Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok--the people on this thread want Romney--but there is a reason he didn't win. I just don't see why that is indicative of anything meaningful in relation to the country. He's not very likeable, and nobody is impressed with they way he chopped up companies. He could not carry a state that he governed or his home state--pretty weak candidate.
Personally--if Republicans want to run this guy, it's fine with me. It will be interesting to watch the two establishment guys fight it out. I think if the GOP is interested in winning the general--they should go with Jeb. Romney was never really likeable, and I doubt he's become any more so. People will not vote for someone they do not personally like. Romney represents corporate America and corporate America is not so popular these days.
You think more otherwise Republican voters would stay home or not push the button for the presidential race over Romney than another Bush?
Romney is a lot more moderate than many Republican voters would prefer but he would do a good job at day-to-day management and is ideologically preferable to almost any Democrat, just not inspiring. "Bush" is an active problem -- that family generated first a mediocre President, then a terrible one, and frankly they've had enough at bats. I'm not saying Romney should be the candidate again - from all indications he doesn't even want to run - but certainly not another Bush.
Heck I might be among those Republican-leaners not voting in the presidential race if Bush is the candidate, depending on who the Democrats run and what the house/senate races look like.
Yeah it sucks to have someone who is actually qualified at running something want to help the country.
If you approve of Romney then you must have liked Obama and the policies handed to him by his masters to pass. Romney will be part 2 of Obama. He wears a different shirt but plays on the same team.
Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182
Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Citigroup Inc $511,199
Barclays $446,000
General Electric $332,875
Romney saved the 2002 Olympics from bankruptcy. That's a lot more than what Obama and Hillary have done all their lives.
Romney got nearly 61 million votes in 2012. That's a lot more than what Bubba Clinton got. Reagan took 3 times to win the WH and he turned out to be a pretty good president.
and his comment about the 47% was taken out of context by the liberal media and many drank the kool aid. This is what he said and he is right:
Quote:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
why would anybody with common sense and open mind take offense to that? only liberals.
Personally--if Republicans want to run this guy, it's fine with me. It will be interesting to watch the two establishment guys fight it out. I think if the GOP is interested in winning the general--they should go with Jeb. Romney was never really likeable, and I doubt he's become any more so. People will not vote for someone they do not personally like. Romney represents corporate America and corporate America is not so popular these days.
First off, it won't be much of a fight. Jeb Bush is stronger than Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is the guy who lost to John McCain, who struggled against comedy candidates in 2012, who is known as a flipflopper. Mitt Romney was supposed to be the secure candidate, but then he said the 47% comment and lost really badly against Obama. Republicans are not going to nominate Romney again, and they wouldn't have nominated him in 2012 if he wasn't their only option.
But that doesn't mean he is irrelevant. If Mitt Romney joins in, then it can lead to the establishment vote and donors beeing split. That could lead to either Rand Paul, or Scott Walker beeing nominated for the Presidency.
jeb is stronger than Mitt Romney???? lol based on what?.......Jeb has the BUSH name. That by itself its a guarantee defeat. Americans are not into dynasties/monarchies and Jeb is with the democrats on a lot of issues, they would stay home.
No republican had a chance in 2012 because its nearly impossible to defeat an incumbent President unless he gets challenged and beat up with a primary challenge.
e, but then he said the 47% comment and lost really badly against Obama. Republicans are not going to nominate Romney again, and they wouldn't have nominated him in 2012 if he wasn't their only option.
.
do you repeat the media propaganda or did you actually read his 47% comment.
Romney got nearly 61 million votes, 5 million less than an incumbent President who had more money, the media on his back and no primary challenge. You think any other Republican would have done better?
in 2016 the democrats wont have an incumbent president advantage and they will have a primary, which means the democrats will get bloody up just like the Republicans, something Obama didn't have to deal with in 2012.
Mitt also made the 47% comment, which he is unlikely to ever overcome. The country is more than ready for a Republican leader, but his time has passed, in my opinion.
I'll never understand what was wrong with him making this remark. It's actually true.
To contrast, let's look at a statement Obama made while being recorded on a secret cell phone video:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - Obama / April of 2008
This is not a fact but an opinion.
Funny thing is that when I first heard that there was a secret video of Romney saying something inflammatory I actually thought is was something like him using a racial slur or saying something completely opinionated. Then when I watched it and researched it I was baffled at how the people could use this as some sort of smoking gun in the campaign. I bet Mitt was equally confused and said "what? it's the truth".
Last edited by Texas Minded; 01-10-2015 at 02:53 PM..
You think more otherwise Republican voters would stay home or not push the button for the presidential race over Romney than another Bush?
Romney is a lot more moderate than many Republican voters would prefer but he would do a good job at day-to-day management and is ideologically preferable to almost any Democrat, just not inspiring. "Bush" is an active problem -- that family generated first a mediocre President, then a terrible one, and frankly they've had enough at bats. I'm not saying Romney should be the candidate again - from all indications he doesn't even want to run - but certainly not another Bush.
Heck I might be among those Republican-leaners not voting in the presidential race if Bush is the candidate, depending on who the Democrats run and what the house/senate races look like.
What I'm saying is that in all likelihood Romney cannot win. Many simply do not like him--he's an empty suit. He's fake. He choked down grits with a fake smile to act like one of 'them.' He offended and insulted people. He could not carry his home state. He could not carry a state for which he was governor. He could not beat Hillary. Is this supposed to be like Nixon--if he runs enough times he can win? I disagree that he would do a good job. If he did such a great job as governor, why was he so disliked when he left that office?
I didn't like either Bush as president, but I would not hold that against Jeb. It really is not his fault that his brother and father were less than dynamic leaders. That being said, I lived in Florida when Jeb was governor and, though I disagreed with some of his policies, I had a lot of respect for him. He was a good decisive leader and a personable guy. He was ten times better than the current rat-snake of a governor we have now who nobody respects. There are not a lot of Republicans I would be able to stomach as president, but Jeb is one I could live with. In a general election, there have to enough crossover votes to elect a Republican. Romney could not get them. Jeb could.
What I'm saying is that in all likelihood Romney cannot win. Many simply do not like him--he's an empty suit. He's fake. He choked down grits with a fake smile to act like one of 'them.' He offended and insulted people. He could not carry his home state. He could not carry a state for which he was governor. He could not beat Hillary. Is this supposed to be like Nixon--if he runs enough times he can win? I disagree that he would do a good job. If he did such a great job as governor, why was he so disliked when he left that office?
I didn't like either Bush as president, but I would not hold that against Jeb. It really is not his fault that his brother and father were less than dynamic leaders. That being said, I lived in Florida when Jeb was governor and, though I disagreed with some of his policies, I had a lot of respect for him. He was a good decisive leader and a personable guy. He was ten times better than the current rat-snake of a governor we have now who nobody respects. There are not a lot of Republicans I would not be able to stomach as president, but Jeb is one I could live with. In a general election, there have to enough crossover votes to elect a Republican. Romney could not get them. Jeb could.
What could be more FAKE than Hillary.
Romney offended people by telling the truth?
Carrying Mass???? that's the most liberal state of the union, by Romney winning the governorship is a high accomplishment by itself. The last Republican who carried Mass in a Presidential election was Reagan in 1984, Not many Republicans win in blue states as governors.
Let me get this straight, you rather have Hillary Clinton than Romney?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Let me get this straight, you rather have Hillary Clinton than Romney?
Can't we make neither a choice?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
