New Leaked Audio; Romney: Tell your employees how to vote

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I am still waiting for you to explain to me how a local union playing local politics with local businesses is the same as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States instructing his party to use terrorist threats against the welfare of the American people as a way of achieving office.

Or are we still forgiving that serial killer because we've all been a bit hostile ourselves, in the past. It's all relative.

Shame you went for the ad-hom. I was hoping for some sourced facts.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how a local union playing local politics with local businesses is the same as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States instructing his party to use terrorist threats against the welfare of the American people as a way of achieving office.

Or are we still forgiving that serial killer because we've all been a bit hostile ourselves, in the past. It's all relative.

Shame you went for the ad-hom. I was hoping for some sourced facts.

~Heff

Ad-hom? Saying you are being hypocritical is not an ad-hom. Romney is telling EMPLOYERS to let the employees know who is the best candidate for their particular job market. UNIONS tell their members the exact same thing. You are against employers doing it, and are for Unions doing it. This is as hypocritical as it gets.

Please tell me what terrorist threat Romney instructed his party to use. Thanks.

ETA: It's nice how your goal posts change. You ask for an instance of Unions using threats. You're given one. Then it's suddenly well who cares that's all local. That tells me you are out to "win", not have a debate of facts.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Lord you are all over the map. The only correlative anyone has produced involves a local union, and you keep insisting this is tantamount to the same as an entire political party using terroristic threat as a campaign policy - with the blessing, no less, of the Republican Candidate.

It's now been out of the water so long, this red herring is turning blue. I guess it's lack of life explains the deflections. But that's OK. I can cope with those as well.

There have been at least two recorded cases of major employers, who happen to be Republicans, sending letters to their employees threatening their jobs, should the current POTUS be reelected. The threats were indirect, but clear.

Threat means a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another's property. It can be one that might diminish a person's freedom to act voluntarily or with lawful consent. For example, kidnapper’s threat of violence It can also be an indication of an approaching menace. For example, threat of a storm. Threat can also refer to a person or thing that might well cause harm. For example, she never viewed her husband as a threat.

Source

From the OP source:

Now, he’s caught on audio asking business owners to tell employees who to vote for, urging them to tell their subordinates how their jobs might be affected by voting against company interests.

“I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.”

Source

"Undue influence" is the most common ground for will contests and are often accompanied by a capacity challenge. In probate law, it is generally defined as a testator's loss of free agency regarding property disposition through contemporaneous psychological domination by an advisor which results in an excessive benefit to the advisor. It is important to note that "undue influence" is only an issue when the advisor is benefiting, not when advisor is getting a benefit for someone else; in that case it would be considered fraud. In litigation most jurisdictions place the burden of proving undue influence on the party challenging the will.

Source

Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired response.

Source

Ignoring that some union in some town pressured some local business and this somehow is exactly the same thing, in your eyes, to what the RNC is currently doing...

You are actually defending it with effectively the same argument my son used to use when he was a small child? The "But, but, but... the other kids were doing it!!!" tactic?

Amazing.

~Heff

The romans faced their inevitable collapse once the elite got used to using the crowds and public to decide between two puppet candidates, today it would be called corporate oligarchy, don't feel you ave a real choice? you dont.

There's not a thing wrong with letting people know what to expect from an Obama or a Romney Presidency and asking them to vote accordingly.

The real problem Democrats have is there is an actual RECORD that Obama now has to OWN.

In the last debate Obama claimed Romney's plan was a "sketchy deal".

What is truly "sketchy" are the actual results of Obama's 4 years. Obama has real casualites of his Presidency. I'm not talking about the horrible casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m talking about other casualties from failed leadership such as;

- The deaths in Benghazi and the deaths of Brian Terry and countless Mexican citizens as a result of the Obama Administrations international gun running scandal called Fast and Furious.
- The damage Fast & Furious has caused in US / MX relations for years to come.
- The death of the American dream under the Obama Administration as people’s freedoms are slowly eroded thru over regulation, debt, poverty, failed energy policy and lack of opportunity.
- The death of prosperity as Obama runs up debt to an unkind load shark in China.
- The death of the “rights granted by our creator” as Obama, a former “constitutional law professor”, subverts the Constitution at every turn.
- The death of bipartisanship as the Obama Administration continues to alienate and denigrate Republicans, members of his own party, Congress in general, the Supreme Court and anyone else who disagrees with him.
- The Death of a PROMISE of Hope and Change - THAT I VOTED FOR.

