• 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 .
Grant said:
Yes, politicians say that perception is reality and that's what they go for. So if they want to portray Mitt Romney as a spoiled rich kid out of touch with the American people, that\s what they 'll do. And if Hillary Clinton can convince voters that she is a struggling mother trying to make ends meet and keep her family together, that's what she'll do.

Mitt Romney came up with a quite thorough North American energy plan, which is so important to America's future, but the MSM focused on his haircut, or some silly thing. Maybe we really do get the governments we deserve.
Click to expand...

Seems that we deserve the government that the Biased Lame Stream Media deems we deserve.
 
Grant said:
Yes, politicians say that perception is reality and that's what they go for. So if they want to portray Mitt Romney as a spoiled rich kid out of touch with the American people, that\s what they 'll do. And if Hillary Clinton can convince voters that she is a struggling mother trying to make ends meet and keep her family together, that's what she'll do.

Mitt Romney came up with a quite thorough North American energy plan, which is so important to America's future, but the MSM focused on his haircut, or some silly thing. Maybe we really do get the governments we deserve.
Click to expand...

I haven't doubted that in a vary long time. Getting the government we deserve. When one tends to vote only because of the R or the D next to their name or because they like this or that bumper sticker slogan, sure enough we do get the people in high office we deserve. Then there are those one issue folks, they decide how they will vote only on what is important to them regardless of where the candidates stand on other issues or not even thinking about taking in the whole package.

I don't know if Romney would have been better than Obama, he lost and all one can go on is suppositions and theory. A resent poll shows buyers remorse in the president. But that has more to do with what is going on today in which the president is seen as having fallen down on the job. But a year from now, that could all change as other events and happenings take place. There are somethings a president can control and others he can't, somethings are of a presidents own making and others are not. I guess we will just have to muddle through with the government we deserve and have.
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems that we deserve the government that the Biased Lame Stream Media deems we deserve.
Click to expand...

It seems that every few years electorates everywhere get talked into voting for a left wing government where catastrophes quickly follow. Then they elect a more conservative government to try and clean up the mess but eventually get bored with balanced budgets, a workable infrastructure and get swept up in side issues which quickly grab their attention.

There are many issues such as Gay marriage, for example, which can be debated one way or the other, but looking after the welfare of the entire country and all its peoples should always be the primary focus.
 
VanceMack said:
I have long ago said that I believe Hillary will win if she gets the dem nomination. In fact I believe we have become such a dependent nation that until there is a catastrophic collapse, I dont see a republican winning the White House again.

That being said...I laugh my ass off at the prospect of Hillary Clinton championing women's causes and trumpeting the "War on Women" argument.
Click to expand...
I laugh as well but not so much at the people who believe and support her. That isn't funny at all.

I don't know why but I still have sufficient confidence in the American people that the majority would not vote for Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately I said the same thing about the electorate and Obama's second coming too.
 
Grant said:
Would you prefer Hillary Clinton?
Click to expand...

I sure hope you're not going down the "Mitts the only one who can beat em " road ?? If this sorry ass republican party runs another RINO with jelly for a spine they lose. Truth is he's a wimp and the right needs someone who is willing and has the capacity to fight.
 
Gringo allstar said:
I sure hope you're not going down the "Mitts the only one who can beat em " road ?? If this sorry ass republican party runs another RINO with jelly for a spine they lose. Truth is he's a wimp and the right needs someone who is willing and has the capacity to fight.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much that Mitt Romney is a wimp but yes, he should have been on the attack more against Barrack Obama and his record. It seems to me he relied to much on being a gentleman and overestimated the intelligence of the American electorate.
 
Gringo allstar said:
I sure hope you're not going down the "Mitts the only one who can beat em " road ?? If this sorry ass republican party runs another RINO with jelly for a spine they lose. Truth is he's a wimp and the right needs someone who is willing and has the capacity to fight.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. The establishment Republicans figured out who they thought had the most appeal for the largest segment of the voters, and they pretty much demonstrated that they didn't know what's on the electorate's mind. To be fair, didn't an extensive set of primary elections with many debates interspersed, promote Romney as the most logical candidate to chose?

