Don Jr. and his brother are walking and breathing reminders that genes are often not distributed fairly among siblings. Ivanka and the Maples sister got the good stuff - looks and smarts. His boys are fucking goofs, and Jr. now relishes the role of muscle for Pappa because (1) it's all he really has to give and (2) he wants Pappa to love him when this is all over. There is a treasure trove of stories that suggest Don Sr. hasn't always been a big fan of Jr., including the infamous slapping incident at Penn.
IRDGAF, so whatever, but Mitt Romney takes shits that are more accomplished than the Trump prodigal son.
And I'm betting Mitt would kick his ass in a street fight.
If you're not already watching this show, check it out. Reminds me a bit of what you describe. Lots of political overtones, too.
We're a year behind on the episodes but that is one fine show. Not quite on the level of Billions but solid character development and story line. The Throbber likes Connor's girlfriend a LOT.
Don Jr. and his brother are walking and breathing reminders that genes are often not distributed fairly among siblings. Ivanka and the Maples sister got the good stuff - looks and smarts. His boys are fucking goofs, and Jr. now relishes the role of muscle for Pappa because (1) it's all he really has to give and (2) he wants Pappa to love him when this is all over. There is a treasure trove of stories that suggest Don Sr. hasn't always been a big fan of Jr., including the infamous slapping incident at Penn.
IRDGAF, so whatever, but Mitt Romney takes shits that are more accomplished than the Trump prodigal son.
And I'm betting Mitt would kick his ass in a street fight.
I'll take Trump and give you the points
Candy Crowley kicked his ass
Senior would be a good fight. Jr. is soft af. You can see it.
Word on the street is that his ex left him because she wanted it in the ass and he said, "Eww. I don't do that."
FTG
Something tells me that's still on the menu, so I'm throwing the bullshit flag on that one.
We're a year behind on the episodes but that is one fine show. Not quite on the level of Billions but solid character development and story line. The Throbber likes Connor's girlfriend a LOT.
Seems like a take off on the Murdoch family with the conservative news station that the kids can't wait to run into the ground. The oldest coke head son is a great role. No spoilers but his understated dead eye lack of emotion is awesome
We're a year behind on the episodes but that is one fine show. Not quite on the level of Billions but solid character development and story line. The Throbber likes Connor's girlfriend a LOT.
Seems like a take off on the Murdoch family with the conservative news station that the kids can't wait to run into the ground. The oldest coke head son is a great role. No spoilers but his understated dead eye lack of emotion is awesome
Absolutely Murdoch, for sure.
The youngest son is fucking hilarious. Invite.stat. Smokes weed and talks shit like Kiffen.
He has fought way harder against Trump than he ever did running against Obama
I still like Romney. He may not appeal to today's conservative, but he's exactly my kind of politician. Sure, his time in Mass. has probably liberal'd him up a bit, but he's no liberal. Bongingo is overreacting IMO.
Romney is whatever Romney needs to be in order to help Romney. There's no core or convictions with him other than what helps Mitt.
What's Mitt's play here then? The majority of Utahns don't support impeachment, so what's the rub?
Don't ever underestimate the self delusion of politicians. Every 4 years a bunch of them think they can be president even though no one else does
Mitt is counting on a Trump loss this year or a big backlash after 4 more years to propel him to front runner status for 2024
He has the name recognition which worked great for Jeb and Biden. Or not
I think that is the play though
Let's keep in hunret about what a Mitt Presidency in 2016 would have looked like...
1) Cutting taxes and regs? Check 2) Getting tough on China? Check 3) No more neocon nation building? Check 4? Conservative Judges? Check
The reason you guys love Trump and hate Mitt is because winners win and loser lose. And because Trump trolls libs like a boss and Mitt tries to be classy. That's it. It has nothing to do the laws Mitt would have signed or exec orders.
Right on 1 & 4. Dead wrong on 2 & 3.
I walked back and forth on Yella's list, even as a fellow Romney groupie. I thought yeah on judges, but now I think he'd probably appoint a Roberts-type. I think the one I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have accomplished is #2. I can't see Mitt really going after China and not knowing whether or not it would tube the economy. It's a battle you get into for the long haul, knowing it might get messy along the way. He's too steeped in the business world to say, "Ah fuck it. We have to start sometime. It's going to suck but it's the best thing for the long run."
