Mitt Romney To Enter Presidential Race

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I don't know this guy all that well. I am not big onpolitics, but I thought it was interesting. Hadn't seen it posted and didn't find in search.



Mitt Romney said yesterday he planned to formally join the GOP race for president during an appearance next week in New Hampshire, a state that is central to his White House strategy. "Making it official next week at the Scamman Farm in New Hampshire," Romney wrote on his Facebook page. The former Massachusetts governor has been plotting a comeback since losing the GOP presidential nomination to Sen. John McCain in 2008. His advisers see New Hampshire as the launching pad for a presidential bid and they tentatively are watching Iowa, the early GOP caucus where Romney was scheduled to visit today for the first time this year.


Source




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
He's the front runner right now according to polls. He should be, he's the man for the job. It's an up hill battle even for a front runner though as he's had mixed messages on abortion. Instituted an Obama-like health care system in Mass. He's a consensus builder. If the GOP really wants to go after the White House they will endorse this type of candidate. He can win. The others? I seriously doubt it. Oh, and he's a Morman. Not that that should really matter.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
He has provided a copy of his long form BC right? Also we would like to have signed statements from childhood friends so we can make sure we don't get another foreigner in the white house.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SpiritualStar
 


I'm from the Boston area and he was governor not too long ago...I think he did a pretty good job with the exception of the health care for everyone debacle...if you do some research you can find from the Boston Globe how under estimated the local government was when throwing out some figures..or they may have know and were downplaying the cost for health care...on a side note this was suppose to bring down costs and somehow oddly enough premiums have been raised here in Massachusetts...I certainly think he carries himself very professionally and is not caddy like that other possible runner Palin..



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Well let's hope he brings something to the table besides leftovers...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
One of his pluses is that he was a very successful businessman before entering politics. He founded Bain Capital and funded several very successful ventures. His father was governor of Michigan.

He ran in the 2008 primaries. McCain and Huckabee teamed up to keep him from getting the nomination. I remember one classic dirty trick they picked to steal the W. Va. primary from him.

The thing that amazes me is that some people still make a issue of the fact that he is a Mormon, even in this day and age.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Romney is a big pharma shill and drug war proponent. This nut told some kid in a wheel chair that they have "legal" medicines that he can buy and that, essentially, the kid has no right to choose.


edit: the kid had a doctor recommendation too.
edit on 28-5-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Would you mind backing that up with a link please?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Would you mind backing that up with a link please?






posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 




He came, he saw.... that it was a set up and didn't fall for it. Smart imo. You'd get the same from anyone, either side of the aisle, on this issue.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 




He came, he saw.... that it was a set up and didn't fall for it. Smart imo. You'd get the same from anyone, either side of the aisle, on this issue.



How was it a setup, it's an important issue? Really, anyone? Honestly, Romney's answer reveals a lot about his views of personal liberty, big government and the police state. I guess if your support that kind of thing, his answer was smart. I doubt Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik or even Dennis Kucinich would have answered along those lines.

What your saying is that no one on either side supports medical marijuana?
edit on 28-5-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

The thing that amazes me is that some people still make a issue of the fact that he is a Mormon, even in this day and age.


Well, some people are of the opinion that it is a ridiculous religion, pulled, literally, from a hat.

I can accept religiosity in my Presidents. But there are some belief systems which are provably not true, and Mormonism is one of them. (The Americas definitively are NOT populated by a group of Jews who sailed over and then changed into lighter and darker skinned people based on their "wickedness.")

While the other religions are also myth packed, there is some historical evidence that backs up some of their claims, which leaves the supernatural claims which cannot be proven or disproven.

You dont even have to wait for the supernatural claims to get into lala land with Mormonism. Its ridiculous from its "historical" claims all the way up. I dont want a President that level of gullible, personally. I also dont want a Moonie president, or a Branch Davidian President, or one of the nutter "world is ending on May 21 2011" guys for president.

Mormonism may have a lot of followers, but, its still a cult. Which is where I draw the line for President, myself. No cult members.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Mitt's an asshat and will not get my vote, if I vote. The only person I'll vote for is Ron Paul and if he's not the nominee I won't vote. It's all a frakked up rigged process anyway.

Anyone who votes for a idiot politician like Mitt is a brainwashed fool in my book. Your mileage my vary.

To me, this clearly shows how deep the brainwashing goes. If you think Mitt(what kind of name is that, anyway?) is going to change the things that have been done, go in a new direction or the like, then you are a fool. He's no different the the rest of the lot, bought and paid for by special interests.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
How was it a setup, it's an important issue? Really, anyone?


Oh c'mon. They even said, "You're going to blow off a guy in a wheelchair?" Pot advocates. Don't get me wrong. I grew up in BC in the 70's. Read into that what you like but I won't break the T&C. It was a political set up and he handled it as he should have.


Honestly, Romney's answer reveals a lot about his views of personal liberty, big government and the police state. I guess if your support that kind of thing, his answer was smart.


No his answer was as honest as politics allowed him to be. Ans please don't lump all of those issues into the pot issue. It doesn't play. Again, see above.


I doubt Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik or even Dennis Kucinich would have answered anything even close to that.


You're right. Those that have NO chance of achieving the WH. They can afford to be more "liberal" in their speaking on this issue.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
How was it a setup, it's an important issue? Really, anyone?


Oh c'mon. They even said, "You're going to blow off a guy in a wheelchair?" Pot advocates. Don't get me wrong. I grew up in BC in the 70's. Read into that what you like but I won't break the T&C. It was a political set up and he handled it as he should have.


Honestly, Romney's answer reveals a lot about his views of personal liberty, big government and the police state. I guess if your support that kind of thing, his answer was smart.


No his answer was as honest as politics allowed him to be. Ans please don't lump all of those issues into the pot issue. It doesn't play. Again, see above.


I doubt Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik or even Dennis Kucinich would have answered anything even close to that.


You're right. Those that have NO chance of achieving the WH. They can afford to be more "liberal" in their speaking on this issue.


I didn't see set-up, the guy had a legitimate question. Romney COULD have said "yeah, I'm all for it andwhen I become president, you and your doctors can choose whatever medicine that is best". Instead, he espouses patented alternatives and clearly confirms his stance against medical cannabis. There is no T & C worries here, this well within the confines as this is not a legalization issue or personal use thing.

I came into this thread to make it clear to everyone what kind of president Romney would be. Honest? Maybe, but he falters on important domestic issues in my opinion.

p.s what does it say about politics if people who don't tow the party (corporate) line can't become president and have "no chance"?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
I didn't see set-up, the guy had a legitimate question. Romney COULD have said "yeah, I'm all for it andwhen I become president, you and your doctors can choose whatever medicine that is best". Instead, he espouses patented alternatives and clearly confirms his stance against medical cannabis.


He had another option? To the whole electorate. Not just those that see MJ as a major issue? That's a small part of the electorate my friend.


I came into this thread to make it clear to everyone what kind of president Romney would be. Honest? Maybe, but he falters on important domestic issues in my opinion.


Again, that "major" issue is only yours. There are many others that are more important. Like the wars. The economy. Schools. Healthcare. I could go on. I personally don't see MJ as a federal issue to start with. That should be and is a State issue.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



Originally posted by mishigas

The thing that amazes me is that some people still make a issue of the fact that he is a Mormon, even in this day and age.


Well, some people are of the opinion that it is a ridiculous religion, pulled, literally, from a hat.

I can accept religiosity in my Presidents. But there are some belief systems which are provably not true, and Mormonism is one of them. (The Americas definitively are NOT populated by a group of Jews who sailed over and then changed into lighter and darker skinned people based on their "wickedness.")

While the other religions are also myth packed, there is some historical evidence that backs up some of their claims, which leaves the supernatural claims which cannot be proven or disproven.

You dont even have to wait for the supernatural claims to get into lala land with Mormonism. Its ridiculous from its "historical" claims all the way up. I dont want a President that level of gullible, personally. I also dont want a Moonie president, or a Branch Davidian President, or one of the nutter "world is ending on May 21 2011" guys for president.

Mormonism may have a lot of followers, but, its still a cult. Which is where I draw the line for President, myself. No cult members.


Ahh, so your G_d is better than his G_d, eh? One organized religion is better than another organized religion, eh? But I'll bet you believe in ET's, reptilians, ghosts, and other supernatural figments, don't you?

So you've satisfied your intellect without having to work too hard. All you needed was a 4 letter word - cult.

You talk about Mormonism as being "provably not true". I challenge you to show me a religion that is provably true.

I realize there is no point in discussing this with you. If you can so easily rule a person out of an election b/c of his religious beliefs, then that means you must believe that the 1st Amendment doesn't exist. It's OK to discriminate on the basis of religion, eh?

I still can't believe that in this day and age, there are still people that are so narrow minded and intolerant of another's religious beliefs.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 



Mitt's an asshat and will not get my vote, if I vote. The only person I'll vote for is Ron Paul and if he's not the nominee I won't vote. It's all a frakked up rigged process anyway.

Anyone who votes for a idiot politician like Mitt is a brainwashed fool in my book. Your mileage my vary.

To me, this clearly shows how deep the brainwashing goes. If you think Mitt(what kind of name is that, anyway?) is going to change the things that have been done, go in a new direction or the like, then you are a fool. He's no different the the rest of the lot, bought and paid for by special interests.


Now there's a post full of solid, well researched facts with strong attributions. It shows a lot of thought and well-ordered, logical thinking. I especially liked the point that he has a funny middle name! And to top it off, others agree!


/sarcasm

To each his own.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

Ahh, so your G_d is better than his G_d, eh? One organized religion is better than another organized religion, eh? But I'll bet you believe in ET's, reptilians, ghosts, and other supernatural figments, don't you?


Bet again. You know what I really, really dislike? People who cannot read, or, if they CAN read, clearly cannot read for comprehension. I never said anywhere that my God was better than his God. You dont even know if I believe in ANY God from what I wrote, but because I said, 'I can tolerate religiosity in a President" an intelligent person might assume I was not, myself, religious. It would still be only an assumption, and possibly untrue, but it wouldnt be even close to being as out there are your assumption based on nothing I said.



Originally posted by mishigas
So you've satisfied your intellect without having to work too hard. All you needed was a 4 letter word - cult.

You talk about Mormonism as being "provably not true". I challenge you to show me a religion that is provably true.


Which again, shows YOUR ignorance. I myself would never argue that. Go read Poppers argument about the limits of science and get back to me, or, better yet, dont get back to me. I chose my words to express exactly what I meant. Not what you want to argue against. My argument is clear and simple. Im sorry you cant understand it. Not my problem.



Originally posted by mishigas
I still can't believe that in this day and age, there are still people that are so narrow minded and intolerant of another's religious beliefs.


If someone believes in something that can be shown, demonstrably, NOT to be true, they are either mentally ill, or stupid, or hopelessly uninformed. I dont want a president who is any of that. A president who holds a belief which can neither be proven or disproven sits in a different category. Sorry. Its just the way it goes.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 



I didn't see set-up, the guy had a legitimate question. Romney COULD have said "yeah, I'm all for it andwhen I become president, you and your doctors can choose whatever medicine that is best".


That's what Obama did. Lied to get more votes. Romney chooses to be honest.


I came into this thread to make it clear to everyone what kind of president Romney would be. Honest? Maybe, but he falters on important domestic issues in my opinion.


I don't see it as an important domestic issue. It may be, to a very small (less than .001%) of people, but I certainly would not lie and make it a plank in my platform. He did the right thing by speaking his truth.





top topics
 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join