Already posted this on Facebook but OH DEAR GOD.

 

During a $6 million (£3.7 million) fundraising event in California, Mr Romney brought up an incident at the weekend when his wife's aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing.

 

He mused that she would have coped better if she was able to breathe outside air during the fire.

 

"I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don't think she knows just how worried some of us were," Mr Romney said, according to the LA Times. "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no – and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she's safe and sound."

 

The plane suffered an electrical failure and was forced to make an emergency landing.

 

Experts pointed out that opening a window would provide oxygen to fuel the fire and a loss of cabin pressure that could rip the fusilage apart.

 

Mr Romney was struggling to fend off criticism of leaked remarks that 47 per cent of Americans who did not pay taxes were dependent on the state and would vote for President Barack Obama.

 

Off-topic remarks run in the family.

 

The presidential bid by his father George Romney, once governor of Michigan, ended soon after he declared that he had returned from a trip to Vietnam "brainwashed" by the military.

 

The aeroplane gaffe comes a week after he was recorded as saying to fundraisers: “there are 47 per cent who are with him [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”

 

Romney's visit to Downing Street prior to the London 2012 Olympics was also overshadowed by an ill-timed remark questioning London's readiness for the Games.

 

During the same international tour which took in Britain, Israel and Poland, comments about the differences between Israeli and Palestinian economies led to allegations of racism from Palestinian officials, while the Poland leg of the tour was marred by Romney's senior inviting reporters to 'kiss his ass' after they asked Mr Romney questions.

To play devil's advocate, if it wasn't for the movie Snakes On a Plane, I wouldn't have known about why you can't open a window on an airplane.

 

And to answer the bigger question that is being implied - Obama is going to win the election. There was no way anyone but Obama was ever going to win.

To play devil's advocate, if it wasn't for the movie Snakes On a Plane, I wouldn't have known about why you can't open a window on an airplane.

 

And to answer the bigger question that is being implied - Obama is going to win the election. There was no way anyone but Obama was ever going to win.

 

Maybe in an alternative world with a big Republican candidate it might have been different, but when their selection process appears to be "who came second last time?" it'll hopefully be a walk in the park for Obama.

Maybe in an alternative world with a big Republican candidate it might have been different, but when their selection process appears to be "who came second last time?" it'll hopefully be a walk in the park for Obama.

 

You seem to be overlooking a major point. The reason why Mitt Romney got the nod is because all of the high-profile Republican candidates declined to run. Because of the 2-term limit, it is very rare for the sitting President to be defeated. As a result, most of the high profile candidates from the opposing party won't run against them, as losing the election effectively rules you out of ever running for President. It's only in exceptional circumstances that a President fails to get a second term i.e in 1992, Ross Perot running as a major 3rd party candidate took votes away from George Bush, gifting Bill Clinton the win (who in a stroke of luck, actually turned out to be one of the best Presidents of modern era, cigar business notwithstanding).

 

That's why I disagree with the analysis in some circles that the Republican Party will continue to move further right. As the more "moderate" candidates didn't run, the ones who were left to fight for the nomination were the stragglers, the fringe members, and those who wanted to boost their profile to make money from book sales. In four years time, the next Republican candidate will be a little bit more reasonable (believe it or not).

You seem to be overlooking a major point. The reason why Mitt Romney got the nod is because all of the high-profile Republican candidates declined to run. Because of the 2-term limit, it is very rare for the sitting President to be defeated. As a result, most of the high profile candidates from the opposing party won't run against them, as losing the election effectively rules you out of ever running for President. It's only in exceptional circumstances that a President fails to get a second term i.e in 1992, Ross Perot running as a major 3rd party candidate took votes away from George Bush, gifting Bill Clinton the win (who in a stroke of luck, actually turned out to be one of the best Presidents of modern era, cigar business notwithstanding).

 

That's why I disagree with the analysis in some circles that the Republican Party will continue to move further right. As the more "moderate" candidates didn't run, the ones who were left to fight for the nomination were the stragglers, the fringe members, and those who wanted to boost their profile to make money from book sales. In four years time, the next Republican candidate will be a little bit more reasonable (believe it or not).

 

I hope you're right, I'm assuming you're a little more likely than most here to know who some of those 2016 candidates might be?

I hope you're right, I'm assuming you're a little more likely than most here to know who some of those 2016 candidates might be?

 

Some of the names being banded about include Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee (who despite losing the nomination in 2008, has seen his profile rise exponentially) & Leader of the House John Boehner. Although Sarah Palin declined to run this time around, if she was to run for the nomination in four years time, I cannot see her getting the Republican nod.

 

Looking at the bigger picture, I would like to see the ruling that a President can only serve a maximum of two terms being eliminated. Had the rule not been in place in 2004, then the Democrats would have had the incentive to run a more prominent candidate that year, which would have meant that Bush would not have made it to the 2nd term. It seems a bit strange that what amounts to inertia can see a President serve more time than he really should.