• 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!

Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

Does it make sense for Romney t run again?


  • Total voters
    96
  • Poll closed .
By all means let's continue to demonize people with assigned catch phrases, code words, and slogans. That way we an be sure that no meaningful discussion will take place that focus on a person's track record, abilities, skill set, and what he or she might be able to do to make things better.

It appears that some are forgetting the ACA and the way it became law, then add to that the multitude of false statements that were made, and that can also be run ad nauseam, if that's the game they want to play! Selective amnesia, I guess, but that hits the voters' wallets, which is usually more important than someone else's thoughts about 47 percenters.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:
 
I've got one name for you: George W. Bush.

You know, the filthy-rich-from-birth son of a president, who never once went outside our nation's borders until he began running for president himself?

Elizabeth Warren may not have direct experience as a CEO or commanding officer or governor, but how about looking at her life and experience instead of relying upon right-wing assumptions?

Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[3][8] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[9][10][11] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[12] When she was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack—which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[13] Eventually, this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears[14] and Elizabeth began working as a waitress at her aunt's restaurant.[12][15]

She became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the title of "Oklahoma's top high-school debater" while competing with debate teams from high schools throughout the state. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16.[13] Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left GWU after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren.[12][16][17]

She moved to Houston with her husband, who was a NASA engineer.[16] There she enrolled in the University of Houston, graduating in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology.[18] For a year, she taught children with disabilities in a public school, based on an "emergency certificate," as she had not taken the education courses required for a regular teaching certificate.[19][20]

Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom.[21][22] After her daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark.[21] She worked as a summer associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with her second child, and began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings.[17][21]

After having two children, Amelia and Alexander, she and Jim Warren divorced in 1978.[13][23] In 1980, Warren married Bruce Mann, a Harvard law professor, but retained the surname, Warren.[23]

Political affiliation
Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[16] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[24]

Career


Warren discussing the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the ICBA conference in 2011
During the late-1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance.[21] Warren taught at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark during 1977–1978, the University of Houston Law Center from 1978 to 1983, and the University of Texas School of Law from 1981 to 1987, in addition to teaching at the University of Michigan as a visiting professor in 1985 and as a research associate at the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987.[25]

She joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1987 and became a tenured professor. She began teaching at Harvard Law School in 1992, as a visiting professor, and began a permanent position as Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law in 1995.[25]

In 1995 Warren was asked to advise the National Bankruptcy Review Commission.[26] She helped to draft the commission's report and worked for several years to oppose legislation intended to severely restrict the right of consumers to file for bankruptcy. Warren and others opposing the legislation were not successful; in 2005 Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.[27]

From November 2006 to November 2010, Warren was a member of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion.[28] She is a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference, an independent organization that advises the U.S. Congress on bankruptcy law.[29] She is a former Vice-President of the American Law Institute and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[30]

oh, and from the same reference:

In 2009, Warren became the first professor in Harvard's history to win the law school's The Sacks–Freund Teaching Award for a second time.

Elizabeth Warren is VERY intelligent, VERY educated, and VERY capable...and like Obama and Clinton, she was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth as Bush 43, Bush 41, Reagan, and Nixon all certainly were.

I'm convinced!
 
By all means let's continue to demonize people with assigned catch phrases, code words, and slogans. That way we an be sure that no meaningful discussion will take place that focus on a person's track record, abilities, skill set, and what he or she might be able to do to make things better.
Abilities counted at one time but that period ended when Bill Clinton was asked whether he wore briefs or boxers, and he answered.

Now slogans pass for truth. Every Democrat would repeat that 47% thing, even if they don't understand it, and it would work. They don't ask for your IQ at a voting booth.
 
It appears that some are forgetting the ACA and the way it became law, then add to that the multitude of false statements that were made, and that can also be run ad nauseam, if that's the game they want to play! Selective amnesia, I guess, but that hits the voters' wallets, which is usually more important than someone else's thoughts about 47 percenters.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Well, the fact is that the 47%ers may or may not LIKE being 47%ers but they are unlikely to vote against their own interests. Who is going to vote for what is right if it means they pay more in taxes or receive less in benefits when they have no assurance that they won't be left holding the bag and nothing is done differently and/or better? THAT is what Romney meant with his 47%. To appeal to them to get on board for real reform is mostly a lost cause and they might as well be set aside when it comes to targeting the campaign message.

