• 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?

  • Absoutely. He's by far the best shot the RNC has.

    Votes: 9 9.4%

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

    Votes: 1 1.0%

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

    Votes: 10 10.4%

  • The guy is DOA. Find some new blood.

    Votes: 46 47.9%

  • History suggests that he should not run again.

    Votes: 30 31.3%
  • Total voters
    96
  • Poll closed .
Oh now it's the "reading comprehension" card from Vance.
Trying to backstep from calling someone stupid.
VanceMack said:
You have a reading comprehension problem?
Click to expand...
I said I didn't believe you could POSSIBLY be that stupid. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
No you didn't--you never said the word possibly--you know what word GOPs use for lying don't you? Lying.

Never mind...your diversion pretty clearly answers the question.
Click to expand...
And Vance finishes with the "diversion" card .
 
NIMBY said:
Oh now it's the "reading comprehension" card from Vance.
Trying to backstep from calling someone stupid.


No you didn't--you never said the word possibly--you know what word GOPs use for lying don't you? Lying.


And Vance finishes with the "diversion" card .
Click to expand...

dood...you are intentionally working on proving me wrong.

Direct question. Are you so stupid as to believe democrats are and historically have been any less capable and eager to shelter their wealth?
 
McConnell, Hatch, Cochran, McCain--just for starters--your turn--
TurtleDude said:
I think the best solution is to get rid of the lucrative pensions for those parasites.
that would keep them from being in office for Bidenesque number of years.
Click to expand...


the Clintons and the Obamas
Click to expand...

Clintons and Obamas are decades away from the GOP octa- septa- generaryans.
But nary a word about them being term-limted.
We do get your hypocritical untruthfulness here dude .
 
tres borrachos said:
Interesting. Grant responded to my post pointing out how ignorant the personal attacks on Mitt Romney's wife were. He posted this:

This is what good people are up against these days. The Romney's don't even have a blemish on their past. No drug use, no consorting with terrorists, no God Damn America, no political crony capitalism, but they are the ones who are always under personal attacks. Nothing to do with policies, it's just personal.


I missed the mention of liberals being the only ones who engage in personal attacks.

You countered with something about the "poor persecuted Republicans".

I would think your post wasn't partisan except for the fact it read as a counter partisan attack on Grant's post, which was in response to my post about Ann Romney. No mention of political parties from me, or Grant.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Grant, not you, and it's simply his general M.O. But I'll "grant" (ha ha) that this time, he didn't explicitly state just liberals did this. This time.
 
NIMBY said:
You had your chance to be normal Vance--but you chose to be yourself.

Thank you for removing all doubt for another evening .
Click to expand...

It's completely telling that you continue to refuse to answer a very direct question. Speaks very clearly.
 
RDS said:
He will be chilling on his yacht during a crisis.
Click to expand...

With satellite and cellphones...meh...could be pretty sweet.
 
Taken from the article:

"When was the last time the word ‘success” was used in Washington?

Henry writes, "Call Mitt Romney what you will, but his core competence is just that: competence. Unlike career politicians who tend to rise or fall on the level of their oratory, Mitt is, at his core, a chief executive"

He continues, "No doubt Mitt is more comfortable tackling complex problems and analyzing data than kissing babies or yucking it up on a rope line. But maybe that's what America needs in 2016, and given the multitude of today's challenges, maybe the Quinnipiac poll reflects the growing view that it's what we needed all along."

Romney is a man who will not be easily dismissed after the last six years of White House stumbles and outright failure. Polls show that 33 percent of registered voters think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II. Forty-five percent said the United States would have been better off if Romney had defeated Obama's re-election bid in 2012".

The more I think and read about it, the more it makes sense for Romney to run.
 
VanceMack said:
You didn't read your own source, did you?
Click to expand...
Why yes I did, including the portion which explicitly states that Unemployment Insurance is not used to calculate the unemployment rate as a whole, or whether or not and individual is categorically unemployed. Is it that hard to do 2 to 3 minutes worth of reading before commenting on the subject authoritatively?
 
Grant said:
You believe Presidents should be elected based on their 'charisma' huh? America has become a celebrity culture, and this is the consequence.
Click to expand...

No, but thanks for identifying yourself as failing in comprehension right off the bat. Saves me a lot of time.