Romney ain't even touching #2. Exploiting economies of scale while ignoring human rights violations and corruption is routine for the investor class. Both parties are stuffed full of so-called "free trade" proponents.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Don Jr. and his brother are walking and breathing reminders that genes are often not distributed fairly among siblings. Ivanka and the Maples sister got the good stuff - looks and smarts. His boys are fucking goofs, and Jr. now relishes in the role of muscle for Pappa because (1) it's all he really has to give and (2) he wants Pappa to love him when this is all over. There is a treasure trove of stories that suggest Don Sr. hasn't always been a big fan of Jr., including the infamous slapping incident at Penn.
IRDGAF, so whatever, but Mitt Romney takes shits that are more accomplished than the Trump prodigal son.
And I'm betting Mitt would kick his ass in a street fight.
I know for a fact @creepycoug Don Jr is a total puss based on his concept 2 erg score at Penn.
My daughter could teach that soft little POS a thing or two about tuff rowing.
Your daughter probably dreams of munching Hillary's snatch
That’s out of line.
Agreed. Why Hillary.
Now, Hillary Swank, on the other hand...possibly within bounds.
He has fought way harder against Trump than he ever did running against Obama
I still like Romney. He may not appeal to today's conservative, but he's exactly my kind of politician. Sure, his time in Mass. has probably liberal'd him up a bit, but he's no liberal. Bongingo is overreacting IMO.
Romney is whatever Romney needs to be in order to help Romney. There's no core or convictions with him other than what helps Mitt.
What's Mitt's play here then? The majority of Utahns don't support impeachment, so what's the rub?
Don't ever underestimate the self delusion of politicians. Every 4 years a bunch of them think they can be president even though no one else does
Mitt is counting on a Trump loss this year or a big backlash after 4 more years to propel him to front runner status for 2024
He has the name recognition which worked great for Jeb and Biden. Or not
I think that is the play though
Let's keep in hunret about what a Mitt Presidency in 2016 would have looked like...
1) Cutting taxes and regs? Check 2) Getting tough on China? Check 3) No more neocon nation building? Check 4? Conservative Judges? Check
The reason you guys love Trump and hate Mitt is because winners win and loser lose. And because Trump trolls libs like a boss and Mitt tries to be classy. That's it. It has nothing to do the laws Mitt would have signed or exec orders.
Right on 1 & 4. Dead wrong on 2 & 3.
I walked back and forth on Yella's list, even as a fellow Romney groupie. I thought yeah on judges, but now I think he'd probably appoint a Roberts-type. I think the one I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have accomplished is #2. I can't see Mitt really going after China and not knowing whether or not it would tube the economy. It's a battle you get into for the long haul, knowing it might get messy along the way. He's too steeped in the business world to say, "Ah fuck it. We have to start sometime. It's going to suck but it's the best thing for the long run."
Romney ain't even touching #2. Exploiting economies of scale while ignoring human rights violations and corruption is routine for the investor class. Both parties are stuffed full of so-called "free trade" proponents.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Romney’s public pronouncements predominantly target the ways that Chinese practices are problematic for the U.S. economy. In policy terms, Romney strongly advocates a rules-based international system, often repeating that China is “cheating” and needs to “follow the rules” with respect to intellectual property, currency manipulation, cyber warfare, and predatory pricing, all of which he argues are hurting the United States economically. Romney’s economic plan also advocates a robust U.S. trade policy based on open markets, expanded trade agreements, and a stronger focus on trade policy as an instrument of statecraft.
Much attention has been given to Romney’s statement that on his first day in office he would label China a currency manipulator, and there has been some debate over whether this would actually trigger a trade war. Legally, such action merely obligates the treasury secretary to initiate negotiations with the Chinese; some argue it has no practical value other than to shame China.
Currency issues have become less central in U.S.-China relations over the past two years, in part due to the steady real appreciation of Beijing’s currency, coupled with Washington’s own quantitative easing policies. But Romney’s prescriptions for a tough trade policy to address other systemic economic frictions are at once both troubling and encouraging: troubling for the real possibility that punitive action against China would evoke some level of punitive response, and encouraging because he is the only remaining candidate whose proposals evince deeper thinking about how to influence China and address long-standing U.S. frustrations.
