Last night Willard Mitt Romney became the first non-incumbent republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Congrats to his great victories! It's hilarious to see liberals on MSNBC claim in their sanctimonious tone that Romney's win in New Hampshire with "only" 39% of the votes was not a big deal. Lol. The liberals do NOT want to go up against this guy.
On a more serious note though. In my opinion, despite his flaws, Romney is the strongest republican nominee since Ronald Reagan. More importantly, I think Romney will make a great president. Our last 3 presidents, including Obama, had serious flaws that weakened their presidency. Obama is a man who never held a position of executive leadership and rode a tsunami of media hype to rise to the presidency. His lack of preparation for this offce is now showing. Bush is a good man, but his general ignorance of the issues, refusal to recognize facts, and ideological stubborness, resulted in a disastrous presidency. Clinton was above average, with reasonably good economic policies. However, his lack of self-control, coupled with an insatiable desire to be loved by everyone, led to his impeachment and a presidency that fell far short of his true potential.
Romney is a man of solid character, intelligence, and discipline. He's a conservative pragmatist, one who will carefully study the facts before making policy decisions. He will pursue pro-growth economic policies but will not be blinded by right-wing ideology. Yes, he will be the most boring president since Calvin Coolidge. Don't expect anything glitzy or sexy from a Romey presidency. I however welcome a return to normalcy. After 3 presidents who won on charisma, I'm looking forward to having a sober stable president.
I'd rather have Paul, but Romney is better than Newt, yet Mitt won't beat Obama. /thread
I agree. While I prefer Paul and Huntsman, I think Romney would make a fine president.
You just like him because he went to HBS... jk
Have you seen the documentary by the Gingrich PAC yet?
Edit: nvm, found it --> http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/vid-4-transactions-of-bain-capital-…
Edit: nvm, found it --> //www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/vid-4-transactions-of-bain-capital-under-r…]
God, those old ladies make me wanna punch myself in the face. Stupid ass people complaining when they have no idea how Bain Capital or any pe firm works. So dramatic.
LMFAO Romney photos http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/new-hampshire-2012-banzai7-depth-c…
Romney makes me want to 'believe in America,' he has more substance than hope and change.
Gave you an SB. Cause you and ANT are the only people who still make sense anymore.
jjackson is the perfect example of the insanity and vile coming from the Ron Paul people (not Ron Paul, just many of his crazy supporters). How do you call Mitt Romney a "fake capitalist"? That's one of the most idiotic comments I've ever heard in my entire life. Romney is a mega millionaire Wall Street capitalist. He's one of the most successful men in America.
I define capitalism as a free economy. I don't view China's controlled economy as a very pure form of capitalism.
On a scale between free economy and controlled economy, Romney is no better than Obama, both are for bailouts, stimulus, lobbying for government regulation that benefits established corporations over new competitors. The current system is discouraging, and I don't see material improvement with Romney.
There is probably a better word than 'fake capitalism' to describe my unfavorable view of Romney.
It's crony capitalism that Romney represents. He is for the status quo just like Obama. It really surprises me, I can understand the sheep that watch Fox News/CNN or that don't even watch news at all voting for Romney because they are clueless and vote for the most "electable", but people that actually know where Romney stands on the issues and where he has stood and still support him totally baffle me.
Honestly who even cares about elections anymore. The US elected two generations of "Bush" men. What are we a fucking aristocratic society?
Obama proved that private sector success does not equal good presidency. Romney would be a huge mistake for the US. And would mean that this forum would be threaded with people looking to go:
I-Banking > PE > MBA > PE > US President lol
Romney will mean another big war... If you consider what targets are left for a Romney administration, the numbers in USD term, debt and loss of American and foreign lives will dwarf those of Iraq...
Here is Romney today responding to a question about NDAA, the bill that Obama just signed allowing the military to indefinitely detain any U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He pretends to be completely clueless and then rambles on. This man is bought and paid for by the elite how can people vote for this scumbag.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/sTlAbDwV4ys
Role of the President is to defend the US constitution.
Brady, jjackson, what has he run on that gives you so much optimism (asking specifically about his stances on issues/solutions to problems, not about his private sector history, or for your opinions on his supposed character)?
So far, I've just seen a man with no political philosophy. Because of that, it's hard for me to picture him bringing anything other than status quo. The only fiscal idea I've heard from him is essentially cutting future spending increases by 5% (like that will do anything).
I look at him and see Obama 2.0, but without the socialist rhetoric, and probably quicker on the trigger toward Iran (I see that as a negative). So, what is he proposing, specifically, that you like so much?
Romney is the white Obama. Romney, like Obama supports TARP, the auto bailouts, welfare, and the NDAA.
Please, someone explain the difference between the two.
Do you honestly think the majority of Americans are against these things, with exception to the NDAA? I mean WE all hate bailouts because this site tends to be more libertarian or self sufficient/free market, but we are not the majority in this country.
Imagine not bailing out Michigan. Think of the layoffs and destruction to the state economy. Good for the free market, bad for unions and a blue state (Obama supporters). So the people had their say and their elected representatives got their voice heard and the government listened to the people.
Same thing with the banks. Yeah, huge bailouts, etc, but the economy would have been 10x worse. The citizens of this country don't give a shit about some macro economic argument, they only care that bankers make more than them.
So while I agree that I would love to see Ron Paul slash and burn, I also think that this would not be the will of the people. Now I am fine with ignoring the will of the people because I frankly don't think they are important, but this very admission indicates that I am ignoring the spirit of the Constitution. The will of the people need to be listened to, even if it means they will fuck up a good thing.
Sucks, but retards are running the show, put in office by morons pulling the lever because they like their government hand outs.
Romney will sign what the Republican House and soon to be Republican Senate will put in front of him. Done.
Obama will bomb Iran in a couple months. Economic sanctions, with European help (bought by a Fed bailout) will force Iran to do something and the US and Israel will launch a massive air and sea attack. This will show Obama as a strong President, increase his popular opinion and distract the nation. Clinton did something similar during Monica-gate.
Romney is a smart guy with government and private industry experience. He isn't going to revolutionize anything, but he will be more pro business than Obama will. Enough for my vote.
I was thinking about it today, and I seriously do not know what Romney stands for. I have followed this election closely almost everyday and I honestly do not know what he believes in. No one would ever say after hearing Romney's view on the world that it totally changed their own view point and that maybe we need to reexamine a whole host of issues especially the exact role of government. He's not inspiring in that way at all. I'm being serious, I do not know what Romney supports besides getting rid of a healthcare system he invented.
He stands for being an intelligent human being with leadership skills in a time where the incumbent doesn't have the latter trait and the challenging party doesn't have anyone else (electable, RON PAUL) with the former trait. I'll take that any day
Jeff is asking what is romney's position on the issues and your answer is that romney's position is to be an intelligent human being.
In other words, yourself, do not know what are his positions.
So, aside from lofty platitudes, can you give some specifics as to how he's an "intelligent human being with leadership skills"?
There is about a 95% chance that the GOP will control both houses of Congress in January 2013, with breathtaking majorities in the House likely. Frankly, having a Bachmann, Santorum or Paul as president would be political suicide for the GOP. Single party states usually fair poorly because this is a centrist nation. Americans prefer incremental change, not radical change. Obama MUST go and Romney is the perfect candidate for the job because he's a moderate and a powerful executive who will have to moderate a very conservative GOP House and newly Republican Senate.
This country doesn't need $1 trillion in annual spending cuts. We don't need radical change. Washington, D.C. needs to simply adopt the Penny Plan from the GOP House, which will balance the budget in about 20 years, it needs to dismantle Obamacare and it needs to send a positive message to private business, flatten and simplify the tax code, and appoint rational judges. We don't need radical change right now, but we need change.
Completely disagree. You really do live in D.C. don't you.
My question about Romney's views have gone unanswered as I suspected they would. The only thing his supporters point to is his "intelligence" and business success, why not elect Buffet then, he's been much more successful in the private sector. The problem with Romney that his supporters don't seem to care about is that he has both no backbone and no vision for this country. People point to the fact that he was able to compromise on some of his positions while governor of Massachusetts, but that's the exact problem with Washington today, too much bipartisanship. Both parties stand for bigger government, and they have voted to increase it's scope dramatically over the last 40 years.
We need someone that will stand on principle, especially when in comes to the Constitution. Our liberties are being eroded before our eyes and we are on the verge of literal bankruptcy and Romney is the guy we are going to go with? Seriously? He seems to me to represent some sort of mix between Obama (Romney deep down believes in big government I believe) and the Bush/Neocon group that make up a strong majority of his advisers.
The man appears to me to stand for nothing.
Are you kidding? Romney holds an MBA and JD from HBS and HLS, is one of the most successful businessman in the nation, ran one of the most successful Olympics of all time in 2002 in Salt Lake City and was elected governor as a Republican in one of the most left-wing states in the union. The man clearly has skills. Not to mention the guy has virtually no scandal tied to him at all, and this is a pretty low bar set by politicians.
Guy with degrees from Harvard who was a successful businessman and governor...Bush?
--Who gives a fuck that he has an MBA and JD from Harvard? He's smart and knows what's best for us! Sounds like a liberal argument.
--He was governor of Massachusetts and has since flip flopped on EVERY SINGLE POSITION he held during that time. So, either he was lying then or is lying now.
You trust this guy to do anything?
"But he does LBOs and PE is awesome."
::kill self::
I always like to read these kind of things.
Dude had a rich dad and you're talking as if he's a self made millionaire.
TheKing, you just asked for proof of intelligence and leadership abilities and I just gave you evidence that suggests Romney has more intelligence, experience and competence in his pinky finger than the entirety of Washington, D.C. combined.
Everyone blames Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan, but gives the House and Senate a complete pass for voting on both wars. Congress has the true power.
Romney is as qualified as anyone, far more than Obama.
Are you serious with this comment? Bush and his admin were not the main drivers of our war in Iraq?
Congress votes and authorized both. Not sure how I could have been more clear.
Which is all the better. If Romney didn't have character he'd have smoked dope, snorted cocaine and banged chicks on his yacht all day unitl he died of a heart attack or got killed in drunk driving accident. The guy could have coasted through life and yet he chose to educate himself and to work hard. As a result he was an incredibly successful businessman.
We don't care about his life. All we care about is his ideas that will affect us if we put him in power.
And how can we judge his ideas and his willingness to defend them? By looking at his record = he's a big phony.
So wait.
We fault someone for being ideological or inflexible and no we fault someone for changing position? What is wrong with someone changing their mind or not towing the party line all the time.
Also, I don't see how the Romney Care argument is really a negative for him. If states want to pull that shit, fine. The Federal government has no business doing that shit. Romney also knows first hand that it doesn't work and is subject to endless cost overruns.
TheKing is grasping at straws here. Yes, Romney was born into a rich family. But by all accounts, the guy is smart and worked his butt off. Unlike Bush, Romney did not spend his youth getting wasted, drifting from one failure to another. He graduated with honors from harvard jd/mba while being married with children! He kicked butt at bain consulting and bain capital. He turned around the 2002 winter olympics, something that was considered unsalvageable. And he did a pretty damm good job as governor of massachusetts, where he cut taxes and balanced the budget, with a 85% democratic legislature. One of the reasons why he was unpopular by 2006 was precisely because romney governed as a conservative.
Basically, the guy has been good at pretty much everything he's ever done. It's the combination of his intellect, work ethic, discipline, and stability, that has convinced many conservatives that Romney is the most qualified to go up against Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Ag…
Well, the House voted 420-1 and the Senate 98-0 in favor or the war in Afghanistan. It's not exactly like Bush did it without Congressional authorization or bi-partisan support. By the way, the 1 nay vote was not Ron Paul.
^^And I commend RP for voting Nay. Fast forward 10 years and look where we are now.
RP voted 'Yay"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress_in_relation_to_the_president…
The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress as described in Article One.12
My entire point is that this is not reality, regardless of the Framers original intention. You haven't really given me any evidence as to Congress holding serious power over the presidency. Yet there are tons of examples of the executive branch performing traditionally legislative duties.
Unilateral presidential powers: http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/132.short
From a legal standpoint: http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/…
In relation to international law: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=119+Yale+L.J.+140&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4d7eecd9e28cfe7377f1594bf9d62959
"Sometime in the second half of the twentieth century the president moved into the driver's seat of our political system. This, at least, is the commonly accepted view among political observers both professional and amateur. The change is sometimes lamented, but its occurrence is hardly ever doubted..." http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Nb54xQLT6yQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&…
Dude, whatever man. The President was given more power than Congress in matter of Foreign policy, yes. Outside of that Congress can do just about anything else. Compared to Congress, the President has far less power.
I love how I drop the Constitution as the fact behind my argument and you disregard it as if it is a gentleman's agreement or something.
I love how you drop the Constitution and act as if the past 300 years of American political history never happened. The Constitution, as written, isn't the Constitution today. Get that through your head.
You are literally the only person I have encountered who would argue that the power of the presidency hasn't rapidly expanded, specifically, encroaching on the traditional powers of the legislative branch. I took a class on the American presidency- the rapidly expanding role of the presidency and the dwindling power of Congress wasn't even debated, rather the causes for this were frequent topics of discussion. I really don't know what else to tell you, as I think I laid out some pretty substantial evidence.
Cool. Please quote where I said that Presidential powers have not increased. I am patiently waiting.
While they HAVE increased, power is still within the Congress, as designed by our founding fathers.
Seriously kid, you argue about shit you have no clue on. Yeah, I dropped the Constitution which severely limits the powers of the President. Sorry if that hurts. And while the powers of the President have expanded, they are sill not equal to the Congress, the true representatives of the people.
Look at how powerless Obama is right now. Look at how powerless Bush was during his 2nd term. If the President has true power there would never be a Lame Duck President.
Holy Christ.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/reins-bill-to-expand…
The House on Wednesday approved a measure that would increase Congress’s authority over the executive branch by making any major regulations subject to its approval.
nder the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress already has the power to override proposed regulations by passing a joint “resolution of disapproval.” But such a resolution faces the hurdle of having to be signed into law by the president, who would likely veto any move to do away with a regulation proposed by his or her own administration. The president’s veto can be overriden by Congress, but that, of course, takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
Power to override with 2/3rd's
Presidents can only kill what is put in front of them to sign and even then they can be overridden.
The keystone of a Republican form of government is having a more powerful Congress. From the very beginning the President was neutered because of fears that there would be a King like leader.
Accomplished a whopping 4% of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
a fundamental difference between romney and the last 5 presidents is that he understands business and the economy a lot better than any one of them. He's not going to need to blindly follow underpaid economic advisers in washington, nor will he resot to bullshit policies such as promoting "small business." Small business doesnt create jobs, large firms with excess capacity employ far more people.
With Romney at helm, i'd feel better knowing that somone has the common sense to not drive a core economic base from this country (i.e. the financial sector) to Asia where low regulation and inexpensive tax structure is more ideal.
Did Romney see the housing crisis coming back in 2002 like a certain other candidate did? Does he want to adress the real, underlying issues with our economy; the Fed and the GSEs, of course not. The fact that he actually does know how the real economy works and yet won't touch the real issues is a big negative.
Eos rerum vitae quod ad quod quis praesentium nisi. Eius magnam cupiditate necessitatibus qui laudantium sit quis ipsam. Eaque quis libero debitis omnis temporibus.
Ratione harum et voluptates molestiae quas. Porro asperiores fugiat minima vitae vel. Voluptatem vitae culpa ipsam suscipit.
Minus occaecati quia nesciunt fuga veritatis. Earum blanditiis eos aut harum. Deserunt tenetur exercitationem maxime.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Velit tempore maxime qui omnis ipsa qui. Rerum dolorum voluptas minima omnis et eligendi aut.
Ut quia provident perspiciatis occaecati. Cupiditate dolorem dolores tenetur voluptatem. Magni illo vitae beatae placeat molestias non. Velit pariatur dolore enim explicabo et tenetur nam aspernatur.
Debitis recusandae totam accusantium reiciendis deserunt tempore. Quas quidem aut accusantium.
Asperiores quo et omnis dolores. Eaque quod eveniet voluptatem culpa. Beatae aut sint itaque qui. Magnam possimus accusantium rerum accusamus quia placeat. Nostrum autem quo quod quia. Optio praesentium esse voluptates.