Romney as SOS?
- Thread starter Mntneer
- Start date
He apparently is interview Haley, Romney, Rudy and Petraeus for this position. Solid.
Indeed interesting. At least Haley and Romney are respectable 'statesmen'. even though I personally oppose their politics. Rudy has become a political hack and should be disregarded. I highly doubt he would get even 40 gop senators support but of course I could be wrong with that assessment.
You mean after Romney completely disparaged Trump's campaign in a speech, this is even possible?
Romney would be off his nut.Maybe you should let it play out and see what happens.
"If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.
Let me explain why I say that. First on the economy. If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America.
His tax plan in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even though Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.
But you say, wait, wait, wait, isn’t he a huge business success? Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about? No, he isn’t and no he doesn’t.
(APPLAUSE)
Look, his bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who work for them. He inherited his business, he didn’t create it. And whatever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. A business genius he is not.
Now, not every policy that Donald Trump has floated is bad, of course. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do those things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his health care plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to come, want to plant and want to grow. You can’t punish business into doing what you want.
Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with a broad range of national challenges we confront today come from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee."
Too funny. snowflake was so wrong about the election it is hilarious.Just political BS from an eventual loser.
Like this guy (Crystal Ball much?):
It was a speech Romney gave for the world to hear and I've NEVER heard someone obliterate a candidate from THEIR OWN party like this before. He laid his political reputation on the line by eviscerating the eventual candidate of his own party. He expresses genuine concern here and gives sound evidence for it. If he jumps at a chance to work in this administration, then he is the biggest liar there is.Just political BS from an eventual loser.
Like this guy (Crystal Ball much?):
Last edited:
Why not? Would show Trump is willing to put the job above personal differences, if he truly feels Romney would serve the position well. Then there's the thought, "Keep Romney from running in 4 years by keeping him close."
I don't think it will be Rudy.
Because Romney will now have to go around the world defending statements like 'we're going to take out terrorist families' and 'we'll seize foreign oil'. Makes no sense that a classy, morally centered guy like Romney would get within 3 zip codes of this train wreck.
Bama, not sure if you're paying attention but by most unbiased accounts I've listened to, people are actually pretty impressed with how things are being handled and who is being considered this far. Steve Bannon, not withstanding.
But how do you account for the reported fighting coming from the media. Surely they would not misrepresent the facts.
Bama has blind loyalty for the party, or is he just plain blind. Not sure Mitt is involved in anything greater than party unity(wishful thinking). I do not see those who were totally against the candidate the people wanted to be serious candidate for any position. Not totally a party loyalist myself, but those opposed and willing to accept Hillary, must receive a black mark for a position in the administration. There is no reason to believe they would become loyal going forward.
Wow..STILL butt hurt after a WEEK.. they make a cream for that..Prep H..have fun!! :scream::bread::victory::americanflag::raised_hands::fistbump:[eyeroll]
opcorn:[thumbsup]I wanted Kasich to win and notice he's not jumping on the Trump train either. This has nothing to do with party.
Looks like he's pulling the Make America White Again team together...a bunch of white guys from the swamp, sweet. Bannon gives it [thumb2][thumb2]
From where are these "unbiased accounts" coming? Trump Tower? That said, a political commentator noted yesterday that disarray in transition isn't particularly remarkable.
Listened on Morning Joe today and everything was actually very complimentary, in light of the possible Romney as SoS news. I would consider them unbiased, at least in the sense that they aren't cheering for Trump.
I think you can see think kind of decision maker Trump is by his interactions with Megan Kelly. He ripped into Kelly when it served his interests. Then when it served his interests he gave her a sit-down interview and buried the hatchet.
He's a pragmatist. W and O were ideologues. HRC is an ideologue. The last pragmatist we had in the WH was WJC. Pragmatists have core principles. Some of those core principles have an asterisk beside them, and chief among those principles is do what works.
I think HRC would have governed as more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. We'll never know, but that's the sense that I get from her. She's more about making the deal and selling it as a net positive than digging in her heals to get her way. She ran as more of an ideologue. I won't deny that. She was trying to court Bernie supporters with that stuff. Free college was never going to happen.
You'll have to find whatever deals you are talking about and point them out. Any meaningful legislation for that matter that she was responsible for would do. Hillary.**** is not an acceptable source for info.
Lmao !!Just political BS from an eventual loser.
Like this guy (Crystal Ball much?):
I am not knocking you for having an opinion, but that statement makes me laugh a little. I see it exactly the opposite.
It's purely an opinion. I can't support it with any hard evidence, but that's the sense I got from her. Would she have some issues where she might not give much ground? Probably. I think Trump will be the same in that regard. I'd look to her answer to a question from someone on the left asking about moving to an all green energy policy, and she honestly answered that she thought that would be a disaster for the economy - you can support research into green energy while still using fossil fuels, working toward a time when you can move off of them possibly. She gave a similar answer in the town hall debate when the dude in the red sweater asked about energy production. I see that as pragmatic, not ideological. Opinions vary though, and I can't fault you for feeling otherwise.
I understand it is your opinion and I can see how you are thinking. I guess my thought on Hillary was that she was about as pragmatic as the crowd she addressed needed her to be. In front of Wall Street folks she was one way, and in front of envirowhackos she was happy to put miners out of work. She was truly political in the way she treated her audience.
That is my opinion. It was part of the reason I could never trust her because she was always the chameleon of opinion.
Honestly, so was Trump on many issues. How many times did he get called to the carpet for saying one thing only to deny it and say something else. I think that's generally how pragmatists run for office. They are pragmatic in that area as well. Say what you need to get the votes/excite the base, then do what's necessary once you are in office. I saw some of that in GHWB too. He was about getting results, not about toeing some imaginary line, at least while in office.