|
|
Post by Da Man on Feb 6, 2020 15:12:31 GMT
I think history will be kinder to Romney than contemporary coverage. He's a good, decent, super-competent leader (though only a mediocre politician) and it's a shame we never got to see out country under his presidency. I think this is all true. He's probably not as conservative as he tried to sell himself to Republican voters, but that's ok too. He would have been a fine president, and he was treated incredibly unfairly by the media in 2012. I think what bothers a lot of Republicans is that he didn't fight back against this then, and has now seemed to make it his life's ambition to win back the love of the media. It's the John McCain playbook. He'd rather be loved by the media than by the people who voted for him. And... it is part of why Trump became the nominee, and the President. Nice guys finish last, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 15:14:36 GMT
I think what he did yesterday is similar to the Lieberman speech during the Clinton impeachment; deeply moral, brave and unpopular. I didn't want to bring up Clinton (largely because I was assuming YankeeFan would do so), but I think more and more that it was appropriate to impeach Clinton. After the past few years, it's really hard to retroactively justify the brazen lying. What Trump did is definitely way worse and an actual danger to our country and institutions, but lying under oath is lying under oath. In addition to the lying, the #metoo movement has exposed how empty the "consensual relationship" talking point really was. |
|
|
|
Post by Da Man on Feb 6, 2020 15:15:39 GMT
It’s an interesting theory. There is probably some merit to it. Trump mainly was elected because he was a famous man from teevee. People elected a TV character. In part, but mostly, I think, because that character was a guy who would steamroll others rather than being steamrolled. That appealed to a lot of people who felt like they were being dismissed and laughed at. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 15:16:40 GMT
I think history will be kinder to Romney than contemporary coverage. He's a good, decent, super-competent leader (though only a mediocre politician) and it's a shame we never got to see out country under his presidency. The way he was treated as a candidate is such a big reason why we have Trump today. Here is someone who by most accounts is truly a decent person and someone who showed he was willing to reach across the aisle to work with democrats and his track record as governor of Massachusetts supports this. He was shredded when he was a candidate. He played very nice and was portrayed as an elitist, sexist pig. So when you have an actual elitist, exist pig running four years later, I think a lot of people thought, "You know what? I'm sick of playing nice. Bring out the asshole." While I think there's some truth to this, I'm duty-bound to respond as such: "Now do 'socialist.'" |
|
|
|
Post by Da Man on Feb 6, 2020 15:19:41 GMT
The way he was treated as a candidate is such a big reason why we have Trump today. Here is someone who by most accounts is truly a decent person and someone who showed he was willing to reach across the aisle to work with democrats and his track record as governor of Massachusetts supports this. He was shredded when he was a candidate. He played very nice and was portrayed as an elitist, sexist pig. So when you have an actual elitist, exist pig running four years later, I think a lot of people thought, "You know what? I'm sick of playing nice. Bring out the asshole." While I think there's some truth to this, I'm duty-bound to respond as such: "Now do 'socialist.'" And we'll see how the electorate reacts to that. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 6, 2020 15:20:05 GMT
It’s an interesting theory. There is probably some merit to it. Trump mainly was elected because he was a famous man from teevee. People elected a TV character. That's probably the other half of it. Look, Newt Gingrich was popular when he was attacking the media, and objecting to the premise of their questions during his short run for President. Trump combined that, with the lessons of the Perot and Buchanan campaigns (which, incredibly, no Republican candidate really attempted until Trump), and parlayed those positions, in combination with his fame to win the nomination in a crowded field. It was probably a once in a lifetime thing, but candidates who look only at his fame, and dismiss his political skills are missing a lot. Any Republican candidate in the future will need to combine some of Trumps better traits, while hopefully abandoning the willful ignorance, the questionable personal history, the asshole attitude, and compulsion to tweet out every angry thought that crosses his mind. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 6, 2020 15:22:23 GMT
Is this more true for Trump than any other sitting president? This is glib, but how many relatives of other sitting presidents publicly call a member of Congress who is also in the same party a pussy for voting against the president? One can only imagine some of the choice words Herself had for those Democrats who dared cross her hubbie during their days together in the White House. |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 6, 2020 15:23:44 GMT
It’s an interesting theory. There is probably some merit to it. Trump mainly was elected because he was a famous man from teevee. People elected a TV character. That's probably the other half of it. Look, Newt Gingrich was popular when he was attacking the media, and objecting to the premise of their questions during his short run for President. Trump combined that, with the lessons of the Perot and Buchanan campaigns (which, incredibly, no Republican candidate really attempted until Trump), and parlayed those positions, in combination with his fame to win the nomination in a crowded field. It was probably a once in a lifetime thing, but candidates who look only at his fame, and dismiss his political skills are missing a lot. Any Republican candidate in the future will need to combine some of Trumps better traits, while hopefully abandoning the willful ignorance, the questionable personal history, the asshole attitude, and compulsion to tweet out every angry thought that crosses his mind. I don’t know. I think he has shown people don’t care as much as politicians thought they did. You needed someone who kind of didn’t give a shit whether he had a political career or not to test (and kill) some of the old “truths.” |
|
|
|
Post by mizzougrad96 on Feb 6, 2020 15:28:01 GMT
The way he was treated as a candidate is such a big reason why we have Trump today. Here is someone who by most accounts is truly a decent person and someone who showed he was willing to reach across the aisle to work with democrats and his track record as governor of Massachusetts supports this. He was shredded when he was a candidate. He played very nice and was portrayed as an elitist, sexist pig. So when you have an actual elitist, exist pig running four years later, I think a lot of people thought, "You know what? I'm sick of playing nice. Bring out the asshole." While I think there's some truth to this, I'm duty-bound to respond as such: "Now do 'socialist.'" Are you preparing us for AOC to run in 2024?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 15:33:51 GMT
While I think there's some truth to this, I'm duty-bound to respond as such: "Now do 'socialist.'" Are you preparing us for AOC to run in 2024? I'm saying it's getting hot in Iowa right now and there might be some Berning if folks don't take precautions. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 6, 2020 15:59:00 GMT
I mean, Ivanka would be better than Don Jr. or Eric, right? So, we'd have that going for us. |
|
|
|
Post by sharky, Hunter’s text buddy on Feb 6, 2020 16:18:47 GMT
I mean, Ivanka would be better than Don Jr. or Eric, right? So, we'd have that going for us. Dead-eyes Kush as first laddie would be kinda funny. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 6, 2020 16:21:53 GMT
LOL. Aside from all the other reasons why this is dumb, 53% isn't a big difference vs. 48%, and is a long way short of 67%, where it might be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Da Man on Feb 6, 2020 17:06:56 GMT
LOL. Aside from all the other reasons why this is dumb, 53% isn't a big difference vs. 48%, and is a long way short of 67%, where it might be interesting. One of them was from Alabama, right? Let's do a poll and see how that state's population wanted him to vote. West Virginia, too, for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 6, 2020 17:15:54 GMT
LOL. Aside from all the other reasons why this is dumb, 53% isn't a big difference vs. 48%, and is a long way short of 67%, where it might be interesting. One of them was from Alabama, right? Let's do a poll and see how that state's population wanted him to vote. West Virginia, too, for that matter. The idea that the Senate isn't democratic isn't new. It's a feature, not a bug. But the criticisms are always disingenuous. We hear about the Dakotas or Wyoming, but somehow they don't mention Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Hawaii. Small states have roughly equal Democratic representation in the Senate as they do Republican representation. We also didn't hear so much about the Dakotas when they had senators like Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan. And, of course now, liberals want to grant statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. The best part of this is the ides that we should hold the Senate to 100 members, and so if we admit either of them, the way to accommodate this is to merge the Dakotas. LOL. Yes. Great idea. |
|
