Senate Republicans Often Enjoyed Laughs at Trump's Expense
It is not surprising that the Senators understand that Trump is a narcissistic braggadocio buffoon who has none of the qualities one should want in a PotUS. What has been a surprise is that they, and the GOP in general, has cast integrity aside in support of what they believe is political expediency.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A preview of McKay Coppins' new book about Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) in The Atlantic revealed that Senate Republicans often shared private laughs at the expense of former President Donald Trump during his time in the White House.
According to Coppins, "Romney's most surprising discovery upon entering the Senate was that his disgust with Trump was not unique among his Republican colleagues." Coppins continued:
Perhaps Romney's most surprising discovery upon entering the Senate was that his disgust with Trump was not unique among his Republican colleagues. "Almost without exception," he told me, "they shared my view of the president." In public, of course, they played their parts as Trump loyalists, often contorting themselves rhetorically to defend the president's most indefensible behavior. But in private, they ridiculed his ignorance, rolled their eyes at his antics, and made incisive observations about his warped, toddlerlike psyche. Romney recalled one senior Republican senator frankly admitting, "He has none of the qualities you would want in a president, and all of the qualities you wouldn't."
As an example of Republicans' amusement at Trump's behavior, Romney cited a 2019 visit that the then-president made to a Senate GOP lunch:
One afternoon in March 2019, Trump paid a visit to the Senate Republicans' weekly caucus lunch. He was in a buoyant mood—two days earlier, the Justice Department had announced that the much-anticipated report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed to establish collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. As Romney later wrote in his journal, the president was met with a standing ovation fit for a conquering hero, and then launched into some rambling remarks. He talked about the so-called Russia hoax and relitigated the recent midterm elections and swung wildly from one tangent to another. He declared, somewhat implausibly, that the GOP would soon become "the party of health care." The senators were respectful and attentive.
As soon as Trump left, Romney recalled, the Republican caucus burst into laughter.
Romney, the last Republican presidential nominee before Trump claimed the same title in 2016, has been an outspoken critic of Trump's for years. The former president celebrated Romney's announcement of his intention to retire from the Senate on on Truth Social Wednesday.
"FANTASTIC NEWS FOR AMERICA,THE GREAT STATE OF UTAH, & FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY," he declared. "MITT ROMNEY, SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS PIERRE DELECTO, WILL NOT BE SEEKING A SECOND TERM IN THE U.S. SENATE, WHERE HE DID NOT SERVE WITH DISTINCTION."
Tags
Who is online
394 visitors
Pathetic. Grow a pair, GoP, and do the right thing.
personally, I can't stand romney, but at least he had the courage and honor to vote his convictions and place our country first over his party. unlike the majority of cowardly sycophants that make up the GOP today...
agreed, one of the few with a spine.
I would vote for Romney in a heartbeat over the likely nominees. Even in spite of his age.
Completely agree.
He is more right than I would like but he seems somewhat reasonable, and he doesn’t have both feet in the grave waiting for a gust of wind.
Unfortunately my top priority, again, is to prevent trump from being in office. As of now it seems that Biden is that best chance.
Uh..me, too.
Here come the rotten tomatoes...
Not from us decent folks my dear! I respect you and support yours and tig's 'votes' in these matters.
I don't care who you vote for as long as you VOTE
Thanks!
I am glad he is leaving. Romney is right about the age thing. However, he can't speak for those of age other than himself! After all, he is only leaving because of personal/private reasons probably related to Utah. He need not call out anyone else who has to make the same/similar decision or call.
All these mealy-mouth republicans/conservatives who defer to Trump/Trumpists and who CHEAT people out of life, liberty, and prosperity simply because they want as an ideological worldview is disgusting. That is, not everybody can be or wants to be a CONSERVATIVE and, . . . why should we have to be?!!
Love you, TG! But Romney's deserves to go somewhere and sit down! BTW, it's probably because MAGA treats him and others like Sununu as RINOs that he is leaving. He doesn't want (or need) the personal harassment that comes from MAGA and that he has been getting already from them! Old dude wants to save something of the past 'glory' for his legacy!
