Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?

[chrisrenrut]

Its funny that people were outraged by the 47% comment yet ignored the 'basket of deplorables' comment. It's also funny that Romney got castigated for being wealthy when not a word has been said about Trumps wealth (either the real or pretend wealth). Harry Reid made up problems with Romney's taxes yet no hard core press on Trump's issues. People made big issue of Romney reorganizing companies and terminating employees yet seem to ignore Trumps bankruptcies and cheating small business people. People painted Romney as a misogynist with his "binders of women" comment and ignore sexual assault.

In fact almost everything that disqualified him at the time both candidates actually have issues with themselves and nobody seems to care. Quite a shift.

Heck, 8 years ago Howard Dean said "Yearghhh!!" and that disqualified him from being president.

Trump has proven that there is no such thing as bad media. Here he his, in a tight race while being completely unfit for president. It almost feels like Trading Places where a couple of wealthy people had a bet that they could elect any idiot they could find and settled on Trump.

I really do think we are getting more stupid as a society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

The fundamental problem with Trump is that he is not a decent man. Period. It's a travesty that he got this close to the presidency. It's a good sign that such a person has difficulty winning a general election. What fascinates me is that despite his lack of decency, decent people vote for him. Something different from a lack of decency on their part motivates them to do that. I'm sympathetic to their frustration but not to their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a family member, whom most would say is a decent person, who posted a meme on Facebook today that said

"In sad news from New York Hillary is still alive"

He has no issues with Trump and openly praises him.

It's sort of scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I have a family member, whom most would say is a decent person, who posted a meme on Facebook today that said

"In sad news from New York Hillary is still alive"

He has no issues with Trump and openly praises him.

It's sort of scary.

Yeah, it is. He's not the type I am talking about. I know plenty of decent, kind people who support Trump and that's what fascinates me about him.

[U-Ute]

The fundamental problem with Trump is that he is not a decent man. Period. It's a travesty that he got this close to the presidency. It's a good sign that such a person has difficulty winning a general election. What fascinates me is that despite his lack of decency, decent people vote for him. Something different from a lack of decency on their part motivates them to do that. I'm sympathetic to their frustration but not to their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My dad is/was a closet supporter, meaning that he won't come out and say that he wanted Trump, but he was talking up Trump and criticizing Hillary all the time.

His perspective on this was that he wants Trump to flame out spectacularly and take the federal government with him. That's not an particularly far fetched position. The skeptic in me believes that Washington would just be rebuilt by the same people that control it now.

I don't think Trump will be able to push through any of the ideas that he Trump-eted during the campaign that made him so popular with the unedumacated, pissed off white folks that elected him, so it'll be interesting to see how they feel 2 years from now.

[USS Utah]

I have a friend in Michigan who posted at my history group about a lawyer who represented Hulk Hogan and who was a Trump supporter. According to this lawyer, the media, the Democrats, the pundits, and the #NeverTrump types took Trump literally, but did not take him seriously, with the effect that they simply wrote off Trump and his supporters. Surely, no thinking person could vote for such a clown. The voters, meanwhile, took Trump seriously but not literally. They seemed to know that Trump didn't mean he would literally build a wall, or round up Hispanics or Muslims, or nuke America's enemies, or cut off allies and buddy up to Russia. In that view, Trump was just using the same bull shooting hyperbole that all politicians use, while meaning only that he would tighten the borders, establish a working law on immigration (one that has real teeth), and make sure we actually get a good deal when reaching trade agreements.

My response was I supposed I qualifed as one of those #NeverTrump types. However, I never took Trump literally. Quite simply, I never believed a word he said regarding what he was supposedly going to do as president. I never believed he was a conservative who would actually do conservative things once in office. Why? Because Trump had a history as a Democrat supporting Democrats; he didn't just say nice things about the Clintons -- about the woman he would later rip to shreds on the campaign trail -- he gave them money, and lots of it. But when he decided to run for president he chose to do so as a Republican. For me, this did not compute. Trump's problem going forward is that, while many of his supporters like the lawyer, may not have taken him literally, many others did. They may or may not expect him to do what he said he would with exactness, but they will expect something very like much like it.

[LA Ute]

In answer to my question, Mitt was right about Trump but wrong about Trump's prospects for winning.

[concerned]

The irony in this thread could not have been imagined. It started as a reference to Obama's intention to "reset" Russian relations after the election, and Romney's belief that Russia is our greatest foe. Now Trump wants to befriend Russia and pick fights with China. Obama imposes sanctions on Russia for Crimea and Ukraine, and wants to retaliate for hacking, and Trump denies the hacking and may end the sanctions. How Trump befriends Russia and opposes its greatest ally, Iran, will be interesting.

[LA Ute]

The irony in this thread could not have been imagined. It started as a reference to Obama's intention to "reset" Russian relations after the election, and Romney's belief that Russia is our greatest foe. Now Trump wants to befriend Russia and pick fights with China. Obama imposes sanctions on Russia for Crimea and Ukraine, and wants to retaliate for hacking, and Trump denies the hacking and may end the sanctions. How Trump befriends Russia and opposes its greatest ally, Iran, will be interesting.

I will snarkily reply that Obama finally wants to punish Russia because they cyber-attacked the DNC. Some things must not be tolerated!

[concerned]

I will snarkily reply that Obama finally wants to punish Russia because they cyber-attacked the DNC. Some things must not be tolerated!

good for you for ignoring the sanctions. maybe you can be Trump-like and deny they were imposed.

[LA Ute]

good for you for ignoring the sanctions. maybe you can be Trump-like and deny they were imposed.

When one is stirring the pot, facts like that are unimportant.

Seriously, one can argue pretty reasonably that the sanctions have been 100% ineffective. Russia now own Crimea and continues to harass Ukraine. Still, the Ukrainians are better off than the folks in Aleppo, who haven't yet figured out where that red line went.

[concerned]

When one is stirring the pot, facts like that are unimportant.

Seriously, one can argue pretty reasonably that the sanctions have been 100% ineffective. Russia now own Crimea and continues to harass Ukraine. Still, the Ukrainians are better off than the folks in Aleppo, who haven't yet figured out where that red line went.

No doubt Romney or Trump would have prevented events in Crimea, Ukraine, or Aleppo (without committing American troops).

[LA Ute]

No doubt Romney or Trump would have prevented events in Crimea, Ukraine, or Aleppo (without committing American troops).

We'll never know. Committing troops is not the only option, is it? In any case I do doubt their red line would have vanished!

[concerned]

We'll never know. Committing troops is not the only option, is it? In any case I do doubt their red line would have vanished!

So what are the other options? Inquiring minds want to know.

Arming Syrian rebels? Anything for Crimea or Ukraine?

[Diehard Ute]

So what are the other options? Inquiring minds want to know.

Arming Syrian rebels? Anything for Crimea or Ukraine?

An excellent question.

I think these situations are ones where POTUS is damned any way they go.

Look at the use of drones and the backlash that's occurred there. Don't use them and he's doing nothing. Use them and he's killing innocents.

(This also goes to why I don't think the USAF will ever abandon piloted aircraft but that's another discussion)

And in this day and age, information is instantaneous, and rarely do people care if it's factual until far later. Which leads to even further issues. (I see this just from my little work sphere, it's amplified many many many times for the president and military leaders)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

So what are the other options? Inquiring minds want to know.

Arming Syrian rebels? Anything for Crimea or Ukraine?

You haven't said anything about the vanishing red line. Drawing a line in the sand and then erasing it is a huge mistake in child-rearing, human resource management, and foreign policy. Obama really blew that.

You spoke of committing ground troops as if that was Obama's only alternative to what he did do. I was just questioning that. I do recall that some right-of-center foreign policy mavens were talking about other options at the time. Henry Kissinger found Russia's actions in Ukraine unacceptable. (See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...?client=safari.)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

You haven't said anything about the vanishing red line. Drawing a line in the sand and then erasing it is a huge mistake in child-rearing, human resource management, and foreign policy. Obama really blew that.

You spoke of committing ground troops as if that was Obama's only alternative to what he did do. I was just questioning that. I do recall that some right-of-center foreign policy mavens were talking about other options at the time. Henry Kissinger found Russia's actions in Ukraine unacceptable. (See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...?client=safari.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have said several times in the past on this board that Obama never should have made the statement re the red line. The error was in saying it and then changing his mind about trying to enforce it effectively; I think he did not make a mistake in not trying to enforce it.

One of the other alternatives in Syria was a no fly zone, which Obama decided against because he thought it was unenforceable without a major escalation; Clinton, McCain and others supported it. I have not clicked on your clink; did Kissinger say how he would have prevented Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea, or just responded to them thru sanctions and other measures?

