Cabinet position for Mitt Romney?

Just read a report that Mitt is being considered for Secretary of State (along with Nikki Haley of South Carolina and others). This could be good for Trump to build bridges with the establishment. I think Mitt would be better at Secretary of the Treasury.

I think these named being bandied about (Mitt for SoS, Lee for SCOTUS, Cruz for AG) indicate that Trump is a smart guy who knows that implementing what he promised on the campaign trail is going to take either (a) full buy-in from the GOP, or (b) somehow persuading Democrats, especially in the Senate, to buy into his platform. Option (b) is not happening, so Trump has to unify the GOP so that, especially in the Senate, he has enough votes to do what he promised to do.



Making nice with dissenting voices from the campaign is the best place to start. He can't afford to have Lee, Hatch, Cruz, and Paul on the other side when things come up for vote in a Senate where the GOP only holds 51 seats. He needs 100% buy-in from the GOP senators to pass his agenda on a party line vote, and, if rumors are to be believed, he is making the right moves to achieve that, either by removing those he perceives as obstructionists from the Senate by means of appointment, or by patching over differences by those appointments.

Trump is likely looking for people who know what they're doing and would be serious about governing.

Mitt would be an outstanding Secretary of the Treasury

snoscythe wrote:
I think these named being bandied about (Mitt for SoS, Lee for SCOTUS, Cruz for AG) indicate that Trump is a smart guy who knows that implementing what he promised on the campaign trail is going to take either (a) full buy-in from the GOP, or (b) somehow persuading Democrats, especially in the Senate, to buy into his platform. Option (b) is not happening, so Trump has to unify the GOP so that, especially in the Senate, he has enough votes to do what he promised to do.



Making nice with dissenting voices from the campaign is the best place to start. He can't afford to have Lee, Hatch, Cruz, and Paul on the other side when things come up for vote in a Senate where the GOP only holds 51 seats. He needs 100% buy-in from the GOP senators to pass his agenda on a party line vote, and, if rumors are to be believed, he is making the right moves to achieve that, either by removing those he perceives as obstructionists from the Senate by means of appointment, or by patching over differences by those appointments.

Let's see ..... what's that called? Leadership? Building consensus? Organizing strategic change through culture building? Building a team of rivals (I think a book was written about that). Hmmmmm ...... sounds like Trump has had some executive experience eh? Knows how to team build? Imagine that.

This is what I was hoping and what he appeared to be heading towards. He is a good executive which means he surrounds himself with some of the best people he can. I think his experience tells him, he can't do this alone. He needs people that make it happen and that's what it looks like he is doing.

My "pipe dream" was that he would ask John Roberts to step down sometime in the near future and appoint Cruz as Chief Justice. I can't imagine another doing a better job.

I'm still pulling for Lee to get a nomination. And when Ginsburg and Breyer "retire" there's two more. Trump could end up appointing 4 Sup Justices if he serves two terms. No way Ginsburg and Breyer make it another 8 years.



I had a talk with someone in my ward last night who has been out of work for about 5 months. It was so different than before. I told him that within a year he will probably have a pretty good job. I couldn't say that over that 8 years. He was still down but I reassured him it is different now.

imuakahuku wrote:

I had a talk with someone in my ward last night who has been out of work for about 5 months. It was so different than before. I told him that within a year he will probably have a pretty good job. I couldn't say that over that 8 years. He was still down but I reassured him it is different now.

Exactly - a new Sheriff is in town.



I have asked libtard folks that I know for the past 7 years (I gave Obama 1 year to get his "sea legs") what Obama's guiding foreign policy/dosctine was - define it. No one could. Not one of them. Because Obama's foreign policy was a "shoot from the hip" moving target. Never defined.



If I defined Obama's foreign and domestic policy it would be this: Blame America first, apologize often, illegals and immigrants before American tax payers, vapor lock and do nothing, give away the kitchen sink when negotiating with enemies, and treat our allies with aloof disdain.



With George W. Bush we knew exactly his policy and doctrine was. He had the "Bush Doctrine." Defined by guiding principles.



I submit to you, Donald Trump has not even been sworn into office and we know what his foreign policy and domestic policy will be: America and American's first. Protect our interests abroad and create jobs at home.



Obama never had that philosophy.

It's funny how quickly we went to DEFCON 5. Our military was at three just a few weeks ago for only the sixth time in history at three or lower (Operation Paul Bunyan, Gulf war-was at a two, Yom Kipper war, 9/11 -not sure why since I don't know of a reason to think there was a nuclear threat but I guess someone did, and Cuban Missle Crisis with SAc at a two and all others at three. I don't know of a time the US was closer to nuclear war than that but evidently we got close enough to go to three.

Quinn's first law "Liberlism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent".

Kahuku, I have been doing the same. I have family members out of work, and I have been encouraging them: Help is on the way! Lift up your heads and be of good cheer!



It feels so good to be able to say that. It is so good to see the working class, the Country, waking up and shifting alliances.



There was a time, in the Fifties and Sixties, when Democrats represented the desires of prosperity for the middle class. That started to change in the Seventies. Those days are now long gone.



I veritably have come to the conclusion that the Democrat agenda is not to stimulate the national economy, but to suppress it. It is by design. It is their agenda. Their motive is simple: they intend to rule, and it is easier for them to accrue more and more power when the public is weakened. An empowered citizenry is antithetical to their desire to rule.



The time is past for any gesture of benefit of doubt on their behalf. It is time to crush them with an open declaration. A declaration that they are evil.

Ddawg, I also like what you said above, about Obama's policies. I think you nailed it.

BOID wrote:

The time is past for any gesture of benefit of doubt on their behalf. It is time to crush them with an open declaration. A declaration that they are evil.

Spot on. I'm not joking or using hyperbole when I say the Dimocrat Libtards are the modern day Gadianton Robbers. I have posted that here numerous times. They are dishonest, duplicitous, scheming, lawless, and evil. They do everything they can to undermine and circumvent the Constitution and the rule of law.



I was very pleased to see Sen. Jeff Sessions was offered the Atty Gen. position - and he accepted. He will purge the DOJ of the Obama political agenda.

Any time you label broad groups of people who disagree with you as evil with no redeeming qualities you are at best exhibiting extreme ignorance or rejoicing in dangerous levels of intellectual dishonesty. Are there evil Democrats who want nothing more to rule over the country by any means necessary? Absolutely, and they are evil. But the vast majority of Democrats are good people who believe in philosophies of serving others that are different than my own.

hawkwing wrote:
Any time you label broad groups of people who disagree with you as evil with no redeeming qualities you are at best exhibiting extreme ignorance or rejoicing in dangerous levels of intellectual dishonesty. Are there evil Democrats who want nothing more to rule over the country by any means necessary? Absolutely, and they are evil. But the vast majority of Democrats are good people who believe in philosophies of serving others that are different than my own.

Well said.

hawkwing wrote:
Any time you label broad groups of people who disagree with you as evil with no redeeming qualities you are at best exhibiting extreme ignorance or rejoicing in dangerous levels of intellectual dishonesty. Are there evil Democrats who want nothing more to rule over the country by any means necessary? Absolutely, and they are evil. But the vast majority of Democrats are good people who believe in philosophies of serving others that are different than my own.

Amen! I guess having changed my registration from democrat to independent means I am not evil and a libtard! Whew! Such labeling is the conservative version of Hillarys' rightly condemned "deplorables." Surely we can do better. In the end such labeling says more about the labeler than the one targeted.

hawkwing wrote:
Any time you label broad groups of people who disagree with you as evil with no redeeming qualities you are at best exhibiting extreme ignorance or rejoicing in dangerous levels of intellectual dishonesty. Are there evil Democrats who want nothing more to rule over the country by any means necessary? Absolutely, and they are evil. But the vast majority of Democrats are good people who believe in philosophies of serving others that are different than my own.

1. In your characterization of me - you are wrong.

2. I should have been more specific about the evil Democrat Libtard PARTY - their leadership.

3. About the Democrat Libtard PARTY - you are wrong.

4. No question - the Democrat Libtard Socialist PARTY is corrupt and evil to the core. Flat out evil and they are the modern day Gadianton Robbers. It is their leadership that is deceitful, conniving, plotting scoundrels.



I am fully aware that there are good people in the Democratic party. My father was a committed Truman Democrat. Ronald Reagan was a dedicated Truman Democrat. Both of those men switched to the GOP, not because they themselves changed, but because the Democrat PARTY changed.



The Democrat party of "our fathers" does not exist today. It is long gone.



A little reminder - just before the DNC Convention where Hillary received the Dem presidential nomination it was revealed, Wikileaks revealed the evil and corrupt emails where the Dem Chair (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) along with other high ranking Dem's were plotting and scheming to "fix" the primary for Hillary. Total corruption. The DNC chair and other high ranking Democrat Libtard all resigned - a total of 5 high ranking Socialist Dim's.



I can go on .... about how in their emails these high placed Dim's and their executive staff make fun of "needy" Latino's, ridicule African Americans for their funny names, ridicule Catholics for their commitment and beliefs to their faith, emailing debate questions to Hillary (both CNN and the current chair of the DNC Donna Brazille involved up to their eyeballs). The Dem leadership exposed themselves as frauds.



The only people that support the Democrat party today fall into 3 categories:

1. They fully understand the Dem platform is a socialist platform - want it and support it.

2. The are naive about the true intentions of the Dem leadership, believe the dishonest propaganda the Dem's barf out, and do not really understand the plan of the Dem party has to undermine the Constitution and bring about a socialist state.

3. They are asleep at the wheel, un-in-formed and reflexively vote Dem.



So, before you get on your lecture platform ..... take a look at the real problem here - a corrupt and evil Democrat party scheming to undermine the Constitution.

byufan4ever wrote:

Any time you label broad groups of people who disagree with you as evil with no redeeming qualities you are at best exhibiting extreme ignorance or rejoicing in dangerous levels of intellectual dishonesty. Are there evil Democrats who want nothing more to rule over the country by any means necessary? Absolutely, and they are evil. But the vast majority of Democrats are good people who believe in philosophies of serving others that are different than my own.

Well said.

Agreed.

To add my two cents. It's not Dem in general. It is the progressive liberals that are the gidianton robbers steeped in secret combinations. They have always been there in the Dem party (and to a lesser degree in the Republican Party). Pahoran called them Kings-men and during the Am Revolution they were called the Loyalists. But true Americans beat them back every time they reared their ugly head. But they have gained a little each time. 1913 was perhaps their biggest gain with the 17th Ammendment. Each time America finally woke up and beat it back down minus those little gains. FDR was the next super successful Progressive with the New Deal. Most of that was done away with but we still have a welfare system that doesn't encourage self reliance instead rewards dependence on Government. Today's Dem party is once again squarely in the grips of those Progressives. They are once again tearing at the fabric that makes this country great. Obama's biggest piece was his Healthcare. You want to see power over the people that is perhaps the strongest. With it they can limit just about every freedom we have through regulations - guns lead to injury which leads to higher costs and are a burden on the program hence regulations to control those risks. Same with SUV's, and fast food, and motorcycles, and so on. The easiest way to control the people is to make them all criminals and make their wellbeing dependent on the government. The unfortunate part is that too many people fall under their spell, they make things sound good and play with words to confuse and to cajole the people e.g. the word discrimination. People run from that word when in fact it is a valuable tool in judging people. But the Progs tied it to skin color and sexuality and other attributes making it almost a swear. Who here doesn't want the kids to discriminate when it comes to their future spouse? Would you prefer they marry without judging their future spouse's character? Absolutely not.

