(11-25-2016 12:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 12:31 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 11:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 11:09 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Perhaps another cabinet position for Mitt but not SoS.

I would consider Mitt for some position in charge of reorganizing and streamlining the bureaucracy. He is good at that and it is non-political, strictly business. Maybe the VA would be appropriate. A lot of tough work to be done there where his management competance is needed. I would not allow him anywhere near the inner circle.

My guess is that for Mitt, it's state or nothing.

There are reports (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...state.html) that Russia would not be happy with Mitt. That in itself would put him at the top of my list.

No. We are pro-Russia now. Mitt won't get the job.

I think we want to work with Russia but not Syria or Iran. We need someone who can seperate the three. Mitt can't, Rudy may be able to.
Trump doesn't "need" Mitt. Mitt could do a lot of good for the country in another position but he may not be "America First".

Take that as you will.

Mitt has no business in Washington D.C. period.

(11-25-2016 01:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 12:32 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 12:31 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 11:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 11:09 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Perhaps another cabinet position for Mitt but not SoS.

I would consider Mitt for some position in charge of reorganizing and streamlining the bureaucracy. He is good at that and it is non-political, strictly business. Maybe the VA would be appropriate. A lot of tough work to be done there where his management competance is needed. I would not allow him anywhere near the inner circle.

My guess is that for Mitt, it's state or nothing.

There are reports (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...state.html) that Russia would not be happy with Mitt. That in itself would put him at the top of my list.

No. We are pro-Russia now. Mitt won't get the job.

I think we want to work with Russia but not Syria or Iran. We need someone who can seperate the three. Mitt can't, Rudy may be able to.
Trump doesn't "need" Mitt. Mitt could do a lot of good for the country in another position but he may not be "America First".

Take that as you will.

I agree, my wife agrees. I'll bet that there are many people out there that are agreeing with you right now. Say no to Mitt for SoS.

On the other hand perhaps he's just playing with ol' Mitt and doesn't have any interest in appointing him. Let's say just getting even for his words. Let's hope so. I would rather have Gingrich, he's smart, experienced, and not low energy. Giuliani is too high energy for that job as well.

3 DAYS & 3 NIGHTS

(11-24-2016 10:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 10:07 AM)green Wrote:  

Receiving deluge of social media & private comms re: Romney Some Trump loyalists warn against Romney as sec of state http://politi.co/2ggOCA7
-- Kellyanne Conway @kellyannepolls

MESSAGE RECEIVED

Trump doesn't care. He will do what he thinks is best and they need to deal. with. it.

President-elect Donald Trump is "irritated" with top aide Kellyanne Conway's public campaign against Mitt Romney's potential nomination as Secretary of State, according to a source.
-- cnn

trump lost the popular vote by ~2M & eked out battleground victories by ~1%: pa, mi, wi, fl ...
with no room for error ...
why you wanna try me ...
#neverromney

I MEANT WHAT I SAID & I SAID WHAT I MEANT

(11-23-2016 12:39 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Probably few other presidents understood the concept of power as well as Lyndon Johnson. He once rationalized a counter-intuitive appointment by saying "I'd rather him be inside the tent and pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in." Something of that going on here with Trump/Romney, IMHO.

That is a good point. But the SOS is probably the wrong position to play that card. The SOS is probably the one position where you need someone who is either directly in line with your views, or a professional spin doctor who will literally bite his tongue. Neither of these describe Romney.

(11-23-2016 05:34 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 03:18 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  I didn't vote for either, but I do consider him the lesser of two evils. I'll probably get crucified in here for this, but I consider him a Democrat that used an opportune time to run on a populist ticket that was appealing to an angry GOP base that was ignored and arguably shunned and disrespected by Obama for the last 8 years.

Oh he's certainly a Rockefeller republican. The kind the dems have been pining over for decades. He's not a heartland, middle of america red meat conservative but he knows how to talk to them.

That's not really a fair comparison. Rockefeller is the type of candidate Trump more or less claimed to be. He is nothing like him (unless you simply mean the division within the party). Remember Rockefeller was around during the time parties were beginning to flip flop sides on social issues (what most people use to vote). Had he come around about 10-15 years later, he'd have been considered a liberal democrat.

He is one guy who has one of the more amazing, yet unknown, political histories here in the US. He was the one who, when he didn't win in running for President, instead of spending the next 12-16 years complaining about how the others did their job, and saying how great he would be if he were elected, he went out and did something about it. Nationally and as governor. I really like him.

(11-24-2016 07:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I said it in another thread....a good leader surrounds himself with differing opinions. If your council of advisors are nothing but an echo chamber then they are absolutely useless. We've had that for the past two Presidencies....

I would totally agree. But to date, that has NEVER been Trump's IMO, be it business, or even his campaign. It is good if he does that now, but is he really doing it? Or just giving the appearance that he is? I certainly don't know the answer, but it seems like nearly every pick so far has been a reward to people who were loyal to him, or will help people who were loyal to him (such as the UN appointment).

I think he really wants to put Guliani there, but I think many of his confidents are like "dude, just.... no. You can't!"

I'm a never Mitt for SoS. I agree with adcorbett. You need someone who believes in you, fought for you, and stayed with you through thick and thin for this cabinet post. We already have the MSM to go against any Trump ideas. Why would you go and make one of them your SoS? Look at Oblunder, (yeah you're right I have a weak stomach too) he surrounded himself with sycophants, especially with his AG's. Not one, I don't think because of their actions did I think that you ever heard a "but" or "I think" or "I kindly disagree" with Oblunder. He was mad with power by virtue of his E.O.'s. What he couldn't put forth through Congress he just went unilaterally and "dictated" what he wanted. We see it in the Iran Deal, we see it on Oblundercare, we see it on the Cuban deal and so on.

