Support NeoGAF

[NathanMcMahon]

The Republican party is shortsighted with a lot of things, most notably Latino immigration. 30 years from now, if they havent changed their tune, they will be a minority party that is only successful in certain districts and states.

We can only hope.

 

[pompidu]

That Paulson dickface mentions that him and his billionaire compatriots pay 40% of the taxes that support NY. Is he so oblivious to think that if he didn't hoard the vast amounts of wealth he does, that the 40% would still be paid in taxes, but spread out across thousands of workers paying in their share from that large pool of wealth? What the fuck seriously. How do these super wealthy assholes believe this shit? They have deluded themselves into believing that they, and only their kind, are capable of managing wealth and they have some kind of duty to hoard it.

If you want to hoard the pie, prepare to pay a big fucking chunk of it in taxes.

Guy is insane, the middle class pays the majority of taxes. If this guy doesn't believe that he needs to re educate himself. He sounds sour that people have woken up and the threat is real.

 

[Wazzim]

Guy is insane, the middle class pays the majority of taxes. If this guy doesn't believe that he needs to re educate himself. He sounds sour that people have woken up and the threat is real.

He is educated enough, they all are. It's just a little game to keep the people believing in the rich.

 

[diddles]

have you guys heard about this?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, it’s been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion.

Yes, that’s right: while Warren Buffett complains that the rich aren’t paying their fair share his own company has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying a larger share.

yeah, buffet, everyone's hero who "wants to pay more taxes" is fighting to not pay taxes, and costing the government even more money going after him. he's a lying aristocratic hypocrite. all these protesters should be focusing on him as much as anyone.

 

[DarkKyo]

It bugs me that the corporate media is still saying "what the protesters want is so unclear, so undefined-- they don't have a cogent message"

WTF? Maybe that was the case in the first week or so but I'm pretty sure if the media wanted to find out what the protesters stand for they can maybe walk down to the protest and read the hundreds of signs everywhere. You know, do some actual, factual reporting.

 

[alstein]

have you guys heard about this?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520



yeah, buffet, everyone's hero who "wants to pay more taxes" is fighting to not pay taxes, and costing the government even more money going after him. he's a lying aristocratic hypocrite. all these protesters should be focusing on him as much as anyone.

A man being a douchebag hypocrite doesn't mean that his ideas are all bad.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

have you guys heard about this?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520



yeah, buffet, everyone's hero who "wants to pay more taxes" is fighting to not pay taxes, and costing the government even more money going after him. he's a lying aristocratic hypocrite. all these protesters should be focusing on him as much as anyone.

They are. This is about all of the rich douchebags and their enablers in the political fold.

 

[Chichikov]

have you guys heard about this?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520



yeah, buffet, everyone's hero who "wants to pay more taxes" is fighting to not pay taxes, and costing the government even more money going after him. he's a lying aristocratic hypocrite. all these protesters should be focusing on him as much as anyone.

What do you mean target him?
He's targeted as much as other rich people, I mean, I have not seen all that many "Tax The Rich (except Buffett)" signs.

Also, if Buffett, a billionaire, doesn't pay his fair share in taxes, that only further proves the point that the Occupy protesters are trying make.

 

[Ether_Snake]

It bugs me that the corporate media is still saying "what the protesters want is so unclear, so undefined-- they don't have a cogent message"

WTF? Maybe that was the case in the first week or so but I'm pretty sure if the media wanted to find out what the protesters stand for they can maybe walk down to the protest and read the hundreds of signs everywhere. You know, do some actual, factual reporting.

That's a trick. The media and their backers want to divide the movement and undermine it. So they want people to attack, a message to attack, etc., and meanwhile dismiss the thing as not making sense.

Pretty typical really. This is seen as being "youth-driven" and young people have no brains!

 

[Slavik81]

That Paulson dickface mentions that him and his billionaire compatriots pay 40% of the taxes that support NY. Is he so oblivious to think that if he didn't hoard the vast amounts of wealth he does, that the 40% would still be paid in taxes, but spread out across thousands of workers paying in their share from that large pool of wealth? What the fuck seriously. How do these super wealthy assholes believe this shit? They have deluded themselves into believing that they, and only their kind, are capable of managing wealth and they have some kind of duty to hoard it.

If you want to hoard the pie, prepare to pay a big fucking chunk of it in taxes.

Well, only if the tax rates on those millions of Americans also increased. You're forgetting that tax rates are generally progressive.

 

[Wazzim]

That's a trick. The media and their backers want to divide the movement and undermine it. So they want people to attack, a message to attack, etc., and meanwhile dismiss the thing as not making sense.

Pretty typical really. This is seen as being "youth-driven" and young people have no brains!

Even Dutch news channels concluded that there is no main point AFTER stating that they are against the greed in the financial sector. It was weird because the rest of the report was pretty objective.

 

[ronito]

so next week is the real test of this.
sure they've finally grown out of a silly anonymous protest to an actual movement with lots of attention. If next week the numbers start shrinking then it'll just be labeled as a fad and will continue to shrink to (further) irrelevance. In this week they should be focused on establishing a set of agreed upon realistic demands (IE: reinstate Glass-stegal, end corporate personhood, a cease to cuts to social programs) if they don't people will get disillusioned and the "movement" will slow to a crawl.

 

[jamesinclair]

It bugs me that the corporate media is still saying "what the protesters want is so unclear, so undefined-- they don't have a cogent message"

WTF? Maybe that was the case in the first week or so but I'm pretty sure if the media wanted to find out what the protesters stand for they can maybe walk down to the protest and read the hundreds of signs everywhere. You know, do some actual, factual reporting.

The media gains nothing by promoting this.

The Tea Party/ Sure, it means elss corporate taxes = more money for big media.

OWS? Nope, nothing for them.

 

[Riposte]

Is it safe to say that OWS was inspired to action by the Arab Spring?

 

[S1lent]

Is it safe to say that OWS was inspired to action by the Arab Spring?

Yes, that has been explicitly stated.

 

[markot]

That's a trick. The media and their backers want to divide the movement and undermine it. So they want people to attack, a message to attack, etc., and meanwhile dismiss the thing as not making sense.

Pretty typical really. This is seen as being "youth-driven" and young people have no brains!

Shhhh, the media isnt biased!

 

[Ether_Snake]

so next week is the real test of this.
sure they've finally grown out of a silly anonymous protest to an actual movement with lots of attention. If next week the numbers start shrinking then it'll just be labeled as a fad and will continue to shrink to (further) irrelevance. In this week they should be focused on establishing a set of agreed upon realistic demands (IE: reinstate Glass-stegal, end corporate personhood, a cease to cuts to social programs) if they don't people will get disillusioned and the "movement" will slow to a crawl.

Says the armchair analyst.

The relevance of the movement is not dependent on your feelings. Considering it has gone global, you better not limit your head-counting to New York.

As I've said before, the middle class of the world is afflicted by the same problems, and solutions will come globally. It's not going to be a list of demands. That's not the point. Don't try to undermine the lasting impact of the protests. It will still be going on months from now in one form or another.

 

[Fuzzery]

have you guys heard about this?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520



yeah, buffet, everyone's hero who "wants to pay more taxes" is fighting to not pay taxes, and costing the government even more money going after him. he's a lying aristocratic hypocrite. all these protesters should be focusing on him as much as anyone.

There's still a big difference between the company that he founded, and him himself. He doesn't even own a majority share in Berkshire, I think. It's like blaming bill gates if microsoft isn't paying all its taxes. But that being said, they should pay up

 

[markot]

There's still a big difference between the company that he founded, and him himself. He doesn't even own a majority share in Berkshire, I think. It's like blaming bill gates if microsoft isn't paying all its taxes. But that being said, they should pay up

Are you saying a conservative news source is twisting things to suit its agenda? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?!

 

[empty vessel]

There's still a big difference between the company that he founded, and him himself. He doesn't even own a majority share in Berkshire, I think. It's like blaming bill gates if microsoft isn't paying all its taxes. But that being said, they should pay up

This is true, and beyond that, while I have no desire to defend Buffet (and am not defending him), his point has always been that we should force him (and his class) to pay more taxes. He has always been free to pay more than he owes, and he has never suggested he has done so or will do so. He will pay the taxes he legally owes, and it's our job to determine what that is. And it's also our job to reassert control over corporate behavior.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

This is true, and beyond that, while I have no desire to defend Buffet (and am not defending him), his point has always been that we should force him (and his class) to pay more taxes. He has always been free to pay more than he owes, and he has never suggested he has done so or will do so. He will pay the taxes he legally owes, and it's our job to determine what that is. And it's also our job to reassert control over corporate behavior.

Well said as usual.

 

[pompidu]

There's still a big difference between the company that he founded, and him himself. He doesn't even own a majority share in Berkshire, I think. It's like blaming bill gates if microsoft isn't paying all its taxes. But that being said, they should pay up

Berkshire shares are like 100,000$ a share. It is an elitist company and buffet himself has stated that he and his company do not pay their fair share of taxes. His empire is vast and very tangled in politicians.

At least this man admits it. The cowards are hiding. Buffet is part of the problem and he doesn't care. He came out and said we are Fucking you. Thats a pretty big sign when one of the richest men says he pays little in taxes and says fix it or we will continue to game the system.

 

[Ether_Snake]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Occup...tml?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

The Occupy Wall Street movement has close to $300,000, as well as storage space loaded with donated supplies in lower Manhattan. It stared down city officials to hang on to its makeshift headquarters, showed its muscle Saturday with a big Times Square demonstration and found legions of activists demonstrating in solidarity across the country and around the world.

Some U.S. protesters, like those in Europe, have their own causes. Unions that have joined forces with the movement have demands of their own, and on Sunday members of the newly formed Occupy Pittsburgh group demanded that Bank of New York Mellon Corp. pay back money they allege it overcharged public pension funds around the country.

New York's attorney general and New York City sued BNY Mellon this month, accusing it of defrauding clients in foreign currency exchange transactions that generated nearly $2 billion over 10 years. The company has vowed to fight the lawsuit and had no comment about the protesters' allegation about pensions.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The President never would have said this without OWS:



http://www.businessinsider.com/whit...a-is-fighting-for-interests-of-the-99-2011-10

OWS has completely changed the conversation in American politics. That, in and of itself, is a HUGE victory.

It hasn't changed anything. Obama has been running more towards populism ever since the deficit issue went out the window. So these politics have been going on for a couple months with the jobs bill, the millionaire's surtax, etc.

At the end of the day it's just politics, and if Obama gets re-elected we'll see no progress on any of these issues.

 

[empty vessel]

It hasn't changed anything. Obama has been running more towards populism ever since the deficit issue went out the window. So these politics have been going on for a couple months with the jobs bill, the millionaire's surtax, etc.

At the end of the day it's just politics, and if Obama gets re-elected we'll see no progress on any of these issues.

Not necessarily. What Obama does (if he is reelected) will depend on the political environment while he is in office. Same with the rest of Congress. If popular discontent continues and grows, there will be a point that popularly elected representatives (including the president) will have to respond with substantive policy.

However, I disagree with you that OWS has not already had success. It is not enough success, to be sure, but it has helped changed the terms of the debate and that's not nothing.

 

[XMonkey]

At the end of the day it's just politics, and if Obama gets re-elected we'll see no progress on any of these issues.

I'd ask you where you get your crystal ball, but then I remembered it hasn't been very trustworthy anyways.

 

[Jenga]

I think even the most cynical observer can admit OWS has had an effect on general politics. The real question is how big and for how long?

 

[Myansie]

Er, that reads like any other political speak ever. OWS sympathizers are generally leftist and a huge part of the voting block for someone like Obama. He's not going to come out and say "fuck off, this shit is dumb, I'm rich, bitch".

True, but he could say nothing at all. A month a go that seemed the likely response. Personally, I'm blown away by how successful the movement has been thus far. When the collapse first happened in 2008 I did a heap of reading. I was shocked, but I presumed the government would do a heap of reform and things would be fixed. In the last month, thanks to the movement, I've started researching again and been absolutely shocked by how little has been done to rectify and prevent the problems caused by the GFC. More than that, I never realised just how bad the income disparity has become. I'm not the only one who's turned around and had a good look at what's happened, there are heaps of people just on this forum who have done the same.

People are educating themselves thanks to the movement and that is scary to Wall St.

 

[Taiser]

this Is a real grassroots movement ... unlike that astroturfed teabagger shitfest backed and coordinated by Fox News and the billionaire Koch Brothers.

but, if you think that corporate America is just gonna roll over because of these softball 'kumbajah' protest... then you just fuckin' kidding yourself.
Unless each one of those fuckers responsible has hundreds of thousands of people with torches, chainsaws, pitchforks and mobile guillotines standing on their trimmed front lawn, they ain't gonna take you seriously.

 

[Piecake]

True, but he could say nothing at all. A month a go that seemed the likely response. Personally, I'm blown away by how successful the movement has been thus far. When the collapse first happened in 2008 I did a heap of reading. I was shocked, but I presumed the government would do a heap of reform and things would be fixed. In the last month, thanks to the movement, I've started researching again and been absolutely shocked by how little has been done to rectify and prevent the problems caused by the GFC. More than that, I never realised just how bad the income disparity has become. I'm not the only one who's turned around and had a good look at what's happened, there are heaps of people just on this forum who have done the same.

People are educating themselves thanks to the movement and that is scary to Wall St.

Well, the Volcher rule should help since that definitely has the most important part of Glass-Steagall in it

 

[NathanMcMahon]

this Is a real grassroots movement ... unlike that astroturfed teabagger shitfest backed and coordinated by Fox News and the billionaire Koch Brothers.

but, if you think that corporate America is just gonna roll over because of these softball 'kumbajah' protest... then you just fuckin' kidding yourself.
Unless each one of those fuckers responsible has hundreds of thousands of people with torches, chainsaws, pitchforks and mobile guillotines standing on their trimmed front lawn, they ain't gonna take you seriously.

Who's to say it won't get to that point?

 

[Frank the Great]

this movement needs to translate into an electoral movement, the same way the tea party did. they need to start demanding that politicians stand up to the 1%, and threaten to replace those that don't. occupying won't do shit in the long run unless they can coordinate to influence the election.

i think some political leaders of the movement will have to emerge for this to happen. still got plenty of time til next november fortunately.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

this movement needs to translate into an electoral movement, the same way the tea party did. they need to start demanding that politicians stand up to the 1%, and threaten to replace those that don't. occupying won't do shit in the long run unless they can coordinate to influence the election.

i think some political leaders of the movement will have to emerge for this to happen. still got plenty of time til next november fortunately.

Elizabeth Warren is an obvious choice.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Not necessarily. What Obama does (if he is reelected) will depend on the political environment while he is in office. Same with the rest of Congress. If popular discontent continues and grows, there will be a point that popularly elected representatives (including the president) will have to respond with substantive policy.

However, I disagree with you that OWS has not already had success. It is not enough success, to be sure, but it has helped changed the terms of the debate and that's not nothing.

The political environment was perfect for Wall Street reform in Jan 09 and nothing happened; and while Dodd-Frank has some good provisions, it did not fully address the problem by any stretch of the imagination. I can't fault Obama 100% because there are more than enough corporatist democrats in the house and senate to scuttle any real reform, but after 3 years of this I can't honestly say he truly believes in his own populist rhetoric.

If there were 60 Elizabeth Warrens or Al Frankens in the senate I'd be far more optimistic, but right now the deck is stacked against real change.

 

[Slayven]

I think even the most cynical observer can admit OWS has had an effect on general politics. The real question is how big and for how long?

I would say right around time the cold sets in.

 

[Myansie]

Well, the Volcher rule should help since that definitely has the most important part of Glass-Steagall in it

Yeah, I just read about that this morning. It's a nice step forward, but it struck me a bit like trying to prevent piracy with drm. Wall St are just going to work out a way around it or move to another bubble. They still own the judicial system and the cabinet. That's where the real problem is. Still, it is a positive and nice to see happen.

 

[Door2Dawn]

I would say right around time the cold sets in.

Go home and be with their families in the winter, and then come back in the spring!

 

[empty vessel]

The political environment was perfect for Wall Street reform in Jan 09 and nothing happened; and while Dodd-Frank has some good provisions, it did not fully address the problem by any stretch of the imagination. I can't fault Obama 100% because there are more than enough corporatist democrats in the house and senate to scuttle any real reform, but after 3 years of this I can't honestly say he truly believes in his own populist rhetoric.

I disagree with this. The political environment was terrible for Wall Street reform in January of 2009. Why would anybody have enacted it without any popular demand for it? The Democrats--who at least until now receive more funding from Wall Street interests than Republicans--had no reason to to do so absent public demand.

If there were 60 Elizabeth Warrens or Al Frankens in the senate I'd be far more optimistic, but right now the deck is stacked against real change.

It doesn't matter much who is in the Senate. What matters is what is happening outside of it.

 

[Karma Kramer]

The political environment was perfect for Wall Street reform in Jan 09 and nothing happened; and while Dodd-Frank has some good provisions, it did not fully address the problem by any stretch of the imagination. I can't fault Obama 100% because there are more than enough corporatist democrats in the house and senate to scuttle any real reform, but after 3 years of this I can't honestly say he truly believes in his own populist rhetoric.

If there were 60 Elizabeth Warrens or Al Frankens in the senate I'd be far more optimistic, but right now the deck is stacked against real change.

I agree with this, anyone who thinks reform is gonna happen overnight is kidding themselves.

Occupy brings awareness to our problems, it makes those that have noticed income inequality and financial/electoral corruption not feel alone anymore... but a lot more will need to be done to maintain its momentum for real reform.

 

[akira28]

It hasn't changed anything. Obama has been running more towards populism ever since the deficit issue went out the window. So these politics have been going on for a couple months with the jobs bill, the millionaire's surtax, etc.

At the end of the day it's just politics, and if Obama gets re-elected we'll see no progress on any of these issues.

I think you're wrong about them not going after President Obama. He hasn't put us in a good position at all, particularly when it comes to challenging the established order. He's been polite, but not welcoming. Contrast that with Wall Street, and it pains me to say that. His people know all about bread, butter, and electoral votes. And they play odds and averages, so the first black President can have all the flavor of a McDonald's cheeseburger. He said people have to "make him do it". And this looks to be the only way, because he's not going to outrun Congress, and he's not going to materialize votes. We have to be "the anger of the people", to show our displeasure via things like OWS, to force him to act with his Executive pen, but first we have to have demands and lawsuits and people telling Congress to "take action or else".

The people out there, many of them did support the President, but he needs to see some displeasure too, maybe just a form of tough love.

 

[Clevinger]

It doesn't matter much who is in the Senate. What matters is what is happening outside of it.

Well, I'd say both matter greatly.

The political environment was perfect for Wall Street reform in Jan 09 and nothing happened; and while Dodd-Frank has some good provisions, it did not fully address the problem by any stretch of the imagination.

You just contradicted yourself in your first sentence. Something happened. It wasn't enough, but it was improved. And more can and will happen in the future if this movement continues. I'd imagine a lot more would have been done in 09 had these protests been around, but instead the Tea Party successfully shifted the debate of the country. We have to continue to push back and change the debate.

 

[Bloodbeard]

I've been thinking about how I'll vote in 2012 and I'd rather have Obama than any of the GOP candidates, but neither of those choices really represent me. I'm thinking about writing in "OWS".

 

[jamesinclair]

I've been thinking about how I'll vote in 2012 and I'd rather have Obama than any of the GOP candidates, but neither of those chooses really represent me. I'm thinking about writing in "OWS".

Ive been saying it all year, there has never been a better chance for a 3rd party, or a group of independents to gain lots of power.

I also dont want to vote for Obama, but given the GOP options, there is no rational choice but to vote for him.

I wish there was another viable option. Not a Nader, but a Perot, someone who actually can win.

This goes for all levels of elections.

 

[akira28]

Also, remember how the corporate justifiers were reminding us how companies can prolong their tax debts over years, and its totally legal and kosher? So long as they make an agreement with the IRS, and pay etc etc?

Then some corporate apologist comes in with a hitpiece from NewsMax.com of all places? The place that gets all the exclusives from Southern preachers blaming natural disasters on Hurricanes, or Michele Bachmann's latest revelatory vision? A piece about Buffett's place of business and it's tax debts, which suddenly supports the narrative that he's a hypocrite or an implied tax dodger? There's a tax dispute, they're in court, they're working toward resolution before paying. And none of that has anything to do with the issues at hand. They aren't trying to skip, they aren't hiding money, they just want fair accounting.

The last case was even ruled in Buffett's favor, according to your article, so what is this?

More misdirection and unfair personal attacks from corporate misbehavior apologists. Buffet asks them to fix the system, they tell him to lay down on his sword.

 

[Clevinger]

Ive been saying it all year, there has never been a better chance for a 3rd party, or a group of independents to gain lots of power.

I also dont want to vote for Obama, but given the GOP options, there is no rational choice but to vote for him.

I wish there was another viable option. Not a Nader, but a Perot, someone who actually can win.

This goes for all levels of elections.

That's never going to happen until there's a movement to change election rules and campaign finance from the ground up. Till then, you're just wasting your vote or helping the person least close to your ideals win.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Also, remember how the corporate justifiers were reminding us how companies can prolong their tax debts over years, and its totally legal and kosher? So long as they make an agreement with the IRS, and pay etc etc?

Then some corporate apologist comes in with a hitpiece from NewsMax.com of all places? The place that gets all the exclusives from Southern preachers blaming natural disasters on Hurricanes, or Michele Bachmann's latest revelatory vision? A piece about Buffett's place of business and it's tax debts, which suddenly supports the narrative that he's a hypocrite or an implied tax dodger? There's a tax dispute, they're in court, they're working toward resolution before paying. And none of that has anything to do with the issues at hand. They aren't trying to skip, they aren't hiding money, they just want fair accounting.

The last case was even ruled in Buffett's favor, according to your article, so what is this?

More misdirection and unfair personal attacks from corporate misbehavior apologists. Buffet asks them to fix the system, they tell him to lay down on his sword.

lol. you sound like a corporate apologist.

 

[Lax Mike]

I also dont want to vote for Obama, but given the GOP options, there is no rational choice but to vote for him.

You're not going to change an entire party's platform in one election, and voting for it certainly won't give them any incentive to change, as there will be an "If it ain't broke," mentality, especially if they win. Third parties have historically accomplished more through their mere presence than any election wins. These parties serve no practical role in the big picture other than taking away votes from their larger counterparts. However, in this way they become a major source of motivation for change. If the GOP nominee turns out to be Romney, which is pretty likely, there won't be a major difference between the candidates in the eyes of many voters. In this way, I agree that this is an ideal political climate for a third party to emerge. People on either side of the spectrum will decide that both candidates are taking stances that are too "safe" and thus only giving more of the same. If this does come to pass, it's safe to assume that the losing party will have to reevaluate itself, and when 2016 comes around, we could see some a much different type of candidate than in 2012.

 

[jamesinclair]

You're not going to change an entire party's platform in one election, and voting for it certainly won't give them any incentive to change, as there will be an "If it ain't broke," mentality, especially if they win. Third parties have historically accomplished more through their mere presence than any election wins. These parties serve no practical role in the big picture other than taking away votes from their larger counterparts. However, in this way they become a major source of motivation for change. If the GOP nominee turns out to be Romney, which is pretty likely, there won't be a major difference between the candidates in the eyes of many voters. In this way, I agree that this is an ideal political climate for a third party to emerge. People on either side of the spectrum will decide that both candidates are taking stances that are too "safe" and thus only giving more of the same. If this does come to pass, it's safe to assume that the losing party will have to reevaluate itself, and when 2016 comes around, we could see some a much different type of candidate than in 2012.

Romney vs Obama needs a Cain vs Sanders.

That way, Sanders wins with 27% of the vote.

 

[XMonkey]

I would say right around time the cold sets in.

It's a movement across the country. While it might be freezing on the East coast, here in California our winters are pretty mild. We won't pack up.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Romney vs Obama needs a Cain vs Sanders.

That way, Sanders wins with 27% of the vote.

That sounds pretty damn good to me.