FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Mitt Romney for President





deanhills
What do you think of Mitt Romney for President? He may be standing for the Presidency in 2012?

This is a write-up on him:
Quote:
Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and former Republican Governor of Massachusetts. Romney was CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. Romney successfully organized and steered the 2002 Winter Olympics as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Romney served one term as Governor from 2003 to 2007, and was a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election. He is widely seen as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in the 2012 Presidential Election.

ocalhoun
I'd like one with no corporate ties, thank you... Though I know that's difficult.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I'd like one with no corporate ties, thank you... Though I know that's difficult.
Wouldn't he resign his corporate ties when he becomes President? I like the idea that he can manage money, and is a self-made man. He seems to have a self-discipline that comes from himself. Would be nice to have someone like that at the helm of managing other people's money, i.e. balancing the books better.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'd like one with no corporate ties, thank you... Though I know that's difficult.
Wouldn't he resign his corporate ties when he becomes President? I like the idea that he can manage money, and is a self-made man. He seems to have a self-discipline that comes from himself. Would be nice to have someone like that at the helm of managing other people's money, i.e. balancing the books better.

Of course he'd officially resign his corporate ties first... but they'd still be there, and he probably wouldn't sell the stock he has in that company, which gives him continued incentive to make sure that stock goes up in value.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Of course he'd officially resign his corporate ties first... but they'd still be there, and he probably wouldn't sell the stock he has in that company, which gives him continued incentive to make sure that stock goes up in value.
What difference would it be to Obama selling many more books during and after his election campaign?
jwellsy
Last I heard he still proclaims Romney Health Care is a success. I find that disturbing. Being a successful businessman is sorely needed. Obama's administration has the lowest private sector experience since 1900.

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2009/11/30/obamas-cabinet-this-graph-explains-a-lot/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
Ghost Rider103
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'd like one with no corporate ties, thank you... Though I know that's difficult.
Wouldn't he resign his corporate ties when he becomes President? I like the idea that he can manage money, and is a self-made man. He seems to have a self-discipline that comes from himself. Would be nice to have someone like that at the helm of managing other people's money, i.e. balancing the books better.


I agree. Having someone who knows how to manage money I think would help greatly.

Plus by reading some information about his history, he is indeed good at making successful plans.
ocalhoun
Ghost Rider103 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'd like one with no corporate ties, thank you... Though I know that's difficult.
Wouldn't he resign his corporate ties when he becomes President? I like the idea that he can manage money, and is a self-made man. He seems to have a self-discipline that comes from himself. Would be nice to have someone like that at the helm of managing other people's money, i.e. balancing the books better.


I agree. Having someone who knows how to manage money I think would help greatly.

Plus by reading some information about his history, he is indeed good at making successful plans.
Fine... put him on a cabinet, or make him an adviser.

The corruption in Washington, however, is systemic enough without electing people because of their corporate backgrounds.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The corruption in Washington, however, is systemic enough without electing people because of their corporate backgrounds.
I don't understand. What harm exactly would Romney be able to do, that is absent with Obama?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The corruption in Washington, however, is systemic enough without electing people because of their corporate backgrounds.
I don't understand. What harm exactly would Romney be able to do, that is absent with Obama?

One would hope that we could find a candidate better than Obama.
"Everybody is doing it" is not an excuse.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The corruption in Washington, however, is systemic enough without electing people because of their corporate backgrounds.
I don't understand. What harm exactly would Romney be able to do, that is absent with Obama?

One would hope that we could find a candidate better than Obama.
"Everybody is doing it" is not an excuse.
Maybe you misunderstood my question. Let's rather make this a hypothetical President A and President B. President A is from a corporate background and President B not from a corporate background, but he has written a number of books. Let's assume that both are equally well qualified for the position of President. How would President A's association with a corporate background make him less qualified for the Presidency than President B, who stands to profit a lot from his sales of books during and after a Presidential election?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
How would President A's association with a corporate background make him less qualified for the Presidency than President B, who stands to profit a lot from his sales of books during and after a Presidential election?

Because President B would be less likely to decide that the company he happens to own (a LOT of) stock in desperately needs tax breaks and/or bailouts.

Conversely, President B would be more likely to veto bills from congress that propose those same tax breaks and bailouts.

Note, I do use probabilities here... The lack of obvious corporate ties does not prove the lack of corruption. It does, however, offer extremely strong evidence for conflict of interest.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Note, I do use probabilities here... The lack of obvious corporate ties does not prove the lack of corruption. It does, however, offer extremely strong evidence for conflict of interest.
OK, I can see where you are coming from, but wouldn't he be more heavily scrutinized for flaws in this category than anyone else in the country or any President before him, i.e. after he has resigned all his corporate memberships everywhere, the media would be watching him that more carefully? In the meanwhile people would at least have the benefit of a President that at least knows how to manage money. Romney seems to have accumulated a lot of experience in managing large organizations that include financial management. With financial management there is also management of people involved, they won't be able to put one past him, he would know how to read all their statements and see through their smoke screens and facial expressions.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Note, I do use probabilities here... The lack of obvious corporate ties does not prove the lack of corruption. It does, however, offer extremely strong evidence for conflict of interest.
OK, I can see where you are coming from, but wouldn't he be more heavily scrutinized for flaws in this category than anyone else in the country or any President before him, i.e. after he has resigned all his corporate memberships everywhere, the media would be watching him that more carefully?

In a word, 'no'.

Like all modern elections, it would become more a matter of propaganda rather than investigation.

The opposition would accuse him, and his campaign would deny it... Regardless of if it is true or not.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Note, I do use probabilities here... The lack of obvious corporate ties does not prove the lack of corruption. It does, however, offer extremely strong evidence for conflict of interest.
OK, I can see where you are coming from, but wouldn't he be more heavily scrutinized for flaws in this category than anyone else in the country or any President before him, i.e. after he has resigned all his corporate memberships everywhere, the media would be watching him that more carefully?

In a word, 'no'.

Like all modern elections, it would become more a matter of propaganda rather than investigation.

The opposition would accuse him, and his campaign would deny it... Regardless of if it is true or not.
Are you then saying that candidates who have a corporate background should be disqualified from standing for election of the Presidency? If yes, would that not be discrimating against people who have had a background of running corporations?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Are you then saying that candidates who have a corporate background should be disqualified from standing for election of the Presidency? If yes, would that not be discrimating against people who have had a background of running corporations?

Disqualified? No, the requirements to be president are clearly stated in the constitution.
Corporate ties do usually disqualify a candidate from getting my support though.
Starrfoxx
I hope Romney runs again. I trust him far more than I trust Obama. The way he and the Dems rushed this Health Care Reform as quickly as possible should be cause for alarm. Yes, we need universal health care. I just don't think what Obama threw at us is the solution, but possibly a much larger problem to come.
deanhills
Starrfoxx wrote:
I hope Romney runs again. I trust him far more than I trust Obama. The way he and the Dems rushed this Health Care Reform as quickly as possible should be cause for alarm. Yes, we need universal health care. I just don't think what Obama threw at us is the solution, but possibly a much larger problem to come.
I can't understand however, is it really a done deal? There are so many issues still that will have to be rehashed with Congress and that surely requires the approval by Congress first? For example that deal with Nebraska that happened at the Senate stage and that had not been there yet at the time when Congress voted. It is also blatant obvious that the public is unhappy about the legislation in its current form and I can imagine even unhappier now with the way it has been rushed through.

Refer discussion:http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107746-16.html
gandalfthegrey
Mitt Romney is a joke. He lacks charisma and cannot pull the votes needed to win the presidency (or even the Republican nomination if he goes up against Mike Huckabee because the Southern Baptists who form much of the Republican base will support one of their own over a Mormon from the North-east.

Corporate/Private Sector experience is not a big deal. It is silly to downplay experience in not-for-profits, government or academia. They often have to accomplish a lot on much smaller budgets.
ocalhoun
gandalfthegrey wrote:


Corporate/Private Sector experience is not a big deal. It is silly to downplay experience in not-for-profits, government or academia. They often have to accomplish a lot on much smaller budgets.

^.^ And after Obama's done with it, the budget of the US will be small...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
gandalfthegrey wrote:


Corporate/Private Sector experience is not a big deal. It is silly to downplay experience in not-for-profits, government or academia. They often have to accomplish a lot on much smaller budgets.

^.^ And after Obama's done with it, the budget of the US will be small...
Laughing Laughing Probably larger, as it would appear that the Federal Government has found a way of manufacturing trillions of dollars. Some people even advocate that a real economy can only thrive on large debt, the greater the debt, the more economically viable the country is. I've never been able to wrap my brain cells around that, especially when those people also claim that only your educated economists can have an understanding of how it works (the rest of humanity are pretty much dumb in these matters but do have their uses in paying taxes etc.), and that the economy is working great! Another example of a plutarchy vs a democracy?
jwellsy
The accounts receivables will certainly be a lot smaller.
Moonspider
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Mitt Romney is a joke. He lacks charisma and cannot pull the votes needed to win the presidency (or even the Republican nomination if he goes up against Mike Huckabee because the Southern Baptists who form much of the Republican base will support one of their own over a Mormon from the North-east.

Corporate/Private Sector experience is not a big deal. It is silly to downplay experience in not-for-profits, government or academia. They often have to accomplish a lot on much smaller budgets.


It all depends on what sort of experience you want in a president. I've worked as a manager in an academic non-profit. I've worked as a manager in a municipal government. I serve as an officer in the U.S. Navy. And I currently work as a manager in a major company. If I were to run for president, the only two I think would benefit me would be my military experience and my corporate experience. The others just involved too small staffs, too small budgets, and too little responsibility with real consequences for failure.

Respectfully,
M
Related topics
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Greetings
CPAC
Is the Tea Party a Political Party?
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Who will be the Republican Presidential Candidate?
Romney: Two Big Lies in his Candidacy Announcement
Rick Perry: Creationist, Global Warming Denier, Hypocrite
Democrat Obama Fundraiser Under Investigation
Republican New Hampshire Primary - Competition
US National Debt!
The policies of: Rick Santorum
2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)
Romney's Olympian fail in UK
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.