So I guess my point is that it is in fact not Democrats that are evil but their leaders that identify as Progressives (they hijacked the moniker Liberal because the actions of Wilson and his ilk the word Progressive became apparent that it stood for subjugation and was evil. That's why I usually try to always describe them as Progressive Liberals). There is nothing wrong with being liberal as long as it doesn't end up in the Progressive spectrum.

An example of all this. Today's seat belt laws. Nearly the entire driving populace made criminals by one law. Introduced as good for your safety but how many times did you jump in the car and drive to the end of the street and feel like you were breaking the law because you felt you were only going a 1000 feet and didn't think the risk was high of a major injury or death? But you were a criminal for that 1000 feet. I wear my seat belt religiously but not because I neede a law to tell me to do so. I read the statistics and knew the benefits of wearing them and when I first started driving I promised my mom I would always wear it. These laws also demonstrate when we tend toward liberal and conservative. I don't agree with the seat belt law. I can make that decision without it (conservative leaning-less gov) but I do agree with some child seat belt laws putting the onus on adults to protect the young from a bad decision or in the case of infants no ability (liberal leaning-more gov).

So it is these Progressives that are evil. They are predominantly in the Dem party but exist in all parties to some extent but unfortunately seem to be able to wrest control of the Dem party fairly often (Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Boggs, Rahm, Cuomo to name a very few).

imuakahuku wrote:
To add my two cents. It's not Dem in general. It is the progressive liberals that are the gidianton robbers steeped in secret combinations. They have always been there in the Dem party (and to a lesser degree in the Republican Party). Pahoran called them Kings-men and during the Am Revolution they were called the Loyalists. But true Americans beat them back every time they reared their ugly head. But they have gained a little each time. 1913 was perhaps their biggest gain with the 17th Ammendment. Each time America finally woke up and beat it back down minus those little gains. FDR was the next super successful Progressive with the New Deal. Most of that was done away with but we still have a welfare system that doesn't encourage self reliance instead rewards dependence on Government. Today's Dem party is once again squarely in the grips of those Progressives. They are once again tearing at the fabric that makes this country great. Obama's biggest piece was his Healthcare. You want to see power over the people that is perhaps the strongest. With it they can limit just about every freedom we have through regulations - guns lead to injury which leads to higher costs and are a burden on the program hence regulations to control those risks. Same with SUV's, and fast food, and motorcycles, and so on. The easiest way to control the people is to make them all criminals and make their wellbeing dependent on the government. The unfortunate part is that too many people fall under their spell, they make things sound good and play with words to confuse and to cajole the people e.g. the word discrimination. People run from that word when in fact it is a valuable tool in judging people. But the Progs tied it to skin color and sexuality and other attributes making it almost a swear. Who here doesn't want the kids to discriminate when it comes to their future spouse? Would you prefer they marry without judging their future spouse's character? Absolutely not.

So I guess my point is that it is in fact not Democrats that are evil but their leaders that identify as Progressives (they hijacked the moniker Liberal because the actions of Wilson and his ilk the word Progressive became apparent that it stood for subjugation and was evil. That's why I usually try to always describe them as Progressive Liberals). There is nothing wrong with being liberal as long as it doesn't end up in the Progressive spectrum.

An example of all this. Today's seat belt laws. Nearly the entire driving populace made criminals by one law. Introduced as good for your safety but how many times did you jump in the car and drive to the end of the street and feel like you were breaking the law because you felt you were only going a 1000 feet and didn't think the risk was high of a major injury or death? But you were a criminal for that 1000 feet. I wear my seat belt religiously but not because I neede a law to tell me to do so. I read the statistics and knew the benefits of wearing them and when I first started driving I promised my mom I would always wear it. These laws also demonstrate when we tend toward liberal and conservative. I don't agree with the seat belt law. I can make that decision without it (conservative leaning-less gov) but I do agree with some child seat belt laws putting the onus on adults to protect the young from a bad decision or in the case of infants no ability (liberal leaning-more gov).

So it is these Progressives that are evil. They are predominantly in the Dem party but exist in all parties to some extent but unfortunately seem to be able to wrest control of the Dem party fairly often (Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Boggs, Rahm, Cuomo to name a very few).

What you say is worth much more than 2 cents. My uncle was a democrat senator in Idaho. He's been gone a long time. I asked his son if he would have been like the present day democrats. His answer, "I'll say Not!" You are right, the progressives have often controlled the party and are in charge now. When the last one, Obama was put in there was a great deal of descent but I don't know of any riots from the right. Maybe the media didn't talk about it. There were none here.



As far as Romney goes, it's a little embarrassing that Trump appears, at this point, to be more tolerant than Mitt does. Trump is wise thus far in his choices for his team.

imuakahuku wrote:
To add my two cents. It's not Dem in general. It is the progressive liberals that are the gidianton robbers steeped in secret combinations. They have always been there in the Dem party (and to a lesser degree in the Republican Party). Pahoran called them Kings-men and during the Am Revolution they were called the Loyalists. But true Americans beat them back every time they reared their ugly head. But they have gained a little each time. 1913 was perhaps their biggest gain with the 17th Ammendment. Each time America finally woke up and beat it back down minus those little gains. FDR was the next super successful Progressive with the New Deal. Most of that was done away with but we still have a welfare system that doesn't encourage self reliance instead rewards dependence on Government. Today's Dem party is once again squarely in the grips of those Progressives. They are once again tearing at the fabric that makes this country great. Obama's biggest piece was his Healthcare. You want to see power over the people that is perhaps the strongest. With it they can limit just about every freedom we have through regulations - guns lead to injury which leads to higher costs and are a burden on the program hence regulations to control those risks. Same with SUV's, and fast food, and motorcycles, and so on. The easiest way to control the people is to make them all criminals and make their wellbeing dependent on the government. The unfortunate part is that too many people fall under their spell, they make things sound good and play with words to confuse and to cajole the people e.g. the word discrimination. People run from that word when in fact it is a valuable tool in judging people. But the Progs tied it to skin color and sexuality and other attributes making it almost a swear. Who here doesn't want the kids to discriminate when it comes to their future spouse? Would you prefer they marry without judging their future spouse's character? Absolutely not.

So I guess my point is that it is in fact not Democrats that are evil but their leaders that identify as Progressives (they hijacked the moniker Liberal because the actions of Wilson and his ilk the word Progressive became apparent that it stood for subjugation and was evil. That's why I usually try to always describe them as Progressive Liberals). There is nothing wrong with being liberal as long as it doesn't end up in the Progressive spectrum.

An example of all this. Today's seat belt laws. Nearly the entire driving populace made criminals by one law. Introduced as good for your safety but how many times did you jump in the car and drive to the end of the street and feel like you were breaking the law because you felt you were only going a 1000 feet and didn't think the risk was high of a major injury or death? But you were a criminal for that 1000 feet. I wear my seat belt religiously but not because I neede a law to tell me to do so. I read the statistics and knew the benefits of wearing them and when I first started driving I promised my mom I would always wear it. These laws also demonstrate when we tend toward liberal and conservative. I don't agree with the seat belt law. I can make that decision without it (conservative leaning-less gov) but I do agree with some child seat belt laws putting the onus on adults to protect the young from a bad decision or in the case of infants no ability (liberal leaning-more gov).

So it is these Progressives that are evil. They are predominantly in the Dem party but exist in all parties to some extent but unfortunately seem to be able to wrest control of the Dem party fairly often (Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Boggs, Rahm, Cuomo to name a very few).

I appreciate the view. There ARE parts of the Democrat Party and its ideologies that I find abhorrent. Abortion is one. There are parts of the Republican Party that I find abhorrent too. I guess that is why I've migrated to being an independent. My point above is we should not engage in calling democrats evil or "libtards" whatever that means but it doesn't t send good like DDawg did. That is wrong and

Needs to be called out, at least in my view. It is the same as HRC calling Trump,supporters deplorable. Very wrong. I see DDawg has retracted and reformed his pejoratives so maybe we are making progress. Cheers to you