The Very Poor Be Damned! Mitt Romney Said What He Meant

-A +A
0

Here the real Romney reveals a perverted mindset. He believes the very poor are meant to always be very poor and the best thing that can be done for them is to ensure that they don't all die off by maintaining safety nets.

[Elections2012:Daily Round-up]

Breaking Down Mitt Romney's Words


Since the real Mitt Romney yesterday said he's "not concerned about the very poor," most media outlets and pundits have been saying Romney "stumbled" or "blundered" or "put his foot in his mouth," or "gaffed."

These explanations sound nonsensical. The real Romney was speaking over the pr-company and political consultants-packaged Romney.

The real Romney said what he meant, without any prompting. This is what he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien:
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."

What did Mr. $300 Man really mean?

[] Well according to the real Romney, he  cares about "Americans." These "Americans" are, presumably wealthy people like himself; clearly,  not "very poor" people, as he stated.

[] Why is the real Romney not concerned about the "very poor"? Might it be that it's because the very poor are dealing with too much stress anyway and, presumably Romney believes voting is a luxury they don't indulge in?

[] Might it be that it's because the very poor are not really his constituency and besides he doesn't know them anyway?  Clearly, they are not in a position to contribute to his campaign.

[] The real Romney isn't sure if the "safety net" for the poor is broken; but, as he said, he'd fix it if that's the case.

Here the real Romney reveals a perverted mindset. He believes the very poor are meant to always be very poor--the best thing that can be done for them is to ensure that they don't all die off by maintaining safety nets.

A more compassionate person would have said: "I don't believe in having poor Americans and rich Americans. We are all Americans. Those who are currently less fortunate should be afforded the resources to work their way out of poverty and become successful, productive, and even prosperous citizens. That's what a Romney presidency will do."

But that would have been the packaged Romney. 

The real Romney is so elitist that he couldn't even come up with such a line. The real Romney revealed his true feelings towards the annoying "very poor."

He spoke from the bottom of his heart. In summation: Thee poor will always be poor. The poor be damned and the very poor be very damned.

The Circus Comes To Nevada
Politics makes wonderful bedfellows! Mitt Romney says he's grateful for Donald Trump's endorsement,  even though Romney declined to participate in Trump's aborted "Trump presidential debate" earlier this year.

Romney says Trump understands the threat to the U.S. from abroad from places like China; both Trump and Romney say China is a serial violator of international trade rules.  What this Candidate Romney or the real Romney speaking?

It must have been Candidate Romney, this is because the real Romney through the years has parked some of his multi-millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss accounts? Talk about "loyalty" and "patriotism." Romney's confidence about the U.S. economy is comparable to the confidence that the late Congolese dictator Mobuttu Sese Seko had in the fortunes of his country. Mobuttu used to park his ill-gotten fortune in Swiss banks as well; so did the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos.

What's more, Romney's new benefactor, Trump, comes with heavy baggage. Trump has been a leader of the lunatic birthers' charge; he's persisted even after President Obama released his birth certificate.

Trump has famously said, when asked about some of his incendiary comments offensive to African Americans, "I get along great with the Blacks."

Seems to me that Romney, and folk like him, are actually more dangerous to the U.S. than countries like China are.

The Future of Afghanistan
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced today that the U.S. will pull out of combat operations in Afghanistan mid-2013.  More than three years ago, this newspaper concluded that there could be no military solution in Afghanistan. In a Black Star News commentary in November 2009, we wrote: 

"Even with troops build up in Afghanistan, unless a political solution prevails there, the so-called "victory" that American commanders speak of will prove elusive. After all, who exactly is the "enemy" in Afghanistan? In addition to the Taliban and other armed groups, Hamid Karzai's corrupt and usurper regime –with his drug King pin brother— which recently stole elections is as much a liability...."

http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/6124/2009-11-25.html

Of course, since that commentary, the Karzai regime has become even more  corrupt and his brother has since been assassinated. While our commentary may have sounded preposterous three years ago, things have changed dramatically and the U.S. has indeed started talks with the Taliban.

Does this mean that Karzai may need to shop for a new job and home after the U.S. pulls out?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/world/asia/taliban-have-begun-talks-wi...


"Speaking Truth To Empower."



Also Check Out...

The 6th Annual LGBT Immigration
WEST COAST 'BLACK COMMENTATOR
Educational Alliance Opens New
Vision of Flight Is Dedicated To
Ode To Conservatism
Island Voice Presents: The 8th