Just the fact that Conway has criticized this possible appointment tells us a lot about Trumps leadership style. He listens and doesn't, hasn't, surrounded himself with the jesters known as Oblunders sycophants, er, appointments. Because be honest, how long do you think Oblunder would have put up with Conway's doings? Not. Very. Long. He loves Lapdogs. And even in this case so would, does Killary.

(11-28-2016 02:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  He listens and doesn't, hasn't, surrounded himself with the jesters known as Oblunders sycophants, er, appointments.

actually Trump has surrounded himself with more Yes men than any other candidate I can remember. This is literally the first time Conway has disagreed with him. And get this. She is disagreeing because... he is not "loyal enough," I.E. Not a yes man. I think her comments do more to disprove your theory then prove it.

(11-28-2016 02:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Just the fact that Conway has criticized this possible appointment tells us a lot about Trumps leadership style.

I get a kick out of her. She can turn chicken **** into chicken salad. If she had been hired by the tobacco companies 30 years ago, you'd be able to smoke in elementary schools.

(11-28-2016 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 02:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  He listens and doesn't, hasn't, surrounded himself with the jesters known as Oblunders sycophants, er, appointments.

actually Trump has surrounded himself with more Yes men than any other candidate I can remember. This is literally the first time Conway has disagreed with him. And get this. She is disagreeing because... he is not "loyal enough," I.E. Not a yes man. I think her comments do more to disprove your theory then prove it.

(11-28-2016 02:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Just the fact that Conway has criticized this possible appointment tells us a lot about Trumps leadership style.

I get a kick out of her. She can turn chicken **** into chicken salad. If she had been hired by the tobacco companies 30 years ago, you'd be able to smoke in elementary schools.

You're just peeved that your party were a bunch of dumb S'es. Podesta for instance. Do you remember that email that was calling for them to change the password? because the old one was known. And they were calling for it to be changed on the same email. That's who was leading your party, a bunch of dumb S'es. Own it.

(11-28-2016 02:20 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  You're just peeved that your party were a bunch of dumb S'es. Podesta for instance. Do you remember that email that was calling for them to change the password? because the old one was known. And they were calling for it to be changed on the same email. That's who was leading your party, a bunch of dumb S'es. Own it.

My party? You shouldn't make assumptions buddy. And I noticed you rather avoided the statement and changed the subject. To something I have never even spoken about. Oh but right, yes men. He didn't hire any, said by the guy who prefers not to talk about it, and talks about another candidate I did not support. So what was your point again?

(11-28-2016 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 02:20 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  You're just peeved that your party were a bunch of dumb S'es. Podesta for instance. Do you remember that email that was calling for them to change the password? because the old one was known. And they were calling for it to be changed on the same email. That's who was leading your party, a bunch of dumb S'es. Own it.

My party? You shouldn't make assumptions buddy. And I noticed you rather avoided the statement and changed the subject. To something I have never even spoken about. Oh but right, yes men. He didn't hire any, said by the guy who prefers not to talk about it, and talks about another candidate I did not support. So what was your point again?

Um, I forgot.

What was my point anyway????

Let me get back at ya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper

per @NoahGrayCNN, Melania Trump & Ann Romney will join their husbands at their dinner tonight.
-- @Phil_Mattingly

LAST SUPPER

Rand Paul isn't sold on Mitt Romney as secretary of state.

The Kentucky Republican, who serves as a key swing vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that will consider Trump's nominee to head the State Department, said in an interview Wednesday that he needs to hear more from the 2012 presidential nominee before he can commit to supporting him.

Paul's main concern? Whether Romney is in line with Trump on opposing the Iraq War and regime change.

The libertarian-leaning Paul is one of the most skeptical Republicans in Congress when it comes to military intervention. And while Paul believes that Trump "gets it," he's not sure about Romney.

"We need to know more about what Romney's viewpoint is," Paul said. "I haven't heard a lot from him that parallels [Trump], so I want to hear from him that he understands the historical significance of the Iraq war, making us less safe, making the region less safe and emboldening Iran. If people don't understand the unintended consequences of the Iraq War, I don't think they understand what Donald Trump said in the election."

Unless Trump's nominee can garner Democratic support on the Foreign Relations Committee, Paul could be the difference-maker in confirming a new secretary of state, since the panel is narrowly divided (10-9).

"I just hope he'll get somebody that agrees with his worldview."
-- politico

PRESIDENTIAL VETO

Why was the dinner with Mitt public? I could see randoms sitting 3 feet away. Mitt looked so awkward.

(11-30-2016 04:53 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why was the dinner with Mitt public? I could see randoms sitting 3 feet away. Mitt looked so awkward.

DIGNITY ON THE MENU

Those close to Trump suggest Romney would already have gotten SecState nod but for massive blowback inside. The blowback from transition insiders against Romney has been overwhelming. He's still a favorite but Trump weighing all the resistance. Tells those close to him he won't be rushed into making SecState selection but is expanding options.
-- Joe Scarborough ‏@JoeNBC

REPRIEVE GRANTED

http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxons-rex-t...1481318464

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is top candidate to be Donald Trump's secretary of state
-- @gonzowsj

TYRANNOSAURUS REX

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...ry-n694371

2 sources tell me Rex Tillerson is pick for SecState
-- Andrea Mitchell @mitchellreports

SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE