STEAM GROUP
Political Blogging Society PolBloSo
STEAM GROUP
Political Blogging Society PolBloSo
1
IN-GAME
19
ONLINE
Founded
23 October, 2010
JMGraberJr 2 Sep, 2012 @ 11:24am
Mitt Romney
Do you support or not? Why?
< >
Showing 1-15 of 67 comments
GottaGetNormaler 6 Sep, 2012 @ 9:49pm 
I do not, and here are my reasons:
1) I believe his supposed economic views are the same cutting taxes and regulation policies that Bush used to start the recession in the first place.
2) I think his criticisms of Obama are false, and I simply prefer President Obama as a person over Mitt Romney.
3) I think he flip-flops too often. His stances when running for President are nearly the exact opposite of his stances as governor of Massachussetts.
4) The business record he is running on is a dismal one, and one which obviously does not qualify him for any office higher than CEO. I understand the goal of private equity firms is to make money, but I do not believe it is morally correct to hurt some works and their families in the process by laying them off. Though I will give him credit for some achievements such as Staples.
5) I also think his record as governor is very bad. Why his states debt may not have been entirely his fault, I do not believe he decreased it. Also, his state was 47th in job creation when he was governor, which is not really something to be proud of, and definitely not one which would qualify him for the Presidency.
6) I finally think he is out of touch with most Americans. He was born into great wealth, which I do not have any problem with. But does not understand the struggles average middle-class Americans go through. He doesn't understand how privlidged he is.
JMGraberJr 7 Sep, 2012 @ 6:46pm 
If I may refute your 6th point, many presidents were rich before beign elected.

Oh, the investment firm did not shut down workers, the actualy company did (I.E. the company Bain invested in was the one to eliminate the factory, not Bain).
GottaGetNormaler 8 Sep, 2012 @ 11:23am 
Bain Capital took over the companies, and in some cases fired workers and dramatically shrank the company to maximize it's profits and efficiency. And about my 6th point, I know that fact very well, but did I not say "He was born into great wealth, which I do NOT have any problem with"? Lol.
GottaGetNormaler 8 Sep, 2012 @ 11:33am 
I don't think you understand what exactly a company like Bain Capital is. It's a private equity, venture capital firm. What some would call a "corporate raider", because what they do is literally take over the management of companies, and make them more effecient and maximize profits.
JMGraberJr 8 Sep, 2012 @ 1:39pm 
Eighty percent of the companies Bain Capital has invested in from its founding to today have grown revenues. When companies grow, they are able to hire more workers and our economy grows.

Bain Capital pursued an investment strategy that often included targeting companies in decline and trying to turn them around. In most cases, it held the companies for many years and invested a significant amount of human and financial capital into improving operations to help revive these struggling companies.
GottaGetNormaler 8 Sep, 2012 @ 3:00pm 
@His I am not denying any of the facts you just presented me. But running a successful business does not qualify you for running a country, because a country/government is not a business.
JMGraberJr 8 Sep, 2012 @ 7:44pm 
Which brings us to his work as governor. Even a bad governor is still a governor, so he is qualified. Also, that means your entire argument about him killing businesses is irrelevant since you said running a country is not a business.
GottaGetNormaler 9 Sep, 2012 @ 12:58pm 
I never said he killed businesses. -.-
And being a bad governor does not qualify you for anything.
JMGraberJr 9 Sep, 2012 @ 5:54pm 
Being an inexperienced senator does?
GottaGetNormaler 9 Sep, 2012 @ 6:59pm 
@His Mitt really has no decent qualification. And it is true that Obama was criticized for a lack of experience in 2008, but he has turned out to be pretty good at the job in my opinion.
JMGraberJr 9 Sep, 2012 @ 7:09pm 
So then its OK for inexperienced senators to become presidents, but its not OK for full term governors that were not good to not be president because we have no idea how they will act as president?
GottaGetNormaler 9 Sep, 2012 @ 7:29pm 
You're admitting that Romney was a bad governor, and saying that that makes him more qualified than a senator who did no harm?
JMGraberJr 9 Sep, 2012 @ 8:25pm 
Yes, because he was a full term governor. Jimmy Carter sucked horribly yet he became president.
GottaGetNormaler 10 Sep, 2012 @ 11:22am 
JFK was a first time senator and he was very good. Dubya was a two term governor and he was the worst president in US history.
JMGraberJr 10 Sep, 2012 @ 2:27pm 
Yeah, but all three of those men: Carter, Bush, and JFK had at least been in their political office for a full term. That is what makes them qualified.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 67 comments
Per page: 1530 50

Date Posted: 2 Sep, 2012 @ 11:24am
Posts: 67

More discussions