Don Jr. and his brother are walking and breathing reminders that genes are often not distributed fairly among siblings. Ivanka and the Maples sister got the good stuff - looks and smarts. His boys are fucking goofs, and Jr. now relishes in the role of muscle for Pappa because (1) it's all he really has to give and (2) he wants Pappa to love him when this is all over. There is a treasure trove of stories that suggest Don Sr. hasn't always been a big fan of Jr., including the infamous slapping incident at Penn.
IRDGAF, so whatever, but Mitt Romney takes shits that are more accomplished than the Trump prodigal son.
And I'm betting Mitt would kick his ass in a street fight.
I know for a fact @creepycoug Don Jr is a total puss based on his concept 2 erg score at Penn.
My daughter could teach that soft little POS a thing or two about tuff rowing.
Your daughter probably dreams of munching Hillary's snatch
That’s out of line.
Agreed. Why Hillary.
Now, Hillary Swank, on the other hand...possibly within bounds.
I think any time we lose our shit because but Romney! it's time for the proverbial walk on the beach.
But, yeah. If my daughter were to be of the persuasion, Swank > Clinton.
He has fought way harder against Trump than he ever did running against Obama
I still like Romney. He may not appeal to today's conservative, but he's exactly my kind of politician. Sure, his time in Mass. has probably liberal'd him up a bit, but he's no liberal. Bongingo is overreacting IMO.
Romney is whatever Romney needs to be in order to help Romney. There's no core or convictions with him other than what helps Mitt.
What's Mitt's play here then? The majority of Utahns don't support impeachment, so what's the rub?
Don't ever underestimate the self delusion of politicians. Every 4 years a bunch of them think they can be president even though no one else does
Mitt is counting on a Trump loss this year or a big backlash after 4 more years to propel him to front runner status for 2024
He has the name recognition which worked great for Jeb and Biden. Or not
I think that is the play though
Let's keep in hunret about what a Mitt Presidency in 2016 would have looked like...
1) Cutting taxes and regs? Check 2) Getting tough on China? Check 3) No more neocon nation building? Check 4? Conservative Judges? Check
The reason you guys love Trump and hate Mitt is because winners win and loser lose. And because Trump trolls libs like a boss and Mitt tries to be classy. That's it. It has nothing to do the laws Mitt would have signed or exec orders.
Right on 1 & 4. Dead wrong on 2 & 3.
I walked back and forth on Yella's list, even as a fellow Romney groupie. I thought yeah on judges, but now I think he'd probably appoint a Roberts-type. I think the one I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have accomplished is #2. I can't see Mitt really going after China and not knowing whether or not it would tube the economy. It's a battle you get into for the long haul, knowing it might get messy along the way. He's too steeped in the business world to say, "Ah fuck it. We have to start sometime. It's going to suck but it's the best thing for the long run."
Romney ain't even touching #2. Exploiting economies of scale while ignoring human rights violations and corruption is routine for the investor class. Both parties are stuffed full of so-called "free trade" proponents.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Romney’s public pronouncements predominantly target the ways that Chinese practices are problematic for the U.S. economy. In policy terms, Romney strongly advocates a rules-based international system, often repeating that China is “cheating” and needs to “follow the rules” with respect to intellectual property, currency manipulation, cyber warfare, and predatory pricing, all of which he argues are hurting the United States economically. Romney’s economic plan also advocates a robust U.S. trade policy based on open markets, expanded trade agreements, and a stronger focus on trade policy as an instrument of statecraft.
Much attention has been given to Romney’s statement that on his first day in office he would label China a currency manipulator, and there has been some debate over whether this would actually trigger a trade war. Legally, such action merely obligates the treasury secretary to initiate negotiations with the Chinese; some argue it has no practical value other than to shame China.