One the reforms are in place the 47% may indeed pay more in taxes and receive less in government freebies, but that will be more than offset by economic growth that offers millions of new jobs and much more opportunities, options, and increased income. Then the 47% will become supporters because they will overall be better off.
 
Whoo boy....

I give you the Bushes, but Reagan and Nixon....not so much.

A silver spoon in your mouth, that sounds like Ann Richards all over again. Nixon was pretty poor and perhaps the poorest president this nation had.
 
A silver spoon in your mouth, that sounds like Ann Richards all over again. Nixon was pretty poor and perhaps the poorest president this nation had.

Some like to deal in symbols, and a 'Silver Spoon' is one of them.
 
Some like to deal in symbols, and a 'Silver Spoon' is one of them.

I suppose you do not need a silver spoon if all you are doing is spending others peoples money.
 
Abilities counted at one time but that period ended when Bill Clinton was asked whether he wore briefs or boxers, and he answered.

Now slogans pass for truth. Every Democrat would repeat that 47% thing, even if they don't understand it, and it would work. They don't ask for your IQ at a voting booth.

This is true. If the American people were looking for experience, efficiency, a proven track reords, and a certain skill set, neither Hillary or Barack would have been nominated for President, let alone elected.

The fact is Bill Clinton was a bit narcissistic, manipulative, and too liberal for many of our tastes, but the guy did have the skill set and ability to manage, govern, and get things done. He learned on the job in Arkansas and had a rough time while he learned the ropes but he did learn them and became effective in Arkansas and in the White House. George W. Bush turned out to be less proficient at administration than Clinton, but he was head and shoulders over Barack Obama who has no ability to manage, administrate, govern, and further seems to have little or no interest in learning the job or doing the job. He likes the glory, prestige, glamour and all the really neat perks that come with the job though.

Mitt Romney not only has a track record in effective managements, administration, and governing, but he is the kind of guy who can figure out what the problem actually is, roll up his sleeves, figure out to negotiate or accomplish a solution, and enlist the help of others to get it done. He is not a prima donna and he doesn't take credit when others are due the credit. But a whole lot of stuff got done with him at the helm that might not have gotten done with somebody less capable overseeing the project.

It is such observations that intrigues me about Mitt Romney. I'm pretty sure he would do his damndest to do no harm and leave things better than he found them. And I would be interested to see how a man with his skill set, experience, and inate ability would do as CEO of the country. I don't know that he is the best man for the job, but for sure we have never elected a more qualified person for the job.
 
By all means let's continue to demonize people with assigned catch phrases, code words, and slogans. That way we an be sure that no meaningful discussion will take place that focus on a person's track record, abilities, skill set, and what he or she might be able to do to make things better.

Welcome to politics honey. That's how both sides play the game.
 
Welcome to politics honey. That's how both sides play the game.

How about we change the rules of the game then and have both sides spend say six months before the election not repeating a single lie about any candidate, not spreading any unsupported rumors, not telling a single untruth about any candidate,, and not personally insulting any candidate or any person supporting a candidate. Discussions must focus on the truthful analysis of the demonstrated character, accomplishments, qualifications, and track record of the candidate. If that had been the case with Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney, who would have won the 2012 election? For that matter, who would have won the 2008 nominations? The 2012 nominations?
 
Mitt Romney had his shot - twice - and each time he :failpail:ed. Time the GOP put up someone who is truly electable. Unfortunately, I really don't see any candidate from the Republican side of the political divide who has the character or charisma to crossover political lines and win support outside the Republican base.

IMHO, should Mitt Romney run for a third time it would only go to show:

1) that none of the new crop of Republicans are ready for prime time; and,

2) how desperate the Republican party has become.
 
How about we change the rules of the game then and have both sides spend say six months before the election not repeating a single lie about any candidate, not spreading any unsupported rumors, not telling a single untruth about any candidate,, and not personally insulting any candidate or any person supporting a candidate. Discussions must focus on the truthful analysis of the demonstrated character, accomplishments, qualifications, and track record of the candidate. If that had been the case with Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney, who would have won the 2012 election? For that matter, who would have won the 2008 nominations? The 2012 nominations?

Frankly if wasn't for dirty politics, neither of those bozos would have gotten anywhere near the White House without buying a ticket like everyone else.
 
Actually it was the electorate who failed. They voted for the far inferior candidate and it's becoming ever more obvious..

Yes. Actually Romney was not my first choice among the GOP hopefuls, but I had already determined that Barack Obama was wholly unqualified and incompetent as President in his first term. So once Romney won the GOP nomination, I took another good long hard look and was surprised and a bit relieved that I wasn't disappointed in the outcome. I was really looking forward to real hope and change in a Romney presidency. I believe had he won in 2012, we would now be repairing much of the Obama damage and we would be enjoying a much better economy that would continue to improve. But we'll never know.

The only chance we have to elect a highly competent person with the right aptitude, values, and skill set is to find somebody with those attributes who also has the charisma of a Perot or Reagan. That's the only way to get around the talking heads and their surrogate mainstream media who join forces to destroy anybody other than the leftwing anointed statist candidate and his loyal subjects who will repeat the assigned talking points and sound bites, however dishonest and absurd, on message boards again and again and again.
 
Frankly if wasn't for dirty politics, neither of those bozos would have gotten anywhere near the White House without buying a ticket like everyone else.

So take the dirty politics out of the equation. Who would have been the Democrat and Republican nominees in 2008 and 2012?
 
I don't think he is a terrible candidate, its just that guys like him and McCain just do not energize the base. People keep telling us to run moderates, and moderates keep losing.
 
I don't think he is a terrible candidate, its just that guys like him and McCain just do not energize the base. People keep telling us to run moderates, and moderates keep losing.

because some of the things the bases of both parties believe in are too extreme for the majority of americans.
 
I don't think he is a terrible candidate, its just that guys like him and McCain just do not energize the base. People keep telling us to run moderates, and moderates keep losing.
I don't think "moderates" are the problem, so much as "oh look, another cookie-cutter politician".

It's just more of the same, and people don't WANT more of the same.
 
that question depends on what quilifies as "dirty politics".

Well it was rocket88's point so he should probably define the term.

But his point was made in response to my suggested campaign rules:

How about we change the rules of the game then and have both sides spend say six months before the election not repeating a single lie about any candidate, not spreading any unsupported rumors, not telling a single untruth about any candidate,, and not personally insulting any candidate or any person supporting a candidate. Discussions must focus on the truthful analysis of the demonstrated character, accomplishments, qualifications, and track record of the candidate. If that had been the case with Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney, who would have won the 2012 election? For that matter, who would have won the 2008 nominations? The 2012 nominations?​
 
Well it was rocket88's point so he should probably define the term.

But his point was made in response to my suggested campaign rules:

How about we change the rules of the game then and have both sides spend say six months before the election not repeating a single lie about any candidate, not spreading any unsupported rumors, not telling a single untruth about any candidate,, and not personally insulting any candidate or any person supporting a candidate. Discussions must focus on the truthful analysis of the demonstrated character, accomplishments, qualifications, and track record of the candidate. If that had been the case with Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney, who would have won the 2012 election? For that matter, who would have won the 2008 nominations? The 2012 nominations?​

that is not how politics works.

the presidency belongs to the canidate who is the most charismatic and the best political speaker.
 
that is not how politics works.

the presidency belongs to the canidate who is the most charismatic and the best political speaker.

Come on. You can get in the spirit of this. I am not suggesting that we do it as it has commonly been done for the last few decades. I'm suggesting real campaign reform, i.e. exactly how I suggest we change the rules.

Who would have won the 2008 and 2012 nominations under such rules? And if the outcome had still been McCain and Obama or Romney and Obama, who would likely win?

It's a lot easier to just trash the other guy instead of doing an honest evaluation isn't it.
 
So take the dirty politics out of the equation. Who would have been the Democrat and Republican nominees in 2008 and 2012?

People that we've never heard of because they're not in politics very long.
 
Back
Top Bottom