He's been blocking the burisma investigation, and now we know why. McConnell needs to replace him due to conflict of interests NOW.

He's a useless slab of meat. I wish the people in Utah recall him or vote him out of office.

Is Mittens the most hated person in the GOP?

Can't really think of another(?).

(09-16-2020 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Is Mittens the most hated person in the GOP?

Can't really think of another(?).

McCain is 6' under....the 43 rinos bowed out in '18.....so, napes....

disclaimer: our rino gubbbner and mayor are gonna get the boot when their 'do-do' is due....

Mittens is a Mormon in UTAH, he could gun someone down on the streets of Provo and still win by 30%.

(09-16-2020 03:56 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I wish the people in Utah recall him or vote him out of office.

No provision in the Constitution to recall members of Congress (House or Senate). His seat is up in 2024.

In the meantime, GOP caucus theoretically could punish him — strip him of committee assignments, for example — but that is double-edged sword.

(09-16-2020 04:49 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Mittens is a Mormon in UTAH, he could gun someone down on the streets of Provo and still win by 30%.

A Mormon Senator (Bennett) was denied renomination a few years ago. It could absolutely happen to Romney in ’24.

I don’t have any connections to the guy but I get the impression he does not want to be renominated for Senate by the Utah GOP in 2024. Whether that’s because he intends to retire (he’ll be 77 that year) or because he wants to run for re-election as an Independent (with D. support, of course).... I’m just not sure.

(09-16-2020 03:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He's been blocking the burisma investigation, and now we know why. McConnell needs to replace him due to conflict of interests NOW.

McConnell put him there. He is there because McConnell wants him there

Romney is just being an honest broker within a party that’s completely lost it’s way.

(09-16-2020 06:42 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Romney is just being an honest broker within a party that’s completely lost it’s way.

So your position is there is nothing wrong with quid pro quo?

I'm still scratching my head how this stiff got the nomination is 2012. Same with the little rino in '08.

I've been voting since Reagan in '84 and I was always good at knowing the winner. George HW, Dole, George W and also Trump.

However, I never voted for either of those two idiots in the primaries. And is it just coincidence that the GOP puts up its two worst nominees ever against what should have been a very beatable opponent? I still wonder about that.

(09-16-2020 07:16 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I'm still scratching my head how this stiff got the nomination is 2012. Same with the little rino in '08.

I've been voting since Reagan in '84 and I was always good at knowing the winner. George HW, Dole, George W and also Trump.

However, I never voted for either of those two idiots in the primaries. And is it just coincidence that the GOP puts up its two worst nominees ever against what should have been a very beatable opponent? I still wonder about that.

McCain was runner up to W in 2000
Romney was runner up to McCain in 2008

Jeb! was supposed to be the man for 2016 and he would have lost.

(09-16-2020 08:23 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 07:16 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I'm still scratching my head how this stiff got the nomination is 2012. Same with the little rino in '08.

I've been voting since Reagan in '84 and I was always good at knowing the winner. George HW, Dole, George W and also Trump.

However, I never voted for either of those two idiots in the primaries. And is it just coincidence that the GOP puts up its two worst nominees ever against what should have been a very beatable opponent? I still wonder about that.

McCain was runner up to W in 2000
Romney was runner up to McCain in 2008

Jeb! was supposed to be the man for 2016 and he would have lost.

Yup. Trump, who was a Democrat for years before switching to Republican has governed far more like a Republican than either Romney or McCain ever would have.

(09-16-2020 08:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 08:23 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 07:16 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I'm still scratching my head how this stiff got the nomination is 2012. Same with the little rino in '08.

I've been voting since Reagan in '84 and I was always good at knowing the winner. George HW, Dole, George W and also Trump.

However, I never voted for either of those two idiots in the primaries. And is it just coincidence that the GOP puts up its two worst nominees ever against what should have been a very beatable opponent? I still wonder about that.

McCain was runner up to W in 2000
Romney was runner up to McCain in 2008

Jeb! was supposed to be the man for 2016 and he would have lost.

Yup. Trump, who was a Democrat for years before switching to Republican has governed far more like a Republican than either Romney or McCain ever would have.

Let's try this tack shall we? Trump has always been a business man. Romney has always been a career politician. McCain was an admiral's son who got preferential treatment in Hanoi and then became a politician. One lived off his wits, all started with Daddy's money, but two of them wound up living off of Uncle Sam who gets his money from you.

So which one do you trust? The one who has lived by the deal, or the two who have lived by the government dole?

Trump is the first president whose net worth has decreased since assuming office since???

(09-16-2020 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  McCain was an admiral's son who got preferential treatment in Hanoi and then became a politician.

He was an admiral’s son and an admiral’s grandson, too.

“Preferential treatment in Hanoi” — link?

I’ve heard that he was treated worse after he refused early release. (“Early” = before people who had been captured before him)

(09-16-2020 09:05 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Trump is the first president whose net worth has decreased since assuming office since???

That’s an interesting question, and I admit I don’t know the answer.

We’ve certainly had “1%” presidents before. Some enjoyed the lifestyle of Trump-like wealth even though the taxable “net worth” was in the name of their spouse (LBJ) or their parents (JFK). Others lived in the pre-income tax era (Washington and Lincoln, just to name 2). For all of those presidents, it’s tough to see how their net worth increased while in office, but who really knows.

Hard to say.

McCain was Romney before Romney was.

(09-16-2020 09:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  McCain was an admiral's son who got preferential treatment in Hanoi and then became a politician.

He was an admiral’s son and an admiral’s grandson, too.

“Preferential treatment in Hanoi” — link?

I’ve heard that he was treated worse after he refused early release. (“Early” = before people who had been captured before him)

You heard wrong. You heard build up for his political future. Kind of like Kerry's decoration. Class has its privilege even for Communists.

But I'll give him this he did fly his missions, unlike Kerry's 1 or 2 trips up the river.

The harsh treatment, the really harsh treatment, came in the jungle camps. Hanoi was no trip to Disneyland but once the prisoners made it to Hanoi it was because we knew for sure they had them. That did limit somewhat the excessive treatment, that and the fact that information more than a month old was not of much use to the NVA. But those with connections were of interest to them. The ones we couldn't prove they had likely died in those jungle camps, or were never negotiated out by Kissinger.. The POW's slipped a list they had comprised of all of the men they knew to be in the jungle camps, but that list was put in Jane's hand and she promptly turned it over to the commandant in Hanoi. We seem preoccupied with justice for old wrongs. Well Jane is still with us.

(09-16-2020 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The harsh treatment, the really harsh treatment, came in the jungle camps. Hanoi was no trip to Disneyland but once the prisoners made it to Hanoi it was because we knew for sure they had them. That did limit somewhat the excessive treatment

Agreed.

I acknowledge your private message from earlier this evening. Since it was offered in private I will not comment on it, except to say that I read it very carefully, accept its truthfulness at face value, and thank you for it.

John McCain’s tenure in the US Senate began approximately the same day that Jeremiah Denton’s tenure ended (Jan. 1987). At some point after that, I heard Denton speak at a public gathering in Mobile. Several topics and personalities (incl. McCain) came up in the discussion, and I’m not going to pretend that I remember his exact words. I was still a teenager and was frankly too awestruck to speak. But I have to say that Denton — at least on that occasion — spoke of McCain much more favorably than what you have expressed to me here. Not just a “no comment” but words of seemingly-genuine praise.