|
Mitt Romney is your new bicycle.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Quote of the morning, "Look, I like Governor Romney, I like him personally, I think he is a good person, I think he was a great businessman. But you know that’s yesterday’s news." ~ Rand Paul
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Mitt Romney would like to be President so he can continue LBJ's War on Poverty. The "I don't care about the lower 47%" guy? Did anyone tell him that the "War on Poverty" wasn't an actual shooting war? Would Putin have known his place by lining Ukraine's borders with infantry with fixed bayonets? Voters have gone to the fro-yo dispenser twice now and each time they've passed on vanilla. That isn't liable to change if you just put a bowl of sprinkles next to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Did this get posted yesterday? I might've missed it.quote:"It is a sincere honor to be added to the litany of famous 'Malaysian-black-hole-penis-biting' Don Lemon media gaffes which can be added to his audition tape for his next job at FOX News Channel," http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/muslim-lawyer-tells-don-lemon-isis-question-dumb-rear end-racist
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the morning, "Look, I like Governor Romney, I like him personally, I think he is a good person, I think he was a great businessman. But you know that’s yesterday’s news." ~ Rand Paul The impression I'm getting from reading stuff is that Democratic operatives are cackling with glee at the prospect of a Romney candidacy while Republican operatives are holding their heads in bewilderment and trembling with fear. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Mitt Romney would like to be President so he can continue LBJ's War on Poverty. Seems like an awfully bold claim that ISIS wouldn't exist if Romney was President. What arrogance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
He would have invested in ISIS, sold off all their assets, and then fired the jihadis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Seems like an awfully bold claim that ISIS wouldn't exist if Romney was President. What arrogance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Seriously, it's just the height of pigheaded, disgusting arrogance to claim "all these beheadings? Yeah, none of this poo poo would have happened if I was the guy in the big chair. How would I have stopped it? That's for me to know and you to find out, libs  "I don't recall any (mainstream) liberals ever claiming 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore had been President.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Mitt Romney would like to be President so he can continue LBJ's War on Poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:This was informative and cool. Do the nominees generally foot this bill themselves? Does this practice this kind of limit nominees to people who can afford to retain top lawyers for months at a time? Nominees foot the bill. A lot of nominees don't bother, whether because they don't need to (low level or uncontentious appointments), can't afford to, or whatever. Judicial nominees, particularly district court nominees, frequently don't both because it's not traditionally done by them for whatever reason and because usually you have a home state Senator pushing your nomination whose staff can help guide you through things. There are a lot of reasons people wouldn't bother but Weiss probably did need to, since his nomination was high level, contentious, and his history at Lazard combined with the recent discussion on tax inversions was always going to generate some problems for him. In response to your second question: You don't need to retain vetting counsel to get nominated, it just makes your life easier, so no, it doesn't limit nominees to people who can afford to retain lawyers. What limits it to people who can afford to retain lawyers (or can get friends who are lawyers of the right type to pitch in for cheap, which happens sometimes too) is the process for getting noticed to the point where you would need vetting counsel in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Maybe if he was elected in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Seriously, it's just the height of pigheaded, disgusting arrogance to claim "all these beheadings? Yeah, none of this poo poo would have happened if I was the guy in the big chair. How would I have stopped it? That's for me to know and you to find out, libs "That's for me to know and you to find out" is pretty much the policy position for his entire platform. Couple it with a permissive media and you get a blank slate people can project on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Greatbacon posted:Oh Mittens, the War on Poverty isn't about fighting the poors... It is when you are part of the 1%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
By the way get used to hearing "B..but Reagan ran three times too!" a whole bunch over the next 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:By the way get used to hearing "B..but Reagan ran three times too!" a whole bunch over the next 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Nixon will be mysteriously absent from this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
This is a terrible site, but the narrative is amusing:quote:The latest poll from Townhall and Gravis Marketing shows Romney garnering an impressive 21 percent of Iowa Republican voters – and topping the possible GOP presidential field, The Hill reports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:This is a terrible site, but the narrative is amusing: The lady doth protest too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:This is a terrible site, but the narrative is amusing: Somehow I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
quote:if Mitt runs, he will run as the first divorced Mormon candidate for the president of the United States, It's also not true. Mo Udall was on his second wife by the time he ran in 1976.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:This is a terrible site, but the narrative is amusing: *you're being trolled by Karl Rove.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I can't wait for someone to make the Nixon comparison, both because it is more accurate (while still painting an incomplete picture) and because I'll be amused when a Republican compares another to Nixon and means it favorably
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's also not true. Mo Udall was on his second wife by the time he ran in 1976. What would we do without you
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Also, Joseph Smith was up to his 51st wife by the time he ran in 1844, though I don't believe he'd divorced any.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:This is a terrible site, but the narrative is amusing: Will he need to disclose Ann's assets if they're divorced?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Well, I'm sure some of this is Clinton related, but still....
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You were not at all claiming they lost control in 2010, you were implying the loss of control was immediately prior to this - as in the 2014 election. That is patently false. I had already pointed that out in multiple posts before you came in to poo poo up the thread. They did lose it in 2014, completely. The standard for argument in this thread is currently, "I didn't read your post and have no counter point to what you are saying, but it's stupid and you're stupid," so just skip ahead to that. Someone tell me how I don't understand the legislative process when bills are amended and passed along to the Prez through the Senate. It's wrong and stupid, also paranoid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:They did lose it in 2014, completely. The standard for argument in this thread is currently, "I didn't read your post and have no counter point to what you are saying, but it's stupid and you're stupid," so just skip ahead to that. Partial loss of control and complete loss are nearly identical, especially if the filibuster remains intact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:They did lose it in 2014, completely. The standard for argument in this thread is currently, "I didn't read your post and have no counter point to what you are saying, but it's stupid and you're stupid," so just skip ahead to that. I think the issue people have is that in terms of enacting legislation, losing the Senate when you've already lost the House is not actually losing any control, it's just changing the salutations on your leadership holiday cards. The Senate passes things, sure, but if you've already lost the House there's not going to be anything good to be passed by the Senate (and anything good in the Senate will die in the House). There are real ramifications to losing the Senate (mostly in nominations and confirmations - remaining lower court nominees ain't going anywhere fast) but for your point about Democrats not saying anything until they can't be expected to act, Van Hollen would have had to have said "Well, we were gonna reanimate Thurgood Marshall through science or magic and put him on the D.C. Circuit, but ...."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:They did lose it in 2014, completely. The standard for argument in this thread is currently, "I didn't read your post and have no counter point to what you are saying, but it's stupid and you're stupid," so just skip ahead to that. If something can't pass the Republican house, it is irrelevant to its chances of being law who controls the Senate. The Democrats lost the power to pass legislation in 2010, and that torpedoes the insanely stupid argument that in 2015 Democrats are now talking about things because they won't have to pass them based on the 2014 election because they couldn't pass them before the 2014 election. The semantics of how you phrased "lost control" is irrelevant because what makes your point stupid is the reality, not the phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:This is a terrible site, but the narrative is amusing: I thought I read (soon after the election) that Ann got really pissed off by all the scrutiny the family endured (show horses, etc.) not to mention those mean nasty comments by the little people that she and Mitt were out of touch. Which is why I've been surprised by recent rumours that she wants Mitt to run again. Was there ever a proper tell-all book or article about the Romney run? Hobnob fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
I'm curious how they'd get their mass army of campaign interns again after dumping a slew of them in a hotel without the funds to pay for their bills immediately after Romney lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Putin would back the gently caress away since all of Romney's diplomats would be missionaries carrying the Book of Mormon. Edit: I'm sure there's an endless supply of college Republicans gnawing at each other for a chance at campaigning and some connections. Islam is the Lite Rock FM fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If something can't pass the Republican house, it is irrelevant to its chances of being law who controls the Senate. The Democrats lost the power to pass legislation in 2010, and that torpedoes the insanely stupid argument that in 2015 Democrats are now talking about things because they won't have to pass them based on the 2014 election because they couldn't pass them before the 2014 election. The semantics of how you phrased "lost control" is irrelevant because what makes your point stupid is the reality, not the phrasing. "The Democrats are now at their WEAKEST in terms of bargaining position than they have been in 70+ years. So I'm sorry if I don't see this as genuine. Where have they been since 2006 (when they took control of all of Congress) or 2002 (when they took control of one chamber again)? Why is it that in all of that time, they didn't pass something like this?" This was a counterargument I unironically received talking about this topic 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"The Democrats are now at their WEAKEST in terms of bargaining position than they have been in 70+ years. Well, I think it's valid to ask that but the answer is that the brass tacks of inequality was an Unsexy Political Topic for a long-rear end time. (And, you know, obviously before 2008 ...) The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I can't wait for someone to make the Nixon comparison, both because it is more accurate (while still painting an incomplete picture) and because I'll be amused when a Republican compares another to Nixon and means it favorably It happened already in 2012 and the lead-up to Romney getting the nomination. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I'm curious how they'd get their mass army of campaign interns again after dumping a slew of them in a hotel without the funds to pay for their bills immediately after Romney lost. They are a renewable resource.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Voters have gone to the fro-yo dispenser twice now and each time they've passed on vanilla. That isn't liable to change if you just put a bowl of sprinkles next to it. I don't know man, sprinkles makes everything kick rear end... even vanilla.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
sullat posted:They are a renewable resource. Maybe use it as a motivator. Like Cortez burning his ships after reaching the new world to encourage your men. Except instead of the fear of being butchered by natives you may end up having to wash dishes for 6 months to pay off your mini-bottle bar tab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:26
|
|