Official: Romney a moron

[Infinity]

If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

[exchlbg]

I can´t believe that the political system coughs up types like this, and that half of the US people really consider voting for them.
Maybe they think: "Hey, he´s even more stupid as I am, and he managed to get rich ! He must be right !" (The other half, as we know now, is  on social welfare and voting for that communist black guy).

[swiftus27]

If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

Bill Clinton left the football in the bathroom (the guy was taking a dump and the president left the event) and went back to the white house.... the poor naval officer was seen running up pennsylvania avenue with briefcase attached to his wrist.  The guards let him in immediately realizing who he was...

TRUE STORY.  

[waplane]

If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

V.S. a president that thinks the U.S. has 57 states? It's a gaffe, they happen. I can bash both sides with equal ferocity when it comes to gaffes and just stupid comments made without thought, gaffes happen on both sides and they don't determine my vote, policy and record does that.  

[JumboShrimp]

If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

I can assure you that Romney is one of the smartest guys ever to run for president.  You don't make it in the world of Private Equity unless you are extremely bright, and among those guys, Romney was one of the best.

His running mate (for VP) is also a very bright guy.  Obama is a bright guy too.  The only one I worry about is our current VP Biden.  So except for Biden, I would not worry about the smarts of the people running.  Their policies may be something else, something to debate.

BTW, I smell a rat with this video.  It was obviously a joke, and the video was cut off just as the audience started to chuckle.

[lunchbox]

I can assure you that Romney is one of the smartest guys ever to run for president.  You don't make it in the world of Private Equity unless you are extremely bright, and among those guys, Romney was one of the best.

His running mate (for VP) is also a very bright guy.  Obama is a bright guy too.  The only one I worry about is our current VP Biden.  So except for Biden, I would not worry about the smarts of the people running.  Their policies may be something else, something to debate.

BTW, I smell a rat with this video.  It was obviously a joke, and the video was cut off just as the audience started to chuckle.

Yeah, I think they kept Biden around for the entertainment value he brings.

LOL

I think he is missing his Brain-to-Mouth filter.  Between the F-bombs, chains, and whatever babble escapes keeps me in stitches

On a more serious note- As of right now, Romney is the best chance we have of salvaging this country, 4 more years of Obama/Biden, and we'll end up with China owning this fine country.

[Infinity]

On a more serious note- As of right now, Romney is the best chance we have of salvaging this country, 4 more years of Obama/Biden, and we'll end up with China owning this fine country.

What a load of crap, sorry. With Romney come the Tea Party idiots, who are just a severe threat to democracy. A group that blows any bipartisanship into the wind just in order to get the president out of office and thus loses the US economy a good share of 4 years is just not what a thinking person should ever consider voting for. They are just dangerous.

BTW, I smell a rat with this video.  It was obviously a joke, and the video was cut off just as the audience started to chuckle.

They chuckled because of his incredible stupidity. I mean, come on, who makes such a joke about his wife being in a dangerous situation when he has been known for making stupid and very ill thought out remarks before.
It it really was a joke it's just as horrible as if it was not. I do PR, his PR guy(s) must have facepalmed badly backstage. He's a publicists worst nightmare. He's giving the competition one open goal after another. Sure, Obama occasionally says things that are not very smart, every president does. And I just can't tell what Biden says as the VP is usually not very present in European media.
But the concentration of insanely dumb remarks from Romney is just worrying, this guy is supposed to do foreign policy for the most powerful nation on this planet, he can't just go around insulting allies and stuff.

I can assure you that Romney is one of the smartest guys ever to run for president.  You don't make it in the world of Private Equity unless you are extremely bright, and among those guys, Romney was one of the best.

Maybe he is smart in a way. We have a good word for that in German which is 'Fachidiot'. I guess the best possible translation is 'nerd', which loses quite a bit of meaning on the way. It means excelling in a certain occupation but utterly failing at basically anything else.
This guy is just that.

[JumboShrimp]

What a load of crap, sorry. With Romney come the Tea Party idiots, who are just a severe threat to democracy. A group that blows any bipartisanship into the wind just in order to get the president out of office and thus loses the US economy a good share of 4 years is just not what a thinking person should ever consider voting for. They are just dangerous.