[LA Ute]

I have said several times in the past on this board that Obama never should have made the statement re the red line. The error was in saying it and then changing his mind about trying to enforce it effectively; I think he did not make a mistake in not trying to enforce it.

One of the other alternatives in Syria was a no fly zone, which Obama decided against because he thought it was unenforceable without a major escalation; Clinton, McCain and others supported it. I have not clicked on your clink; did Kissinger say how he would have prevented Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea, or just responded to them thru sanctions and other measures?

OK, I will leave you alone on the red line.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

OK, I will leave you alone on the red line.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we take this as your red line on this subject?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Seriously, one can argue pretty reasonably that the sanctions have been 100% ineffective. Russia now own Crimea and continues to harass Ukraine.

Here's pretty strong evidence from a Russia state media outlet that the sanctions were painful: https://sputniknews.com/russia/20161...ium-agreement/

(Of particular note is the demand for reversing sanctions against certain individuals, ie, Russian oligarchs.)

Putin was a double-down strategist long before Trump's 2016 campaign. And Putin demonstrates that prevailing over international pressure is quite possible, if you rule your nation with an iron fist, have killed or silenced opposition, etc.

China is a less vicious example of the virtues of suppressing domestic dissent, for autocratic dictatorships. That population of 1.4 Billion is ready for confrontation with the US. It's part of their national narrative, an expected obstacle to their rise to be the world's most powerful nation.

It remains to be seen if Trump can pull off the same type of autocratic power consolidation within the US. My (historic) hunch is Americans are pretty resistant to tyranny - we view taxes for the local library as the slippery slope to communism.

But Trump has been amazingly successful at getting Americans to engage in selective morality, and alter their tolerance for what would have been insanely outrageous behavior and language from any other presidential candidate.

"I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose a single voter!" (That was the "G" rated remark)

[Rocker Ute]

My brother just saw Mitt and Ann at Bed Bath and Beyond with 20% off coupon in hand. Yes I think he was right about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

My brother just saw Mitt and Ann at Bed Bath and Beyond with 20% off coupon in hand. Yes I think he was right about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey, there's a reason why rich people are rich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Hey, there's a reason why rich people are rich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because they get the starter kit from daddy and then only have to pay a stated rate of 15%-20% taxes on their income (which is reduced to <10% after loopholes they lobbied for are exercised)?

[LA Ute]

Because they get the starter kit from daddy and then only have to pay a stated rate of 15%-20% taxes on their income (which is reduced to <10% after loopholes they lobbied for are exercised)?

I was talking about frugality. I wish I could get that 15-20% rate.

[concerned]

I bought my wife an Xmas present over the weekend. I looked at Amazon on line and BBB. Even with the 20% coupon, it was cheaper at Amazon. Anybody who walks into BBB w/o several 20% coupons is an idiot, IMHO. (My daughter and I went there yesterday, and used three of them on three dinky purchases.)

[LA Ute]

I bought my wife an Xmas present over the weekend. I looked at Amazon on line and BBB. Even with the 20% coupon, it was cheaper at Amazon. Anybody who walks into BBB w/o several 20% coupons is an idiot, IMHO. (My daughter and I went there yesterday, and used three of them on three dinky purchases.)

Mitt was not right about this, then.

[concerned]

Mitt was not right about this, then.

He was since he had the coupon.

[mUUser]

Because they get the starter kit from daddy and then only have to pay a stated rate of 15%-20% taxes on their income (which is reduced to <10% after loopholes they lobbied for are exercised)?

Top one percent in Utah is income of $340k or greater. To what loopholes are you referring that can cut their taxes in half?

[Sullyute]

Top one percent in Utah is income of $340k or greater. To what loopholes are you referring that can cut their taxes in half?

The ones you lobbied for, duh!?

[LA Ute]

The ones you lobbied for, duh!?

I guess if you have enough of a portfolio to generate $340K annually you might get the lower capital gains rate. That could be a 50% cut if you were in the highest bracket before you switched to 100% capital gains income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

I guess if you have enough of a portfolio to generate $340K annually you might get the lower capital gains rate. That could be a 50% cut if you were in the highest bracket before you switched to 100% capital gains income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assumed the 20% he referred was already the CGTR. Otherwise, they'd be pushing 40%. I'm curious what magical loopholes and deductions a guy making $500k-$1mm uses to push it to 10%.