“Isn’t he a huge business success and doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?” Romney asked mockingly. “No, he isn’t, and no he doesn’t.”...ADDED: I used the verb "dole," so I feel I should add "Bob Dole Warns of ‘Cataclysmic’ Losses With Ted Cruz, and Says Donald Trump Would Do Better."
Romney also slammed Trump as “a phony” and “a fraud” who is “playing the American public for suckers."
AND: "He is basically arguing for gridlock, deadlock and I know from my own reporting that Mitt Romney is putting himself out there. He will never say this, but he's putting himself out there as the party's alternative to Donald Trump." Said Andrea Mitchell.
Posts
265 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265buwaya
I hadn't heard that but I believe it would work against the Democrats as much as against Trump.
I am sorry Rusty - I didn't realize until now that I needed to shoot that at ARM, not you!
The pitfalls of a blog comments section.
ARM - don't be a dumb sh*t.
ARM -
Most work-related matching retirement funds are funded thru investments with the.... financial industry/stock market.
I can hate Goldman Sachs as much as the next guy, and be suspicious of them for donating so much money to Hillary Clinton (for some butt-kissing insider pay-to-play graft speech she gives them) ... but the truth is that the stock market is a way most Americans carve out a nest egg.
jr565 said...
TRUMP SET THAT BAR THIS LOW. This election is in the gutter precisely because Trump brought it there. have you not noticed that Trump is actually the instigator in all of this?
I can see who Trump is, jr565, and I am certainly not happy that he's the Republican front runner/likely to get the nomination. I don't really blame Trump for being Trump, though. To your question about who's the "instigator of all this" I assert you need to think deeply about why Trump's rise is possible. He's the same loudmouth entertainer he's always been. Why is it working now?
I listened to a segment on NPR this morning where Tim Pawlenty explained why he's supporting Rubio and why he thinks Trump is a terrible choice. Neither he nor the interviewer mentioned the word "immigration" once. Not once! That's kind of an important part of Trump's appeal, no?
Now I don't blame Romney specifically (other than for not running a better campaign and winning in 2012) but it seems to me he's a very bad choice of spokesperson for the establishment to use to point out the dangers of choosing Trump. Trump won my state's primary without my vote. He didn't need it though, and I just don't find arguments that my fellow citizens who did vote for him are all idiots (and/or racists, xenophobes, etc) all that convincing. One could have said much the same about the millions of people who voted for Obama, of course, but "if you vote for the guy I don't support you're stupid" doesn't work very well when one's trying to win an election.
"Matt said...
As if Trump would ever restrain himself from the 'best interests' if he had a chance. Not likely.
At best your argument is that Romney is just as bad as Trump. Normally, I would be inclined to agree but there is something so unbelievably vile about Romney's actions today that makes that impossible. His contempt for the little people is well known but now that those same people have the chance to have their voices heard for a change, he pisses all over them. Contemptible plutocrat.
why is Trump entitled to have votes? Romney is telling anyone who might still vote for him to not do it. YOU would be telling people not to vote for Romney after he made the 47% comment.
This is not the general election. We are still trying to determine who will lead the party. A LOT of people think trump shouldn't be. And a lot of those who think he should seem to have it in their minds to destroy the Republican Party.
@HD: "That's kind of an important part of Trump's appeal, no?" You mean, touchback-amnesty and the promise to "work something out" and be "fair" to illegals? You mean, the continuation of the current family-based legal immigration system?
jr565 said...And a lot of those who think he should seem to have it in their minds to destroy the Republican Party.
May I occupy a third position, one where I don't support Trump (don't want him to win the nomination) and don't really want to see the Republican party destroyed as such but also understand why lots of nominal Republicans DO want that (either for their guy to win or for the party to be destroyed) and have some sympathy for that position?
I understand you're trying to fix the problem (Trump's seemingly-likely nomination) and not the blame (for Trump's popularity with Republicans) and that's noble, but I can't help but chuckle at the Republican establishment's panic over a possibly-mortal problem they themsleves helped create. The Repub. Party didn't have to fight the Tea Party quite so hard; they didn't have to snub the Freedom Caucus quite so strongly...they could have taken steps to address the concerns and desires of the grassroots (somewhat populist) base of the party, but they didn't.
They left issues out there for someone like Trump to ride to the top of the polls. The base doesn't want amnesty! You can either accept that or work your ass off to change the base's mind, but what you can't do is pay lip service to opposing amnesty and then work to bring amnesty about (while disingenuously pretending you're not). I get that they're politicians and a certain amount of "sleazy political" behavior is expected, but they took their constituents for granted and they alienated quite a large number of people. Many of those people now support Trump, and I have to think some part of that support is because of the thumb in the eye of the establishment (both the Media and the Repub. Party leadership) that Trump represents.
Blogger Michael said...
Matt
I think Trump has been pretty clear that he will jump to an independent if the establishment messes with him too much.
I am interested in the definition of "messes with him too much."
If Marco Rubio wins Florida, and John Kasich wins Ohio, and if there are other Trump losses through the balance of March-May, with Trump failing to get to 1,237 delegates, and at a convention the delegates are deadlocked after a first ballot and Rubio wins the nomination on a second ballot with all of the Cruz, Kasich and Carson delegates switching to Rubio... is that "messing" with Trump?
Sebastian said...You mean, touchback-amnesty and the promise to "work something out" and be "fair" to illegals? You mean, the continuation of the current family-based legal immigration system?
You don't have to convince me Trump's not genuine on this issue (or any others!) Sebastian, I didn't vote for him. The people who did, though, seem to think he means what he says when he hyperbolically declares he'll do this or that to prevent illegal immigration. Many of them are likely sophisticated enough to understand that there's no way a President Trump could get all of those things done, but they nevertheless like that he's making those statements and making those stands. I know he's contradicted himself and that those contradictions are frustrating for people who oppose Trump--how do you attack his position when his position isn't fixed? I'll just point out, though, that this is similar to the problem those of us who opposed candidate Obama had--he spoke in very general terms and his supporters latched on to empty catch phrases so it was difficult to attack the specifics of any proposal (or to hold him accountable for failing to be consistent)...but Obama got elected. Twice.
AprilApple said...
ARM - don't be a
Why not just acknowledge that you wrote one of the most idiotic things anyone has ever posted here? Because it is part of your stupid schtick. Red team, blue team, hate, hate, hate. Partisans like you are always the biggest suckers. Sometimes I wish I worked in an industry that mines fools like you for money. I would have retired years ago and be sailing the Mediterranean right now.
Chuck
No.
AprilApple
You say you can hate Goldman Sachs but I wonder if you know why. And do you have a similar disregard for Lazard? Or Greenhill? Or Cantor?
Really curious because people are quite eager to toss out the GS name but never mention any of their competitors. Is it because you have never heard of them, approve of them, or simply use GS as a shorthand for a kind of business you are suspicious about or have been told is evil.
ARM - is that your official retort? Lame.
You are saying most Americans DON'T use financial markets for their retirements ?
Why does Hillary take all that money, ( hundreds of thousands of dollars ), refuses to release those high paid speeches, and then she turns around and bashes the very financial institutions that fund her campaign?
Isn't that the question you should be asking, ARM and Michael?
@HD: "You don't have to convince me Trump's not genuine on this issue" I understand. My sense is that he genuinely wants touchback-amnesty and fairness for illegals. But who knows? The real question is why the marks fall for the con.
AprilApple said...
You are saying most Americans DON'T use financial markets for their retirements
Did anyone say they didn't. Let's go back to your original statement - 'the same industry that pays for your retirement'.
You are so fucking stupid in makes the angels cry.
Hoodlum Doodlum. So lets talk about Trump, Romney and immigration.
Romney is a squish, right? But in 2012, Trump went after Romney for pushing self deportation. Because it was "mean spirited".
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-Ronald-Kessler/2012/11/26/id/465363/
"“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
That was in 2012. Literally one election ago. And the people the Trumpbots say is a squish had an immigration policy that Trump found to be too mean. Meaning Romney is too tough on immigration for Trump. In 2012.
So, self decoration makes republicans sound like they don't care about hispanics, but deporting EVERYONE wouldn't? What drugs are the Trumpbots smoking here?
If self deportation makes a candidate lose all latino votes, imagine deporting everyone. Why wouldn't that similarly be losing everybody who is inspired to come to the country?
You can change your positions. But this is ridiculous. Trump never has to address this point, and his Trumpbots are perfectly happy to never question this inconsistency. Did he change his position? Or is he just pretending like he never had this position?
And the Trumpbots simply go along with it? And if anyone asks him about it, they are losers? Is that the argument?
If self deportation causes Romney to lose the hispanic vote, I don't see how that changes if you pivot to be for total deportation. Unless Trump is now saying self deportation didn't cost Romney the vote.
Did the Trumpbots agree with Trump in 2012 when he was saying that self deportation is too mean? Or were they saying Romney wasn't doing enough in 2012. They'd call Romney a squish but then ignore the fact that Trump was saying his squishiness was too tough
So now lets go to the current proposal. He will deport EVERYONE. I don't see how that will get hispanic votes. But even here, he gets away with articulating one position but then also articulating a secondary position because the Trumpbots don't care about what he says. Yes he is for mass deportation, but he has said that he would then set up an expedited process where all the good mexicans would be processed and come through legally. How is that not an amnesty?
So he gets to say he's tough on immigration AND for amnesty while saying other repubs don't care about immigration. Precisely because Trumpbots never actually question his policies.
They would never let a Marco Rubio get away with that. But its par for the course for the Trumpbots.
ARM - you are calling the statement stupid without explaining why.
I counter with logic and you wet your pants.
I get it. You don't have any retirement funds are are depending 100% on social security.
me:
"Why does Hillary take all that money, ( hundreds of thousands of dollars ), refuse to release those high paid speeches, and then she turns around and bashes the very financial institutions that fund her campaign?
Isn't that the question you should be asking, ARM and Michael?"
Got an answer for the class?
AprilApple said...
ARM - you are calling the statement stupid without explaining why.
Can someone on the red team put her out of her misery?
Oh, almost forgot this gem from the same interview:
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
not just to be guest workers, but to be "Wonderful productive citizens". Isn't comprehensive policy with a pathway to citizenship exactly what the Gang of 8 proposal pushed? Why then is Trump opposed? And why do the Trumpbots think he didnt support such a proposal.
Trump does this ALL THE TIME. He says he was against the Iraq war, but they found quotes where he said we HAD to go into iraq and deal with Sadaam Hussein. He did the same with Syria. Having your cake and eating it to is not something any politician should be able to get away with .But Trump can because his followers ARE STUPID. Or, they don't care.
But I care. I'm supposed to vote for this guy. Based on what though? I think he's a liar. If he was for Iraq, I could support that position. If he was against Iraq I could support that position. if he was originally for it but then changed his mind and said so I could kind of support that position. But he gets to pretend like he never had any position but the one he espouses now. And he holds everyone else to account for not holding to his current position. That is fundamentally dishonest.
If he can't own up to his choices, and even admit he had them, then I have no interest in voting for him. And if pundits ignore those positions, then they are no better than Pravda. Or MSNBC.
I didn't read all the comments but this one, I agree with.
If Mitt Romney had been willing to speak as forthrightly about Harry Reid and Barack Obama four years ago, the GOP would not be dealing with Donald Trump.
I voted for Romney in 2012 with enthusiasm. I think he wants to be asked but this is not the way to go about it.
It's too bad. Its like an old player who doesn;t know when to quit.
I'll give it a try, ARM. I think you're saying that the financial industry is not paying for your retirement, meaning that you weren't an employee of that sector and they're not paying directly for your retirement. AprilAnnie is saying that aside from SS or government employee retirement plans, everyone's retirement is enmeshed in the financial industry. Her statement is generally true, but there are some exceptions. You could both be right, but semantically talking past each other.
I'm with you, jr565 -- I'll never forgive Donald Trump for being a member of the Gang of Eight while he was in the Senate.
50% of the public is not in the stock market. They don't have pensions or retirement savings. Most seniors live off social security exclusively.
Actually, it's 52%
jr565 said...Yes he is for mass deportation, but he has said that he would then set up an expedited process where all the good mexicans would be processed and come through legally. How is that not an amnesty?
So he gets to say he's tough on immigration AND for amnesty while saying other repubs don't care about immigration. Precisely because Trumpbots never actually question his policies.
They would never let a Marco Rubio get away with that. But its par for the course for the Trumpbots
You're not wrong, jr565, but your work is misplaced. If you're conceding that you can't persuade the "Trumpbots" then you may have already lost--there seem to be an awful lot of them! You have to either persuade/co-opt them or defeat them. Calling them names isn't likely to win 'em over, and throwing up your hands and declaring they can't be persuaded won't change their minds.
Look, President Obama said he "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage. His original position wasn't one that fooled many people, but everyone understood he had to say some words and take a pose to prevent losing some votes. He did it, he got elected, then he "evolved," said some other words, and got releected. Trump has been wildly inconsistent. More inconsistent than Romney, for sure! Many Republicans didn't trust Romney and didn't believe he was a "real" conservative. Most of the people who oppose Trump don't trust him and say he's not only not a conservative, he's not really a Republican! Fine; all fine, as far as it goes.
But, BUT! People, Republican people, are supporting Trump. Why? How can you get them to stop? His inconsistency on immigration is pretty obvious, so you have to either get that obvious info out there to people who haven't heard it (that tactic doesn't seem to be working) or figure out why people don't care and then work out what they WILL care about. Otherwise you're just going around in a circle telling yourself the same thing. It's exasperating, I know! But your exasperation won't persuade many people, I'm afraid, and persuasion seems like what you need right now.
Why do the same people who didn't trust Romney seem now to trust Trump? I don't know, but that's what you need to answer, I think.
I hope someone turns on the computer for Romney and shows him his Facebook page so he can see how his former supporters feel about his comments.
Because Romney talks down to the people who support Trump. Romney is a snob
I read Megan McArdle and she has a couple of articles up discussing feedback she solicited from #NeverTrump Repubs. and from Trump-supporting Repubs. She mentions that Trump supporters like that he's unafraid to go anti-PC and be called racist, etc. She says that #NeverTrump Repubs. would have supported someone opposed to immigration, but they won't support Trump (because he's too vulgar, racist, etc).
It occurs to me that she's missing the reality--no non-Trump candidate really COULD go anti-illegal immigrant in a strong way like Trump did precisely because those theoretical candidates wouldn't risk being called racist by doing so. You can't posit a thick-skinned Repub who would stand up to Media mischaracterizations of their positions and go from there; you have to look at the actual field and the actual history of Repubs recently. The Gang of 8 stuff really ticked off a lot of Repub voters and their feelings of betrayal are fueling Trump now. They know the Repub party caves on immigration (and other issues). They seem to think the reasons why fall into 2 categories: 1.) self-interest (the Establishment doesn't really want less illegal immigration, they're all 1%ers, Chamber of Commerce types who profit from driving wages down and 2.) fear (they're too afraid of being called a racist to actually take the right stance and fight for the causes the voters want them to fight for).
I don't think McArdle's right to suppose that there exists a candidate who would be strongly (and believably!) anti-illegal immigration and nevertheless appeal to the type of people pledging #NeverTrump. Ted Cruz might have the positions, maybe, but the same crowd has talking about what a disaster Cruz would be (right up until a few days ago, anyway)!
@Mary Beth: thanks for that link. I scrolled through about a hundred comments and saw one -- one -- in support of Mitt. He deserved every bit of that smack down!
Correct. Anyone who is against illegal immigration is called racist. Anyone who points out illegal immigration's harmful effects on wages and unemployment of low income workers, who are disproportionately black are ignored and called racist.
I like McArdle but she is too ensconced in the beltway bubble to see how it works. Every GOP candidate is called racist, misogynist, etc. The ones who are smart are called evil. The ones who are of Joe Biden IQ are called stupid.
The whole system is rotten.
AprilApple
I am not in the least bit concerned about Hillary's speeches to investment banks. Don't care. That is some horrible thing to the OWS crowd, the Bernie supporters, but not to me. Clearly she was complimentary of their work or inferred as much. She should own it but wont because she is trying to edge into Bernie's turf.
Doesn't matter. She is still going to get the support of Wall Street. As will Trump.
Still interested in why you use the Goldman Sachs name and not that of any other financial service firm.
figure out why people don't care
They don't care because they are mad. They are mad at the Democrats for what they have done and the Establishment Republicans who have done nothing despite two landslide elections. Many are perfectly willing to watch Trump destroy our current political system.....the system that doesn't work for them, but instead works for a group of people who have contempt for them.
and then work out what they WILL care about.
Well...you can start with McConnell resigning from the Senate, Ryan resigning as Majority leader, and the party Establishment endorsing Cruz.
OTOH, Thomas Sowell expressed similar reservations in his Townhall.com columns. Sowell has a knack for being right, particularly on economic issues.
AprilApple
Your statement that ARM is calling stupid is just a poorly worded one that does not stand on its own. The financial system makes it possible for us to invest and build wealth but it does not do so on its own as your statement suggested.
@jr565:
We get it. You think Trump is lying to us. You're probably right. I think he is. (Hell, I've been comparing him to Hitler and Sanders to Mussolini)
So what?
The Establishment Republicans have been lying to us for thirty years!
We know what we are going to get if we elect another Establishment Republican, at least Trump should surprise us.
You done fooled Charlie Brown one too many times Lucy......
Mary Beth
They are crucifying Romney on his Facebook page. It is a thing of beauty.
Gahrie wrote:
@jr565:
We get it. You think Trump is lying to us. You're probably right. I think he is. (Hell, I've been comparing him to Hitler and Sanders to Mussolini)
So what?
The Establishment Republicans have been lying to us for thirty years!
We know what we are going to get if we elect another Establishment Republican, at least Trump should surprise us.
is this like opening a Cracker Jack box and getting a prize? Saying you'll be surprised is not a good reason to vote for somebody. I kind of want to know what I'm going to get.
And why not vote for the liar that at least professes to be for your causes?
An economic system that doesn't work for a large number of Americans who have played by the rules isn't going to last. Globalism and technology have hurt a lot of people. Telling them the horse and buggy industry is not around anymore either isn't going to help. Neither is legalizing millions of people who they compete with for low wage jobs.
Tax cuts for the wealthy is not a viable economic policy. Mitt is now worried that the system that benefitted him so well might be in jeopardy because the people who have lived with the tough times are ready to make things tough for everyone. How long are Romney's sons going to last in an economy that sucks for everyone? What skills do they have?
Michael, - Ah I needed the elongated PC definition of financial institution and economic market platforms and business related stock markets. got it.
@jr: "the people the Trumpbots say is a squish had an immigration policy that Trump found to be too mean. Meaning Romney is too tough on immigration for Trump. In 2012. So, self deportation makes republicans sound like they don't care about hispanics, but deporting EVERYONE wouldn't? What drugs are the Trumpbots smoking here?" Can't answer that question, but in fairness to Trump, at least he is consistent on not wanting to be "mean spirited"--he is already stressing "fairness" to illegals wanting to be "wonderful productive citizens" more than deportation, which is not a proposal on his website and, as far as I can tell, he has not brought up recently. Pretty soon, he may even deny he ever proposed it in the first place. He just floated it as an opening bid blah blah blah. The con's marks will eat it up. Because Mexico is gonna pay for a wall and the GOPe stinks because they only pass continuing resolutions.
The man who lost to the man who lost to W and O, then lost to O himself. Looks like he's shootin' for 3 strikes and you're out.
Trump just appointed Sen. Sessions as Chairman of his National Security Committee. Sec Def or Sec State?
AprilApple
You seem angry that you were called on a very stupid statement. Relax. Not a big deal and certainly not worth getting all passive aggressive about.
BTW you are using PC wrong in the current context. There is not a "politically correct" definition of the cited concepts.
Michael - What cited concepts? I have yet to hear them from you or ARM. Neither of you have answered any of my questions. Including the one about taking money from financial institutions and then vilifying them - ala Hillary.
No anger from me. ARM is the one boiling with rage.
PC =
I didn't articulate to your liking - I didn't give you the PC terms you wanted and you have yet to explain.
Michael - All you and Arm are doing is jumping up and down screaming 'you're wrong and stupid!"
It was such a shame that Murray and Bernstein's Bell Curve got so consumed in the mid-90's with the racial stuff, which had only ever been a very small component of the overall work (and tangential to its overall thesis). I think, flawed though it was, that book was a groundbreaking piece of social analysis. And it was all really presaged by Michael Young in his 1958 satire The Rise of the Meritocracy.
We are faced with a bit of a conundrum. Economic success in today's society and economy is more dependent than ever on cognitive ability. Given that one's cognitive ability is determined to a sizable extent by factors outside your control (e.g. genes, early childhood environment), what do we do with the millions of Americans who do not have the cognitive ability to even do basic college-level coursework, let alone obtain an academic degree? One good idea is to stop importing low-skilled foreigners willing to live eight to a trailer and work for slave wages.
All of this really is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The demographic writing is on the wall. America is doomed. The smart long-term plan is emigration.
Murray and Hernstein's*
And why not vote for the liar that at least professes to be for your causes?
If you are talking about the Establishment..how about because I'm tired of being lied to?
Look..I have no intention of voting for Trump. I hope to hell that i don't have to. but I am not angry at Trump supporters. I understand them, even if I don't agree with them. I too am angry at the Establishment....
If Trump is the nominee, and the Establishment doesn't support him, the GOP is finished.
I kind of want to know what I'm going to get.
We know, that's why you are a lackey to the Establishment.
AprilApple. There is no "politically correct" definition of financial services etc. Those were the concepts I was referring to which you wrote about
I answered your question about Hillary and her speaking fees. I don't give a shit. Glad she got the fees. She can be down on them plus take their money.
You have not answered my question to you about Goldman Sachs. Why do you single them out? What are your thoughts about Morgan Stanley or UBS or Deutsche Bank? You just have a problem with Goldman? Do you even know what they do?
AprilApple said...
Rusty -
I don't have a pension.
Most people have private investments in IRAs and Roth IRAs and other mutual funds that are tied to the stock market... or finical institutions.
Guilty as charged, ma'am.
Silliness- Michael. and moral bankruptcy.
I would never do business wit Goldman Sachs. They support a money-grubbing pol who is only interested in keeping her personal gravy train flowing.
Rusty - I did not know, at first, that you were quoting ARM... See above. @4:09
AprilApple
Do you have any idea what Goldman Sachs does? Any at all?
Post a Comment