Mitt Romney announces potential 2016 presidential run

by **Lerodan Chinamerica** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:25 pm

Oh boy. Can't wait to support this Republican patriot. Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom! His record as Governor shows just how great he was.

by **Kelinfort** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:28 pm

Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Oh boy. Can't wait to support this Republican patriot. Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom! His record as Governor shows just how great he was.

Better than the actual party now. I might have voted for Mitt or McCain, if they didn't sell their liberal social values down the river.

by **OMGeverynameistaken** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:29 pm

I don't trust anybody named "Willard."

by **New Hampshire Republic** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:34 pm

I think this guy has a HUGE denial problem.

by **Geilinor** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:35 pm

Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Oh boy. Can't wait to support this Republican patriot. Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom! His record as Governor shows just how great he was.

There's no such thing as a "true" conservative or a "true" liberal. The purity tests are what held Romney down last time.

by **The Nuclear Fist** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:36 pm

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:I don't trust anybody named "Willard."

President Willy.

by **District XIV** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:40 pm

Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom!

Unless you're a gay person who wants their marriage recognized by the state

by **Nord Amour** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:46 pm

District XIV wrote:
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom!

Unless you're a gay person who wants their marriage recognized by the state

Or a libertarian that doesn't want any marriages recognized by the state.

by **Ripoll** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:47 pm

Kelinfort wrote:
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Oh boy. Can't wait to support this Republican patriot. Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom! His record as Governor shows just how great he was.

Better than the actual party now. I might have voted for Mitt or McCain, if they didn't sell their liberal social values down the river.

I don't even care about the social issues, he threw his economic agenda down the drain to in exchange for tea party bullshit.

by **Ripoll** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:48 pm

Nord Amour wrote:
District XIV wrote:Unless you're a gay person who wants their marriage recognized by the state

Or a libertarian that doesn't want any marriages recognized by the state.

You're heavily mischaracterizing libertarians right now.

Unless marriages trump all over libertopia too, o whatever shall we do first the marriages, then the taxes, and STALIN.

by **New Hampshire Republic** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:49 pm

Nord Amour wrote:
District XIV wrote:Unless you're a gay person who wants their marriage recognized by the state

Or a libertarian that doesn't want any marriages recognized by the state.

huehuehuehuehuehuehuehuehuhue

by **District XIV** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:50 pm

Nord Amour wrote:
District XIV wrote:Unless you're a gay person who wants their marriage recognized by the state

Or a libertarian that doesn't want any marriages recognized by the state.

Mitt Romney supported a federal constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union of "one man and one woman", so, no?

by **Nord Amour** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:53 pm

District XIV wrote:
Nord Amour wrote:
Or a libertarian that doesn't want any marriages recognized by the state.

Mitt Romney supported a federal constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union of "one man and one woman", so, no?

That's the point. I stood against Mitt Romney because of his oddball attempts to define marriage.

by **District XIV** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Nord Amour wrote:
District XIV wrote:Mitt Romney supported a federal constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union of "one man and one woman", so, no?

That's the point. I stood against Mitt Romney because of his oddball attempts to define marriage.

Ah, I misinterpreted your statement.

by **Lerodan Chinamerica** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:34 pm

Kelinfort wrote:
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:Oh boy. Can't wait to support this Republican patriot. Mitt Romney is a true conservative that believes in freedom! His record as Governor shows just how great he was.

Better than the actual party now. I might have voted for Mitt or McCain, if they didn't sell their liberal social values down the river.

I was being sarcastic. Men like him will keep the Republican Party in mainstream obscurity for years. His record as Governor is atrocious and totally contradictory to all of his presidential policies. We don't need another Bushite in the White House. And anyway, he's unelectable. He couldn't beat McCain, he couldn't beat Obama, and he won't beat Hillary.

Rand Paul is the only sane, non-warmongering, non-bigoted leading member of the GOP. People who care about the party's long term survival - and America's future, as well - should vote for him instead.

by **Ripoll** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:35 pm

Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:
Kelinfort wrote:Better than the actual party now. I might have voted for Mitt or McCain, if they didn't sell their liberal social values down the river.

I was being sarcastic. Men like him will keep the Republican Party in mainstream obscurity for years. His record as Governor is atrocious and totally contradictory to all of his presidential policies. We don't need another Bushite in the White House. And anyway, he's unelectable. He couldn't beat McCain, he couldn't beat Obama, and he won't beat Hillary.

Rand Paul is the only sane, non-warmongering, non-bigoted leading member of the GOP. People who care about the party's long term survival - and America's future, as well - should vote for him instead.

No, Christie is the only sane Republican, alongside McCain

by **Lancaster of Wessex** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:37 pm

Is this guy a glutton for losing, or what.

by **Kelinfort** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:44 pm

Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:
Kelinfort wrote:Better than the actual party now. I might have voted for Mitt or McCain, if they didn't sell their liberal social values down the river.

I was being sarcastic. Men like him will keep the Republican Party in mainstream obscurity for years. His record as Governor is atrocious and totally contradictory to all of his presidential policies. We don't need another Bushite in the White House. And anyway, he's unelectable. He couldn't beat McCain, he couldn't beat Obama, and he won't beat Hillary.

Rand Paul is the only sane, non-warmongering, non-bigoted leading member of the GOP. People who care about the party's long term survival - and America's future, as well - should vote for him instead.

I knew you were being sarcastic. I don't see how the Republican Party is in obscurity though...?

No. Paul is not socially libertarian nor would his policies differ much from the rest of the GOP. He brings no new solutions nor actual libertarian polices. Hell, even Doug Ose's more socially libertarian than him. I would very much prefer to see Johnson (if the libs disavowed hard currency) or Gravel win, but that's not happening.

by **Meridiani Planum** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:05 pm

Oh, good. I get to ignore Romney a second time.

by **Liberty and Linguistics** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:08 pm

Ripoll wrote:
Lerodan Chinamerica wrote:I was being sarcastic. Men like him will keep the Republican Party in mainstream obscurity for years. His record as Governor is atrocious and totally contradictory to all of his presidential policies. We don't need another Bushite in the White House. And anyway, he's unelectable. He couldn't beat McCain, he couldn't beat Obama, and he won't beat Hillary.

Rand Paul is the only sane, non-warmongering, non-bigoted leading member of the GOP. People who care about the party's long term survival - and America's future, as well - should vote for him instead.

No, Christie is the only sane Republican, alongside McCain

Don't forget Jon Hunstman. He seems alright. If he ran against a populist like Bernie Sanders, I'd probably vote for Huntsman. Huntsman should just join the Blue Dog Democrats, he'd be best there.

by **Ripoll** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:15 pm

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
Ripoll wrote:
No, Christie is the only sane Republican, alongside McCain

Don't forget Jon Hunstman. He seems alright. If he ran against a populist like Bernie Sanders, I'd probably vote for Huntsman. Huntsman should just join the Blue Dog Democrats, he'd be best there.

I praise him, as a centrist democrat I praise him.

by **Bacopa** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:15 pm

Othelos wrote:
Nord Amour wrote:He was a weak candidate the first time around, and he'll be an even weaker candidate in 2016.

He seemed weak because he wasn't absorbed by religious right hysteria like the rest of the candidates.

He seemed weak because he was/is/will be weak...his campaign was disorganized, his PR team stank, and he has little to no appeal - he was the best of the worst last time, and he's done nothing to improve upon that

by **Ripoll** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:21 pm

Bacopa wrote:
Othelos wrote:He seemed weak because he wasn't absorbed by religious right hysteria like the rest of the candidates.

He seemed weak because he was/is/will be weak...his campaign was disorganized, his PR team stank, and he has little to no appeal - he was the best of the worst last time, and he's done nothing to improve upon that

Paul Ryan was much more charismatic and electable I'd say, even if I disagree with him on many accounts.

Really the only person that gave his campaign any flavor to it

by **Maineiacs** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:23 pm

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:I don't trust anybody named "Willard."

With good reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_%281971_film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_%282003_film%29

by **Geilinor** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:41 pm

I think Romney would be more liked today if he had just stayed or tried to stay a moderate New England Republican.

Mitt Romney announces potential 2016 presidential run

Who is online