November 6th, 2012
motherjones:

YOU GUYS WE ARE ELECTIONED THE F*CK OUT ON OUR HOMEPAGE RIGHT NOW.
Seriously, if you are as wired as we are, check these out:
Our interactive, map-based guide to voter suppression and poll problems. We are updating this all day. A LOT.
8 candidates we can’t believe are actually going to win.
Romney’s campaign is going out dirty, dirty, dirty.
Good news for nervous Obama fans.
The Ladyparts Voter Guide.
What would President Romney really do?
David Corn: Will Romney’s lies pay off?
And, of course, the full 47 percent video… for extra GRR this morning.
VOTE, people. Then get everyone you know to VOTE. Then call strangers and ask them if they need a ride to VOTE. And keep your eyes on us for the latest!

motherjones:

YOU GUYS WE ARE ELECTIONED THE F*CK OUT ON OUR HOMEPAGE RIGHT NOW.

Seriously, if you are as wired as we are, check these out:

VOTE, people. Then get everyone you know to VOTE. Then call strangers and ask them if they need a ride to VOTE. And keep your eyes on us for the latest!

October 31st, 2012

Romney Ducks Reporters on Ending FEMA — “You’ve been asked 14 times. Why are you refusing to answer the question?”

alternetnews:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney found himself in an awkward line of questioning yesterday when reporters wanted to know if he would really slash funding for FEMA, the federal government agency in charge of Hurricane Sandy relief efforts. 

Rather than fall back on his tried-and-true model of flip-flopping his position to fit the latest poll (see Romney on abortion and health care), he opted for a bold new strategy: entirely ignore the question.

“Governor, you’ve been asked 14 times. Why are you refusing to answer the question?” one journalist complained at Romney’s press conference yesterday in Ohio.

But still, not a word from the man who just may (but probably not) find himself in the position to be making such decisions. Meanwhile, his aides scrambled to assure the journalists that he wouldn’t kill the disaster relief agency, although their boss’s silence spoke far louder than their words.

Romney’s past platforms have indicated that the candidate would, in fact, push to splinter and then privatize the agency, which is designed to provide rapid, federal assistance in crisis situations, particularly after during and after natural disasters.

“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction,” Romney said during a CNN debate in June 2011.

“And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”

On Tuesday, Romney and his camp once again hit the campaign trail, attempting to cover up the obvious publicity stunts by pretending the press conferences were part of Romney’s push to collect donations. As The Washington Post notes, the campaign’s push to collect donations actually goes against the advice of disaster relief professionals, who say that processing these donations becomes a logistical nightmare if the collectors aren’t prepared to put the donations to use themselves. (Romney hasn’t said anything about setting up actual aid stations.) 

Then again, collecting donations does create a powerful photo op.

Whether or not to keep FEMA should be a major concern as scientists increasingly sound the alarms that extreme weather disasters—such as Hurricane Sandy—will become increasingly frequent as climate change accelerates. Then again, since Romney has said that he doesn’t believe climate change is caused by human activity, perhaps it makes sense that he doesn’t think that federally coordinated, human response teams are necessary either.

—Laura Gottesdiener

October 30th, 2012

think-progress:

It’s a coordinated misinformation campaign for poll watchers to intentionally mislead voters. Check out the documents for yourself.

October 22nd, 2012
October 19th, 2012
motherjones:

The ex-general who lost Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, then bungled planning for war in Iraq, is endorsing Mitt Romney and would like to complain to you about Obama’s four “years of feckless foreign policy.” For serious.
Also, in his retirement, this general runs his own Leadership Institute and Museum out of a Hobart, Oklahoma, storefront. And he would like to sell you some “high performing mother cows” from his ranch, online at 4StarRanch.net. So you know he’s good.

motherjones:

The ex-general who lost Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, then bungled planning for war in Iraq, is endorsing Mitt Romney and would like to complain to you about Obama’s four “years of feckless foreign policy.” For serious.

Also, in his retirement, this general runs his own Leadership Institute and Museum out of a Hobart, Oklahoma, storefront. And he would like to sell you some “high performing mother cows” from his ranch, online at 4StarRanch.net. So you know he’s good.

October 18th, 2012
current:

On tax cuts: Reagan lied, Bush lied; should Mitt be believed?


One of the great mysteries in Mitt Romney’s campaign has been how to pay for the $4.8 trillion that would be lost from the 20 percent cuts he proposes in tax rates. Romney himself insists the plan is revenue neutral. Yet to fill the gap, he suggested only one idea Tuesday night: No one could write off more than $25,000 in tax deductions or credits. So let’s do the math — and we’ll get our number of the day: $4.1 trillion.
That’s how much the rate cuts would cost, even with that limit on write-offs. The Washington Post calculated that his cap on deductions would raise only about $730 billion. That doesn’t even come close to covering what he needs, to make this plan “revenue neutral.”
But then again, we’ve seen this kind of math before — from other Republicans.
Ronald Reagan said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.
George W. Bush said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.
Now Mitt Romney says he will close the deficit by cutting taxes. What do you think would happen to the deficit if Romney got to implement his plan?



Bolded for emphasis. 

current:

On tax cuts: Reagan lied, Bush lied; should Mitt be believed?

One of the great mysteries in Mitt Romney’s campaign has been how to pay for the $4.8 trillion that would be lost from the 20 percent cuts he proposes in tax rates. Romney himself insists the plan is revenue neutral. Yet to fill the gap, he suggested only one idea Tuesday night: No one could write off more than $25,000 in tax deductions or credits. So let’s do the math — and we’ll get our number of the day: $4.1 trillion.

That’s how much the rate cuts would cost, even with that limit on write-offs. The Washington Post calculated that his cap on deductions would raise only about $730 billion. That doesn’t even come close to covering what he needs, to make this plan “revenue neutral.”

But then again, we’ve seen this kind of math before — from other Republicans.

Ronald Reagan said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.

George W. Bush said he would close the deficit by cutting taxes — and the deficit went up.

Now Mitt Romney says he will close the deficit by cutting taxes. What do you think would happen to the deficit if Romney got to implement his plan?

Bolded for emphasis. 

October 17th, 2012
women for self deportation

women for self deportation

(Source: bindersfullofwomen)

(Source: ninjatengu)