Mitt Romney announces potential 2016 presidential run

[Ethel mermania]

Does anyone have legitimate concerns with Romney?

Please leave out the political dogma and stick to policy matters, if you can. i. e. None of the "rich" propaganda and off-handed comments that every politician makes.

hes a republican and would promote republican policies and appoint republicans to office.

if I were a republican I would find him to be just fine. the only downside is that he is a loser.

ladies and Gentlemen, may i present to you the next Harold Stassen..... Mitt Romney.

[The Black Forrest]

Are you suggesting he would be a good sock puppet like the shrub?

Nobody could be as much of a tool as Shrub II.

Shrub II?

If you mean Obama? Nah, Obama at least did a couple things.....

[Eldona]

No... not again.

I can't stand you. You had your shot. You blew it. Now, please go away. Please.

Romney. I don't like him, and I'm a Republican.

SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

But then, historically speaking, poor performance as a governor hasn't necessarily translated to not becoming president - look at Reagan, for example.



They're on the wrong side of a demographic shift that isn't going anywhere. Absent some far more effective voter suppression and managing to force through some serious gerrymandering, they're unlikely to win an election until the next major party realignment.

Romney was an excellent Governor and I say this as a democrat

Romney governed a liberal state as a liberal, so this isn't surprising.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Kidding me? Did you see him on the cover of Time a few months ago?

my bad, I was referring to it Ron Paul, regardless I hope the media tanks down Rand Paul for his ridiculous positions on foreign relationships,

Huh? What's wrong with less war? I like his stances on foreign affairs, because he's not a pure non-interventionist like his father. Instead, Rand seems to be more pragmatic. He's against unconstitutional wars but isn't afraid to defend American interests.

economic policies,

What's wrong with free markets?

and non-existent position on social issues.

We could use more politicians without positions on social issues, because they're none of their damn business.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Does anyone have legitimate concerns with Romney?

Please leave out the political dogma and stick to policy matters, if you can. i. e. None of the "rich" propaganda and off-handed comments that every politician makes.

Yes. His socially conservative policies are pretty terrible, as are a large chunk of his economic policies. I'm against the idea of privatizing social security, and cutting taxes on the very wealthy. I'm also opposed to his foreign policy, which is far too interventionist. However, I do find it rather unfair when people call him "elitist" or "a moneybags." People should critique his politics, not his personal life.

Perhaps one of the great ironies of the 2012 campaign is that the media pigeon-holed Romney as "pro-corporate" while portraying Obama as "anti-corporate"; when in fact they are both overwhelmingly for corporate special interests. Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and always has been.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I don't recall his social conservative policies too much. As I understand it, it's the typical party line on those issues. I can't really blame him on that if he actually wants to win the nomination. As for economic policies, I firmly disagree. I would argue he does have a firm grip on the economic situation, although you make a good point that specific aspects aren't the best approach, such as cutting taxes on the ultra wealthy. But you know, I'm not completely familiar with everything he has done or stands for, so I'd have to be refreshed come election time, but out of the candidates I have to choose from in the Republican primaries, he could be excellent.

Well, the GOP won't change unless party members decide to become more socially tolerant on their own accord. If he actually wants to get any level of support, he should grow some balls, and stop opposing same sex marriage, denying climate change, denying science, denying the benefits of immigration and all of that. And, some of his economic points are smart. He advocates cutting our terrible uncompetitive corporate tax, free trade, NAFTA, amongst other things. But, unlike in many other countries, our income tax on the wealthy is one of the lowest in the OECD. I see no point in lowering it. Now, if this were the UK, or Germany, I would see the need for lowering the tax.

The question isn't why it should be lowered; the question is why shouldn't it be lowered? I've heard few legitimate arguments against it aside from emotional/populist charges that the rich are rich enough or should keep less of their money. Cutting taxes obviously leads to faster growth and numerous economic benefits, so why shouldn't the top rate be lowered, especially since revenues will likely not change by much? Of course, I'd argue for cutting taxes for lower incomes first, since incomes under $100,000 make up 5% of income tax revenues, but lowering the top rate wouldn't hurt.

