View Poll Results: Does it make sense for Romney t run again?

Voters
125. You may not vote on this poll
  • Absoutely. He's by far the best shot the RNC has.

    23 18.40%
  • He might be good if he can shake the 47% remark he made.

    2 1.60%
  • I really don't care who the RNC puts up at this point

    10 8.00%
  • The guy is DOA. Find some new blood.

    57 45.60%
  • History suggests that he should not run again.

    33 26.40%
Page 48 of 53 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 526

Thread: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

  1. #471
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    A Romney vs Hillary bid for President means that I wont bother voting for either.

  2. #472
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,111

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Maybe you should read his about his past and compare it with that of Barrack Obama. Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Irrelevant.... I understand his past, including his whole persona about being a job creator, which is a substantial myth. I know a whole about Bain Capital and what they do and don't do than probably more than 90% of the people on this board. They sat across that table from us as a suitor for my business six years ago. I would be happy to dissect the job creator or understanding the economy myth in later posts, if you feel that is necessary.

    Then again, the original post was about Romney being more qualified than ANY candidate in the lifetime of Canada, not more qualified than just Obama. That said, the idea that any challenger is more qualified for the job of POTUS than the sitting POTUS is absurd. Nonetheless, Romney was a credible, if not excellent, POTUS candidate; I only quarrel with the absurd superlative set forth by Canada... but, eh, he's Canadian.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 07-11-14 at 12:12 AM.

  3. #473
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,111

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    "Their best shot"? What about the country?
    That is a great question for Republicans, who use their "control" of the house to turn out nothing but non-serious legislation (50 votes to repeal the PPACA... that is not serious) on the rare cases they actually hold a vote. Alternatively, they spend the rest of their time uttering meaningless hot rhetoric and and trying to subvert existing legislation and governance. They all should be shot as traitors.

  4. #474
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    That is a great question for Republicans, who use their "control" of the house to turn out nothing but non-serious legislation, when they actually vote on something and spend the rest of their time uttering meaningless rhetoric and and trying to subvert existing legislation and governance. They all should be shot as traitors.
    Republicans were willing to grab the Third Rail of Politics. What risk has Obama or the Senate Democrats taken of worth or note?

  5. #475
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,111

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Republicans were willing to grab the Third Rail of Politics. What risk has Obama or the Senate Democrats taken of worth or note?
    Do tell.... please explain exactly how they have "grabbed" the proverbial 'third rail'.... I see nothing but hot rhetoric.

    Risk???? you must be joking.... don't you think passing the PPACA was "risk"? If that was not political risk, you don't know political risk.... wait....of course, you don't, your a Con. You vote for a party (the Republicans) that have not originated and passed a meaningful piece of legislation that did not involve a war or a tax cut in almost 100 years.... what do they know about political risk?.... then, again, I do agree the Republicans continually run "riskier" candidates than the Dems, which is why they lose races they should win.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 07-11-14 at 01:05 AM.

  6. #476
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    You don't understand the article and I don't really care that you're ignorant on the subject anyway. Do you think Romney quit working/managing Bain in 2000 when he sold it?
    Well it seems you did ask your mother and now want to change your position. I'm not interested.

  7. #477
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,732

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Well it seems you did ask your mother and now want to change your position. I'm not interested.
    I'm not changing position. You're the one cherry-picking the good news and ignoring the bad. Here's an article that puts in plain English that which you either failed to understand or chose to ignore.

    The reality is that toward the middle of his career at Bain, Romney made a fateful strategic decision: He moved away from creating companies like Staples through venture capital schemes, and toward a business model that involved borrowing huge sums of money to take over existing firms, then extracting value from them by force. He decided, as he later put it, that "there's a lot greater risk in a startup than there is in acquiring an existing company." In the Eighties, when Romney made this move, this form of financial piracy became known as a leveraged buyout, and it achieved iconic status thanks to Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. Gekko's business strategy was essentially identical to the Romney–Bain model, only Gekko called himself a "liberator" of companies instead of a "helper."

    Here's how Romney would go about "liberating" a company: A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. When an LBO is done without the consent of the target, it's called a hostile takeover; such thrilling acts of corporate piracy were made legend in the Eighties, most notably the 1988 attack by notorious corporate raiders Kohlberg Kravis Roberts against RJR Nabisco, a deal memorialized in the book Barbarians at the Gate.

    Romney and Bain avoided the hostile approach, preferring to secure the cooperation of their takeover targets by buying off a company's management with lucrative bonuses. Once management is on board, the rest is just math. So if the target company is worth $500 million, Bain might put down $20 million of its own cash, then borrow $350 million from an investment bank to take over a controlling stake.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz379lsWCIn
    Last edited by calamity; 07-11-14 at 08:07 AM.

  8. #478
    Formerly ModerateGOP
    NeverTrumpGOP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Post-Trump America
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    10,622
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    I stumbled across an article that talks about a possible third presidential campaign for Mitt Romney in 2016. Now before you role your eyes and pronounce this notion officially deceased. I encourage you to read the article below, first.

    America needs Mitt Romney in 2016 - San Francisco Bay Area Moderate Conservative | Examiner.com
    There's been more rumblings recently about a Romney entry. It would be hilarious if he does get back in despite him saying never again after 2012. However something interesting to point out is that the Romney camp has been very very quiet lately. This is not a bad thing as some might suggest. This may be the calm before the storm. If Romney decides to go in, this is how you do it! His people have NOT denied it some are in fact encouraging it. Why do you think he is still holding secret meetings and fundraisers?

    I wonder why the people who back Romney like this don't just go over to Huntsman, he has wider appeal and doesn't have the rich image!

    I'm saying this after I refused to vote for McCain in 2008 and voted for Romney instead as well as voted for Romney in 2012. If Romney is a front runner for 2016, I'll vote for him again, but I like Huntsman more
    Last edited by NeverTrumpGOP; 07-12-14 at 11:14 AM.
    There's no greater irony than a Trump supporter pointing out hypocrisy; Unless it's Trump himself.

  9. #479
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,899
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Do tell.... please explain exactly how they have "grabbed" the proverbial 'third rail'.... I see nothing but hot rhetoric.

    Risk???? you must be joking.... don't you think passing the PPACA was "risk"? If that was not political risk, you don't know political risk.... wait....of course, you don't, your a Con. You vote for a party (the Republicans) that have not originated and passed a meaningful piece of legislation that did not involve a war or a tax cut in almost 100 years.... what do they know about political risk?.... then, again, I do agree the Republicans continually run "riskier" candidates than the Dems, which is why they lose races they should win.
    Well of course passing the PPACA was political risk.

    Just wish the Democrats would have written a law that was worth a dam (ObamaCare isn't) AND did some of the things they falsely claim it did (ObamaCare doesn't).

    How do you regulate overly greedy big Health Insurance companies? By driving even more business their way by government mandate? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Not based in reality in the least, which seems to be typical of most Democratic / Progressive / Liberal pieces of legislation and social policy.

    Far better, it would have been, had promoted market competition forced the efficiencies and cost savings needed. Instead we get a bloated, inefficient, ineffective and overly costly boondoggle that ObamaCare has become.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  10. #480
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,111

    Re: Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Well of course passing the PPACA was political risk.

    Just wish the Democrats would have written a law that was worth a dam (ObamaCare isn't) AND did some of the things they falsely claim it did (ObamaCare doesn't).

    How do you regulate overly greedy big Health Insurance companies? By driving even more business their way by government mandate? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Not based in reality in the least, which seems to be typical of most Democratic / Progressive / Liberal pieces of legislation and social policy.

    Far better, it would have been, had promoted market competition forced the efficiencies and cost savings needed. Instead we get a bloated, inefficient, ineffective and overly costly boondoggle that ObamaCare has become.
    All very interesting, but the PPACA was substantially based upon the plan enacted in Massachusetts in 2006, which in turn reflected plans floated by Republicans in 1994, which were structured on a foundation outlined by the Heritage Foundation (happy to dig out my 2 dozen cites, if required, but I have posted them maybe a dozen times before). That all said, I think we should not have tried to induce Republican endorsement by proposing a Republican idea.... we should have swung for the fences with Medicare Part E (public option or a public plan).... the Dems wimped out.

    As to incentives... they are there. Insurance companies MUST spend 80% of their revenue on claims or reimburse their customers. Remember the $726B cut from Medicare that the Republicans were trying to make hay out of in the 2012 campaign? Much of that was putting in place a system of rewards and penalties for hospitals, doctors and rehab facilities to reward (and penalize) outcomes shifting away from the pay-per-procedure model of old.

    Obamacare is hardly perfect? What Republican idea is? But, it is working well in the one place that it was implemented (Massachusetts)... no reason to believe it will not work well for America.

Page 48 of 53 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •