2012 Presidential Election Polls

[knapplc]

What do a couple of you Obama supporters fear most about Romney being elected?

 

That we'll travel even further down the path of economic serfdom than we did under Bush II. Romney is money, trickle-down economics, a continued shrinking of the middle class, created jobs that offer less opportunity to the workforce.

 

Romney believes that the economy will magically get better once he takes office. I have yet to see a plan that makes mathematical sense which shows how he'll fix what ails us. Every plan he and Ryan have put forth has been shown to be economically and mathematically impossible. It's smoke and mirrors, and it scares the hell out of me. Mitt says we'll see capital come back if he's elected - and he's probably right, because right now American corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, just waiting for the right guy to get into office.

 

But let's say that cash starts to flow - where does it go? Does it get into the hands of Joe America, so he can spend it on goods? That'll kickstart manufacturing, and we could start to see growth, but the most likely scenario is corporations do business with each other, the corporations grow, and the little man gets even littler. A Romney-led recovery will be good for business, but the middle class will be left behind. And they're already behind, thanks to a disastrous Bush presidency and Bush's and Obama's bailouts.

 

Internationally, Romney is considered a joke. We saw his Romneyshambles tour of England, Israel and Poland, where he was vilified by their press. I have family living in Europe - they hate him over there, and they're horrified that he's even close in the polls at this point. A Romney presidency will see setbacks in foreign relations akin to the Bush II squandering of foreign goodwill after 9/11. Romney appears weak, a puppet of business, and uninterested in the world surrounding him - except as a source for money.

 

I see a Romney presidency as a win for a small-minded America. An America that has turned away from its melting-pot roots, an America that has forgotten that United We Stand. I see a Romney win as an affirmation that Fox News' "Us vs. Them" mentality has pervaded America to a degree that diversity has become a dirty word. It's a mean-spirited America that cloaks itself in the flag and waves a Bible - two symbols of things that they no longer stand for, but claim they do.

 

Romney himself won't put us all the way down that path. He's just the next step. A Romney presidency will affirm a mentality that I would gladly spend the rest of my life fighting.

[knapplc]

Case in point, from today's headlines:

 

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

 

David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, sent a surprising email to his employees Monday.

 

David SiegelIt said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.

 

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

 

In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."

 

I don't care how much money this guy earned, he has zero right to coerce his employees into voting for his big-business crony. Disgusting email.

[BigRedBuster]

Looking at some recent, but a few weeks old, clips of Barack and Michelle Obama. It's funny - a weird part of me wants him to lose this election so he can get on with his life. Beautiful wife, beautiful girls, he's still young, he's got a lot of time left.

 

I shudder to think what four years of Romneyshambles will look like. But Barack Obama the person - I may wish better things on him than his winning re-election.

it is incredible he still wants this job. however, if america elects romney, we get what we deserve.

 

 

It really is incredible. Many times when someone realizes they are completely in way over their head they will bow out and admit it.

[BigRedBuster]

Case in point, from today's headlines:

 

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

 

David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, sent a surprising email to his employees Monday.

 

David SiegelIt said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.

 

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

 

In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."

 

I don't care how much money this guy earned, he has zero right to coerce his employees into voting for his big-business crony. Disgusting email.

 

It's called freedom of speech.

 

Would I send an email out to employees like that? No, and I would suggest nobody else do it either.

 

But, he does have the right to do it.

[Conga3]

Case in point, from today's headlines:

 

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

 

David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, sent a surprising email to his employees Monday.

 

David SiegelIt said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.

 

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

 

In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."

 

I don't care how much money this guy earned, he has zero right to coerce his employees into voting for his big-business crony. Disgusting email.

 

Do you believe the scenario to be true though?

 

You can focus on the Romney vs Obama aspect, but do you agree that when the government increases taxes and burdens of regulation, that it weakens businesses ability to make a profit and support a labor force?

 

----

Are you equally outraged when Labor Unions "coerce" their membership is a similar fashion?

[Conga3]

What do a couple of you Obama supporters fear most about Romney being elected?

 

That we'll travel even further down the path of economic serfdom than we did under Bush II. Romney is money, trickle-down economics, a continued shrinking of the middle class, created jobs that offer less opportunity to the workforce.

 

Romney believes that the economy will magically get better once he takes office. I have yet to see a plan that makes mathematical sense which shows how he'll fix what ails us. Every plan he and Ryan have put forth has been shown to be economically and mathematically impossible. It's smoke and mirrors, and it scares the hell out of me. Mitt says we'll see capital come back if he's elected - and he's probably right, because right now American corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, just waiting for the right guy to get into office.

 

But let's say that cash starts to flow - where does it go? Does it get into the hands of Joe America, so he can spend it on goods? That'll kickstart manufacturing, and we could start to see growth, but the most likely scenario is corporations do business with each other, the corporations grow, and the little man gets even littler. A Romney-led recovery will be good for business, but the middle class will be left behind. And they're already behind, thanks to a disastrous Bush presidency and Bush's and Obama's bailouts.

 

Internationally, Romney is considered a joke. We saw his Romneyshambles tour of England, Israel and Poland, where he was vilified by their press. I have family living in Europe - they hate him over there, and they're horrified that he's even close in the polls at this point. A Romney presidency will see setbacks in foreign relations akin to the Bush II squandering of foreign goodwill after 9/11. Romney appears weak, a puppet of business, and uninterested in the world surrounding him - except as a source for money.

 

I see a Romney presidency as a win for a small-minded America. An America that has turned away from its melting-pot roots, an America that has forgotten that United We Stand. I see a Romney win as an affirmation that Fox News' "Us vs. Them" mentality has pervaded America to a degree that diversity has become a dirty word. It's a mean-spirited America that cloaks itself in the flag and waves a Bible - two symbols of things that they no longer stand for, but claim they do.

 

Romney himself won't put us all the way down that path. He's just the next step. A Romney presidency will affirm a mentality that I would gladly spend the rest of my life fighting.

 

Thanks! This helps me understand your position much better.

[knapplc]

Case in point, from today's headlines:

 

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

 

David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, sent a surprising email to his employees Monday.

 

David SiegelIt said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.

 

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

 

In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."

 

I don't care how much money this guy earned, he has zero right to coerce his employees into voting for his big-business crony. Disgusting email.

 

It's called freedom of speech.

 

Would I send an email out to employees like that? No, and I would suggest nobody else do it either.

 

But, he does have the right to do it.

 

 

 

No, he doesn't. It's prohibited under US Civil Code. As an employer, you'd better learn the law before you get yourself in trouble.

[knapplc]

Do you believe the scenario to be true though?

 

Yes. Did you read the article? They even include the email. The author of the article interviewed the guy. Why do you ask if I "believe" this is true?

 

 

do you agree that when the government increases taxes and burdens of regulation, that it weakens businesses ability to make a profit and support a labor force?

 

Broadly, yes, taxes do take money from businesses, cutting into their profits. That doesn't mean we need to end taxes, it means there needs to be a balance. That balance changes with the economic needs of the country. I disagree with the current Republican mantra that businesses are in some way hurting because Big Government (read: Barack Obama) is stopping them from being profitable, especially through regulation. Government regulation, in moderation, is vital to a healthy country. Unregulated business disasters are evident all over the world, from environmental disasters to indentured servitude.

 

 

 

Are you equally outraged when Labor Unions "coerce" their membership is a similar fashion?

 

Yes.

[Conga3]

Case in point, from today's headlines:

 

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

 

David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, sent a surprising email to his employees Monday.

 

David SiegelIt said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.

 

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

 

In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."

 

I don't care how much money this guy earned, he has zero right to coerce his employees into voting for his big-business crony. Disgusting email.

 

It's called freedom of speech.

 

Would I send an email out to employees like that? No, and I would suggest nobody else do it either.

 

But, he does have the right to do it.

 

 

 

No, he doesn't. It's prohibited under US Civil Code. As an employer, you'd better learn the law before you get yourself in trouble.

Have you found any place where an actual lawyer has commented on this? That it's in violation of anything?

 

You could count me stunned if this is even close to being illegal.... but I ain't no lawyer.

[BigRedBuster]

Case in point, from today's headlines:

 

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

 

David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, sent a surprising email to his employees Monday.

 

David SiegelIt said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.

 

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

 

In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."

 

I don't care how much money this guy earned, he has zero right to coerce his employees into voting for his big-business crony. Disgusting email.

 

It's called freedom of speech.

 

Would I send an email out to employees like that? No, and I would suggest nobody else do it either.

 

But, he does have the right to do it.

 

 

 

No, he doesn't. It's prohibited under US Civil Code. As an employer, you'd better learn the law before you get yourself in trouble.

 

He has every right to say something that is true.

[knapplc]

42 US 1971(b)

 

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

 

 

This took all of 20 seconds to google. Sheesh.

[Conga3]

42 US 1971(b)

 

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

 

 

This took all of 20 seconds to google. Sheesh.

 

This is a law. I'm asking if someone who deals in the "application" of laws has commented that what Siegel did breaks this law.

 

I know you think it does!

 

The thing is, his "threat" was non-specific and not directed at any individual. Wearing my lawyer cap today, I would say his email doesn't break this law.

[knapplc]

Wrong again. You should really try to use google. It's quite effective.

 

LINK

 

The legislative history of this law makes clear that Congress wanted to expand the scope of voter protection by enacting a law that would bar voter intimidation. In fact, Congress’s explanations of the purposes behind Section 11(b) support the view that neither proof of intent to intimidate nor proof of any actual effect of voter intimidation must be shown to establish a violation of Section 11(b). Rather, as DOJ has read the statute, an interpretation I share, plaintiffs need only show that the conduct engaged in had a tendency to intimidate, threaten or coerce a reasonable voter. Importantly, there is no requirement that to prevail under Section 11(b) that a plaintiff prove any purpose of subjective intent to intimidate.

 

 

Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act was drafted the Department of Justice and submitted to Congress during the Johnson Administration. It was intended to relieve a burden that the Justice Department had faced since 1957 when the Civil rights Act of 1957 had been enacted, specifically 42 U.S.C. 1971(b). Following enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, courts had required proof of subjective intent in voting rights cases. When Attorney General Katzenbach appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in 1965, he explained the reasons that for including anti-intimidation provisions in the proposed Voting rights Act:

[zoogs]

Really can't hold Mitt Romney responsible for the actions of one of his supporters.

 

Disagree that this is about regulation, it's about tax policy, amount and the code in general. I do not know if I would support Obama's plan for a slight tax increase here. It seems it will have limiting effects and won't really generate real significant amounts of revenue. It's a band-aid that neither goes a long way in fixing the problem nor seems good for the long term.

 

Romney isn't against regulation.

 

I think I find Carl's singular reason of the Supreme Court appointee to be a pretty compelling argument. It is interesting that as we make a decision about the executive branch, it could also have a significant effect on the judicial branch.

[Conga3]

I must not be communicating over the internets very well today. :/ I'll try again.

 

Has a legal mind commented on the email that Siegel wrote and sent to his employees about whether the DOJ or State Attorney or whoever has an opportunity to go after him for breaking this law?

 

Not in general... specifically this email.

 

I'm searching Knappl, I really am! Can't find an opinion yet.