[Southern Hampshire]

Modern democrats are un-American.

Love all the other parties though.

But you're not even remotely qualified to comment on that, not being American.

Who told you that?

Have dual citizenship and will gloriously vote for Christie like my parents did against that despicable Buono.

[Hetmarch]

We had a chance. Had.

[Laerod]

But you're not even remotely qualified to comment on that, not being American.

Who told you that?

Have dual citizenship and will gloriously vote for Christie like my parents did against that despicable Buono.

A very interesting development. The person with an immigrant background is anti-immigrant.

[Southern Hampshire]

Who told you that?

Have dual citizenship and will gloriously vote for Christie like my parents did against that despicable Buono.

A very interesting development. The person with an immigrant background is anti-immigrant.

Not at all. Anti-Islam. Read my signature, integratory immigration is absolutely fine and acceptable and probably beneficial too.

[Hydesland]

We had a chance. Had.

Thank goodness.

[Laerod]

A very interesting development. The person with an immigrant background is anti-immigrant.

Not at all. Anti-Islam.

Contradiction.

[Southern Hampshire]

Not at all. Anti-Islam.

Contradiction.

I fail to see how your logic works.

Detailed explanation please.

[Laerod]

Contradiction.

I fail to see how your logic works.

Detailed explanation please.

Well, the phrase "not at all" means that you are "not" against immigration "at all". You followed this up with an example immigration you were against. This is referred to as a "contradiction".

But enough about you. Tell me more about Romney.

[Southern Hampshire]

I fail to see how your logic works.

Detailed explanation please.

Well, the phrase "not at all" means that you are "not" against immigration "at all". You followed this up with an example immigration you were against. This is referred to as a "contradiction".

But enough about you. Tell me more about Romney.

You are the one contradicting here. I am not against muslims, I am against their religion. A religion cannot immigrate, and in the case of Islam, certainly cannot integrate.

Romney? Don't like him, everything that is wrong with American version of capitalism, a staunch and stubborn corporatist. Certainly not my first choice for the Republican nominee. But in the current political climate any Republican is a better choice than a Democrat.

[Ashmoria]

hes a republican and would promote republican policies and appoint republicans to office.

if I were a republican I would find him to be just fine. the only downside is that he is a loser.

Are you suggesting he would be a good sock puppet like the shrub?

I think he would be a better sock puppet than shrub because he would have a few thoughts of his own on domestic policy. the rest of it would be a new neocon horrorshow of cowboy foreign policy and a taxcut spree to make Kansas look fiscally sound.

[Dejanic]

But you're not even remotely qualified to comment on that, not being American.

Who told you that?

Have dual citizenship and will gloriously vote for Christie like my parents did against that despicable Buono.

So if I'm correct here, you're British, Israeli AND American.

Why do I get the feeling that you're from somewhere like Bulgaria and you just pretend to be from certain countries to give the false impression that your opinion is actually relevant and well informed.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Yes. His socially conservative policies are pretty terrible, as are a large chunk of his economic policies. I'm against the idea of privatizing social security, and cutting taxes on the very wealthy. I'm also opposed to his foreign policy, which is far too interventionist. However, I do find it rather unfair when people call him "elitist" or "a moneybags." People should critique his politics, not his personal life.

Perhaps one of the great ironies of the 2012 campaign is that the media pigeon-holed Romney as "pro-corporate" while portraying Obama as "anti-corporate"; when in fact they are both overwhelmingly for corporate special interests. Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and always has been.

Indeed. And, this was an issue on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Well, the GOP won't change unless party members decide to become more socially tolerant on their own accord. If he actually wants to get any level of support, he should grow some balls, and stop opposing same sex marriage, denying climate change, denying science, denying the benefits of immigration and all of that. And, some of his economic points are smart. He advocates cutting our terrible uncompetitive corporate tax, free trade, NAFTA, amongst other things. But, unlike in many other countries, our income tax on the wealthy is one of the lowest in the OECD. I see no point in lowering it. Now, if this were the UK, or Germany, I would see the need for lowering the tax.

The question isn't why it should be lowered; the question is why shouldn't it be lowered? I've heard few legitimate arguments against it aside from emotional/populist charges that the rich are rich enough or should keep less of their money. Cutting taxes obviously leads to faster growth and numerous economic benefits, so why shouldn't the top rate be lowered, especially since revenues will likely not change by much? Of course, I'd argue for cutting taxes for lower incomes first, since incomes under $100,000 make up 5% of income tax revenues, but lowering the top rate wouldn't hurt.

Because, excessive income inequality is bad. Furthermore, I try to stay away from the populist arguments, and look at the top income tax from a pragmatic standpoint. If we want to lift people out of poverty, or help those in poverty, we'll have a tough time doing so without being able to fund welfare programs and the like properly.

[Ripoll]

Well, the GOP won't change unless party members decide to become more socially tolerant on their own accord. If he actually wants to get any level of support, he should grow some balls, and stop opposing same sex marriage, denying climate change, denying science, denying the benefits of immigration and all of that. And, some of his economic points are smart. He advocates cutting our terrible uncompetitive corporate tax, free trade, NAFTA, amongst other things. But, unlike in many other countries, our income tax on the wealthy is one of the lowest in the OECD. I see no point in lowering it. Now, if this were the UK, or Germany, I would see the need for lowering the tax.

The question isn't why it should be lowered; the question is why shouldn't it be lowered? I've heard few legitimate arguments against it aside from emotional/populist charges that the rich are rich enough or should keep less of their money. Cutting taxes obviously leads to faster growth and numerous economic benefits, so why shouldn't the top rate be lowered, especially since revenues will likely not change by much? Of course, I'd argue for cutting taxes for lower incomes first, since incomes under $100,000 make up 5% of income tax revenues, but lowering the top rate wouldn't hurt.

Tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous, they have more money than they know how to spend chances are if you raised taxes they wouldn't spend less than they already do. But don't take my word for it, take a primarily conservative media piece http://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/ ... eate-jobs/

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-ta ... wth-2012-9

[Stellar Federation of Earth]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLqMX8Ro-m0

Its how complicated and stupid it could become...except not with Obama

[Ripoll]

my bad, I was referring to it Ron Paul, regardless I hope the media tanks down Rand Paul for his ridiculous positions on foreign relationships,

Huh? What's wrong with less war? I like his stances on foreign affairs, because he's not a pure non-interventionist like his father. Instead, Rand seems to be more pragmatic. He's against unconstitutional wars but isn't afraid to defend American interests.

economic policies,

What's wrong with free markets?

and non-existent position on social issues.

We could use more politicians without positions on social issues, because they're none of their damn business.

One, there aren't any major wars going on, just stability practices. Would you rather we withdraw and let the vicious cycles in the middle east take hold anyway? No, we need to work out an international solution to international terrorism and I'm sure Rand Paul would do that very thing, but as he stands right now I think he's far too politically focused and has a very weak international agenda.

Two.....it's not that simple

Three, of course not the American people have a right to know the type of person they're voting for, they want leadership and if politicians aren't willing to disclose their character that destroys trust and transparency.

[MERIZoC]

Nobody could be as much of a tool as Shrub II.

Shrub II?

If you mean Obama? Nah, Obama at least did a couple things.....

GW Bush.

[Southern Hampshire]

Who told you that?

Have dual citizenship and will gloriously vote for Christie like my parents did against that despicable Buono.

So if I'm correct here, you're British, Israeli AND American.

Why do I get the feeling that you're from somewhere like Bulgaria and you just pretend to be from certain countries to give the false impression that your opinion is actually relevant and well informed.

Mmmm ... no.

British by birth right (Gibraltar, and they have different laws and passports, so theoretically quadra-citizenship), Israel by father (only given after 6 months of living in Israel) and the US for my 11 year life in NJ.

Only American and Gibraltarian passports. Would need to live in Israel for a couple of years (5?) to claim theirs.