Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on January 02, 2019, 03:22:14 PM
-
Whelp, Romney has decided that he's the arbiter of what's "Presidential" and has written an Op-Ed in the WaPo. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
So before he even gets to DC he steps on a rake...Of course the previous noodle spined R senator praises his work.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/01/02/baton-handoffcomplete-guess-whos-praising-a-thoughtful-piece-from-incoming-sen-romney/
Meanwhile his niece (GOP Chair) slaps him for causing party dis-unity.
https://twitchy.com/jacobb-38/2019/01/02/and-you-thought-2018-was-fun-gop-chair-ronna-mcdaniel-just-subtweeted-mitt-romney-her-own-uncle/
And no, I'm linking to WaPo to give them clicks...
It is a shame Mitt wasn't this tough with Obama...He might have won.
-
You know, I actually agree with Romney somewhat about how a president should present himself, but come on dude - there's a time and place, and probably a better way to say it.
Right before a House majority that wants to subpoena half the US population to "get Trump" is sworn in is probably not a good time to stir the pot. Also, this will come back to bite him in the ass if he ends up voting in the style of McCain and Flake, especially on tie-breaker vote stuff important to the base.
-
You know, I actually agree with Romney somewhat about how a president should present himself, but come on dude - there's a time and place, and probably a better way to say it.
I was of that opinion, but I'd like to share a revelation I've had with you.
It came to me as I was considering the nature of the presidency. It is not an exalted position. Our president is just another citizen, like all the others.
I think it is beneficial to stop placing the president on a pedestal and consider him AND the position as that of some other citizen.
I realize the "elites" had similar reactions to that backwoods hick Lincoln or that firebrand Jackson, but I've come to the conclusion that we need someone like a Trump in the office.
Add to his earthy qualities, that he seems to know how to get things done, unlike most of the "elites" who have been in the position (or run for it) lately, and I'm starting to appreciate someone who makes me respect the office less, but the results more.
-
I was of that opinion, but I'd like to share a revelation I've had with you.
It came to me as I was considering the nature of the presidency. It is not an exalted position. Our president is just another citizen, like all the others.
I think it is beneficial to stop placing the president on a pedestal and consider him AND the position as that of some other citizen.
I realize the "elites" had similar reactions to that backwoods hick Lincoln or that firebrand Jackson, but I've come to the conclusion that we need someone like a Trump in the office.
Add to his earthy qualities, that he seems to know how to get things done, unlike most of the "elites" who have been in the position (or run for it) lately, and I'm starting to appreciate someone who makes me respect the office less, but the results more.
I can see your POV, and FTR, my concern with how a president presents himself isn't from the perspective of "exalted position" or anything else that would make the position what we broke with England to get away from.
I'm not necessarily concerned with Trump telling it like it is and upsetting other world leaders, whiners, SJWs, the MSM, or what have you. In fact I kinda like that about him. I just hate his Junior High escapades and think they actually make him and the US look weak, in the same way I thought Obama genuflecting to every two bit country's leader made us look weak.
A president telling it like it is with no apology and no fear of backlash can be a good thing in that it can convey the power of our country. But when you do it with the words of a 13 year old girl on the Twitters over every little personal insult, to me, it conveys weakness.
-
Agreed he needs a bit thicker skin when it comes to the personal attacks. He should take a cue from Sean Spicier. =D ;)
-
Agreed he needs a bit thicker skin when it comes to the personal attacks. He should take a cue from Sean Spicier. =D ;)
He should just have that guy run his Twitter feed. :laugh:
-
I can see your POV, and FTR, my concern with how a president presents himself isn't from the perspective of "exalted position" or anything else that would make the position what we broke with England to get away from.
I'm not necessarily concerned with Trump telling it like it is and upsetting other world leaders, whiners, SJWs, the MSM, or what have you. In fact I kinda like that about him. I just hate his Junior High escapades and think they actually make him and the US look weak, in the same way I thought Obama genuflecting to every two bit country's leader made us look weak.
A president telling it like it is with no apology and no fear of backlash can be a good thing in that it can convey the power of our country. But when you do it with the words of a 13 year old girl on the Twitters over every little personal insult, to me, it conveys weakness.
It does to confident and stable people.
Look at what it does to the opposition, though.