Obama made 2 key mistakes;
- he allowed himself and his agenda to be usurped by his party or his handlers
- he forgot that to get elected you have to appeal to your base but to get re-elected you have to govern FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

He set himself up to be a one term President by his partisanship and ideology.

Just because Democrats don't understand Romneys plan doesn't mean it won't work.

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by LeoStarchild

 

Um no, Obama was not born into extreme wealth. He was born and raised middle class. He actually had multiple real jobs and had to take out loans to go to college. Obama still doesn't have enough money to be an elite. He's worth like what? 12 million.

Pleasee tell me how many of the actual elites started out as community organizers in the most ghetto-ist parts of Chicago.

Answer; none. They are usually born rich and go onto big money jobs out of college...

edit on 18-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

my point was obama has his hand held.. and was give the presidency based on nothing. Why you guys refuse to acknowledge this is beyond me. Zero experience..No real world skills. Romney was right about the 47%, except i loo at it as 47% of uneducated, jealous lapdogs.

reply to post by LeoStarchild

It has been a very long time since we had a President that grew up poor.

You are correct about them having their hands held. There hasn't been a common man's candidate win The POTUS ever. They have all been elite, or controlled by the elite.

So far its good news for Romney.
LINK1
LINK2

LINK3
LINK4

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how a local union playing local politics with local businesses is the same as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States instructing his party to use terrorist threats against the welfare of the American people as a way of achieving office.

Or are we still forgiving that serial killer because we've all been a bit hostile ourselves, in the past. It's all relative.

Shame you went for the ad-hom. I was hoping for some sourced facts.

~Heff

Well its not quite the same but it is similar, My wife works in a job that is unionized, and every election she gets a postcard or pamphlet (Id scan one in but I chuck those things when she gets them) Suggesting who she should vote for.

With quotes like "these candidates views could adversely effect our industry" The last one I saw was so heavy handed in their veiled "threat to your job" that I actually laughed and suggested she vote the other way out of spite.

All sides are corrupt all sides have no business holding office. Until Americans see that nothing will change, all of it is a divisive side show to distract us all.

Originally posted by 3chainz

Secret recordings have not been kind to Romney. The presidential candidate just began recovering from secretly recorded video in a Boca Raton $50,000 per plate fundraiser, where Romney was caught insulting 47% of voters and wishing he could capitalize on a more authentically Mexican father. Immediately following the release, he began suffering backlash, even among his own party members.

Now, he’s caught on audio asking business owners to tell employees who to vote for, urging them to tell their subordinates how their jobs might be affected by voting against company interests.

“I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.”

www.examiner.com...

You know, just, pretty much insinuate your employees how to vote if they want to keep their job. Fear monger as much as possible, just lightly extort them.. It isn't illegal as long as you use the right words. Let them know how how important you are as a "job creator" and that they should know their place and worship you. It's not like consumers don't create jobs...ONLY you o "job creator", your opinion is the one that matters.

It's a shame peasants have a right to vote anyway. So what if they are hungry and have to live off food stamps, I'm not trying to pay them a living wage. They can go dumpster dive or whatever...social programs need to get cut anyway, I need more corporate welfare.

edit on 18-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

People hear what they want to hear. You obviously heard him say "Tell your employees to vote for me." That's not at all what he said. He suggested that employers should talk to their employees about what candidate would be best for their business and their job security. He said "were it be me or Mr. Obama". I think that was pretty fair, and now at all what you suggested. The call was also not a secret recording. It was a conference call to that company and their employees.

Originally posted by 3chainz

Secret recordings have not been kind to Romney. The presidential candidate just began recovering from secretly recorded video in a Boca Raton $50,000 per plate fundraiser, where Romney was caught insulting 47% of voters and wishing he could capitalize on a more authentically Mexican father. Immediately following the release, he began suffering backlash, even among his own party members.