Currency issues have become less central in U.S.-China relations over the past two years, in part due to the steady real appreciation of Beijing’s currency, coupled with Washington’s own quantitative easing policies. But Romney’s prescriptions for a tough trade policy to address other systemic economic frictions are at once both troubling and encouraging: troubling for the real possibility that punitive action against China would evoke some level of punitive response, and encouraging because he is the only remaining candidate whose proposals evince deeper thinking about how to influence China and address long-standing U.S. frustrations.
The soft touch is not "tough trade" and that's Romney's folly.
Running off the playground and tattling to the WTO is a pussy's pussiest move possible. Fuck the WTO and all unelected, international boards of cocktail sippers and pedophiles protected by diplomatic immunity. Romney still believes in that shit, and that's his problem.
He has fought way harder against Trump than he ever did running against Obama
I still like Romney. He may not appeal to today's conservative, but he's exactly my kind of politician. Sure, his time in Mass. has probably liberal'd him up a bit, but he's no liberal. Bongingo is overreacting IMO.
Romney is whatever Romney needs to be in order to help Romney. There's no core or convictions with him other than what helps Mitt.
What's Mitt's play here then? The majority of Utahns don't support impeachment, so what's the rub?
Don't ever underestimate the self delusion of politicians. Every 4 years a bunch of them think they can be president even though no one else does
Mitt is counting on a Trump loss this year or a big backlash after 4 more years to propel him to front runner status for 2024
He has the name recognition which worked great for Jeb and Biden. Or not
I think that is the play though
Let's keep in hunret about what a Mitt Presidency in 2016 would have looked like...
1) Cutting taxes and regs? Check 2) Getting tough on China? Check 3) No more neocon nation building? Check 4? Conservative Judges? Check
The reason you guys love Trump and hate Mitt is because winners win and loser lose. And because Trump trolls libs like a boss and Mitt tries to be classy. That's it. It has nothing to do the laws Mitt would have signed or exec orders.
Right on 1 & 4. Dead wrong on 2 & 3.
I walked back and forth on Yella's list, even as a fellow Romney groupie. I thought yeah on judges, but now I think he'd probably appoint a Roberts-type. I think the one I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have accomplished is #2. I can't see Mitt really going after China and not knowing whether or not it would tube the economy. It's a battle you get into for the long haul, knowing it might get messy along the way. He's too steeped in the business world to say, "Ah fuck it. We have to start sometime. It's going to suck but it's the best thing for the long run."
Romney ain't even touching #2. Exploiting economies of scale while ignoring human rights violations and corruption is routine for the investor class. Both parties are stuffed full of so-called "free trade" proponents.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Eh, I don't know. Turning in our global cop badge is an easy (and smart) thing to do. And left-leaning concerns about "but but human rights!" is something I think Mitt would have handled, again, with a good Republican Congress behind him. I get that everyone here is upset about the vote, but we're coloring Romney a little more desperate for acceptance than I think is the actual case. I think pulling out of foreign wars with no obvious benefit for America is absolutely something he'd touch. But not China, for the reasons you mentioned and because of the risk to the economy. Romney is a careful dude ... it's one of the things I like about him (so shoot me); I don't see him taking that risk. That was a move really only a guy like Trump would have made. I agree with that entirely.
He has fought way harder against Trump than he ever did running against Obama
I still like Romney. He may not appeal to today's conservative, but he's exactly my kind of politician. Sure, his time in Mass. has probably liberal'd him up a bit, but he's no liberal. Bongingo is overreacting IMO.
Romney is whatever Romney needs to be in order to help Romney. There's no core or convictions with him other than what helps Mitt.
What's Mitt's play here then? The majority of Utahns don't support impeachment, so what's the rub?
Don't ever underestimate the self delusion of politicians. Every 4 years a bunch of them think they can be president even though no one else does
Mitt is counting on a Trump loss this year or a big backlash after 4 more years to propel him to front runner status for 2024
He has the name recognition which worked great for Jeb and Biden. Or not
I think that is the play though
Let's keep in hunret about what a Mitt Presidency in 2016 would have looked like...
1) Cutting taxes and regs? Check 2) Getting tough on China? Check 3) No more neocon nation building? Check 4? Conservative Judges? Check
The reason you guys love Trump and hate Mitt is because winners win and loser lose. And because Trump trolls libs like a boss and Mitt tries to be classy. That's it. It has nothing to do the laws Mitt would have signed or exec orders.
Right on 1 & 4. Dead wrong on 2 & 3.
I walked back and forth on Yella's list, even as a fellow Romney groupie. I thought yeah on judges, but now I think he'd probably appoint a Roberts-type. I think the one I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have accomplished is #2. I can't see Mitt really going after China and not knowing whether or not it would tube the economy. It's a battle you get into for the long haul, knowing it might get messy along the way. He's too steeped in the business world to say, "Ah fuck it. We have to start sometime. It's going to suck but it's the best thing for the long run."
Romney ain't even touching #2. Exploiting economies of scale while ignoring human rights violations and corruption is routine for the investor class. Both parties are stuffed full of so-called "free trade" proponents.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Romney’s public pronouncements predominantly target the ways that Chinese practices are problematic for the U.S. economy. In policy terms, Romney strongly advocates a rules-based international system, often repeating that China is “cheating” and needs to “follow the rules” with respect to intellectual property, currency manipulation, cyber warfare, and predatory pricing, all of which he argues are hurting the United States economically. Romney’s economic plan also advocates a robust U.S. trade policy based on open markets, expanded trade agreements, and a stronger focus on trade policy as an instrument of statecraft.
Much attention has been given to Romney’s statement that on his first day in office he would label China a currency manipulator, and there has been some debate over whether this would actually trigger a trade war. Legally, such action merely obligates the treasury secretary to initiate negotiations with the Chinese; some argue it has no practical value other than to shame China.
Currency issues have become less central in U.S.-China relations over the past two years, in part due to the steady real appreciation of Beijing’s currency, coupled with Washington’s own quantitative easing policies. But Romney’s prescriptions for a tough trade policy to address other systemic economic frictions are at once both troubling and encouraging: troubling for the real possibility that punitive action against China would evoke some level of punitive response, and encouraging because he is the only remaining candidate whose proposals evince deeper thinking about how to influence China and address long-standing U.S. frustrations.
Don Jr. and his brother are walking and breathing reminders that genes are often not distributed fairly among siblings. Ivanka and the Maples sister got the good stuff - looks and smarts. His boys are fucking goofs, and Jr. now relishes the role of muscle for Pappa because (1) it's all he really has to give and (2) he wants Pappa to love him when this is all over. There is a treasure trove of stories that suggest Don Sr. hasn't always been a big fan of Jr., including the infamous slapping incident at Penn.
IRDGAF, so whatever, but Mitt Romney takes shits that are more accomplished than the Trump prodigal son.
And I'm betting Mitt would kick his ass in a street fight.
I'll take Trump and give you the points
Candy Crowley kicked his ass
Senior would be a good fight. Jr. is soft af. You can see it.
Word on the street is that his ex left him because she wanted it in the ass and he said, "Eww. I don't do that."
FTG
Something tells me that's still on the menu, so I'm throwing the bullshit flag on that one.
This chick begs for the two hole. Confirmed.
Oh man, is that broad my type or what. Built like a real woman, a little crazy, and working on Hubby #3 so you know she knows she has work to do.
Mitt's been in the game too long. These times called for an outside perspective and that's Trump. He just gave a speech saying about the Russian Investigation, "It was all Bullshit." Romney would never speak so appropriately and fitting as that.
Turns out the US needed a brawler from Queens, whether anyone likes it or not. An outsider's outsider. Not the old "independent thinker" bullshit Slade Gorton and John McCain trotted out in election after election.
Mitt's been in the game too long. These times called for an outside perspective and that's Trump. He just gave a speech saying about the Russian Investigation, "It was all Bullshit." Romney would never speak so appropriately and fitting as that.
Turns out the US needed a brawler from Queens, whether anyone likes it or not. An outsider's outsider. Not the old "independent thinker" bullshit Slade Gorton and John McCain trotted out in election after election.
I don't entirely disagree. My temperament and age and appetite for risk draw me towards people like Romney more often than they draw me toward people like Trump. I think he's been effective in large measure; but I prefer guys like Romney to run my company. Big swinging dicks with big swinging change is gratifying, but it often comes at greater risk. I think Trump worked, but it could have been an unmitigated disaster, and in the early stages of his office it appeared that it would be. When he couldn't keep Tillerson in the cabinet, I thought, fuck, this is going to be bad. Fortunately, it hasn't turned out that way.
He has fought way harder against Trump than he ever did running against Obama
I still like Romney. He may not appeal to today's conservative, but he's exactly my kind of politician. Sure, his time in Mass. has probably liberal'd him up a bit, but he's no liberal. Bongingo is overreacting IMO.
Romney is whatever Romney needs to be in order to help Romney. There's no core or convictions with him other than what helps Mitt.
What's Mitt's play here then? The majority of Utahns don't support impeachment, so what's the rub?
Don't ever underestimate the self delusion of politicians. Every 4 years a bunch of them think they can be president even though no one else does
Mitt is counting on a Trump loss this year or a big backlash after 4 more years to propel him to front runner status for 2024
He has the name recognition which worked great for Jeb and Biden. Or not
I think that is the play though
Let's keep in hunret about what a Mitt Presidency in 2016 would have looked like...
1) Cutting taxes and regs? Check 2) Getting tough on China? Check 3) No more neocon nation building? Check 4? Conservative Judges? Check
The reason you guys love Trump and hate Mitt is because winners win and loser lose. And because Trump trolls libs like a boss and Mitt tries to be classy. That's it. It has nothing to do the laws Mitt would have signed or exec orders.
Right on 1 & 4. Dead wrong on 2 & 3.
I walked back and forth on Yella's list, even as a fellow Romney groupie. I thought yeah on judges, but now I think he'd probably appoint a Roberts-type. I think the one I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have accomplished is #2. I can't see Mitt really going after China and not knowing whether or not it would tube the economy. It's a battle you get into for the long haul, knowing it might get messy along the way. He's too steeped in the business world to say, "Ah fuck it. We have to start sometime. It's going to suck but it's the best thing for the long run."
Romney ain't even touching #2. Exploiting economies of scale while ignoring human rights violations and corruption is routine for the investor class. Both parties are stuffed full of so-called "free trade" proponents.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Romney’s public pronouncements predominantly target the ways that Chinese practices are problematic for the U.S. economy. In policy terms, Romney strongly advocates a rules-based international system, often repeating that China is “cheating” and needs to “follow the rules” with respect to intellectual property, currency manipulation, cyber warfare, and predatory pricing, all of which he argues are hurting the United States economically. Romney’s economic plan also advocates a robust U.S. trade policy based on open markets, expanded trade agreements, and a stronger focus on trade policy as an instrument of statecraft.
Much attention has been given to Romney’s statement that on his first day in office he would label China a currency manipulator, and there has been some debate over whether this would actually trigger a trade war. Legally, such action merely obligates the treasury secretary to initiate negotiations with the Chinese; some argue it has no practical value other than to shame China.
Currency issues have become less central in U.S.-China relations over the past two years, in part due to the steady real appreciation of Beijing’s currency, coupled with Washington’s own quantitative easing policies. But Romney’s prescriptions for a tough trade policy to address other systemic economic frictions are at once both troubling and encouraging: troubling for the real possibility that punitive action against China would evoke some level of punitive response, and encouraging because he is the only remaining candidate whose proposals evince deeper thinking about how to influence China and address long-standing U.S. frustrations.
The soft touch is not "tough trade" and that's Romney's folly.
Running off the playground and tattling to the WTO is a pussy's pussiest move possible. Fuck the WTO and all unelected, international boards of cocktail sippers and pedophiles protected by diplomatic immunity. Romney still believes in that shit, and that's his problem.
I'm with you on China. I am convinced only a Trump-like figure would have thrown that punch, given the risks. I've been on board with that since day 1.
Mitt's been in the game too long. These times called for an outside perspective and that's Trump. He just gave a speech saying about the Russian Investigation, "It was all Bullshit." Romney would never speak so appropriately and fitting as that.
Turns out the US needed a brawler from Queens, whether anyone likes it or not. An outsider's outsider. Not the old "independent thinker" bullshit Slade Gorton and John McCain trotted out in election after election.
I don't entirely disagree. My temperament and age and appetite for risk draw me towards people like Romney more often than they draw me toward people like Trump. I think he's been effective in large measure; but I prefer guys like Romney to run my company. Big swinging dicks with big swinging change is gratifying, but it often comes at greater risk. I think Trump worked, but it could have been an unmitigated disaster, and in the early stages of his office it appeared that it would be. When he couldn't keep Tillerson in the cabinet, I thought, fuck, this is going to be bad. Fortunately, it hasn't turned out that way.
As soon as Trump got elected, my wife and many friends were freaking the fuck out. Apparently they'd forgotten about that "3 co-equal branches of government" thingy we have in the U.S.
I predicted at that time that 1) He would lose most radical proposals in court, and 2) His entire cabinet would turn over within the first 6 months.
Mitt's been in the game too long. These times called for an outside perspective and that's Trump. He just gave a speech saying about the Russian Investigation, "It was all Bullshit." Romney would never speak so appropriately and fitting as that.
Turns out the US needed a brawler from Queens, whether anyone likes it or not. An outsider's outsider. Not the old "independent thinker" bullshit Slade Gorton and John McCain trotted out in election after election.
I don't entirely disagree. My temperament and age and appetite for risk draw me towards people like Romney more often than they draw me toward people like Trump. I think he's been effective in large measure; but I prefer guys like Romney to run my company. Big swinging dicks with big swinging change is gratifying, but it often comes at greater risk. I think Trump worked, but it could have been an unmitigated disaster, and in the early stages of his office it appeared that it would be. When he couldn't keep Tillerson in the cabinet, I thought, fuck, this is going to be bad. Fortunately, it hasn't turned out that way.
As soon as Trump got elected, my wife and many friends were freaking the fuck out. Apparently they'd forgotten about that "3 co-equal branches of government" thingy we have in the U.S.
I predicted at that time that 1) He would lose most radical proposals in court, and 2) His entire cabinet would turn over within the first 6 months.
How close was I to reality?
Pretty close. Nice on the cabinet prediction. I would not have called that, assuming that it's not hard to keep people you hand pick. Apparently it's more complicated than that. I'd say a lot of it was due to the (somewhat predictable) fact that he was new to government and fumbled around a bit in terms of managing his own house. DC is not Manhattan. It's a whole other beast.
Comments
If you're not already watching this show, check it out. Reminds me a bit of what you describe. Lots of political overtones, too.
Pretty sure Stewy is @swaye in real life.
The youngest son is fucking hilarious. Invite.stat. Smokes weed and talks shit like Kiffen.
#3? His efforts would be token at best. Romney is not taking on the Military Industrial Complex. Let's get real.
Agreed. Why Hillary.
Now, Hillary Swank, on the other hand...possibly within bounds.
Much attention has been given to Romney’s statement that on his first day in office he would label China a currency manipulator, and there has been some debate over whether this would actually trigger a trade war. Legally, such action merely obligates the treasury secretary to initiate negotiations with the Chinese; some argue it has no practical value other than to shame China.
Currency issues have become less central in U.S.-China relations over the past two years, in part due to the steady real appreciation of Beijing’s currency, coupled with Washington’s own quantitative easing policies. But Romney’s prescriptions for a tough trade policy to address other systemic economic frictions are at once both troubling and encouraging: troubling for the real possibility that punitive action against China would evoke some level of punitive response, and encouraging because he is the only remaining candidate whose proposals evince deeper thinking about how to influence China and address long-standing U.S. frustrations.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/01/30/mitt-romney-s-china-policy-pub-46846
But, yeah. If my daughter were to be of the persuasion, Swank > Clinton.
Running off the playground and tattling to the WTO is a pussy's pussiest move possible. Fuck the WTO and all unelected, international boards of cocktail sippers and pedophiles protected by diplomatic immunity. Romney still believes in that shit, and that's his problem.
Fake News! Deep State propaganda.
Turns out the US needed a brawler from Queens, whether anyone likes it or not. An outsider's outsider. Not the old "independent thinker" bullshit Slade Gorton and John McCain trotted out in election after election.
I predicted at that time that 1) He would lose most radical proposals in court, and 2) His entire cabinet would turn over within the first 6 months.
How close was I to reality?