For all that I'd prefer to live in a world where the G.W. Bush philosophy of not responding and people respect you for staying apart from the mud-flinging, Trump is showing that the adolescent insults and seemingly thinned-skinned response to every slight WORKS. Look at what it does to the Left. Look at what it has done with NorKo.
So, yes, I'd prefer to live in a world of respect and staid confidence. Blustering bombastic braggadocio is apparently more preferred in our modern culture.
(One more note: It appears President Trump can turn it off and on at will, suggesting it is a deliberate strategy.)
-
You know, I actually agree with Romney somewhat about how a president should present himself, but come on dude - there's a time and place, and probably a better way to say it.
I'm somewhat amused at how common this kind of reaction has been.
"Yes Trump lacks character, tantrums like a child, and is unnecessarily boorish but you're not supposed to say it!" =D
Trump is loved for telling it like it is, Romney is hated for it. :P
-
I'm somewhat amused at how common this kind of reaction has been.
"Yes Trump lacks character, tantrums like a child, and is unnecessarily boorish but you're not supposed to say it!" =D
Trump is loved for telling it like it is, Romney is hated for it. :P
But the pieces of it I heard weren't "telling it like it is". They were just Romney playing to the media and anti-Trump Republicans and looking like he wants be the new John McCain in the Senate. I heard some saying he was contradicting his own past statements.
He accepted Trump's endorsement in his Senate run. If he didn't like him, he should have campaigned that way (another part that sounds like John McCain).
-
I don’t believe Romney is on my side.
There is a good chance that Trumps plans better align with my side, as far as I can tell.
Trump is governing like a paleo con Nationalist and I’m good with that ideology. Probably the best we can hope for at this point.
Romney is a globalist, full stop no questions asked globalist. He’s not to be trusted IMHO. Maybe I’m wrong but he has done nothing to encourage me since he ran for President.
-
I'm somewhat amused at how common this kind of reaction has been.
"Yes Trump lacks character, tantrums like a child, and is unnecessarily boorish but you're not supposed to say it!" =D
Trump is loved for telling it like it is, Romney is hated for it. :P
No, Romney is singling out Trump for qualities that the elites dislike.
He's a liar! Yes, but what offends the elite is that his lies are so OBVIOUS, not like the lies they tell like breathing. Except they aren't fooling anyone and Trump's lies are less offensive BECAUSE they are obvious braggadocio.
He's thin-skinned!!! Yes he is. (Or pretends to be, I'm not sure it's not an act.) Looking at the way the left reacts at "micro-agressions", I'm quite certain they have no standing to complain about that.
He's unfaithful to his wives! Even ignoring the affairs, he's on his third wife. That's not a good indicator of fidelity. Shall I begin to list the previous president's known and suspected peccadilloes? At least (so far as we know) he's not doing it in the Oval office.
He uses childish insults! Because calling your opponent Hitler is far better than "Crooked Hillary".
He's a divider, not a uniter! ... Do I really need to point out the hypocrisy here? (Bitterly clinging... basket of deplorables...)
He's engaging in tribalism! (Corollary of the above.) It seems the Democrats are mostly angry that they don't have free reign in this realm anymore.
But you want to know what's funny? Romney WASN'T telling it like it is. Here's his "critique" of Trump's character:
A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.
Let's see. 44? Nope (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTGgthKt5zw). 43? He sure tried, but all his efforts did nothing to elevate the national discourse. All it did was disarm one side while the other spewed lies and virtriol about him. 42? I don't think we need to talk about elevating the national discourse, but interestingly, even Clinton toned down his rhetoric and compromised once he received a massive rebuke at the polls. 41? The man who is famous for breaking his campaign promises? 40? Ok, here we may have one. But keep in mind, he was attacked as an out-of-control menace at the time, too.
Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world. In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent.
Hey, I wonder what the difference was from 2016 to 2017. Might it be that the world doesn't like republicans? What did similar polls look like, let's say, 10 years ago? (Spoiler, it was 12%) Further, I wonder what the numbers would look like in Poland, or Israel?
Mitt isn't "telling it like it is", he's publicly attacking those who should his allies with pointless and stupid critiques, BEFORE he's done a single thing in office.
Is that REALLY the way to effect a change you'd like to see in the leader of your party? Or, as most people suspect, is it a way to aggrandize yourself to a media that will love you for attacking their enemies, but will (AND HAVE ALREADY!) kneecap and backstab you if you go against their party?