Time for a re-think, and not a repeating the same mistake, it would seem.

The run against Hillary is going to get down right brutal and nasty. Hillary has a reputation for this. So, yes, the Republicans / conservative candidate needs to really good at street fighting politics, so to speak, without giving the impression that he's flogging Hillary, as that would garner her the sympathy vote, wouldn't it?
 
Grant said:
I laugh as well but not so much at the people who believe and support her. That isn't funny at all.

I don't know why but I still have sufficient confidence in the American people that the majority would not vote for Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately I said the same thing about the electorate and Obama's second coming too.
Click to expand...
I truly do not believe ANYONE believes her or supports her. I DO believe there are a whole lot of myopic partisan muppets that have and will defend and promote a pile of **** with a letter next to their name. And thats the case with both major parties.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'd have to agree. The establishment Republicans figured out who they thought had the most appeal for the largest segment of the voters, and they pretty much demonstrated that they didn't know what's on the electorate's mind. To be fair, didn't an extensive set of primary elections with many debates interspersed, promote Romney as the most logical candidate to chose?

Time for a re-think, and not a repeating the same mistake, it would seem.

The run against Hillary is going to get down right brutal and nasty. Hillary has a reputation for this. So, yes, the Republicans / conservative candidate needs to really good at street fighting politics, so to speak, without giving the impression that he's flogging Hillary, as that would garner her the sympathy vote, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it has to be an unrestrained negative campaign to win. That's really where Romney failed.
 
VanceMack said:
I truly do not believe ANYONE believes her or supports her.
Click to expand...
It's not clear why she is even a serious contender unless a willingness to say anything that pops into her head is seen as a plus. She has all the qualifications of Laura Bush or Michelle Obama, and I'd select Laura over either of them.

I DO believe there are a whole lot of myopic partisan muppets that have and will defend and promote a pile of **** with a letter next to their name. And thats the case with both major parties.
Click to expand...
It's the middle who usually decides so we'll see how that goes. They may be wiser next time out.
 
Born Free said:
Yes it has.

And yes I know what history means, do you?
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't, if you think approval ratings of a sitting president are the barometer by which he will be judged forever.
 
Kobie said:
Apparently you don't, if you think approval ratings of a sitting president are the barometer by which he will be judged forever.
Click to expand...

True, who would ever have thought that Bush would be looking more appealing the longer he's out of office when he's compared to Obama?? Truth, stranger then fiction.
 
VanceMack said:
The only people that continuously brings it up are liberals.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, literally in this thread people are saying Romney being a successful businessman is an indication of qualification for the presidency.

You guys also need to understand that liberals don't think rich = bad. What liberals tend to reject is the notion that being wealthy makes you inherently superior, or that anyone gets wealthy purely based on their own hard work. We're a society. Success, or lack thereof, is never 100% based on the actions of one person.
 
Grant said:
I doubt very much that Mitt Romney is a wimp but yes, he should have been on the attack more against Barrack Obama and his record. It seems to me he relied to much on being a gentleman and overestimated the intelligence of the American electorate.
Click to expand...

Nice guy, but when you go against the left you better be ready to throw a punch (politically speaking) and he's not that guy.
 
Gringo allstar said:
True, who would ever have thought that Bush would be looking more appealing the longer he's out of office when he's compared to Obama?? Truth, stranger then fiction.
Click to expand...

Bush's approval ratings as of now have jack-all to do with Obama. Being out of sight for almost six years helps a lot more.
 
VanceMack said:
WHy didnt you know? SHe and Bill retired from the White House broke and penniless. She was jes a po whaite chile...but she kept on struggling...and dont worry...she ain noways tired...

Click to expand...


This is pathetic, anyone who doesn't see thru this is a complete fool.
 
Kobie said:
Bush's approval ratings as of now have jack-all to do with Obama. Being out of sight for almost six years helps a lot more.
Click to expand...

