Mitt Romney

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Hes been governor, hes helped establish an Olympics, He has run a large business in success.
He listens to the people around him, be it immediate, or far away voters.
Hes decent and upstanding, he should be fine, qualifications are there.
 
Governors are forced to deal with a multitude of problems, often converging, as well as opposing.
One blanket law doesnt work thruout a state, as theres differing needs, populance, ecologies etc.
A congressman doesnt have to deal with any of these things, the scale is different, and often, if its a first exposure, such as the current president, they have to rely more heavily upon their admin/help surrounding them.

Now, to be popular, one only needs to say the right things to the right people, such as those in San Francisco, where fly over country is a nowheres place, and the old ways need to die, where a president can tell them, they cling to their bibles and guns, and dont like things that are different from them.
 
Qualifications to lie to the people and never talk about the real truth Bain and his hidden tax returns. Common please.
 
And to destroy mankind as well.
Oh, and he hates animals, especially dogs.
Hates women too, wants to deny all women birth control, unless they pay something for it.
He has so much money, even many of Obamas staff have started doing what hes been doing, thats how good it is.
Not only that, but many dem congressmen have done this too, glad Romneys leading the way.
Now, if they, er um he, can only hold onto that secret, he/they can make even more money
 
Don't you know that the Republicans are hawks loving these wars making tons of money off them.Romney is a hawk!
 


Grant was a raging alcoholic as well. Don't blame him after going to war.

Personally, none of them are suitors for the throne...I mean presidency. 😉

We need a balanced, moderate, Independent president...another Washington if I may say so myself.
 
You have to be realistic what candidate would you have in mind as President?
 
There is no candidate right now that I see fit. There is not public official that has my vote as the leader of the free world. Until a person fit enough comes around, I will be happy to publicly speak about them.

 
Wow! Talk about taking things out of context. Please cite the speech where Romney said he would lead America into an attack on Iran. If anything, Romney's position on Israel and a nuclear Iran are not really all that different from Obama's.

American has walked too far down the path of social democracy and the entitlement society is too far dependent on government to support a candidate that runs on a platform of returning America to its Constitutional roots. With the current political mentality that government is the end-all-be-all to the American people's problems, the notion of a candidate returning American to its Constitutional roots is perceived as radical.

 
Yes, there are some that would want to go back, but thats being condemned by Obama as not working, as if it were those things that caused the current scenario.
Does anyone have the actual percentage that Obama wants to tax those at 250K, and its % of the national debt?
Is this leadership?
Is this just playing on the bigots?
Is this just taking up time to avoid lack of leadership, with nothing to show prior to this , other than saying itd better be fixed, as he said, or he doesnt deserve to be reelected?

While this is about Romney, there has to be a contrast in which to compare.
While I see Romney promoting himself as a leader in Bain, I see nothing of leadership from Obama, just attacks on Bain and Romney, where many from everywhere said this wasnt right, coming from many on the left.
While I see Romney promoting what he did as governor, I see Obama trying to deny why and what the supreme court proclaimed what Obamacare is, a tax, denial, not leadership, only more twisting.
I see Obama attack Romney on his health care he set up, while Romney said this is best left to a state issue, where it would be defined mby the US supreme court as a fine, and not a tax, again, more twists to keep the truth from the people.

And once again, I see Obama not having solutions, only to spend more, showing no leadership on tough decisions, as having more money makes his, and everyone in governments jobs easier and easier. Attacking a tougher scenario, where government would have to do more with less, as Romney wishes to do.

If they were my kids, I would be proud of Mitt, getting more out of less, and be annoyed with Barack, as he always keeps spending more than he has, always asks for more, and just wont change, so then, where is the hope?
 
This all depends on how government runs it.
A friend was in the Kosovo region back during the fighting, he lived there.
The town in which he lived had a water heater
Yes, one, all heated water came from that socially/government owned/controlled/maintenenced run hot water heater.

The main problem I see is the scope, or rather the lack of scope in pinning your success in the overall grasp and control of the government.
While this may not answer your question, I do hope it brings more
 
Here, look at two presidents we have had and tell me how they were precieved by their own ideology and party...then compare it to what the people thought.

The two are:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Ronald Regan

 
FDR introduced the Social Security for all Americans we have now. Regan closed down most of the mental hospitals in California when he was president we can thank him for that.FDR was liked by his party and so was Regan. He was a sheer Conservative RR.
 
Both Reagan and FDR were true to their ideology and set the agenda for their respective parties. The primary difference being that FDR was a known liberal and Reagan a conservative. You can argue who's economic policies were better for America but the real interesting difference between Reagan and FDR was their belief in the role and size of government, government regulations and its effect on businesses, and government intrusion into the lives of Americans.

History and liberal academia has recorded FDR as being a savior of America by authoring the New Deal and pulling America out of the Great Depression. But aside from liberals idolizing FDR, the reality is FDR really succeeded in growing government into the leviathan it is today. But even with the New Deal programs and massive government (stimulus?!) spending, America fell into a major recession again in 1938. FDR was not a friend to the Constitution as six of the New Deal projects and a government agency were declared unconstitutional, which led FDR to attempt to pack the SCOTUS with judges that would vote in his favor; obviously packing the SCOTUS failed and FDR was prevented from doing so. Most of the regulations placed on businesses by New Deal programs were ended by 1985 leaving only some smaller programs in place along with the FDIC, Social Security, and the SEC. I remember an elementary school teacher promoting the 3 terms served by FDR as President as evidence of his popularity, but it wasn't until I got older that I learned the 22nd Amendment was passed in direct opposition to FDR's three terms and his growth of presidential power beyond what was enumerated in the Constitution.

Reagan also succeeded in growing the government which mostly centered on the military build up that contributed to ending the Cold War. Reagan also had his share of scandal with Iran-Contra and White House filled with ethics and legal misconduct. Regardless of how you are argue Reagan's supply side economic policy, he successfully pulled America out of a poor economy left by Carter, saw the third largest economic expansion in American history, averaged an unemployment rate of 7.5%, and reduced the rate of inflation from 12% to 4.5%. But where Reagan truly succeeded was his view on the role of government; Reagan was a staunch believer in smaller and limited government. Reagan recognized the limits placed on government by the Constitution and promoted through legislation and policy individual freedom, property rights, limited government, and entrepreneurial activity.

Read up on the history of Social Security and how FDR got is passed through Congress and why the SCOTUS did not vote it as unconstitutional. In short, Social Security was deemed a tax. Initial drafts of the Social Security legislation did not gain full support of Congress and the SCOTUS, but by intentionally changing the verbiage of the legislation to call Social Security a tax, and by exploiting the "excise tax" clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, FDR was able to get the votes in Congress and have Social Security pass Constitutional review by the SCOTUS.

Now, think about how the recent Obamacare Act was pushed through Congress and what Scalia wrote about the ACA to make it Constitutional and compare that to the history of Social Security. It is not a coincidence...Democrats have a proven track record of avoiding the Amendment process and exploiting the Constitution to pass legislation that would not otherwise get enough votes in Congress or pass Constitutional review.
 
How about that trip for Romney overseas? Tried to pick a fight with Iran and Palestine at the same time. Well for Iran it was more like egging Israel on but still. He pissed of the Brits too but thats to be expected since they are our closest allies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom