What do you think about Mitt Romney considering another 2016 run?

[Kutnupe14]

....And we take a nasty turn.

 

[churchmouse]

Who said Oswald was insane ?
Maybe he was just 50 years ahead of his time

That is not even the least bit humorous or enlightening.

 

[edporch]

Romney can run, but like 2012 I won't vote for him or the Democrat.

Even if Romney had won in 2012, we would still have Obamacare, and Romney is no friend to the 2nd Amendment.
The only real difference would be Romney is a little more favorable to business on a relative scale.
Remember, an electable Republican in the Northeast is basically a Democrat to mainstream America.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Romney can run, but like 2012 I won't vote for him or the Democrat.

Even if Romney had won in 2012, we would still have Obamacare, and Romney is no friend to the 2nd Amendment.
Remember, an electable Republican in the Northeast is basically a Democrat to mainstream America.

This sort of thought is why O got a 2nd term.

Mitt would be infinitely better than what's going on right now, would you agree?

 

[Scutter01]

This sort of thought is why O got a 2nd term.

Mitt would be infinitely better than what's going on right now, would you agree?

I don't. I think we'd be screwed regardless of who got elected. I think we'll be screwed regardless of who gets elected in 2016. Neither of the two major parties have put up a candidate that doesn't fill me with fear since at least the 80's. Even assuming a third party could get a foothold, they can't seem to put up a candidate that isn't borderline insane or doesn't have a closet full of skeletons.

 

[Bob2]

Romney can run, but like 2012 I won't vote for him or the Democrat.

Assuming based on what you said and knowing nothing about you, you are generally a Republican. In this case, in my mind, you voted Democrat by not voting Republican. Unfortunately sometimes you have to vote for the less of the two evils.

 

[halfmileharry]

I don't. I think we'd be screwed regardless of who got elected. I think we'll be screwed regardless of who gets elected in 2016. Neither of the two major parties have put up a candidate that doesn't fill me with fear since at least the 80's. Even assuming a third party could get a foothold, they can't seem to put up a candidate that isn't borderline insane or doesn't have a closet full of skeletons.

I'm coming to believe that a few skeletons won't hinder an election run. Tolerance and/or ignorance seems to be a prerequisite to vote.

 

[halfmileharry]

Assuming based on what you said and knowing nothing about you, you are generally a Republican. In this case, in my mind, you voted Democrat by not voting Republican. Unfortunately sometimes you have to vote for the less of the two evils.

I didn't and couldn't vote for evil. Even the lesser

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't. I think we'd be screwed regardless of who got elected. I think we'll be screwed regardless of who gets elected in 2016. Neither of the two major parties have put up a candidate that doesn't fill me with fear since at least the 80's. Even assuming a third party could get a foothold, they can't seem to put up a candidate that isn't borderline insane or doesn't have a closet full of skeletons.

The LP put up a very good candidate last go around and the American public didn't want a good candidate. Ours had no skeletons, (unless you count mountain climbing as a skeleton) and was vastly more sane than either of his opponents. America doesn't want a good candidate, they want a daddy or a boss, someone to give them stuff and tell them what to do.

 

[Scutter01]

Assuming based on what you said and knowing nothing about you, you are generally a Republican. In this case, in my mind, you voted Democrat by not voting Republican. Unfortunately sometimes you have to vote for the less of the two evils.

I didn't and couldn't vote for evil. Even the lesser

The attitude that "a vote for a third party is a vote for (the other side)" is exactly why we're a two-party system. People don't want to vote for the RIGHT candidate. They're only interested in either being on the winning side, or stopping the "evil" side by voting for the slightly-less-evil one.

I would dearly love to see the US change its voting method to some sort of ranked or preferential voting system. Imagine if we could pick our top five choices in order of preference instead of being stuck with either "Jack Johnson" or "John Jackson"?

 

[Scutter01]

The LP put up a very good candidate last go around and the American public didn't want a good candidate. Ours had no skeletons, (unless you count mountain climbing as a skeleton) and was vastly more sane than either of his opponents. America doesn't want a good candidate, they want a daddy or a boss, someone to give them stuff and tell them what to do.

Yes, and he had the best shot so far. The LP needs to put up more just like him until people start to realize that a third party vote isn't a wasted vote.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Rand, Romney, or Cruz.... no, nein, nyet. Right now, I'd rather we hire an official coin flipper to be Chief Exec.

We should do the presidential elections Reality TV style. The first week there are three teams, Republicans, Democrats, and "other". Each week they could have challenges and stuff and we could see video of all the back-stabbing and deal-making going on. At the end of each episode, every American could text their choice to vote off the show/election (standard text messaging rates would apply). Then, eventually, we'd be down to three for the individual game.

 

[ATM]

Assuming based on what you said and knowing nothing about you, you are generally a Republican. In this case, in my mind, you voted Democrat by not voting Republican. Unfortunately sometimes you have to vote for the less of the two evils.

^ As noted earlier, demanding to be ruled by either of only two parties.

Happy to keep alternating between 2 sides of the same coin.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Assuming based on what you said and knowing nothing about you, you are generally a Republican. In this case, in my mind, you voted Democrat by not voting Republican. Unfortunately sometimes you have to vote for the less of the two evils.

This is the sort of thinking that keeps us in the downward spiral we are in. By not voting republican he did not vote democrat by proxy, he voted for who he felt was best. Same as I did, even though here in Michigan it meant doing a write-in. If enough people can get over their republican/democrat fetish and vote a third party in I honestly think we would see some real change for the better. But I'm not going to hold my breath for it because too many are being led by the nose to think that "a vote for this third person is a vote for the guy I dislike more." THAT'S why the government is in a gridlock and THAT is why our rights keep getting chiseled away because both "sides" are one and the same. Both want to control you, the only difference is in how.

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch Romney can run, but like 2012 I won't vote for him or the Democrat.

Even if Romney had won in 2012, we would still have Obamacare, and Romney is no friend to the 2nd Amendment.
Remember, an electable Republican in the Northeast is basically a Democrat to mainstream America.

This sort of thought is why O got a 2nd term.

Mitt would be infinitely better than what's going on right now, would you agree?

Better how so?
Romney is a left wing idiot.
Obamacare was designed by the same guy who designed Romneycare.
Romney signed into law a permanent "so-called assault weapon" ban as governor.

Additionally, read the opposition research report that outlined Romney's actual record.

Romney may have been a little more business friendly, and that's about it.
If you look up the definition of RINO, you'll see his picture.

Actually, my Libertarian vote made no difference on the 2012 Indiana Presidential ballot, as Romney had a clear 10-15 percentage lead.

It's value of being used to build a block of voters that the Republicans lost nationally because they swung too far left for mainstream Republican voters was greater.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Mitt is a great guy, but wanted socialized medicine. Let's try a conservative this time.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Now, go do what your'e great at: making money and giving it away ."

FTFY

 

[The Drifter]

Rand is for making the illegals, 20 million of them legal . Seems to me that will produce about 20million democrat votes , and then were cooked. So as much as I like him, he is out . Romney ,is just a poster boy for the republicans , he is a looser and I have no trust for him . Cruz I would vote for ,he truly seems to be a oath keeper.That all being said, I really do not see a 2016 election . NUM NUTS in the white house does not want to give it up , and will crash this economy to achieve his goal .

 

[jooky52198]

Why on earth would we run him again? That is another stupid mistake by the republican party. If you actually look at Jeb and his record he isnt a hard line conservative and really do we want another Bush (whether good or bad) to give democrats more fuel to just keep burning republicans? Its time for a true conservative. Unfortunately the smart ones dont run but there are a few true conservatives. The trick is getting the stupid republican party to actually back their candidate. Americans are done with Obama, finally!! The problem is we arent running against Obama (which is exactly what Hilary will say or whoever they throw out). We need to get a smart conservative republican who wont back down, who wont cave to the stupid "the rich are the problem" mentality and go directly after the failures of the democrats. Explain you cant legislate on feelings but on results. Seriously, candidate choice is huge...i mean we have sent Dole, McCain, Romney-----All old guys that Americans dont connect with

 

[gravitas73]

Proves there is such thing as too much money.

That or he really believes he is the chosen Mormon to save the world.