• 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!

Romney re-enters GOP fray

Romney will not be running for the presidency again, period - he has given much of his life to public service one way or another and a significant amount of his personal wealth. He will spend time with his ailing wife and his extended family and comment on national events as seem fit going forward.
 
Mitt lost because people don't care what he has to say...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Romney was pretty adamant that he was not going to run again. I, for one, don't look for him to go back on that declaration.

Anyway, he's too old now.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but if you think Romney's too old, you must think the tandem of Hillary and Bill Clinton is ancient.
 
ChezC3 said:
Mitt lost because people don't care what he has to say...
Click to expand...

Romney lost because the majority of Americans who voted doubled down on their stupid bet in 2008. People hate to admit their mistakes and they held out hope that a second term couldn't possibly be worse than the first. That's why Vegas loves fools who gamble.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree, but if you think Romney's too old, you must think the tandem of Hillary and Bill Clinton is ancient.
Click to expand...

I do, actually. If you were interviewing job applicants, would you think any one of them was the best candidate? There comes a time to retire. McCain was another one who simply was too old to be electable. He might have made a good candidate back in 2000, but certainly not in '08.

The presidency is a high stress job requiring more energy than the typical septuagenarian has, and it lasts for as long as 8 years. We need to ask ourselves which candidates are actually up to the job.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I do, actually. If you were interviewing job applicants, would you think any one of them was the best candidate? There comes a time to retire. McCain was another one who simply was too old to be electable. He might have made a good candidate back in 2000, but certainly not in '08.

The presidency is a high stress job requiring more energy than the typical septuagenarian has, and it lasts for as long as 8 years. We need to ask ourselves which candidates are actually up to the job.
Click to expand...

I would note, however, that listening to President Bush's cardiologist last night discussing the heart procedure GW had this week, I was suprised that the doctor indicated that stress in the Presidency wasn't so much a contributing factor because most people in high profile, powerful jobs absolutely love their job and suffer less from stress than the guy working at Walmart with no power, no say in his working conditions, and a boss he hates. It kind of rings true to me - I've often felt the more power I have in a situation, the less stress I feel.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
How many times did Nader run again?
Click to expand...


The big difference would be that Nader wasn't a major party candidate any of those times. Lyndon LaRouche ran on a Socialist ticket 5 or 6 times in a row.
 
head of joaquin said:
It is a foregone conclusion that the GOP will nominate somebody who is even more unelectable than Romney by diving into even deeper extremist waters. It will be Palin or Santorum or Issa, some freakishly unelectable creature. Once you turn the rightwing noise machine on, you can't turn it off.
Click to expand...

No it won't. There will be a serious candidate in 2016. More than one, actually. The only serious candidate from the GOP that ran in 2012 was Romney. All he had to do was bide his time as one crackpot after another fizzled out.
 
rocket88 said:
Romney re-enters GOP fray - First Read

Mitt 2016?
Click to expand...

let's hope ... I wonder what the percentage it would be next time ... 46%? 50%? Also, hopefully by then he will have learned that Iran and Syria don't share a border and that Iran doesn't need to go thru Syria to have access to a body of water ... it has its own (dah) ...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Romney lost because the majority of Americans who voted doubled down on their stupid bet in 2008. People hate to admit their mistakes and they held out hope that a second term couldn't possibly be worse than the first. That's why Vegas loves fools who gamble.
Click to expand...

The people, well the middle voted for Obama because Obama's worst was the same as what Romney offered. They seen this combined with the real and present danger of austerity and this coming from a man who made hundreds of millions off of killing US jobs. Jobs that people need.

Plus, while I like to think of myself as a delicate genius at times, I know that I'm not the only one who seen that the Establishment fix was in for Romney in 08 by his abrupt departure from the GOP primary. People are really getting tired of the Establishment.

But simply put, they didn't care what he had to say, why? Because it was the same old song.


(and as a Horse Player, I'm no fool...) ;)
 
ChezC3 said:
The people, well the middle voted for Obama because Obama's worst was the same as what Romney offered. They seen this combined with the real and present danger of austerity and this coming from a man who made hundreds of millions off of killing US jobs. Jobs that people need.

Plus, while I like to think of myself as a delicate genius at times, I know that I'm not the only one who seen that the Establishment fix was in for Romney in 08 by his abrupt departure from the GOP primary. People are really getting tired of the Establishment.

But simply put, they didn't care what he had to say, why? Because it was the same old song.


(and as a Horse Player, I'm no fool...) ;)
Click to expand...

Well, your irrationality is just as plausible as any other irrationality for why Obama was reelected. There's a reason for the longevity of the old saying - fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, your irrationality is just as plausible as any other irrationality for why Obama was reelected. There's a reason for the longevity of the old saying - fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.
Click to expand...

I suppose I'm not inclined to have a Canadian call my fellow countrymen dumb asses. I'm not saying they aren't, but you know, it's a private affair...:2razz:
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
I suppose I'm not inclined to have a Canadian call my fellow countrymen dumb asses. I'm not say they aren't, but you know, it's a private affair...:2razz:
Click to expand...

LOL - fair enough - just remember, what happens in America affects the entire world and all our economies. To use your horseplayer analogy, if your horse pulls up, just make sure he doesn't interfere with any of the other horses in the race.
 
rocket88 said:
No it won't. There will be a serious candidate in 2016. More than one, actually. The only serious candidate from the GOP that ran in 2012 was Romney. All he had to do was bide his time as one crackpot after another fizzled out.
Click to expand...

Romney's running mate remains very attractive.
 
rocket88 said:
No it won't. There will be a serious candidate in 2016. More than one, actually. The only serious candidate from the GOP that ran in 2012 was Romney. All he had to do was bide his time as one crackpot after another fizzled out.
Click to expand...

He had to act like a crackpot to get the nomination. Hence he lost the election. Next time they will cut out the middle man and just nominate a crackpot.
 
Fiddytree said:
We could be a bit more honest and acknowledge that you would be just as furious over moderate- Bain Capital Romney (who was not with the Tea Party), as you would with the Romney who had passing Tea Party support.

Palin doesn't have the institutional backing to pass through the hurdles. She knew this. You're blowing hot air.
Click to expand...

I know you'd like to think that, but that's another reason the GOP is doomed. It sees enemies everywhere and thinks reasoned argument is somehow passé due the impending communist threat or something. Totally delusional of course. Another reason it's doomed and will nominate a freak like Palin.

Republicans now believe their own propaganda, which is usually the beginning of the end for a party.
 
head of joaquin said:
I think you've missed the joke, but if you're taking the 47% as Romney originally used it (missing the joke), then there is no chance of that happening because despite tea party obstructionism the economy is recovering. Though I'm sure that grieves you no end.
Click to expand...

I don't think being dependent on the FedGov is a joke because that means you're dependent on me. And since I carry a larger and larger burden with each passing day, I can't continue to support more and more of you.

Sorry but, those are the facts of life.
 
ROMNEY 2016!
Last time he lost because he had the wrong VP. This time he should run with Palin to help compensate for his lack of foreign policy credentials.
 
Not only would it be a mistake for him to run again, it would be a massive mistake for the GOP to even consider allowing him to do so. Mitt lost in 2012 at least in part because the Conservative/Tea Party sector of the party told the GOP that they are no longer interested in Democrat-Lite candidates, just as we had done with their candidate, Mr. McCain in 2008. If the GOP cannot get it through their heads at this point that a large portion of their voting block is NOT going to support another Moderate/Centrist/Democrat-Lite candidate then their party deserves to lose all credibility and capability to win an election.
 
rocket88 said:
The big difference would be that Nader wasn't a major party candidate any of those times. Lyndon LaRouche ran on a Socialist ticket 5 or 6 times in a row.
Click to expand...

It was meant for a joke more than anything...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom