Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[jillian]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

because the elitist had no interest in "helping the country". he felt he was entitled to it because his father (who was better than him in every possible way didn't get it). he wanted the power. plain and simple.

attaching some sort of altruism to Mitt Romney is laughable. but it would have been nice if he was even half the man his father was in that regard.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I bet the Mittster would be proud to know that a fine Jewish Cabal in the interweebs is thinking of him.

Vote for me in 2016 or I'll hold my breath!

 

[House]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Said as much a few posts up. Way to only read what you want.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

Why is it so hard to believe that the Job Exporter in Chief should not be rewarded for his years of unpatriotic work with the top public office in the country?

Jobs left this country because of the tax policies put in place by the democrat controlled congress. Obama's buddy Imelt of GE exported more jobs than Romney ever thought of.

Tax policies that punish businesses for being successful in the USA are the problem. Romney did not create those policies.

Rationalize it away however you want, it doesn't change what Romney did.

Imelt doesn't have a history (or intention, that I'm aware) of running for President, so that was a nice strawman.

If Romney truly cared about helping this country, he'd have put his resources to work on improving the tax policies that you speculate punish businesses. However, no amount of lobbying will be likely to demolish the minimum wage, which is my personal theory of why those jobs were shipped overseas.

17¢/hour x1000 is a lot cheaper than $7.25/hour+ x500

although you seem determined to argue, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. Romney did not personally export jobs, some of the companies that Bain capital saved from bankruptcy may have. Romney was not the CEO of any company. As to Imelt and GE, I brought that up to show that the left wing supporting CEOs play by the same rules as every other company---they move their operations where they can get the best return for their shareholders. US tax policy is the problem. In the last campaign Romney said he would work to change that if he was elected. He lost.

We're not saying anything close to the same thing.

Romney was certainly the CEO of Bain capital, and his ducking responsibility for it smacks of Obama's own habits.

Imelt continues to be irrelevant as private citizens are perfectly free to operate within the law. I didn't criticize Romney for that, so there is no analogy.

Unlike Imelt, and here's the difference you fail to grasp, Romney sought public office after undermining the very people he wanted to serve. To which I say, **** him.

If his intentions were sincere, he would have developed a history of lobbying for improvements to tax code and other legislation that supposedly impedes business BEFORE he ran for the highest office in the country. Not as some empty political promise AFTER he was elected.

Believe campaign promises if you want to, but I'm not that stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

They plug Romney because he's the worst republican of the bunch, a socialist who is more Democrat than traditional conservative. IOW it's a sham.

 

[Redfish]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

because the elitist had no interest in "helping the country". he felt he was entitled to it because his father (who was better than him in every possible way didn't get it). he wanted the power. plain and simple.

attaching some sort of altruism to Mitt Romney is laughable. but it would have been nice if he was even half the man his father was in that regard.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to express it. You are wrong, but thats OK, you are a liberal so you are wrong 98% of the time.

 

[Redfish]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Said as much a few posts up. Way to only read what you want.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

Why is it so hard to believe that the Job Exporter in Chief should not be rewarded for his years of unpatriotic work with the top public office in the country?

Jobs left this country because of the tax policies put in place by the democrat controlled congress. Obama's buddy Imelt of GE exported more jobs than Romney ever thought of.

Tax policies that punish businesses for being successful in the USA are the problem. Romney did not create those policies.

Rationalize it away however you want, it doesn't change what Romney did.

Imelt doesn't have a history (or intention, that I'm aware) of running for President, so that was a nice strawman.

If Romney truly cared about helping this country, he'd have put his resources to work on improving the tax policies that you speculate punish businesses. However, no amount of lobbying will be likely to demolish the minimum wage, which is my personal theory of why those jobs were shipped overseas.

17¢/hour x1000 is a lot cheaper than $7.25/hour+ x500

although you seem determined to argue, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. Romney did not personally export jobs, some of the companies that Bain capital saved from bankruptcy may have. Romney was not the CEO of any company. As to Imelt and GE, I brought that up to show that the left wing supporting CEOs play by the same rules as every other company---they move their operations where they can get the best return for their shareholders. US tax policy is the problem. In the last campaign Romney said he would work to change that if he was elected. He lost.

We're not saying anything close to the same thing.

Romney was certainly the CEO of Bain capital, and his ducking responsibility for it smacks of Obama's own habits.

Imelt continues to be irrelevant as private citizens are perfectly free to operate within the law. I didn't criticize Romney for that, so there is no analogy.

Unlike Imelt, and here's the difference you fail to grasp, Romney sought public office after undermining the very people he wanted to serve. To which I say, **** him.

If his intentions were sincere, he would have developed a history of lobbying for improvements to tax code and other legislation that supposedly impedes business BEFORE he ran for the highest office in the country. Not as some empty political promise AFTER he was elected.

Believe campaign promises if you want to, but I'm not that stupid.

as they say-----------opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

I disagree with almost everything in your post, except the parts highlighted in red.

If the comparison to Imelt is beyond your comprehension abilities, thats fine. Imelt was a big obama supporter, obama claimed to want to grow jobs in the US, his biggest supporters did just the opposite, whereas some of the Bain companies like Staples did grow jobs in the US.

you obviously don't understand the corporate structure, being CEO of Bain did not give him any control over the actions of Staples or any other corporation.

This is very likely an academic discussion since I do not see Romney running in 2016

 

[House]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Said as much a few posts up. Way to only read what you want.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

Why is it so hard to believe that the Job Exporter in Chief should not be rewarded for his years of unpatriotic work with the top public office in the country?

Jobs left this country because of the tax policies put in place by the democrat controlled congress. Obama's buddy Imelt of GE exported more jobs than Romney ever thought of.

Tax policies that punish businesses for being successful in the USA are the problem. Romney did not create those policies.

Rationalize it away however you want, it doesn't change what Romney did.

Imelt doesn't have a history (or intention, that I'm aware) of running for President, so that was a nice strawman.

If Romney truly cared about helping this country, he'd have put his resources to work on improving the tax policies that you speculate punish businesses. However, no amount of lobbying will be likely to demolish the minimum wage, which is my personal theory of why those jobs were shipped overseas.

17¢/hour x1000 is a lot cheaper than $7.25/hour+ x500

although you seem determined to argue, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. Romney did not personally export jobs, some of the companies that Bain capital saved from bankruptcy may have. Romney was not the CEO of any company. As to Imelt and GE, I brought that up to show that the left wing supporting CEOs play by the same rules as every other company---they move their operations where they can get the best return for their shareholders. US tax policy is the problem. In the last campaign Romney said he would work to change that if he was elected. He lost.

We're not saying anything close to the same thing.

Romney was certainly the CEO of Bain capital, and his ducking responsibility for it smacks of Obama's own habits.

Imelt continues to be irrelevant as private citizens are perfectly free to operate within the law. I didn't criticize Romney for that, so there is no analogy.

Unlike Imelt, and here's the difference you fail to grasp, Romney sought public office after undermining the very people he wanted to serve. To which I say, **** him.

If his intentions were sincere, he would have developed a history of lobbying for improvements to tax code and other legislation that supposedly impedes business BEFORE he ran for the highest office in the country. Not as some empty political promise AFTER he was elected.

Believe campaign promises if you want to, but I'm not that stupid.

as they say-----------opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

I disagree with almost everything in your post, except the parts highlighted in red.

If the comparison to Imelt is beyond your comprehension abilities, thats fine. Imelt was a big obama supporter, obama claimed to want to grow jobs in the US, his biggest supporters did just the opposite, whereas some of the Bain companies like Staples did grow jobs in the US.

you obviously don't understand the corporate structure, being CEO of Bain did not give him any control over the actions of Staples or any other corporation.

This is very likely an academic discussion since I do not see Romney running in 2016

So you don't even try to deny that campaign promises carry more weight with you than a person's history.

Wow. Good to know.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to express it. You are wrong, but thats OK, you are a liberal so you are wrong 98% of the time.

So, when any semblance of a cogent argument fails you, you attack the person instead of the message.

Hmmmm...

 

[Redfish]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Said as much a few posts up. Way to only read what you want.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

Why is it so hard to believe that the Job Exporter in Chief should not be rewarded for his years of unpatriotic work with the top public office in the country?

Jobs left this country because of the tax policies put in place by the democrat controlled congress. Obama's buddy Imelt of GE exported more jobs than Romney ever thought of.

Tax policies that punish businesses for being successful in the USA are the problem. Romney did not create those policies.

Rationalize it away however you want, it doesn't change what Romney did.

Imelt doesn't have a history (or intention, that I'm aware) of running for President, so that was a nice strawman.

If Romney truly cared about helping this country, he'd have put his resources to work on improving the tax policies that you speculate punish businesses. However, no amount of lobbying will be likely to demolish the minimum wage, which is my personal theory of why those jobs were shipped overseas.

17¢/hour x1000 is a lot cheaper than $7.25/hour+ x500

although you seem determined to argue, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. Romney did not personally export jobs, some of the companies that Bain capital saved from bankruptcy may have. Romney was not the CEO of any company. As to Imelt and GE, I brought that up to show that the left wing supporting CEOs play by the same rules as every other company---they move their operations where they can get the best return for their shareholders. US tax policy is the problem. In the last campaign Romney said he would work to change that if he was elected. He lost.

We're not saying anything close to the same thing.

Romney was certainly the CEO of Bain capital, and his ducking responsibility for it smacks of Obama's own habits.

Imelt continues to be irrelevant as private citizens are perfectly free to operate within the law. I didn't criticize Romney for that, so there is no analogy.

Unlike Imelt, and here's the difference you fail to grasp, Romney sought public office after undermining the very people he wanted to serve. To which I say, **** him.

If his intentions were sincere, he would have developed a history of lobbying for improvements to tax code and other legislation that supposedly impedes business BEFORE he ran for the highest office in the country. Not as some empty political promise AFTER he was elected.

Believe campaign promises if you want to, but I'm not that stupid.

as they say-----------opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

I disagree with almost everything in your post, except the parts highlighted in red.

If the comparison to Imelt is beyond your comprehension abilities, thats fine. Imelt was a big obama supporter, obama claimed to want to grow jobs in the US, his biggest supporters did just the opposite, whereas some of the Bain companies like Staples did grow jobs in the US.

you obviously don't understand the corporate structure, being CEO of Bain did not give him any control over the actions of Staples or any other corporation.

This is very likely an academic discussion since I do not see Romney running in 2016

So you don't even try to deny that campaign promises carry more weight with you than a person's history.

Wow. Good to know.

I never said or implied any such thing. Campaign promises are bullshit no matter who says them, but they do sometimes give an indication of what the person believes. Like this one: "I want to fundamentally change the USA" and this one "I want to redistribute the wealth". Then there is this quote "what difference at this point does it make?"

 

[Redfish]

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to express it. You are wrong, but thats OK, you are a liberal so you are wrong 98% of the time.

So, when any semblance of a cogent argument fails you, you attack the person instead of the message.

Hmmmm...

some posts are not worthy of a cogent response. like the one above ^^^^. Are you insulted at being called a liberal? How is calling you or the other poster what they are an attack?

 

[gipper]

I would never vote for Romney. The guy is a progressive big government loving statist.

But then, I do not vote in presidential elections any more. It is a total waste of time and besides, why would any liberty loving American support a corrupt, lying, murderous, wasteful government, by voting?

 

[House]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Said as much a few posts up. Way to only read what you want.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

Why is it so hard to believe that the Job Exporter in Chief should not be rewarded for his years of unpatriotic work with the top public office in the country?

Jobs left this country because of the tax policies put in place by the democrat controlled congress. Obama's buddy Imelt of GE exported more jobs than Romney ever thought of.

Tax policies that punish businesses for being successful in the USA are the problem. Romney did not create those policies.

Rationalize it away however you want, it doesn't change what Romney did.

Imelt doesn't have a history (or intention, that I'm aware) of running for President, so that was a nice strawman.

If Romney truly cared about helping this country, he'd have put his resources to work on improving the tax policies that you speculate punish businesses. However, no amount of lobbying will be likely to demolish the minimum wage, which is my personal theory of why those jobs were shipped overseas.

17¢/hour x1000 is a lot cheaper than $7.25/hour+ x500

although you seem determined to argue, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. Romney did not personally export jobs, some of the companies that Bain capital saved from bankruptcy may have. Romney was not the CEO of any company. As to Imelt and GE, I brought that up to show that the left wing supporting CEOs play by the same rules as every other company---they move their operations where they can get the best return for their shareholders. US tax policy is the problem. In the last campaign Romney said he would work to change that if he was elected. He lost.

We're not saying anything close to the same thing.

Romney was certainly the CEO of Bain capital, and his ducking responsibility for it smacks of Obama's own habits.

Imelt continues to be irrelevant as private citizens are perfectly free to operate within the law. I didn't criticize Romney for that, so there is no analogy.

Unlike Imelt, and here's the difference you fail to grasp, Romney sought public office after undermining the very people he wanted to serve. To which I say, **** him.

If his intentions were sincere, he would have developed a history of lobbying for improvements to tax code and other legislation that supposedly impedes business BEFORE he ran for the highest office in the country. Not as some empty political promise AFTER he was elected.

Believe campaign promises if you want to, but I'm not that stupid.

as they say-----------opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

I disagree with almost everything in your post, except the parts highlighted in red.

If the comparison to Imelt is beyond your comprehension abilities, thats fine. Imelt was a big obama supporter, obama claimed to want to grow jobs in the US, his biggest supporters did just the opposite, whereas some of the Bain companies like Staples did grow jobs in the US.

you obviously don't understand the corporate structure, being CEO of Bain did not give him any control over the actions of Staples or any other corporation.

This is very likely an academic discussion since I do not see Romney running in 2016

So you don't even try to deny that campaign promises carry more weight with you than a person's history.

Wow. Good to know.

I never said or implied any such thing. Campaign promises are bullshit no matter who says them, but they do sometimes give an indication of what the person believes. Like this one: "I want to fundamentally change the USA" and this one "I want to redistribute the wealth". Then there is this quote "what difference at this point does it make?"

Or how about this one, "Read my lips... no new taxes!"

You're the one that brought up campaign promises like they're somehow relevant.

They're not. A candidate's qualifications & history, however, are. And Romney's history condemns him.

 

[House]

I would never vote for Romney. The guy is a progressive big government loving statist.

But then, I do not vote in presidential elections any more. It is a total waste of time and besides, why would any liberty loving American support a corrupt, lying, murderous, wasteful government, by voting?

Then shut the **** up and stop complaining about it.

The only people who have any right to open their mouth are those who do something to change it. In this country, that's possible in one of 2 ways...

1) Democratic exercise of the power of the vote
2) Insurrection

Unless you're going to kill the president (which for the record, I don't advocate), then just shut the **** up and live with whatever the rest of the country decides.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Quit hitting Reply. Gazillion replies to replies is sending false positive Alerts and making these threads unreadable.

If you hit reply, delete the encoded reply texts. Leave just whatever you're actually replying to. Not that complicated.

 

[Jroc]

I would certainly vote for him in the general over any Democrat. Events have proven that America made a terrible mistake in re-electing Obama. Romney was a much better choice.
In the primary, no.

Yep better than Dem but not a true conservative for sure

 

[deltex1]

Fix your shit, house.

 

[Harry Dresden]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

everyone of them wants to help the Country......until they get elected.....then comes the excuses....then comes a bone to appease everyone and make it look like they are doing something.....then comes more excuses....

 

[JWBooth]

Meh just another corporate statist

 

[jillian]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

because the elitist had no interest in "helping the country". he felt he was entitled to it because his father (who was better than him in every possible way didn't get it). he wanted the power. plain and simple.

attaching some sort of altruism to Mitt Romney is laughable. but it would have been nice if he was even half the man his father was in that regard.

You're sucja ******* retard idiot. You dont know a thing about Romney. You dream shit up and then attribute it to him because that's how you think. Romney has done more for more people than any Democrat sitting.

poor pathetic little loser. but it's not like you're a hack or anything.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

You're sucja ******* retard idiot. You dont know a thing about Romney. You dream shit up and then attribute it to him because that's how you think. Romney has done more for more people than any Democrat sitting.

Ya loose a bet in 08 and 12 or something?