My thoughts exactly. His age is a legit concern and I applaud that, but I think he no longer recognizes the Republican party and sees no point butting heads with people who dishonestly, pathetically support Trump because of their own perceived short-term personal interests.
What I am glad about concerning Romney is now he seems 'sporting' to fight back against MAGA and my hope is he can be strong in the endeavor. That is, make a real impact in getting through the mettle of that super-nauseating 'thing' that is Trump. I did find his comments about '50 miles of new border wall (only), the failure to end Obamacare (which I disagree with), and adding trillions to the federal deficit' revealing and refreshing from him—because it is the truth (even if it is from a conservative POV)! But, integrity that comes as a by-product of playing the game only gets 1 laurel wreath tossed in Romney's direction out of me.
His votes to impeach Trump weren't a tipper?
Exactly, he should have resigned in 2016, Utah would have been better for it.
Okay, that was 'big' too! I'd forgotten about the impeachment (probably because it failed to resolve the larger issue of Trump/Trumpists). Thank you for sharing it. Another laurel 'thrown' out to him.
Didn't Romney run against Obama for the Presidency? Yes, he did.
The left blast him for everything from his taxes (Harry Reid even lied about Romney's taxes to slander him. To apologize Reid said "It worked didn't it); to mistreating the family dog (never proven that the dog was harmed in any way; but that didn't stop Dems from running with it); to his religion (remember all of those magic underwear posts?); to slamming him for working for a company that bought businesses and broke them up for profit; to investing businesses that tested on animals (that is only acceptable to leftists when Fauci does it).
They wouldn't cross the street to piss on her if she was on fire. Until she turned full TDS against Trump. Then she became their darling. Can hardly wait for her next career as the conservative punching bag on the View; or as a member of the Lincoln project.
Leftists hated Romney and Cheney- until they turned against Trump. TDS is the ultimate uniter.
Oh nonsense. The only thing that matters in politics is winning elections.
The way it's trending, Trump, if nominated, will likely beat out Biden.
The far left progressive policies of the Dems are not being embraced by the voters who are tired of being lied to and ignoredl
And if DeSantis gets the nod, it's bye-bye Biden and his wretched sidekick Kamala
meh, I've had a good life and life without parole is a meaningless threat. defending the US constitution from autocrats, their domestic terrorist sycophants, corporate oligarchs, white supremacy confederates, and neo-nazi fascists is the dream of every history loving american patriot.
That comment expresses blind partisanship.
What matters is to have the best possible candidates win elections.
Winning is irresponsible if one elects as PotUS one who "... has none of the qualities you would want in a president, and all of the qualities you wouldn't.".
Of course I'm partisan, but not blindly so. I seem nothing admirable or rational in today's Democrat party, and am not likely to vote for any of them. Right now the Dems have a "PotUS one who "... has none of the qualities you would want in a president, and all of the qualities you wouldn't."....a person you appear to blindly support.
I believe you have stated that you will vote for whoever is the GoP nominee. Even Trump. Is that correct?
You need not vote for a D. You can vote 3rd party or abstain. You are not required to vote FOR Trump.
I have stated many times now that I do not support Biden. I will vote for Biden if and only if Trump has a reasonable chance to win. That is, a vote for Biden from me is strictly a vote AGAINST Trump. If Trump has little chance of being elected, I will not vote for Biden but rather vote (in protest) for the best alternative I determine.
Looks like you are attempting to deflect from your own blind partisanship by incorrectly claiming that I have the same affliction. Won't work, our comment histories prove you are wrong.
You vote for the R, everything you said is moot.
You vote for the D, everything you say is pointless.
I have no choice. I don't like where the Democrats are attempting to take the country. I am a Republican and will vote for the Republican nominee.
As I said earlier, winning is everything when it comes to politics and elections.
So then you will vote for Biden.
That is what a blind partisan would say. There is always a choice. Voting for whoever is the R nominee is blindness. And in 2024, the case for blindness is strong since the nominee is likely to be the only PotUS in US history who attempted to steal a presidential election through coercion, abuse of influence, fraud, incitement, and lies. A narcissist who has demonstrated that he will throw the nation under the bus to satisfy his ego.
Voting for Trump is the litmus test for blind partisanship.
Do you understand what "if and only if" means?
Also, my decision will be made in November, 2024 with the then current information since I cannot predict the future.
The problem you have, and you fail to accept, is that Trump has a VERY GOOD chance of beating Biden, so why don't you just come out and say you are voting for Biden?
We all already know it
You don't need to use the "if and only if" out because we know that really doesn't exist.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Trump's chance for beating Biden is determined when we are close to the election (like days).
I have told you my method for determining who I will vote for (if any). It is stupid for you to insist you know my method better than I.
Again, you have no clue what you are yapping about.
[deleted]
Cognitive Dissonance
I’m sorry Tig, but this is completely irresponsible. In our system the next president will be either a Democrat or a Republican. If you don’t like either and are responsible, you will vote for the least bad no matter what you think the outcome of the election will be. Partisanship has no place here. A 'protest vote' is puerile and dangerous...
During the 2016 campaign, Trump demonstrated on a daily basis that he was epically unqualified morally, intellectually, psychologically and temperamentally. Lots of people voted 3rd party in 2016 and lots of people didn’t vote because they thought Trump couldn’t possibly win. The election of Clinton would have been a defeat for the Republican Party, but it would not have completely redefined it as Trump has done. Soliciting a bribe; fine, inciting an insurrection; fine, absconding with highly classified material; fine. Today’s Republican Politicians are almost exclusively spineless clowns looking for clicks, fighting stupid culture wars of their own creation to distract the rubes.
Well done.
For better or for worse America is a two party country. There really is no such thing as a "protest vote" except maybe in the minds of the people that make them.
Voting for Perot was a protest vote. 30 years later nobody gives a crap about Perot and his presidential run. And he was the most "successful" third party candidate. People in Florida "protested" in 2000 by voting for Ralph Nader and got Bush II elected. It is always like that when it comes to "protest votes".
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
I wrote this ...
... to obviate the need for a post like yours explaining the problems with a protest vote.
In other words, that phrase means that I will use my vote to ensure Trump does not win unless it is clear that he has no reasonable chance to do so.
Let's say there is a third party candidate who would siphon votes from Biden more than Trump. That is a condition where I would vote for Biden since that siphoning would almost certainly give Trump a reasonable chance to win.
American NEEDS a good alternative. Maybe the fact that there isn't a viable one is the reason for the increasingly widening political divide. Perhaps the ability to form a coalition government is a better system - it can get good things done. It's not positive to be stuck in the mud and just sinking deeper every day.
Could the lack of comprehending the meaning of simple English be a sign of the decline of the American education system? Well maybe AI and ChatGPT will help those who are deprived.
What happened in 2016 empirically demonstrates how ridiculous this statement is. You didn't "obviate the need for a post like yours explaining the problems with a protest vote", you made it necessary to repeat how dangerous your approach is. A "protest vote" is always puerile. You must pick one of the two main parties to be at all useful to the Republic. You then work to mold that party to your values.
Key board warrior strikes again.
I wonder if this website is even big enough to be monitored by the FBI? Or they are still too damn busy tracking down Jan 6th people that might have been guilty of jaywalking? And parents that have the temerity to question what their children are taught in public schools.
Do you think Trump did NOT have a reasonable chance to win in 2016? He most certainly did! Your comparison is wrong.
Insulting me is not a persuasive argument.
If it is clear that Trump does not have a reasonable chance to win then Biden will win. I do not support Biden for PotUS (explicitly: I think it is a great mistake for the Ds to nominate him at ~82 years of age and have Harris a heartbeat away from the presidency). I will not vote for him unless I must do so to ensure Trump does not win.
If neither party puts forth a candidate suitable for the office the failure is on the parties. As long as Trump is not a threat, I will vote for the best option available to me for president.
That kind of thinking is what locks us into our dysfunctional binary system.
Note also, many of us rarely go with one of the two main parties. Many of us vote for the individual regardless of party. In some cases, however, we vote for a party strategically to provide a balance of power. It depends upon the circumstances.
In 2024, I might vote for Biden; I might not. I explained my method. My votes for lower offices might vary between parties depending upon the specifics. Strict party line voting is unhealthy for the Republic; far better to consider qualities in candidates rather than let party loyalty guide one's vote.
Notice anything?..
We all make candidate 'calls' even when the party line is a shoe-in candidates-wide, plural. And this is a bit off the topic, so forgive me, but what is this repeat 'wrong' that is Kamala Harris? I don't get/see it. I really don't!
She has been sent overseas to get international experience. She has been a prosecutor. She served in the senate. She is of age.
And everybody knows the vice-presidency is a 'president-in-waiting' slot where even VP Biden for all his years of political experiences was 'in-waiting' for President Obama. The VP position properly is a grooming spot for a future Leader.
We should all want the best candidates, but we are wise (experienced) enough to see that this MAGA conservative cast of characters is seeking people who will do something painfully drastic to their enemies and we, liberals and independents, who will not toe the conservative zigzagging line are highly prized as disposable . There are no reasonable MAGA candidates. MAGA is whatever it wants to be on a given 'day.' That is no way to run a republic (either). Time to call it what is is.
GOPAC MEMO – LANGUAGE: A KEY MECHANISM OF CONTROL – GINGRICH’S DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST CIVIL DEBATE AND RESPECT FOR OPPONENTS
Written by Newt Gingrich, poll tested by Frank Luntz, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” was distributed to Republican legislative candidates throughout the country in 1990. GOPAC, a political organization founded in 1978, provided video tapes to train Republican candidates how to run for office. The memo provides “contrasting words,” a grab bag of rebukes and insults, which can be directed at opposing candidates, and “optimistic positive governing words” to describe oneself and ones vision.
This memo comprises one element of the strategic plan Gingrich brought to Congress when he was first elected . [Gingrich] sought to characterize political opponents as though they were enemies, making both civil discussion and comity among law makers impossible to sustain. Gingrich openly embraced this strategy as a means of undermining public trust in Congress and impairing the institution’s effectiveness. In this 1990 memo, he spread his divisive plan to the state and local level.
CB: As we all can see this verbiage continues to this day to divide and make enemies of good liberals and secularists and others. MAGA is not interested in our qualities-we're in their way through acquiring our futures. And so, they demonize and its done with deliberation and malice and a 'hint' of glee.
I saw the 538 analysis of Trump's chance in 2016 so I knew the possibility of his election existed. But my reading at that time lead me to believe that many people dismissed his chance, especially after the 'pussy' incident. I think most people learned.
I never meant to insult you, in fact, I almost always agree with you. In this case I vehemently disagree with you. A third party vote or withheld vote are at best harmless to the Republic. But, as John R has also pointed out, this type of useless virtue signaling has been incredibly destructive. Now, it is reckless.
That is not at all what I mean by not 'a reasonable chance'. Trump had more than a reasonable chance to win in 2016.
There is nothing reckless with the choice to NOT vote for a candidate that you do not support. In fact, it is good for the nation to reject/not support poor candidates and force parties to do a better job. It is irresponsible (and damaging to the Republic) for a party to put forth poor candidates and expect voters to simply comply.
In 2024, we have a special case. The special case is Trump. Under normal circumstances, I would not vote for Biden. However, I will vote for Biden to do my part to prevent Trump from winning — if there is a reasonable chance that he could win.
If I determine that there is no reasonable chance for Trump to win, I will vote for the candidate I deem best. If that is unacceptable to the D party then I suggest the D party pick a better candidate.
That is fine. I understand your point. I have different, longer term objectives. Also, I think you draw the line of reasonableness quite differently than I (i.e. I will not be in a position where Trump wins and I did not vote for Biden).
Regardless, we have made our points.
I think this is the source of our disagreement. There is no special case. Trump has redefined the Republican Party. The changes in abortion and the relaxation of gun control laws being made by those in power are not even supported by the majority of conservatives. Truth is gone. Kowtowing to Trump is mandatory. The party is actively working to control elections to remain in power.
A DeSantis presidency would be just as authoritarian as a Trump presidency, but DeSantis has both Yale & Harvard degrees, both at least cum laude. A Harvard law degree is a weapon in his hands, one that would be difficult for the country to withstand. I can't see the country faring any better with any of the other likely candidates. The only way to fix this is loss up and down the ticket until the party of Reagan or the Bushes returns.
Nikki Haley or Chris Christie. Asa Hutchinson if he were younger.
Likely true. All of our R members who are voting for Trump are contributing to the continued failure of the GOP. But, when it hits rock bottom, it will almost certainly start repairing itself.
Yet it seems inevitable the gop will nominate Trump again in 2024...
I don't have a problem with that, but I would rather see DeSantis.
DeSantis over Haley??
Haley is an Establishment POS.
Of course Democrats want her as she will not hold them accountable for the last 7 plus years of abusing the IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
DeSantis may be Establishment; but he is pissed off Establishment. With the way Democrats and their media sycophants are treating him the Establishment had better be worried. He seems the type to hold a grudge.
You do make pretty impressive rants. They're all off base and ridiculous, but impressive in their own context.
You think Haley is a piece of shit?? Really?
Who besides DeSantis is NOT a piece of shit in your mind?
These departments and their hundreds of thousands of employees did not change 7 years ago. What happened 7 years ago was Trump, a career grifter who has been involved in thousands of lawsuits and a variety of scams dating back more than 40 years. Republican voters put him in a position where the effects of his stupidity, lack of impulse control, and lawlessness would increase by orders of magnitude. Of course law enforcement is going to focus on this, it's their job.
The game now is to get behind whatever the voters will tolerate. The voters have been getting dumber and dumber over the last few generations. In my mind it really ramped up with the invention of MTV, and then skyrocketed in tandem with the proliferation of social media.
the division in america will remain until there's a common enemy to unite against. history repeats itself, it's a loop...
I don’t disagree and our education system is to weak to counter that.
It should not be the job of our educational system to undo the damage that society has nurtured and welcomed with open arms. Teachers have a big enough task to educate children, many of who come from broken families who don’t give a shit and rely of chemicals to keep their kids’ ADHD in check.
I just got back from a trip abroad and it is shocking how different we are in this regard. We rail against any effort to control our kids in the name of “individuality” and balk about paying $4 for a gallon of gas. Their well behaved kids are all in identical public school uniforms while their parents are paying twice as much for gas.
Catholic schools and some charter schools have student uniforms. A DC Charter School awarded students interested in government with a Pentagon tour last week. They were uniformed. Gas ios about $3.80 locally.
I am now actually an advocate of public school uniforms. It is important for teachers to have their students all appear as equals, and not have their social and economic characteristics apparent in what they show up to class in. Growing up I never thought I would ever admit to that, but then again when I grew up it wasn’t a common thing to wear slutty stuff and sport a purple mohawk to school. I went to a Jesuit high school so I’m no stranger to uniforms.
Gas is the equivalent of $8/gal throughout the UK. In London they have installed license plate readers at entry points to the city. If your vehicle doesn’t meet the very latest in emissions standards 12.5 pounds get withdrawn automatically from your bank account every day you drive that car into the city. We have it great compared to them.
I agree and my wife, a public school teacher agrees.
Love London, wish I could afford to live there.
There are those who wonder how anyone could say Trump has a reasonable chance to win. Isnt he four times indicted? Surely that will cause enough people to turn against him to make him a loser.
Maybe that is true, but should we wait until election night to find that out?
A large part of the Republican Party has said they will vote for Trump even if he is convicted before election day 2024. In other words, there is basically NOTHING that will prevent them from voting for Trump. If there was video of him shooting someone in the middle of 5th avenue they would say "prove it" or "he hasnt been convicted". They would blame it on the victims.
He could stand on a street corner and tell Jesus to suck his dick and they would still vote for him.
By election day all we will hear is about the horse race. No one in the media will be talking about how phenomenally unqualified and unfit he is. Jan 6th will be an afterthought at that point.
We are going to base hopes of keeping him out of office on "independents" telling him to get fucked. That is a thin reed in my opinion.
Yep...the unintelligent ones.
If Trump is convicted of a felony prior to election day, will you still vote for him if he is the Republican nominee ?
Didn't say that
I said only unintelligent people wonder why anyone could say Trump has a reasonable chance to win.
He is either tied or ahead of Biden right now and that gap is likely to get larger.
I asked you a question. I will assume you are still thinking about it.
You asked a question that had nothing to do with my post.
Trump's chance of winning is determined weeks prior to the election. It is way too early to gauge his chance of winning in the general.
Especially when the question is this direct and clear:
I dont think there's much of a mystery as to what they will all do.
There is no mystery. That is why probative questions like yours will go unanswered. But, as noted, clear questions like yours, unanswered, determine a clear answer.
Imo there are probably a lot of people who will talk shit about supporting Trump even if he goes to prison just for the purposes of objecting to the narrative that they are being fed by right wing media about how unfair he is being treated - but they won’t literally do it. At some point the absurdity and ramifications of voting for an incarcerated convict will be glaring for enough of these blowhards that Trump will not have the support to win. A third party candidate could seriously capitalize on that.
Normally I would agree, but given what I have observed of Trump supporters, I think they are blindly loyal to Trump and will deliver a martyr vote no matter what.
meh, there's still plenty of time for trump to alienate even more republicans...
I wish Rs showed some sign that they can be alienated from such an abysmal character.
I'll abstain from the school of bait fish comparison...
... but lemmings will fit.
Of course they do...
Didn't everyone know that the elite laugh at everyone? The snobbish elite are the coolest, brightest, smartest, richest people on the planet. Just ask them. And that's a bipartisan problem with elected politicians. Particularly lawyers who made their money by using the law to cheat people. Snobs laughing at snobs behind each other's back isn't newsworthy in Washington D.C.
No one accuses Mitt Romney of being too humble. Romney is quitting because people ain't kissin' his backside any longer. And people like Romney can't stand that.
Mitt Romney has much, much more in common with Donald Trump (and Joe Biden) than the wannabe snobs will admit. If Romney is a hero then so is Trump; they're cut from the same bolt of cloth.
One has integrity, the other has no concept of integrity.
Neither Romney or Trump have been accused of having integrity. Trump didn't hide who and what he is when he ran for President. Trump is genuine while Romney is not.
Trying to use Mitt Romney to make Donald Trump look bad is another Bud Light marketing idea. At least the GOP base is convincing Romney Republicans to tuck tail and run away. Atlas is going to Shrug and nobody's going to cry about it.
No point trying to reason with someone who cannot distinguish Romney from Trump in terms of integrity.
You were saying?
Donald Trump's character, personality, and conceit was widely reported in 2016. The news media informed the country that Donald Trump was a selfish, lying piece of shit who did not conform to the minimum standards of polite society. So, why do you think Donald Trump was elected? Have you considered that Trump being a lying piece of shit without integrity is a feature and not a flaw?
Mitt Romney was selling out the United States with his neoliberal worldview. If that's integrity then we need more lying, cheating pieces of shit like Trump. Trump actually confronted China with tariffs and tougher trade agreements; something Romney would mock as naïve, ignorant, stupid. Romney would throw grandma under the bus to make a nickel and that's supposed to be a model of integrity?
Don't speak of integrity if the bar is set so low that Mitt Romney can step over.
Hyperbolic claims are not an argument. As before, no point attempting to reason with someone who cannot distinguish Romney from Trump in terms of integrity.
Why is a news report from ABC News hyperbolic? Mr. Mitt Integrity had no qualms accepting an endorsement from Trump for Romney's benefit. The ends justifying the means highlights Romney's conceit rather than Romney's integrity. Yes, it is difficult to distinguish between Romney's and Trump's integrity and their conceit.
Why would a vulture capitalist be considered a model of integrity? Just because Romney is adept at repeating the lies of the neoliberal status quo better illustrates Romney's vainglorious personality rather than a valorous character. Romney is a creature of self serving expedience which should not be confused with integrity.
Romney's and Trump's personalities are more similar than is being acknowledged.
Because all he did was accept an endorsement (back in 2018). You are attempting to argue that because Romney is not perfect in every way that his integrity is the same as Trump.
That is hyperbole. It is ridiculous.
No, that's not all Romney did. The linked article points out that Romney was vocal in denouncing and opposing Trump during the 2016 election. The article quotes Romney during 2016: "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud," Romney told an audience at the University of Utah last March. "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."
Yet, Romney's integrity took a holiday in 2018 when Trump's support was of benefit. The ends justifying the means doesn't suggest integrity.
(BTW, Romney wasn't the only one telling the public the same things about Trump before the 2016 election. The public knew who and what Trump was before the election. And Trump did not change his behavior after the election. The public wasn't blindsided by Trump.)
This:
is spot on.
So, why did Mr. Mitt Integrity accept Trump's endorsement? What changed between 2016 and 2018?
The seeded article says Mitt Romney and his buddies laugh behind Trump's back. Why is this surprising from an elitist snob like Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney's opinion doesn't matter very much because he is fickle and feckless.
Do you understand that having integrity does not require that a human being be 100% perfect in every way at every moment in their life?
Your 'argument' is absurd.
Especially when they expect no integrity from trmp at all
Utter rubbish, no comparison to the former 'president'.
Interesting take on this topic:
I'm amazed at how long the GOP has been able to keep a lid on the 2 warring factions within it.
oops, the 3 warring factions I mean ...
I find the question. . .
"Was the authoritarian element of the GOP a product of President Trump, or had it always been there, just waiting to be activated by a sufficiently shameless demagogue?"
. . . telling.
Some of us have been saying this is the direction of the republican party since it decided its only role in life is to inflict injury and insult on its political enemies by takeover of the systems of government. "Takeover" is not worth much if one does nothing to sustain it. And, of course, Donald Trump, a super-villain, was primed by the manner of his living to lead a party without remorse and so the two 'forces' clasp hands and begin to skip together through life!
And I remember this image from an assortment of images of Romney 2016:
Donald Trump Holds Weekend Meetings In Bedminster, NJ
BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP, NJ - NOVEMBER 19: President-elect Donald Trump calls out to the press as Mitt Romney leaves after their meeting at Trump International Golf Club, November 19, 2016 in Bedminster Township, New Jersey. Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
And this:
Trump ran Romney down and the 'drop to the knees' remark should have been an 'ultimate' insult for a man with integrity, but it was not in the end. Thus, 'The Door' at 5.2 .
Romney is an interesting study. Its amusing to see him, now that's he out politics, receive praise from the same people who were calling him a Nazi who was going to put black people back in chains just a decade ago. His defeat made Trump possible, and the 2012 election is a great historical "what if." He was "nice" and didn't really fight back against the slurs and absurd accusations from the media and Harry Reids of the world. He was the adult in the room and was punished for it. And the lesson a lot of Republicans took from it, was if you are going to call Mitt Freaking Romney an murdering, racist Nazi, it doesn't matter who you nominate so long as they actually fight back. Being nice and arguing substance gets you nowhere in a shit throwing contest.
Thus Trump. Progressives and the media see no difference between Trump, Romney or McCain and will attack the them the exact same way anyway so character, or the lack of it, doesn't really matter. Pushing back and fighting like a Democrat is what Republicans wanted.
But it is a little funny to see Romney hold himself out as an example of consistency and fixed principle. Massachusetts Mitt bore little resemblance to Utah Mitt. His inauthenticity and shifting positions was one of his big handicaps in 2008. He certainly had no problem publicly groveling before Trump when the Sec of State position was dangled in front of him. Romney really should look back at his own career before he starts attacking others for changing positions to get elected.
The election is over a year away and many things can change.
The only thing I know for a fact is that I won't vote for Trump.
A vote for Trump would be an abdication of democracy for me.
I would, however, sell my vote for $300,000. (I need a new car).
that's how much breakfast will cost after trump gets elected again...
You must have forgotten that Joe passed the Inflation Reduction Act to save us.