I don't care, but voters focus a lot on charisma. It sucks, but it's the truth.
 
Grant said:
No, the stereotype for Democrats are people who don't understand history, economics or anti American propaganda.
Click to expand...

Ya do know your lean says "Independent", right? You should change that, you're about as far right as they come.

If the electorate are goofy enough to fall for this low form of leftist propaganda then they deserve what they get. Hard as it is to accept because they are a good people, America deserved Barrack Obama.
Click to expand...

Right, right, leftist propaganda. Look, you want to be a hack, be my guest, it's a free country.
 
NIMBY said:
Yet the personal attacks on Bill Clinton's wife and daughter stareted decades before anything with Romney.
In fact, they started before Romney claimed: "I'm to the left of Ted Kennedy" in their 1994 Senate race.
Play the phony "Ann Romney" card after what the despicable fright-wing has done to Moo-chelle and daughters .
Click to expand...

Do you happen to have a link to that Romney quote?
 
a351 said:
Why yes I did, including the portion which explicitly states that Unemployment Insurance is not used to calculate the unemployment rate as a whole, or whether or not and individual is categorically unemployed. Is it that hard to do 2 to 3 minutes worth of reading before commenting on the subject authoritatively?
Click to expand...
Yeah...I dont think you did.

"People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." Those folks that are no longer actively seeking employment are classified as "marginally attached to the labor force," NOT 'unemployed'. Now...care to take a swing at how many unemployed and discouraged workers have simply given up, are no longer eligible for benefits, and have vanished form the 'unemployed' statistics?
 
Is Obama using a different measure for Unemployment as those who came before him?
Is Obama responsible for the 2.2 million jobs lost during his first three months and an unemployment stat that topped off at 10.4%?
How about the number of months Obama has been over 6.1%?
Honest folks would say due to the Bush collapse.
How about you ?
VanceMack said:
Yeah...I dont think you did.

"People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." Those folks are classified as "marginally attached to the labor force". Now...care to take a swing at how many unemployed and discouraged workers have simply given up, are no longer eligible for benefits, and have vanished form the 'unemployed' statistics?
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
He was given plenty of seed money and ample business connections from Governor/Presidential candidate daddy. Saying Mitt is self made is like saying Hillary Clinton is.

Bill Clinton and Barack---self made.
Click to expand...
'Seed money' and 'business connections' mean little if you don't have the abilities.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, but thanks for identifying yourself as failing in comprehension right off the bat. Saves me a lot of time.

I don't care, but voters focus a lot on charisma. It sucks, but it's the truth.
Click to expand...
It was you who mentioned 'charisma', not 'the voters'.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Ya do know your lean says "Independent", right? You should change that, you're about as far right as they come.
Click to expand...
Leftists only 'understand ' left' and 'right', not understanding that Independents can laugh or be critical of either of them.
Right, right, leftist propaganda. Look, you want to be a hack, be my guest, it's a free country.
Click to expand...
Not near as free as it used to be.
 
Grant said:
Leftists only 'understand ' left' and 'right', not understanding that Independents can laugh or be critical of either of them.
Not near as free as it used to be.
Click to expand...

You mean the Frightists/Francoists .
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah...I dont think you did.

"People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." Those folks that are no longer actively seeking employment are classified as "marginally attached to the labor force," NOT 'unemployed'. Now...care to take a swing at how many unemployed and discouraged workers have simply given up, are no longer eligible for benefits, and have vanished form the 'unemployed' statistics?
Click to expand...
The only way in which someone would "vanish" from the unemployment rate is to abandon job seeking altogether. Whether or not that person receives UI matters not. Your original contention was simply malinformed rubbish :shrug:
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah...I dont think you did.

"People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." Those folks that are no longer actively seeking employment are classified as "marginally attached to the labor force," NOT 'unemployed'. Now...care to take a swing at how many unemployed and discouraged workers have simply given up, are no longer eligible for benefits, and have vanished form the 'unemployed' statistics?
Click to expand...

This might be a more telling statistic.Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force in June | CNS News
 
You're far more computer talented than I am rightist.
Grant said:
Yes, really.
Click to expand...
In the time it took me to write this, you could have learned something you already knew.
All I had to do was type "Romney to the left" and google finished with "of Ted Kennedy"--enjoy . :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom