Discussion in 'Business, Careers & Education' started by ethanhawke33, Jun 7, 2012.
Not sure if serios.
Piobaire and FLMM will be proud:
Tell me a guy in recent memory with Mitt's leadership abilities prior to taking over the big chair? I'm not talking about comparing Mitt to presidents who did a great job (clinton, etc), I'm talking about the credentials before going into office.
-Totally fixed Bain - built the company
-Went back to Bain Capital, fixed it, and led them to their best years ever
-Olympics was a mess - went there, turned that whole deal around
Give me an unbiased answer, putting aside your personal feelings. If you were a member of a board hiring a guy to lead your gigantic company and to create jobs and prosperity (the best analogy I can think of), who do you hire? The guy with the resume above, or do you bring back the guy who failed on most of his promises.
It's all moot if unemployment continues to rise, Mitt will win in a landslide.
It's a little strange that you don't even bother to list governor of Massachusetts on there. Speaks to your priorities, I suppose.
We're not hiring a CEO, we're voting for President. I certainly don't think Mitt is unqualified, but he's certainly not the "most qualified candidate ever" because there's a hell of a lot more to the job than business experience.
This. Out of curiosity, what was your percentage?
I live in Boston, I know as well as anyone what went down here in MA. Good luck to a conservative here. You're right, there are question and that's certainly a fair point.
Please tell me, purely from a qualification standpoint, who has been more qualified prior to taking office than Mitt Romney? Again, I am not talking about Presidents that have served and done well.
My last post specifically states that I am creating the best analogy that I can based on the main goals of a president. Creating prosperity for the country,balancing the budget and jobs. What is a better comparison?
A new Presidents performance is all TBD. The current guy has failed, so if I am going to consider a new guy, he had better offer up credentials as to why he is a low risk choice.
Look at Jeff Immult, he leads over 300k GE employees (all kinds of people from every walk of life), managing several business all over the globe. Budgets, internal politics, public perception, global perceptions and rules of engagement, etc. I'd say the job has a few similarities.
Is doing well the previous term not a qualification for a future term? Lol.
I asked a simple question: who has been more qualified prior to taking office, aside from Presidents who served a prior term? That is what we are debating.
Obama has left a lot to be desired based on his own promises. His guarantees in regard to the unemployment percentage will be his undoing. He missed his targets, if that percentage continues to rise, Mitt will win in a landslide. I'm sorry, but Obama has not done well.
I have some bad news for you. Back when Obama was running for the first time Wall Street was POURING money into his campaign, they were backing the winning horse. This time out, 6 to 1 Mitt vs. Obama. The stock market has done well under Obama since his inception, and his core principles are pretty much the same. Why have they left him, and why is Mitt winning swing states all over the place?
Obama is done. The only way he survives is if he changes his strategy and the unemployment rate drops (which it wont). we are 2 GDP percentage points form another recession. Retail is down three months straight, etc.
Quiz didn't help. Here's my stance, help me choose a candidate:
Hate tax, or at least do not want to raise tax for the rich
Support gay marriage
Support climate change bills
Support racial equality, against affirmative action
Support open trade and low government interference on economics
Tolerant to religion, but does not want it in politics
No public healthcare and minimize programs that shift towards socialism
Any idea who I should vote for?
Ya, that's pretty much the problem. The quiz gave me Ron Paul, which I identify on the economic issues. However, his view on government is to basically dismantle and downsize, which I find way too radical. Thus, leaving me with no one to actually vote for.
Do I agree with Mitt all the time? Nope.I feel he is the better candid when compared to Obama, who I, believe has done a poor job. I'm just focusing on the big three: American prosperity, balancing the budget and creating jobs. Without those things, we are in trouble. I think Mitt is "the guy" to get it done.
I voted for Obama, btw.
If the government was a business, maybe these things would matter.
You totally missed the point. The US government and the economy is a lot like a giant company, not a "business". That is why Obama's current cabinet includes several former and current CEO's of huge global companies. Warren Buffet and Jeff Immulet are a few examples. In fact, Immult is the czar of jobs!
Tell me why the government is so different than a big global company?
Whats a better comparison in regard to checking a guys credentials? Leading huge multi cultural companies to prosperity, or working at a community center in Chicago, and then not delivering on 90% of your campaign promises?
Separate names with a comma.