Romney is making a stupid tactical move here. That is the problem most people have with his article. As I've already said, I'd prefer a president who "appeals to our better angels." I've seen how well those appeals fare with the left, which makes Romney a fool who couldn't even learn from his own experience.
-
He's thin-skinned!!! Yes he is. (Or pretends to be, I'm not sure it's not an act.) Looking at the way the left reacts at "micro-agressions", I'm quite certain they have no standing to complain about that.
Whatabout...
He's unfaithful to his wives! Even ignoring the affairs, he's on his third wife. That's not a good indicator of fidelity. Shall I begin to list the previous president's known and suspected peccadilloes? At least (so far as we know) he's not doing it in the Oval office.
Whatabout...
He uses childish insults! Because calling your opponent Hitler is far better than "Crooked Hillary".
Whatabout...
He's a divider, not a uniter! ... Do I really need to point out the hypocrisy here? (Bitterly clinging... basket of deplorables...)
Whatabout...
He's engaging in tribalism! (Corollary of the above.) It seems the Democrats are mostly angry that they don't have free reign in this realm anymore.
Whatabout...
Let's see. 44? Nope. 43? He sure tried, but all his efforts did nothing to elevate the national discourse. All it did was disarm one side while the other spewed lies and virtriol about him. 42? I don't think we need to talk about elevating the national discourse, but interestingly, even Clinton toned down his rhetoric and compromised once he received a massive rebuke at the polls. 41? The man who is famous for breaking his campaign promises? 40? Ok, here we may have one. But keep in mind, he was attacked as an out-of-control menace at the time, too.
Whatabout...Whatabout...Whatabout...Whatabout...
I should come up with a clever name for this :angel:
(https://i.imgflip.com/29k98j.jpg)
-
I should come up with a clever name for this :angel:
(https://i.imgflip.com/29k98j.jpg)
By stooping to that sort of BS, you show you have nothing to add to the discussion and you admit he is right about everything he said. =D
-
IMO, Romney was the poster child for running as a get-along-with-all-sides Moderate. He still got attacked by the left and looked weak when he wouldn't stand up for his principles. He was backtrack in a heartbeat if something he said was challenged. If he is trying to remake himself, he needs to try a little harder. I don't think someone like him or Jeb Bush will ever win in the current political climate.
-
By stooping to that sort of BS, you show you have nothing to add to the discussion and you admit he is right about everything he said. =D
You're not too far wrong, because the disagreement seems pretty minor. Boil it down and he's saying:
-Those are character traits that elites dislike. Not really an argument I was making but count me among the elites because I don't consider those to be good traits. ???
-Trump may have all those traits (BUT someone else is worse....) OK?
-And Mitt shouldn't be saying these things, even if they are true.
Which is pretty much what I said I found amusing. =)
-
You're not too far wrong, because the disagreement seems pretty minor. Boil it down and he's saying:
-Those are character traits that elites dislike. Not really an argument I was making but count me among the elites because I don't consider those to be good traits. ???
-Trump may have all those traits (BUT someone else is worse....) OK?
-And Mitt shouldn't be saying these things, even if they are true.
Which is pretty much what I said I found amusing. =)
What I was saying is the Mitt doesn't have the standing to be saying those things because he and his ilk are massive hypocrites. I have standing to complain about President Trump's character, especially as it was the reason I did not vote for the man.
I don't lie with every breath, unlike the "severe conservative" Mitt.
I did not happily accept the endorsement of a man whom I thought unfit for office.
I did not (and do not) consort with those who attack a man for failings that they themselves have in abundance. (I.E. the Washington Post, the U.S. Congress, and his many business associates for Sen. Romney who engage in name-calling, tribalism, and infidelity.)
His attacks are not false, as my previous posts indicate. It is that his attacks are completely disproportionate to the failings, especially considering how President Trump has endeavored to fulfill the pledges he made as a candidate.
TWO YEARS into his presidency, where he has been fighting to fulfill his promises means that an unbiased person should rethink their estimation of the man. Instead, these people act as though we do not now have a record with which to compare his rhetoric. They are short-sighted, to say the least.
-
I pretty much ignore most of Trump's bombast. Yes, he's a thin-skinned blowhard. But as has been pointed out, he is busting his ass to keep his campaign promises. Something no other politician ever does these days.
What was it Lincoln said when his other advisers were complaining about Grant's drinking and drunkenness ??
"I can't spare this man. He Fights."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho3r7NwtsnA
-
I'm somewhat amused at how common this kind of reaction has been.
"Yes Trump lacks character, tantrums like a child, and is unnecessarily boorish but you're not supposed to say it!" =D
Trump is loved for telling it like it is, Romney is hated for it. :P
If you think Romney and Trump are engaged in similar behaviors there, then you have no understanding of current American politics.
Romney was just doing what makes milquetoast Republicans so useless. He was currying favor with the cultural power brokers, in hopes that he could get the votes of the country party, and still have the smiles of the court party. Trump is not doing that. Not at all.
-
With other politicians, if they say something odd, I take it seriously since they never say anything without advisors reviewing it. With Trump, I am accustomed to him talking off the top of his head and bragging quite a bit so I don't dwell on every word he says. If he tweets something odd, I don't give it much thought. I wish there was some way to force all politicians to do that as I think we would learn a lot more about who they really are.
-
wow, I didn't realize everyone here was so serious about the phrase "telling it like it is"! :O
It seemed appropriate - he was saying things that people don't think he should say, even if they're true.
Someone will have to give me a more exact definition so I can avoid such a terrible faux pas* in the future.
*For you non-elites a "faux pas" is a mistake or breach of etiquette, like you when one fails to pass the foie gras at a dinner party...
-
As I heard once regarding Trump's pronouncements, "His supporters take him seriously, but not literally. His detractors take him literally, but not seriously."
And while Romney may be "telling it like it is", it didn't need to be said, we all see it and know it. But picking a fight with the party's leader, who you asked for his endorsement, before you are even sworn-in, is simply in poor form. He could have easily done it one-on-one with Trump. Perhaps as offering pointers rather than just throwing stones. Could it be some pettiness for not being selected at Sec of State??
-
My position on The Donald is that I listen carefully to what he says, not how he says it. I also take a great deal of amusement out of watching him not take any *expletive deleted*it off anyone. It seems if people don't slander him, or otherwise denigrate him in anyway, he seems to be rather dignified. He responds in kind. America always seemed to want a non-lifer political critter in the Presidency. Well we got one. We also got one who is an uber businessbeing and whose track record is one of not taking *expletive deleted*it off anyone.
Not being privy to the inner workings of why he does things or who he picks to do them with, I really can't have an opinion about that. I would suspect he wants to have bright people around him, those who are able to advise him, but also people who can throw off any pre conceived notions about what he, The Donald, is wanting. CEO's, especially top drawer ones, don't abide counselors who are not on the same page. That could be a fault or a blessing. So far his shuffling of the cabinet hasn't made any sense to me...but then I'm not privy to what he's up to.
The only thing so far that I've been narrow eyed about is his bitching about interest rates increasing. My school of thought about that is I think we should have interest levels at about 4% for safe savings. Car loans and mortgages could easily be in the 6-7% range. We had prosperity with those numbers a few decades ago. I think the stock market being as it is, is a false positive and I'd like to see it drop to a level that is not so volatile. Stability with a little growth is not bad.
As for the Middle East, I would have no problem walking away from that mess 100% with a warning not to mess with Israel or us or we'll not be as nice as we've been over the last 17 years. As for Russia and China..we'll to quote that 20th century California sage..."Why can't we all just get along?" I'd rather trade with 'em than fight 'em. Talking softly, but having a big stick is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd also rather see America offering a benign helping hand trying to bring parts of Mexico, Central and South America into the 21st century.
I'm fully on board with demanding the congress do what needs to be done with securing our borders...first. Then we'll deal with illegal immigration. I have no problem with him shutting down the government to get the Democrats and RINOs to consider that their job is to deal with America and Americans before all else.
Oh, and I think Romney is a dick head.
-
With other politicians, if they say something odd, I take it seriously since they never say anything without advisors reviewing it. With Trump, I am accustomed to him talking off the top of his head and bragging quite a bit so I don't dwell on every word he says. If he tweets something odd, I don't give it much thought. I wish there was some way to force all politicians to do that as I think we would learn a lot more about who they really are.
KOFFEFE!!!!! [popcorn]
-
Flakes out
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I was thinking he's channeling McCain, but that's even better.
I really liked Mitt, but I thought he threw the election to 44.
Then, all the anti Trump crud - even tho it was apparent he was getting the nomination.
Now I'm sure Mitt would have hurt gun owners in some kind of compromise, I'm worried Trump will do the same.
Yet, I trust Mitt a lot less then Trump, a lot.
Bush 43 whined about "the governing class" being threatened by Trump.
I have little hop for the R establishment - we need a new tea party.
-
From "This ain't Hell. (but you can see it from here)" blog:
I heard a story about how Sailors did swim call, in the middle of the ocean, with man eating sharks not that far away. The claim? They would locate a shark and then shoot it. It bled. Eventually, the blood attracted other sharks.
The other sharks came in and ate that bleeding shark. In the feeding frenzy that followed, sharks ripped each other up and created more bleeding. Result? More sharks joined the frenzy. The turbulence, occurring in the water, ended up masking the turbulence created by sailors swimming near the ship.
I never saw this play out while I was in the Navy. Safety was paramount. Whether this is urban legend, or has actually been tried before, it’s underlying concept relates to President Trump’s apparent strategy.
Throughout his campaign, and then into his presidency, President Trump utilized his understanding of the media, and its audiences, to “shoot sharks”. The media goes into a frenzy every time he does this.
During this frenzy, President Trump continues forward with his objectives.
He knows that he has not done anything wrong. However, he also knows that his detractors will stop at nothing to follow a fool’s errand. Their “El Dorado” and their “Fountain of Youth” happens to be President Trump’s removal.
The left is blinded in their drive to portray President Trump in unrealistic terms. These efforts, driven by emotion, ties up energy that otherwise could be used to derail President Trump’s plans.
The rest is here: https://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=83783
-
For all of Trumps faults, he is the first Republican President or Candidate for President I can recall that actually calls out the Media and Dems ontheir BS. For that I will forgive a lot. It’s exactly what drives them so nuts.
Romney might have been President if he had done some of the same. I never liked him, but preferred him over Obama. However he often looked weak and indecisive when it came to the Media going after him. Does he not remember all the false narratives they used on him? Crowley correcting him falsely in the debate come to mind for him...? He still looks weak when he goes after Trump like this.
I sort of remember Reagan occasionally calling out the Media/Dems, but not as forcefully. He had a different gravitas though. And to be honest there are some things I never liked that Reagan did, I don’t hold him on the same pedestal as many. Be that as it may, neither Bush, McCain, or Romney ever really stood up to the Media/Dems.
-
In my worthless opinion, Trump appears to be a horrible person who is actually not a bad president. He appears to be actually sort of trying to do something about illegal immigration, which is a refreshing change. I wanted Ted Cruz (who has good principles and would be a lot better on guns) but Trump is doing a lot better than I thought he would. Also, I am happy with withdrawing troops from Syria.
-
For all of Trumps faults, he is the first Republican President or Candidate for President I can recall that actually calls out the Media and Dems ontheir BS. For that I will forgive a lot. It’s exactly what drives them so nuts.
Romney might have been President if he had done some of the same. I never liked him, but preferred him over Obama. However he often looked weak and indecisive when it came to the Media going after him. Does he not remember all the false narratives they used on him? Crowley correcting him falsely in the debate come to mind for him...? He still looks weak when he goes after Trump like this.
I sort of remember Reagan occasionally calling out the Media/Dems, but not as forcefully. He had a different gravitas though. And to be honest there are some things I never liked that Reagan did, I don’t hold him on the same pedestal as many. Be that as it may, neither Bush, McCain, or Romney ever really stood up to the Media/Dems.
Actually as I recall the only time he shined was the one debate where he DID hammer Obama pretty well. And then he went back to being Mr. Nice and got his ass handed to him as a result.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
What were we thinking voting for a corporate raider and looter for president?
Hasn’t our Federal reserve and banking system done enough damage by hollowing out our wealth?
Romney, the expert in selling off the assets of corporations who have unsustainable income to debt ratios.
Just who we want in charge of our country with our unsustainable income to debt ratio :facepalm:
Hopefully Trump is actually a white hat and is really trying to salvage the country.
Hopefully also without relying on war, which is always about resources, land and transferring wealth.
-
When we had Swim Call at sea, a Gunner's Mate was always placed up on the mast with an M-14 on Shark Watch is all I can tell you. :old:
-
What were we thinking voting for a corporate raider and looter for president?
I have the honor and privilege of recalling that I wrote in Herman Cain, instead of voting for Mr. Romney-care.