Now, he’s caught on audio asking business owners to tell employees who to vote for, urging them to tell their subordinates how their jobs might be affected by voting against company interests.

“I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.”

www.examiner.com...

You know, just, pretty much insinuate your employees how to vote if they want to keep their job. Fear monger as much as possible, just lightly extort them.. It isn't illegal as long as you use the right words. Let them know how how important you are as a "job creator" and that they should know their place and worship you. It's not like consumers don't create jobs...ONLY you o "job creator", your opinion is the one that matters.

It's a shame peasants have a right to vote anyway. So what if they are hungry and have to live off food stamps, I'm not trying to pay them a living wage. They can go dumpster dive or whatever...social programs need to get cut anyway, I need more corporate welfare.

edit on 18-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

Romney is a treasonous b^stard.

Romney likely would have voted against freeing black slaves if it hurt his bottem line. Abusing and taking as much as you can from other people is what capitalism is all about.... and Romney is a poster child. If he could legally murder his employees and sell their organs he would.

Its just to bad we cant put all these idiots on an island with eachother and allow thier dog eat dog attitude to leave them gnawing on eachothers legs.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Ad-hom? Saying you are being hypocritical is not an ad-hom. Romney is telling EMPLOYERS to let the employees know who is the best candidate for their particular job market. UNIONS tell their members the exact same thing. You are against employers doing it, and are for Unions doing it. This is as hypocritical as it gets.

Not at all...there is a HUGE difference between a union advocating a candidate and a company telling their employers how to vote. Namely...the position of authority which the company has over an individuals livelihood. A union has ZERO ability to fire, demote, or withhold someone's bonuses....the company has your livelihood in their hands.

For example...look at what the Koch-whores are doing. They have more or less promised to lay-offs if Obama is elected again...thereby not steering not only perhaps the vote THIS time around...but most ASSUREDLY next time around. Now the argument is framed as companies just "informing their employees"...but the reality is that should Obama be elected the Koch brothers will essentially modernize the ancient practice of Decimation that the Roman generals used to use on the soldiers to ensure that they goose-step obediently.

...and that is bullsh^t. How would you like to work for a company who did this same thing to try to get you to vote for Obama instead?

Here's a link so you can see how the Koch-whores are intimidating their employees.

globalgrind.com...

Now...that being said...maybe we should really, really look at getting ALL SPECIAL INTERESTS out of the business of voter influence...whether that is a union, corporation, church, Israel, defense contractor...whatever. Let's get the money, threats, and propaganda, and cronyism out of politics ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BOARD.

This idea that groups of people are the same as individuals is NONSENSE. The Constitution affords PEOPLE inalienable rights...NOT GROUPS OF PEOPLE. The Kochs should be permitted to go out and speak loudly and clearly that they favor Romney and feel he would be best for business...however implying or outright threatening people's livlihood's for not marching in goose-step or sending special communications out to their employees trying to sway their opinion is not only WRONG...it's downright subversive.

Originally posted by LeoStarchild

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by LeoStarchild

 

Um no, Obama was not born into extreme wealth. He was born and raised middle class. He actually had multiple real jobs and had to take out loans to go to college. Obama still doesn't have enough money to be an elite. He's worth like what? 12 million.

Pleasee tell me how many of the actual elites started out as community organizers in the most ghetto-ist parts of Chicago.

Answer; none. They are usually born rich and go onto big money jobs out of college...

edit on 18-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

my point was obama has his hand held.. and was give the presidency based on nothing. Why you guys refuse to acknowledge this is beyond me. Zero experience..No real world skills. Romney was right about the 47%, except i loo at it as 47% of uneducated, jealous lapdogs.

Regarding that "47%"...you do know that Romney's Mommy and Daddy were welfare queens and attributed their later success in business and politics to government handouts...right? Don't take my word for it...take Lenore Romney's word for it.


Oh...by the way. You probably want to go ahead and click on these two images.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Namely...the position of authority which the company has over an individuals livelihood.

I still have yet to see how the company controls how an employee votes.