They have everything to do with Obama. We all remember when gas was 1.85gal and unemployment was under 5%, just to name a few things. I think you're slightly out of touch on this.
 
Gringo allstar said:
They have everything to do with Obama. We all remember when gas was 1.85gal and unemployment was under 5%, just to name a few things. I think you're slightly out of touch on this.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to pull the gas price argument? Seriously?

Gas-prices.png


The precipitous drop in gas prices in late 2008 coincides with something else. I'll give you three guesses as to what it was and why it caused gas prices to drop so sharply, and the first two don't count.

Using the "RAWR GAS PRICES WERE $1.85 UNDER BUSH" just shows that you don't understand how gas prices work. The unemployment rate argument is just so blatantly stupid I'll assume you were making a mistake.
 
Kobie said:
Are you really going to pull the gas price argument? Seriously?

Gas-prices.png


The precipitous drop in gas prices in late 2008 coincides with something else. I'll give you three guesses as to what it was and why gas prices dropped so sharply, and the first two don't count.
Click to expand...

In November 2008 every goddamned Republican forgot that gas prices hit $4/gallon that previous July. I didn't forget because I'd just bought a Civic.

Gringo allstar said:
They have everything to do with Obama. We all remember when gas was 1.85gal and unemployment was under 5%, just to name a few things. I think you're slightly out of touch on this.
Click to expand...

We all do remember $1.85/gallon gas. But you seem to have forgotten quite a few other crucial details.


And are people under the impression that there's a giant lever in the oval office that controls gas prices?
$4/gallon is normal now. It just tanked because our economy did. If that's troublesome, take the bus or buy a hybrid or something. There's no magic wand a Republican can wave and fix this for you.
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
Are you really going to pull the gas price argument? Seriously?

Gas-prices.png


The precipitous drop in gas prices in late 2008 coincides with something else. I'll give you three guesses as to what it was and why it caused gas prices to drop so sharply, and the first two don't count.

Using the "RAWR GAS PRICES WERE $1.85 UNDER BUSH" just shows that you don't understand how gas prices work. The unemployment rate argument is just so blatantly stupid I'll assume you were making a mistake.
Click to expand...

I never said gas prices don't fluctuate, I recall when they hit 2.80gal and Bush was the devil. I also remember the news opening their evening news cast with reports of high prices. Point is under Obama the prices seem to stay right around the 3.50 a gal or higher. And if you remember or even care to Barry himself said this was part of his plan. " energy prices will necessarily skyrocket under my plan" or something close to that.
 
Gringo allstar said:
I never said gas prices don't fluctuate, I recall when they hit 2.80gal and Bush was the devil. I also remember the news opening their evening news cast with reports of high prices. Point is under Obama the prices seem to stay right around the 3.50 a gal or higher. And if you remember or even care to Barry himself said this was part of his plan. " energy prices will necessarily skyrocket under my plan" or something close to that.
Click to expand...

You're attributing the sudden plunge in gas prices in late 2008 to "fluctuations"? Wrong answer, try again.
 
Kobie said:
You're attributing the sudden plunge in gas prices in late 2008 to "fluctuations"? Wrong answer, try again.
Click to expand...

Its all perception, and people perceive themselves paying well over 3.00gal for the last 3 or 4yrs. If you like paying almost 4$ a gallon for gas of course you wont perceive it the same as me. Six years after Jimmy Carter was gone everybody still thought he sucked, because he sucked and the same fate waits for Barry.
 
Gringo allstar said:
Its all perception, and people perceive themselves paying well over 3.00gal for the last 3 or 4yrs. If you like paying almost 4$ a gallon for gas of course you wont perceive it the same as me. Six years after Jimmy Carter was gone everybody still thought he sucked, because he sucked and the same fate waits for Barry.
Click to expand...

No, it's not "all perception." You're simply evading. Answer the question. Why did gas prices plummet in late 2008?
 
magic_8ball_outlook_not_so_good.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom