• 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 .
Yeah, "killing the patient to save him." Isn't that a bit like what "W" did in Iraq?

Conservatives and their broken compasses. I tell ya...

What?? George Bush and Iraq?

This is just pathetic!
 
That's putting your country first!

Perspective my friend.

I see that the country will do best with the Democratic Party in charge. I'd even except a good third party candidate.
 
What spin are you referring to? Those jobs he "outsourced" may not have been economically viable in the US but would might be in place like Guatemala or Honduras. These countries, and many others, would welcome such investments.

Other jobs were created in America, many thousands of them, because it made sense to do so. Had you read the link you would have understood this, but it seems you prefer your beliefs over knowledge.

The spin is that you totally ignored that Romney's Bain took reasonably healthy companies to bankruptcy by jacking up their debt and burying them in interest payments.
 
What?? George Bush and Iraq?

This is just pathetic!
It was pathetic...and you probably supported that pathetic effort.
 
That's putting your country first!

It is. We all know that the worst thing that could happen to the US is having another GOPer in charge over in the White House.
 
Perspective my friend.

I see that the country will do best with the Democratic Party in charge. I'd even except a good third party candidate.

Who do you think would make a good third party candidate and why would the country need one with the Democrats doing a good job?
 
The spin is that you totally ignored that Romney's Bain took reasonably healthy companies to bankruptcy by jacking up their debt and burying them in interest payments.

Which companies are you referring to? And do you have a reliable source from someone who understands business and doesn't deal in politics?
 
Who do you think would make a good third party candidate and why would the country need one with the Democrats doing a good job?

Pat Buchannan would make a good third party candidate. We could even design a special ballot that would guarantee him a lot of votes.

Of course we wouldn't need Pat should the Democratic Party win the election.
 
Pat Buchannan would make a good third party candidate. We could even design a special ballot that would guarantee him a lot of votes.

Of course we wouldn't need Pat should the Democratic Party win the election.

Oh no, not that again. :eek:
 
Which companies are you referring to? And do you have a reliable source from someone who understands business and doesn't deal in politics?

Several articles were cited on this beginning in 2012. You think I heard it on Sean Hannity? :roll:

The Truth About Bain: Inside The House That Mitt Built - Forbes
An exclusive analysis of the firm’s returns conducted by FORBES reveals that despite the hype surrounding Bain, investors in the firm’s biggest funds, raised in 2006 and 2008, would have been better off in a simple stock index fund. And while Bain churned out serious returns for partners and investors alike during Romney’s tenure, it’s that reputation, rather than results, that has carried Bain for the past decade.

...Clear Channel Communications epitomizes all three of these issues. Bain and buyout firm Thomas H. Lee Partners bought the nation’s largest group of radio stations for $24 billion in July 2008, including $2.1 billion in equity, just in time to watch the advertising market collapse along with the U.S. economy. Loaded with $21 billion in debt and a $1.5 billion annual interest tab, Clear Channel barely earns enough to cover its interest payments and capital expenditures. And even giving it an Ebitda multiple akin to the far more profitable Disney, for example, the company is worth perhaps 70% of what Bain paid for it.

...will Bain’s recent investors, who bought into the Romney-era track record and hype, earn more by owning companies like Clear Channel, Burlington Coat Factory and Toys “R” Us over the next five years rather than just riding the S&P? Especially once Bain’s fees are accounted for? Probably not.
 
If Romney really wants to to be president he needs to adopt a socially liberal platform.
 
Several articles were cited on this beginning in 2012. You think I heard it on Sean Hannity? :roll:

The Truth About Bain: Inside The House That Mitt Built - Forbes

It seems you didn't read that quote properly, nor the entire article. Look at the second sentence.
And while Bain churned out serious returns for partners and investors alike during Romney’s tenure, it’s that reputation, rather than results, that has carried Bain for the past decade.
 
It seems you didn't read that quote properly, nor the entire article. Look at the second sentence.

What part of "reputation rather than results" do you not understand?
 
Personally, I'm still hoping for Rubio. He's young, charismatic, intelligent, legitimately Conservative, and stands a decent shot of drawing in some of the minority vote, especially if running against someone as "white bread" as Hillary.

Failing that, Christie might be a good candidate. He certainly speaks well enough, and he does have a certain "no nonsense" appeal.

However, I worry about his weight, and the "lukewarm" nature of his ideological stances hurting his mass appeal. Running another "moderate" might very well land us in a situation like 2008 all over again.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm still hoping for Rubio. He's young, charismatic, intelligent, legitimately Conservative, and stands a decent shot of drawing in some of the minority vote, especially if running against someone as "white bread" as Hillary.
I'd vote Rubio over Hillary. But...I'd be looking first and foremost at a third party.

Failing that, Christie might be a good candidate. He certainly speaks well enough, and he does have a certain "no nonsense" appeal.

However, I worry about his weight, and the "lukewarm" nature of his ideological stances. Running another "moderate" might very well land us in a situation like 2008 all over again.
I won't vote for Christie. I'd probably pick Hillary. She's slightly less mobbed-up.
 
You apparently don't understand the sentence and I've not the patience to explain it to you. Ask your mother.
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?
 
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:
"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.
 
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.

:lol: Republicans were willing to grab the Third Rail of Politics. What risk has Obama or the Senate Democrats taken of worth or note?
 
:lol: 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:
Back
Top Bottom