• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Election 2012 - My rant

Today at work I asked a co-worker why she supports Mitt Romney...she said because he's a Republican. This only justified my belief that political labels only screw up your thinking. I wonder how many people would like Obama if he didn't have the letter (D) next to his name, or how many would like Rick Santorum if he didn't have the letter (R) next to his name. Many Americans vote based on the alphabet, not actual policies supported by his or her candidate.
 
Today at work I asked a co-worker why she supports Mitt Romney...she said because he's a Republican.

When I look at Romney's days in office, I see a liberal. In my opinion he should be running in the Democratic primary if he wants to be president.
 
"A libertarian who doesn't believe in the free movement of labour is no libertarian at all." Dr. Me

Because he is a Libertarian, that doesn't make him a randist. There are many flavors of Libertarianism. They are not all objectivists.
 
I am an independent centrist who has voted Rep, Dem, 3rd Party, Ind, write-in, etc.

Normally, I'd have agreed heavily with your post.

The two-party system limits our options (as so brilliantly was illustrated by former centrist turned leftist Matt Groening during the 96 election when the two aliens took over earth by inhabiting the two presidential candidates, since they had no other option they would be electing the aliens to take over earth). It has created this "us" vs. "them", when in actuality, they both go to Washington, and play the same meaningless games, and perpetuate the same systems which just keep lining their pockets and finding ways to keep themselves in power.

However, this year is different.

One of those candidates I wrote-in was Mitt Romney in 2008. The reason was then, and still stands now. He is simply the best person to lead this country out of the economic doldrums and back to being successful.

Unlike other politicians, Mitt Romney actually gets things done. His business background was a major reason he was successful as Governor of MA. He worked with a heavily liberal legislature, and got them to accomplish things on both sides of the isle.

He cut spending, he cut taxes, he cut the size of the government. Those are extremely hard accomplishments in MA.

He did so while forfeiting his salary. He even fired several overpaid useless executives that had just been using the state year in and year out to live off their legacy. One particular legacy which was being lived off was famed mobster Whitey Bulger's brother Billy, who held the position of President of the State College system. Romney said, that's a redundant position, and unless you can show me how that doesn't double up with the presidents of the individual colleges themselves, then I'm going to eliminate the position. When Bulger responded with his duties, Romney said see yah, and fired him. That takes real guts. Still he got it done.

He also pushed through the healthcare legislation, which made MA have the highest percentage of insured residents of any state in the union, at above 97%, and did so by using a system which encouraged private ownership and personal responsibility for ones own health coverage. This would have saved the taxpayers $300M, if it weren't for manipulations to the programs when he left office by liberal legislators.

He also got the Big Dig done, and went after contractors for faulty work and production delays, suing to recover funds. He restuctured the payment of the Big Dig, which was consistently being increased in projections prior to his being elected. After he got his hands on the project, it got finished in less time than was expected at that point, and for far less amount.

Mitt Romney's leadership abilities are well reknowned.

If you had any large organization that was having problems financially, and was poorly organized, you more than likely would be in the market for a new chief executive to straighten it out. If you scanned the country for the top 20 resumes in that regard, you would likely grab Mitt Romney's.

That was even what he did for a living, as he started the venture capital firm whose job was to go in and restructure companies to get them growing again. For the most part he was overwhelmingly successful, so much to the point that they were able to charge fees far greater than that of their competitors and still were chosen heavily for their expertise.

That was also the case when his former company, Bain Investment, sought after him to take over as CEO, and he turned them around in 1 year.

Then the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee sought him out personally to save their effort, which at the time was underfunded, with corruption charges, and construction delays. He got them straightened out, going on to be the most lucrative of Winter Olympic games by far.

When he came to MA, which had a $2B deficit, he vowed this cooperation across aisles and a businesslike approach to government which would get results. Within 2yrs he had created a $2B surplus. Additionally he passed several key pieces of legislation, that other politicians had only talked about but never gotten anything done about.

Heck, even in his days as a missionary, when he took over leadership the amount of converts they got increased dramatically. Everywhere the guy goes, he creates success.

Such is the case right now. The US is a large organization that has financial problems and a poor leadership structure. We are also in the market currently for a new chief executive.

I would urge every American that wants the US to turn around financially to seriously consider hiring the best candidate for the job.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth...

Mitt Romney has the resume of results.

I promise you, this time it will be different. You will see a results oriented business approach to politics, and you will like the results.
 
When I look at Romney's days in office, I see a liberal. In my opinion he should be running in the Democratic primary if he wants to be president.

What's liberal about cutting spending, cutting taxes, cutting the size of the government?

In fact, I work at one of the state offices at the moment. We are still restructuring and eliminating redundancies in accordance with a executive order which Mitt Romney issued. As a result many departments were combined together into one, or several departments which did similar but different missions would share resources in IT, HR, etc. Thus even after he has left office, his policies are still cutting the size of the government and in turn saving taxpayer money.

People want to look at his healthcare bill as a "liberal", but that defies the facts. He took a system of no plan, and anyone could stiff their bill and leave the taxpayers to cover the tab, which was costing the state $715M and turned it into a system where people were responsible for their own health care coverage, which was scheduled to save the taxpayers $300M of that.

The other thing people push on him is the gay marriage thing. Gay marriage became a thing in MA as the result of a law suit which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned a lower court ruling agaist it. Romney never signed a bill that said gay marriage should be legal. In fact, Mitt Romney lead a charge to have the matter brought before the public as a refferendum, and despite MA being a heavily liberal state, he was only narrowly defeated on that effort. So instead of having the matter erupt to the point where there were riots all across the state over the issue (which was a strong possibility), in response to questions from town clerk what they should do, he said they should honor the decision of the court until a law could be passed against it.

The other ridiculous charge that I've heard lately is that "his advisor" was advocating cap & trade policies, so that shows Romney was pro environmentalism. The truth is Romney had his advisor go look into options to 1) promote economic growth in green sectors, and 2) find ways the state could save money by being more energy efficient. When his advisor took the liberty to go out across the general New England region trying to promote cap & trade deals Romney was against it. In fact MA was the one state that did not sign the cap&trade agreement that he is being acused of promoting. Cap & trade regulations are something Romney has never been for, and they go against the policy of relaxing governmental regulations which Romney espouses.

Mitt Romney was an effective Governor, who got things done. He balanced a budget, cut spending, cut taxes, increased growth, cut the size of the government, and straightened out a major crisis

He was ABSOLUTELY NOT a do-nothing, spend heavy, governmental action cures all liberal.
 
The problem is money.. pure and simple. The amount of money needed to run and run successfully is staggering. Money means influence, which means corruption. That means those with most money run the country and that is exactly what is happening today. Each GOP candidate is either a multi millionaire or has a billionaire suger-daddy... I mean come on..

Now one way of putting a stop to this, is by banning political commercials on TV, banning or extremely limiting the amount corporations and unions can give to political campaigns and banning 3rd party 525s or whatever they are called now days and of course limiting the amount a single person can give to a candidate.

And before you come screaming about free speech.. no one is prohibiting free speech, just where said free speech can be uttered.. You will be kicked out of a library if you talk to loud, so why not this? You cant practice your free speech in restricted areas, so why not this? You can still take out adds in newspapers, radio, movie theatres and of course posters and online. And the "but our country is huge" argument is bull****. Only one that remotely can be a problem for is for President... State and local elections.. PLEASE!

And corporations/unions are not people regardless of what the right wing USC says. They are powerful money machines that can easily influence a candidate or party and that has to be stopped.

On top of that some structural issues in each state has to be addressed... gerrymandering districts has to be stopped. A totally independent system has to be put in place where districts are not made because of political, social, racial or religious reasons, but pure based on population. Also how elections are run... there should be no question about validity what so ever... there should be safeguards and checks and balances in place at all times. Maybe you guys should send some people to Denmark on a fact finding mission, since Denmark has had close elections (45ish votes on an island in the Atlantic gave victory to the left a 2 decades ago), but we almost never contest the result because we are sure that it is correct because of our checks and balances.

But all this wont help this time around or the next I suspect...or the next or maybe never...

So you are stuck with rich righting brats who think they are better than everyone else vs neuvo rich left wing brats who think they are better than everyone else... and both are in the pockets of big corporations.
 
Election 2012?

For me here is the deal. It's not Republican vs. Democrat. It's us (the people) vs. THEM (The Republicrats). Yea, the Republicrats. Their mascot should be a donkey's ass sticking out of an elephant's ass. As long as they keep us all fighting one another they win. But as soon as enough people tell them to **** off (And that means Romney and Santorum, as well as Obama), then we can begin to take our country back. And it won't happen until enough people see through all their bull**** and stop voting for these clowns year after year.

/rant

Discussion? :mrgreen:

The majority of people in this thread seem hell bent of proving you right. lol. Well played.
 
Back
Top Bottom