The secret ballot is used to prevent this very thing from happening.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Now, what would happen if I were to approach that same neighbor about his lawn and I were to say "You know, if your lawn doesn't get mowed - bad things might happen to you. I am not telling you to mow your lawn. I am just stating, in general, that a bad thing could happen..."

I would likely find myself in jail, with terroristic threat charges pending.

The RNC is actively engaging in large scale terroristic threat.

Heff-
You are absolutely correct. Legally speaking the according to the bill "107th Congress. 2001. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Session 1, H.R. 3162", an Act of Terror is defined as being an act which meets any ONE of the following conditions or characteristics;
• to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
• to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
• to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, etc.
• involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state
• occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

Businesses fear-mongering about lay-offs if their preferred candidate isn't elected meets 4 out of 5 of these conditions.

Case closed. Period.

Let the water-boarding begin.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Namely...the position of authority which the company has over an individuals livelihood.

I still have yet to see how the company controls how an employee votes.

The secret ballot is used to prevent this very thing from happening.

Yeah...it doesn't matter. Let's say you vote for Romney and work for the Koch brothers...but Obama is elected. The Koch brothers lay-off a bunch of workers whether or not their business is REALLY hurt by it or not. Even though you voted for Romney...you MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE LAID OFF.

The message? "If the Democrats win next time we will randomly punish the employees".

This practice is known as "decimation". In ancient Rome if a general felt as though the soldiers had retreated too quickly from battle, they would just up and execute 1:10 of the troops. They felt that this specific ratio was enough to make EVERYONE more than fearful of disobedience...but ALSO ensured that the soldiers pressured ONE ANOTHER into obedience as well. If the guy next to you turned to run...you might actually be better off KILLING HIM YOURSELF than risking decimation. Likewise the 1:10 ratio worked for the Romans because the casualties were still light enough that they could continue operating as a fighting force.

Now...the Koch-whore's didn't come out and say it would be precisely 1:10...but I am SURE that they have THEIR "perfect ratio" all worked out for how many sacrificial lambs they can lead to slaughter whilst not seriously impacting their own interests.

The difference is that it's inappropriate for a party who has the ability to fire you to come out and threaten layoffs so blatantly.

Again...you would be whining like a little girl if your company was attempting to sway your vote to Obama in that manner.

What's wrong with just playing fair? Is the Right-Wing/GOP really so weak, broken, and inept that they have to resort to this sort of petty behavior to stand a chance against OBAMA of all people? It's not like he's done a really superb job the last four years or anything.

Perhaps the GOP is even weaker and more incompetent than I had thought.

What's the big deal? Its called having a discussion... Is Romney encouraging these people to fire employees who don't vote for Romney in a confidential election? NO! Is he speaking to a union boss (Trumka) who threatens his members or the DNC www.huffingtonpost.com... No

And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.”

Every hear Obama the community organizer speak to and coach a crowd. Plenty of corporate leaders have been speaking up lately regarding this election. Steve Wynn made a great statement the other day.

The OP makes it sound like his campaign is paying SEIU members to protest rallies and influence voters.... That never happens

reply to post by milominderbinder

I don't know what I can add to the general discussion. Both sides have made their arguments, and I've chosen the one most seemingly reasonable to me. But I would like to express my confusion about your post. Unless I'm misreading it, you can't possibly be correct.

an Act of Terror is defined as being an act which meets any ONE of the following conditions or characteristics;
• to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
• to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
• to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, etc.
• involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state
• occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

It seems you're saying that acts which "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." are terrorist acts. Using the bathroom meets that criterion and you claim that an act which does meet ONE criterion is an act of terror.

Next, consider the criterion of "dangerous to human life." Are you saying that drunk driving is a terrorist act?

Businesses fear-mongering about lay-offs if their preferred candidate isn't elected meets 4 out of 5 of these conditions.

I certainly can't agree with you there. nor do I think that you really believe it either, but the purpose of my post was to try to clarify your statement about any act meeting ONE of the criteria.

With respect,
Charles1952

Excellent news. Wish every employees took the advice and listened to their employers. Folks can definitely use some education on Voting ...especially after the last 4 years