Tea Party are people who want to restore constitutional republic.  Their polar oppositr are the "progressives" who want to dismantle the constitution, replace the US form of government with something along the lines of European Commission, that you may be familiar with.  Basically, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats holding all the power - with the side effect of elections and "democracy" really becoming meaningless.  Think European Parliament - impotent and irrelevant group of people...

Unless you go out of your way to find things for yourself, let's just say you will very mislead, if you are a passive consumer of the media is serving you.

As far as Romney and the Tea Party, Romney did not get much support from the Tea Party.  The Tea Party spent most of the primary elections trying to figure out how to defeat Romney, and nominate one one of several Tea Party fovored candidates.

They chuckled because of his incredible stupidity. I mean, come on, who makes such a joke about his wife being in a dangerous situation when he has been known for making stupid and very ill thought out remarks before.
It it really was a joke it's just as horrible as if it was not. I do PR, his PR guy(s) must have facepalmed badly backstage. He's a publicists worst nightmare. He's giving the competition one open goal after another. Sure, Obama occasionally says things that are not very smart, every president does.

The difference is what gets reported and what does not.  If you are a passive consumer of the news, what will be served to you is some ad-libbed, impromtu remarks of Romney, selecting the absolute worst quote of the day vs. the best line from Obama teleprompter performance.

The goal of the US media is not to report the news or inform the electorate, but to elect Obama.  European press (mostly) just parrots what they see in the US media.

And I just can't tell what Biden says as the VP is usually not very present in European media.

Proves my point above.

But the concentration of insanely dumb remarks from Romney is just worrying, this guy is supposed to do foreign policy for the most powerful nation on this planet, he can't just go around insulting allies and stuff.

What used to be most powerful nation on this planet is broke, and under Obama, increasingly irrelevant.  Fast forward 4 more years of Obama, and the US foreign policy will be as relevant to the world as the Russia's foreign policy: no one will care.

Maybe he is smart in a way. We have a good word for that in German which is 'Fachidiot'. I guess the best possible translation is 'nerd', which loses quite a bit of meaning on the way. It means excelling in a certain occupation but utterly failing at basically anything else.
This guy is just that.

I think you pretty much nailed Obama.  He is a good performer, can show empathy, can be persuasive, skilled communicator (especially with a teleprompter) but utterly fails as everything else.  Obama is great at running for president, but horrible at the actual job of being president.

Romney is more of a brainiac with management skills, who can deliver tangible results, but he is not that great at connecting with people,  especially those who operate at the lowest common denominator of human intelligence.  And below, if there is such a thing as being below the lowest common denomitator.  Here are some examples:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/24/howard_stern_interviews_obama_supporters_2012.html

It is rare that you get an individual who can excel at both end of the spectrum.

[Infinity]

I am not going to argue, this discussion leads to nothing as both of us seem to be ardent supporters of opposite ends of the spectrum.

However...

Tea Party are people who want to restore constitutional republic.  Their polar oppositr are the "progressives" who want to dismantle the constitution, replace the US form of government with something along the lines of European Commission, that you may be familiar with.  Basically, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats holding all the power - with the side effect of elections and "democracy" really becoming meaningless.  Think European Parliament - impotent and irrelevant group of people...

...I would like to see some proof for your view on the Democrats aims here. You are perfectly right about the EUssr (unfortunately so), but what you just wrote about the Democrats is unheard of - at least across the pond.

[exchlbg]

Being a European, I must admit that I´m hooked to what our media report. I can just state that guys like Bush and Romney simply would have no chance at all being elected in many European countries.
The European commission is not ruling Europe, it can´t decide anything against at least the most powerful members of EU. I believe that thinking is caused by limited and likewise tendencial reporting in America. The influence of European Parliament is small. But that is because most Europeans want to keep their own parliaments strong. It´s purpose is to control the EU commission and it is doing that as intended.
EU consists of 27 sovereign states and can´t in any way be compared with the US.
The US was in debt way before Obama.Besides, the whole world except China and The Emirates is.
Political influence is not only characterized by the number of countries I invade with armed forces.
Watching your video about Obama voters I must say that this is a disgusting example of tendencial political journalism. You could have asked any republican idiot to get comparable results. It´s even less intelligent to use it as an argument for either of the candidates.

[Infinity]

The European commission is not ruling Europe, it can´t decide anything against at least the most powerful members of EU. I believe that thinking is caused by limited and likewise tendencial reporting in America. The influence of European Parliament is small. But that is because most Europeans want to keep their own parliaments strong. It´s purpose is to control the EU commission and it is doing that as intended.

How I wish you were right. However, fact is that Europe is governed by European Central Bank. The current crisis has almost exclusively been caused by a faulty monetary policy and the ECB is continuing to make one faulty decision after another, as is the Federal Reserve.
Even Alan Greenspan has realized by now that his policies have been wrong. It's sad to see them not being rectified by Ben Bernanke, because it would cost the American economy jobs in the short term.
Trouble is, I don't believe Romney has enough backbone to change the FEDs policy, because he too is reliant on a good record, and causing job losses in the first term does not a good record make.

It would be very interesting to see Ron Paul in the White House - and I wouldn't oppose to that (yes, I'm saying that despite my opposition to the Tea Party). I just don't think he could do anything with Congress as it is. That's why Obama failed and that's why every other president will not live up to his potential.

[JumboShrimp]

I am not going to argue, this discussion leads to nothing as both of us seem to be ardent supporters of opposite ends of the spectrum.

However...

...I would like to see some proof for your view on the Democrats aims here. You are perfectly right about the EUssr (unfortunately so), but what you just wrote about the Democrats is unheard of - at least across the pond.

It is generic to "progressives".  There used to be Democrat and Republican "progressives".  But Republicans soured on progressivism, and Democrats embraced it.

Who are the progressives?  People who want to do good things.  They know what good things are.  They know what good things are for themselves, and they know what is good for other people.  They know better what is good for other people than the other people know by themsleves.  Progressives realized there is only so far you can get with persuasion.  They certainly don't want to lead by example, because leading by example puts the burden only on yourself.  So progressives realized that they have to force people to do things that progressives deem to be "good".

How do you force people to do things they don't want to do voluntarily?  Take power from them, accumulate power in your own hands.  So quest for power was just the means to achieve an end (to do "good" things).  But history is full of examples of quest for power degenerating to be not just a tool, but the goal itself.

So that is the theory.  How does it work in practice?  Both in the US and EU?  In the US, the constitution leaves most of the power with the people (and their representatives in House of Representatives), some power with the states (and its representative, the Senate), and the least power with the federal government (president and the executive branch).  For progressives, states are flaky.  You can't chain people to the states.  People can (and do) move from state to state.  Therefore federal govenment is the ideal tool they want to wield their power.  In EU, it is the European Commission.

So basically, if you are a progressive (in 2012 a Democrat), you have to completely subvert the constitution to achieve your goal.  In the US, it involves a 2 step process:
1. take power from the states
2. take power from the people

Step 1: Done
17th amendment to the us constitution (championed by a "progressive" - Woodrow Wilson) took power from the states by changing how Senators from being appointed by states as their representatives to a direct elections for Senate.  The result?  In Washington, states are powerless.

In EU, you start with very strong nation states, each vielding tremendous about of power, and each member having veto power.  I don't follow European politics that closely, but look for the European progressives to try to take as much power away from the member nation states, possibly to remove the veto power, or to reduce areas where single EU member can exercise veto.  That's just a canary in a mine.  When this canary is dead, things will only go downhill.

Incidently the first true progressive, Woodrow Wilson, in addition to taking power from the states, was the first president to oversee implementation of federal taxation and creation of the Federal Reserve.  Meaning taking money from the people by force, and even getting a monopoly over what money is.

Step 2: Taking power from the people
Power is a zero sum game.  When someone gains power there is someome else who loses power.  In 100 years from the first true progressive (Woodrow Wilson) to last (Obama) federal government has amassed a tremendous amount of power.  How do you take it all?  Achieve a total dependency of people on the government.  Obama has done more than any other president to cause dependency and to seduce people into dependency.  Every benchmark of dependency of people on the government has skyrocketed under Obama.

People are being turned into toddlers, totally dependent on their parent (government) for their every need.  What power do toddlers wield?  Other than occasional tamper tantrum - none.

In EU, the dependency on the governments of member countries has always been greater than in the US, but now a new dependency is being created, dependency on the EU government.  And Europeans are a very cheap date, they are easily impressed, and easily seduced.  Europe is now littered by EU projects, big and small.  Bridge here, observation tower there, some refurbishment in another place.  All in very visible places, heavily labeled and advertized as being there only thanks to the EU Commission.  And my impression of a typical European when they see it?  It is that of a toddler who just got a new toy truck or a doll house...

So we go full circle.  
- The US was ruled by a tyrant - King George and an unrepresentative British parlament
- to the point where under the US constiturion, power went to the people
- and back to a tyranical rule of progressive elite, the US constitutoon being nothing more than a worthless piece of paper, the same way the constitution of the Soviet union was.

[Infinity]

And my impression of a typical European when they see it?  It is that of a toddler who just got a new toy truck or a doll house...

Funny, in Germany people are mocking the influence of the EU, because everyone knows that EU funds equal wasted tax payer money. It's just difficult to change anything about that because every single party in the political spectrum is pro EU.

The same applies to the US on a federal level. The Republicans had plenty of chance to change the system back according to their philosophy, yet they didn't.
So who do you vote for? People who actually stand for what they say or spineless opportunists?

Also, it's funny you speak of how taxing the people is stealing from them. How do you explain, then, that the phases in which the US economy grew most where times of high taxes, and that the republican tax cuts led to bubbles and crashes?
You don't need to lock back to the 50s and their 9x% top tax bracket, just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan, then look how Bush I raised taxes and the economy prospered under Clinton (for which he did his part, but it was mainly Bushs merit), and now look how the Bush II tax cuts created a bubble economy and left the entire world in trouble.
If only Bush II had had the wisdom of his father.

[exchlbg]

Those arguments are very entertaining to read, but have nothing to do with reality.I no way the US constitution is at danger. If so, take it to your Supreme Court . I think you also have a strong parliament and strong states, you argue as if the president can change things like a dictator.That´s nonsense and refers to the belief of the poorest in mind. Please don´t argue with us like that. Don´t always compare EU and US , they have nothing in common. You don´t need EU examples for wasted funds, that happens everywhere tax money is spent, even in your country.About veto rights: it was created when EU consisted of 6 states, but keeping that up with 27 is blocking everything.
It´s like the people of Rhode Island would have the right denying everything the rest of the US is planning to do.You would call that democratic?
All that arguing is somehow related to "Freedom". American politic debates always circle around that topic. Republicans always see it at danger.
But what they really mean is mostly freedom of economy, the freedom to get RICH. But don´t forget where this money comes from: from everybody else. They argue: don´t give your money to the state, give it to us, we rich guys know better, every tax dollar is wasted money.
If you believe that, what do you need a  government for? Get away with it and let LEHMAN BROTHERS handle it.
You always fear "socialism." Being a West-Berliner,I happened to observe this kind of economy behind a wall across the street for 28 years and I fear you don´t really know what you are talking about. It´s just a drop-dead argument against people believing in social rights.

[JumboShrimp]

Funny, in Germany people are mocking the influence of the EU, because everyone knows that EU funds equal wasted tax payer money. It's just difficult to change anything about that because every single party in the political spectrum is pro EU.

Maybe Germans are one step ahead of their other European counterparts.  Maybe they realize they are the ones paying the most of the EU waste, and any funds Germany receives from EU is only a fraction of what is sent to Brussels.

As far as all the major parties being pro-EU, well, EU as a common market is a good idea.  European Commission as a "government" of EU is a bad idea.  Maybe it is not easy to distinguesh between the two, and at this point, the EU government has reached escape velocity, and there is no way to stop it, or to reform it for the better.

The same applies to the US on a federal level. The Republicans had plenty of chance to change the system back according to their philosophy, yet they didn't.
So who do you vote for? People who actually stand for what they say or spineless opportunists?

I don't thik a lot of Republican voters were unhappy when Republicans lost Congress in 2006.  That bunch became worthless, only caring about holding power, instead of doing anything constructive.  Republicans certainly needed some time in the wilderness to find themselves, and they did.  Paul Ryan (Romney's pick for VP) has emerged as an intellectual leader of Republicans, Republicans won the House of Representatives in 2010, and they are actually not spineless opprtunists.  

They are willing to address issues facing the US (and just about every country in the West) which is the imminent bankruptcy, as the bills for promises made by the political opportunist of the past come due.

Also, it's funny you speak of how taxing the people is stealing from them. How do you explain, then, that the phases in which the US economy grew most where times of high taxes, and that the republican tax cuts led to bubbles and crashes?

I did not say stealing, I said taking by force.  Not exactly the same thing, but I don't want to get into semantics.

As far as taxing, I really like the way Ron Paul says it.  Spending is the tax.  If the money is spent, it will have to be taxed.  Either immediately, or later, with interest.  So, he tells Republicans, don't talk about cutting taxes, talk about cutting spending.

As far as booms and busts, bubbles and bursting of bubbles, they may or may not have to do anything with taxes.  Unless you are talking a huge change.
- Reagan boom might be partially attributed to change in taxes, but it was a change from a ridiculus 70% marginal tax rate (that most people avoided) to a sane rate in around 30.
- Clinton years boom and bust in the last year of his presidency was in my opinion not caused by his increase of personal taxes or cut of capital gains taxes.  It was technology driven
- Bush II era tax cuts did not exactly start a boom.  They were just a reaction to revive a moribound economy after 2 back to back shocks (Dot.com crash and 9/11).
- The real estate bubble and subsequent crash had nothing to do with Clinton tax increase or Bush reversal of that tax increase in personal taxes

What cuased the real estate bubble has happened during Clinto era, and Republicans (who controlled Congress) and Clinton share the blame almost equally, IMO.  Two things happened:
1. Clinton administration took some banks to court wit a charge: "The deadbeats you are NOT lending money are predominantly racial minorities, and the fact that you are not lending to them is racial discrimination.  Clinton "won".  Banks were forced to make home mortgate loans to deadbeats (as part of the settlement).  The banks then found out that it was not really such a bad thing, because there were idiot investors out there who kept buying these sub-prime mortgages from them...
2. Clinton + Republicans passed a general capital gains tax cut plus a special tax cut on real estate transactions on top of that.  For all practical purposes, real estate gains became tax free.  Unlike any other investment that was taxable.  So a lot of money (including a lot of Greenspan easy money) went into real estate.

Here is how it worked:
Real estate prices were going up for the reasons mentioned.  So you buy a house you can barely afford with no intention of eventually paying it off.  The intention is to hold it for a few years, while the prices went up.  Then you sell it with a gain.  This gain is tax free, up to $500,000 for a couple.  You take your gain, spend some of it, and invest the rest into even a bigger house, that you can afford even less than the first one.  Again, the intention is to just hold it for a while, pay the minimum in payments, and sell it again.

I know people who flipped 2-3 houses.  It is all based on the "greater fool" theory.  You are a fool for buying a house that you can't afford, that is not worth the price you are paying, but you "know" that there will be a greater fool down the road who will buy it from you at even more foolish price.

So the crash was inevitable, regardless of what the personal tax rates were (irrelevant to this cycle) or who the president was at the time...

But you can fool a lot of people by confusing the coincidence, correlation and causation.  Not just the in popular media.  The scientific journals are full of this confusion...

You don't need to lock back to the 50s and their 9x% top tax bracket, just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan, then look how Bush I raised taxes and the economy prospered under Clinton (for which he did his part, but it was mainly Bushs merit), and now look how the Bush II tax cuts created a bubble economy and left the entire world in trouble.
If only Bush II had had the wisdom of his father.

A lot of coincidences, but one factual error:  Economy under Reagan had long, sustained boom, very high economic growth rates, year after year, with no bust following it, just a minor recession during Bush I.  The double dip recession as he entered office was largely due to the intention of the Fed to slay the inflation dragon that has plagued the world for a decade of 70s.  Bundesbank, Bank of England did their part in inflation fighting, causing recession in 81, 82.

You can look up the stats here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

What I find amaszng is not that you said "just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan".  I am sure there was no ill intent on your part.  I am sure you heard from some source you may have thoght was credible.  The part that I find amazing is that how the leftie media re-writes history and the fact that it works.

So what we end up is that the ever shrinking minority of people who still have interest in the real world end up being served altered reality by the media.
The reason I say shrinking minority is because a growing majority of people have absolutely no interest in real the world.  They live in alternate universe of celbrity (sub) culture, gossip, sport fanaticism ...

[exchlbg]

Although not consenting on everything you said, I have to say that this reply of yours is very well argumented. Thank you for lifting the overall level.

[JumboShrimp]

Those arguments are very entertaining to read, but have nothing to do with reality.I no way the US constitution is at danger. If so, take it to your Supreme Court . I think you also have a strong parliament and strong states, you argue as if the president can change things like a dictator.That´s nonsense and refers to the belief of the poorest in mind. Please don´t argue with us like that. Don´t always compare EU and US , they have nothing in common. You don´t need EU examples for wasted funds, that happens everywhere tax money is spent, even in your country.About veto rights: it was created when EU consisted of 6 states, but keeping that up with 27 is blocking everything.
It´s like the people of Rhode Island would have the right denying everything the rest of the US is planning to do.You would call that democratic?

I am not saying that the structure of the EU is ideal.  All I am sying is that the EU bureaucrats have intention of striping member countries of their power, and to concentrate that power in their own hands.  It will not happen overnight, it will happen in small steps, every one of those steps will be very well reasoned.  But in the end, Germans will be electing German parlaments that will be weaker and weaker.  The real power will be in Brussels, and there will be nothing you will be able to do about it.

All that arguing is somehow related to "Freedom". American politic debates always circle around that topic. Republicans always see it at danger.
But what they really mean is mostly freedom of economy, the freedom to get RICH.

The human history is history of tyrany and misery.  I bet you have not experienced either.  The brief period of freedom and prosperity that we we are experiencing is something unique, unusual,  definitely not a norm.  Maybe you should visit a third world country (and I don't mean a resort hotel in one of those countries).

But don´t forget where this money comes from: from everybody else. They argue: don´t give your money to the state, give it to us, we rich guys know better, every tax dollar is wasted money.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say..

If you believe that, what do you need a  government for? Get away with it and let LEHMAN BROTHERS handle it.

Funny that you picked Lehman Brothers - the least dysfunctional episode of the whole saga.  People who invested their money with Lehman did so voluntarily.  They had a choice, nobody forced them to invest with Lehman.  It turns out these people invested poorly.  A lot of them lost money.  People who did not invest with or in Lehman (majority of taxpayers) were not asked to bail out those who did.

Let's see what happened when government did get involved:  People who invested poorly, those who made bad decisions were bailed out by taxpayers.

It seems that you are inadvertently making my point.

You always fear "socialism." Being a West-Berliner,I happened to observe this kind of economy behind a wall across the street for 28 years and I fear you don´t really know what you are talking about.

I have first hand experience from the other side of the wall, the side that you could only see from your window.  I can tell you it was no picnic.  I can tell you that most people living under socialism would much prefer to only observe it from their windows.

[exchlbg]

What do you mean by first-hand experience?
Besides I was not just sitting behind that wall, many times I crossed it and my grandparents lived there.
The history of EU is very complex and depends on the political situation in central Europe after two devastating wars.People were looking for chances to end the constant threat of a new one. I don´t fear that EU soon will overpower our national governments, what really makes it weak is the global economy and debt crisis.

[Infinity]

Sorry, but comparing anything that's happening in the US or even the EU to socialism is just sickening. Moderating and regualting the economy in a fair manner is social, but it's not socialism.
The alternative is a rampage of leeches like Romney, who pay minimum taxes and live on bankrupting companies. That's not what I want.
I actually have a personal experience with Bain Capital, one of the largest companies in my hometown in Germany was one of their targets once. A perfectly healthy company, market leader in Europe, with a lot of patents. What Bain wanted to do was to buy the company, close it down and sell the patents for a profit.
I'm very glad that they failed at gaining a majority stake in the company and had to retreat.

It's beyond me how anyone can trust their country to a person that earned his fortune in such a despicable manner.

[JumboShrimp]

What do you mean by first-hand experience?

I lived first 18 years of my life behind the Iron Curtain.

Besides I was not just sitting behind that wall, many times I crossed it and my grandparents lived there.
The history of EU is very complex and depends on the political situation in central Europe after two devastating wars.People were looking for chances to end the constant threat of a new one. I don´t fear that EU soon will overpower our national governments, what really makes it weak is the global economy and debt crisis.

There is now a famous quote of one of the Obama advisors: "Never let a crises go to waste".  Meaning, the bureaucrats will use the current crises to grab more power.