percent. Bain did considerably better, of course, but the reason wasn’t business acumen.

The secret was leverage, luck, inside baseball, and the peculiar asymmetrical dynamics of the leveraged gambling carried on by private-equity shops.

Overall, Bain generated an impressive $2.5 billion in investor gains on $1.1 billion in investments. But 10 of Bain’s deals accounted for 75 percent of the investor profits.

Accordingly, Bain’s returns on the overwhelming bulk of the deals—67 out of 77—were actually lower than what a passive S&P 500 indexer would have earned even without the risk of leverage or paying all the private-equity fees.

Bain got its money out at the top of the Greenspan boom in the late 1990s and then these companies hit the wall during the 2000-02 downturn, weighed down by the massive load of debt Bain had bequeathed them. In fact, nearly $600 million, or one third of the profits earned by the home-run companies, had been extracted from the hide of these four eventual debt zombies.

In September 1996, Bain Capital and some partners bought Experian, the consumer-credit-reporting division of TRW Inc., for $1.1 billion. But Bain ponied up only $88 million in equity along with a similar amount from partners; all the rest of the funding came from junk bonds and bank loans. Seven weeks later, they sold it to a British conglomerate for $1.7 billion, producing a $600 million profit for all the investors on their slim layer of equity capital and after not even enduring the inconvenience of unpacking their briefcases.

Quite obviously Bain generated zero value before it flipped the property. So the fact that it scalped a sudden and spectacular $165 million windfall has nothing to do with investment skill or even trading prowess. Instead, the Experian Corp.’s $600 million valuation gain in just 50 days was an inside job.

That it (Romney's record at Bain Capital) should be offered as evidence that Mitt Romney is a deeply experienced capitalist entrepreneur and job creator is surely a testament to the financial deformations of our times.

Wow. Stockman consistently frames the question in terms of central banking (he seems fixated on it), but also loses no opportunity to bash Romney and Bain Capital - I'd advise anyone who thinks Romney really was a "businessman" to mosey on over and take a look.

However, the upshot of this is: Romney shouldn't even be able to run on a "businessman" record, according to Ronald Reagan's closes financial advisor and budget chief.

those who want to understand how bain capital made so much money ought to read that article. it shows how knowing how to make money isnt the same as knowing how to make jobs.

[Northern Dominus]

Hmm. David Stockman has some things to say about Romney. For those who don't know, Stockman was a Republican Congressman from Michigcan (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan's OMB Director from 1981-1985 and has since been a private equity investor. He quote Hayek and believes America should return to a gold standard.

I say this to establish that Stockman is hardly a candidate for the titles of "Democratic Shill" or "Liberal", which will no doubt be levelled at him by any conservatives who read what he has to say about Romney. It's brutal - some key highlights below.

Mitt Romney was not a businessman; He was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses.

He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better

This meant that had a modern Rip Van Winkle bought the S&P 500 index and held it through the 15 years in question, the annual return (with dividends) would have been a spectacular 17 percent. Bain did considerably better, of course, but the reason wasn’t business acumen.

The secret was leverage, luck, inside baseball, and the peculiar asymmetrical dynamics of the leveraged gambling carried on by private-equity shops.

Overall, Bain generated an impressive $2.5 billion in investor gains on $1.1 billion in investments. But 10 of Bain’s deals accounted for 75 percent of the investor profits.

Accordingly, Bain’s returns on the overwhelming bulk of the deals—67 out of 77—were actually lower than what a passive S&P 500 indexer would have earned even without the risk of leverage or paying all the private-equity fees.

Bain got its money out at the top of the Greenspan boom in the late 1990s and then these companies hit the wall during the 2000-02 downturn, weighed down by the massive load of debt Bain had bequeathed them. In fact, nearly $600 million, or one third of the profits earned by the home-run companies, had been extracted from the hide of these four eventual debt zombies.

In September 1996, Bain Capital and some partners bought Experian, the consumer-credit-reporting division of TRW Inc., for $1.1 billion. But Bain ponied up only $88 million in equity along with a similar amount from partners; all the rest of the funding came from junk bonds and bank loans. Seven weeks later, they sold it to a British conglomerate for $1.7 billion, producing a $600 million profit for all the investors on their slim layer of equity capital and after not even enduring the inconvenience of unpacking their briefcases.

Quite obviously Bain generated zero value before it flipped the property. So the fact that it scalped a sudden and spectacular $165 million windfall has nothing to do with investment skill or even trading prowess. Instead, the Experian Corp.’s $600 million valuation gain in just 50 days was an inside job.

That it (Romney's record at Bain Capital) should be offered as evidence that Mitt Romney is a deeply experienced capitalist entrepreneur and job creator is surely a testament to the financial deformations of our times.

Wow. Stockman consistently frames the question in terms of central banking (he seems fixated on it), but also loses no opportunity to bash Romney and Bain Capital - I'd advise anyone who thinks Romney really was a "businessman" to mosey on over and take a look.

However, the upshot of this is: Romney shouldn't even be able to run on a "businessman" record, according to Ronald Reagan's closes financial advisor and budget chief.

Wow that's a well described and concise report of how Romney generated his money at Bain...

It's a pity that in this day and age it won't get much traction beyond the blogosphere or upstart news networks like The Yong Turks, and if it does somehow it'l be decried as sensationalist or unfounded by the likes of the propaganda networks known as Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh Show.

[Alien Space Bats]

Hmm. David Stockman has some things to say about Romney.

He had some nasty things to say about the Ryan budget, too:

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Indeed, adjusted for inflation, today’s national security budget is nearly double Eisenhower’s when he left office in 1961 (about $400 billion in today’s dollars) — a level Ike deemed sufficient to contain the very real Soviet nuclear threat in the era just after Sputnik. By contrast, the Romney-Ryan version of shrinking Big Government is to increase our already outlandish warfare-state budget and risk even more spending by saber-rattling at a benighted but irrelevant Iran.

---

Similarly, there can be no hope of a return to vibrant capitalism unless there is a sweeping housecleaning at the Federal Reserve and a thorough renunciation of its interest-rate fixing, bond buying and recurring bailouts of Wall Street speculators. The Greenspan-Bernanke campaigns to repress interest rates have crushed savers, mocked thrift and fueled enormous overconsumption and trade deficits.

The greatest regulatory problem — far more urgent that the environmental marginalia Mitt Romney has fumed about — is that the giant Wall Street banks remain dangerous quasi-wards of the state and are inexorably prone to speculative abuse of taxpayer-insured deposits and the Fed’s cheap money. Forget about “too big to fail.” These banks are too big to exist — too big to manage internally and to regulate externally. They need to be broken up by regulatory decree. Instead, the Romney-Ryan ticket attacks the pointless Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, when what’s needed is a restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era legislation that separated commercial and investment banking.

---

Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade.

A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing. Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.

Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.

Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.

---

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

I can't say that I agree completely with Stockman; I don't. But he is right to ridicule the media narrative that the Ryan budget is somehow "courageous" for taking on Medicare and Medicaid when it doesn't even bother trying to address our bloated military budget. At least Stockman understands that sacrificing the other Party's sacred cow isn't even close to an act of "courage".

[New Chalcedon]

Hmm. David Stockman has some things to say about Romney.

He had some nasty things to say about the Ryan budget, too:

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Indeed, adjusted for inflation, today’s national security budget is nearly double Eisenhower’s when he left office in 1961 (about $400 billion in today’s dollars) — a level Ike deemed sufficient to contain the very real Soviet nuclear threat in the era just after Sputnik. By contrast, the Romney-Ryan version of shrinking Big Government is to increase our already outlandish warfare-state budget and risk even more spending by saber-rattling at a benighted but irrelevant Iran.

---

Similarly, there can be no hope of a return to vibrant capitalism unless there is a sweeping housecleaning at the Federal Reserve and a thorough renunciation of its interest-rate fixing, bond buying and recurring bailouts of Wall Street speculators. The Greenspan-Bernanke campaigns to repress interest rates have crushed savers, mocked thrift and fueled enormous overconsumption and trade deficits.

The greatest regulatory problem — far more urgent that the environmental marginalia Mitt Romney has fumed about — is that the giant Wall Street banks remain dangerous quasi-wards of the state and are inexorably prone to speculative abuse of taxpayer-insured deposits and the Fed’s cheap money. Forget about “too big to fail.” These banks are too big to exist — too big to manage internally and to regulate externally. They need to be broken up by regulatory decree. Instead, the Romney-Ryan ticket attacks the pointless Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, when what’s needed is a restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era legislation that separated commercial and investment banking.

---

Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade.

A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing. Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.

Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.

Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.

---

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

I can't say that I agree completely with Stockman; I don't. But he is right to ridicule the media narrative that the Ryan budget is somehow "courageous" for taking on Medicare and Medicaid when it doesn't even bother trying to address our bloated military budget. At least Stockman understands that sacrificing the other Party's sacred cow isn't even close to an act of "courage".

So what you're saying is that he is - or should be - the Right's version of Paul Krugman. Using basic (right-wing) principles to mock and undercut the Very Serious People and the party hypocrites.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

And of course Cantor would say it's not working, he kinda has a VESTED INTEREST because he's a Republican.

Nitpick, but the guy was talking about the current Speaker of the House (i.e. Boehner), not Cantor.

[Free Soviets]

Hilary says 'she takes responsibility' for Benghazi, apparently to shield Obama from criticism.

This is a wrong move

i dunno. seems to me to have been an awesome setup to get obama asked about it in the debate, where he could sound all commander-in-chiefy.

[New Chalcedon]

And of course Cantor would say it's not working, he kinda has a VESTED INTEREST because he's a Republican.

Nitpick, but the guy was talking about the current Speaker of the House (i.e. Boehner), not Cantor.

Meh. Both of them can - and will, and have - lie their honour (such as it is) into the dirt to impugn the President.

Impugn, impeach, imprison: the Republican Party's modern approach to Democrats in the White House. After all - we all know that Bill Clinton trafficked cocaine, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster, that they both illegally made millions, that Bill's a rapist, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The slandering and smearing starts on day one of a Democratic officeholder's term, these days.

[Northern Dominus]

Nitpick, but the guy was talking about the current Speaker of the House (i.e. Boehner), not Cantor.

Meh. Both of them can - and will, and have - lie their honour (such as it is) into the dirt to impugn the President.

Impugn, impeach, imprison: the Republican Party's modern approach to Democrats in the White House. After all - we all know that Bill Clinton trafficked cocaine, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster, that they both illegally made millions, that Bill's a rapist, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The slandering and smearing starts on day one of a Democratic officeholder's term, these days.

Hah. These days it starts beforehand with voter suppression efforts being passed off as "voter ID laws"

[Farnhamia]

Nitpick, but the guy was talking about the current Speaker of the House (i.e. Boehner), not Cantor.

Meh. Both of them can - and will, and have - lie their honour (such as it is) into the dirt to impugn the President.

Impugn, impeach, imprison: the Republican Party's modern approach to Democrats in the White House. After all - we all know that Bill Clinton trafficked cocaine, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster, that they both illegally made millions, that Bill's a rapist, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The slandering and smearing starts on day one of a Democratic officeholder's term, these days.

If Obama is re-elected and the GOP retains the House, impeachment hearings should start when? On Inauguration Day?

[Enadail]

Meh. Both of them can - and will, and have - lie their honour (such as it is) into the dirt to impugn the President.

Impugn, impeach, imprison: the Republican Party's modern approach to Democrats in the White House. After all - we all know that Bill Clinton trafficked cocaine, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster, that they both illegally made millions, that Bill's a rapist, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The slandering and smearing starts on day one of a Democratic officeholder's term, these days.

If Obama is re-elected and the GOP retains the House, impeachment hearings should start when? On Inauguration Day?

Of course not!

They'll start their vacation on inauguration day, come back around March, complain that the democrats aren't getting anything done, and work to impeach Obama on account of not being Republican.

Mind you, I don't think the democrats will do much better. I just really dislike the vitriol the Republicans have been throwing as of late.

[Aryavartha]

i dunno. seems to me to have been an awesome setup to get obama asked about it in the debate, where he could sound all commander-in-chiefy.

He could have also pointed out that Ryan voted on the cutting off money for embassies.

And that, it is not an embassy in Benghazi - it is a consulate. The embassy was in Tripoli, hundreds of miles away. A consulate in the form of a shack, is pretty much impossible to protect (like how you can setup perimeters, stock up, and protect an embassy).

I also think that he should say that 'you are desperate if this is all you can find to pin on me and you can't find anything else' - ofcourse not in those words, but in the meaning of what he conveys.

[Not Safe For Work]

i dunno. seems to me to have been an awesome setup to get obama asked about it in the debate, where he could sound all commander-in-chiefy.

He could have also pointed out that Ryan voted on the cutting off money for embassies.

And that, it is not an embassy in Benghazi - it is a consulate. The embassy was in Tripoli, hundreds of miles away. A consulate in the form of a shack, is pretty much impossible to protect (like how you can setup perimeters, stock up, and protect an embassy).

What is frustrating about this story, is that the whole 'there should have been more guards' narrative hinges on ignoring facts long since established.

Like, the fact that we're not talking a full-scale embassy, but a consulate plot, as you mention.

Anyone who has seen the consulate building knows that a heavy complement of guards would be unrealistic. The guard barracks onsite (different building) is not designed to hold a large contingent - so any extra guards would have to have been offsite, and called for in case of emergency.

Which is exactly what DID happen - when the Libyan guards called in reinforcements. (The reinforcements arrived at about 10pm, within 30 minutes of the first shots being fired).

[New Chalcedon]

If Obama is re-elected and the GOP retains the House, impeachment hearings should start when? On Inauguration Day?

Of course not!

They'll start their vacation on inauguration day, come back around March, complain that the democrats aren't getting anything done, and work to impeach Obama on account of not being Republican.

The scary thing is, that such an impeachment would stand up if challenged on its legality. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson established that "impeachable offenses" are whatever Congress damn well decides they are.

Mind you, I don't think the democrats will do much better. I just really dislike the vitriol the Republicans have been throwing as of late.

Oh? Who was the last Republican President whom the Democrats impeached on flimsy grounds? Who was the last Republican President who faced a filibuster rate of damn near 90% on his preferred legislation?

You cannot name such Republican Presidents, for they do not exist and never have. Please don't engage in false equivalences.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Of course not!

They'll start their vacation on inauguration day, come back around March, complain that the democrats aren't getting anything done, and work to impeach Obama on account of not being Republican.

The scary thing is, that such an impeachment would stand up if challenged on its legality. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson established that "impeachable offenses" are whatever Congress damn well decides they are.

Mind you, I don't think the democrats will do much better. I just really dislike the vitriol the Republicans have been throwing as of late.

Oh? Who was the last Republican President whom the Democrats impeached on flimsy grounds? Who was the last Republican President who faced a filibuster rate of damn near 90% on his preferred legislation?

You cannot name such Republican Presidents, for they do not exist and never have. Please don't engage in false equivalences.

Just because I love flaunting knowledge, only two presidents have been successfully impeached, and neither were registered as what would now be considered the Republican party. Jackson was what would today be called a RINO (if that). Congressional obstructionism is, today, at a worse level than at any time save for the birth of the Confederacy or the birth of the nation itself, and even then they actually met to discuss things rather than read Hoyle to the assembled pensioners.

[Enadail]

Mind you, I don't think the democrats will do much better. I just really dislike the vitriol the Republicans have been throwing as of late.

Oh? Who was the last Republican President whom the Democrats impeached on flimsy grounds? Who was the last Republican President who faced a filibuster rate of damn near 90% on his preferred legislation?

You cannot name such Republican Presidents, for they do not exist and never have. Please don't engage in false equivalences.

Sorry, that's not what I meant. I just meant that I don't think democrats are great for standing on principal, as the most recent DREAM vote shows. They're also full of idologue, but the most recent batch of Republicans goes steps way too far (publicly saying their only business should be to see Obama fail?). As liberal on social policy and moderate on fiscal policy, I'd take one of the democrats over one of these republicans in a heartbeat.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Racism at a Republican convention?

Will wonders never cease.

[TaQud]

You serious Paul Ryan?

[Sane Outcasts]

You serious Paul Ryan?

Let's be fair here, no one cares about the Cleveland Browns or their quarterbacks.

[Ashmoria]

You serious Paul Ryan?

Let's be fair here, no one cares about the Cleveland Browns or their quarterbacks.

except for people IN OHIO

remember how martha coakley lost votes because of some redsox error and scott brown won the senate seat in mass.

[TaQud]

Let's be fair here, no one cares about the Cleveland Browns or their quarterbacks.

except for people IN OHIO

Like Me who is a Browns and in ohio. (then again I wasn't going to vote republican anyway)

[Sane Outcasts]

Let's be fair here, no one cares about the Cleveland Browns or their quarterbacks.

except for people IN OHIO

remember how martha coakley lost votes because of some redsox error and scott brown won the senate seat in mass.

'Twas a joke, not a serious counterpoint.

[Cannot think of a name]

Let's be fair here, no one cares about the Cleveland Browns or their quarterbacks.

except for people IN OHIO

remember how martha coakley lost votes because of some redsox error and scott brown won the senate seat in mass.

Well, to be fair she lost mostly because she didn't think she had to campaign.

[Freedom of United Trevor]

Bush and Obama didn't have to stand up to China,there's just bad presidents,

Under Romney it's a new era, we will get the cheaters lost and have Energy Independence.
Current speaker of the house says Obamacare is not working, therefore I agree with the speaker and Obamacare shouldn't be constitutional and we should hate Bush and Obama more and more and elect Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Well uh. Obamacare doesn't take into full effect until 2014, so. Are you from the Future?

No,It's impossible to come from the future.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well uh. Obamacare doesn't take into full effect until 2014, so. Are you from the Future?

No,It's impossible to come from the future.

I HAVE TRAVELED FROM ONE MINUTE IN THE FUTURE TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU CAN COME FROM THE FUTURE.

[Freedom of United Trevor]

Bush and Obama didn't have to stand up to China,there's just bad presidents,

Under Romney it's a new era, we will get the cheaters lost and have Energy Independence.
Current speaker of the house says Obamacare is not working, therefore I agree with the speaker and Obamacare shouldn't be constitutional and we should hate Bush and Obama more and more and elect Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Poe's fucking Law

Oh yeah,remember last night about the Energy issue and Obama said something that a pipeline built around the earth, That is just BS and a political asshole and who I am I talking about-Obama.
P.S. go see 2016 Obama's America and stop being lazy and brainwashed by him.